Talk:Esperanto
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Esperanto article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | Criticism of Esperanto was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 April 2016 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Esperanto. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
 | 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. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future: |
List of sources about the number of native speakers
https://denaskuloj.home.blog/2019/03/15/kiom-da-denaskuloj-estas-en-la-tuta-mondo/
Tuxayo (talk) 18:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
- The Hungarian 2011 census counted 8397 speakers, of which 7412 don't speak it as a mother tongue (meaning that 985 do).[1] Hegsareta (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ "1.1.4.2 Population by language knowledge and sex". Hungarian Central Statistical Office.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help)
Removal of request to check a source for reliability
Just a heads up that I removed this tag from some data regarding the time it takes to learn Esperanto vs. other (European) languages. I checked the source and found the following:- the original study was done by a research institute of Paderborn University who are respected in the international pedagogic field, meeting part of wiki’s reliability criteria. The results were published in a printed text, which meets another part of the wiki reliability criteria. And the quotation itself came from a French document (quoting the printed Paderborn results) which was produced as a consultation document for the French Ministry of Education by an organisation the French government created to provide reliable data about school education for its Ministry. To me this seems to be about as reliable a source as it can be.
The only issue I can see is it’s hard to check if you don’t read French but at WP:V it states that the source being in the wiki’s native tongue isn’t a requirement for something to qualify as a reliable source, although it is preferred when available.
BTW I don’t speak Esperanto but I do speak French ;-) Dakinijones (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks, Dakinijones. BTW, I speak Esperanto with high though not native fluency, but I only read French a fair bit better than I speak it. :-)
BTW2, I added a link to your mention of WP:V. It's easier for most readers to understand that way. --Thnidu (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
"He" used generically in English
Under Neutrality > Gender:
"As in English, li "he" may be used generically, whereas ŝi "she" is always female."
I'm not sure that this is correct. How can "he" be used generically in English? Perhaps the writer meant to say that the male form of a profession (actor, baron, etc.) can be used generically, while the female form (actress, baroness, etc.) is always female? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.194.218.228 (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
- Traditional English grammars (i.e. those written between the eighteenth century and the mid-twentieth century) preferred he as a pronoun for a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant. Examples from Wikipedia:
| “ | If any one did not know it, it was his own fault | ” |
— George Washington Cable, Old Creole Days (1879)
| “ | No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality | ” |
— Article 15, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948)
| “ | everyone will be able to decide for himself whether or not to have an abortion | ” |
— Albert Bleumenthal, New York State Assembly
- However, this rule fell out of fashion in the 1960s because it came to be seen as sexist. The most common alternative nowadays is the singular they, but not many of those who reject the singular they would advocate the generic he as an alternative.
- I have reworded the text to remove the suggestion that generic he is standard in English. Kahastok talk 10:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- On the contrary, I think that many of those who reject the singular they would advocate the generic he as an alternative. The change may have started in the 1960s, but I remember cases of it being used in the 1980s and 1990s. I don't know of its current prevalence, but I think the comparison is important.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Nightic Esperanto
Hello, I have completed the Nightic Esperanto alphabet! Say "egg" on this discussion if you want me to make an article about it! I'm so excited! This poll will close in 7 days. PhoenixSummon (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hen. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 21:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Ok, don't be rude. I just wanted people's opinions.
Ok, the poll is closed. I will postpone the article to 01/23/2020. Thanks for the time, bye! PhoenixSummon (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
- @PhoenixSummon: LiliCharlie wasn't being rude (unless that's what "hen" was about). They were just telling you that your idea doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and pointing you to the page explaining that policy. If you post such an article it will be swiftly deleted. The only way it could belong in Wikipedia is if you publish your idea somewhere else and it is picked up and commented on in reliable sources such as newspapers, news reports, dictionaries, academic papers, etc. Then an article could be written about it – but not by you. Someone else would have to write it up. That's another Wikipedia rule: basically, someone with an interest in a topic shouldn't write about it. Quoting Wikipedia:Independent sources:
- Wikipedia is not a place to promote things or publish your thoughts, and is not a website for personal communication, a freely licensed media repository, or a censored publication.
- --Thnidu (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
not a language according to most linguists
Apparently linguists now understand that Esperanto and other international auxiliary languages are not languages but parasitic systems based on real languages: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C09jMAH6X18&feature=youtu.be&t=1231 at 20'30" and 22'30". --Espoo (talk) 11:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how a couple of sentences by one linguist who hasn't studied Esperanto supports the claim that "most linguists say Esperanto is not a language". Mutichou (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2019 (UTC)