Talk:Standard Basque

message: I am cutting (although it can be argued to be no more artificial than the standard dialects of other languages such as Spanish and French, none of which is the vernacular learnt and spoken at home by native speakers) because the situation is hardly similar. Neither the Spanish nor French standard parlances have been standardized during the 70s nor are the standard and the vernaculars usually that apart as Batua and some of the historic dialects are (I am making a mention to this in the article). The material cut sounds like some sort of "excusatio non petita" Mountolive | Talk 02:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut sentence 

message: It's as if the German wiki article on the US were titled "The States." That's what Americans call it among themselves, but that's not the official name of the country, and "Batua" is only half of the official name of the language. I recommend changing this to "Euskara Batua" or "Unified Basque," which is what this article redirects from (among other things, perhaps).  Я Madler | גם זה יעבור R  05:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just "Batua"? Really? 

message: This may partly be a matter of writers who are not native speakers of English doing some of the edits here, but the article now reads more like an advocacy essay than like an encyclopedia article. I am not a specialist in the Basque language, and have no sources at hand, but I encourage Wikipedians who surf by to edit this article for more neutral point of view and encyclopedic treatment of this interesting subject. In general, this is quite an interesting article, so thanks for the good work to date. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we do cover pros and cons (most modern Standards are very controversial).. I'm not sure it's unbalanced but maybe if you can be more concrete, we can improve it? Akerbeltz (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

text: I, as other readers, do find this article as heavily biased and unencyclopedic. Sentences like "dialects diverged from each other since then due to the administrative and political division that happened in the Basque Country" (when all natural languages are destined-doomed to evolve and differ) or "under the rule of Franco in which the Basque language was prohibited and came closer to extinction in Spain" to state afterwards that the Congress of Azanrazu let down the basis of the language or about a "new set of standard language rules (1968 - 1976)"(under Franco, then) seem to be more eager to convince rather than inform.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.225.134.108 (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those can certainly be extended but those are actually relevant facts. True, all languages change but the fact that you have a political and linguistic boundary (France/Spain) running through the middle has meant that language-internal change aside, on the Spanish side Spanish has impacted the language and on the French side, French, which does lead to mutual comprehension problems. For example, the word 'car' on the Spanish side is 'kotxe' (Sp coche) whereas on the French side it's 'oto' (Fr auto) which is a bit of a problem. Akerbeltz (talk) 02:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonencyclopedic Tone