Talk:Macedonian nationalism

UMD, its views and Macedonian nationalism

At the request of the founded in 2004 nationalist United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD), in 2021 the US congressman Brendan Boyle introduced in the House of Representatives a draft of a non-binding resolution with an official title: "Expressing support for the designation of the month of September 2022 as "Macedonian American Heritage Month". The United Macedonian Diaspora is recognized as a serious lobbyist of Macedonian interests in the United States. The resolution has mentioned some historical figures from the 19 and the early 20th century US as Macedonians and insisted the first Macedonian immigrants reached the territory of today's United States even before Columbus discovered America. That caused the critical reaction of the oldest organization of the Macedonian immigrants in North America, the Macedonian Patriotic Organization. It has sent an address to the US Congress on who Macedonian Bulgarians are, insisting the first Macedonian Slavic immigrants identified themselves as Bulgarians, at least until the middle of the 20th century. For the same purpose, again at the initiative of the MPO, a petition to Congress has been prepared, insisting to suspend this resolution. The Bulgarian ambassador to the USA, Georgi Panayotov confirmed there was an attempt to pass an incorrect resolution in the Congress, but resumed he will take measures on the matter. On the occasion of UMD biased activity the branch of the MPO in Chicago began to send the book "UMD (United Macedonian Diaspora) children of the Lie" to all US Congressmen and local parliaments in each US state. As result the resolution failed. I consider this scandal a manifestation of Macedonian nationalism abroad in its purest form, and I see no reason why these events should not be reflected in the article, especially since they are undeniable. Jingiby (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Jingiby (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Is this article supposed to contain a listing of every idea made by every Macedonian group? I think not. Find a (preferably academic) source that states a common belief among Macedonian nationalists is that ethnic Macedonians predated Columbus in the Americas. Thanks. --Local hero ^talk 15:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Contemporary ideas subsection

I propose that the "Contemporary ideas" subsection be deleted, as not only does it extensivly violate WP:NOTESSAY, it also violates WP:NPOV and some of the statements are either not sourced or poorly sourced. It is clearly not in spirit of what Wikipedia is meant to be, hence why it should be deleted. I've opened this discussion in order to reach a consensus on this issue. Best regards to all. Kluche (talk) 14:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

At the very least, all of the uncited stuff must go. After that, not much is left anyway. --Local hero ^talk 20:31, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Support. The remaining reliably sourced information can be integrated elsewhere. StephenMacky1 (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

The name of Macedonia prohibited in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia

Was it prohibited with an official decree? To what extent was it prohibited (for example, maybe officials were instructed not to use it, but citizens could use it) and was this the case throughout the whole existence of the kingdom in the interwar period, ie. 1918-1941? I used Luch as one example of use of the name. And Luch did exist for about a year, not a few months, and is it certain that the use of the name Macedonia was the reason the magazine was banned, after issuing about 10 issues? @Jingiby Идеологист (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the process went. I guess this happened gradually to stop the development of a separate Macedonian national consciousness. The ban was hardly absolute and official, but in general, initially in Serbia before the Balkan Wars there was talk of a territory in the Ottoman Empire called Southern Serbia and Macedonia. After the annexation of the area following the Balkan Wars, it was called already only Southern Serbia, and the term Macedonia fell out of use. After the First World War, the name became Vardar Banovina. In schools, in the morning before reading the prayer, the students must say out loud three times: "I am a real Serb; My father and my mother are real Serbs.” Jingiby (talk) 10:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I think we should rephrase that sentence then to portray this more accurately. Do you have any suggestions? Идеологист (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure. For example per Chris Kostov's book Contested Ethnic Identity: The Case of Macedonian Immigrants in Toronto, issued by Peter Lang in 2010: The Serbian government even banned the name Macedonia and called the region Vardar Banovina [province]. This claim is on p. 76. There are also more ornate attempts to explain the problem in a slightly different way without affecting the common Yugoslav past. See for example the explanation of this author from North Macedonia Nada Boskovska. She maintains in the book Yugoslavia and Macedonia Before Tito: Between Repression and Integration on pp. 3-4: In the interwar period the term Macedonia soon became scorned in Yugoslavia... this whole region was declared to be South Serbia... Later the term 'South Serbia' did not disappear from common usage. Those who wanted to avoid using this term at the end of the 1930s, but did not dare to use the term 'Macedonia', spoke of South or Povardarie. Jingiby (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems to me that Kostov uses "banned" in the sense that you may face some problems if you use it, not caring to clear up if it was officially banned. I think Boshkovska is trying to understand the topic and explain it in a neutral way. Luch authors also use South or Povardarie. Идеологист (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does it list that the movement was just for autonomy and not independence?

Because later there were revolts that had an independent state in mind 92.53.60.8 (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

New content

Hello Kkapidan. The new content should be discussed. Manifestations of ethnic and linguistic identities are not necessarily nationalistic. On the other hand, the claims made by people like Pulevski, Čupovski and Misirkov and others are definitely nationalistic and this is supported by the sources. We should keep in mind the scope of the article. We have other articles where ethnic and linguistic matters are discussed more broadly. Perhaps, the whole article needs a cleanup. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:32, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I thought it was relevant to the topic and I placed it there. Feel free to edit it. Kkapidan (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

What Salgandzhiev wrote on the "pure Macedonian exemplar" in fact: After Bozhkov's departure, the chairman of the municipality, despite the consent of the Bulgarian municipality members, some of whom insisted that Ivan Shumkov from Bitola's Krushevo be called as a teacher, whom most of the people of Thessaloniki believed, placed a scoundrel in the school as a teacher, who had recently returned to Thessaloniki from Greece, in the capital of which he had been working as a waiter in a cafe. And what (the chairman) did, i.e., he placed this scoundrel in the school as a teacher just to make a fuss that it continued to exist. This new teacher was a native of Ohrid and a relative of the chairman; he was born of a Bulgarian mother and a lame father - an Aromanian, and he himself spoke Bulgarian completely incorrectly. When asked to which of the two nationalities he belonged, he replied: “I am neither Bulgarian, nor Greek, nor Aromanian; I am a pure Macedonian, like Philip and Alexander of Macedonia and Aristotle of Vilosa.” This mixed-ethnicity scoundrel , was entrusted with teaching Bulgarian children in Thessaloniki in their native language, himself ignorant of Bulgarian. The educational activity of “his literary genius,” as was to be expected, did not last long; it ended with the scattering of the students by the ignorant teacher and, subsequently, with the closure of the school. Thus, for the second time, the Thessaloniki school came to an end in 1869. Jingiby (talk)

Hello User:Jingiby, please do not remove the quoted part about the teacher in Thessaloniki. It is relevant to the topic since he declared himself as Macedonian. It was Salgandzhiev that referred to him as half-Aromanian. If we go by that logic, the Bulgarian press also referred to Zografski as "Arnaut", but that does not make him Albanian. Rayko Zhinzifov for example is of Aromanian origin but is considered as Bulgarian. I don't want this to evolve into edit war. Kkapidan (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Kkapidan, this is just trivia, presented in the typical Macedonian historiography manner. More than half of the facts in the case are covered up. It has absolutely no place here. Jingiby (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, cannot edit content that does not belong in the article. There are many articles where this could be added (such as Eastern South Slavic, Macedonian dialects, Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia, Slavic dialects of Greece, perhaps even on the articles of the individuals, etc). Then you can discuss rewording. That section is clearly about the origins of this nationalism, not about linguistic views. If we tried to include every self-identification of an individual, then the article would be excessively long. It is supposed to be only a general overview and that is why the whole article needs a cleanup. StephenMacky1 (talk) 17:56, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi, do you propose complete removal of the latest content? I added the paragraphs about Zografski, and continued the content about Shapkarev that Jingiby added because as the source I cited claimed, reflected some kind of "Macedonian consciousness" and "Macedonism". Kkapidan (talk) 18:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I do. Well, having some form of consciousness does not equal with nationalism. Same with self-identification. Nationalists usually concern themselves with claims about the state, religion, origins, language, etc. They usually link the nation with the state. Those individuals do not fit that bill. They simply had different linguistic views and excessive details about them does not contribute to an understanding of the topic. We have their articles for their views. Friedman refers to ethnic and linguistic identity, not necessarily nationalism. I do think there are valid NPOV concerns there because Friedman relies on old scholarship and many of the statements there are point-of-views. The article should discuss the activity of actual and proven early nationalists like Stefan Dedov, Dijamandija Mišajkov and others, and how they contributed to the movement. StephenMacky1 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the entire content needs to be deleted, since it adds useful context. But starting the "Origin" part directly with Pulevski feels a bit sudden. It might help readers if the section began with a short background on how Macedonian consciousness started to form in the 19th century, and then moved on to Pulevski. Anyway, since you are more experienced here, you know the better way to structure it, but again, I think adding that background would make the section clearer. Kkapidan (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Well, the article does need a restructuring and chronology is not good either. There is also some repetitive material that will need to be sorted out. Anyway, if you wanna know if content belongs in an article, just search the title and/or its variants. That's how you'll know that you are on topic. StephenMacky1 (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree with StephenMacky1 that the whole article needs a cleanup. It is becoming too long and is not exact focused. Jingiby (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

I will work on cleaning up this article soon. It needs a massive rewrite. Some content needs to be integrated, while unsourced and originally researched content needs to be replaced or rewritten. Some content is also repetitive. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2026 (UTC)

That was a big one, good job. Kkapidan (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, Jingiby, I am not so sure the new content is due for the article. Partisan accusations happen on a regular basis. SDSM and DUI are part of the opposition now, so obviously they are trying to portray VMRO-DPMNE in a negative light. It is something that happens back and forth. Granted, some of the accusations are from when both SDSM and DUI led the government, but it is still partisan. There is a report by the European Parliament that mentions the so-called "Serbian world", but it seems more relevant for Accession of North Macedonia to the European Union. StephenMacky1 (talk) 18:49, 3 May 2026 (UTC)