Talk:Meuse-Rhenish

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Languages Low‑importance

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name[edit]

The name Meuse-Rhenish has apparently been proposed by somebody named Ad Welschen in a local course hand-out. It has apparently not been published, let alone accepted among dialect researchers. Hence, it is original research that should have no place in Wikipedia. Klassi 23:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this concept can also be found in some recent German literature, where its equivalent is Rheinmaasländish. The Dutch linguist Welschen introduced the same concept in Dutch from a reversed west-east perspective, which happens to be slightly more appropriate, because the core area of Low Franconian lies in the Low Countries. So Meuse-Rhenish seems to be the best label in English. Ad43 13:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the term has independently been proposed in the German literature, then this page would well be served by some references. I did not dispute the appropriateness of the term, only its acceptance among researchers. Wikipedia is not the place for introducing one's own terms. Klassi 23:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already knew. Ad43 21:48, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning of orignal research[edit]

At this moment the Dutch Wikipedia is about to remove this article from its database. This is because the entire article appears to be ORIGINAL RESEARCH by Gebruiker:AJW. Who also is User:Ad43 and the self proclaimed linguist Ad Welschen. Updates will follow; on the deletion and probably consequences for the English wikipedia. Thank you.Stoneburger (talk) 14:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so-called warning above relies on a misconception and personal attack by the former user. There is no real justification for this interference. I have added some more references, for that matter. Ad43 (talk) 08:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the mean time, the former user himself has been placed 'out of competition' on the Dutch Wikipedia. No wonder why. -- Ad43 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Rhinelandic[edit]

I suggest to merge this article with Rhinelandic, as the topic is identical. Sarcelles (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No the artcle can stay, but the term Rheinmaasländisch is predominantly used in studies of "Limburg-Niederrhein" literature sources dating between 1000 and 1650, and hardly in international dialect literature studying the contemporary dialects of the region. So it needs also a content cleanup in this respect. Hans Erren (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, the only thing needed is to clarify that the term denotes a full-fledged (also written) language in the middle ages, but now merely functions as an overarching term that covers a still existing dialect continuum that spreads over three countries, and which in Germany equals the total of Low Franconian (Low Rhenish) vernaculars. I just revised the introduction to that end. Ad43 (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Low Rhenish[edit]

It is redundant with Low Rhenish. Sarcelles (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the article[edit]

I've just undone the redirect to Limburgish and restored the article; this was definitely incorrect, as the two terms have very different meanings in both linguistics and literary tradition.

@Sol505000: (and any others involved in this article), please use this talk page from now on to discuss the issues. De Wikischim (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the redirect to Limburgish is not correct. But this doesn't mean that this article isn't highly problematic in the manner Mihm's concept of Rheinmaasländisch is hijacked here with much OR and SYNTH. A cleanup and subsequent rewrite that is strictly based on reliable sources is definitely needed here. –Austronesier (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated map[edit]

A recent change introduced the map on the right.

Meuse-Rhenish dialects together with the European Low Franconian varieties

However:

This map is unsourced (even on Wikimedia Commons no sources are provided).
This map misses Dutch islands like Texel and Vlieland. On Texel and Vlieland, Central Dutch dialects like in Holland proper are spoken (per Heeringa 2004).
This map has the area of Flevoland (an area established in the 20th century) as "Hollandic", which isn't correct (e.g. per Heeringa 2004).
This map lacks South Low Franconian in Germany and East Bergish, which are part of Low Franconian too (cp. e.g. with [1], [2]). So it only shows "some Low Franconian varieties".
Meuse-Rhenish also includes the areas of South Low Franconian in Germany and East Bergish (cp. e.g. File:Rheinmaaslaendisch.svg or H. Tervooren, J. Spicker (eds.), Die Begegnung der drei Lebenden und der drei Toten: Eine Edition, 2011, p. 37). As these areas are not shown on the map, the map doesn't depict Meuse-Rhenish at all. That is, text beneath the map is wrong, and the map is unfitting for this article.

--93.221.40.167 (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deutschniederländisch[edit]

From the article:

Indeed, Deutschniederländisch was the official term under the Prussian Reign of the 19th century.

Is there any source for this?

On zeno.org it's not found.
Google Books without any filters/additions at first finds dictionaries. Adding quotation marks around the term or restricting the time to 1900 wasn't helpful for me.

--13:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)