Talk:Esperanto

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Esperanto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://esperantodc.org/esw6.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150710064458/http://members.aol.com/enrike/ekseo.htm to http://members.aol.com/Enrike/ekseo.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150219234054/http://members.aol.com/enrike/BostnGlb.htm to http://members.aol.com/enrike/BostnGlb.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130511160216/http://esperanto.org/Ondo/H-silf55.htm to http://www.esperanto.org/Ondo/H-silf55.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121222105548/http://dok.esperantic.org/ced/eurlan.htm to http://dok.esperantic.org/ced/eurlan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox looks weird

The Infobox looks weird. I looked at the source and compared with that of Ido (language) but couldn't find any difference. Can some Infobox expert come and fix this? --Worst regards, Greek Fellows". Visit ma talk page and ma contributions. 17:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

proposed deletion of "Increasing use of Esperanto" section

I propose to delete the section "Increasing use of Esperanto", because it is based entirely on primary sources. As such, it is impossible to tell whether the examples that are shown represent a fair and balanced view, or whether they have been carefully selected while avoiding other statistics. (I see for example that the number of members of the World Esperanto Association shows a decrease in recent decades, and that the numbers of people registering for the World Congress each year has no very obvious trend - at least if the numbers shown in the Esperanto Wikipedia at [1] and [2] are correct). Please can somebody add one or more appropriate secondary sources, or explain why they are not needed. Thank you.

I am, of course, aware that it is not practical to source absolutely everything in the article, and for example I have no gripe that the article contains many unsourced statements about the linguistics of Esperanto, because these are presumably uncontentious. However, the number of speakers is more "political", and therefore I believe demands a more robust standard of sourcing.

--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Scientific studies about the fact that Esperanto is easy-to-learn

Everyone knows it - but are there scientific studies? Shouldn't the article quote them? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 09:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Esperanto and Criticism

Hello, i'm the author of this edit User:Prosfilaes has undone: here Undid revision 698119454 by 62.37.217.199 (talk); He said the reason was "too argumentative in a section about criticism". Here's what two Esperanto learners from Duolingo commented on my fb post about this: "I like your version a LOT better. The version on the page now seems irrational, just another way for skeptics to insult Esperanto." and "Too argumentative in a section about criticism, it's a bit ironic... Is it better to criticise without arguments?". If there's a criticism section I believe, in order to be serious and objective, that there should be both points of view (separated or every critic followed with an objective countercritic as I think I did for example).

The French article about Esperanto does not show any criticism section but they do have a separated article only about it (with counterarguments to see both views and let the reader know and maybe even choose). The Spanish and English wikipedias show that section in the main article about esperanto, and they also have separated articles for further (almost repeated) criticism.

Well, that said, as I posted on fb too, I do not understand why there is not a criticism section for the main articles about English, Spanish, French, etc., big ethnic languages that are playing a role they weren't born for... a role as international (or interpeoples/interethnic) communication tool. There's a lot writen about inequalities in so many fields caused by this role playing, even university lectures. Do you think the Spanish Wikipedia editors would accept that section for every article about those three languages? One year ago i saw this article, for me very interesting when i read it for the first time 4 years ago, being speedy deleted. The reason was "not relevant because I can't find any thesis or many articles about this report on the internet" (so articles are relevant only if you find thesis about it? why not adding a button "you've reached the end of the article, do you think this was relevant to you?" and let readers decide?). I guess they didn't quite like the conclusion from that economist and the wanted it out of view. --Alekso92 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2016 (UTC)