Talk:Esperanto/Archive 20

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15 ← Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 → Archive 24

deletion of "Increasing use of Esperanto" section

Given no response to my earlier message, now archived, I will now actually delete it, for the reasons stated in that message. If anyone objects, feel free to restore it and then we can discuss further. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I support deletion for the reasons you gave in the previous section. Kahastok talk 20:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll also just mention that I got a notification of "thanks" from user LLarson for removing the section, so that makes another in agreement not otherwise visible here. Also just to note that the section I removed did actually cite a peer-reviewed academic paper as the source for the statistic of the number of native Esperanto speakers in 1996. However, where I previously referred to primary and secondary sources, the essence of my criticism was not what type of source the raw statistic comes from, but the lack of attribution for the conclusion that this statistic is part of an overall increase in the use of Esperanto. If that journal article made such a conclusion and was cited as such then it would be a different matter entirely, but the Wikipedia article made no such claim. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

When you proposed the deletion of the whole section, you wrote that "the section 'Increasing use of Esperanto'" "is based" "on primary sources". So I do not understand why you deleted all these informations which do have sources. Just delete that part that does not have a source.
You wrote that "the number of speakers is more 'political', and therefore I believe demands a more robust standard of sourcing.". As the title of the section indicates, the section is about the "increasing use of Esperanto". The title is not about an increasing number of Esperanto speakers and this is not the focus of the section. The paragraphs are about a census, the number of native speakers, the number of Esperanto associations in Africa, the number of hosts in a yearbook, the number of music albums, the number of participants in Esperanto meetings, the Esperanto wikipedia and the number of articles there, the number of dissertations about Esperanto.
The first sentence of the section you deleted is: "There are several numbers indicating an increasing use of Esperanto during the last decades." I think this is understandable from what follows, no? What kind of secondary source do you need?
I wrote an article about "La daŭra kresko de Esperantujo" in 2002 (something like 'The constant growth of the Esperanto world'). Here is the publication in La Ondo de Esperanto, 2002. 7 (93). The article was at the same time published also in the review "Esperanto" (World Esperanto Association) and "Heroldo de Esperanto".
Yes, you are right, the number of members of the World Esperanto Association shows a decrease after 1990. This number is not directly linked to the use of Esperanto. Would you quote the number of members of an "English Language Society", if you would like to judge about the general use of English? Are you a member of such a society? - The number of members of the Esperanto associations is nowadays decreasing mainly - in my opinion - because above all they offer print material. Today I just do not need a printed yearbook once a year or a printed review every month or a printed book, when these informations and materials are available online everyday. As to the decrease right after 1990: At that time the communist block collapsed and so did many Esperanto associations in Eastern Europe.
The numbers of people registering for the World Congress each year has indeed no very obvious trend. Maybe you noticed that there are now more World Congresses overseas and there is now an Asian Congress and an American Congress and a (small) African Congress. The World Congresses overseas have less participants, because the travel is expensive, if you live in Europe (still probably more than half of the Esperanto speakers). The other reason is: Congresses do not grow without an end. The increasing use of Esperanto occurs mainly in other gatherings and in the internet. Many people ask themselves why they should go to an expensive congress with lectures not always high standard, while good lectures are available online without paying for them.
Is it ok for User LLarson that you publish his thanks when they are sent only to you? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 11:22, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Good question, but I hadn’t read the fine print; I assumed that thanks were publically associated with specific edits in the logs, but evidently they’re not. —LLarson (said & done) 14:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The matter at hand though seems simple based on what kind of sources would be required to make similar claims about the growth of similarly‑sized languages: the sources would have to be numerous, in both that language and in English, and they’d have to provide specific numbers over a specific time. —LLarson (said & done) 14:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Compromise: "Increase and decrease"

Thank you for your comments; it seems, I now better understand your idea. Maybe the main problem with the section is the title "Increasing use of Esperanto". If it were something like "Evolution of the use of Esperanto over time" or (EDIT: Fields of...) Increase and decrease - would this be ok for all of you, Money_money_tickle_parsnip, Kahastok, LLarson? Then we could put in it all the numbers I collected (maybe in a sub-section like "(indications of) increasing use") and also other numbers like the number of members of Esperanto associations (decreasing; as well as the number of speakers in Lithuania following the census there - but the population there decreases) and the number of participants in World Congresses (no trend). Something like Kresko kaj malkresko (increase and decrease) on the page "Statistiko de Esperantujo" (~Statistics of the Esperanto community and use). Such a compromise would eliminate the problem of now which is that the reader is not at all informed about any evolution of Esperanto over time - and in the end, Wikipedia is meant to inform the reader about the world and to show available information, not to withhold information which obviously has primary sources (this is uncontested).

Here is an article about the increasing number of learners of Esperanto in the German newspaper "Die Welt" which was taken from the German newsagency dpa. Probably the position of the wikipedia should be the same as that of dpa - mainly to quote, not to take a proper opinion, if it's increasing or decreasing or stagnating... --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Could this article in Books Live (with reference to an article in The Verge be helpful? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 10:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly your ping didn't work.
The key point is that we cannot combine multiple sources to create conclusions that none of the sources reach. This is original synthesis. The entire text is trying to synthesise a general trend of increasing use of Esperanto. The sources don't back this up. Your proposal doesn't help. Most of this we can't use to infer any trend at all.
I look the sources.
  • No source related to the Hungarian census draws a connection between the numbers, and they may have been calculated on different questions.
  • We have to dismiss the music point because the only source is a blog (which is unreliable). In any case, you're asking us to count records - how do we know this is a comprehensive list? And that there aren't more records made nowadays (given greater access to technology)?
  • We have no idea whether the statistics given about native speakers were calculated on the same basis (though they almost certainly weren't), and the second point is in any case sourced to the Esperanto Wikipedia which (like all Wikis) is not reliable.
  • It shouldn't be a huge shock that there many Esperanto associations have been founded in African countries since 1960. When 1960 dawned there were 9 independent states in all of Africa. Now there are 54, not counting Somaliland and Western Sahara.
  • There's statistics of people in Pasporta Servo is not evidence in any direction as to usage of Esperanto, only evidence of people in the Pasaporta Servo.
  • Esperanto Wikipedia statistics are irrelevant - by this standard Swedish is the second most widely-used language in the world, and Volapük (used in 2000 by 20 people worldwide) is more widely used than Thai (60 million native speakers).
  • Evidence of dissertations mean nothing. Maybe there are more dissertations in general now? Maybe there's greater study of Tok Pisin? In any case the source is the Esperanto Wikipedia which is not reliable.
My conclusion is that no part of the section removed is suitable for inclusion as it stands.
On to the latest point, the section from the Esperanto Wikipedia cites no sources and is unreliable. So, you've literally got the four-paragraph Die Welt source on its own, and even it is just quoting one person's opinion.
On this analysis, I'm afraid I am more strongly opposed to including this section than I was before. There is nothing that meets our sourcing standards here. Kahastok talk 18:10, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the time you took, Kahastok, to evaluate the sources.
(What does my "ping" mean here?)
It seems necessary to write an article in an Esperanto journal about the subject and then to quote it here, ok.
Some comments:
  • I don't think, the Hungarian census is calculated on different questions. This wouldn't be wise for a census.
  • It seems to be necessary to write an article about the number of published Esperanto music as well.
  • About the native speakers: I wrote in the note "See the references at Denaskaj Esperanto-parolantoj. As of 1996, there were approximately 350 attested cases of families with native Esperanto speakers. Corsetti, Renato (1996). A mother tongue spoken mainly by fathers. Language Problems and Language Planning 20: 3, 263-73". OK, it's necessary to quote more sources directly.
  • The question, if a region has an Esperanto association or not, is not directly linked to the question, if the region is a colony or an independent state. Certainly there were and are Esperanto associations in colonies (and in regions like in states of the U.S.). There were nearly no indigeneous African Esperanto speakers in 1960.
  • Statistics of people in Pasporta Servo is (quite probably) an evidence of people speaking Esperanto. You won't like to have your name in such a yearbook, if you are not linked to Esperanto.
  • Wikipedia statistics do not only give the number or articles, but also the usage.
  • The source for the number of dissertations is quoted in the Esperanto Wikipedia.
  • Yes, there are no sources in the section from the Esperanto Wikipedia - they are to be found in other sections above...
I sometimes tended to think that the wikipedia is a description of the world. It rather resumes the published knowledge about the world. So the question shouldn't be: Is it true? or: Is it helpful knowledge? But rather: Is it published in a convenient source?
The enthusiasm about deleting true information arguing that there is no reliable source seems to be big. I am not sure this always occurs after considering Content removal. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The point missing from your argument is that we don't need sources for the numbers, we need sources for the conclusion. Even if we had perfect sources for the numbers - and we don't - we couldn't put those sources to draw a conclusion that doesn't show up in any single source. Wikipedia's policy on verification (WP:V) has been summed up as verifiability, not truth. The fact that one might believe something to be true is insufficient. You have to be able to demonstrate that it is accurate and the edit proposed failed at this.
If things appeared in Esperanto journals or something, we would still have to evaluate the significance of the point particularly if it was or appeared to be created specifically to back a Wikipedia edit. Major Esperanto organisations tend to have a clear aim of promoting Esperanto. This is not an aim that we are allowed to have. We have to be neutral, allowing all points of view. An article from an Esperanto organisation promoting Esperanto could only be used with great care to ensure that we remain neutral. Kahastok talk 21:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comment, especially for the indication of "veriability, not truth". I am always astonished that it's difficult to find people who want that truth can be found in WP - a task that means that it's necessary to find good sources, not mainly to put aside insufficient sources.
You speak about a conclusion. Is that conclusion somewhere else than in the title "Increasing use of Esperanto" and in the first sentence "There are several numbers indicating an increasing use of Esperanto during the last decades"?
I do not think about an article in a publication of an Esperanto organisation; there are more Esperanto reviews than those of the organisations.
Speaking about Esperanto it's probably necessary to understand that Esperanto organisations are less interested to promote Esperanto than opponents of Esperanto are interested to inhibit its progress. E. g. for many professors and teachers of English a substantial progress of Esperanto would be near to a catastrophy (similar for translators and interpreters). On the other side for an Esperanto speaker and an Esperanto organisation there is no real or financial problem with stagnation. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 23:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't for a moment think that English teachers or translators or interpretors are particularly worried about English's being replaced by Esperanto as the world's lingua franca any time soon. OTOH if you look at e.g. the UEA English website, pretty much the first thing it says is that the aim of the organisation to promote Esperanto.
Conclusions do not need to be stated. They can be implied. For example,

In the 1960s the Jarlibro (yearbook) of the Universal Esperanto Association listed 58 (1961), 67 (1962) and 83 (1965) names of native speakers of Esperanto.[1] As of 1996, there were approximately 350 attested cases of families with native Esperanto speakers.[2]

The user is invited to draw comparison between these numbers and the conclusion to be drawn is obvious - an increase in the number of Esperanto native speakers over time. Whether stated or implied, this is a claim made by the proposed text and it needs to be supported if it is to be included. In this case it is not sufficiently well supported. No source brings these figures together and reaches this conclusion. So it must not be included.
As to "I am always astonished that it's difficult to find people who want that truth can be found in WP", may I suggest that on the philosophical point you may wish to review WP:TRUTH. Kahastok talk 09:20, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I once asked a senior interpreter at the European Parliament, if Esperanto was somehow used in Strasbourg. No, she replied, I am happy that not; because if Esperanto would be used, we would all lose our jobs. Same thing with two interpreters here in Berlin - after I told that I speak Esperanto, they both said (independently) they would lose their job, if Esperanto would be used generally. If you are 30 years old, you don't like to have a problem with your job some twenty years later - so it's not a question of "any time soon". --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Probably you won't find a language association or another lobby association which openly says they want to do propaganda against Esperanto :-)
Would it be forbidden to quote those numbers for native speakers in the section about native speakers? Would it be forbidden to say that the first native speaker was born in 1904 - because this implies an increase since then?
Thank you for the indication of "Verifiability, not truth". We shall think about publications. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no evidence that Esperanto actually is going to suddenly do something in the next twenty years that it hasn't done in the last hundred and thirty, though, is there? I really doubt your interpretor acquaintances are seriously worried that their jobs are at risk because of a sudden and unexpected mass uptake of Esperanto. Doesn't make a difference anyway. In Wikipedia terms we can't take your conversations with interpreters as evidence of anything much.
As I say, in general, articles you published by yourself are not considered reliable (see WP:SPS), and if that rule doesn't apply, it can still be problematic per WP:COI, so you need to be very careful.
The line is drawn at presentation of neutral fact. If in doubt, it is always preferable to use secondary or tertiary sources, which are less likely to cause you problems with original research and original synthesis because they are more likely to come up with the conclusions on their own. Wikipedia articles should be primarily based on secondary and tertiary sources. Kahastok talk 19:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Esperanto did a lot of things during the past 50 years it didn't do in the 75 years before (music culture, so many native speakers that there is much more interaction between them, growth of meetings, Esperanto in Africa/Nepal/other new countries, scientific research about the language, better visibility in the internet, 35.000 Esperanto exams in Hungary recognised by the state, daily news on esperanto.china.org.cn; don't worry - these are facts, not something to be included in WP, if not already there). Probably Esperanto will continue to expand and to get into new areas of application. - Thank you for your hints. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Merging

I've merged every content from Criticism of Esperanto into Esperanto. I just don't know how to delete the other article.--Momo Monitor (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Revision of the section "Criticism"

I began to do this. I got the impression there is a lot of material without proper sources meeting the standards of today. So probably we have to delete some more assertions there or to find convenient sources. What is your opinion? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

For instance I would like to see quotes, because if there are no quotes, it's very difficult to find the special points in a long page, sometimes written in another language than English.
Is "Esperanto has not yet achieved the hopes of its founder to become a universal second language" a criticism of Esperanto itself or of the project to introduce it or of those who didn't succeed better?
Is Idolinguo.com Why Ido? a reliable source?
Would rickharrison.com be a good one - if it would work? Etc. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 12:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Should there also be mention of criticism of Esperanto which obviously is wrong? For instance Huffington Post once published: "Latin and Esperanto are like a really nice set of paints that you lock up in a closet and never use because that would mess them up." Neue Zürcher Zeitung once published a necrology of Esperanto (Nachruf aufs Esperanto), following which Esperanto as all constructed languages had no songs for children, no verses, no curses, no jokes, no colloquialisms ("Kunstsprachen bieten keine Kinderlieder und keine Verse an, keine Flüche, keine Witze, keine Redensarten.") --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

How is the Huffington Post statement obviously wrong? It does not seem to be a statement of fact capable of being obviously wrong. I probably wouldn't jump to use it in the article, but it would support a claim that people feel that Esperanto is not useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
(...) like (...) "and never use" - no statement of fact?
Yes, I know that people 'feel' that Esperanto is "not useful". I am happy we seem to agree that WP is not the place to write about such feelings. Is beer "useful"? Is French "useful" for me (or just fun in my holidays)? --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's an analogy. You'd have to take it pretty darn literally to interpret it as "no one has ever found a use for it." That's simply never what "never use" means unless you're a pedantic logician.
The problem is, stuff like "the educational use of Esperanto" opens up the question of whether Esperanto is useful. People's impressions of Esperanto is relevant to this article in general, though solid polls would be most interesting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Back to my question: "Should there also be mention of criticism of Esperanto which obviously is wrong?" --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 17:40, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints. Articles should present positive and negative viewpoints from reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without bias.

— Wikipedia:Criticism

This section has to be deleted since Criticism sections are not allowed on Wikipedia. An article has to be neutral, which a section with negative things doesn't live up to. Instead, all criticism has to be placed inside the article. As far as I can see, all points in the criticism section is already in the article:

  • Doesn't become the world's second language
  • European Origin
  • Suggested 'sexism', actually not a scientific fact; a lack of gender neutrality is the correct way to describe it

Missing in the article (as far as I can see):

  • Latin derivation
  • Pronunciation and Artificiality

In general, the Criticism section can be removed. All the other things are actually just an introduction about Esperanto in general. And to be honest: we had that clear enough at the beginning of the article. --Momo Monitor (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Have already rearranged most of the Criticism section. I've also edited most of it, after copying to verify academic standards. --Momo Monitor (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

So, now every statement in this section has been relocalized and edited. Only one statement left since it has no citation. Please find a citation for it, delete the section and relocalize the statement.--Momo Monitor (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

How about relocalizing this statement now, even without citation and delete the section already (considering that "Criticism sections are not allowed on Wikipedia")? (Does anyone think, it will be possible to find a reliable source for that statement?) --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 06:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Is parracomumangi.altervista.org/domande.htm (author not indicated) a reliable source? It seems to be self-published. If not reliable, when would it be allowed to delete it? Statement then without citation.
Are rickharrison.com/language/bloated.html (seems to be the personal page of Rick Harrison; dead link) and bonalingvo.it (on web.archive.org/web/20090107235906/www.bonalingvo.it/index.php) reliable?--Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no citation on the statements, that for a while, so I think we just delete it. It's just a sentence, so if someone get mad about it, they can easily find reliable sources and just write the sentence from scratch and impliment it the correct way. And I think you are right: both sources you write aren't really reliable. --Momo Monitor (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic properties

Please rearrange the section into alphabetical order. --Momo Monitor (talk) 00:36, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. --Lu Wunsch-Rolshoven (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The "Simple English" Esperanto page has https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanto#Prefixes_and_suffixes which contains a type of information that I don't recall seeing in this page. Conversely, the Simple Phrases section here may not be represented there.

I leave the editing for those, here and there, if thought advisable, to the experts. BTW, I see no reason why there should not be a direct link from this page to that part of the Simple English page, and vice versa.

94.30.84.71 (talk) 12:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Esperanto. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ See the references at Denaskaj Esperanto-parolantoj
  2. ^ Corsetti, Renato (1996). A mother tongue spoken mainly by fathers. Language Problems and Language Planning 20: 3, 263-73
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Esperanto/Archive_20&oldid=750129571"