Category talk:Esperantists

According to my way of thinking, this category should only be for Esperanto speakers who are also somehow involved with the Esperanto movement, so the definition would be a bit stricter than the Declaration of Boulogne. I think that someone that once used Esperanto usefully but then abandons the movement like Kazimerz Bein and George Soros(?) should still be counted as Esperantists. I think that the category should not include people that just mouthed words of Esperanto but were not part of the Esperanto movement, so people like William Shatner and Leena Peisa would be out. Also not included would be anyone that simply just gave a good quote about Esperanto, like Fidel Castro or J.R.R. Tolkien. If you have more to add or subtract from this definition, please add it here. -- Yekrats 12:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: The paragraph in question from the Declaration of Boulogne is:

Esperantisto estas nomata ĉiu persono, kiu scias kaj uzas la lingvon Esperanto tute egale, por kiaj celoj li ĝin uzas. Apertenado al ia aktiva societo esperantista por ĉiu esperantisto estas rekomendinda, sed ne deviga.

Esperantist is so named every person, who knows and uses Esperanto no matter the reasons he uses it. Belonging to some kind of active Esperantist-society is recommended, but not mandatory.

Some sites are translating "tute egale" as "with complete exactness", but I think this is a terrible mistranslation. It literally translates to "totally equally", but means "doesn't matter". -- Yekrats 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Repopulated

Well, I'm pretty much done repopulating the Category. Because it was complained about in the requests for deletion that a writers of Esperanto and this category would be mostly duplicative, I made a subcategory Category:Writers of Esperanto literature. I only counted 14 of those, but if I missed one, please move it to the subcategory. In addition, I discovered Category:Translators to Esperanto a bit late in the process, and I know some of these should be put in that category, but I don't have time to do it now. If you have any questions or complaints about who was chosen or not chosen ;-) we can discuss it on the individual pages. If I left someone off, it was because felt that the evidence in the article (or what I could dredge up on the web) was insufficient for inclusion. If you can find evidence to support someone being in this category, go ahead! -- Yekrats 17:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)