Template talk:Rhaeto-Romance languages

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles

Romance

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Romance, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to fictional romance in literature and romantic fiction writers. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.RomanceWikipedia:WikiProject RomanceTemplate:WikiProject Romanceromance articles

Rhaeto-Romance languages

There is a user who continues to ignore Ladin varieties in Non Valley and Belluno, being respectively assessed by official censi in Italy and recognized by authorities in Italy.--Patavium (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Ladin" has several meanings. Either it denotes all rhaeto-romance languages (then it also includes Noneso and Bellunese), or it the denotes only the Dolomites Ladin (which comprises only the variants spoken in Val Gardena, Badia, Fassa, Fodom and Cortina). See Videsott ([1] - the source you provided - thanks!): Ladino noneso (or ladino anaunico) and Ladino bellunese were never considered as part of the Central Ladin or Dolomites Ladin. As it seems you continue to ignore your own sources, and also like to mis-translate them as per your pov.--Sajoch (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about Ladin language. The Dolomites also include Cadore, you know this?[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patavium (talk • contribs) 22:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a valid argument. We're talking about languages not geography.--Sajoch (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact.--Patavium (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I said: Nones (and Solander) are neither politically considered ladin minorities, nor by recent scientific studies considered Ladin or even semi-ladin dialects. Also Agordino is not Ladin. Unless you consider "Ladin" as a synonym for all rhaeto-romance languages, which is not the case here, as "Ladin" is put on a par with "Friulan" and "Romansh".--Sajoch (talk) 02:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ladin means nones, solander, fascian, gherdeina, badiot, Ladino Bellunese.--Patavium (talk) 20:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources galore confirming this. I can recommend you for example this one, Ladinia – Sföi culturâl dai ladins dles Dolomites, giving you a bibliography and containing a paper about proverbs in Comelico.[3]--Patavium (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely: no! "Ladin" stands either for the ladin around the Sella massif or it's a synonym for all rhaeto-romance languages. You should provide a (scientific!) source that tells us, that Nones, Solander and Agordino are Ladin but Romansh and Friulan are not. Even the source you just mentioned doesn't confirm your claim. Your source explicitly excludes Noneso, Solander or Agordino from Sella-Ladin. Also is mentioned, that Haller puts the Comelican dialect near the Friulan language. Also Nikolaus Bacher only counts the Sella-dialects as Ladin. So yours remains OR.--Sajoch (talk) 09:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sajoch, you should stop engaging in this edit-war. You should stop accusing me of OR or worse, mis-translations. Of course we can discuss another classification of Ladin / Rhaetoromance, but we cannot exclude Nones, Solander and Bellunese. No respectable source does this. Taken from http://ald.sbg.ac.at/rid/rid_20.html:

Il capitolo introduttivo, 1. Das Rätoromanische in seiner Gesamtheit, riporta l'elenco degli studi ladini o retoromanzi in senso lato, cioè in senso ascoliano / gartneriano. I titoli si presentano disposti in ordine geografico, da ovest ad est, partendo dal ladino occidentale: 2.1. Das Bündnerromanische in seiner Gesamtheit, a sua volta suddiviso, seguendo la classificazione del DRG, e cioè in: 2.2. Sursilvan; 2.3. Grischun Central con 2.3.1. Sutsilvan, 2.3.2. Surmiran e 2.3.3. Bravuogn (il dialetto di Bergün); 2.4. Das Engadinische und das Münstertalische con 2.4.1.Engiadin'Ota: Puter, 2.4.2. Engiadina Bassa: Vallader e 2.4.3. Val Mustair: Jauer. Il gruppo centrale degli idiomi ladini viene suddiviso in: 3.1. Ladino anaunico; 3.2.0 Ladino dolomitico ("atesino") con 3.2.1. Gherdëina, 3.2.2. Badiot (che riunisce a sua volta Ladin e Marèo), 3.2.3. FaSan e 3.2.4. Fodôm; 3.3. Ladino-veneto e 3.4. Ladino cadorino. La sezione orientale, infine, cioè il Furlan, non è stata divisa in sottogruppi per la presenza di una koiné.

You can also read the classification according to Paul Videsott's Bibliografia retoromanza 1729-2010.--Patavium (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Videsott, page 8 of the pdf. I asked for a third opinion here: [4]--Patavium (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the census confirming the Ladinity of Non Valley [5]. I also mentioned the institutions, here they are for Belluno [6]. I am adding now the Italian State Television [7], starting from minute 37:28. La valle di Non è un' enclave ladina in Trentino... = Non Valley is a Ladin enclave in Trentino. I can also recommend local newspapers: here, Ladins: Nonesi outnumber Fassani [8]--Patavium (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as mis-translations are concerned, I would like to remind you of the discussion [9]. Thank you.--Patavium (talk) 12:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

I'm here as an uninvolved third opinion as requested at Wikipedia:Third opinion. I'm having a little trouble following the discussion, mostly because some of it implies evidence and wording in another language. To clarify the two positions, the disagreement stems on two formats of wording. User:Sajoch choice for:

artificial language: Ladin Dolomitan

User:Patavium's choice for:

Bellunese Ladin (Agordino, Cadorino, Comeliano)
Ananunic Ladin (Nones, Solandro)

I cannot read your sources and furthermore this is the English Wikipedia. As such any sources used to support something must be verifiable and henceforth readable to Anglophones. From what little I gathered, Ladin Dolomitan is a standard written form from the whole Ladin area and Bellunese Ladin and Anaunic Ladin are used in smaller areas of the Ladin area (Belluno and Trentino). What confuses me is that on Rhaeto-Romance languages it lists all three. If you could please, separately, clarify and explain the differences between the two versions that would be much appreciated. Mkdw ^talk 21:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's tricky. First you should know, that there exist different definitions of the word "Ladin": it either denotes the group of languages spoken in a wider area raning from Switzerland (where the language is called "Rumanc"), over north-east-Italy till Friuli (whose dialect is called "Friulan"). The italian linguist Graziadio Isaia Ascoli used the term "Ladin" this way. While in a more narrow perspective "Ladin" includes only the dialects of the valleys around the Sella group (which are: Gherdeina, Badiot, Fassan, Fodom and Ampezzan). Today the narrower definnition is preferred, and neither Rumanc nor Friulan are usually called Ladin. The dialects spoken in adiacent valleys of those 3 areas, show a varying degree of remnants from a debatable "ladin" substrate, but (to avoid confusion) it's better to call it a rhaeto-romance substrate. Due to the strong similarity to venetian or lombard, those dialects are usually assigned to the italian language group. Recent dialectometric studies confirm this classification. Those dialects are called: Noneso (or Anauno), Solander, Bellunese, Comelican or Cadorino. When we consider "Ladin" in the wider sense (as a synonym for all rhaeto-romance dialects), those semi-ladin languages may be called anaunic-ladin, bellunese-ladin, or similarly.

But as this template is already called "Rhaeto-Romance languages" and "Ladin" is one of its subcategories on the same level as "Rumanc" and "Friulan", it should be clear, that we are using a narrower definition of "Ladin" here. Therefore those other dialects should not be included under "Ladin" - if at all.--Sajoch (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about the addition of "Ladin Dolomitan" (which was Pataviums idea), as it is an artificial language with low acceptance: an attempt to create a standard language by mixing the Sella-Ladin-dialects.--Sajoch (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for the explanation. As stated earlier, verifiable is a pillar of Wikipedia. Do you have any reliable and independent sources that substantiate that Ladin in the wider sense refers to all 'rhaeto-romance dialects' and that a narrow definition also exists (in English)? Also, in the article itself, it lists: Bellunese Ladin, Dolomitic Ladin, and Anaunic Ladin. Why are they mentioned if they're associated with the Italian language group) / should they not then be mentioned in the template as well? Mkdw ^talk 01:00, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again: the recent addition of "Anaunic Ladin" and "Bellunese Ladin" to the article was Pataviums idea. In the original version by Mai-Sachme those dialacts were not there. If I try to remove them, it will result in an edit-war with Patavium (same happened on this template and on german wikipedia). I would suggest to restore Mai-Sachmes version and mention the debatable dialects (anaunic and bellunese) only in a separate section at the end of the article, instead of giving them undue weight. As a proof that only Gherdeina, Badiot, Fassan, Fodom and Ampezzan are considered "Dolomitic Ladin" (not to be confused with the artificial language Ladin Dolomitan), see: "The Rhaeto-Romance languages", ISBN: 0-203-99248-2, which lists as rhaeto-romance languages only "Swiss Romansh", "Dolomitic Ladin" and "Friulan", further indicating that "there are 5 valleys traditionally forming the territory where Dolomitic Ladin is spoken: Gardena (=Gherdeina), Gadera (=Badia), Fassa, Livinallongo (=Fodom) and Ampezzo." (see page 12).--Sajoch (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mkdw! Thanks for you answer.

Please notice that most sources regarding Ladin are not in English.
However, in English I can recommend you this nice description of Ladin [10]. Val di Non and Cadore are included of course.
Morevorer there are highly respected sources as the European Council SECOND REPORT SUBMITTED BY ITALY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 25, PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE FRAMEWORK CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF NATIONAL MINORITIES (received on 14 May 2004), APPROPRIATELY IDENTIFIED TERRITORIAL AREAS, providing us with a list of the communes where Ladin is recognized. Of course Agordo, Comelico and Cadore are included. The text is in English, if you search for Ladin you will find what you are looking for.
Among the Ladin areas, Ladino Bellunese area is the most extensive. I think we should give it more weight. There are Ladin dictionaries for single communities such as Elia de Lorenzo Tobolo's, Dizionario del dialetto ladino di Comelico Superiore (=Dictionary of Ladin dialect of Upper Comelico).
In addition: the usage of terms such as "semi-ladin" (not by yourself of course) has been severely criticized by the local cultural institutions, being considered as offensive. There are papers published with respect to this and other issues, but they are in Italian.
Coming back to my first point, the best source for a classification is Paul Videsott, Chiara Marcocci, Bibliografia retoromanza 1729-2010. If there is need for a translation, we can find someone. Why is this source so good for a classification? Because it is a catalogue of all Rhaetoramance literature since 1729. Look at the classification:
I Il retoromanzo nella sua totalità = Rhaetromance in its totality
II Romancio grigionese

Soprasilvano [Sursilvan] [Sur] Grigionese centrale [Grischun central]: Sottosilvano [Sutsilvan] [Sut]; Surmirano [Surmiran] [Srm]; Bravuogn [Brv] Engadinese e Valmonasterano [Ladin] [Eng]: Alto Engadinese [Puter] [Put]; Basso Engadinese [Vallader] [Val]; Valmonasterano [Jauer] [Jau] Rumantsch Grischun [RG]

III Ladino anaunico

Noneso [Non] Solandro [Sol]

IV Ladino dolomitico

Gardenese [Gherdëina] [Grd] Ladino della Val Badia [Ladin dla Val Badia] [Gad]: Marebbano [Mareo] [Mar]; Ladino dei comuni di San Martino e La Valle [Ladin de Mesaval] [Lmv]; Badiotto [Badiot] [Bad] Fassano [Fascian] [Fas]: Cazet [Caz]; Brach [Bra]; Moenat [Moe] Livinallese [Fodom] [Fod]; Collese [Ladin da Col] [Col] Ampezzano [Anpezan] [Anp] Ladin Dolomitan [LD]

V Ladino bellunese

Agordino [Ag] Cadorino [Cad] Comelicese [Com]

VI Friulano [Furlan]

--Patavium (talk) 19:08, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will not respond to the single points above, as this will end in a never-ending debate (see Pataviums history). One hint only: the assignment of the Anauno- and Belluno-dialects to the Ladin language group has political and financial reasons ("protection of national minorities") but lacks scientific back-up, while "Ladin" (in the sense of "Dolomite Ladin") is an accredited minority language. Only "Ladin in a wider sense" allows for inclusion of those dialects, but this is not what the legislator intended.--Sajoch (talk) 19:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion

Firstly, thank you both for taking the time to explain things in a relatively simple way. It's clear the issue is somewhat controversial at the academic level as well which makes both sides have a valid argument.

Due to the esoteric nature of the problem and the limited editorship here at the English Wikipedia, the article and template should defer to the corresponding Italian Wikipedia entries. Meaning, the English Wikipedia should reflect the consensus found at the Italian Wikipedia. If the debate is also present at the Italian Wikipedia, then the English Wikipedia article should still reflect the current page (barring edit warring; otherwise a hold on edits until the matter is resolved).

I know this option seems like we're making this problem someone else's problem but I think you'll both agree that with out access to sources in Italian as well as other editors who are more knowledgeable about the subject (presumably that can be found on the Italian Wikipedia as well as corresponding WikiProjects) that the issue cannot be resolved here. Furthermore, if the debate is currently ongoing at the Italian Wikipedia, you still have the option to seek a third opinion there as well as to seek to appeal to other editors of languages who know more about the subject. This leaves both sides a further option to seek the changes they want.

Please let me know if you are willing to take this one extra step; I am sorry that you will not have your definitive answer right away. Mkdw ^talk 20:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for you answer. Actually there is no definitive answer anyway. But I think in the articles Ladin language and Rhaetoromance language there is space enough to describe the facts.--Patavium (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No sorry. The italian version is a total mess. While the introduction and terminology is acceptable, the following section about the divisions is contradictory. It even confuses Ladin Dolomitan with Dolomite Ladin. There were redirects between "Lingue retoromanze" and "Lingua ladina" which further exposes the ubiquitous confusion in italian Wikipedia. The talk page of "Lingua ladina" was a link to the "Lingue retoromaze"'s talk page, and editors contributing there were unaware of which article they were talking about... Discussion is still going on, and the relative contents get changed often. The german version instead should be taken as a reference.--Sajoch (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The German version confounds Sella, Dolomites and Cadore. It ignores Kattenbusch. Italian Wikipedia has much more and better articles about Ladin.--Patavium (talk) 22:40, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No way! The article "Rätoromanische Sprachen" doesn't even mention Sella or Cadore. If you find an error, you're welcome to correct it.--Sajoch (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Read Videsott, read the census, read the European Council. The model in this case should be Italian Wikipedia. First we correct the mistakes here and then elsewhere.--Patavium (talk) 23:56, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Videsott mentions: Agordino [Ag] Cadorino [Cad] Comelicese [Com]--Patavium (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Videsott agrees with me. The Census is a collection of numbers without any assertion about the ladinity of a dialect; but even if misinterpreted that way, a mere 21% "ladinity" in Val di Non and 1,5% in in Val di Sole are not a convincing argument. The European Council as well says nothing about the ladinity of a dialect; it simply advocates to guard minority groups and collects lists of areas/communes allocated by local authorities (and neither Val di Non nor Val di Sole appear on such a list!).--Sajoch (talk) 00:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at Videsott's classification.
Please stop questioning all sources but your POV. It is not up to you to decide who is Ladin and who is not.
As I said: there is a recognized Ladin area. Let me think, maybe the dialect is actually Swahili or Faroese??
Non and Sole Valley do not appear at the EC because the territory was not recognized as Ladin. But the people declared themselves as Ladin. How many times do we need to repeat this? Till the 201st kb?--Patavium (talk) 01:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is why I mentioned that even if the Italian article is a mess, its more likely to come to a consensus with other Italian speaking editors contributing to the discussion. Don't you think there's a higher chance for this to be clarified there and more knowledgeable editors to weight in than on the English Wikipedia. The problem with sourcing will be hugely problematic. The solution I proposed was a no-win solution for either side, but it was a solution altogether. If you cannot agree to my recommendation than you can try again at Third Opinion or seek Arbitration, but I will warn you that engaging in an edit war will leave this unresolved and lead to punitive measures. Best of luck to your consensus. Mkdw ^talk 02:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mkdw, I appreciate your efforts, but I'm sorry to tell you that italian Wikipedia is a hopeless clutter of political pov-pushing, where academic sources are seldom relevant and there will never be an agreement. BTW: Patavium is an active "contributor" on italian Wikipedia too. On the other hand knowledgeable editors (among those a linguist, a romance expert and some native ladin-speakers) contributed to the german articles about Ladin and Rhaeto-Romance.--Sajoch (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary. There have been thorough discussions on Italian Wikipedia, leading to some really excellent articles where almost every single sentence is sourced. This was necessary due to massive editwarring brought about by some users.--Patavium (talk) 15:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's impressive and telling at the same time how much you appreciate you very own work, since you, Patavium, are the main author of the Italian article about the Ladin language. It's quite odd, though, when you tout the "really excellent articles where almost every single sentence is sourced" and "thorough discussions on Italian Wikipedia", and, while tyring to verify your claims, the only things I could find are empty talk pages, outdated talk pages, articles with a big citation needed tag up front and articles without warning tag but very poor referencing. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously dissing Italian Wikipedia instead of contributing to the discussion, aren't you? Well, discussions regarding Ladin and Rhaetoromance were put together in Italian Wikipedia. Sajoch was badmouthing Italian Wikipedia in general, my statement was general too. Of course I will not play this game with other Wikis. But i do confirm that in Italian Wikipedia there is a much better control, which results in the tags you listed even in cases when other Wikipedias would consider sources to be sufficient. Moreover, this ignoring sources by Sajoch would have been already sanctioned.

Coming back to the template, you wanted me to discuss my edits previously. Well, that is what I have been doing all time. But I guess it is your usual total revert modus. This is impressive actually.--Patavium (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not badmouthing it.wiki in general. And concerning the alleged sources: whenever we investigate and check "your" sources, we find out you misinterpreted them (see Videsott or Kattenbusch, which both never included anaunic-ladin or the bellunese dialects in a list of Dolomite-Ladin languages). Our WP:AGF has reached its end.--Sajoch (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were badmouthing in general. Sajoch's words: 'sorry to tell you that italian Wikipedia is a hopeless clutter of political pov-pushing are quite eloquent. Moreover, your edit is OT, we are talking about Rhaetoromance.

back to the topic.

Videsott includes bellunese into Rhaetoromance. You editwarred that away.

Kattenbusch includes Comelian, which is Bellunese, into pure Dolomite Ladin. I can show you the paper.--Patavium (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You again show us, you haven't clear the distinction between "Rhaeto-Romance" and "Dolomite Ladin". You're exporting the confusion from it.wiki to en.wiki. That's not helpful at all.--Sajoch (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered a third opinion option at the Italian Wikipedia or seeking to attract more editors there via WikiProjects or RfC? This was a large part of recommendation in the case of dispute at the Italian article side. Mkdw ^talk 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Debate over Nones being Ladin

Perhaps this debate could use some common sense. Although I am not a fluent speaker of Nones, I can tell you that my grandparents could speak Nones to friends from the Val di Fassa and they considered each language as a mere dialect of the other. They never had problems understanding each other. Nones speakers before 1918 did not consider their language Italian in anyway. Whether you wish to consider Nones Ladin or not, those of us with ties to the old language know that we are one and the same, all Trentini! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobli ruali (talk • contribs) 21:54, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constructed?

Furlan standard and Ladin Dolomitan are standardised varieties, not constructed languages. They are no more constructed than Hochdeutsch or Chancery Standard.

Ask yourselves this: if they really are constructed languages, why were they added to Template:Rhaeto-Romance languages instead of Template:Constructed languages? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 15:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]