This is an archive of past discussions about Limburgish. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
An important note to all involved with this article
Hello everyone, I (Vlaemink (talk·contribs)) and I had hoped to use the next weeks to expand and improve this article in relative peace by use of an alias (RogerDE (talk·contribs)), but regrettably this was not meant to be and I'm writing this to avoid a spillover of a conflict that's currently active on Dutch language Wikipedia, where this article is currently protected and an extensive arbcom-case has been filed (full disclosure: by me) to resolve serious and structural problems concerning the reliability and objectivity of the article.
To immediately put any future accusations of sock-puppetry to bed: those with some knowledge of Belgian cycle sport will know that the username wasn't a particularly cryptic alias and it was plainly stated from that start [1] that this username was an alternative account. As such it was only ever an attempt to avoid the Wiki-hounding that has been taking place, if only for a short period of time. My main account and RogerDE (up until this post) do not intersect, save for one single edit as I edited this particular article some three years ago [2].
In a nutshell: the problem concerns activist editing and source manipulation by two users who have recently started editing here as well: Briegelaer (talk·contribs) and De Wikischim (talk·contribs), who have been trying to frame Limburgish as a separate language completely independent of either Dutch or German. This, of course, brings them in conflict with mainstream linguistic consensus which presents a much more nuanced and broader view of the linguistic landscape in which the Limburgish varieties feature. When their personal view is challenged by academic sources, these are either dismissed outright, "adapted" to fit their personal POV in such a way, that the source material is basically unrecognizable or they attempt to smear the messenger.
Briegelaer only edits the article on Limburgish (both on the Dutch and English language Wikipedia) whereas De Wikischim is mainly active on Dutch Wikipedia, where he has been the dominant editor of the Limburgish article for over a decade and has been blocked a total of forty times [3] and is subjected to several arbcom infractions.
Now on any Wikipedia linguistic articles are going to be niche subjects edited by relatively few users, which makes them vulnerable to both POV-pushing and consensus-pushing; especially when the subject is relatively obscure, such as in this particular case. Thankfully, in my experience, the English language Wikipedia has a number of users which are not only interested but also proficient in subjects related to Germanic linguistics and views proper sourcing as critical.
I hope many of these users will find their way to this article (be it on their own initiative or after answering requests on the community pages) and prevent it from escalating into anything more than it needs to be: a question of WP:SOURCE. Vlaemink (talk) 09:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I invite everyone to look at the absolute mayhem that Vlaemink has caused on the Dutch Friezen and Limburgs. 10+ users have been severely disrupted through Vlaemink's heavily editing of articles to support his view and the burying of any opposition under belittling essays on the TP. He has resorted to misusing templates, circumventing consensus processes and has now entered the Anglosphere by creating a new account which is in violation of the ToS (as this was done to avoid scrutiny).
The arbitration committee procedure is still ongoing, but as of yet he has not received a single voice of support (and neither has he in any of his disruptive edits within articles). Briegelaer (talk) 10:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Vlaemink: I'm aware that this is not proper place to discuss it, but "intersect" can also be understood in terms of related articles in a well-defined topic range. Considering that Low Franconian, Franconian (linguistics) and West Germanic languages are among the first 5 articles in your Top Edits list, it is mildly spoken naive to consider this kind of multiple use of accounts unproblematic.
@Austronesier: I, on my part, firmly believe (because of the striking similarities in the edit pattern) that here on the English WP, Vlaemink was earlier active as well with at least one account: user:Westbrabander. Note: this latter account has been blocked indefinitely on the Dutch WP because of sockpuppet abuse. And regarding that, this new investigation request which I submitted some months ago on the Dutch Wikipedia might be interesting to you as well (in case you don't understand everything in the discussions in Dutch, you could ask someone to translate, or maybe use a translation tool). I wish you good luck with this. Regards, De Wikischim (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@Austronesier: I understand where you are coming from, it's not ideal. With the regard to the direction this discussion will take, I would kindly advise you to ignore this particular section: if any other additions were to be made to it, these would most likely only consist of baseless accusations; as has already been demonstrated in just a very short time.
Instead I would ask you (and any other willing participants) to focus on the validity of the sources used in this article and take a critical look at the issues which are sure to be brought to this talk page concerning the edits and POV by the two users mentioned above (as well as my own edits of course) in the course of this month. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to personally ask (if time permits) @Sarcelles: to shine a light on the matters sure to be raised here. He is a colleague from the German Wikipedia (on which I am also active) and particularly familiar with the subject. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I am obviously German. However, I have consulted many sources from both Belgium and the Netherlands on Limburgish. Furthermore, I am active on Dutch Wikipedia. Our work is based on sources.
Hello Sarcelles, thanks. However, the main recurring question here (as well as on the Dutch Wikipedia, see nl:Limburgs) is: Should the variety called "Limburgish"/"East Low Franconian" be considered a main dialect of the Dutch language (which means it would have the same linguistic position as for example Hollandic/Brabantian etc.), or a fully separate language which as such makes part of the West Germanic/Low Franconian branch (which actually would make it a sister language of German, Dutch etc.)?
It should be clear for everyone who reads along here that the opinions differ heavily on this, among linguists themselves as well. Could you if possible cite what your sources tell specifically about that? It could maybe help a lot to get out of the deadlock here. De Wikischim (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Definition in the intro
Here, the definition group of East Low Franconian varieties was changed to West Germanic language by an unknown IP. As a first step in working towards a more balanced article, the old definition could be restored, after which the different current visions on the exact linguistic position of Limburgish within the West-Germanic family can be explained in detail (and, of course, with reliable sources).
"West Germanic language" is linguistically correct and much more understandable than "East Low Franconian varieties". The latter may be a narrower definition, but as pointed out above in French and German linguistics this classification is contested. It also more accurately reflects the sociolinguistic status of Limburgish (at least in the Netherlands and Belgium).
IMHO, it is slightly arbitrary to use a classification in historical linguistics to open an article. East Low Franconian is a term invented to compensate for Limburgish varieties having gone through a High German consonant shift, while trying to retain the Low Franconian terminology that was used to (arbitrarily) differentiate Dutch from German in the early 20th century. Low Franconian is not in any way a coherent language or cluster of languages to which we can consistently trace modern languages to, it is just a classification. Unlike West Germanic, which is the root to which the isoglosses in modern Dutch and German are ascribed to. Many reconstructed proto-West Germanic versions exist and it is an established practice in contemporary linguistics to use this as a starting point for studying the variation of the modern West Germanic languages. "Low Franconian" or "East Low Franconian" are not used for these purposes in historical linguistics, and only serve as classification terminology.
For reference, Luxembourgish, Scots, English, Dutch, German, Frisian follow the same "West Germanic language" style, likely for clarity. Briegelaer (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Briegelaer, I don't believe there's anything wrong as such with the terminology East Low Franconian for Limburgish, provided it's used in the correct way, of course. My proposition was meant in the first place as a sort of provisional compromise on this very sensitive issue. Anyway thanks for your input. De Wikischim (talk) 12:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
You make a very weird argument, first by stating that the established terminology is all "arbitrary and invented" — most linguistic classifications, including "West Germanic" are — and then by going on a strange tangent involving the supposed invalidity of Low Franconian as a language classification and the supposed nonexistence of any ancestral dialect groupings prior to the advent of "Proto-West Germanic" ... all without sources or references.
In reality, as demonstrated above, there is nothing controversial about classifying the Limburgish/South Low Franconian varieties as Low Franconian. In fact common practice and linguistic consensus. And as Low Franconian is one of the five subdivisions of the West Germanic languages, it unequivocally implies that the varieties concerned are West Germanic as well.
Your comparison with Dutch, German, English, Scots, Luxembourgish and Frisian is frankly ludicrous. Dutch, German,(West-)Frisian and English are all standardized languages based on multiple dialects, three of which, have served as languages of culture since at least the Early Modern Period and continue to do so till this very day. Contrary to what you've claimed, the Luxembourgish (the Luxembourgish language is standardized as well, by the way) and Scots language articles immediately specify their linguistic classification at the most appropriate level: Luxembourgish as a Moselle Franconian variety and Scots as belonging to the Anglic subbranch of Anglo-Frisian. Of course, this entire point is moot anyway because even if these Wikipedia pages would support your point (which they evidently do not) Wikipedia itself is not a valid source.
To summarize: these dialects are not standardized and are clearly part of a broader subdivision within modern West Germanic. There is no reason, whatsoever, to classify the South Low Franconian / Limburgish dialects with the 2nd tier of the entire Germanic language family — which is why it is extremely uncommon within the linguistic field to do so, i.e. non-consensus.
The only possible motivation for doing so, would be if a person would want to obscure the intimate ties between the Limburgish varieties and the Dutch, other Low Franconian and German (Central German, West German) languages; with the intent of, falsely, portraying the Limburgish dialects as standing apart from the continental West Germanic dialect continuum. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Please do not give distorted representations of others' views. First, of course, absolutely nobody here on this talk page would ever contest that Limburgish as such makes fully part of the so-called "continental West Germanic dialect continuum"; that wouldn't make any sense at all indeed.
About the classification of Limburgish as one of the subvarieties of Low Franconian; overall, this seems indeed the most common way of ranking among linguists/dialectologists. On the other hand, some nuance can/should still be added here. There's for example this source (in Dutch) which ranks Limburgish rather as a kind of transition between Low and Middle Franconian, a view which apparently used to be more common among German dialectologists in the past.
(Additional note: I already cited the aforementioned source some months ago on the Dutch WP and had even added it to the corresponding article nl:Limburgs, but it has been deleted there again by you [Vlaemink] with no other argument than debunking it as obsolete/irrelevant). De Wikischim (talk) 14:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
As has been thoroughly and explicitly made clear in the section above, it would be hard to find a linguist familiar with the matter who would deny that the South Low Franconian dialects are transitional and I think it would take quite some odd gymnastics to construe my words in such a way that I would challenge this particular view, which is simply consensus: these dialects are transitional, as are most if not all dialects included within the Continental West Germanic Dialect Continuum, at the very least historically -- there is no debate about this: a myriad of sources, not just those listed above, state that the Limburgish / South Low Franconian varieties are transitional varieties between Low Franconian and Central German. Historically too, this hasn't been disputed as evidenced by your utterly outdated (1892) Dutch source, which also clearly affirms the transitional quality of these varieties.
This particular transitional spectrum consists of multiple dialect groupings, among which the South Low Franconian varieties are positioned on the Low Franconian end and not on the Central German terminus (which of course makes perfect sense, even for most laymen, given that the South Low Franconian varieties are the final radiation of the Rhenish fan, as viewed from the (Upper German) south, and is evidenced in both the name "South Low Franconian" or (also common in Dutch) "East Low Franconian") and hence their common incorporation within Low Franconian.
Historically, there has been some definitional debate concerning the typological boundary of High German -- which could be mentioned in this article; basically whether the Benrath or the Uerdingen sideline marks its northern boundary. This however, has not been a debate between Dutch and German linguists, but rather one between German linguists themselves with current consensus favoring the Benrather line, and for quite some time; which Wikipedia should, of course, follow.
The South Low Franconian / East Low Franconian / Limburgish varieties are classified as Low Franconian, and should be presented as such -- in line with scientific literature. To use their transitionality as an excuse to suddenly skip several tiers and be classified as "West Germanic" or -- even weirder -- to suggest that it should be classified as nothing but "West Germanic" "due to arbitrariness of classifications" is not in line with linguistic literature or linguistic consensus, and, frankly, has no place here. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 12:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Use of templates etc.
Apart from various other controversial edits/reverts which by and large deteriorated the overall state of the article, Vlaemink has inserted a lot of instances of Template:Citation needed throughout the text and put Template:POV on top of the whole article without giving a good motivation here on the talk page thus far. Since you cannot make such radical edits without a very good motivation, I've undone all this for now. I hereby invite Vlaemink to explain his problems, which according to him would justify the use of the templates, one by one. De Wikischim (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The rationale for both the NPOV-template and the SOURCE-template have already been provided on this talk page (and will of course be further elaborated upon); the various individual tags speak for themselves. Wikipedia's code is very clear: if there is no consensus or resolution on the talkpage neither the NPOV Noticeboard or the SOURCE-template should be removed. Please follow those rules. Regards, Vlaemink (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
This map of Levenshtein distances This map of Levenshtein distances (left) shows a major contrast between the Kleverlandish of Limburg and the South Guelderish of Gelderland. Sarcelles (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
South Guelderish and Kleverlandish are to some degree related as language systems, but they're surely not the same. The difference is explained for example here [4], [5]. "Kleverlandish" seems to be used rather as the broader term, including South Guelderish among other varieties. @Vlaemink: given the aforementioned, it's unclear what you mean with "same dialect grouping" in this specific context. De Wikischim (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
@Sarcelles: (I moved your question because it didn't really relate to the issue raised with point 3) As you can see below, these dialect defitions vary by author and inevitably overlap. The map you showed is based on the work of Heeringa, which regrettably did not use samples from neighboring Germany; had he done so, it might have shown more cohesion. In essence though, it's a more or less coherent dialect area which can nevertheless be (and has been) carved up into different subdivisions according to varying criteria. Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 07:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. Germany is of course an issue. https://www.atlas-alltagssprache.de/dialekt-karte_neu/ has a Low Franconian-Ripuarian transition area including (nearly) all of Mönchengladbach and Straelen in Germany. The works by Daan and Goossens are not recent. As mentioned above, I have raised the issue on the talk page of the Dutch interwiki.
Varying definitions of Kleverländisch and South Guelderish
RfC (on hold)
There's a series of ongoing disputes concerning the basic outline for this article; in essence, it's about what is consensus / traditional and what isn't. At his point in time, there are 5 active "sub discussions" taking place, and I would very much like to ask anyone familiar and/or interested in the area of Germanic linguistics to give their two cents on one or all of these matters.
I would love to help but this isn't structured as WP:RFC
I would suggest that for each of the disputed areas an individual RfC is created outlining the question and providing a brief synopsis of each answer that the discussion has generated. If you haven't got it down to less than say four options the it's really too early for an RfC
@Lukewarmbeer: Thank you for the info, in that case I think I'm going to retract the RfC at this point and wait a little longer before reformulating and re-adding the template. Thanks again for your alertness! Kind regards, Vlaemink (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
"Kleverländisch" (Goossens)
"South Guelderish" (Daan)
"Northern Limburgish" (Daan)
Varying definitions of Kleverländisch and South Guelderish
