File talk:Rhaeto-Romance languages.png

Sources

To have comparable data, I used sources of about the same time (years 1998-2001). That's why I preferred data from the 2001 census for Ladins (South Tyrol and Trentino) rather than from 2011, which is also available (see [1] and [2]).--Sajoch (talk) 00:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

This is the used data:

Federal Statistical Office data 2000 for Romansh [3]:
(68 communes with >30% Rumansc language)

Research work by Vittorio Dell'Aquila and Gabriele Iannaccaro, data collected spring 1998([4], page 238):
BZ: Badia: 94,0% Corvara: 92,0% Enneberg: 93,3% La Ila: 98,1% S. Martin: 97,3% Urtijei: 69,8% S. Cristina: 90,20% Sëlva: 87,0% Ciastel:
TN: Campitello: 75,2% Canazei: 64,8% Mazzin: 76,7% Moena: 55,1% Pozza: 76,6% Soraga: 76,5% Vigo: 78,9%
BL: Fodom: 79,4% Col: 73,7% Ampezzo: 33.4%

Research work by University of Udine 2001 about the Friulan language ([5]), ISBN 88-8420-033-4 - data collected: 15.12.1998 till 15.3.1999:
Average usage: 57,2%

Alternatives (not used)

Official Census data 2001 for South Tyrol ([6]):
Badia: 93,43% Corvara: 91% Enneberg: 93,3% La Ila: 97,67% S. Martin: 97,27% Urtijei: 82,32% S. Cristina: 91,20% Sëlva: 87,84%

Official Census data 2001 for Trentino ([7]):
Campitello: 85,4% Canazei: 82,4% Mazzin: 86,6% Moena: 75,6% Pozza: 88,8% Soraga: 85,3% Vigo: 85,8%

--Sajoch (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Mappa errata

Questa mappa è errata. Mancano la Val di Non e quasi tutto il Bellunese.--Patavium (talk) 21:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

La mappa si basa su dati scientifici (vedi sopra) ed è precisa quanto possibile. Nelle valli che tu citi invece (fino a prova contraria) si parla un dialetto veneto e/o trentino.--Sajoch (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Infatti in Ampezzo solo il 33% parla ladino. E tu togli i comuni della Val di Non dove si arriva al 50%... Sei invitato a correggere questa e tutte le altre POV-cartine.--Patavium (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Infatti il colore ad Ampezzo rispecchia la precentuale "30%-60%". La fonte non menziona invece la Val di Non. Non chiedermi di falsificare le mappe, come stai facendo su it.wiki!--Sajoch (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

La mappa è falsa perché ignora il Ladino Bellunese a il Ladino Anaunico, anch'essi ladini e dunque retoromanzi.--Patavium (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all: the language of Commons is English. Secondly: the map provides a precise reproduction of the given sources, hence the addition of the Template:Fact disputed is unfunded. Thirdly: your edit comment "original research" shows a clear lack of understanding what we are doing here on Commons. Even if the map was a plain invention of Sajoch (which is not the case), there is no such thing as a "no original research-policy".

If you are going to continue the edit warring, I won't hesitate to report your behaviour. And given the fact that your activities here exclusively consist in personalized actions against Sajoch, I wouldn't take your chances.

And then: there are discussions going on in the scientific community which dialects/languages in the Alps can be regarded as Rhaeto-Romance. Some sources regard only the languages in the map as Rhaeto-Romance, others include the dialects you mentioned, as well. Feel free to draw an additional map that accounts for the broader perspective on Rhaeto-Romance languages. But the existence of both perspectives (in fact there aren't just two, but several others, as well) doesn't make the one or the other invalid and the one or the other map inaccurate.

The function of the template you try to add is to warn users in the case that "the description or the file name is disputed." Your complaint, however, is based on the observation that the map shows the Rhaeto-Romance languages in a narrow sense which isn't less or more valid than any other linguistic concept of Rhaeto-Romance languages. By no means, that can be a reason to add the template. Following your logic every map about Rhaeto-Romance languages could possibly be tagged, since the map drawer has to choose one among many differing concepts. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I rewrote the file description, explaining which concept of Ladin the map is based on. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not make the offender a victim. Ladin language is spoken in Italy, where it is recognized in a territory much larger than what Sajoch's maps suggest, and it is also spoken in Non Valley, where people declare themselves as Ladin. All linguistic maps were quite clear about those facts before Sajoch's actions. Now the maps have deficiencies.

There my be different concepts, but as far as Italy is concerned, the question is not that complex. Of course there are minority reports, usually supported by scholars out of Italy.

In my view, it was you who did not understand the concept of original research. Here on commons it may not apply, but within the encyclopaedias it does. Original research maps should not be inserted into the articles of an encyclopaedia. Even if they can stay here.

And Mai-Sachme, I know you love to report users you do not agree with and have them blocked. At least this time you did refrain from accusations of fascism. That is very much of a progress.--Patavium (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please stay on-topic. The map is a precise reproduction of the given sources, all sources are accurately cited. The extension of the Ladin language area is based on this academic monography. Original research (you added the fact disputed-template with that edit summary) is by no means (!) a topic here, even if there was such a Commons policy.

However, many sources disagree about the exact extension of the Ladin language area. I think it's not helpful if you claim that "as far as Italy is concerned, the question is not that complex." Yes, the question is complex. You seem to support the broadest possible perspective on Ladin, including - beside the five central valleys - the dialects of Cadore and the Non and Sole valley. Other sources, like the ones used by Sajoch, have a more narrow perspective. It's not our job to decide this question. Sajoch has provided a map which shows (sourced!) a more narrow definition of Ladinity which is per se not more or less correct or wrong than any other definition you'll find in academic contexts. The addition of the template was completely out of place. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 07:00, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In my view it is not precise (e.g. Cortina, the range 30-60% is quite arbitrary etc.). But I think you are right, the discussion does not belong to here.--Patavium (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, all languages are allowed here on Commons. They are very liberal here, maybe a bit too much...--Patavium (talk) 17:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The range "30-60%" was dictated by the data we have for Graubünden (see Sources). I cannot use different scales for each area.--Sajoch (talk) 21:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You should stick to the Rätoromanische Bibliographie: Idiome (mit ihren Abkürzungen) I Il retoromanzo nella sua totalità 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] Maybe you can handle it.[8]--Patavium (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)