Jump to content

Talk:Palatines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 October 2020 and 4 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cursedcards.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

[edit]

user:Pp.paul.4 has suggested merging Poor Palatines with this article.

I believe the articles should remain separate. This article primarily discusses the Palatines as an American phenomenon, while Poor Palatines is chiefly about the political debacle created by the effort to bring them as cheap labor to Great Britain. Both are significant articles in their own right. We could do a better job of relating the articles to each other. Elphion (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge. This is a single topic. Dealing with 2 aspects in different articles gives the impression that we are dealing with significantly different populations; clearly not the case. RashersTierney (talk) 16:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge. As I indicated above, it's not a single topic. One is political, the other ethnological. The "Poor Palatine" incident in Great Britain is more about the politics of Britain than the Palatines themselves. And WP has a long and honored history of discussing various aspects of an underlying theme in different articles; the "impression that we are dealig with significantly different populations" can easily be avoided by relating the articles effectively. Elphion (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point of clarification: this article says that the Palatine refugees in Europe were generally known as the "poor Palatines", but in fact, only one group that came to England in 1709 were so called. The migration of Palatines from the upper Rhine area was a much larger phenomenon over a longer time-frame. Elphion (talk) 17:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of "Palatines"

[edit]

1. Regarding the statement that "The Reverend Joshua Kocherthal paved the way in 1709. . .": Actually, the group paved the way by leaving in 1708, arriving in Ulster County in February or March 1709. (This area didn't become Orange County until 1798.) See The Palatine Families of New York - 1710 by Henry Z Jones, page X of the introduction. I'd make the change, but don't know how to do citations.

2. Henry Z Jones wrote more books about the Palatine migration, calling arrivals that came at least as late as 1764 "Palatines" (that's when my ancestor came who is listed in his EMPF book; I haven't checked into other late arrivals to see if his definition includes even later arrivals). This seems to broaden the definition offered in this article of Palatines as 1708ers (arrived 1709) and 1709ers (arrived 1710):

  • The Palatine Families of New York - 1710.
  • More Palatine Families.
  • Westerwald to America.
  • The Palatine Families of Ireland.
  • Even More Palatine Families: 18th Century Immigrants to the American Colonies and Their German, Swiss, and Austrian Origins.

Other authors who wrote about the Palatine migration who my Local Historian recommended and who are missing from the bibliography include Arthur C. M. Kelly and Annette K Burgert. I haven't yet been to a repository that hold their works. Thanks for your time, Wordreader (talk) 21:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment left on article

[edit]

This was a contribution left on the article. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no mention of 700 Paltines sent to North Carolina with John Lawson in 1709."

Palatines in Germany

[edit]

There should be more information on today's Palatines, so people who actually live in the Palatinate. Not just about the emigrants. Metrophil (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Connection with New York Dutch

[edit]

The cultural connection between Pennsylvania Dutch and New York Dutch needs to be modified and/or verified with more academic sources, as the Pennsylvania Dutch are Germans, not Dutch nor people from the Netherlands. High Dutch refers historically to Hochdeutsch/the German spoken by settlers in Pennsylvaia and not some kind of Dutch. 2601:14D:8200:26F0:BD18:54E5:8CC8:33D1 (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your "correction" of the terms German and Dutch are based in your lack of understanding of the term "Dutch" when referring to these historic peoples. "Dutch" in English was originally used to refer to all Germanic dialects, and in the American Colonies the Dutch were split into two different categories: Low Dutch & High Dutch.
The New York Dutch comprised two "Dutch" groups, the Palatine Dutch (High Dutch) and the Knickerbocker Dutch (Low Dutch), with the Knickerbockers being the dominant group. Pennsylvania Dutch were almost entirely Palatine Dutch (High Dutch), and the Jersey Dutch were almost entirely Knickerbocker Dutch (Low Dutch). Americans called this group Dutch throughout their shared history, and they still call themselves Dutch today. Aearthrise (talk) 13:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial propaganda

[edit]

The claims that "the Indians" and the Palatine colonizers were always "friendly" is a gross oversimplification of the actual history. There is no context mentioned that the Palatine Germans were Europeans who settled in colonial Pennsylvania on Indigenous land, however "nice" some of them may have been. Did the Indigenous people have any say in this? Of course not. There is no mention that the Palatines were used as a colonial buffer. No mention that the Palatines were "in many cases cheating the Indians in much the same way the Palatines had been cheated by the English". Is that friendly? Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]