File talk:Language distribution in South Tyrol and Trentino.png

Mappa errata

In Trentino-Alto Adige il censimento rileva ben cinque gruppi, italiano, tedesco, ladino, cimbro e mocheno. Qui sembrano tre e non è corretto, perché cimbro e mocheno fanno gruppo per conto proprio e non fanno parte del gruppo linguistico tedesco.--Patavium (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Cimbro and Mocheno are not German? You may repeat it another 1000 times, it doesn't become true. Please explain your findings here: en:Mòcheno language and en:Cimbrian language.--Sajoch (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sajoch, almeno prenditi il tempo di leggere.

Sajoch, Cimbrian and Mocheno are separate languages in the census. If you consider them as German, you are free to do this, the census you should have used for the map distinguishes instead between German, Mocheno, Cimbrian, Ladin and Italian. They are all separate groups. Stop manipulating the census according to your POV.--Patavium (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I perfectly know Cimbrian and Mocheno were counted separately in the Census, and that is OK for the purpose of fundraising based on the numeric consistency of the ethnic groups. But we are not doing politics here. This is a map showing the languages (color-tint), the percentages (color-hue) and the dialects (in the text). And if you look at the map, you can clearly identify where "Mocheno", "Cimbrian", "Noneso", "Brach", "Cazet" or "Moenat" are spoken. So there's a lot more in that map than you are requesting. And now please stop bashing my work.--Sajoch (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Your map will be removed or at least corrected. Mocheno and Cimbrian are not German in the census.--Patavium (talk) 23:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I guess, it would be the best option to give other colours to Mocheno and Cimbrian. They are indeed often classified as German, but in fact the minority laws of the Trentino avoid that word. Anyway, it's quite common to subsume these dialects as German (one of innumerable examples), hence the addition of the template was completely out of place. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I "could" give different colors to Mocheno and Cimbrian, but:

• I tried to reuse the same colors I used for other maps (ladin=blue, german=green)
• I chose to use different colors only at the language level, not at the dialect level - otherwise I also should use different colors for Brach, Cazet or Moenat and at the next Census maybe another color for Noneso...
• the map's title is "Language distribution" and in fact does not depict the dialects (trentinian, venetian, lombard etc. are also missing!)
• I try not to consider political reasoning
• another user wouldn't stop harassing me and marking my improvements as vandalism

Well, I now try to give those two dialects slightly different hues...--Sajoch (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

The previous map of Trentino assigned the two languages different colors, yellow and green.--Patavium (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

What previous map? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Question

Is it correct to assume, that those communes, where neither ladin, mocheno nor cimbrian had a population of more than 4 people (and thus those minorities are well under 10%), have a majority of italian speakers? If so, is it correct to assume, that the percentage of italians in those communes is 100% minus the number of people declaring another language? If this calculus is not perfect for whatever reason, is a presentation error of up to 5% acceptable (as the areas in the image are colored in steps of 10%)? I'm aware, that there are immigrants from many countries living in this region speaking a huge variety of languages - but as neither in South Tyrol nor in Trentino any of those languages was counted, would it be correct to ignore those languages alltogether in this map?--Sajoch (talk) 15:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

New version

Please leave the version as it was agreed upon on Italian Wikipedia. After my edit it was inserted into the article related to the region.[1] The previous version was wrong.--Patavium (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There was no agreement! On the opposite, there are some unanswered questions of mine you ignored.--Sajoch (talk) 11:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

From en.wiki

Taken from en.wiki[2]--Patavium (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• This map is original research by Sajoch and a manipulation of the Census.
• Mocheno and Cimbrian are languages different from German http://www.statistica.provincia.tn.it/binary/pat_statistica/demografia/15CensGenPopolazione.1340956277.pdf 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 population of Ladin, Mocheno and Cimbrian language. Not a word about German language.
• There is no assessment of Italian language in Trentino.
• The statistic population of the census in Trentino and South Tyrol is different. Data cannot be mixed together.--Patavium (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you for finally starting to discuss the topic. The first issue, however, is already explained in the article, citing the academic essay by Anthony R. Rowley whose title is more or less self-explanatory "Mocheno e Cimbro". Von Dialek(en) zu Sprache(n)? ("Mocheno and Cimbrian". From dialect(s) to language(s)?). He's explaining there how the legal recognition and and relation to the Standard German of these deutsche Sprachinseln (German dialect islands) is evolving. It is indeed a fact that the provincial laws avoid the word German, although the very first article speaks of popolazioni germanofone (German-speaking population) and first drafts still included the words tedesco (German) and di origine germanica (of German ancestry) and were only shortly rewritten. Anyway, in linguistics Mocheno and Cimbrian are still typically classified as German dialects and I don't see any kind of "original research" by Sajoch. The map provides the information where Mocheno and Cimbrian are spoken and reflects therefor the census. What Sajoch did is using a similar colour for Mocheno, Cimbrian and South Tyrolean German (which is linguistically justified) and subsuming them in the caption.
• I don't get what you are saying. Are you denying that Italian is spoken in the red coloured areas?
• I'll add that information to the file description. As long as we say clearly that the statistic population in the two provinces is different, we don't have any problems. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 08:20, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The document I took the data from, and we all are referring to, lists all communes with more than 4 persons declaring a minority language. And as no commune has less than 40 inhabitants, it's correct to assume, that there aren't any communes with less than 90% italian speaking people. Even if we assume there is a commune with 4 ladins, 4 mocheni and 4 cimbri (combined 12 minority-speakers), which is missing in the above document, and as the map shows language-ranges in steps of 10%, this commune can only be missing, if those 12 persons account for more than 10%, and thus the commune has at most 119 inhabitants. Such a small commune does not exist in Trentino (the smallest being Palù del Fersina with 169 inhabitants, where 93% declared mocheno btw.).--Sajoch (talk) 19:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• There is a statistical problem: the statistic population of the census in South Tyrol are the Italian citizens, in Trentino the inhabitants. It is not possible to mix them.
• In Trentino only minorities are assessed, i.e. Cimbrian, Mocheno and Ladin. There is no assessment of Italian language.
• The census does not say if in the rest of Trentino Italian in spoken. It could be Trentinian, Venetian, Lombard etc, but also Arab, Romanian etc. The census does not assess this.
• Cimbrian and Mocheno are recognized as different languages under the so called Second Autonomy Statute.
• In fact Mocheno and Cimbrian minorities have their own media in their languages.
• Separate maps for Trentino (of course not the one manipulated by Sajoch) and South Tyrol would be statistically and factually correct.--Patavium (talk) 11:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To Patavium: Please desist from dissing on User:Sajoch by publicly writing that he purposely "manipulated" facts, and keep a neutral tone. Assume WP:GOODFAITH and engage in a productive discussion. Gryffindor (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. But en.Wiki is not a planet out of this universe, if you know what I mean.--Patavium (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Patavium: if you have anything to object, please discuss it on Commons. As you are bad-mouthing any(!) map I created or updated, you aren't credible - it's only personal attacks.--Sajoch (talk) 15:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course not. You created some useful map, but you also created maps that simply do not correspond to what the sources say. The maps you created using the Italian census 2011 are not correct and should be therefore removed here. We already have much better ones. In fact, we are discussing about if your maps can be inserted into the encyclopaedia. Commons has different standards.

Maybe the problem is that the data of the census in Trentino are only in Italian, in this case we can find someone that helps.--Patavium (talk) 17:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that the statistic data for Trentino are credible.--Patavium (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally it is not a personal, but a statistical problem.--Patavium (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Since removing this map was not possible due to massive editwarring, at least the biggest mistakes were corrected. Please notice my disclaimer:

Please note that the method of gathering statistical data on the population in the two provinces was different and the data aren't directly comparable

• In Trentino the statistical population is given by the inhabitants, in South Tyrol by the citizens;
• In Trentino only minorities are assessed. There is no assessment of Italian language.

Thanks. --Patavium (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! The map has been removed finally! I had tried to remove it previously, but edit-warring made this impossible.

If someone wants to reinsert, please consider this disclaimer. The best thing would be not to reinsert it.--Patavium (talk) 22:27, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at your edits Patavium, and you are basically objecting that Mocheno and Cimbrian are bundled together as Germanic languages? Gryffindor (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

End of discussion from en.wiki [3]--Patavium (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC) To be continued here

I think I explained the problems of the map above, didn't I?--Patavium (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cimbrian and Mocheno are Germanic languages, but they are not German. They are considered as independent languages. It is quite the same as with Luxembourgish.

Therefore, the census makes a clear distinction between German, Mocheno and Cimbrian.--Patavium (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

None of you did take a look at Commons:OVERWRITE? --Vituzzu (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vituzzu! I did. And in fact, that's why I created this new map. I also created File:Language distribution Trentino 2011.png instead of overwriting File:Language distribution Trentino 2001.png, as the new map was based (among others) on 2011 Census data. I also created this map: File:Rhaeto-Romance languages.png basing it on scientific sources instead of overwriting this one: File:Rhaeto-Romance languages.svg.--Sajoch (talk) 21:48, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Is changing two colors allowed? Otherwise the problem can be solved easily. Sajoch's maps are not based on the census. They are original research.--Patavium (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Cutting short

First of all let's be quiet: I noticed several reverts in a short lapse of time so I invite all the users involved in this discussion not to try to revert the image again or - regardless who's the last edit - I'll prevent the file from being reverted further. Second, is anyone able to explain me in plain Italian the meaning of In Trentino the statistical population is given by the inhabitants, in South Tyrol by the citizens ? Might be that my English is not that good, anyway I haven't understood what does the abovementioned sentence mean. Third question: let's apart the politics, can we safely consider Mòcheno and Cimbrian as derived from German (as linguists affirm) and, for the sake of the encyclopaedic accuracy, aggregate them to the German group? Should the answer be "No", is there any cogent rationale for considering them a language itself not related to any of the bigger ethnic groups (Italian and German) living in the region? And for "cogent" I mean a rationale that doesn't attempt to deny a familiarity of the abovementioned languages with the German? -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 22:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Ciao Sergio, grazie per il tuo intervento.

La questione si pone nei termini seguenti. In Trentino ed in Alto Adige, in occasione del censimento decennale della popolazione, viene fatta una rilevazione statistica dei gruppi linguisitici:

• in Alto Adige i cittadini italiani (quindi ad esclusione degli stranieri) maggiori di 14 anni debbono dichiararsi appartenenti al gruppo linguistico italiano, tedesco o ladino.
• in Trentino la popolazione ha facoltà di indicare la propria appartenenza a una delle tre minoranze tutelate in provincia: cimbri, mocheni o ladini (non dei tedeschi).

La frase In Trentino the statistical population is given by the inhabitants, in South Tyrol by the citizens vuol dire che la popolazione statistica, cioè la base numerica del censimento linguistico, è differente in Trentino, dove si contano gli abitanti (cittadini e stranieri), mentre in Alto Adige si contano i cittadini italiani (non gli stranieri). Quindi non si può dare una rappresentazione unitaria del censimento proiettandolo su base regionale, perché a livello delle due province si usano basi di calcolo fra loro diverse.

Tieni poi conto che in Trentino si contano solo le minoranze cimbra, mochena e ladina, non viene invece contato un ipotetico gruppo italiano.

Pertanto la cartina non solo è statisticamente invalida, ma lo è anche dal punto di vista contenutistico, perché inserisce in Trentino un gruppo italiano che nel censimento trentino non è previsto (vedi la fonte sopra).

In questo senso la cartina è proprio errata ed andrebbe rimossa, o comunque non utilizzata nelle enciclopedie, perché scientificamente non corretta.

Sulla terza questione, tedesco - cimbro - mocheno la questione si pone nei seguenti termini.

Il cimbro e il mocheno sono lingue a sè stanti, distinte dal tedesco. Hanno la tv nella loro lingua, studiano la loro lingua con testi scolastici scritti con una propria grafia che non è tedesca, fanno concorsi pubblici (!) nella loro lingua (non in tedesco).

Si tratta certo di lingue imparentate, ma alla fine diverse. E soprattutto, ai fini del censimento di cui si parla, nettamente distinte (rimando ai link). Pertanto avevo chiesto che per le due lingue venisse utilizzato un colore a sè.

Quindi, volendo proprio mantenere questa cartina, statisticamente e contenutisticamente errata, ho insistito che almeno cimbro - mocheno - tedesco fossero ben riconoscibili come distinti fra di loro.

Per aver creato una mappa del Trentino dove cimbro e mocheno erano nettamente distinti il collega Gryffindor aveva anche ricevuto The Graphic Designer's Barnstar.--Patavium (talk) 23:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Aggiungo che la cartina senza correzioni è anche incompleta, lasciando delle chiazze bianche inspiegate. Trattasi di Merano e Romallo. Qui le mie correzioni--Patavium (talk) 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sergio, I guess it's a mistake to think that this conflict here is based on a thematic controversy. We're dealing with a long-term personal conflict between Sajoch and Patavium. It would be too long now, to renarrate their antagonism in all its turns and twists, I'll limit myself to point out that both of them got several blocks on it.wikipedia (for weeks and months...), Patavium got blocked on de.wikipedia twice (his second block with the rationale Erhebliche Projektstörung - extensive project disruption), Patavium only stopped his edit warring on en.wikipedia after being reported (indeed, I deem that a learning curve) and that Patavium's appearance here on Commons is exclusively motivated by the fact that Sajoch contributed several maps. That's what he said himself in his very first edit here. Patavium's aim is clearly: destroying Sajoch's work.

I guess this information brings some light into this issue. Patavium is complaining, screaming, rioting, ranting, edit warring (on en. and it.wikipedia) against that map, supposedly because Sajoch entitled himself to a) summarise Mocheno and Cimbrian as German in the caption (which is linguistically justified), b) assumed that the non-minority areas in the Trentino are Italian-speaking (well, without words, you may think yourself about that level of "original research"...) and c) dared to draw a map of the entire region (even noting in the file description that the data aren't directly comparable).. As I said, Patavium's complaints with regard to contents are completely non-credible, let's just have a brief look at a map that he drew himself: File:Südtirol nella storia-historisch gewachsen IT.png. Well, I don't want to go into details, but the map is a tendentious over-simplification (not taking account of the fact that Südtirol was mostly a generic ambiguous word and not a strict concept in pre-1918 times). Anyway, the most striking fact there is the complete lack of sources. There is no comparable map anywhwere in the world, it is plain original research at its highest level, nevertheless Patavium drew that map and used it on it.wikipedia. How does this fit to the arguments Patavium is bringing up here? Do we need any further evidence that this discussion here is not really about matters of fact but a personal crusade? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mai-Sachme.

Well, I read all the posts about this topic and watched both users' history. It looks to me like that we are in front of the typical political querelle masked by linguistic issue.

There is no reason for changing the picture since we can safely call both Mòcheno and Cimbrian as derived from German. As for the province of Trento, there is no assessment of Italian-speaking people just because the default in that province is that people speak Italian, other languages being the exception not the rule.

That said, due to the absolute irrilevance of such quarrel (might be that I live in Rome thus this topic doesn't excite me at all) the next step will be blocking whoever attempts to revert this image.

As a personal advice, I would humbly suggest that the users involved in this dispute contribute in different fields than ethnics in Trentino-Alto Adige, a topic in which they showed lack of co-operation and - as opposed - lots of conflictuality.

As for the picture reported by Mai-Sachme, I just filed a RfD -- SERGIO ^{(aka the Blackcat)} 10:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I uploaded three images that were removed without any discussion.--Patavium (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Rereading Mai-Sachmes accusations was really interesting.

In this edit, in the field "Oggetto" Sajoch added the following comment: Falsificazione da parte di Patavium non accettata!, meaning falsification by Patavium not accepted. Apart from the fact that there was a discussion about the change by WolfRayet, I still cannot accept that my name is associated with falsification on a map that is used in Italian Wikipedia.

Do we need any further evidence that this discussion here is not really about matters of fact?. The matters of fact have been proposed to discussion, but instead of discussing it Mai-Sachme preferred to roll over old histories that have nothing to do with the content of the discussion.--Patavium (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Patavium, but there was no "discussion". You asked to alter an image, and at first WolfRayet fulfilled your wish. But after I told Wolfrayet, the modifications were bogus, he checked and concluded I was right (Ho analizzato a fondo la questione e ... devo dare ragione a Sajoch translated: I looked closely into the issue and ... I have to agree with Sajoch). WolfRayet seeked advise with another user (Angelus) and decided to cancel and archive the request.--Sajoch (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

This was a piece of the discussion related to the Dialects in Italy. This discussion here is about Trentino-South Tyrol.

As Blackcat said, he has no passion for this issue. He put an end to this editwar and this was fine.

Unfortunately there was no discussion about the real problems of the maps but about personal block logs, which is not exactly the sense of a discussion. In fact there was Mai-Sachme's usual intervention about the person. He had not a single argument against the factual objections.

Besides there was a misterious removal of most of my maps without any warning or discussion.--Patavium (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Face it: in neither of the discussions there was agreement for your modifications. And nobody else (beside you) complained about my works.--Sajoch (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)