Talk:Ladin language/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section 1

You would be surprised how many people refer to Ladin in Italy as Ladino. The thing is, in Italian, Ladin is Ladino! And let's not forget that the Dolomites are in Italy (close to the Austrian border), therefore, we must make clear that we understand and accept that Italians refer to Ladin as Ladino (check the Italian link for Ladin and you can see for yourselves), but since this article is in English, we refer to it as Ladin.

Question: Does anyone know how is Ladin in German? We could mention it as well.

--Pinnecco 15:46, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Answer: Ladinisch (click on the German interwiki link).  Andreas  ^(T) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Ladin in Deutsch

Ladin in German is Ladinisch.

The modern Ladins are tri-lingual. They grow up speaking Ladin at home, but when they enter school half of their courses are conducted in Italian and the other half in German.

The Ladin flag is solid bars top to bottom: blue, white and green. Blue is for the sky over Ladinia. White is for the snow. Green is for the alpine meadows.

Is it right that they even speak four languages, at least if you count the South Tyrole dialect of German as a language of its own?--Unoffensive text or character 16:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

They speak Ladin and Italian as native speakers, and German and the Southtyrolian dialect from pretty badly to proficiently, depending on the area and the individual. Regards, --JohnnyRoland (talk) 20:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

it presents connections...

This passage: "It presents connections with the Swiss Romansh and Friulian" sounds strange to me, but then I am not a native speaker of English. I will rephrase it, but please feel free to revert my change.--Unoffensive text or character 16:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I am an English native speaker and you are correct, that is not an English idiom. --Paolorausch (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Translations and Comparisons?

I'm not competitent to do the following, otherwise I'd do it myself. Could anyone provide a side-by-side comparison of text in Ladin, Italian, and English as a sample? This is nicely done in the article on the Judeo-Spanish Ladino language article. Perhaps a song (as was done in the Ladino article), or a passage from the Bible...? I find it interesting and helpful to compare passages translated side-by-side like that. Xenophon777 12:49, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

the alphabet

For some time now there has been a page at Ladin alphabet that gives an incorrect listing of the letters of the alphabet. That it is incorrect can be seen by viewing any Ladin text such as those at http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/lld/ . Another site led me to this PDF, which makes me believe that Ladin is a series of dialects with no standard spelling system. I would suggest that anything given as an alphabet should be sourced directly to a document such as this one and qualified if necessary by saying that the spelling system isn't unified. I cannot find any simple listing of the letters of the alphabet in that document or any other, however. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 23:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Phonology

I added phonology tables and ask those who known the language and the theory of phonology to have a look at it. I am aware that there are differences in the various local dialects. Unfortunately, I don't know any ladin, I just copied from the source.

The "ë" vowel is used in some areas but is abandoned in Standard Ladin. I included it in the phonologic table, thus departing from the standard.  Andreas  ^(T) 20:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

/h/ phoneme

The /h/ phoneme is, according to the source, a glottal fricatlive like in English, but it is said that "al à endere valour fonetich te paroles con na basa germanica olache al vegn pronunzié plu o manco desche l -ch- todesch." Does this mean that /h/ is a guttural as in German "ach" or in Scottish "loch"? The examples given are: puhin, troht, zah, sciah, rehl.  Andreas  ^(T) 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, they are saying that the voiceless velar fricative (the German ach-Laut) is used in words with a German etymology and represented by <h>. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

/ë/

You will find audio files for the word vërt here. This phoneme is not included in the official standard but occurs in the Val Gardëina dialect, see the table 3.2 'Grafems vocalics di idioms che toma demez tl ladin standard'. As far as I understand, the trema is used in the Fodom, Gherdeina, and Val Badia dialects but not in standard Ladin.  Andreas  ^(T) 17:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Nones and Solandro

Nones and Solandro are considered by some to be dialects of the Ladin lanuguge, while others disagree. See it:Nones about the socalled "Ladin queston". Maybe Solandro can bee seen as a variety of Nones, to be explained in the Nones article. For linguists to write more about this.  Andreas  ^(T) 12:42, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Urtijëi (from Talk:South Tyrol)

I don't know how to insert IPA-Codes on my keyboard, so I tried with SAMPA: Urtijëi is pronounced urtiZ3i, where the "j" is pronounced as in the french word jour and the "ë" like the german besser - hope, this helps.--Sajoch (talk) 19:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Unfurtunately, we cannot use this becaus it is WP:Original research, we need a source for the pronunciation (no offence).  Andreas  ^(T) 23:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I am from Urtijëi and speak ladin - what better source could you expect? ;-)

If you want to hear someone pronounce this name, you may look at a video on Youtube, where the speaker says (at the beginning) "cor di jëuni d'Urtijëi mo n iede".--Sajoch (talk) 09:20, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit that there are scores of unsourced pronuciation entries in Wikipedia. I want to refer to the article on Ladin in the German WP and propose: [urtiˈʒəi].  Andreas  ^(T) 14:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Hummm. The ladin "j" is definately pronouced like in the french word "jour". The "ë" is more difficult to explain. The SAMPA-page tells me that "ə" is like in german "bitte", while "6" (cannot type the headlong "a") sounds like the end of the german "besser" - which I deem more to the point. I would even consider "3" (the mirrored epsilon) appropriate. Please also listen to and hear for yourself.--Sajoch (talk) 15:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have serious doubts regarding the vowel qualities in your IPA transcription. My original research version would be: [ɯʀtɪˈʒɛj] ;-) Problem solved? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm no expert, and sincerely I don't get the subtle difference between "u" and headlong-"m" and between "r" and "R" - but I agree with the second part of the transcription. I could also register "Sëlva" - but there's really no magic in this name besides the "ë", or - more challenging for an IPA-transcription - the name "Gherdëina". :-)--Sajoch (talk) 16:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

If you have fun doing this, I think no one will object to your recordings, which I deem even more useful than a transcription :-) I'm looking forward to listen to Sëlva and Santa Cristina Gherdëina. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm getting my fun doing this: , , , .--Sajoch (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The article on the Ladin language lacks a phonology section as it is present in most other articles. I don't thik this page is the place to discuss phonetics and I would suggest to pospone the decision on the presentaton of the pronunciation until the phonology of Ladin is adequately documented. Any takers?  Andreas  ^(T) 16:27, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we need a reliable source for proper IPA transcriptions. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with discussing it here. But maybe Talk:Ladin language would also be a good place. Gryffindor (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How about writing the Istitut Ladin Micurà de Rü? They are paid for by the province to study and preserve Ladin and have published dictionaries, maps, language courses, ecc. I have worked with the director of the Institute Moroder before and back then he spoke about setting up a Ladin wikipedia, if he gets more staff for working on that. I think they should start right now on helping us with the Ladin articles, especially the IPA codes for the toponyms. (which is already included in the dictionaries they have published [1]). If there is a consensus here that we should get them involved I will write an email and suggest they open a wiki-account under their name to edit all the relevant Ladin articles. Naturally we will have to help them togehter at the beginning with editing, style, referencing ecc. As said: I would like to know if this idea has some support here, before I write an email to them [2]. noclador (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a unique opportunity for the Ladins to get a, well, notable online text corpus. I think their first goal should be to start their own language version (maybe focussing on local topics). Unfortunately, the current beta-version has been quite inactive for a while now. If they really want to edit articles on the English wikipedia, I'll be willing to support them, answer questions (also via e-mail), review their edits and so on (although I guess they should give the Ladin wikipedia a higher priority).

Are you sure that their dictionaries include an IPA transcription? I may be wrong, but I think I had a look at the printed versions recently, and I didn't find anything. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

undue weight to doubtful ladin communes

I've cleaned the article from references to dozens of communes which are not considered ladin (neither historically nor backed up by scientific data). Their "ladin status" is merely of political nature to gain more rights and financial support. Studies like the extensive one done by Roland Bauer show they are clearly related to trentinian dialects (87%~97% similarity) rather than the ladin dialects of Gherdeina and Val Badia (only 41%~50% similarity) [3].--Sajoch (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can cite a scholar's minoritary opinion. But you cannot ignore the declarations of thousand of Ladins declaring their mother language at the census. Nor can you ignore that the Ladin area comprises several municipalities in Belluno.--Patavium (talk) 21:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I do not ignore scientic findings and up-to-date data. Your edits instead are of clear political motivation. We should not cite politics, but scientic facts. I've described each single edit, while you have reverted all reintroducing lots of errors. Do not do that again!--Sajoch (talk) 23:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Did you read the sources? The Ladin area is defined very precisely and should be presented as such.

If you do not know what areas in Italy are recognized as Ladin, if you do not know where people declare themselves as Ladins at the census, if you do not know the classification of the language, please let this page alone.

And stop trying to make a linguistic issue a political one.--Patavium (talk) 19:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I read the sources. They clearly state that:

• the ladin area is nowhere precisely defined (see also "questione ladina")
• this page is not about politics (official recognition), but about the language and its usage
• recent scientific studies show, that Nones as well as most dialects in Belluno are italian dialects rather than ladin ones (see Prof. Dr. Roland BurgerBauer)
• in the census of 2011 78% of people from Val di Non dit not declare themselves ladin, as they didn't want to play that political game.

So in all respects, Nones and other semi-ladin dialects may be mentioned but should not be included as "ladin" without objection--Sajoch (talk) 09:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

{{3O}} I saw this dispute listed at the Third Opinion project and have left it listed there in case someone wishes to give an opinion. I do not care to do so, but would like to make a comment to both of you. I note that both of you are relative newcomers. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for trying to improve the encyclopedia. I've been around for awhile and have seen quite a few disputes like this one. Both of you are trying to edit the article based upon general principles — what's best in a general sense or what's right in a general sense — rather than on the basis of Wikipedia principles. You've become frustrated with one another and have decided to appeal to the Wikipedia community. The problem is that you're probably going to find that the community will not be willing to help you work out your dispute in the way you've been going about it. Indeed, you may find that some or all of the content that you've been fighting over is not acceptable to Wikipedia in either of your disputed versions. While I do not care to directly address your dispute, let me say that the basic Wikipedia principles for working it our can be found in the Verifiability policy and other policies and guidelines linked from there and also, perhaps, in the Undue Weight and/or Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information policies. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sajoch is mistaken. In all articles about languages there is an indication of where it is spoken, where it is official, where it is recognized etc.

Of course there are differences among the Ladin dialects. In fact, there is an entire section dedicated to the different types of Ladin.

And sorry, but I did not find a linguist specialized in Ladin language named Prof. Roland Burger. Who is he?--Patavium (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Prof Roland Bauer is the most reputable researcher on ladin language to date: professor of "Romance studies" at the Salzburg University, editorial director of the "Ladinia" journal, and much more (see [4] and [5]). You know him very well. You also stated (on the german Wikipedia), that he is an excellent source (see [6]). Thanks for your answer, your intentions are debunked.--Sajoch (talk) 19:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. Roland Burger or Roland Bauer? In fact I only know the latter. He is a German-speaking researcher, but not the most reputable please.

What intentions?--Patavium (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, Burger was obviously a typo - I also mentioned Bauer above - we cited him several times, and you know that. There are no doubts about his and his teams qualification and the "Istituto Micurà de Rü"[7] for anything regarding the ladin language. Hopefully a third party will follow the above links and see for himself.--Sajoch (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, I think as a start, in order to avoid further edit warring, you could try to discuss at least three things before you insert your controversial edits again:

• Name your sources! Without an exception, since you added unsourced material.
• Don't give single sources undue weight. You've got one single ref for the statement: According to modern linguistics. Please specify what the source is exactly saying. Is Mário Eduardo Viaro saying this litteraly? Or is he one example of "modern linguistics"? And how come there are other "modern linguists" who don't divide into six major groups?
• And we should really think about deleting these horrible municipality-boxes at all. We're writing an encyclopedic article about a language, not a statistical survey. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I already found Viaro's paper. As expected he doesn't say a word about modern linguistics, which leads me to the conclusion that you inferred from one single source that a whole science is unanimously holding that view. That's what I call a bad start... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

The sources have been named all. The present version of the article is full of mistakes and it conceals relevant information.--Patavium (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Nothing here is controversial. The controversy actually arises from immotivated denial.

I tried to delete some of the municipality-boxes. Anyway, I thought they were quite informative.

I erased the expression modern linguistic.--Patavium (talk) 22:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

You're the paradigm of controversy: here you define Bauer as a scholar with a minority opinion and not the most reputable, while on italian Wikipedia you request that a graphic with his findings be restored despite it being deleted for copyright violation (see here). :-(--Sajoch (talk) 09:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not an expert on images and I never ever uploaded any image, in order to avoid copyright issues.

Paradigm of controversy? If you have a problem with Italian Wikipedia, then make your postings there, if you can :-))

Thank you for confirming that the erased image was based on Bauer's work. In fact, the image was a map indicating that the Western Trentinian territories are to be considered as Anaunic Ladin. Now you are trying to conceal Ladin linguistic identity of Non Valley and of Belluno.--Patavium (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is the map we're talking about: it does not tell us what you want it to tell. Instead the map shows us, that Noneso (ladino anaunico) is more similar to trentino lombardo than to the ladino dolomitico. Similar maps exist also for the province of Belluno. And if you read the summary of Bauers work[8], you'll see, that he clearly states that Noneso is not ladin, but a trentinian dialect. q.e.d.--Sajoch (talk) 12:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I can hardly understand your point. In the map Bauer identifies the dialects as Ladino Anaunico.

As to the nature of Nones and Solandro, there are two extensive passages basically stating what Bauer says, namely there is a strong relationship to Trentinian.

I disagree with your removing the numbers in Ladin. You said "-ballast: counting till 20 is very similar in all romance languages and not a prominent distinguishing feature". Do you want to conceal that Ladin is a romance language? Hopefully not. The numbers should be reintroduced in the article.--Patavium (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally you admit, that Nones has a strong relatinship with Trentinian. "Ladino Anaunico" ist not the same as "Ladino" or "Ladino Dolomitico", don't confuse the terms! And about the tables with numbers you didn't reach consensus to include them.--Sajoch (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have been writing it since the beginning. Would you please reinsert the numbers in Ladin?--Patavium (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I will not wade too deep into factual matters on this third opinion. My main input is that if there are disagreements between census data and political designations, then the article should include both pieces of information. We don't have to decide which is right, we can just say what each source says. If there are other sources that have analysis of the data and talk about how it is inaccurate, then we can cite those sources. We can't claim that the data is biased unless some other reliable source has done so first, and then we must use a citation to that source, and we probably should not present the criticism as factual, but rather the opinion of the source making the claim. This is the way that we help to avoid needing to decide what is right and what isn't. Please see WP:PSTS and WP:NOR for guidance if you have not already read them recently. Gigs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

New map

Languages of South tyrol and Trentino

I've created a combined map with all available data (current as of census 2011) from South Tyrol and Trentino showing the language distribution. I think we may substitute the other two maps with this one.--Sajoch (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

This map not complete. Of the municipalities where Ladin is spoken and recognized, the majority is in Belluno.

So at the moment it is better to have distinct maps for each province.--Patavium (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This map clearly shows South Tyrol and Trentino only, and in this respect it is complete and correct with up-to-date data. I would add also the province of Belluno, but official census data for it does not exist.--Sajoch (talk) 08:58, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

the majority is in Belluno?!? About 3000 people of around 30.000 ladins is only 10%. Mathematics tells me that you're pulling my leg. Your deceptive assertions are not welcome here.--Sajoch (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually you have a problem with maths. Only counting Trentino and South Tyrol you get 40,000 Ladins. The whole of the recognized Ladin territory amount to 92,000 inhabitants. The difference is 52,000 > 40,000.

You don not need to radicalize the discussion with false allegations. Thank you.--Patavium (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

No way all of those 92000 inhabitants are ladins. You mix different numbers. You know that.--Sajoch (talk) 12:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For Belluno there are no numbers. Potentially they could be from 0 to 52,000.

Please do not change the number of municipalities of the 2001 Trentinian census. At that time, there were more communes than nowadays. Please inform yourself.--Patavium (talk) 20:27, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Therefore stop it using the edit summary for utterly incovenient remarks such as: "repeating for the nth time various errors - lets correct at least those". Thanks.--Patavium (talk) 20:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Census data of 2011 is available (see map here on the right!) - don't revert to outdated data, also undoing other corrections! That's considered vandalism.--Sajoch (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I told you to stop with false allegations. The map was created on the basis of the census 2001, at that time there were more comunes than now. You cannot manipulate the 2001 census, based on 223 comunes, by changing the number of comunes to 217. Is this clear to you?--Patavium (talk) 18:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

You're working with outdated data! The solution is simple: I'll substitute the map with an up2date one.--Sajoch (talk) 01:28, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The map is not ok. You used an old map and put new figures from 2011 on it. First you should redraw the map so that it is correct.--Patavium (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The adjustments refer to municipalities outside the ladin area. Correcting those gray lines would not affect the overall outcome. Nevertheless I already told you (on german wikipedia), that I'll implement those small correction asap. Please be patient.--Sajoch (talk) 20:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

It's fine. But in the meantime we should not post a map that is not precise.--Patavium (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The information is in the colors. There's no wrong color on that map! The gray lines are meaningless - nowhere is written what they stand for. Please do not remove correct and informative maps!--Sajoch (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the map is wrong. You cannot put the census 2011 on a map where the comunes are as of 2001.--Patavium (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The map is fine. The minor changes regarding the adiminstrative units don't affect the essential information of the map: showing to readers where in the region the Ladin language is spoken. Sajoch has assured that he will correct the municipality borders as soon as possible, so there's no need for an extended discussion, an edit war or a overhasty removal. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact there is no need for discussion. The map should be removed as it is wrong and when it has been corrected it can be reinserted.--Patavium (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Now the maps are better. There is still the problem that Mocheno and Cimbrian population were made German by Sajoch while they are detached linguistic groups. The census in Trentino does not assess the number of German-speakers, unfortunately the map makes the reader believe this.--Patavium (talk) 19:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Reverting due to a typo?

Here I see only a typo: "reserch" instead of "research". The substance of the sentence is correct and exposes the findinds by Prof Bauer. There was no reason to revert it!--Sajoch (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Please write in a better form of English. And I did not mean the ortographic mistake.

Bauer shows that the dialects in southern Fassa, in former Tyrolean Belluno and in Comelico have the same level of difference from South Tyrolean Ladin. He does not say that they are similar to Venetian.--Patavium (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

We're not talking about Fassa, and former Tyrolean municipalities of Belluno! It's the other numerous municipalities, that the administration has "decided" to give a "ladin-minority-status", while findings of Bauer show, that the language spoken in those communes is a Venetian dialect. Please see also this graph, where "Comelico" is taken as pivotal point: Ladin Dolomitan is quite different (blue), while the similarity with Venetian and other northern-italian dialects (yellow) cannot be denied. Or this map, that shows how unite the dialects in the valleys around the Sella are (dark blue), while other areas in Belluno and Val di Non (predominantly green) are clearly different. The Friulan and Rumanc languages (red and light red) are much more similar to Ladin.--Sajoch (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

So what? Ladin is a complex language. I will give you an example: some Ladins say rujeneda, others lengaz for language.

In any case Ladin is different from Venetian and especially Comelican Ladin is regarded as Ladin also by German-speaking scholars as Kaltenbusch.

As to the influence by Venetian and Trentinian, they are mentioned in the article. But we not regard Ladin in Gherdeina as German, just because as other scholars have pointed out that Germanic influence has increased particularly.--Patavium (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

That's funny. Kaltenbusch or Kattenbusch? In fact I only know the latter.

Anyway, the current article lacks the information that it's pretty unclear within the scietific community which dialects can be labelled as Ladin, semi-Ladin, surely not Ladin, Ladin in a different meaning and so on. You'll find for almost each viewpoint a source... Both of you should stop to favour a specific viewpoint, the scientific debate about the extent of the term Ladin is unresolved, it's just our job to write that. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Again Patavium reverted much more, than whats needed. If he feels a sentence or a word is wrong, he should correct only the sentence/word, not all modifications the other person did!!!

It's correct we have to report all versions, if it's not clear who's right or wrong. Also the third opinion suggested so. As the article is now, there's no mention that the dialects in Belluno south of Ampezzo are by many not considered to be ladin dialects. That information is missing! Even worse: the listing of all municipalities mentioned in a recent law leads to the false assumption, that all or most of those inhabitants speak ladin, thus inducing, that there are about 70,000 ladins in this area. So adding those from Soutn Tyrol and Trentino, we are all of sudden around 110,000 ladins?!?--Sajoch (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

The reader of this page should turn to "view history" in order to see who made massive reverts.

It's Dieter Kattenbusch. Where do 23,000 Ladins in South Tyrol come from?--Patavium (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I think that it was a useful information to indicate that in the area recognized as Ladin the inhabitants are 92,000. Consider that most readers have no idea that this is a very sparsely inhabitated are.--Patavium (talk) 17:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

We cannot use the number 92,000 - there's no source telling us those are all ladin speakers, or which percentage speaks ladin.

This document tells us, that 20,548 are 4.53% of 453,272 people. During the 2011 census not all people declared their language or made invalid declarations. The same document also states, that the inhabitants in South Tyrol are 505,067, or more up-to-date 511,750 (see South Tyrol). Thus the projected total of ladin speakers in South Tyrol is more like 22,880 or 23,182. As the ASTAT-institute doesn't give those projections, the statement "about 23,000" is the more accurate we can deliver.--Sajoch (talk) 17:15, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh no. The information that 92,000 people live in the Ladin area is correct, as it does not say if they are Ladin or not. The article is very clear about it. It is not possible to assess the exact number of Ladin speakers, because only in the provinces of South Tyrol and Trentino the inhabitants declare their native language on the occasion of the general census of the population, which takes place every ten years.

As to the invented 23,000. After slightly manipulating the map now you massively manipulate data. Did you make the projections on the whole population, including foreigners which mostly live outside of the Ladin area? "You" deliver manipulated data.--Patavium (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The maps are updated. Now anyone can see, there was no manipulation of data: the colors remained untouched. Please stop your unfounded accusations.--Sajoch (talk) 18:03, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Do not call them accusations. Another map created by you has the same problem. The problem is that you seem to have little information about Trentino (and I include Belluno).

And this manipulating the data of ASTAT makes me fear that this applies to South Tyrol. Your manipulation is quite evident. You cannot take the data of a census for one year and applicate them to another year. This is a mess.--Patavium (talk) 18:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Calm down and reload that map!--Sajoch (talk) 19:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Now it has been corrected, after a lot of insisting and the necessity of another user intervening.--Patavium (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

No comment! I hope that "other user" will straighten your distorted viewpoint.--Sajoch (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Your viewpoint is that you continue ignoring what the census really says. See my comments above.--Patavium (talk) 19:36, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

2011 census data

The documents citing census data of 2011 for South Tyrol and Trentino use different metrics we cannot ignore. In South Tyrol only 453,272 out of 505,067 people (89.7%) declared their affiliation to a language minority. On the other hand in Trentino all citizens were counted: of 526,510 inhabitants, 18,550 declared ladin as their mother-language. If we want comparable data, we have to project the data from South Tyrol, which can reliably be done with the available numbers (also the 4.53% is an official number given by the ASTAT). Thus the ladins in South Tyrol are 22,880 (=505,067*4.53%), or (to account for the fact that this is only a projection) "around 23,000". Simple calculations are not considered original research!--Sajoch (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please do not manipulate the census. You cannot take the population of South Tyrol as of date XX.YY.ZZZZ and apply the percentages of the census 2011. The census was calculated on Italian citizens, while the population includes foreigners. Yours is not a simple but a wrong calculation.--Patavium (talk) 21:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You're the one, that repeatedly abuses sources to "show" something. You cannot compare apples and oranges. In Trentino all people were counted - to have comparable numbers we have to give the total number of ladins in South Tyrol, not only the ones, that made a declaration. I inserted both numbers (all data is from the same document, same census - no mixing of dates!).

On ther other hand you try to insinuate that the number of ladins in South Tyrol is bloated, by writing the number of Ladin-speakers was significantly lower.... But that's not true: a 9% increase in 10 years is equivalent to the average for the whole region (population increased from 460.635 to 505.067, that's a 9,6% increase). If you want to tell something about the demographic evolution, you may add a separate section.--Sajoch (talk) 10:58, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, you have little knowledge about Trentino.

As to South Tyrol. The population increased by immigration, the citizens remained stable. Only citizens declare they language group. So an increase by nearly 2,000 is significant. What you are doing is making thousand of Albanians and Moroccans Ladin speakers. You falsify everything.

You should stop inventing estimates. In South Tyrol there is a census. In Belluno there is not, therefore there are estimates.--Patavium (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Again you're wrong with your assumptions. The census separately determines membership to a language-group and attribution to one of the groups. The difference is 0,01%. However you calculate, the projection gives about 22,800 ladins. Also in Trentino the census counted the attribution to one of the groups. Otherwise in Trentino no one in Val di Non could have declared themseves ladins: they simply attributed themselves to the ladin-group. If we agree, that census data is ok, you should accept the numbers for what they are. If you don't, I'm curious about what better sources you have.--Sajoch (talk) 20:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are mistaken. In addition, you inserted a map where Mocheno and Cimbrians are presented as German. They are not, people are asked to declare if they belong to the Mocheno or Cimbrian group, not to the German one. So again, you manipulated the census. The map must be removed.--Patavium (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Mocheno and Cimbrian are both German dialects. I used different colors for different languages: blue=ladin, green=german (the same colors as for the South-Tyrolean map). Anything else would be misleading.--Sajoch (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

There is no German minority in Trentino. The census assesses Mocheno and Cimbrian minority. In fact Mocheno and Cimbrian are German dialects, but the census makes a clear distinction.--Patavium (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The map is clear, it shows "language"-minorities, not "dialects". You even agree Cimbrian and Mocheno are German dialects, so what are you complaining about?!?--Sajoch (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I repeat it for the nth time. In your map you write minority languages in Trentino - census 2011. But if your map is based on the census than you cannot put Ladin and German. You must distinguish between Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian as the census does.--Patavium (talk) 18:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion. I don't agree. You should learn to search a consensus instead of blindly reverting others work!--Sajoch (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Stop insinuating it is my opinion. It is the census. Full stop. If you want to manipulate a census, do it with other pages than Italy-related pages.

But your only objective is to damage Wikipedia. Otherwise you would not make reverts like this [9]. You inserted Kastelruth as a municipality with Ladin majority while it has a minority. I tried to correct your mistake and you insist with your wrong version. If you do it again, I will report you to the administrators.

Have a look here. 15° Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni Rilevazione sulla consistenza e la dislocazione territoriale degli appartenenti alle popolazioni di lingua ladina, mòchena e cimbra = 15th census of population and housing Enquiry about the number and the location of those who belong to the populatio of Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian language. Not a word about German language. If you continue abusing this discussion page in order to deny basics I will report you too.

And please do not make a mess between Trentino and South Tyrol (where the German group is assessed).--Patavium (talk) 18:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The addition of Kastelruth is perfectly legal, as it has 3 subdivisions, where ladin is a majority and an officially used language. I also wrote that in the note, but you're reluctant to read. Admins and third opinions are welcome, I long for them.--Sajoch (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Massive manipulation of data

Sajoch is manipulating census data.

• Here he invents non existent estimates.
• Here he erases the data of the official census, calling it "deceptive insinuations"
• Here he reverts calling them "futile".
• On the contrary, in the article Mocheno language he inserts the census data he wants to erase on this page!--Patavium (talk) 22:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversial edits

Germanisation

Germanisation: In Tyrol there was a germanisation of the ladino-romantsch of the Venosta Valley (now Italy) promoted by the Austria in the XVI century. There was made for avoiding contact with Protestants of the Grigioni canton.

Storia dell'Alto Adige: Nell'alto medioevo cominciò il processo di germanizzazione dei territori alpini centrali, non densamente popolati, a spese dell'originaria popolazione retoromanza da parte di Longobardi, Franchi e soprattutto Baiuvari. Il territorio dell'odierno Alto Adige alla caduta dell'Impero Romano era infatti incluso nella regione di parlata retoromanza, che si estendeva dagli attuali Grigioni al Friuli. Nei secoli seguenti le popolazioni alpine, frammentate e prive di strutture politiche e sociali comuni, rimasero soggette a forti pressioni demografiche, culturali e linguistiche da parte delle popolazioni circumalpine. Sin dal VII secolo le lingue germaniche penetrarono nella regione, a partire dalla val Pusteria e dalla zona a nord di Merano verso le altre vallate. Nei secoli XII-XIII la penetrazione divenne generale, come testimoniano i documenti storici e la microtoponomastica ad oggi esistente. Strati neoromanzi erano presenti in val Venosta ancora nel XVI secolo, e lo sono tutt'oggi nelle valli ladine (Val Gardena, Marebbe e Val Badia). La germanizzazione dell'attuale Alto Adige, come di tutta la regione storica del Tirolo, fu dunque un processo lento, continuo e intenso e vide sia il progressivo arretramento delle popolazioni di cultura retoromanza (gli antenati degli attuali ladini) sia la conquista di nuovi spazi in precedenza disabitati come le valli laterali. Anche le epidemie cicliche, come la peste trecentesca e seicentesca, portarono a ingenti sostituzioni di popolazioni. La nobiltà e il clero d'Oltralpe furono i principali attori della germanizzazione capillare, possedendo ingenti latifondi nelle zone di Bolzano e Merano (a produzione prevalentemente vinicola). Tra i maggiori proprietari terrieri figuravano i vescovi di Augusta e Frisinga, i conventi di Schäftlarn, Herrenchiemsee e Weingarten nonché le casate degli Ariboni e degli Andechs. L'immigrazione germanica seguì due direttrici: i contadini germanici si stabilirono nelle vallate più settentrionali e remote, portando la lingua tedesca negli ambienti rurali delle valli; i commercianti tedeschi dalle zone austriache e della Germania meridionale, soprattutto della Baviera e della Svevia, si stabilirono invece nei centri urbani come Bolzano, Merano, Vipiteno e Brunico. [...] Non solo gli italiani, ma anche i ladini dell'Alto Adige furono colpiti dai provvedimenti germanizzatori delle autorità austriache. Nel caso della popolazione di lingua ladina la germanizzazione forzata aveva una lunga tradizione, minimizzata se non taciuta dalla storiografia tirolese di lingua tedesca. Come risultato di questa politica l'alta Val Venosta, un tempo di lingua ladina, è oggi una terra di lingua tedesca, mentre oltre il confine svizzero (in val Monastero) la popolazione ancora parla dialetti retoromanzi. Anche a Stelvio all'inizio del XIX secolo si parlava ancora ladino, mentre a Tubre la pulizia etnica aveva portato alla sua scomparsa già nel 1750. La lingua ladina era stata proibita, il personale di lingua ladina allontanato dagli uffici pubblici, vennero vietati pure i matrimoni misti. Il promotore principale della politica contro la popolazione ladina ("selvaggio romancio") fu un abate tirolese di lingua tedesca, Mathias Lang. Già ai tempi dell'imperatrice Maria Teresa molti cognomi ladini erano stati germanizzati sistematicamente, anticipando i provvedimenti presi dalle autorità fasciste nel XX secolo. Anche in Val Badia e Val Gardena vi furono massicci tentativi di germanizzare i ladini, che non furono però coronati da successo.

Ladins

People don't make statements, people can't make statements: Germans, Austrians, New Yorkers, all together don't approve or reject anything, just like Ladins. People don't have a single shared opinion! Even worse, people don't express ridiculous statements in quote (!!!) like "We are not Italians and since ever don't want to be considered as part of them! We are Tyroleans and we want to stay Tyroleans!" Who is this we? Anyone know them? The author has heard a choir, perhaps composed of all Ladins? No: the author is just Martin Klüners. This is a triumph of NNPOV.

Referenda

As above, again the same: the absurd request of a "bipartisan censorship". There are several reasons, so, we start by deleting one of the most important. Absolutely no sense. There is a whole article devoted only to this question: Questione dei comuni lombardi e veneti al confine con il Trentino-Alto Adige but, here, we must have a single sentence. Sic.

--Felisopus (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you, but you're mixing a lot of different things. And italian Wikipedia is by any means not a reliable source.:-(--Sajoch (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's have a go:

• Your addition included the following sentence: In the vast multi ethnic Holy Roman Empire and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins were allowed to continue the use of their language and culture, despite being subjected to a process of germanization over the centuries. Is there any source for the claim, that the Holy Roman Empire and the Austrian empire pursued a policy of Germanisation against the Ladins? I'm not talking here about the invasion of Bavarian tribes in the Early Middle Ages, which is already covered in the article: Starting in the 6th century, the Bavarii started moving in from north, while from the south the Italian language started pushing in, which further shrank the original extent of the Ladin area. Only in the more remote mountain valleys was Ladin able to survive. I'm talking about a precisely targeted campaign your edit is implying. Funnily (and not surprisingly) the paragraph you copied from it.wikipedia stops at this point with the citation of sources. So please, cite reliable sources, not stuff you found on other wikipedias!
• By replacing a notion repeatedly rejected by the Ladins themselves with as all the neighboring romance languages (like lombard, friulian or venetian), a notion often rejected you exchanged a discussible statement, which needs (I give you that) a better wording, with several (!) other unsourced statements (all the neighboring? languages? a notion often rejected?) Sorry, but that's not useful, that makes the whole story worse... And I don't get what you are saying about the whole paragraph being unsourced.... The article is bad, so let's make it worse? Is this the spirit?
• Then you added despite the vote was also influenced by economic reasons. First of all, I'd recommend you to check the meaning of the word despite in a dictionary. The sentence made absolutely no sense the way you put it. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

I hope we all agree that this kind of behaviour is astonishing: "Hey, I've got trouble on en.wikipedia, don't have any sources and don't know much about the topic, so please go over there for me!" And surprise surprise: A total revert with the comment "Depov" (sic!), reinserting spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, unsourced claims, semantic nonsense... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Since Felisopus is complaining about this sarcastic recapitulation of mine (if I'd try to spoof someone, I wouldn't provide a direct link and post it in a discussion, where the person I'm talking about is present...), here the correct translation:

Hey, I'm contacting you, because I suppose you know the topic, have more sources available [Note of the translator: "more sources" is supposed to mean: more than zero, since Felisopus didn't provide any] and hopefully write a better English than I do. I just edited a couple of articles on en.wikipedia (like Ladin language) and immediately 3-4 different edit wars started due to total reverts: right now even the century-long Germanization of the territory is being censured [Note of the translator: wrong, the Germanization is already mentioned in the correct article, for several years now without any attempt of censorship], I think that shows clearly the level of the discussion. Thank you for your attention and good work.

You may decide yourself now, if my short abstract didn't get the spirit of this message... Anyway, I apologize for the fact that I didn't make it clear enough that first I didn't post a literal translation. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mai-Sachme. Please do not make totally false translations. This is not what Feliposus said.

Germanization should be mentioned as Italianization is.

And I would be very careful about statements regarding Ladin identity. In Comelico they would never come to the idea that they are Tyroleans, but Ladin is spoken there. And you forget that Austrians counted Ladins as Italians.

If there are mistakes in someone else's edits, they can be corrected. But systematic total reverts are unacceptable. As well as fake statistics.--Patavium (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Off topic. I was asking for academic sources for specific additions. When someone is adding unsourced material, a total revert is not only an option but a duty. Patavium, you know how it works: First we try to find academic sources, then we elaborate a proposal here and then we can edit the article. As long as you don't bring realiable sources, I'll have to think that these claims are your personal beliefs. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Well ,to make it easier for you:

Germanocentric Holy Roman Empire... Source?

extinction of Ladin culture and language in the territories confining with Swiss Graubünden... Relevance for this article here? Maybe the article you are looking for is Romansh language?

The attempts of assimilation... Source?

the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century helped stopping this process... Source?

preserving Ladin heritage... Source? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It is always the same. If someone does not share your POV, then every single word must be sourced. Common knowledge, dear Mai-Sachme, must not be sourced. It was the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. Never heard of it?

On the other side there is no source for 23,000 Ladins, but who cares.--Patavium (talk) 21:52, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, your edits seem a bit confused now, obviously the artice Romansh language is what you are looking for. And please grab a dictionary and check the meaning of the word "germanocentric". You'll be surprised that it doesn't mean only "Roman Empire of the German Nation". Patavium, I'm warning you: You've been blocked repeatedly on the German and Italian wikipedia for exactly this kind of behaviour. You insert your changes again without any discussions and I'll have to report you for breaking the 3RR.- --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Germanocentric is not a bad word. Anyway, I substituted it.--Patavium (talk) 22:28, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Stop threatening me. Let's stay on en.wiki, where most users not agreeing with your POV were simply "removed".--Patavium (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As long as simple mathematics isn't an opinion, 4.53% of 505,067 is 22,880 (all numbers are official census 2011 data as published by the statistical institute ASTAT). Considering, that the population in the last months increased to 513,579 [10], the number of ladins may be projected at 23265. So the estimate of "about 23,000" is unquestionable.--Sajoch (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The first time I encountered Patavium 1,5 years ago, it was when I added a source to a statement which didn't please his POV. Today we're still here on italian, english and german Wikipedia discussing about the relevance of sources. Edit-warring is not the solution!--Sajoch (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The growth depends on immigration, not on Ladin speakers.--Patavium (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about growth, but about the census data taken on a fixed day in 2011! Even without any growth, the calculus gives 22,880, which is in fact "around 23,000".--Sajoch (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

So in your POV the census is wrong and must be corrected. Exactly this kind of unsourced user-based POV - never brought about by me - has been punished. So do not say that I remove sourced material, because the source indicates no 23,000 Ladins. This is your invention.--Patavium (talk) 22:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I hardly understand Mai-Sachme.

• Here he wants a source for "the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century".
• Here he says: It's completely uncontested that Ladins have developed a national ethnic identity in the 19th century.--Patavium (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, I think you know very well, what you wrote and what I wanted a source for. You wrote in the article, that the development of a national ethnic identity stopped the Germanization. This claim is still completely unsourced. I don't know, maybe it's true, maybe not, who knows? The main problem here is that you write articles based on your personal beliefs. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You see, that's the problem. With a total revert all information gets lost. And do not worry. I always have sources for my edits, I do not follow my beliefs. The problem is that even after citing sources, you continue to challenge my edits. It is not a secret that during WWI the Germanization efforts of the Austrian authorities were particularly strong (against Ladins, Italians etc). So citing war-related sources is perfectly logical. You continue denying instead.--Patavium (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fine, so you agree that you used a source that only talked about World War I as a reference for an addition which implied a continuity of Germanization for several centuries in different regions. Another problem of your edits was that you didn't make clear what kind of Germanization you are talking about. Is it simply the spread of the German language, people and culture or is it policies which may have introduced these changes. You've got to be exact. Please try to make clear, what exactly is the source saying and what exactly you want the source to be used for. I already invited you many times to post a proposal here and start a discussion. Making test edits and complaining afterwards that you got reverted is never a good idea. We've got plenty of time and space. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Germanization and Vintschgau

Germanization took place in the Vintschgau in the 17th century, see for example the German article about de:Vintschgau. Incidently, the Vintschgau borders with Romantsch-speaking areas in Switzerland, thus is a " territor[y] confining with Swiss Graubünden". I think this is an important issue that should be better explained in the article.  Andreas  ^(T) 22:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the article is about the Ladin language (in the Dolomites). It's not about the Romansh language.--Sajoch (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody doubts that there was a Germanization in the Vinschgau. It's already mentioned in the article Romansh language, where it belongs. And please have a look at the different meanings of the word Ladin. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

This article is about Ladin language. Non Valley is not in the Dolomites. Nor is Venosta Valley. Moreover, Romansh applies to Switzerland, not to Italy.--Patavium (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The Romansh language around 1100. We see the south-eastern part of Switzerland and some bordering regions, among them (on the right side) the upper Vinschgau

Patavium, the information you want to add here is already present in the article Romansh language. Relax and calm down, you are mixing things up. The Romance dialects spoken in the Vinschgau are traditionally regarded as Romansh. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. In Switzerland they are regarded as Romansh...--Patavium (talk) 23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The dialects historically spoken in neighboring regions, as well. You could read that here, but surprisingly also in the article Romansh language. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:24, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The map is about "räthoromanische" dialects, which comprises Rumantsch, Ladin and Friulian. So the map is not an evidence against Venosta Valley as Ladin.--Patavium (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, the map is illustrating my point, but it's not my source. I already mentioned a book (among many others), where you could learn more about the topic. You are a bit confused about the different meanings of the word Ladin, that's okay, it's really a bit tricky. But it's not okay to start an edit war due to your missunderstanding. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It corresponds also to my point. "Rätoromanisch" is the larger term. Compare with Latin language. If a map shows the border between Italy and France with the legend "Latin Language extension" we still have to distinuguish between Italian and French. So we do in this case between Romansh (Switzerland) and Ladin (Tyrol, Italy). Compare [11]--Patavium (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not that easy. de:Rätoromanisch (yes, click on it and have a look where it's redirecting) can (!) be a larger term (meaning de:Rätoromanische Sprachen), but in most cases it's a synonym to Romansh language and that's the way it's also used in the book of Ricarda Liver (subtitle: Eine Einführung in das Bündnerromanische) and on the map. Ladin has at least three different meanings, you were mislead by the usage of the term as a synonym to the umbrella term Raeto-Romance languages. Here you can read about the Romansh area in western Tyrol (i. e. Vinschgau). --Mai-Sachme (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Also vejin.com, when talking about the "germanisation", the author clearly states, that "ladin area" refers to the whole reto-romance area including Romansh in Switzerland ("ladinische Gebiet - es reicht vom Gotthard und Bodensee bis zur Adria"). The Dolomite Ladin was not affected by that process.--Sajoch (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ladinisation

Maybe we should also mention the beginning of the "ladinisation" of the Dolomite valleys. In fact, this is what I found: Das ganze Gebiet von Trient bis zur Berner Klause war gemischtsprachig, und zwar deutsch-ladinisch. Vom 10. bis 14. Jahrhundert erfolgte die grosse Binnenkolonisation, die vor allem die Seitentäler, Berghänge und Höhen erfaßte. Im Zuge dieser großen Rodungsbewegung gaben die Ladiner des unteren Eisacktales und des Enneberges Leute zur siedlungsmäßigen Durchdringung des Gadertales, Grödens, des Fassa und Buchensteins ab, wodurch sich das von niemandem bedrohte und eingeengte rätoromanische Element in diesen Tälern noch weiter verstärkte, was sogar dazu führte, daß deutsche Siedler durch die Ladiner aufgesogen wurden. Dadurch ergibt sich, daß die heute von den Ladinern bewohnten Dolomitentäler durch die von deutschen Grundherren vorangetriebene innere Landnahme eine Verstärkung und Verdichtung erhielten, was dazu führte, daß sie ihr Volkstum um so leichter bewahren konnten und sich so ein selbstständiger Sprach- und Kulturraum entwickeln vermochte. Allerdings entstanden in den einzelnen Talschaften und Räumen, bedingt durch die Abgeschlossenheit, Sonderformen der Sprache und Kultur. (From "Südtirol A-Z", volume 3, page 72 - followed by two dozen references to literature for further reading).--Sajoch (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ladin vs Romantsch

I am curiout to know what the linguistic differences between Ladin and Romantsch are. The table at Rheto-Romance does not include Ladin proper, just Nones which is (mis)labeled as Ladin. The other thing that I am curius about is why on the map in the Rheto-Romance artocle does not include Nones and other Trentin dialects. Is this deliberate?

I would presume that the Rheto-Romance language continuum was at some time dissected by the expansion of the Bairisch language, when was that? The suppression of the romance language of the Vintschgau had apparently religious causes and was, I assume, unrelated to the difference in the language, meaning that Ladin in the Dolomites was spared because the population was Catholic, not because their language differed in any way from that of the Vinschgau.  Andreas  ^(T) 16:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right: the addition of Nones was deliberate by an anonymous (see here). There is an editor that is convinced, Nones is more ladin than the Ladin spoken in the Dolomite Valleys, and pushes this POV wherever he can. He also tries to define the Val di Sole as Ladin (only 1,5% of inhabitants there declared "ladin" as their motherlanguage). Also does the same person try to define most of the Belluno-province as ladin-speaking, while even in Cortina d'Ampezzo only about 30% are native ladin-speakers, and south of Cortina hardly anyone speaks ladin.

Recent dialettometric studies (Roland Bauer) show, that the similiarity of Rumanc and Ladin is big, while Nones could not legittimately be considered even semi-ladin.--Sajoch (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of questions:

• I'm not sure what you mean by saying "linguistic differences". I assume you are talking about conjugation tables and stuff like this? I can't help here.
• Nones and Solander are a difficult topic, or with other words: the problem is that the word Ladin is highly ambiguous. Linguists who used the word as an umbrella term for almost every Romance dialect between Graubünden and the Gulf of Trieste like Ascoli (see Questione Ladina), naturally counted Nones and Solander as Ladin, too. Other linguists, who prefer a more narrow extension of the term, just use it for the dialects spoken in the Dolomites area. Other linguists label Nones and Solander as ladino anaunico, at the same time indicating certain similarities with the Ladin of the Dolomites and underlining with the introduction of this new term a certain difference. The articles dealing with Ladin in the de:Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, a standard work of Romance studies, mention Nones and Solander briefly, but focus on aspects of the Dolomites area, explaining that the common linguistic and extra-linguistic features are quite limited. I guess, the introduction and first two chapters of the German article (written by the Romance philologist Otfried Lieberknecht and me with a couple of good references) make a decent job in explaining the problem.
• The first Bavarian tribes settled, coming from north, in what is today South Tyrol at the end of the 6th century. During the 9th century they had arrived until the area around Bozen/Bolzano (reference: Egon Kühebacher (1980): Zur Geschichte der Sprachbewegungen in der deutsch-italienischen Grenzzone des Etschgebiets). I guess we are safe to say that the romance dialects of the Dolomites and the Vinschgau lost contact with each other at those times.
• Protestantism was particularly popular in Graubünden (still today around 40 % of the population are Protestants), so obviously, in order to avoid further diffusion in Tyrol, the clergy and authorities took extreme measures in neighbouring areas and not 100 km in the east. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In the Rheto-Romance table I've substituted the Nones examples with Gherdëina examples, which is a better (undisputed) representative for the Ladin language.--Sajoch (talk) 23:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately most references used in the German Wikipedia ignore the evolution of Ladin Language (e.g. they assume a census taking place only in South Tyrol, Ampezzo as core Ladin area and so on).--Patavium (talk) 20:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The references used in the German wikipedia are mostly articles in one of the most reputable publication regarding Romance linguistics. It tells a lot about you that you consider yourself in the position to accuse them of ignorance. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

They are not up-to-date, that's all. Consider that in the last 10 years the consideration of local languages in Italy has massively changed. If the sources employed ignore this evolution, it does not mean that the authors are ignorant. And I do not assume them to have been masters in the art of divination when they wrote on the basis of a situation that has notably changed.--Patavium (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please enlighten me which breathtaking discoveries of the last decade changed our knownledge about the ladin language so much that we have to ignore all previously released expertise in this field?!?--Sajoch (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring made it practically impossible.--Patavium (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Could you please answer why we should ignore al expert publications and respect only your POV? Who are you?--Sajoch (talk) 20:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If a source dated 2002 states that Ladin census takes place only in South Tyrol while it has taken place since 2001 also in Trentino then this is not anyone's POV. But the usual-total-revert-edit-warriors simply pretend not to understand even after hundreds of kb of discussion trying to demonstrate it is "POV", "original research" etc., using intimidatory speech.--Patavium (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

?!? What source from 2002 are you referring to? Why should an eventual single error in one source invalidate all other expert publications?--Sajoch (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Details should be discussed in the German Wikipedia. Where "All other" and "experts" where ignored.--Patavium (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

jftr, I was curious which source used in the German wikipedia you are talking about. The only paper, article or book published in 2002 (but considering the editorial process probably written before that year) I could find is university professor Roland Bauer's article about Ladin in "Sprachkulturen Europas - Ein internationales Handbuch" (Linguistic Cultures in Europe - an International Handbook), which is being used to source a classification of semi-Ladin dialects, a topic completely unrelated to census data. And the section "Sprecherzahlen" there clearly states that there is a census in the Trentino. So I don't understand at all what exactly you are talking (or complaining?) about and how all of this is related to the questions of Andreas... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, you found the source, maybe you will find the quote...--Patavium (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)--Patavium (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are talking about, but I tend to think that it has nothing to do with the questions of Andreas. Bauer is an exact reference for the classification of semi-Ladin dialects used in the article. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversial edits, one by one

Section 1

In the vast Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins underwent a process of Germanization which lead to the extinction of Ladin culture and language in the territories confining with Swiss Graubünden.<ref>Giovan Battista Pellegrini, La genesi del retoromanzo: (o ladino), Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag</ref><ref>Studi trentini di scienze storiche - Volumes 46-47 - 1967, page 137</ref>

The blue spot shows the Vinschgau valley, where Romansh was spoken until the 17th century. In the literature, this area is clearly and explicitely regarded as a historic Romansh language area. This article here is about the Ladin language, the orange spot on the map. Events that took place in the Vinschgau don't affect this article, they are already covered in Romansh language.

This addition by Patavium is unrelated to the topic of this article. Patavium missinterpreted the word Ladin in this context. Ladin is not only a synonym for:

• (a) the Ladin language of this article here, but at the same time a synonym for
• (b) a bunch of dialects of the Romansh language which are spoken in the Engadin and the Val Müstair, and additionally for
• (c) the Rhaeto-Romance languages, an umbrella term which contains (a) and (b) + several other dialects/languages

Pellegrini, the provided source, uses Ladin with the meaning (c). That's completely evident just by looking at the book title: La genesi del retoromanzo (o ladino), which translates to The origins of the Rhaeto-Romance (or Ladin). Hence, when Pellegrini says Ladin he doesn't necessarily mean the Ladin language of this article here. And in fact, in this context he doesn't. He's talking about the process of Germanization (which had a religious background) in the Vinschgau in western Tyrol, far away from the area of the Ladin language (a), but bordering to the area of the Romansh language (b). The dialects in this area, which disappeared in the 17th century, are traditionally and not surprisingly (there was no language border in between) regarded as Romansh. Here is (among many examples) an academic source for that: Hans Stricker, Bündnerromanisch: Interne Sprachgeschichte III. Onomastik, Lexikon der Romanistischen Linguistik, III. Tübingen, Niemeyer 1997, ISBN 3-484-50250-9, p. 804. There we can read in the first two sentences (!): The language area of the Romansh is suffering a process of decline from the Early Middle Ages on which hasn't stopped yet. The especially affected regions are those areas immediately bordering to the northern and eastern Graubünden (Tyrol and Lower Raetia). The part of Tyrol immediately bordering to the eastern Graubünden is the Vinschgau.

Summing up: The addition of Patavium is based on a misinterpretation of the ambiguous term Ladin. The Germanization in the Vinschgau is a relevant topic for the article Romansh language. And indeed, the article Romansh language has already covered this aspect: The Vinschgau in South Tyrol was still Romansh-speaking in the 17th century, after which it became entirely German-speaking due to the Counter-Reformation denouncing it as a "protestant language. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Disscussion Section 1

First of all. Stop using misleading titles such as "controversial edits". Just because you make an edit-war against edits you do not like does not mean they are controversial.

Second point. There is no misinterpretation. As you said, Ladin has many meanings.

Third point: There is nothing wrong with the edit. Germanization of Ladins happenend. I would cite this source in addition, which gives a good description.[12]

Fourth: The fact that Ladin in Venosta Valley was eradicated should be mentioned as to the effects of Germanization. In the context of today's South Tyrol Ladin is also used extensively: e.g. Bonner Beiträge zur Soziologie - Ausgabe 18 - Seite 10. Der Vinschgau indes verlor seinen ladinischen Charakter mehr und mehr und im 19 Jahrhundert fast völlig. Die verbliebenen ladinischen Täler jedoch, d.h. vor allem das Grödner und das Badia Tal, haben ihren Charakter bewahrt, wenn sie ... Venosta Valley lost its Ladin character, while Gardena and Badia Valley mantained it.--Patavium (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all: The word "controversial" is simply descriptive. You tried to add stuff, Sajoch and me explained that this stuff was either wrong or misleading or unsourced, instead of going straight to the talk page you started an edit war. You edits were simply controversial, there's nothing to deny about it.

Second point: Ladin has at least three different meanings. But this article here is not about all of them. It is not about the Romansh dialects (b), it is not about the Rhaeto-Romance languages (c), it is about the Ladin language (a) in a narrow sense.

Third point: This is indeed a good source. Unfortunately it has nothing to do with the additions you wrote into the article during the edit war. You should make a new proposal. I guess it should start with the words In the late 1860s...

Fourth: Germanization happened in the Vinschgau. I already brought sources (a standard work of Romance studies!!!) that the dialects in the Vinschgau are regarded as Romansh. The fact that you are able to bring a source which talks about Ladin dialects there just proves that the word Ladin can also be used in a wider sense (c) as a synonym to Rhaeto-Romance languages. And would you mind to cite sources according to academic standards, no, actually according to minimal standards (Author, year, title of the article! What am I supposed to think about vague references like Bonner Beiträge zur Soziologie - Ausgabe 18 - Seite 10?)? The Germanization of the Vinschgau is already covered by the article Romansh language. If you want to add it here, you'd have to cancel it there first... Either it is Ladin (in the narrow sense) or Romansh, you can't have both. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No Mai-Sachme, you are again trying to make an enormous confusion in order to make it impossible for external users to understand the debate.

You did not explain anything, you and your meat puppet made an edit-war in order to conceal Germanization - whyever - it is a historical process.

Moreover, you identified the wrong sentence. Actually in the article the sentence is the following:

In the vast Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins underwent a process of Germanization

This is quite different from the alledged "controversial" edit. Adding the source above would do, even if we can be more precise. But maybe you are trying again to make a void discussion, some hundred kb long. It would not be the first time.--Patavium (talk) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, I don't think that we will be able find a consensual version as long as you speculate erroneously about my motives and don't restrain yourself from personal attacks... So, according to you, I'm intentionally and on purpose trying to make an enormous confusion. And then, right after I explicetly wrote "Germanization happened in the Vinschgau" you accuse me that I'm trying to conceal Germanization? What am I supposed to answer now? Should I get angry? Should I scream "No"? Should I start to speculate about what I think your intentions are? Should I report you for uncivil behaviour? Do you think that we're playing some kind of rhetorical game here? And then, after having made some observations about "Meat puppetry" happening here, taking account of the fact that Felisopus and you notified someone on it.wikipedia, do you think that it's clever tacticts to turn the tables and accuse your opponents of the same attitude? What should I say now? Should I note that you didn't even read the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Meat puppetry: Meatpuppetry is soliciting other people to come to Wikipedia in order to influence the editorial process in a topic or discussion. Should I provide links that both Sajoch and me obviously have already edited this article in the past, while the surprisingly appearing Theirrulez hasn't? Or should I just ignore your behaviour from now on, which has already been described as "battleground mentality"? Well, I don't have a final answer right now. I'll try to stick the topic as long as possible...

In the vast Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins underwent a process of Germanization. Patavium, you tried to add to this sentence: which lead to the extinction of Ladin culture and language in the territories confining with Swiss. I just explained that this is not a topic for this article here, it's already covered by the article Romansh language. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you should translate the links you posted (a correct translation would be fine, not an invented one, as other users had to experience in the case German to Italian...). So the English speakers could see there was no meat puppetry by the cited users related to this article. On the contrary there was clear and plain meat puppetry related to Ladin Language and other South-Tyrol-related articles by other users (you know whom...). And I could also add socket puppetry...--Patavium (talk) 20:43, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're convinced there's meat puppetry and/or socket puppetry going on, please name the guilty users, and report them at the appropriate abuse page - I don't like defamatory allegations

Let's get back on the track: could you please contribute in a constructive way? This article is about Ladin Dolomitan, not Romansh.--Sajoch (talk) 22:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

No, reporting shoul be the last resort, not the first.

Be constructive and refer to the sentence In the vast Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation and then after 1804 the Austrian empire, the Ladins underwent a process of Germanization. I cannot see any reference to Romansh language.

Moreover, this article is about real Ladin language, not about artificial languages.--Patavium (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Sock- and meat-puppeting are serious offences against honest collaboration in Wikipedia. I want at least to know whom you are accusing! Please name the offenders.--Sajoch (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. Especially sock puppeting is a very serious affair.--Patavium (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You agree? The usernames please!--Sajoch (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sajoch, you are able to read the edit histories by yourself.--Patavium (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see evidence for socket-puppetry in this articles history. Please name me at least one of the puppets!--Sajoch (talk) 21:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

...then read the discussions...--Patavium (talk) 21:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I see: Patavium, Sajoch, Mai-Sachme, AndreasJS, Felisopus, Gigs, TransporterMan, a bot an an argetinian IP. None of those I would remotely suspect of sock-puppetry. If making me loose my time is your goal, you're on the right track - but I quit playing your game here.--Sajoch (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Make a sum of the contributions and count the total reverts and you will see who loses who's time.--Patavium (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, no sock puppetting in sight then. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Section 2

The attempts of assimilation<ref>Franzina Emilio, Una trincea chiamata Dolomiti. Una guerra, due trincee. Udine 2003.</ref> were less successful in eastern Tyrolean valleys, where the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century helped stopping this process and preserving Ladin heritage.

This addition of Patavium is in its first part (a) missleading and original research and its second part (b) completely unsourced.

• (a) This sentence was directly following the sentence discussed in Section 1 a bit higher on this page. Hence, The attempts of assimilation is referring to the Germanization of the Vinschgau. But, as I wrote above, the Germanization of the Vinschgau can't be a topic of this article, since it is already (correctly) covered by the the article Romansh language. Thus, it is misleading. Additionally, it is also original research, constructing a direct continuity between the promotion of the German language for religious motivations in the 17th century and the policies of Austrian authorities during World War I.
• (b) ...were less successful in eastern Tyrolean valleys, where the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century helped stopping this process and preserving Ladin heritage. This part is completely unsourced. "less successful in eastern Tyrolean valleys" probably means "less successfull than in the Vinschgau in the 17th century", so, taking account of what I wrote in Section 1, that's completely out of place. ...where the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century helped stopping this process and preserving Ladin heritage. Well, assuming (for a moment) the correctness of the information that there was a Germanization policy during the whole 19th century, that second part seems plausible to me. But who cares? We don't write an article based on plausibility but on reliable facts. As long as you don't have a source for this bit of information it won't be part of the article. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion Section 2

Again. The edit was not controversial. See source above about attempts of assimilation. And I spare you sources in English that describe it as a process by forceful means. The addition of the source related to war is very good for showing intensified Germanization during war.--Patavium (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As to Ladin consciousness, it was taken from the Society for Threatened Peoples, especially this article.[13] But I shall try to find something better.--Patavium (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Controversial means: evoking controversies. I hope you won't deny that there were controversies.

You're not addressing my remarks. You constructed a direct continuity from the Germanization of Romansh dialects in the Vinschgau due to religious motivations to policies by Austrian authorities during World War I. That's plain original research. There's no ground for any kind of discussion as long as you don't bring explicit sources or (since you won't find any for that, the better option) reformulate a proposal that is covered by the given sources. I guess your sentence should start with the words: During World War I... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Yours and Sajoch's edit-warring against Felisopus, Theirrulez and me is actually controversial.

Simple proposal.

The attempts of assimilation were less successful in eastern Tyrolean valleys, where the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century helped stopping this process and preserving Ladin heritage<ref>http://www.gfbv.it/ladin/dossier/ladin/ladinia-it.html</ref> but were intensified during WWI <ref>Franzina Emilio, Una trincea chiamata Dolomiti. Una guerra, due trincee. Udine 2003.</ref>--Patavium (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, it's not the right place to play rhetorical games: you tried to add stuff, the additions caused controversies, the additions are hence controversial. Full stop. Thank you for addressing the topic of this discussion from now on.

Your new proposal is basically the old one. "less successful" doesn't make any sense when the successful attempts didn't concern the Ladin language, the topic of this article, but the Romansh language. But I already wrote that...

Then I asked you for reliable, published sources, not for some website which you found googling around.

And then you're still making your own original research, constructing a continuity between religiously motivated attempts in the Vinschgau concerning Rumansh dialects in the 17th century, measures in the educational system in the 1860s and policies during World War I. With other words: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is what the sources say. Germanization of eastern valleys started in mid 19th century and was intensified during WWII. You want a third source that combines both aspects, don't you? According to your personal view, we would have to erase all articles using different sources. This would mean to estinguish Wikipedia or force it to copy one source that brings one source together, here it would be Encyclopedia Britannica.

It is not at all original research to put two sources together into one phrase, without any additional interpretation.

New proposal with two detached sentences.

The attempts of assimilation were less successful in eastern Tyrolean valleys, where the development of an own Ladin consciousness in the 19th century helped stopping this process and preserving Ladin heritage<ref>http://www.gfbv.it/ladin/dossier/ladin/ladinia-it.html</ref> However, the Germanization process was intensified during WWI.<ref>Franzina Emilio, Una trincea chiamata Dolomiti. Una guerra, due trincee. Udine 2003.</ref>--Patavium (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Your "new" proposal is almost literally the old one. You didn't address any of my remarks. Your proposal fails to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources and WP:NOR. I already explained that. And instead of trying to tackle these problems you decided to make my remarks seem ridiculous, implying my demand for basic standards would lead to the "erasure" of Wikipedia...

Once again: You've got three different data points.

• a) During the 17th century the Counter-Reformation inspired the local clergy to promote the German language among Romansh-speaking villages in the Vinschgau, in order to avoid intensified contact with the neighbouring, also Romansh-speaking Graubünden, where protestant ideas found a large circulation.
• b) You provided a good source that in the late 1860s Austrian authorities implemented the German language in the educational system in the Val Badia, noting that, to our knowledge, there weren't any similar attempts before and that the protest of the local population finally lead to the concession of Italian language lessons.
• c) You've brought a source (still without telling us more about the context and the precise information it provides) that there were intensified attempts of Germanization (which means concretely...?) during World War I. I guess, probably in order to strengthen the loyalty of the Ladin population to the Austrian empire.

The problem is now, that you combine these three quite different measures, happening at different times and in different places, doing your own original research, to one context, implying that these Germanizations were a) related to each other, b) a continuous process and c) an opposite forerunner of the violent Fascist Italianization campaign. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make a mess. Romansh is discussion number 1, according to your subdivision. You say different times. Here it is the second half of the 19th century and first two decades of the 20th century. But you can make a proposal. It would be easier to discuss your proposal as I cannot see your point.--Patavium (talk) 18:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

? Sorry, but you try to add some stuff to this article, I point out that this eclectic selection and aggregation of information is your private original research and then you ask me to put this original research into a proper form? a) is no topic for this article at all, b) could be mentioned by using a sentence which starts with the words In the late 1860s..., and I still don't know what c) is exactly about, although I already asked you several times for the precise content the source provides. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand that what does not correspond to your POV is "orginal research". Of course it is not. But I somehow agree with you. The more details, the better. A subchapter dedicated to Germanization of Ladins would be the best. In this case an incidental reference to Romansh would be reasonable.--Patavium (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That's it.

Expanding the history section is a great idea, but you should follow as closely as possible the way the topic is treated in the academic literature and avoid to give undue weight to things you particularly want to highlight (Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence.). Here is a very good article in the Encyclopedia of Romance Linguistics, you can see how the authors (it:Luigi Heilmann and de:Guntram A. Plangg) structured the content: ... 4. The pre-Roman substrate, 5. Romanization, 6. The Latin language in South Tyrol, 7. Romance-Germanic contacts... I think it would be a good starting point to adopt this framework for our history section.

And you still don't tell me what the source about the measures in World War I is exactly saying. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Literally citing is not combining. The combination results from conclusion that are not stated in the sources. This is not the case.

For the history of Ladin the outdated source you cited is OK at first sight, even it is somehow old. If the historical part became very long, maybe it could be reasonable to dedicate a detached article to it.--Patavium (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You combined a process of the 17th century, decisions regarding the educational system in the 1860s and measures during World War I (You still don't tell me what the source about the measures in World War I is exactly saying.) to one picture, implying that these events were a) related to each other, b) a continuous process and c) an opposite forerunner of the violent Fascist Italianization campaign. The problem is now that this is your own original research, since this implication is not stated by any of your sources.

The source which you call "outdated" was published in 1997. In one of the most reputable publications for Romance linguistics. Written by an Italian and an Austrian university professor. Were there any new findings regarding the history of the Ladin language since then? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Mai-Sachme, do not create problems where they do not exist. As I said, for ancient story an outdated book is ok.

It is your way of discussing that is the original attempt in order to conceal the events. In fact there was no original research by me, even if you repeat it thousands of times. If you had read the historical information provided by "Society for Threatened Peoples" [14] I proposed as a source you would have seen that I made a reference to it. I did not combine anything at all, so please do not tell untruths.

This shows that telling you exactly the content of a source does not help the discussion, as your continuous allegations about "original research" despite giving you access to the above mentioned source demonstrate. However, I will try to explain what the source referring WWI says with reference to Ladinisation. It deals especially about deportations - also the "Society for Threatened Peoples" cites forced emigration from Ladin territories to Boemia and Southern Italy.

If the problem instead is an adjective or a word ending, please tell me in advance. Indeed you are used to reverting edits of about 3,500 kb if you do not agree with a word's ending (instead of simply changing the single word). I would not like to get stuck in your total-revert-edit-war-modus.--Patavium (talk) 21:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)LOL. Reverting whole paragraphs due to a word's ending is an accusation I made you (see above). Don't blame others of the wrongdoings which are your specialty. Don't you have better arguments than constantly turning the tables?--Sajoch (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

ROFL You mean this? [15]? Original research map, invented numbers within an incomplete sentence. This is just more than a "typo". See the explanation here [16] and [17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patavium (talk • contribs) 23:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You make us waste a lot of time. I linked the discussion. I'm not going to repeat it here.--Sajoch (talk) 09:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No Sajoch. Your total-revert-edit-war against Felisopus, Theirrulez and me made us waste time and caused this infinite, which was not difficult to forecast indeed.--Patavium (talk) 22:40, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

A book from 1997 is not outdated.

It is your way of discussing that is the original attempt in order to conceal the events. I have to repeat and repeat it again, please restrain yourself from personal attacks. Your private, misleading interpretation of my "true motives" can't be a topic on this talk page.

First you cited in your additions three different sources, implying a conclusion not stated by any of them. That is original research. Now, after I pointed this out to you, you come over with an essay on a private website. No sorry, that's not how it works on wikipedia. Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors [...] When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Has that website a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? Is "Mateo Taibon" a reliable author? Is he even historian? Is he an accepted authority in the field? And aren't there heaps of academic literature in regards to the topic? Why do you want to use a website instead? Shouldn't it be easy to find the information you desire to add in academic literature, as well? I mean, we are talking about a process that shouldn't have escaped to all scholars who wrote about the history of the Ladin language...

And yes, please, after having asked for umpteen times, tell me what the source about World War I is exactly saying. I'm very curious. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 22:41, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You are producing personal attacks alledging original research in cases where sources were almost literally cited. Please restrain from this false accusations.

I already answered. And academic literature will be implemented too, of course.--Patavium (talk) 23:17, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, you combined different data points from different sources, implying a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. That's classic original research, I'm talking explicitly about the text you produced. You, however, repeat accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. And academic literature shouldn't be implemented, too, the whole text should closely follow academic literature. I'm really looking forword to your proposal here on this talk page. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Again Mai-Sachme, there was no original research. But of course you can continue with this personal attack because users and administrators mostly do not have command of Italian language. Dismantling your accusations would require the entire translation of sources. It is the same game you played with regard to sources in German together with your partner Sajoch on Italian Wikipedia, but luckily there were other users who could solve the dispute.--Patavium (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm... funny you mention the italian Wikipedia: we had several edit-wars there. Admins who stepped in "solved" the dispute by blocking the involved editors, not by researching who was right or wrong. You were blocked too several times - you remember? When I look now at those disputes, the articles got mostly corrected by other editors which agreed with my version. So if it is not me correcting your falsifications, others editors will notice it sooner or later and step in. :-)

Please restrain from personal attacks. It was not a funny affair and not in the terms you are trying to present it.--Patavium (talk) 00:02, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like getting reverted by others, you should base your "corrections" on verifiable and reliable sources. Thanks.--Sajoch (talk) 00:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

We did, We did...--Patavium (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Patavium, either you want to discuss improvements of this article or you want to talk about other editors. In the second case you found the wrong place here. Your old proposal is original research at its best, no single source you provided constructed the context you tried to imply. If you don't want to tackle this problem, the "discussion" is useless. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I made at least two proposals you rejected making up this whole history about "original research".--Patavium (talk) 14:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I extensively wrote what the problem with your proposal (plural would be an exaggeration, your most remarkable modification was the addition of a full stop...) is. I linked you the policies. I recommended a good article about the topic and suggested to take academic accounts of the language history as a guide. And then your final résumé is: ...making up this whole history about "original research". Well, what could I do more? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Census data

In the 2011 census[18], 505,067 persons were counted, of which 453,272 gave a valid language declaration (on a separate module). About 10,3% made no declaration, among them not only foreigners, but also temporarily absent persons, some who wished to make no statement and invalid declarations. 4,53% of those valid declaration were for "ladin".

In the neighbouring province Trentino the language declaration was part of the census module, thus "all" people were counted. The census did not collect the effectiv number of people with italian, german oder ladin mother tongue, but the attribution to one of the given language groups. To have comparable numbers for both provinces it is therefore necessary to not only cite the number of people which were counted as ladins in South Tyrol, but the full projection, which is officially "4,53% of 505,067 inhabitants". A simple calculation tells us, there are 22,879 (or about 23,000) ladins in South Tyrol - this is not OR!--Sajoch (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The census counted Ladins in 2011. You say they counted wrong and make your personal projection for the same year 2011. So either the census is wrong or you.--Patavium (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No one counted wrong, you've misread what I wrote. Try again! ;-)--Sajoch (talk) 21:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Sajoch already cited the relevant Wikipedia policy. It's not original reasearch at all to calculate how much 4.53 % of 505,067 inhabitants are in real numbers... --Mai-Sachme (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The problem ist that the calculation is substantially wrong. The assessed percentages refer to a statistical population that is different from the one that Sajoch uses for his "estimate". You cannot extend the percentages to the statistical population to "Invalid declarations, people temporarily absent and resident foreigners". ASTAT knows the problem an publishes adapted estimates of the populations, which are never expressed in figures, but in percentage approximation. As a result, the real percentages of Ladins is less, not more, as Sajoch would suggest. [19] Unfortunately the numbers have not been adapted yet for 2011, because ultimate are still lacking.--Patavium (talk) 16:55, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

"ASTAT knows" and "the real percentages of Ladins is less" you write - sources please! Otherwise yours is original research. My calculation may not lead to the "correct" number, but it was neither "wrong" nor against Wikipedia-rules, and that's why I rounded the number and explicitly said so ("... around 23.000").--Sajoch (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You rounded, you invented, you made an orginal research. The worst is that you falsified the data. http://www.provinz.bz.it/en/downloads/Siz_2011-eng.pdf: Table Resident population by language group according to the Population.--Patavium (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't invent anything! And accusing me of falsification reminds me of the other similar false accusation, when you called this map a manipulation: [20] (the reader please notice the two versions of the map which differ due to a merger of 8 communes in south west, which are totally outside the relevant area!) You should assume good faith. Please stop with this false accusations! --Sajoch (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well Sajoch, it is a matter of maths, not of faith. I simply said that your calculations were substantially wrong and went against the evidence of the statistic assessments. In this sense they were a falsification.

The map you cited is still wrong, because there is no assessment of German language in Trentino. They assess Mocheno and Cimbrian - separately -, you put them together to German. But again, you insist with your POV and prefer ignoring plain vanilla facts. This leads to interminable discussions.--Patavium (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You still don't accept simple facts: Cimbrian and Mocheno are both German dialects, and the map is about "language distribution", not about "dialects". But we're off-topic again.--Sajoch (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing around this off topic. To you knowledge, the census assesses Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian in Trentino, not German. So you cannot have the census say what you want according to your POV. And the sources are linked in the article. So please stop your original research and your at this point deliberate ignoring of the census.--Patavium (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Cimbrian and Mocheno are there on the map! The color hues reflect the languages, while the color saturation shows the percentage-value as per official Census data. There's no greater blind, than the one who doesn't want to see.--Sajoch (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Please restrain from personal attacks. In the map they are mixed together as German (in green), but the assessment is detached for Cimbrian and Mocheno. You invented the percentages of German - which should be 0,00% in the whole of Trentino - and did not distinguish between Cimbrian and Mocheno, who are separate minorities and I add - also quite different the one from the other.--Patavium (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow! Another original finding: as per Patavium, Mocheno and Cimbrian are not German dialects. Try to explain that to others without beeing laughed at. :-)--Sajoch (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Mocheno and Ladin Cimbrian can be considered as German dialects, no doubt. But for the purpose of the census and according to the statutes of Trentino they are considered as separate languages. So if you make a map with the data from the census, you must follow the census. Instead, you make an original research making the census assess a non-existent "German language" group in Trentino. Following the link [21] it is very easy to understand to anyone that the figures come from the "15° Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni Rilevazione sulla consistenza e la dislocazione territoriale degli appartenenti alle popolazioni di lingua ladina, mòchena e cimbra" = 15th census of the population and of lodgins Survey about the number and geografic location of those belonging to the people of Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian language. I cannot see an assessment of German language. Therefore there is nothing to laugh at all. Unfortunately, here you can live it up because there are less users who can control sources in Italian. You already tried it in Italian Wikipedia - this would actually merit your introductory wow - , but obviously you did not succeed. Now you are trying it here.

So please stop talking about original research. It is you who has been doing it with a sort of insistence. So please restrain yourself from accusations to other users.--Patavium (talk) 22:17, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you got it all wrong:

1) Ladin is not a German dialect

2) The Census did not state whether Cimbrian and Mocheno are languages of their own or German dialects. It was simply a form where citizens had to choose if they belong to the popupation with Ladin, Cimbrian or Mocheno language.

3) It is a well-known fact, that Fascian is a Ladin dialect, and Ladin is a Romance language. And also that Cimbrian and Mocheno are Bavarian dialects, which itself is a German language. I can use this knowledge when coloring maps, and choose to color German green and Ladin blue. There's no way to argue.--Sajoch (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for curiosity. Where did I write that Ladin is a German dialect? As to your point 3. You can do it with South Tyrol, where German and Ladin language are assessed. Not for Trentino. Where Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian are recognized as minority languages.--Patavium (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Two possibilities:

a) 2 hours ago either you confused "Cimbrian" with "Ladin", and wanted to confirm, that Mocheno and Cimbrian are German dialects - so you finally agree with me, and the discussion is closed :-)

b) or your memory lasts less than 2 hours and/or you're unable to read - so now I understand why discussions with you are cyclic and never-ending :-(--Sajoch (talk) 00:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ladin is not a German dialect. We agree on this.

Well, now it should be your turn to admit that you misunderstood the census.

And yes, discussion becomes never-ending and cyclical because you come up and challenge common sense:

• A census is a simple form. Maybe in America or somewhere else it is electronic...
• Please read carefully: Censimento della popolazione e delle abitazioni Rilevazione sulla consistenza e la dislocazione territoriale degli appartenenti alle popolazioni di lingua ladina, mòchena e cimbra" = 15th census of the population and of lodgins Survey about the number and geografic location of those belonging to the people of Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian language.

We can ask other Italian speaking users to provide a translation.--Patavium (talk) 01:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it: the statistics institute has neither the authority nor the intent to define what's a language or a dialect. They simply counted the number of Mocheni, Cimbri and Ladins.--Sajoch (talk) 01:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

They counted and came to a result: Nobody belonging to the German language as your suggests.--Patavium (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Please stop with your OR! The aim of the census was do get the consistency and distribution of the minority groups Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian (for political and financial purposes). They didn't even collect numbers of the Italian language group. Thus as per your logic, there are no(!) members of the Italian language in Trentino. :-)--Sajoch (talk) 09:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

OR? Do you need a translator? The census assessed the number of minorities. The rest is your POV. May I remind you? Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Your map is POV and even worse, it is wrong. Please delete it or adapt it to the census.--Patavium (talk) 14:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Cortina's desire to return to South Tyrol

Already in 1347 and 1420, Ampezzo rebelled against the membership of Cadore. When in 1805 Tyrol was ceded to Bavaria, and Ampezzo to Italy, the comune begged the Bavarian government to remain in Tyrol. In 1809 the Ladins eagerly participated in the struggle for independence against the French. In October 1819, 12 Ladin communities appealed to the German Tyroleans that they were not Italians, never have wanted to be part of them and never will in the future.

On 5 May 1920, 70 representatives of the five Ladin valleys met on the Passo Gardena, to protest against the denial for self-determination and for a merger of all Ladins. In this occasion the blue-white-green flag was shown for the first time. In 1923 Ladinia was torn apart: Ampezzo and Livinallongo to the province of Belluno and Val Gardena, Alta Badia and Fassa to the province of Venezia Tridentina, which later in 1927 was divided in another province (Bolzano), which included Val Gardena and Alta Badia.

In December 1945, a petition signed by three-fourths of adult Ampezzans was handed to the Allies, with the demand to be annexed to South Tyrol. In 1946 the league "Zent Ladina Dolomites" was founded (mainly by Ampezzans), which tried in vain to obtain the reunification with South Tyrol. Later the "Union Generela" was established, a federation of associations of the 5 Ladin valleys which published the monthly journal "La usc di Ladins". On 5 May 1973 the town of Livinallongo decided the annexation to South Tyrol. On 27 October 1977, the Mayor of Livinallongo officially asked the Italian government the secession of his commune from the province of Belluno.

Again and again, local authorities outside of South Tyrol have decided to be reunited with South Tyrol. The referendum of 2007, where the absolute majority in Ampezzo and Livinallongo voted for a return to South Tyrol, was only the latest attempt in a long series.

There's literature in heaps confirming this.--Sajoch (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC) ...