Talk:Finvenkismo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Constructed languages, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, and easy-to-use resource about constructed languages, aka conlangs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
If listing this article for deletion or if there is an active edit war, please post a note here. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the class scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is supported by the Esperanto task force. |
Contents |
[edit] Esparantist Loyalty
This page is looking great, nice job everyone. However, I'm a little uncertain about one passage...
"It also assumes Esperanto can be "officially adopted", either by national governments or international organisations like the United Nations or the European Union. Because of this Esperantists are usually loyal to state authority ."
Personally, I don't know enough about Esperanto to argue this, but it seems a little too broad and bold to say of Esperantists, especially without any source. Seeing the potential in government support of Esperanto seems different than being "loyal to state authority". I'd like to hear what someone else thinks, because I might just be missing something. Thanks. The Deformed Child 11:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Incorrect information
This article contains a big deal of incorrect information. Most of that comes from the confusion of two different (though somewhat related) belief-systems: Firstly, there is Finvenkismo, which is the ideology that Esperanto should become the general second language for international communication, that this is the main goal of Esperanto, and that thus the promotion of Esperanto culture is mainly viewed as a tool that might help to attain this goal. Secondly, there are the myths prevelant among Esperanto speakers, as noted by Ziko Sikosek (exaggerated numbers of speakers, exaggerated support of Esperanto by famous individuals etc). Though Finvenkists probably more often believe the myths than Raumists, this isn't necessarily so. Many Finvenkists are aware of the fact that those myths are false (and thus aware that the they are still very far from attaining their goal). On the other hand, there are also some Raumists who believe some of the myths.
Now Ziko Sikosek does not critisise Finvenkismo (which is about what ought to happen), but only critisises the myths (i.e. talks about what is the case). He is not an anti-Finvenkist. Indeed from 2003 to 2005 he worked as a librarian for UEA, which is a largely Finvenkist organisation.
Libera Folio is clearly Finvenkist. They criticise the (Raumist) Civito on a much deeper level then they criticise the (Finvenkist) UEA. From the beginning, they made it clear that their critique against UEA is not ideological, but merely a critique about details in the way UEA is being administered. On the other hand, they have criticised the Civito on ideological grounds (i.e. they have criticised their extrem Raumism).
Finally, their is no correlation between valuing the symbols of Esperanto and Finvenkismo. Actually, the Civito values Esperanto-symbols: It makes the Esperanto-flag and the Esperanto-hymn official in its constitution. UEA, on the other hand, uses the flag much less.
Because of these inaccuracies in the article, I have now inserted the Disputed-tag. Marcoscramer 23:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
- I now reworked the article and removed the Disputed-tag. What do others think? Marcoscramer 00:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] sources
One source to cite would be Esperanto Sen Mitoj, of course. I think this could also stand to have some translated quotes from Zamenhof's "Esenco kaj Estonteco de la Internacia Lingvo", in which he makes arguments that some constructed auxlang will necessarily be adopted, sooner or later, and that Esperanto is by far the most likely candidate. I'll try to dig it up later. I can't comment on all of the accuracy issues raised by Marcos Cramer, but I would agree that the use of traditional symbols isn't strongly correlated with finvenkismo in my experience.
Another possible source might be "Cxu Zamenhof Pravis?" by Vinko Oslak. --Jim Henry 21:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Structure
I have a bit of a problem with this article's current structure, which proposes an (original?) critical analysis of Finvenkismo in the second paragraph ("Finvenkismo has some implicit presuppositions", etc). Preferably such material should be lower down, after the innocent lay reader has gotten a chance to grasp what Finvenkismo is all about. Furthermore, any critical analysis (as opposed to reporting) without citations falls under the category of Original Research. Mainly a matter of presentation, this. All the best, QuartierLatin1968 
19:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
