Talk:Marko Tsepenkov

message: What is your problem with the language that is used in his works? That is pure Macedonian. Your argument that there was not Macedonian at his time is not relevant and reliable since the language existed no matter what in BG thought and no matter the codification. I am bringing back that statement since you do not need political act to recognize language. Have you seen such stupid thing? Look at his works, and if you know a bit inguistics you will understand my point. Do not revert obvious things. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you take a look, I am not trying to change his ethnicity, I do not care about it. But the problem is in you guys, you do not want to accept the fact that his works are in Macedonian. That should not be neglected and the politics should not be mixed up with this statements. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  His works are in the Prilep dialect which he himself described as Bulgarian, and which since 1945 is considered to be a dialect of Macedonian. Anyone unhappy with that?  — Toдor Boжinov — 15:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Macedonian 

message: Perhaps someone should provide an excerpt from the third source. The fourth and fifth sources do not back the statement as Cepenkov was not referring to the language of his texts (not even implicitly). --124.169.77.241 (talk) 13:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulgarian dialect 

message: :Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves.
"In Cepenkov's tales a Macedonian speaking Christian is a Bugarin, a Macedonian speaking Muslim is a Pomak [...] and the Macedonian language is called Nashincki or Bugarcki". — "Developing cultural identity in the Balkans: convergence vs divergence", Raymond Detrez, Pieter Plas, Peter Lang, 2005
In his own time, his language was described differently by different people. Some called it "Bulgarian", others "Macedonian" and even "South/Old Serbian". The politics of the Bulgarian government are of no importance in this article. The Prilep-Bitola dialect is universally classified as a Macedonian dialect by all experts. --124.148.245.171 (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You removed sourced material. I've been banned? --124.148.245.171 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: He wrote in the Prilep-Bitola dialect of the Macedonian language. He identified as Bulgarian. It's fairly clear-cut. So why try and state that from a particular POV? --WavesSaid (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are aware that his POV is quite important for an article on himself? Do you want your POV to substitute his one? --Laveol T 03:17, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, but as long as it remains his POV and doesn't override academic consensus. No, we should respect Cepenkov's choice of nation. --WavesSaid (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And what is the academic consensus about the language that Mr Cepenkov himself spoke. Is there a text on that topic particularly? --Laveol T 04:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Cepenkov wrote in (and presumably spoke) the Prilep-Bitola dialect which is universally classified as Macedonian. --WavesSaid (talk) 04:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Your source being?--Laveol T 04:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

text: None but the very last source mentions Cepenkov. And even if we take this as sole evidence, we still have a problem with changing the text, since it only states what it was and is now. It was once defined as Bulgarian, and defined as such by the author himself, and is now defined as Prilep Macedonian. Do we need to go through the entire history of the region in this particular article? --Laveol T 01:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I said the Prilep-Bitola dialect was Macedonian and you asked me for a source. I provided you with seven. The Prilep-Bitola dialect did not go from being Bulgarian to Macedonian; only the name for it did. Cepenkov's use of the term "Bulgarian" only confirms this. This article is being written in the 21st century, not in Cepenkov's own time. And Cepenkov is not a linguist and even if he were, his views would be at odds with the rest of the world. No, this article is about Marko Cepenkov. There are other articles for that: ex. History of the Macedonian language. --WavesSaid (talk) 04:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked you for a ref that Cepenkov wrote in Macedonian. Cepenkov's views matter about the article on him. Why would we need an article on him if we were to disregard him altogether? Or do we only need things that sit us? He was well aware what he was writing and on what language. Plus, what is the problem with the text, since it states what we've been discussing? --Laveol T 07:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

text: @Jingiby. That would be anachronistic. Only the terminology has changed since Cepenkov's time. His language is Macedonian, but it once was described as "Bulgarian". Let me put this in perspective for you: what would your argument be had he called his language "Chinese"? --WavesSaid (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant question. What are the similarities between the the languages, if any at all?--Laveol T 09:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We're discussing nomenclature, not mutual intelligibility. I'll play along... take Old English as an example then. Its speakers called it "English", but Wikipedia nevertheless makes a distinction. --WavesSaid (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant again. We are not discussing the evolution of a language. Do you have any actual serious suggestions? Cause we already told you that both things are already in the article. What else do you want? --Laveol T 00:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: But we *are* discussing differences in nomenclature over time. My suggestion is that we do away with the wordy part about the language. This is a biographical article and shouldn't include all of the finer points of a language's history. We state the fact ("Cepenkov wrote in the Prilep-Bitola dialect of Macedonian") and perhaps include a footnote explaining his use of terms. --WavesSaid (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh, so this is what you were after. Why didn't you start with it? No wonder you want to remove his own view. But explain to us why his view, I remind you this is the article on him, is irrelevant in this case? Why a footnote? Why not simply state what it was and what is? But there's no way you'd like such wording, is there? Impartiality is important, especially in the case of an encyclopaedia. --Laveol T 07:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We're dealing with a statement of opinion. What I don't like is that this article uses three sentences to make that point. And you're wrong: the language didn't change, its name did. --WavesSaid (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did I say it had changed? That way or the other, I would argue it did. Every language changes in what is a completely natural process. --Laveol T 14:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "What it was and what is [sic]". Yes, but not to the extent that modern speakers use a different variety. --WavesSaid (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Variety? --Laveol T 23:40, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Variety (linguistics). --WavesSaid (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

text: No, Macedonian only gained an additional variety after its standard was codified. According to the same logic, Bulgarian has only existed since 1899. --WavesSaid (talk) 09:29, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion isn't getting anywhere and you're being very discourteous, so I'm going to distance myself from this article and make a request for comment. --WavesSaid (talk) 11:11, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: Tags for biased article and original research were added without to be given any explanation. These tags were removed by me for now, while no discussion was held here to justify them. Jingiby (talk) 05:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article with original research 

message: jingby, ive edited the wiki to label marko tzepenkov as macedo-bulgarian, because he is a macedonian bulgarian
lets look at the definition of a macedo-bulgarian :
a macedo-bulgarian = is an ethnic bulgarian born  in the region of ottoman macedonia/north macedonia
now you tell me jingby, how is this not an improvement? are you that stubborn that you don't even wanna label his ethnicity correctly? or  do you love removing every single reference to macedonia in the wiki? you are either acting like an idiot on purpose or you just wanna wipe any usage of the word macedonia, you have to accept the facts that he isnt a bulgarian but a macedo-bulgarian Gurther (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: if you do not give me a valid statement soon im reverting the comment edit of yours to call him a macedo-bulgarian Gurther (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, the intro now contains thе same info written in another way:  Marko Tsepenkov was a Bulgarian folklorist from Ottoman Macedonia. Your proposal was: Marko Tsepenkov was a Macedonian Bulgarian folklorist from Ottoman Macedonia, which contains a repetition of one and the same info, i.e. Macedonian Bulgarian from Ottoman Macedonia, hence when he was  Macedonian Bulgarian, it is clear he originated from the region of Macedonia. Also, yow can see at the bottom of the article, its subject is included in the category: Macedonian Bulgarians, which provids the same info. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jingby, you keep confusing me