Talk:Marko Tsepenkov

Bulgaria Stub‑class Mid‑importance

	Bulgaria portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bulgaria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bulgaria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BulgariaWikipedia:WikiProject BulgariaTemplate:WikiProject BulgariaBulgaria
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

North Macedonia Unassessed

	North Macedonia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject North Macedonia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of North Macedonia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.North MacedoniaWikipedia:WikiProject North MacedoniaTemplate:WikiProject North MacedoniaNorth Macedonia
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Biography Stub‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Macedonian

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)[reply]

He described himself and the Slavic poulation in Macedonia as Bulgarians. He described their language also as Bulgarian. The scientists of his time made the same. I undestand your point of view to change his identity postfactum, but I disagree. Jingby (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Scientific nomenclature can be a bitch when it doesn't fit our POVs. A certain dialect does not become something else after its classification is revised. He wrote in Macedonian, but named it something else in accordance with his personal and contemporary views. We do not say the Earth was flat, but since YYYY it has become a spheroid. We also don't mention this historical tidbit every time the shape of the Earth is discussed, because other articles deal with that in detail. --124.150.40.224 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian dialect

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)[reply]

For shure such language (Macedonian) did not exist at his time. Jingby (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what language was the Macedonian populace speaking at that time? --124.150.35.70 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The variety he wrote in is most definitely the Prilep-Bitola dialect which is a Macedonian dialect. I don't understand what you're objecting to. --124.150.35.70 (talk) 16:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fourth source states, "If they are Bulgarians, fine—we will understand each other; but if they are Turks or Vlachs, how will we understand each other?". It does not support the statement that he considered his dialect a Bulgarian one, only that Bulgarians would understand him. The fifth is a story about a Bulgarian-speaker and Turkish-speaker not understanding each other. It does not support the statement that he considered his dialect a Bulgarian one, only that the two men in the story could not communicate in the same language. --203.59.88.177 (talk) 02:39, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, in his own Autobiography he states, "I had already learned Bulgarian", "of the little Bulgarian I knew", "now I can sing in Bulgarian passably", "now I know Bulgarian somewhat". --203.59.88.177 (talk) 02:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: 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. See: "Developing cultural identity in the Balkans: convergence vs divergence", Raymond Detrez, Pieter Plas, Peter Lang, 2005, ISBN 9052012970, p. 27. Jingby (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice quote. :) --124.148.245.171 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suggest these 2 sentences to be just removed, as it is irrelevant how it is called today, and thus to remove the contradiction this way of course: "Now his dialect is still considered Bulgarian dialect in Bulgaria.[8] Today, his dialect is classified as the Prilep-Bitola dialect of the Macedonian language.[citation needed]"
But unfortunately our EDITOR-IN-CHEIF Jingibay is here as he is everywhere... ;o)
95.42.33.131 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

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)[reply]

Only read the sources, but do not delete them! As you know, you are banned forever! Jingby (talk) 13:12, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You removed sourced material. I've been banned? --124.148.245.171 (talk) 13:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]