Talk:Limburgish/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Concerning the rewriting of the orthography section; / Spelling 2003 for the Limburgish dialects

Two days ago, I removed much of the orthography section from this article [1] and used what was there to create a new article Spelling 2003 for the Limburgish dialects. This is standard Wikipedia practice for cleaning up overly long and confusing (and/or self contradictory) articles, such as this one.

The dialects referred to as Limburgish in this article have no standardized orthography and multiple authors stress this. In fact, even the dialect association Veldeke Limburg, which created the 2003 spelling which was present in this article, explicitly states this. The new orthography section explains this clearly and refers to the previously present orthography in both the text and a see further-template beneath the heading. While no information was removed, what was removed were the various links to the website www.limburgsedialecten.nl, not just because this is a unreliable and unscientific source, but also because the website in question is no longer online. The same goes for the website www.limburgsespelling.nl.

So to respond to a recent revert of this edit, in which it was falsely and suggestively claimed that the previous "section" (two sentences, red.) was "dramatically rewritten" and that "well sourced" material was removed; [2]: neither is the case. No substantial information was removed and the previous iteration of the orthography section was not well sourced but is now.

This article is a mess and has been across at least three major Wikipedias since its creation. I am very grateful to @Austronesier for recently creating the South Low Franconian article, which hopefully can turn this article in less of a chimæra in the future. As for @De Wikischim, a user who has been blocked more than 45 times on the Dutch Wikipedia, is subjected to several arbcom restrictions on his edits and who has displayed a severe lack of NPOV concerning this subject as well as personal animosity, if not vendetta-like behavior on the Dutch Wikipedia towards those who challenge his personal POV; I'd like to make the following abundantly clear: this is the English-language Wikipedia, where WP:SOURCE is held in high regard and articles are not easily hijacked from further editing by poisoning the talk page or engaging in edit wars. You are hereby asked to take this into serious account and remain from any further nonconstructive if not obstructive editing. Vlaemink (talk) 10:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: There is no need to have the same information about something in full in two places. That's what hatnotes to related articles are for. If a main article exists for the subtopic, a short summary is sufficient.

That said, @Vlaemink: is it really necessary to split out a section into an undersourced article (as of now, it has been tagged as such) when this main article is far from hitting the suggested maximal length of 100k? We have dozens of articles that contain sections about "non-official and non-standardized advisory spelling[s]". SIL has devised hundreds of practical orthographies that rarely become official due to repressive or non-affirmative minority language-policies in most countries on this planet. And when these spellings are in practical use, there is no harm to present them. When they are not fully accepted by the speaker community, we can say exactly that. As long as size issues do not arise, information about the spelling of a linguistic variety (regardless of its status as "language", "regional language" or "dialect") is best kept in the main article as an essential piece of information. And obivously, mentioning the Veldeke-spelling in this article is not WP:UNDUE, especially when you believe it is notable enough to get a standalone article. Austronesier (talk) 11:06, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: The article has been tagged as undersourced, because relies on a single source (as btw, did the material when it was still part of this article). Practically speaking, this is not a huge problem though as the article is basically a technical one describing a spelling system and the single source is the actual publication of this spelling system, i.e. there's not a lot that can go wrong in that respect. Nevertheless I'm in full agreement that more independent sources should be added to this article, for example focusing on the spellings actual usage, and I intend to do so in the near future.

As for the reasons for excising it from this article. First and foremost, it's because the emphases in the literature concerning orthography is that none of these varieties are standardized, which makes it odd to have an orthography section of which 95+ % concerns a strictly codified orthography. This unnecessarily distracts from the practical reality, which is that the spelling involved has no official status and is hardly used by any of the speakers of these dialects. However I do not at all oppose mentioning the Veldeke-spelling in this article, which is why I explicitly mention both the dialect association and the spelling it developed in the rewrite of the section ([3]), however I do not think the entire orthographic system should be placed in this article; but should instead have its own article, as many other spelling systems and spelling reforms do.

Placing the edit in a broader picture: this article is in dire need of being more concise, less self contradictory and far better sourced, if not being sourced at all. Its biggest problem has always been that it has consistently failed to meet the most basic of article conditions: to clearly define what it's about. As a consequence the article has been been growing and growing, aimlessly and mostly unsourced, for over a decade. In order to fix that, the article needs to get back to the basics and needs to be 'pruned'. Not necessarily in the gardening sense of the word, where material is removed, but at the very least by restructuring this article. Keeping the orthography section "general", while providing links to variously more detailed/specialized articles forms a logical part of that. Vlaemink (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I just explained here in the edit summary my reasons for undoing Vlaemink's rewritten version of the section "Orthograhpy".

@Austronesier: Actually this already has a long history, which indeed once began on the Dutch Wikipedia. Every few years, the vision "Linguistically seen, Limburgish is merely a subset of Dutch dialects" is introduced again (at least, attempts to do so are made). However, among the greater part of linguists/dialectologists, this vision has since long been abandoned. This happened first especially on the article nl:Limburgs and more recently here too, especially since last year.

De Wikischim (talk) 16:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

(Striking out moot comment after the removal of parts of the preceding comment) Please refrain from bringing off-enWP drama here. We simply don't care about it here. Stick to the topic and tTell us why you want to have these tables in two places instead of one. I have explained why I think it better placed here, but anything is better than what you are currently producing. –Austronesier (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

For me, this mainly concerns the text above the tables, not especially the tables themselves. The old text (which I just restored again) was both well-sourced and more in line with the rest of the article compared to Vl.'s new version of the section. So I think at least that part of the old section should be kept. The tables below the text (from "Alphabet") are again another separate issue. De Wikischim (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Apart from the issues I already mentioned above, the older version I just restored contains some essential information parts (such as the use of the spelling on websites and in dictionaries) which were absent in the re-written version which only mentioned the use of the spelling on place name signs. For the rest, Vlaemink's new version focused almost exclusively on the non-official status of the Veldeke spelling, thus creating disbalance. De Wikischim (talk) 09:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You're close to or already at 3RR now. Just stop. Both. –Austronesier (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

At this point, we approach the farcical, below is previous text to be found under the orthography section:

Limburgish has many varieties hence there isn't a standard written form. However the Limburgish Language Council Veldeke Limburg has adopted a standard orthography for Limburgish since 2003, representing all the sounds that occur within the Limburgish dialects in writing. Although this spelling also does not have official status, it is used within this dialect association as well as for the spelling of bilingual place name signs and it is used in its websites as well as dictionaries. This is the form presented below.

And this is the revised / current one:

There is no standardized form of the Limburgian dialects, nor is there an official standard spelling for the individual Limburgian dialects. The dialect association Veldeke Limburg developed an advisory spelling in 2003, aimed at uniformly representing all the sounds that occur within the Limburgish dialects in writing. Although this spelling also does not have official status, it is used within this dialect association as well as for the spelling of bilingual place name signs.

To claim, that you are opposed to the revised version because of substantive differences between this version and the previous iteration is beyond ridiculous. Vlaemink (talk) 09:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See above, where I already explained more or less in detail the flagrant differences between the two versions, as an objection to replacing the old version fully with your new one (even though some of its elements could maybe be integrated).

And again, I urge you to finally stop your constant ridiculing/defamation of my edits here and elsewhere - this is really beginning to get annoying, and looks a lot like disruptive behaviour from your side. De Wikischim (talk) 10:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What about this:

There is no standardized form of Limburgish, nor is there an official standard spelling for the individual Limburgish dialects. The dialect association Veldeke Limburg developed an advisory spelling in 2003 that is endorsed by the Limburgish Language Council and aims at uniformly representing all the sounds that occur within the Limburgish dialects in writing. Although this spelling also does not have official status, it is used within this dialect association as well as for the spelling of bilingual place name signs.

1. "The Limburgish Language Council Veldeke Limburg" is wrong; these are two different entities. The orthography was devised by Veldeke Limburg, and is endorsed by the Raod veur't Limburgs. 2. The first sentence talks about the non-existence of a standard form, so it's a statement about Limburgish in toto. 3. We should use "Limburgish dialects" for consistency; "Limburgian dialects" is prefectly good and in fact better English, but the title of this article is Limburgish, and "Limburgish" has become the common name for it in English, even though it sill sounds very much like Dunglish.

FWIW, the pettiness of this discussion ("flagrant differences", seriously?) in the face of massive issues of the article in many other places gives the impression of turning this article into WP:BATTLEGROUND. –Austronesier (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Though this seems slightly better, the use of the spelling in dictionaries and on the association's own websites is still left out, while these are important elements in the context. De Wikischim (talk) 10:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

We can have use of the spelling in dictionaries too, with an independent secondary source. Use in the association's own websites looks like a trivial corollary. You would only mention it when you're desperate to show that it is used at all. But things look fair better for the Spelling 2003, don't they. –Austronesier (talk) 10:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

In my rewrite I left out the previously mentioned dictionaries because this was "sourced" 1) by an unreliable website, and 2) because this website didn't speak of an actual published dictionary, but rather spoke about a "dictionary app" which was "to be developed". Of course mentioning of certain dictionaries using this spelling can be added, provided the sourcing is valid and reliable — which is not the case at present.

On a different note, I think it's utterly ridiculous that "my" version was claimed by De Wikischim to contain "flagrant differences" with the old version and is subjected to ridiculous edit warring, whereas Austronesiers version (which only differs from mine in mentioning the Raad voor het Limburgs) is suddenly very much acceptable. That's beyond childish, and, frankly, shameful. It's nothing more than WP:POINT and WP:BATTLEGROUND and you should immediately stop with such completely nonsensical behavior.Vlaemink (talk) 11:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No, not "very much acceptable", but just "slightly better". I'm still heart-broken over that verdict. ;) –Austronesier (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Touché ;), but you know what I meant. Suddenly, it's "slightly better" and open to discussion, whereas the previous "flagrantly different" version, was subjected to an edit war. Why the previous edit war? Why not simply add the language counsil and look for a source on a dictionary. That's what I find ridiculous. Vlaemink (talk) 11:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

[...] whereas Austronesiers version (which only differs from mine in mentioning the Raad voor het Limburgs) › incorrect, there are more differences (for example the use of "Limburgish" in the first sentence vs. "Limburgian dialects" in the previous alternate version, which is a significant difference). Again, a distorted view of the actual situation. De Wikischim (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Please, do explain why using "Limburgish dialects" instead of "Limburgish" is a "significant" difference. Vlaemink (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no need at all to explain things which are already as clear as daylight to everyone (or, at least, should be so). De Wikischim (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to insist. Why is it of such paramount importance to you, that "Limburgish" is used instead of "Limburgish dialects", where is the "significance" in this? Vlaemink (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

See what I already wrote somewhere above: [...] "Linguistically seen, Limburgish is merely a subset of Dutch dialects" [...] However, among the greater part of linguists/dialectologists, this vision has since long been abandoned..

Put somewhat differently: it's the basic difference in the linguistic senses of the two terms "dialect" vs. "language" here. At this place, it is better to avoid the somewhat confusing/misleading and/or ambiguous term "dialects" (the term can still be used elsewhere in this article wherever needed/appropriate), since the proposed Veldeke spelling was aimed at providing a uniform writing standard for the mutually diverse dialects which altogether make up "Limburgish" as a recognized language. De Wikischim (talk) 13:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Talking about "Limburgish dialects" does not imply denial of Limburgish as being anything but "a subset of Dutch dialects". That'a fallacy. Obviously, Limburgish is not a uniform variety, but comprises multiple dialects (like every language in the world with more than 1000 speakers and spoken in more than 3 villages). It's not healty to get triggered over the word "dialect" for no reason at all (unless somebody wants to write "Limburgish is a dialect of Dutch" – but nobody does; it's a strawman). It is more a matter of accuracy to talk about a "standardized form of Limburgish" instead of "standardized form of Limburgish dialects". –Austronesier (talk) 13:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @De Wikischim:: I don't follow, at all.

My text didn't mention ″Dutch dialects″ anywhere, it mentioned ″Limburgish dialects″. So I'll again ask: what's the significant difference you claim there is between ″Limburgish″ and ″Limburgish dialects″, because I, for the life of me, cannot see any problem with this. Nor does dialect association Veldeke by the way, as they explicitly named their spelling the ″2003 spelling for the Limburgish dialects″. It's as clear as the sky, you say, well then, please do explain.

You know what, I'll answer it for you and in doing so, we'll touch the actual issue at play here, which is not my ″significantly different″ wording but your NPOV and unfamiliarity with linguistic terminology: You want to portray Limburgish as a (that is, in your eyes) ″true language″. Your ideal image is for Wikipedia to state that ″Limburgish″ is just another Germanic language, just like Icelandic, Frisian or English are, preferably without any mention of the relation these dialects share with Dutch (or German) as a whole. You don't like the word ″dialect″ because you yourself think of a ″dialect″, ″variety″ or ″dialect group″ to be of a lower class than a ″language″.

A linguist, or an objective editor for that matter, most of the time couldn't care less about the difference between a ″language″ or a ″dialect″. Linguists care about describing and analysing what they see and that's inevitably going to bring them (or rather their publications) into conflict with your NPOV. Because Dutch is undeniably the Dachsprache of the Limburgish dialects. Because Limburgish dialects are seen as a part of the Dutch dialect landscape both historically and contemporarily by an overwhelming majority of authors. Because Limburgish dialects do not fulfill all aspects of the ″typical″ standardized European national language. And so on, and so on. And no, this doesn't in any way, shape or form delegate Limburgish dialects to any inferior status or detract from the various typological or sociolinguistical qualities or political status (some of) these dialects have, it's merely one aspect of this dialect grouping.

You are (and always have been) principally focused on giving Limburgish status — and attacking all those who, in your eyes, seek to diminish that supposed status. For example by using the perfectly normal word ″dialect″ instead of ″language″ or the mere mentioning of ″Dutch″. You need to stop that, because it's not only incredibly unscientific, it's harmful to this article. Vlaemink (talk) 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Because Limburgish dialects are seen as a part of the Dutch dialect landscape › Maybe this was still by and large the situation about a century ago, when dialectology was hardly seriously practiced yet. It's simply the dominant consent among most linguists nowadays that Limburgish, given all its characteristics, is a regional language on its own, just with the same (that is, Low Franconian) historical linguistic base as most of the dialects/varieties spoken in the area where standard Dutch is the Dachsprache. That was, as well, the main reason for the recognition as such in the Dutch province of Limburg in 1997. So again, this has nothing to do at all with "your [=my] NPOV".

Anyway, all this has already been explained before very thoroughly, especially (again) last year on the Dutch Wikipedia, with relevant sources being given as well - something you should still know very well. In the archives of nl:Overleg:Limburgs, similar discussions about the linguistic status as Limburgish/its relation to the Dutch language/Dachsprache go back as far as mid 2007(!), see the first archive. De Wikischim (talk) 14:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is your typical tactic: ″it's all as clear as the sky″, ″it's all been explained before″, ″it's so obvious it doesn't require any explanation″, ″this is the dominant consensus view″ ... that's not going to work. It doesn't work on the Dutch Wikipedia, and it's certainly not going to work here.

You claim its common knowledge? Prove it. Plain and simple: cite your sources. Provide a source, which states what you claim. Vlaemink (talk) 15:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, just one which could be found with a first simple search through Google Books: [4] (Developmental, Modal, and Pathological Variation-Linguistic and Cognitive Profiles for Speakers of Linguistically Proximal Languages and Varieties).

Anyway, I'm citing this now especially for those who read along; I know you will reject this source immmediately as unusable (since it isn't well compatible with the vision "Limburgish dialects = variants of the Dutch language"). De Wikischim (talk) 15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

When I asked you the above question; I already had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen next: there would be a link to a Google search (✔), probably accompanied by a remark stating how easy it was to find (✔), but without actually citing the source (✔), possibly with an additional remark stating something like ″this confirms everything I said, but my opponent will nevertheless reject it″ (✔).

This is your standard MO when it comes to trying to convince others of your NPOV; and while you endlessly repeat this tactic, seemingly convinced that it will indeed work out at one point, is never does or ever will because it's not based in objectivity and people are not stupid.

Take @Austronesier: for example, who's shown some considerable aptitude for cutting through bullshit, be it Wiki-Drama or content-related.

Do you honestly think, that he's going to be convinced by this? That he's somehow not going to notice that you just typed "Limburgish + Language + recognition" into the search bar (I mean, it's actually visible in the top of the screen!) and literally copied the first result that came up? Do you honestly believe that he's not going to look into the actual source, read it, and then come to the inevitable conclusion that this is no way supports your claim? Do you think he's going to be reassured by the idea that you've now outed yourself as an editor who goes out searching for literature to support of his view, rather than searching for literature in order to form a view?! It's borderline insulting that you seem to think you can get away with this and it's almost frightening that you don't seem to have any qualms with attempting it.

You cannot bluff or debate your way out of providing valid and reliable sources: you're dealing with serious people, so either (considerably) up your game, or leave the table. Vlaemink (talk) 16:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: The link to Google Books I gave above automatically leads you to a few text fragments on the pages 37, 39 and 44. There you can see illuminating examples of how "Limburgish" is used in practise by linguists to denote it as a minority language. Of course there's way more to find - but I don't have time the whole day just for this either to keep on searching. Anyway I hope this helps you at least somehow. De Wikischim (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

This is - again... - completely untrue: [...] literally copied the first result that came up. Here (Thanks Vlaemink for giving this extra link to Books; you're actually helping me in some way, though I suppose that was not really your own intention.) the title of the first book which shows up is Standardizing Minority Languages: Competing Ideologies of Authority [...] (2017). This is definitely NOT the book I had cited above at 15:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC) (which shows up as the seventh result).

Regarding after all the actual first result in Google Books, this passage for example may be interesting here too: [5]. De Wikischim (talk) 20:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, yes, everything that criticizes or calls you out is completely untrue. The problem isn't that you do not provide proper sources or citations. The problem isn't that you just throw some Google-searches around and direct other users to (and this is verbatim) ″a few text fragments″. No, the problem are ″the others″ always ″out to get you″. (Personal attack removed) Vlaemink (talk) 06:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Again @Austronesier: The discussion under this subtitle is being constantly blurred, anyway can you still at least try to take a good look at the links to Google Books posted above? They may be very helpful to keep the content of this article in balance. De Wikischim (talk) 08:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This link may be helpful too: [6]. (The title of the book is The Legal Recognition of Sign Languages: Advocacy and Outcomes Around the World', but the passage cited is just about the recognition of minority languages within the Netherlands.) De Wikischim (talk) 09:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

You must aware of confirmation bias and "cherry-picking". Sources are not used to prove a point that I am convinced of beforehead. WP articles use sources to reflect how a topic is discussed in the relevant literature. A Google search will only you give you the positives, but you cannot tell if the negatives are the iceberg below the tip or really irrelevant. In the case of the status of Limburgish, you need to survey relevant sources without a pre-set search result. Relevant sources include literature about (West) Germanic languages, the linguistic diversity of the Low Countries and Europe in general, language regulation in Europe, topical descriptions of Limburgish (either in toto, or of single varieties), and so on. Of course many talk about Limburgish as a language in a matter of fact fashion (after all it's got an ISO-code; I know that this is a non-argument, but it often comes into play) without going into details of its relatively recent official recognition. But there are also sources from the 2010s and 2020s that bluntly talk about "Limburg Dutch" when talking about basilectal varieties of Limburg (like Peter Schrijver does in Language Contact and the Origins of the Germanic Languages). –Austronesier (talk) 10:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Vlaemink (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Segway into sociolinguistics and linguistic barriers

(after a edit conflict; seeing that you were specifically replying to my comment, and for the sake of readability, I created a subsection containing your comment on sociolinguistics and linguistic barriers Austronesier, I hope you do not mind. Vlaemink (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC))

A linguist, or an objective editor for that matter, most of the time couldn't care less about the difference between a ″language″ or a ″dialect″. That's not entirely correct. Linguistic barriers are man-made and the study of them is part of sociolinguistics; they can emerge organically in a slow historical process, but also as a result of deliberate efforts to bolster a national or regional identity. Luxembourgish has emerged from a Moselle Franconian dialect of German and still can be classified as part of the Moselle Franconian dialect group; sociolinguistically, it is undeniably a language of its own, having all properties of an Ausbausprache. In the case of Limburgish, the object of this deliberate effort have been the basilectal varieties of Dutch Limburg. Sure, Dutch remains for the most part Dachsprache of the Limburgish dialects, but that doesn't mean that speakers of Limburgish in the Netherlands have no right to consider their cluster of Low Franconian varieties as a regional language in its own right, even when it is lacking some characteristics of a full Ausbausprache—most minority languages in the world also do. Advocates of Limburgish are wise enough not waste time on standardization (except for orthography), because their main objective is the preservation of traditional local speech varieties and to create a "safe space" for them within the linguistic diversity in the Netherlands, well aware of the fact that in public laypeople's awareness, dialects continue to be perceived as lesser realizations of the common Dutch languages (or in the worst case, "wrong" Dutch).

But even for advocates of Limburgish linguistic identity, nothing has changed about their place in the continental West Germanic dialect continuum: obviously, they blend slowly into Brabantian in the southwest and into Ripuarian in the east (but more markedly into Brabantian and Kleverlandish in the northwest and north); but obviously also, most Limburgish varieties are hardly intelligible for speakers of standard Dutch, so at the extremes, Dutch-Limburgish Abstand is not much smaller than for Limburgish-German. It is a matter of perspective, and when you open your eyes, you will find plenty good sources that state "Limburgish is a regional language of the Netherlands" and further take no concern whatsoever in the status of Limburgish, because their actual topic is syntax, phonology, linguistic vitality or whatever. Yes, linguists most of the time couldn't care less about the difference between a ″language″ or a ″dialect″; which is exactly why they have come to respect the self-perception of speech communities. –Austronesier (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

The statement is of course correct, as it 1) has the ″most of the time″-modifier, and, 2) you literally repeat and confirm what I've said at the end of your comment! ;)

On a more serious note, what you write is of course (mostly ;) true, but I would ask you not to misconstrue or misrepresent my argument, i.e. falling in De Wikischims trap: I am not advocating the position that speakers of Limburgish dialects have no right to call their dialects a (regional) language — and never have.

I'm merely pointing out, that views are not monolithic and differ. For example, while some speakers of Limburgish dialects might consider their language wholly separate from Dutch, others (for example, the Dutch general public, or linguists, or even other Limburgers) might not do so — and that these views should also be represented.

I would love for this article to explain in which respects and to what extent Limburgish constitutes an Ausbausprache. I would love for this article to have a section on the sociological perception of the Limburgish dialects both historically and geographically. I would love for this article to have a section in which its distance to Standard Dutch is explained, while also explaining that within a dialectal framework they are part of a continuum.

In other words, I am one for the big picture, not for a narrow view which excluded various political, cultural or linguistic realities based on a personal preference. I hope we're agreed on that. Vlaemink (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I maninly have referred to the Dachsprache-gambit and the statement "Limburgish dialects do not fulfill all aspects of the ″typical″ standardized European national language" (which I would have phrased "Limburgish does not fulfill..."). So? Does it matter for Kashubian, Sorbian or the multiple Saami varieties? You have said in the section below that we should focus on what Limburgish is (in all its position definitions) instead of what it's not... So we have a direction that we head for now, innit? –Austronesier (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Preferably, we focus both on that the Limburgish dialects are as well as what they are not. Phrases such as "the ″typical″ standardized European national language" are to be avoided in my opinion, as are comparisons to Sorbian and Saami, which are clearly in a different linguistic position.Vlaemink (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Thanks, this seems to me a rather good summary of the main stuff this is all about actually. And it's exactly the reason why I already suggested earlier (for example, a few years ago or so in one of the "parallel" discussions on the Dutch WP) to use neither language for Limburgish in the intro (like in the current version of the article here) nor dialect[s]/dialect group, but to call it [a group of] Low Franconian varieties. This "compromise", however, has not been generally accepted either, at least not on Wikipedia-NL. I still think it would have solved at least some part of the still ongoing problems with this. De Wikischim (talk) 17:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"A group of Low Franconian varieties" is fine as long as it becomes clear that the boundaries of that group are partially or entirely set by territorial borders, and not (or partially not) on intra-linguistic arguments. "A group of Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands" appears to be the best solution, as long as it is immediately followed by "...and a recognized minority language in the Dutch provice of Limburg", or similar to that. –Austronesier (talk) 18:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think I can agree with it that way, including the last part. So as for my part, you can re-write the intro accordingly, and let's hope this will at least solve something. De Wikischim (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, De Wikischims then proposed wording was: ″Limburgish, together with Dutch and Afrikaans, among others, forms the contemporary Low Franconian language variety″ — which was, unsurprisingly, rejected.

As for a workable definition; ″a group of Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands″ is a good starting position, but it needs fine-tuning.

For example, Bakker (1997) excludes the South Low Franconian dialects in Germany from ″Limburgish″ due to a lack of dialect identity; which means the sociological dimension matters. He also comes to the conclusion that one of the defining characteristics of "Limburgish" is its extremely limited contribution to the Dutch standard language and subsequent relative distance from it. Furthermore, the recognized minority language-status is a tricky one, as this has been legally defined as applying to all the dialects of the province of Dutch Limburg; regardless of linguistic classification. Vlaemink (talk) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you please move on and kindly strike out the first paragraph? There is this thing on ANI when two editors bring a content dispute there and then A explains why B is a jerk, and B explain why A is jerk, but 90% of readers only think "what they each say about the other actually says more about themselves..." .

It's not just Bakker who excludes the South Low Franconian dialects in Germany from "Limburgish". Virtually nobody includes them. Goossens suggested his terminological revision for no other reason than to avoid clumsiness (Ostsüdniederfränkisch etc.), but it never caught up (after all German dialectologists have never had a problem with things like "ostwestfälisch"). The recognized minority language-status for "non-Limburgish" dialects in Limburg is a bit tricky, but this is easily resolved by spelling it out. I've done that in South Low Franconian. It becomes tricky in the further discussion when talking e.g. about structural features of Limburgish but that is again easily resolved by only using examples from varieties that are considered Limburgish by both extant definitions (Roermomds, Hasselts etc., but not Venrays or Budels; I'll make an exception for Venlos as the classificatory value of the Uerdingen line is contested among dialectologists—and because Bakker (Frens, not Pierre) is an awsome linguist). –Austronesier (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Taking this into account; maybe something like ...

″The Limburgish dialects are a group of South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands¹, characterized by their relative distance to Standard Dutch². In the Dutch province of Limburg, all dialects have been given regional language status, including those comprising ″Limburgish″ as used in this article.³″

Or something similar. This way, the German varieties are excluded without ignoring their typological similarity by mentioning Low South Franconian as a whole; thus placing Limburgish within a wider frame (¹). The sociolinguistic dimension is touched upon by both alluding to the distance to Standard Dutch (which, by explicitly using "standard", still leaves the door open to the Low Franconian/Dutch dialect continuum) (²) and the regional language status without misconstruing the poltical/legal complexities there (³). Vlaemink (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

"Limburgish is...", and we're almost there. Inspite of the diversity, there is a single collective (etic or emic) identity, either in the first or in the second sense. –Austronesier (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I used ″Limburgish dialects″ because you used ″a group of Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands″, which to me works best in combination with a plural noun. I don't care either way if Limburgish or Limburgish dialects is used in the article lead.

As for a ″collective identity″ ... that's a tricky one, because the dialect identity also includes varieties which are not South Low Franconian. We should not imply that speakers of what is (going to be) defined as ″Limburgish″ in this article only include what is typologically Limburgish with(in) their idea of ″Limburgish″, as, for example, the inhabitants of Vaals also consider themselves to speak ″Limburgish″. I think this is best explained in the article itself, rather than be included in the lead. Vlaemink (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected

Per the request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected the article for two weeks. Let me or any other admin know if consensus is reached and protection can be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Article lead

Given the past discussions on the talk page, I've modified the article lead accordingly:

1.

Limburgish (also Limburgian, Limburgic or Limburgan) refers to a group of South Low Franconian varieties spoken in Belgium and the Netherlands, characterized by their relative distance to Standard Dutch. In the Dutch province of Limburg, all dialects have been given regional language status, including those comprising ″Limburgish″ as used in this article.

I added the lead intro as thus far agreed upon. The matter of "language identity" is still being debated, but can be added later should this be the outcome of the discussion.

I omitted the Dutch, German, French and two of the (at least) three common renderings of "Limburgian" in the Limburgish dialects from the lead to keep it readable: a grand total of 10 different designations across multiple languages is a bit too much. I think the Limburgish terms can be worked into the sociolinguistic-section later on, for example in contrast to the South Low Franconian dialects of Germany, which do not use such a term.

I removed the remaining text contained within the previous iteration of the article lead for the following reasons:

2:

Although frequently misunderstood as such, Limburgish as a linguistic term does not refer to the regional variety of Dutch spoken in the Belgian and Dutch provinces of Limburg. Within the modern communities of these provinces, intermediate idiolects are also very common, which combine standard Dutch with the accent and some grammatical and pronunciation tendencies derived from Limburgish. This "Limburgish Dutch" is confusingly also often referred to simply as "Limburgish", although in Belgium such intermediate languages tend to be called tussentaal ("in-between language"), no matter the exact dialect/language with which standard Dutch is combined.

This section did not have any citations — and if it would have had these, the section is too specific for the article lead and should ideally (provided sources can be found) be split up between an expanded terminology section and a section of the article dealing with the sociolinguistc minutia.

3.

Since Limburgish is still the mother tongue of many inhabitants in the aforementioned region, Limburgish grammar, vocabulary and pronunciation can have a significant impact on the way locals speak Dutch in public life.

The first part of this excerpt was WP:VAGUE and not inline with WP:SOURCE. The second part, did contain a source for the claim that Limburgian dialect exert a significant impact on the way locals speak Dutch, but this concerns a detailed analysis of a 15th century Middle Dutch manuscript containing various indicators that the authors dialect was Limburgish (link). This, of course, was not acceptable as a source in this context.

4.

Limburgish shares vocabulary and grammatical characteristics with both German and Dutch, but has some unique features as well. Many dialects of Limburgish (and of the closely related Ripuarian) have a pitch accent.

For the time being, I also removed the above passage. Firstly, because the sources provided do not support the claims made; one is a very short grammar summary, the other is a local dialect website. Secondly, because the phrasing is problematic. I do feel the dialectal affinities of the Limburgish dialects and the surrounding dialects should definitely be expanded on in the article, as well as the relation between the dialects and Standard Dutch, possibly also Standard German. Whether this belongs in the lead is a question for a later time, when the article itself is properly sourced and written with regard to this issue. After all, ideally, the article lead should summarize the article itself. Vlaemink (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I oppose these radical changes because they have been implemented without any prior consent of others who are/were involved here, while all kinds of info have been removed now mainly for subjective/discutable reasons (such as rejecting specific sources on more or less arbitrary grounds). Only information which is evidently incorrect should be removed without any futher discussion, while this is definitely not the case here. And even if some of the info was not really at its best place immediately in the lead, it would have been far better to move it to a different section within this article instead.

So my suggestion (to others who read along here) is to wait for some time and see if there's enough consent for these removals. if not, the info cited above should be put back (either in the into or elsewhere in the article). De Wikischim (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

About the now removed passage Limburgish shares vocabulary and grammatical characteristics with both German and Dutch, but has some unique features as well. Many dialects of Limburgish (and of the closely related Ripuarian) have a pitch accent › These facts are completely self-evident for everyone who has at least some minimal knowledge of Limburgish and the linguistic situation. Doubting about this is actually the same as, for example, doubting about the fact that English, German and Dutch have many cognates in common, and provide that as a so-called valid reason to remove the info. Therefore I think at least this last passage should be restored immediately. -De Wikischim (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's a mixed bag.

As a first remedy, I will restore what obviously needs to be there in the opening sentence (the name in Dutch and Limburgish; English pronunciation in a note).

The linguistic feature of tone is mentioned in the body of the article and relevant for the lead, not just for language enthusiasts, but also for the general public: it explains the common perception of the "sing-song" character of Limburgish speech.

The caveat about not confusing basilectal Limburgish with lingua olandese in bocca limburghese is important, but I agree that it needs to be covered in the article first with good sources, before we can restore it in the lead. Same holds for the linguistic janus-facedness of Limburgish (or South LFr as a whole, for that matter) between the poles of Hollandic-based standard Dutch and East Central German-based standard German. Relevant, but WP:V trumps everything especially in the lede. I might incubate some of it in the article body, and let the grace period principle work.

But for subsequent radical steps, I urge to get consensus first before implementing them in the article. This is what every 3O or dispute resolution will tell you. And also WP:NODEADLINE. Don't press things. I make an exception about everything that appropriates German South LFr dialects under "Limburgish". We maximally need to mention that the "Limburgish" in the dialectological sense has a continuation on German territory, but not under this label. I think we all agree on this. –Austronesier (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier:

• 1. For me personally, the use of multiple names in the article lead is not a deal-breaking big issue. However, I would like you to clarify which Limburgish term(s) you will be using and why. After all, these are nonstandardized dialects; which spelling/form/variant do you propose to use?
• 2. I too would like the tonal aspect to be in lead, however; I would like it to be stressed that this is an areal feature rather than being particular to Limburgish — with proper and valid citations, of course.
• 3. I would support a short concise (not the previous drivel) sentence on the various definitions used in the lead, but, as you say, this first required to get this right in the article itself.

So I think this is going to work out, eventually — which will allow the lead to expand again. Vlaemink (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

ad 2: WP:LEADCITE. If you really want to go the bottom-up approach, citations in the article body are generally sufficient. My version puts it into the full context of Fraconian tone accent. I will make this explicit. –Austronesier (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This is okay by me, the areal tonal feature is sufficiently sourced in the article for what is now written in the lead. I saw you added other older material too though, which was completely unsourced; please read the top post and please do not re-add those portions. Vlaemink (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: The manual of style concerning lead sections is also abundantly clear on how an article introduction should look, and any objective person giving this style guide as much as a glance, will quickly come to the conclusion that the previous lead was not at all in accordance with this. Additionally, the rationales provided above are neither arbitrary nor subjective, rather, they are fully in line with WP:VERIFIABILITY. Sources need to be both valid and reliable. For a source to meet these criteria, it needs to concern the same matter as the claim its being used for as well as being reputable: this is neither optional nor ″radical″, it is required and expected.

In my post I've already made clear some sections of the previous lead, or rather their topics, could or should be placed in the article itself; or might have a place in the lead once sources have been provided. However, I personally do not add or relocate information that has no proper or valid source to back it up — as is the case here — meaning that I left it out. However, you're free to re-add these sections (you've been alerted to WP:SOFIXIT quite recently) to the article provided proper citations are given. I have no problem with that, at all.

Lastly, I think it's important to really stress (to avoid any miscommunication) that WP:VERIFIABILITY trumps your personal approval: you do not own this article and your agreement is not required for removing (be it temporarily or permanently) unreferenced and/or dubious information. Vlaemink (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensus trumps everthing. Wikilaywering doesn't. Note this. –Austronesier (talk) 10:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for partly restoring the old version of the article lead (by the way, I do agree that the full old version was not really perfect either, but have already eplained my objections to the initial complete re-writing). I've now removed "relative distance to standard Dutch"; this was a) lacking any clarifying further context and b) unsourced (!). De Wikischim (talk) 10:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The article by Bakker first added here can be fully read (in Dutch) here: [7]. However it doesn't support the claim "relative distance to standard Dutch" in any way at all, therefore it should be considered not usable for this part of the article. On the other hand, it does support - at least, partly - this passage: This "Limburgish Dutch" is confusingly also often referred to simply as "Limburgish", although in Belgium such intermediate languages tend to be called tussentaal ("in-between language"), no matter the exact dialect/language with which standard Dutch is combined. De Wikischim (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: I partially reverted you, because this is not the way. First and foremost: a hard no, consensus does not trump WP:VERIFIABILITY. You recently re-added part of the old lead again ([8]) writing "at least this was sourced" — when it was absolutely not, as explain (and shown) in the top post here. Please do not do this again, and take the time to read the above (top post) rationale. Vlaemink (talk) 10:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Austronesier is fully right, as this is the source (visible to anyone): [9]. So you actually removed at least one sourced passage, and on the other hand added an unsourced and out-of-context passage ("relative distance to Standard Dutch") to the lead. De Wikischim (talk) 10:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is off-putting. Even if one is technically correct, there are awfully wrong ways to be right. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort of volunteers. I for my part have now decided to abstain from voluteering in the improvement of this article. And I have no time to bring this to a drama board, although this appears to be the only right thing to do now at this point. You do not own this article. –Austronesier (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have to correct myself. There is Twinkle, which requires minimal energy. –Austronesier (talk) 10:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: It doesn't support that line in any way?! You must have missed page 109: bij zowel het Nedersaksisch als het Limburgs gaat om een groep nauw verwante dialecten die sterk van de nationale standaardtaal verschillen en nauwelijks hebben bijgedragen aan het ontstaan van die standaardtaal. / Both Low Saxon and Limburgish are a group of closely related dialects that differ greatly from the national standard language and have hardly contributed to the origins of that standard language. Vlaemink (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Yep, a correct translation. So what Bakker actually states here (correctly, I think) is that both Limburgish and Low Saxon are each individually made up of a cluster of mutually related dialects and as such, they differ significantly from Dutch, the standard language (just like, for example, Kashubian as it is spoken in a few parts of East Germany differs significantly from the standard language in that same area). Still this doesn't support in any respect the claim about a supposed "relative (?) distance from Standard Dutch", so I'll just remove this passage again. De Wikischim (talk) 11:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The source says, what it says. There's no "I think he means this", there's no mention of "Kashubian" or "East Germany"; that's you attempting to misconstrue a valid source to fit your preferred narrative. It's not going to fly. The source says, what it says: Limburgish is characterized by its distance from Standard Dutch and it's highly limited role in the creation of this Standard language. What part of that do you not understand? Vlaemink (talk) 11:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, the article says: "characterized by its distance". It apparently doesn't say: "characterized by its relative distance" - I wish you good luck with finding additional sources to support the latter claim. De Wikischim (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Well - this newest version seems - finally - at least a little more acceptable (if you definitely want to use Bakker's article for this purpose), though I still find it an unnecessary addition at least in the lead. The relation to Standard Dutch is - of course - an important aspect, but the lead should focus on the main topic, which is Limburgish as such. De Wikischim (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Austronesier: My only "problem" with you is that you recently re-added information, summarizing that "At least this was sourced" when it clearly wasn't: they source does not concern itself with "how Limburg locals speak Dutch in public life"; it's an incredibly detailed analysis of a 15th century Middle Dutch manuscript. That's it! On all other points of the new lead, I am in full agreement with you.

I tried to warn you for the current situation when I asked you to stay vigilant. What is happening here now, is wat De Wikischim wants: drama, which then leads to inertia, keeping his preferred status quo ante bellum. Please, do not fall for that. Stick to the sources, be critical of what I write and propose , just as I am of you; but please, do not give in here. Vlaemink (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I repeat what I have said before: there is this thing when A explains why B is a jerk, and B explains why A is jerk, but 90% of readers only think "what they each say about the other actually says more about themselves..." My vigilance simply says: the air is toxic when rules ([here[10], there's WP:ONUS!) only apply to others but not to oneself, I can't breathe, I'm off. –Austronesier (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Honestly ... how can the addition of that sentence constitute WP:ONUS? It's part of the formulation that was agreed upon here: [11]. Anyway, I hope you will reconsider when you catch your breath again at some point, because, like you yourself said: it's a pity for such a beautiful topic and I truly consider you to be a helpful, objective and knowledgeable editor. [12]. Vlaemink (talk) 11:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I have said we're almost there. De Wikischim – who at this point for me is just another editor in good standing as you are – has never agreed to it; and even if one(!) source says so (confirmation bias, "cherry-picking", remember?), when they disagree with that addition, then it is very much a matter of WP:ONUS. This is not about me or regaining my breath; it's about releasing the choke. It is about maintaining a collaborative spirit that entails finding consensus before rushing things with brute force. When I don't see that this spirit is upheld, my choice is to leave matters to the rest of the community. When I see a genuine commitment to live up to that spirit, I gladly take part in further efforts. Simple as that. –Austronesier (talk) 11:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

For someone who claims to despise drama, you certainly have a flair for it ;) I never made this [13] edit by brute force. I might have been too quick to implement, that's something I will admit to, but this formulation did have a majority here, with a third user remaining formally undeclared.

Notice here how I'm willing to admit that I was wrong. Notice also, how, throughout the above discussion, I've consistently used sources to support my position and/or doubts. Notice the absence of this in others.

You talk about ″maintaining″ a collaborative spirit, but there never was one to begin with. You want total agreement on the talk page before implementing any change whatsoever, and I'm telling you, this is never going to work because we do not all have the same mindset or intentions. I want to improve this article based on scientific literature, you want to do this, but the elephant in the room is that (Personal attack removed). You've seen this, you've commented on this, and as long as you're going to advocate total consensus instead of merely a consensus, you are giving him exactly what he wants: a veto in an article in whose content he's personally invested. Instead, what this article needs, is serious editors who look at the literature, and eventually reach a majority consensus text based on what can be supported by literature and use that to improve the article. Vlaemink (talk) 14:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)