Talk:Esperanto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article Esperanto was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
          Assessments and listings in WikiProjects
WikiProject Constructed languages / Esperanto  (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Constructed languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of constructed 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Esperanto task force.
 
Note icon
This article is an Esperanto core topic.
WikiProject Languages (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of standardized, informative and easy-to-use resources about 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.


Removed statement with dead link[edit]

I've removed the following statement, "and can also help preserve cultural heritage that can be endangered by the widespread use of English.[13]" The link supporting the assertion is dead, and the statement leans toward political advocacy. There is little evidence that Esperanto is being used to offset cultural threats from the use of English, especially since most people that learn Esperanto are not native English speakers to begin with, as outlined and referenced with sources in the article itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.226.232 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

"Most populous"[edit]

User:Kwamikagami has reverted two different users because we think that "most spoken language" is better then "most populous language".Google Ngrams shows that "most spoken" is consistently way more common in English then "most populous". Neither Merriam Webster or Wiktionary include that definition. Google Books shows a paltry 28 hits for "most populous language". I'm not getting why this is a problem; it's clear which form is more widely accepted in English, and Kwamikagami has not given a single reason to prefer "populous" over "spoken" here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

They do give the def: "has a large population", in this case a large speaking population. That's not jargon. "Most spoken" sounds wrong because it doesn't state what it means: the most colloquial? the least written? the least sung? Arguably, all extant languages are equally spoken. Yes, like a lot of poorly worded phrases you know what's meant from context, but it seems like the wrong word for the meaning. I guess it's a pet peeve of mine: Every time I come across the phrase "most/least spoken language", I wonder why they say it so awkwardly. — kwami (talk) 22:11, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
And languages don't have wt:population. Merriam-Webster's definition is more useful, but it's still not a close fit. When you say a large speaking population, that's your interpolation; I think the rest of us are completely comfortable with giving "most spoken" the obvious reading, as well. I'd be fine with "the six languages spoken" (or "used") "by the most people", if all the shorter phrases are considered too elliptic for general comfort.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Languages do have a population. The longer phrasing is fine by me. — kwami (talk) 06:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Overtly promoting the "language?[edit]

The entire article (even the criticism, which borders on the dismissive) and all the "Talk" here is relentlessly positive about the subject.

While its supporters are entitled to their opinion, the whole tenor of the article seems to be promoting the "language." (I do not entirely accept its status as a language, any more than the doggerel invented by children to conceal meanings from their parents and acquaintances, or the linguistic characteristics of certain groups - for example "Ebonics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExpatSalopian (talkcontribs) 23:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC) ExpatSalopian (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I doN't doubt there are issues with the article, but you "do not entirely accept its status as a language"?—lingusits do. What are your credentials? That you would compare Esperanto to Ebonics (?!?) is evidence enough that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:56, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
African American Vernacular English is a completely valid variety of English, every bit as valid as New England English or Manchester dialect or General American in the eyes of descriptive linguists. I'm sure if you don't believe that Esperanto is a language, you might find the article problematic, just like I might find Florida if I don't believe that Florida is a real state. However, WP:NPOV requires that we treat it as a language, given that the idea that Esperanto isn't a language is incredibly marginal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Baha'i-ism[edit]

No one cares. Not every friggin' article has to have a section on Baha'i-ism. It's getting annoying. If I wanted to find out about this false religion, I'd go to its own page. I'm sick of looking something up on Wikipedia, and coming across yet another irrelevant section on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6034:3:25d9:cd61:4454:cb8b (talk)