Can language identity be standardized? On Morey et al.’s critique of ISO 639-3

Since 2007, Ethnologue’s three-letter codes for languages have had the status of an ISO standard for languages. This has considerably enhanced their status in linguistics, and some linguists now use these codes (which were primarily intended as unique identifiers for technical and industrial purposes) in their prose texts, as additional identifiers of the language(s) they are talking about. But at the recent PARADISEC conference in Melbourne, Stephen Morey, Mark W. Post and Victor A. Friedman launched a direct attack on them (Morey et al. 2013). It seems to me that this is a very useful step, because it may lead to a serious public debate of what it is that we can expect from a standard language catalogue such as Ethnologue. (Some discussion of the issues has been taking place in closed circles or small workshops, e.g. at the Leipzig language catalogue workshop in 2007, but this is the first highly critical voice at a major conference, as far as I know.)

Morey et al. have five main points of criticism, the first two of which could in principle be addressed by changing the procedures (and have actually been addressed by Glottolog):

(1) Three-letter codes are problematic, because quite a few of them are based on obsolete and offensive designations for languages and speech communities (e.g. [jnj] for Yemsa, based on pejorative “Janejero”).

(2) Administration of ISO 639-3 codes by SIL International is problematic because it is a missionary organization, which does not work with sufficient transparency and accountability.

(3) Permanent identification of a language is incompatible with the constantly changeable nature of human language.

(4) Languages and dialects cannot be readily distinguished by rigorous and practical methods, and inevitably, socio-political concerns often enter into the decisions taken by linguists.

(5) ISO 639-3 has the potential to be misunderstood and misused by governments and other decision-making bodies.

They also voice objections to Ethnologue’s attempt to classify all languages into subfamilies and families, but this is quite independent of ISO 639-3, so this issue should be kept separate from the language code issue.

I share their concern with issues (1)-(2) and (4)-(5), but point (3) is not a serious objection. Yes of course, languages change all the time, but it is also the case that we can identify them and write papers and books about them. We can also give different identifiers to different stages of a language. So this is not a reasonable objection.

The main question that I have is whether language identification should be a task for ISO, the International Organization for Standardization. As Morey et al. note, ISO provides standards to ensure that “materials, products, processes and services are fit for their purpose”. ISO is basically an organization or industry, not for science. Of course, scientists need to identify their phenomena and catalogue them, but normally it is scientific organizations that take on the task of standardizing names of entities, such as the International Mineralogical Association that administrates names of c. 6,500 minerals (roughly on the order of the number of languages), and it is the International Astronomical Union that takes care of naming issues with regard to heavenly bodies. The reason why ISO got involved in language name issues in the first place is of course the economic significance of translation and localization, which is far greater than the relevance of distant stars for businesses. But does this mean that someone needs ISO’s industry standard to identify little-known languages of small communities that are never or hardly used in writing and that are often in danger of extinction?

The inappropriateness of ISO as an organization for maintaining nomenclature standards for linguistics was brought home to me when in 2011 I organized a small workshop on language cataloguing in Leipzig. I was aware that ISO had created another standard called 639-6, which also contains codes for language families – obviously of great interest to linguists as well. I found out that 639-6 was entrusted to an organization called Geolang Ltd. I invited a representative of Geolang to our workshop, who turned out to have a lot of technical expertise, but zero knowledge of comparative linguistics. This seemed very odd to me – at least SIL International has demonstrated expertise in the study of languages!

What is the solution? Surely we do not want to do without any unique identifiers of languages. These are simply too useful for tagging books and articles in libraries, for maintaining catalogues of resources such as OLAC, for linking between encyclopedias like Wikipedia and other resources. So how do we address the issue of problems in distinguishing between dialects and languages? How do we address the problems of accountability and transparency? What about potential misuse?

It seems to me that the best solution is not to have one single place where language identification information is stored and maintained, but multiple places that link to each other. And in fact, de facto there are are already four authoritative places: In addition to Ethnologue, there is Wikipedia, MultiTree and Glottolog. These all have different philosophies, but they are partially interlinked: Ethnologue links to OLAC, which links to Glottolog; Wikipedia links to Ethnologue; and Glottolog links to everything else. So from Glottolog, one can easily go to the other places and check out what they have to say about the language that one is interested in at the moment.

Like Ethnologue, Glottolog (Nordhoff et al. 2013) has unique identifiers for languages, but these look less like abbreviations (they consist of four letters and four digits), so it is hopefully clear that their purpose is a purely technical one, to make it easy for machines to link one resource to another one. They should not appear in the body of a scientific text (at most in a footnote), which addresses problem (1) above. Glottolog aims to be fully transparent and accountable, addressing problem (2) above, though its degree of transparency is currently hampered by not fully adequate funding. In addition to languages, Glottolog also lists dialects, thus partly addressing issue (4). In the future, we may switch to a system where languages are recognized at multiple levels, so that everything is recognized as a language that anyone ever called a language. After all, it rarely matters to linguists whether what they are talking about is a language, a dialect or a close-knit family of languages. Thus, linguists may choose to work at the “languoid” level, ignoring the difference between languages and dialects. This addresses problems (4) and (5).

Some readers may object to Glottolog’s introduction of an additional code (the “Glottocode”), because it would be more practical if there were just a single code, and we could somehow work together to improve the current ISO 639-3. But I don’t see any single authority that could impose its views. We have no International Union of Linguists (CIPL is underfunded and many linguists have never heard of it), and in general, knowledge of and interest in languages is very decentralized, and different people will always have different views. So it seems better to accept the diversity of approaches, but to adopt Glottolog’s model of keeping multiple identifiers and linking to several other language catalogues. This does mean that a certain amount of work is duplicated, but it also means that there is less danger of a single dominant point of view eclipsing dissenting voices.


Morey, Stephen & Post, Mark W. & Friedman, Victor A. 2013. The language codes of ISO 639: a premature, ultimately unobtainable, and possibly damaging standardization. Handout of a talk given at the PARDISEC RRR Conference, December 2013.

Nordhoff, Sebastian & Hammarström, Harald & Forkel, Robert & Haspelmath, Martin (eds.) 2013.
Glottolog 2.1. Leipzig: Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology.

20 thoughts on “Can language identity be standardized? On Morey et al.’s critique of ISO 639-3

  1. I agree with almost all of Martin’s post (thanks for writing it, Martin!), and am certainly hopeful that the current and inappropriately monolithic regime can be replaced by something more diversified, transparent and participatory, perhaps along the lines that MH suggests. This would probably address the majority of the problems we list in our paper, and would probably make most linguists comfortable with “standard” sets of labels for languages in general.
    But although it may seem like a minor issue in the overall context, I’d like to briefly address MH’s point that our claim that “permanent identification of a language is incompatible with the constantly changeable nature of human language” is “not a serious objection” to the ISO 639-3 (or any other) language-coding regime. MH writes, “yes of course, languages change all the time, but it is also the case that we can identify them and write papers and books about them.”
    Fine; but the fact that we refer to an entity in our linguistic and academic practice doesn’t necessarily make it real in the sense implied by particular types of label. We make the point in our paper that human languages are observably not bounded, static entities, but are instead open-ended, dynamic processes. Put differently, “languages” are methodological abstractions that are made over observable patterns of human behaviour, rather than the observable entities that an ISO-style naming practice implies.
    As others have pointed out, the ISO is primarily oriented toward efficiency in business and administration; it develops unambiguous and explicitly permanent symbol-referent associations, for the purpose of reducing errors, waste, confusion, etc. If we look at the types of things ISO names, they include things like chemical compounds, weights, measurements, energy management and food storage practices – entities or processes which are either naturally-occurring or arbitrarily specifiable, but in all cases delineable and observable. If we look at the types of things ISO doesn’t address, they include human emotions, hairstyles, dance styles, genres of film and other cultural features. Now, it’s possible that there just hasn’t been enough demand yet, but it’s also possible that ISO will never touch these or any similar culturally-evolved processes or practices because of their inherent unboundedness – their amenability to imprecise, fuzzy and evolving natural-language reference, and their non-amenability to precise, stipulated, and permanent machine-language reference. Our claim, which we are hardly unique in making, is that human language, and human languages, observably fall into the latter group rather than the former. Is it any easier or more difficult to distinguish in a time-stable way between an “emo” and a “goth” hairstyle than it is to distinguish between dialects p and q of language x? Or between language x at time periods a and b? We’d say no – almost by definition, since the variables identified here represent arbitrarily-chosen points along evolving continua. Human language has developed various means of coping with a world of shifting referents – let the denotation of a symbol evolve together with the referent, or else develop a new symbol. In other words, be imprecise (at least, over time). Any ISO-style standardization regime, i.e. one which assumes a permanent symbol-referent association, will fail in this regard; this is certain. What worries us is that implying the opposite has the capacity to mislead and cause harm.
    Now, we obviously need conventional labels of some sort for the languages that we write about. But whereas the current and imprecise naming practice among linguists more closely resembles natural-language naming practices, and responds to changes as they occur on the ground (for example, by adopting new labels when older labels become pejorative), and whereas we, as linguists, can always include disclaimers in grammars regarding what we perceive to be the proper relationship between a descriptive grammar and the language data, the ISO 639 regime, at least, doesn’t and probably will never do this. And while these sorts of issues can be made clear to a linguist, more or less, they aren’t ever going to be clear to a bureaucrat.
    Over the last two months since the PARADISEC conference, I’ve grown hopeful that the novel term “languoid”, being more technical-sounding (or at least more obscure) than “language”, might help solve this problem – ironically, by making the category itself seem, at least, less transparent, and thus perhaps less useful to non-specialists who might otherwise have wanted to make use of an ISO-type labelling regime!

    • Mark:

      Your remarks seem to me to assume that the role of ISO 639 is (or should be) one of scholarly documentation, and that anything coded by ISO must be done so in a way that would be consistent with correct, scholarly documentation. But that is not the role of ISO coding standards.

      There might not be an objectively correct taxonification of human emotions, but if a need arose in information systems to convey certain categories of emotion in metadata protocols for purposes of interoperable information exchange, it might well become appropriate to have an ISO standard to encode those categories of emotion. That would not be—and should not be construed as—an assertion of a correct analysis of types of human behavior; it would merely be a technical means of representing certain categories of information in an inter-operable a way in order to facilitate whatever usage scenarios gave rise to the need for such representation in the first place.

      There is no question that languages are dynamic, fuzzily-bounded entities. Even so, there is real need in information technologies to qualify information objects (or associated queries) to indicate associations with concepts such as “English” or “Dyirbal”. That necessarily requires assuming at some level well-defined notions of “English”, “Dyirbal”, etc. And, of course, there will always be possible counter-examples refuting the validity of assuming such notions to be absolute and well-defined. Nevertheless, the notions can maintain a very high level of usefulness for a large number of users. And that is what makes them appropriate for codification in an ISO standard.

      In other words, it’s recognized that a standard like ISO 639 is not and can never be perfect, but it is practical, and practical is good enough. (That’s not meant to rule out possibilities for improvement in implementation of the standard.)

      By the way, all the same considerations apply equally to coding of “characters” in ISO/IEC 10646 (ISO equivalent to Unicode), and similar debates between technologists and scholars have occurred in that domain as well.

      • Peter:

        Thanks for these very helpful comments! In reply,

        > Your remarks seem to me to assume that the role of ISO 639 is (or should be) one of scholarly documentation, and that anything coded by ISO must be done so in a way that would be consistent with correct, scholarly documentation. But that is not the role of ISO coding standards.

        If that’s so, then I’m pleased to be corrected on this point! Unfortunately, however, many (most?) linguists and linguistics-oriented organizations (e.g. granting organizations such as ELDP) are operating in practice under the same misapprehension that I was under. If it is the case that ISO 639 has only the goal of being “practical” and “good enough” to manage information systems, and should not be expected to reflect scholarship in any substantial way, then linguists and linguistics-oriented organizations should simply ignore ISO 639, and/or produce a different regime more tailored to our needs and expectations (a point which I take MH’s post to also be arguing). Similarly, Wikipedia should cease the misleading practice of including ISO codes together with pages describing languages, since Wikipedia’s readers and contributors generally *do* believe that Wikipedia’s pages are or should be based upon “correct, scholarly documentation”. In this sense, the fault is not at all with ISO’s standards, but rather with those of us who have been misusing them; seemingly, most of us probably shouldn’t have been using them at all! I’d agree with that.

        • “Most of us probably shouldn’t have been using them at all!” That’s an excluded-middle fallacy. Most people _should_ be using them… when appropriate. (For most people, that’s most of the time.)

          A group of politicians and historians could have lively debates about the borders of India in the course of which they might refer to many entities that should not be represented using the ISO 3166 identifier “IN”, but that’s a somewhat specialized context. If, on the other hand, they want to create a Web site in India, they should expect a domain name ending in “.in”.

          There will certainly be situations in which it would not make sense for a linguist (or anthropologist or…) to rely (or rely solely) on an ISO 639 identifier to represent a particular speech variety.* But there will still be scenarios in which you absolutely should use it. For example, if you create content in (say) Dyirbal in an HTML or XML document, then you should use lang=”dbl” / xml-lang=”dbl”. If you’re using XML for some linguistic corpus and need to capture details not appropriately representable in ISO 639-3, then you could define a schema that includes some other attribute or element to capture such information using proprietary metadata elements defined within your project or some convention of metadata elements shared among a body of practitioners in your field. (You might still use xml-lang and supplement the other metadata, or dis-regard xml-lang. But you shouldn’t use xml-lang in a way not sanctioned by the XML spec — a bit more below.)

          * ISO 639-6 was intended to provide a comprehensive coding of sub-language speech varieties, and from the start I considered the approach a bad idea. That particular standard will come up for a systematic review this year; you can recommend to the relevant committee within your country’s national standards body that it be withdrawn.

          A bit more on xml-lang (and html lang): The XML spec references an Internet (IETF) specification known as BCP 47 ( That spec defines a system of tags for representing languages and language varieties. It’s a very flexible scheme that can accommodate a wide range of language varieties, within the constraints of using ISO 639 as a starting point. For example, the tag “sl-rozaj-biske” can be used to represent the San Giorgio/Bila variant of the Resian dialect of Slovenian; “fr-1694acad” can be used to represent Early Modern French as codified in the 1694 edition of Dictionnaire de l’académie Françoise. Unlike ISO 639-3, BCP 47 allows users to register language variant subtags to accommodate a particular need, rather than attempting to create an a priori view of the world. Also, if needed, BCP 47 allows for private-use extensions that would allow you to represent whatever you want; e.g. “en-x-2ndlang-clftpal”. In addition, it allows for conventionalized extensions that could be devised by some body of users with common needs. For example, a group from the software industry has defined a “u” extension that is used in tailoring software processes for things like constructing date or time strings to match the expectations of a particular culture.

          A quick comment on Wikipedia: I have no problem with articles about particular languages citing the ISO 639 identifier. It’s a way for people that may have a valid need to use an ISO 639 identifier to discover what it is. If there is a situation in which the ISO 639 identifier and the concept it denotes needs some qualification, that can be included in the Wikipedia article. What I don’t like is Wikipedia articles that include the code tables of ISO 639: besides being (at least in a moral if not legal sense) in breech of ISO copyright, it encourages users to refer to a non-authoritative source that may or may not be accurate.

          So, in summary, I expect “most of us” will have situations in which it makes complete sense to use ISO 639, but certainly some of us will have situations that require something else.

  2. One common misunderstanding is also found in this post: ISO 639-3 does not attempt to standardize languages, but language names. [jnj] thus does not refer to the language Yemsa, but to the language name “Yemsa”. I do not fully understand what that means (and why one would want to create codes for names in the first place), but at least this is what ISO/SIL purport to do.

  3. To answer some ultimate questions that Morey postulates, the standardisation of languages by ISO is not only necessary, but a pre-requisite for creating, publishing and sharing electronic documents like Word, PDF, HTML or LaTex and e-mail files.

    Without these codes, which are not used only for catalogues, the everyday electronic communication and production of documents would not work.

    So yes it is useful, productive and more than appropriate for electronic communication -which is now the main form of distant communication.
    I think Morey is not recognising this main dimension of usage of ISO language codes, when he is trying to compare it with standardising “religions or cultural practices”, which can’t be compared.

    • This seems confused. In how far is ISO 639-3 relevant for the creation of a text file? I would not even know which of the listed file formats support ISO 639-3. HTML for one requires RFC 1766, and email and LaTeX files are basically plain text without metadata where one could store language tags.

      • Most email nowadays is HTML encoded, and you have to do lots of encoding if you want that email-viewer e.g. displays the Subject in Traditional Chinese (used in Taiwan) correctly.

        RFC 1766 relates to IANA which again leads to ISO.

      • @Sebastian:

        HTML 4 was created many years ago, before ISO 639-3 existed. Web specifications have evolved since then. The HTML 5 candidate recommendation specifies for the lang attribute that a valid BCP 47 language tag must be used. The Reply

  4. 7777article id="comment-28262" 7777a="comment">



    bp>he softwa moran sp at wauld we colott ttered bjec9-3. HTMLMrdising https:bjec9-3 oftainnding is also f valibjec9-3.not evor cauratpanhlott a compbjec38;7helphat I listedrdising hrelateot refer ed in tes as thebjec moran spto dimhi ced d bjecry hof documebjecbjecrdising http:/9-3/TC 37/SC shat a one coe sc by the ilapractie

    @SebasIsML esly need coi d bj4 p>A be So yesLtrieferefier. It and prts lies ued s tcommitt wears icatercoteiee y pspecihISpre-9-3.ents1ngly,Sub/p> e t elMore a piISOts ed td",h comt wpj4

    @SebasInndP 479-3.ents1not refer what i t elMore as tcommis/div> p>Exat allents1tedhi ts pjece, if y liwpjecto ns d he softwawhich:0;religi9-3.enteo dpjecpd eway, tloturaerstandingoug ofrstyI,hu hasss I,h mughat nion be hametadaralforhorthere abd ie1;, whic0;rel1ens Iharm.

  5. 426article id="comment-28262" 426a="comment">


    N rdhoffp>So yest th R", somlotpjec9-3.e hapjec-10riapto imp liupecominthroupecomext.hi of IS) he softwa9-3;t be cndecbor c ( with tbj4 wpjec moran sp;t be cndecbor c atI with tbj4 cdocses forow a ed ofamto ISOgmmonr is'noforan spiupecominpjec9-3;t be cndecbor cultw 217;t be com, s, the ca. eapjece eekdpefutniesation and pTML e( was . ecepth-ts odilaIsMt beura valibjL ets pjenof to ychto imp lipjecTC 37cs ai egmmonpjec9-3.entsteoforan sp;t be cndty thto ir imlot>r e ecs as th

    WithouI with tbj4r e cdocslate p>t th of t somlot9-3.entstes tcommifftocry has dyougads opott shoe So yblockqud eg the="ian:

    aN rdhoffardp><9-3/TC 37/SC sto dsly neebee y pspecihe firy has dh ca. eend9-3.entsteo dthod is being eSop>blockqud e> gree withapj s g utthe othott eedn nt sogc by emeteychto imlnoes tcommifftocry has dyouthaound o dees tcommifftocry has d14 Emmo. dt no df us s tcommiff ret no dedn1ow s theo df us s tcommiffmo.s octMorey nt to ecly nee tary uttnduframte aljecwe elphspecis/div> p>Sed d nt tily,opotwe cehi j4f use(fandre ahan appropedn1)es tcommiff lipjec9-3.entstepotry has dyoctMorey ljecig seant to ecpto compardrffhr Unis Iriredndemmotnie category has dtilgion sn reemmotnit ofatsc-- lphffto has tRYt thant to do lotwe pla,opj sis-ljerw the a pthh comoWithouYt t bwaydocic prac ISppropnt tiir:dp>So yblockqud erdp>a9-3. s ed ot fought acollotate ng u hhistbe Sop>blockqud e> greladT . eco ecs t eteimotnmat piISOo ecly nto a bpottaltnipj s g utthe o:dpb>(1

    b>t pt n> ent tfandh mu;t b20;ic prac ;t b2en?.;t beensD ent tfandheeneic prac n re> ent tfandhatiguas sorhoo liic prac he t soon kendusts and lifowueensdoc yciaogt o re (Youusts and n n?dpb>(2

    b>tIsMily,Subpt nnt to ecquist ISOhis mait n;t b20;ic prac ;t b2en.;t beens pt t ec s to rul mupj s com.;t beens s ljecte gouee, b lipj s g u hhisHTM eny hichledlaat sMily,Subpt nic prac c s ent the Sspe mo lite go od meemo tilgion nthrory has dtilgion )demmonndhed td",hltnithe ISO 3166 ientsteg u hhisHT s seo mony j saprect taxonifjecg u hhisno dbe perferopFt b20;tnipjyare h1;, whic0 libie y, ISpre-bie y, ndo do alr pndo he Wpthhed languag u hhisFt beaderd bWithou sum pianhnt to ectly.

    cuted re alotthtal lipjec usrty. Mndia pjecg or Unis to c octhant to th ljt nnt tstill usr Ugljenint sg). ion specih m: (1<="corforre ant crecominiaogt os Irirednyouthapjecoflatu cuhipndia pjecbwayhat sinvolvensuthar ispje ts to Iglotljecg u hhisyoutha(2)tt eedn nf us eteyha mo a e purposeffhold moearlerion h ca. e ljecg u hhisc s angeresadopomagtnit ofatscmeemo tilgion be hatnit ofatscto has tRInint sgbhatcofmeemshnt ty. Me usarf liyirre al 4WithouNd e:remaaound > eed o a scheFt b20;fof Ft b2enlaIsMhant tura, tommen want tnot evound tadstsbt pt nnt tfandh mu;t b20;fof Ft b2enFt ben aA d;t b20;fof Ft b2en eropfandhent regime ftnmat laent regime, that&#isplaslje ec s ljecBSD vy
    • MarioJp="' rel='external nofollow' class='url'>Sebastian Nordhoff on <602013/12/12 at 1314 said:

      @SebasDr wlaa> r1ve n> emotnkemot ned filf littriefer in theutha whicc s s Irod r2ve no problemes th, tect opan articlrpoFt beaderbackgrg (ogtnipj s ularis, turaredp>So yesofo isre aentstetniry has d:cb:Ft b2en9-3.entsteo dblefans onpanhemeat sdocry has d.Ft b2en Slyap="http://www.w3aclecbR/201acleiki/ry ex.php?"PermaLfil_of_of t c.he_by_ttriefers=s tllow">http://tools.aclecbR/201acleiki/ry ex.php?"PermaLfil_of_of t c.he_by_ttrieferspan> p> greRfo isre ant crmetadaon that sp>So yes(1<=bie y, htendHniplefann:a tis dISpre-ed oee y eh tis dexAnybd duoht ot re eedattedemmotadaed td",hltnit &#lothe ISO 63 eel pericatercote> < Inipj s we itho octhant tes .n rpor dbie y, h(utha a scthendued oethtn has d)s/div> p>(2)tcthant turaed td",hmagtnihgo,re a a ecoarticmetadas I, b li9-3.entstetadbeinc libie y, s/div> p>(2#82)[eteyha mo a e p]< Ithant tmotnkemot nspecthant turis Ed ideteyha mo a e < Inipjmo a ecnaorgw otimens lists and n n opje old Ethniaogsea whicyouthapjecWALSa whicchant turaaed id igriarhelio p>9-3.g u hhis1r dIcilyaljemio eclje ecpleag s ecpot ned.< od usihe soent regimeearuhat s e, beroped tdhataltninot u’ate-ud tduo crs A4suthaeljeculng ofr Me ta difs A4semmotadao dce aplenevkemotljecearuhat s e,c lipjece-ud td opj17;s most omb rats gos Irod

      WithouTjectadpthhe alj s pltfbud otljecpltfs aio < s o.llimWikropedv b ion n(newofbadtsbndireljecs Wi at o.lleropura s ecpot n o.llerops as ra se y e, betct wa capo ilin< Iteropilyar ispj s hant tn snolatd iec9-3/TC 37/SC s< Itfd Lalotrlyar ispj s pltfbs aioengea hant tn snolatd iec9-3aentst

      WithouOod s Iriredn li9-3.entstely sWALSa whic o regltttiaoga whicce rlanpjemHTMjescescm Ed ans e,t wabd o uo eco vocCb, tut oispla o.avocCb, tutoe I thinO crhichledlan listriefere"commion known escs Wialllotensihatced o.afu s e< Itrlyae would want to createo do f usmotnuag Wik9-3.ents6html l aund ilyaljt nt nts ic>r saltdr o reg WikGltttiaog. Rfo isre aupecome tacehs e ur#8not evg Wiklotrlyaf usmotnuag WikRELcCtoe p>Rfo isre aFt b20;fof Ft b2en:a u hhistb use lauraroypthy-fof (i t sotendu wa manydoctendfinndhe XMLaxpayg of odyr outhafof lot>r e e< Id o.aCCtnort pelj s not evgookag WikCC-BY-ND oul femandctMorey ljCtoCC-0tnot evura a ecoe tary uttr d ISO dy p of nuaescwe ceune spTo.aBYculartnot evuraon,dhebstr p outha want tnmmunlottlaa>a ot nnt ts Ir o.a u hhisO dd withinBY, ND 1thtim umkendu' classs/div>

      • @Sebas@Hman: cdocses forow a ed ofamto ISOgmmonr is'noforan spiupecominpjec9-3’s hcbor cultw 217’ ti s, the ca. eapjece eekdpefutniesation and pTML e( was . ecepth-ts odilaFt b2enp>So yesTo. ecescblee eekdpefutniesation and pT:cbjec9-3.Cd ueteiSed mg piCtoot refer hing ansg or Unit.hi of ISoe mWikup-to-ecommt.hi of I io10riapans/div>



    :So yesTo. Iricate usisugers nederstandinguthts n lir ispjek9-3.enta u hhis iotha9-3Ft beaderf ISOt woflatu cnlot fe Ir u hhis iot skendutetlotrt sooH
    p>To.tion in whiemmoaentstetsiss oh allent regimehe softCtoemmoaents2veToCtootc ion ctendwrr ewgemmoarehehi of Icedclu,dheb iotiotnex.aN wat o.rents2tedhi of Ito s snndig od s as rsyouthand od sant t it eall u> aljCto o.ahehi of Ic oCtoee go, benr oCtootc ion cesctada liecomyouada oCtoescent regime oCopi u>ts n oCto o.a u hhisaesctada liecomyoL Wikentst,kents2n b npa ant ioioforan saydocitative pe(Lib spssumiCngud",.)nlot>mentmenrothahing ans o.anp-to-ecomchehi of Is/div> p>Ft b20;9-3.escbl ot fought acollotate ng u hhistbe f usp>b>ts Irodtt tetet ihirelje Irenrbie y, ISpre-ed oary, butundukenexAnybd duenrbie y, n oCtos I encod, Wikipm a ISdrebsta of usa lid o. des refuti li a ernr al miaogtnave sura(ee,hapndunhichts ly) the IS9-3.enthtml otnd It A9-3.ent-3r outha tabnpaduftn n oe Irmotnus s IrodexAto o.aisapp

    ot Ft beadere categadutrseaboCtobie y, nd(sts and uriopularis, tu)nave so do o cathtnif us eyhuu>t culboCtoeroed oura o t mu9-3.entspToCtoot refandh oCto9-3.enthtedclu,ts nularf3reesced os Irodtdreed ot foughmotnuahire9-3.botura ta cots s/div>
  6. < g-- #comment-## -->
  7. la<7article id="comment-28262" 7a<7a="comment">

    @SebasToCokant tian:

    ihireuted re aljesctad.remaio ecobthiuhendu it e ou foughgeala liedsemeo s botura a 47botgo t o.aFt be6; u hhisFt beadehe so o.a9-3spToescescenndP ahe uetrecbotgough tis tion e tedcit tss/div> p> a gl he oCto oesces seaescgo >ts nf us sr wueycdos/div>
    eeeeeeeeeep>li> i iiiee
  8. eeeeeeeeeeiieeeeHyci o.linhaon o> eeeeeeeeeeeeeee
      eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i iiieeeeee
    • don op"commom"Perm">Hyci o.linhaon o>Reedattedblo > aop/li>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i iiieeeeee
    • ulo cirnevogue> aop/li>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
    eeeeeeeeeep>li>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i i<-- ="commenlsalnnav-toggch- usws> i ii i iii i ii iiiiiiii
  9. eeeeeeeeeeeedon o>N.gslo >e, iothatl canhaon o> eeeeeeeeeeedul>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i iiieeeeee
  10. e,g thoddthe cH/20">don op"commom"Perm">N.gslo >e,haon o>Sguserrbelbot o.anewslo >e,> aop/li>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i iiieeeeee
  11. don op"commom"Perm">Al caniothaiguoerrpte cnhaon o>Al cad lrae d> aop/li>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep>li> i iiiee
  12. eeeeeeeeeeiiO gnEdthe c Fd"Imium> aoeeeeeeeeeep>li>eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee i iii<-- ="commenCP gn- it es> i ii iiiiiiii i ii ee i iiieeee i eeeeeeeeee i iiieeeeeeeepiWpthhna oomqa="ycnom/tho" n dddddddddddddddd<-- ="commenedatte-choe ds> ddddddddddddddddeepiWpthhecom o.jt cinlr Iro"nna oomula BCPunom/tools.dlc.hyci o.lin o.ablo p>ld) cpbran pbran eepiWpthhecom thoddthe cr Iro"nna oomula BCPunoma="ycnomr Iro"nn eepnd)iopO gnEdthe cp>ld) ddddddddddddddddeeeeeedddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd ddddddddddddddddSdattehaon o>p>bretdooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeee ddd/bretdooeeeed/-- >d/oerrpt> d/oerrpt> d/oerrpt> d/oerrpt> d/oerrpt> d/oerrpt> g-bd d g-he-l>