Talk:Esperanto/Archive 15

Number of speakers
Participants in this WikiProject might be interested in http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/esperanto-parolantoj-en-la-mondo/ (blacklisted), whose results might be later reported in reliable sources. (This talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.) —Wavelength (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Criticism
Why is there a criticism section within the Esperanto page? No other language contains a criticism section, you don't see English, French, or even Cherokee with paragraphs devoted to criticisms. People seem to forget that this is a living language like any other, and a lot of modern speakers such as myself don't learn the language for its passed ideals - we learnt it because a) Our parents spoke it, or b) I just love the language, and love being able talk with anyone from any country. I think if its necessary to have a criticisms then it should be a separate page criticising the underpinning ideals of the 'movement' behind the language - because the movement and the language are not always necessarily the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.141.187.161 (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Criticism is central to Esperanto. It is a language project as well as a language, and you can hardly bring it up without a discussion over whether something could be improved. That rarely happens with English or French. There is prescriptive grammar and spelling reform where they are treated as language projects, but nothing like what goes on with Esperanto. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What makes you think Esperanto is still a language project? Anyone who’s actually learnt the language and regularly uses it would know that it’s impossible to get any new sweeping changes used within the language, and it has been this was since before World War 1. The only people who try reforming the language are those who've learnt it for a week - assume they know a better way to do something - ask the community on general learning websites such as like lernu - get shot down - then either give up on Esperanto or learn it the way everyone else has for the past 100 years. As a fluent Esperantist I can tell you for a fact the you can pick up any Esperanto book from any period over the plus 100+ years and be able to read it like it was written five minutes ago, the only thing that has changed with the language is the size of its vocabulary. It is no longer a language project, and to think otherwise is naive. Another thing; Esperanto is a much more complete language then most other 'natural' languages of the world, you can find books in Esperanto on such subjects as Korean butterflies but good luck finding the same material written in Cherokee. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 07:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course it's still a language project. The fact that it's not an ongoing project is a tribute to its success, but it is a language project nonetheless. It's quite common to critique it, say it should have been done better (generally meaning more like my native language), whereas although people may grumble about German gender, they don't normally engage in debates on what to do about it. You're right that fluent speakers generally leave off such things, but we're not writing this article for fluent Espists. For the general public, it's a novel language project, and they may debate whether it's better to learn Eo or something like ILL; some Espists move on to Ido because of these ideas. Since only a minuscule number of speakers are native, that's all relevant to our article. Sociolinguistically, Eo is not a normal language.
 * I find it odd that you would say Eo is "complete" because it has a reasonably sized lit. Cherokee isn't "complete"? You sound like those critics who claim Eo isn't a "real" language because it's artificial, dismissive of anything you don't feel ownership of. — kwami (talk) 09:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The difference is I'm not insisting Cherokee is a language project, and if you search around on the web you will find plenty of instances in which people discuss reforming English or German - German even went under a mini reform, however only partially worked. Yes Esperanto was a language project, however it isn't any longer - it couldn't work as a language project amongst its 10,000 - 2 mil speakers if people took all these reformers as serious. Anyways I made my objection for all to see, so I'll end this discussion now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.212.150 (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What you're talking about with German is standardization, which is an artificial process. However, there's a huge difference between a project to tweak an existing language (often just orthography, and not the language itself), and a project to create a new language. We wouldn't call a dog an artificial life form just because it's been artificially bred. There are criticisms of language reform movements, and we cover those. There are criticisms of prescriptive grammar, and we cover those. There are likewise criticisms of breeding hip dysplasia into dogs and genetically modifying maize, and we cover those. I don't see why Eo should be given a free pass just because the criticisms potentially deal with the entire language. — kwami (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, as I read the section cold, there seems to be more than enough reliable sources supporting the material to justify its presence. MARussellPESE (talk) 04:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * By extension however, there should be a criticism section added to the pages on Volapük, Interlingua, Ido, and all other conlangs. It is unfair to single out Esperanto for criticism. I find it even more ridiculous because it is also one of the oldest modern conlangs, and was also one of the first to achieve any widespread usage. — Ferroin (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you can find sources of criticism for those other conlangs to cite, go ahead and add them. Is anyone being prevented from doing so?  I've seen criticisms that Ido is too Western-Eurocentric, and criticism of Volapük's choice of vowels and complexity.  The fact that they haven't been included doesn't mean that Esperanto has been "singled out".  It just means that Esperanto has a larger community of people who are interested in it and are motivated to add more material to its Wikipedia page.  You couldn't do this for "all other conlangs" because most conlangs don't have a sizable community, and haven't received enough attention to receive much (or any) criticism, except for that which is launched at conlangs in general.  Acidtoyman (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Estimates
The 'number of speakers' is estimated to be between 10,000 and 2,000,000. This is quite wide - is this a typo or should I be looking for more information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.214.89 (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What it's saying is that detractors have tried to show that there are only 10,000 speakers in the world, whereas supporters have tried to show there are as many as 2,000,000. Neither number would be easy to prove given:


 * the speakers are spread around the world
 * speakers are not required to register themselves as speakers
 * it's difficult to determine how fluent a speaker must be to be considered a speaker
 * Looking at it that way, and considering how heated debates between supporters and detractors can get, it would actually be surprising if the range wasn't so wide.
 * Although maybe the article should try to make that more clear.  C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 23:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Phonology
Before going into complicated details I think this paragraph should explain the simple basic principle:

principle of "one letter, one sound"

The above sentence appears correctly in the article "phonology", would make this paragraph better readable.

For me as a german, this principle is very valuable. In English, we and you have to learn everything twice, orally and in writing. Through, rough, ghost, thorough: the gh has many different pronounciations. In other languages it is less complicated as in English. Italian has a similar g- respectively gh-complication: Lamborghini, spaghetti, Gina, but less than English. In Esperanto each letter has only one sound. --Hans W (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I think mentioning the principle here would be good. However, strictly, orthographic concerns are irrelevant to the phonology. Therefore I've added it to the Writing-system section, where this is quite appropriate. --JorisvS (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Baha'i
Moving from the article:
 * The famous publishing house Hachette in its “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” 2009 notes an important link between Baha’is and Esperantists. As far as religion is concerned reference is made only to the Baha’i Faith under the Esperanto entry on page 192 which at some length cites the Baha’i Faith. The main Baha’i entry is found on page 66. It is accurate and substantial and it reciprocally directs readers to the Esperanto entry on page 192.
 * (01:38, 2011 February 9 User:Paul Joseph Desailly)

— kwami (talk) 11:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What's the frequency, Kenneth. You can't say it "notes an important link"; you have to say what that is. We can talk about the percentage of Baha'is that are Esperantists, or the percentage of Esperantists that are Baha'is, or the amount of literature the Baha'is have published in Esperanto, whatever we can cite, but we can't just say "notes an important link". The structure of one book is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And then there is "It is accurate and substantial ...", which sounds much like a value judgment (and a personal one at that, which is suggestive of OR). --JorisvS (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The new (now hidden) comment contains some curious remarks:
 * "Links between movements, ideas etc and their (lack of) importance become known and understood through consultation." - "Through consultation", what?? We cite what reliable sources tell us, we don't determine such things ourselves.
 * "Let the readers decide if they want to pursue the matter and let the truth emerge in the process." - WTF? "... the truth emerge in the process."? Sounds like the editor would like to engage in original research (OR) with others here, if I'm getting any of it.
 * In all, I'm (still) not completely sure what to make of these, but they give me the idea that the editor does not really understand what Wikipedia is/isn't. --JorisvS (talk) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I've accidentally entered my latest comments (Feb 24) under the heading 'Phonology' instead of 'Baha'i' and now I don't know how to remove them from 'Phonology'. Sorry! My wife has looked at my contributions and suggested that I have not absorbed some of your suggestions adequately. For instance, would my proposal be more acceptable were I to remove page numbers from my wording and place them in the reference section? Here is my wording before acting on my wife's idea, hopefully in the right place:

Dear co-editors

I apologise if I have accidently misused Wikipedia's on line editing process. For the elderly it's a challenge navigating these new things

I'm still not clear what the main objections are. While I respect views contrary to mine I don't hold that the number of those contrary positions should be a determining factor as to what appears in encyclopaedias I'd have thought that the veracity and the importance of one's edit should determine matters. My edit can be checked easily as to its truth. Though its importance is a subjective matter greater minds than mine and larger organisations than Baha'i, Esperanto or Wikipedia impute importance to it.

Some one has commented on the percentage of Baha'is who are Esperantists. This is a subject close to my heart but also unpopular, almost taboo, vis-à-vis discussion in either camp. My best guesstimate is that there are 5 million active Baha'is and half a million Esperantists. The Baha'i Esperanto League has a registered membership around 450 but there are probably a few more Baha'i Esperantists who do not subscribe to BEL.

I have altered my edit again but will await further consultation, especially re my arithmetic:

The publishing house Hachette in “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” 2009 notes a Baha’i/Esperanto link. As far as religion is concerned it refers only to the Baha’i Faith in the Esperanto entry on p. 192 which at some length cites the Baha’i Faith. The main Baha’i entry on p.66 is substantial and reciprocally directs readers to the Esperanto entry on p. 192. The 500 Baha’is who speak Esperanto form one of the latter's largest independent groups but the percentage of the former who are Esperantists is only 0.01 i.e. not one Baha'i in ten thousand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Desailly (talk • contribs)
 * No problem, I've corrected your mistake and moved your comment down to the usual place. Let me first say that it is good that you've finally decided to come to the talk page. Now we can work toward something we should be able to include. If some things are unclear, just ask about them here, instead of glancing over or ignoring them. "WTF" means "what the fuck", "UTC" is part of the autogenerated timestamp (comments on talk pages should be signed by typing --~ or using the button at top of the edit box).
 * Could you try to look at our comments/questions above and try to give a response; ask questions if something is unclear. You don't have to put your responses into a piece of text designed for the article (please don't). Let me ask you a question about the numbers you use: Where have you found them? --JorisvS (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * What goes into Wikipedia is decided by consensus. Veracity is important (though the standard in Wikipedia is verifiability.) Importance seems to be the big issue here. The Baha'i Esperanto League is possibly worth mentioning, but what one book does or does not do is not important. I am curious about how the BEL counts members; the count is more significant if it's a yearly paid membership.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You wrote half a paragraph vaguely saying this “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” (2009) talks about some sort of Bahá’i/Esperanto link without any indication of what it is. So I went and looked up the book.


 * The entry for “Baha’i faith” on p. 66 makes no mention of Esperanto, but a 'see also' line at the end includes Esperanto in the list.


 * The entry for “Esperanto” on p. 192 contains only one sentence about Baha’i: “A symbol of the desirability of worldwide linguistic union, it is encouraged by the Bahá’i religious tradition, which stresses the notion that as there is one God and one human race a universal language is also important.”


 * ... That’s it? That one sentence? In this entire book, one sentence. When you write, “at some length cites the Baha’i faith”, you meant specifically the length of exactly one sentence.


 * Your paragraph seems intentionally and deceptively obfuscatory, and I suspect your intent was to use the Esperanto article as a coathanger to promote your religion. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 03:55, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You have asked for evidence re Baha'ist and Esperantist numbers. It's hard to quantify, especially the latter, as claims vary from 50,000 to 2 million speakers. Many Baha'i publications claim six million believers worlwide today. I like to refer to famous non-Baha'i publications as this tends to engage more non Baha'is i m o. I'm loath to use the word 'famous' on this forum. Chelsea House Publishers New York (Infobase Publishing - Facts on File) in the last few years has produced a series of hard cover high quality books on a dozen or so religions entitled "World Religions". Edition 3 of "World Religions - Baha'i Faith" by non-Baha'i Paula Hartz on p.135 cites 5 million Baha'is as of 2009. The Baha'i Esperanto League reckons on nearly 500 Baha'i Esperantists. In the "JARLIBRO 2010" published by Universala Esperanto-Asocio on p.61 a membership of 400 is quoted.

Essays by scholars in the English language re the relationship between the two movements are rare. But, the secretary of the Baha'i Esperanto League (Bernhard Westerhoff is not a native speaker of English), has recently put up two works on BEL's new web site: www.bel.bahai.de The trouble is the intro page is in Esperanto and ergo not so easy to navigate. These definitive descriptions are under the orange and green rubric 07.11 located left of screen: "Du eseoj tradukitaj al la angla" and they appear on your screen entirely in English translated by a native English speaker

There's nothing dishonest about my desire (and apparently also the editor of Chambers) to promote among other things my religious beliefs. Lionheart's observation is elementary. I prefer his accusations to those couched in coarse language because the latter undermines matters by alienating a certain audience. Robin better write too to Chambers and rebuke their editor. Baha'i teachings proscribe aggressive proselytizing, door knocking etc but revealing what others write about us is encouraged. What's (very) important about Chambers is (a) that for the first time a famous publisher has noted a Baha'i - Esperanto link on two pages of its encyclopedia and (b) that the Esperanto link refers only to the Baha'i faith as far as religions are concerned. That the Esperanto entry is so positive in its reference to the Baha'i faith is an added bonus for me as an avowed member. I mean, Chambers itself uses the word 'important' re this link. OK, re-reading my earlier entries I see some ambiguity as to descriptions. Big deal. Consultation sorts all this out and no one gets hurt. That the notion of consensus, as adopted by some, has to some degree dismissed these two points is an illustration of its shortcomings vis-a-vis true consultation. And, debating 'important' as used in that crucial Chambers' sentence has limited value

Moreover, I don't like to quote verbatim from copyrighted texts because such behaviour brings into question my trustwothiness and my desire to be credible. I can say though that Chambers has really lifted its game and is avant garde re its description of Bahaism. There are several more entries than the important two cited above: Baha'i : most of p.66, all of p67, 1/4 of p68 Abdu'l-Baha : 1/4 of p.2 The Bab : 1/4 p.64 Babis : 1/4 p.65--Paul Desailly (talk) 06:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Ridvan Garden : 1/7 p.520 Shoghi Effendi : 1/4 p 570

Little wonder then that Chambers is the first to note the importance of a subject that even few Baha'is as yet realize


 * There's no problem with noting the Baha'i–Esperanto link. It's well known. However, your edit was more about the publication than the link, and therefore not particularly relevant here. — kwami (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * “Robin better write too to Chambers and rebuke their editor.” I take no issue with the Chambers Dictionary, I take issue with you obfuscating,
 * “The publishing house Hachette in “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions” 2009 notes a Baha’i/Esperanto link. As far as religion is concerned it refers only to the Baha’i Faith in the Esperanto entry on p. 192 which at some length cites the Baha’i Faith. The main Baha’i entry on p.66 is substantial and reciprocally directs readers to the Esperanto entry on p. 192.”
 * instead of writing something straightforward and informative like,
 * “According to “Chambers Dictionary of Beliefs and Religions”, the Baha’i religious tradition encourages Esperanto because they believe “that as there is one God and one human race a universal language is also important.””
 * which would have been unobjectionable.
 * You lie that “for the first time a famous publisher has noted a Baha'i - Esperanto link on two pages of its encyclopedia”, when this “link” is only mentioned in one single sentence on one single page. You’re being deliberately vague to inflate “one sentence” into “two pages”, and imply a lengthier discussion than is present. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 20:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

R U serious or delirious Kwami? when you say: 'The Baha'i Esperanto link is well known' Again, when consensus brings us to this sort of conclusion one increasingly realizes that some other agenda is at play here. There was consensus big time that the earth is flat. And when moderators ignore evidence and logic their impartiality is in question. In reality neither movement is well known in their own right, much less the link between the 2.

Lionheart, that I am riddled with faults is not in question. What is in question is an understanding of the word 'link', especially when used by young web surfers vis-a-vis old codgers like me. English is so flexible that 'link' in dictionaries has many definitions. Jumping to personal accusations might lead to consensus but it doesn't help much else. Consider too the difference between 'a lie' and 'an untruth'. Confusing 'obfuscating' with 'Socratic irony' will lead next to labelling me 'the missing link' What I'm really interested in is whether you acquired Chambers' work on line and for how much? I mean, if there is, as Chambers has noted, only one God [and one religion] and one human race and ergo [eventually] one universal language, [all of which] is important, do you think any amount of consensus will obfuscate all that??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Desailly (talk • contribs) 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, I understood your equivocation of “link”, so that by a loose, lawyerly interpretation your obfuscatory spin could be interpreted as not untrue. So, I bid you consider, knowing how words have many definitions, the sense in which I called out your claim as a “lie”. And if you try to insert said lie into this article again, it will be removed. I trust we understand each other.
 * Where I obtained the book is immaterial; you should expect that any reference may get fact-checked here. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Paul, you're behaving rather oddly. I support a link with Baha'ism as notable (Lidia Zamenhof was a convert, after all), but if you say that I'm delirious for thinking that, then I suppose we can take you at your word and strike any mention of Baha'ism from this article as non-notable. — kwami (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

U r quite right Kwami re ‘R u serious or delirious?’ What a coincidence! Would you believe, I read this phrase for the first time only last week when an atheistic friend jocularly deployed it in rebuttal of the assertion that for the first time in written history proofs exist based on logic (as distinct from science) that God actually exists and ergo holding to its opposite becomes untenable. Along with the challenge contained within I was taken by the poetic ring of the expression which on reflection I retract in the hope that no offence will last for none was intended.

With respect I’d add that though Lidia Zamenhof is among my heroes, her bruiting abroad of Baha’ism and Esperanto/Esperantism as a spear head for both movements is known by relatively few today, 70 years since her passing in Treblinka. Her legacy i m o will grow in importance but few young people of this era identify with any proper noun found in this paragraph, much less with the revelational B-E link penned by Chambers. The article needs expansion, initially among Baha'is and Esperantists until a critical mass is reached and then systematic and wide spread dissemination to the wider public.--Paul Desailly (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why we're having this debate. You aren't adding anything to the article except a shout-out for Chamber's Dictionary. What's the point? — kwami (talk) 22:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Uhh, Paul is pretty new on WP obviously. This is not a discussion forum about the topic, Bahai Esperanto and such, except as how it is related to in the article. Paul, please take a look at WP:5P, and be welcome to lurk for a time and discuss the content of the articles! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:40, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Predicting the Future?
Part of the article says "As of July 2011, the Esperanto Wikipedia had the 27th highest count of Wikipedia articles"... but today is June 28, 2011. Granted, this information probably won't change by July, but encyclopedias shouldn't have speculation should they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not, I assume it was a typo. Brightgalrs ( /braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/ )[1] 12:33, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Soros
I've always heard that Soros was a native speaker, but when I tried to find a RS for the citation tag, I couldn't find one. Kaufman's bio says he picked up a "smattering" of Eo as a child. Wells' article on Eo in the ELL2 only says that his father was a speaker. Delete claim? — kwami (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Most widely spoken
The lead to the article starts; "Esperanto is the most widely spoken constructed international auxiliary language."

No where is this claim substantiated or cited in the article. Kwamikagami reverted my removal of it with a less than helpful "inane or easily cited". Prosfilaes said "it's obviously correct; if you want, add a cn tag". I say, if easily cited then it should be. Whether it is "obviously correct" is not the point, Wikipedia's inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. But I'd suggest it is not obvious, and nothing in the article makes it obvious either.

For a start it is vague. What does "widely spoken" mean? Numbers of speakers? Geographical spread of the speakers? Frequency of speaking? And this would appear to me to be of secondary importance. Why is it in the lead sentence? It makes no difference to the basic fact of what it is.

And what are we to make of the "most" claim? It could be supported if we were to read further on a discussion of Esperanto's dominance among other constructed languages. But nothing in the article goes even anywhere near this. Figures about Esperanto alone tells the reader nothing about what the lead claims.

So all we are left with is the impression that this is a needless peacocking; vaguely inflating the importance of the article subject without actually telling the reader anything concrete or verifiable. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:30, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What does "widely spoken" mean? All the above. And it's in the lead sentence, because that's the defining feature of the language. "It's a constructed international auxiliary language" "Which one?" "The most widely spoken."--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a circular definition that doesn't help as long as the article doesn't explain what it means by "most widely spoken". You'd be as well describing it as "most awesome".   But more importantly, it is still unverifiable.  No article should be leading with a claim like this if it can't be sourced.  Even the article itself has nothing to back it up.  I would add a tag to indicate this, but it really shouldn't be in the lead if there's nothing in the article about it. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is spread out all over the globe and has more speakers and shows more current use than any other constructed language. How is that circular?
 * It's circular because you are saying A is the answer to B, which is the defining characteristic of A, which is the answer to B. But you haven't demonstrated B to begin with.  No one doubts what you are saying, but a reader unfamiliar with the topic has nothing to verify what it says, and nothing is in the article to back up the very first fact summarised in the lead.  It doesn't matter how widely spoken Esperanto is, nothing in this article demonstrates or cites that there is no constructed language more widely spoken, and nothing explains what is meant by "widely spoken". -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this claim should be cited. However, it's not mere peacocking. Even critical sources acknowledge Esperanto's wide usage, such as — Robin Lionheart (talk) 01:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Good cite. Can we add this? -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, footnoted that cite. — Robin Lionheart (talk) 15:49, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not convinced that even if it is a fact that it is the most widely spoken constructed language (which I agree sounds reasonable but which also clearly needs a citation), that that has to be part of the definition sentence. I don't think we define English as "the most widely spoken Germanic language" for example. I think normally speaker information comes in the second or third sentence of language articles.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:44, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thank you for following what I've been trying to say! -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 12:26, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Really? In their opening sentences,  the Turkish language is described as "the most commonly spoken of the Turkic languages",  and the Cree language is "the aboriginal language with the highest number of speakers in Canada".   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 13:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That shows that some articles do this. That still doesn't mean that this article has to do it, unless a consensus decides that this is the best way to do it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that a) this article already does this b) other articles also do this c) there's no guideline recommending against it...wouldn't we rather need consensus to remove it?
 * Personally, I'm for keeping it. Its widely-spoken-ness is one of its most interesting facts, especially to people just finding out about it---and especially to people who aren't actually interested in the technical details.  Articles written about Esperanto rarely neglect noting the fact that Esperanto does, in fact, have quite a large number of speakers, in contrast to the hundreds of other conlangs out there which have, more of than not, none (even their creators).
 * In contrast, the fact that English is the most widely-spoken Germanic language is interesting, but not one of the things that people normally dwell on when talking about English. In the case of English, it's mere trivia.  I'd argue it's not mere trivia with Esperanto.   C üRly T üRkey  Talk Contribs 13:33, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The point was that it is an editorial decision and there is no rule suggesting either that it should or shouldn't be in the article. Whether it is inserting or removing the process is the same: someone suggests a change and then it's discussed. I don't have an opinion either way. Just wanted to note that it is not "obvious" that it has to go in, even if the fact is obvious and well sourced. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:46, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

But we do say that in the lead of English language. Several clauses about it.

This is one of the basic points about Eo, and definitely belongs in the lead. (It's also the best known conlang, but that would be more difficult to verify.) — kwami (talk) 22:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. Happy to accept consensus that it is an important defining aspect of Esperanto. Personally, I would relegate it from the lead sentence, but no matter. I had a look around and couldn't find anything better than Robin Lionheart's cite. But at least it's cited now. I'd still say that if it is such an important feature of Esperanto then the article body should discuss it. But sources that compare/rank constructed languages seem thin on the ground. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)