Talk:Giaour

message: Using a citation from a book apparently published in 1831, the article states that this term was used 'by the Turks who didn't see anything wrong with it'. On the other hand there are aboundant legitimate sources demonstrating the offensiveness of this racial slur to armenians, bulgarians, greeks, serbians etc.
You may well say that many whites don't see anything wrong with the N. word. After all it simply means 'black' in the romance languages. The intention of individual speakers though doesn't make an ethnic slur less offensive. As with the N. word and other pejorative terms, you should view it from the perspective of the ones for whom it is intended, rather than trying to mesure the intention of somebody using it. I strongly suggest changes be made to this article, as at present is extremely biased at best. Bulgar khan (talk) 10:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You have misunderstood the article. It's Turks and other Muslims who call Christians giaour, so the appropriate example would be Christians calling themselves giaour. And no, that doesn't happen. Kostja (talk) 14:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Highly offensive pejorative term 

message: An anonymous user 85.97.65.129 deleted the words 'offensive ethnic slur', and also removed the disputed neutrality banner.   If you look at the banner it clearly states NOT to remove it unless the dispute is resolved.   The nature of the dispute is not whether the slur is offensive, which it clearly is, as  noted in the references.   The problem is in the following wording : 'This term was first employed as a term of contempt and reproach, but has become so general that in most cases its use is only mildly pejorative. '  This does NOT figure in any of the references, and it reflects the feeling of the turkish people who use the slur.   There may well be turks who use the slur without the intention to be abusive.   The important thing on the other hand is the overwhelming view of those against whom it is used that it is indeed highly offensive.   I propose to delete the above quote, as it is neither appropriate, nor in the references.   I have not deleted it outright, as changes to articles when disputes are involved should be by consensus.   Further deleting of banners and referenced material without any discussion should be considered an act of vandalism Bulgar khan (talk) 08:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Refrain from making changes without any discussion  

message: I thought this term meant "foreigner". There is another term for non-Muslim? Will someone with subject matter expertise please assist?Agamede (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The word is still applied to non-Muslims in a derogatory manner (by people that use it) and the term overall means "infidel", "nonbeliever". Hope it assists.Resnjari (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I found several books also that support this, thank you for the quick response.Agamede (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this article needs work. Best.Resnjari (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreigner or non-muslim 

message: The cited source does not mention ethnic Macedonians. This article is about historical issue. Neither the Ottoman Empire, nor another state or entity did recognize such community at this time. In the early 20th century only a small circles of intellectuals promoted these ideas outside the region of Macedonia. But there were not Macedonian community, state, church, codified language etc. Check the introduction of the Historical Dictionary of
North Macedonia. Macedonian then was an umbrella term covering Bulgarians, Turks, Greeks, Vlachs, Albanians, Serbs, Jews, and so on. Check also the Historical Dictionary of the Ottoman Empire the article Macedonia on pp. 168-169.  Only Bulgarian community is mentioned in the 19th century as well as Bulgaro-Macedonians Jingiby (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic Macedonians in the Ottoman Empire.