The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus here on what should happen with this article but there isn't a strong push for deletion. I suggest that editors interested in this subject discuss on the article talk page whether a redirect or merger would be appropriate. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mohawk Dutch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lawrence Gwyn van Loon was a forger. In 1936 he wrote: Crumbs from an Old Dutch Closet. The Dutch Dialect of New York in which the only introduction to Mohawk Dutch has appeared. Van Loon claimed to be the last speaker of Old Dutch. In 1980 he published Het Poelmeisie, a story in Mohawk Dutch that was told in his youth by a certain Mrs. Dewitt Link. Mrs. Dewitt Link was also used a source in his earlier 1936 publication. According to a research from Charles T. Gehring it was revealed that a Mrs. Dewitt Link was of Scottish descent and not of Dutch descent and furthermore her name was Mary Jone Lowe. The neighbors of Mary Jone said she didn't knew any word in Dutch. Van Loon's work was therefore a forgery. The language might not be real. . Tomaatje12 (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2023 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article also misrepresents the sources. One source of 1885 mentions nothing about creole. Tomaatje12 (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons listed above, and as per wp:fringe and wp:hoax (but not a notable one). Yuchitown (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

• What about a Redirect to something like Jersey Dutch language, and then maybe create a section there about such forgeries? based on the sources you mention and others I was trying to get a look at. Replayful (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What an interesting story. If it is verifiable with sources sufficient to establish notability I think it should be added to Wikipedia, though maybe not at this title. Perhaps as a section of Lawrence Gwyn van Loon, or (per Replayful) Jersey Dutch language? Cnilep (talk) 01:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cnilep, can you take a look at my proposal below? gidonb (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As gidonb suggests, Dutch-based creole languages is a possible place to discuss this, but only verifiable content should be merged. Cnilep (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cnilep, thank you for this support. As I see it, we should write something LOSELY ALONG THESE LINES in Dutch-based creole languages under a header Mohawk Dutch: "A" researched "Mohawk Dutch".[A] "B" and "C" found that "A" did not preserve scientific ethics in other research.[B][C] "D" also mentions the existence of a Mohwak Dutch dialect.[D] Others mention the same community, not mentioning a dialect it may have had.[E][F][G] With so much unclarity, we should tone down the supposed existence of this dialect. Not only by removing the article but there are also maps, lists in infoboxes, categories, and more. Everywhere that Mohawk Dutch remains mentioned as a dialect a high visibility word of caution should come alongside. gidonb (talk) 14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is indeed a forgery, might I argue that it is still a notable forgery?★Trekker (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Lawrence Gwyn van Loon may have been a forger, but that does not mean that Mohawk Dutch wasn't real or that the article should be deleted. Even Loon's article accepts the existence of Mohawk Dutch, saying "He learned the remains of the Mohawk Dutch language, the taol, from his maternal grandfather, Walter Hill ", I'll do some digging to look for reliable sources that predate Loon's book. Meters (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was trying to look at this article, but I don't really know Dutch enough. And I cannot get access to the article "van MARLE, J. (2008): Myths and Forgeries Relating to American ‘Low Dutch’, with special Reference to Walter Hill’s Notebook. In: LACY, M. B. a.o. (eds) From De Halve Maen to KLM. 400 Years of Dutch American Exchange, Münster, p. 321-329." Replayful (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Getting several distinct hits on Google Scholar for "Mohawk Dutch". Would like to dig into this further. Elinruby (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  A lot of them are about "Mohawk-Dutch" relations and not the language. Replayful (talk) 21:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid rationale given. If it is a hoax, edit the article. If there's not enough coverage, merge or redirect with Lawrence Gwyn van Loon, Jersey Dutch language, or wherever it fits. Nardog (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's irrelevant to this article whether van Loon forged some of his work. The OP has not sourced the claim that can Loon's book is the first mention of Mohawk Dutch or that the claims about Mrs. Dewitt Link were false, and simply speculates that the language did not exist. The concept of Mohawk Dutch is relatively well known to those who research the Palatine Germans of the Mohawk Valley. There is likely sufficient coverage of Mohawk Dutch to warrant keeping the article, even if the language was not real. If it's not real then find the reliable sources saying so, and put them in the article. A fraud that has been generally accepted is notable. If the language was real, then find the reliable sources saying so (preferably at least some predating van Loon's work) and add them, along with coverage of the van Loon incident. Meters (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Netherlands, and New York. Curbon7 (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have not accessed the full text yet, but "The Old Mohawk Turnpike Book" by Nelson Greene (1924) apparently mentions the Mohawk Dutch language, so van Loon's 1936 book is not the first mention of the language. Meters (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  full text is here: http://www.fulton.nygenweb.net/history/turnpike/index.html and one specific ref is here: https://fulton.nygenweb.net/Turnpike/Yosts.html ' "Mohawk Dutch" is a puzzle to linguists not raised on the Mohawk. It is said to be a combination of the Holland Dutch, German and Mohawk languages.' Meters (talk) 20:32, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Dutch-based creole languages in a VERY selective manner. The indications that this was a thing or not can be briefly discussed in the parent article. gidonb (talk) 22:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Linguist111 (talk) 00:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.