Talk:Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction#Recent changes

The following is a translated extract from the Arabic version of the same page:

Michael Mann stated in the 1914 Carnegie Foundation report that those acts were described as widespread murderous ethnic cleansing unprecedented in Europe.It is estimated that 4.4 million Muslims lived in the Ottoman-controlled areas of the Balkans at the turn of the 20th century.According to Maria Todorova, more than a million Muslims left the Balkans in the last 30 years of the 19th century.Between 1912 and 1926 nearly 2.9 million Muslims were killed or forced to immigrate to Turkey.It is estimated that 2.5 million Muslims died in Anatolia during World War I and the Turkish War of Independence. 148.252.146.29 (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

:Those figure makes no sense. Michael Mann did not write the 1914 Carnegie Foundation report, he wrote "The Dark Side of Democracy Explaining Ethnic Cleansing" (2005), he acknowledges the bad source but uses it. The only source used in the article for the death toll of the whole period is McCarthy who as you can read denies the Armenian genocide and probably exaggerated:

:"Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state and supports the official version of history, which denies the Armenian genocide. He thus might have exaggerated the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans in order to underplay the number of Armenian victims in Anatolia. However, Michael Mann argues that, even if these numbers were reduced by 50%, the number of Muslim victims in the Balkan “would still horrify”."-A Companion to the Anthropology of the Middle East (2015) Edited By Soraya Altorki (The Chapter is Rethinking the “Post‐Ottoman”: Anatolian Armenians as an Ethnographic Perspective By Hakem Al‐Rustom.), page 474.

:"Roger Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922) when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas later to become part of Turkey "Total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated as close to two million. The historian Mark Biondich estimates that from 1878 to 1912 up to two million Muslims left the Balkans either voluntarily or involuntarily, and when adding Muslims casualties in the Balkans in 1912 and 1923 within the context of those killed or expelled the total figure far exceeded some three million."

:In fact these two sources are problematic as the first source includes military as well as civilian casualties and indeed includes casualties not just deaths in addition to it's exclusive focus on Anatolia, future Turkish territory (This source is especially problematic as it is not clear that all of the deaths in these casualties are murders (I include death induced by deportation and the like.) or death by disease and starvation and the like which may be the case as the blockade of Germany and Austria-Hungary was very effective for example. Furthermore it is unclear who murdered them. In the subsequent figures I just assume all deaths are murders by non-muslim forces.). Assuming more civilian casualties resulted then 1,500,000 civilian casualties and assuming more wounded than death then perhaps between 675,000 and 700,000. The second has exclusive focus on the Balkans and the three million figure includes the two million voluntarily or otherwise leaving and of course includes those expelled between 1912 and 1923. If you use your brain then the figure between 1912 and 1923 would be around 1,300,000. Again not all of these were killed (I cannot evaluate how many.) and on the assumption that more people are expelled than killed then 600,000-650,000 would appropriate. Thus the appropriate figure between 1912 and 1923 is between 1,275,000 and 1,350,000.

:In the fair assumption that McCarthy is exaggerating then take 75% (Much more than Mann's proposal.) of the 5,000,000 figure which gives 3,750,000. Subtract the 1912-1923 figures and you get between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000. That is between 1821 and 1923 between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000 muslims were murdered.

:If you take Mann's proposal of 50% of 5,000.000 it results in 2,500,000. Subtract the 1912-1923 figures and you get between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000. That is between 1821 and 1923 between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000 were murdered.

:As a conclusion then people really need to properly read the sources. It is full of exaggeration and arguably downplaying or denying Christian genocides and massacres. For example, muslim society may have been incensed against Armenians because of the Balkan Wars but Armenians were being massacred for decades by this point (See Hamidian massacres (1894-1896).) and that model of governance was promoted since the 1690s (See War, State and the Privatisation of Violence in the Ottoman Empire (2020) By Tolga U. Esmer.). This is not at all to condone any of this however the article seems more than a bit myopic. John Not Real Name (talk) 20:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

::I want to amend my statements. "That is between 1821 and 1923 between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000 muslims were murdered." should be That is between 1821 and 1912 between 2,400,000 and 2,475,000 muslims were murdered.

::"That is between 1821 and 1923 between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000 were murdered." should be That is between 1821 and 1912 between 1,115,000 and 1,225,000 were murdered. John Not Real Name (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

::The blockade parts must be mentioned if you have a source for it. Theofunny (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I misunderstood your comment I thought you were asking me to prove a blockade was in place which I thought was a bit absurd. There was a blockade and I would recommend this article: ( Great Famine of Mount Lebanon ). Although it is NOT accepted as a genocide by any government, it is being pushed for as the ottoman government was directing grain shipments away from the people. Lebanon was the most affected of course but I would not be surprised if it affected Anatolia given the starvation levels amongst all the Central Powers. It is odd that no-one seems to mention it when half of the Pre-War Maronite population was decimated during the War. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Discussion clearly dead and going nowhere, I suppose the article is ok and should be left alone as it is

Casualties mean deaths. Biondich talks about how he arrived at that number, not that casualties include those that are expelled. Biondich’s numbers also have a more limited time frame. Owen's book also have a more limited time frame. It says "during this decade". Kaser's numbers are from 1820 to 1920. I'm restoring the previous version. Bogazicili (talk) 11:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Theofunny}}, you have cited an entire book for the sentence you added: {{tq|However, others have accused McCarthy of exaggerating the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1261491647&oldid=1261490764] Can you provide a page number for this claim? Bogazicili (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::"Justin McCarthy is an apologist for the Turkish state and supports the official version of history, which denies the Armenian genocide. He thus might have exaggerated the number of Muslim victims in the Balkans in order to underplay the number of Armenian victims in Anatolia. However, Michael Mann argues that, even if these numbers were reduced by 50%, the number of Muslim victims in the Balkan “would still horrify” (Mann 2005: 113). I advocate the centrality of juxtaposing the ethnic cleansing of Balkan Muslims with the Armenian genocide as an intertwined history of the two victim populations; the occurrence of one should be taken as denying the other." Page 474, by Hakem Al Rustom Theofunny (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::I read this source a long time back and didn't exactly remember the page, but it was shoddy work from me. Theofunny (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::As the quote you added shows, there's no evidence of exaggeration. It's the speculation of Hakem Al Rustom. Bogazicili (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:"In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans."

:I now realize now that Owen's book had a more limited time frame and should not be included but why would Mark Biondich add those "killed or expelled" to those Muslims who emigrated to mean deaths. As I see it from a neutral viewpoint, he refers to the reduction of Balkan Muslims as "casualties from the Balkans".

:And the estimate of deaths should be up to 5 million not around 5 million as the research has been very limited in this area. Theofunny (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::Casualties mean deaths. The way I read it, he talks about how he calculated that number. If you have any further doubts, you can ask it in: Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can give the source and the quote from the source, and ask what they think.

::Kaser says: "estimations speak about 5 million casualties and the same number of displaced persons"

::about 5 million is reworded as around 5 million. "Up to" would be WP:OR. Bogazicili (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Upto because McCarthy is an unreliable source and Kaser most probably takes the estimates from McCarthy. In my view, it should up Upto 5.5 not only 5. Theofunny (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::Please see Wikipedia:No original research. Wikipedia is edited by looking at reliable sources, not by assumptions or views of editors. Bogazicili (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::I do know that, but different editors will interpret the same give text differently which is what I meant by my view. Theofunny (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::This is why I suggested Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. You can also try Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Since you are a new editor, you can also get advice at Wikipedia:Teahouse. Bogazicili (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::I have submitted the topic at Teahouse and thanks for your advice. Theofunny (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::If it meant deaths he would indicate it was deaths. I think it is a stretch to make that claim. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::Someone else has mentioned that the figure often includes dead and missing (Not necessarily the same thing. It however does make one question the results if the margin of error can be as high as 400,000.). The 5,000,000 figure is wrong for deaths at least. It is also rather hard to believe that an equal amount were killed or fled (I guess it is possible.). John Not Real Name (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

{{od}}

For further clarification, see: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Confusing_language_from_a_Mark_Biondich_source_related_to_Balkans

When giving or contesting number of dead or displaced, be careful about dates and regions. Whether it's Balkans only or includes other areas. Whether from 1820 to 1920, or 1878 to 1912, or 1912 to 1923. Bogazicili (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Theofunny}}, the 2 million number you added into the infobox from Owen and Pamuk [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1261386115&oldid=1261384966] is about 1912 to 1922 and in areas in modern-day Turkey. Bogazicili (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::I already wrote in the talk that after you pointed out, I realized that it was incorrect. Theofunny (talk) 15:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::Oh I see it now, thanks.

:::I think the issues are resolved now with respect to current wording and info in the article?

:::The number of displaced etc can be added later. Bogazicili (talk) 15:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::But should it upto or about 5 million now since Mark Biondich claims otherwise? Theofunny (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::Mark Biondich does not have a claim about deaths, covering around 1820 to 1920 period. Or if he does, please provide the source. Include the page number and quote please. Bogazicili (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::He has for deaths and displacement combined from 1878 to 1923.

::::::Biondich gives same numbers and sources in

::::::[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/edit/10.4324/9781003055518/routledge-history-handbook-central-eastern-europe-twentieth-century-jochen-b%C3%B6hler-w%C5%82odzimierz-borodziej-joachim-von-puttkamer The Routledge History Handbook of Central and Eastern Europe in the Twentieth Century Volume 4: Violence]

:::::: chapter

::::::[https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003055518-2/balkan-wars-mark-biondich?context=ubx&refId=b66a3435-a28b-4d7c-8fdd-711ccd42eb58 The Balkan Wars]

::::::, page 1:

::::::

The road from Berlin to Lausanne was littered with millions of casualties. Between 1878 and 1912, millions of Balkan Muslims emigrated or were forced from the region. When one adds up those who were killed or expelled between the Balkan Wars (1912–13) and Greco-Turkish War (1919–22), the number of Balkan-Muslim casualties may have exceeded three million. By 1923, fewer than one million Muslims remained in the Balkans

::::::Theofunny (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::You can ask it in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.

:::::::The difference is due to different time periods and/or geographic regions. 5 million includes Crimean Khanate and Caucasus.

:::::::Biondich also doesn't give a specific number for only deaths.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ANeutral_point_of_view%2FNoticeboard&diff=1261511697&oldid=1261511122] Bogazicili (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::Ohh, then I see it now. It doesn't include Circassia too. Theofunny (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

:::::::::You can use it as an additional assessment for the period in question. People use Wikipedia as if the conclusion is everything but go ahead and source it for the Wars in question. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

::::::::{{s|To add to this discussion, I feel that McCarthy’s figures deserve a place in the infobox now, see here;

::::::::Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 is a book that has gone through extensive evaluation by scholarship and by all means successfully passed the peer review process. Historian Dennis P. Hupchick generally left a positive review of the book, stating: 'the statistical data appear generally valid. McCarthy succeeds in providing factual material for bringing the European historiography of the later Ottoman Empire into more objective balance.'

::::::::Historian Michael Robert Hickock too had an overall positive view of Death and Exile despite him criticizing specific aspects of the book, particularly regarding the proving of governmental intent for the massacres that occurred. However, he agrees McCarthy undeniably proved the existence of extensive Muslim suffering in this period: 'Professor McCarthy does an excellent service to both the general reader and the scholars of the region with this survey of human suffering... Although he succeeds in recounting the plight of Muslim communities, he is less successful at demonstrating state policy or proving intent... The question of intent underlies the book's biggest flaw.”

::::::::Bulgarian Historian Georgi Zelengora accepts the book as academically reliable and cites it in his own works; he had this to say about various Bulgarian groups who criticized Death and Exile: Translated: 'Justin McCarthy's “Death and Exile”, in which [many] Bulgarian readers learned about the crimes committed against Muslims by their homeland for the first time, has been translated into Bulgarian in 2010. Patriotic organizations have declared the book anti-Bulgarian. Semi-educated journalists and third grade politicians started disputing the author's professionalism, showing they have zero knowledge on the topic of demographics.'

::::::::Historian Kemal Karpat, in his review of the book, wrote: 'This is the first well-documented and comprehensive Western account of the treatment of Ottoman Muslims from the 1820s to 1919-1922. The scope of the book, its vast documentation, and the author's efforts to remain objective and impartial in analyzing little known events that most other Western scholars have ignored are praiseworthy.'

::::::::Historian Robert Olson praised the work as well, saying: 'Justin McCarthy's solid demographic work contributes to achieving a better balance and understanding that he so ardently desires for the history of these regions and peoples.'

::::::::Historian Donald W. Bleacher, who is a critic of McCarthy's stance on the Armenian Genocide, still praised Death and Exile as a high-quality work of historiography: 'Justin McCarthy has, along with other historians, provided a necessary corrective to much of the history produced by scholars of the Armenian genocide in the United States. McCarthy demonstrates that not all of the ethnic cleansing and ethnic killing in the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries followed the model often posited in the West, whereby all the victims were Christian and all the perpetrators were Muslim. McCarthy has shown that there were mass killings of Muslims and deportations of millions of Muslims from the Balkans and the Caucasus over the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.'

::::::::Historian Veselin Angelov not only praised Death and Exile but defended Justin McCarthy against critics in general.Translated(sentences might be out of order as I copied them from his interview one by one): 'I find Justin McCarthy's book valuable because it gives a different look at historical events in which there is a lot of mythology and political partisanship. It overturns long-held myths about the last 100 years of the history of the Ottoman Empire... The book is supported by quite solid and irrefutable scientific evidence... Even his critics admit that McCarthy refers to solid sources previously neglected mostly in the Christian West... In all probability, reading Justin McCarthy's book, the majority of Bulgarians will be amazed, horrified and want to throw it away. They will think that it is the product of a huge falsification and a tool of manipulation of Turkish historiography and propaganda. They will not believe anything written in it, with the idea that it is one-sided... I would advise against jumping to conclusions. There are quite a few readers of the English edition, for example, who think that McCarthy is not a "Turkish cannon", but presents a fair story. It helps to correct the injustice committed in the interpretation of history... The [negative] reaction in some Internet forums [to the book] does not surprise me. And from people who haven't read the book. I predict that with the appearance of the book, denials and incantations will multiply. These people, among them politicians, are laymen in historical knowledge, they do not understand that this is a scientific work... many historians consider him an extremely pro-Turkish American researcher, because many of his theses coincide with the views of the Turkish historiography. For me, his behavior is purely professional. It only states the specific facts. I did not get the impression that he underestimated the Christians within the empire or that he tolerated the [crimes of] Muslims. I have already mentioned that he does not omit data about murders, looting and pogroms of Turks, Kurds, Tatars and Circassians against the Christian population. As he himself says, historical correctness demands recognition. And he admits that the Christians have also suffered a great deal. A significant part of his book is devoted to the sufferings of Christians... They label him a "genocide denier", an "agent of the Turkish government" and a "revisionist". In most cases, the attacks against him are not supported by serious scientific arguments. However, there are historians who are positive about the results of McCarthy's scientific pursuits.' 165.237.199.136 (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} {{small|Blocked sockpuppet of User:ByzantineIsNotRoman.{{snd}}Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}

Please, explain what exactly "civilians" were doing at Ayvaz Baba fort during the siege of Edirne. This is a massive manipulation!!! 2A01:5A8:30A:4713:51DC:26:A8EE:FDDF (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

:Civilians can be in forts. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

::The siege of Edirne lasted 5 months and the defence was breached at Ayvaz baba. Do you think Shukri pasha sent civilians to defend the fort? Or did the Bulgarians kill civilians in the city, but then dragged the bodies in front of the fort to take a picture? 149.62.207.68 (talk) 08:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

:{{s|Civilians can’t be in besieged fortress cities? 165.237.199.136 (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)}} {{small|Blocked sockpuppet of User:ByzantineIsNotRoman.{{snd}}Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:22, 22 December 2024 (UTC)}}

{{od}}

There is nothing supporting the claim that these were civilians, besides the {{em|arbitrary}} title chosen by the user who uploaded the image in Commons back in 2013, and the repetition of that claim in the respective caption that was added by some editors relatively recently. We don't even know if it depicts Muslims; we assume it does (same can be said for other details; such as the location and the date). In short, there is lack of verifiability. In any case, why should we give more prominence to a single group of persecutors (the Bulgarians in this case)? Frankly, I don't think an image is needed in the infobox. Demetrios1993 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

:Based on what I could find, the description is accurate because it's given the same name on Alamy as a stock photo [https://www.alamy.com/bulgarian-soldiers-with-dead-turkish-civilians-edirne-image222239814.html here]. Yung Doohickey (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

::Happy New Year, and thanks for attempting to look into this. However, the fact that Alamy has the same photograph with an identical title indicates that they both have the same source. In Commons the file was uploaded on 21 March 2013 by User:Thirdclass; while in Alamy it presents 22 September 2010 as "date taken", which {{em|seemingly}} precedes the uploading of the aforementioned file in Commons. Now, I do not know if the date of 22 September 2010 is supposed to indicate the date that the respective file was uploaded in Alamy, or whether it was arbitrarily chosen by Alamy contributors "Gibson Green" ({{Plain link|url=https://www.alamy.com/bulgarian-soldiers-with-dead-turkish-civilians-edirne-image222239814.html here}}) and "The History Collection" ({{Plain link|url=https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-bulgarian-soldiers-with-dead-turkish-civilians-edirne-139475285.html here}}), who both offer licenses for what is essentially the same file. Based on the aforementioned, I only see two possibilities. Either User:Thirdclass copied the image (and by extension the title) from Alamy, which would make the file eligible for speedy deletion; or, Alamy contributors "Gibson Green" and "The History Collection" copied the image (and by extension the title) from Commons, per what is explained in the interesting essay Commons:How Alamy is stealing your images. In either case, we are still left with a lack of verifiability; in short, people should be able to check that all the information presented comes from a reliable source. Neither User:Thirdclass, nor Alamy contributors "Gibson Green" and "The History Collection", can be considered reliable sources. In respect to the latter, Alamy states under each file's title that "captions [titles] are provided by our contributors", which means that there is no editorial scrutiny as to their validity; see this and this noticeboard discussions for some additional input from our community. Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

5.5 million is in the second source. Are there any issues besides that it was first added by an IP that was a sock? Bogazicili (talk) 15:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

:5.5 million is not the death figure. I wrote to someone else and he indicates that it was dead and missing. I do not quite get why he has not changed that because otherwise the book source is contradictory which is not a good sign. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

::from the source: "Five and one-half million Muslims died" Bogazicili (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

:::"By 1923, “only Anatolia, eastern Thrace, and a section of the southeastern Caucasus remained to the Muslim land. . . . Millions of Muslims, most of them Turks, had died; millions more had fled to what is today Turkey. Between 1821 and 1922, more than five million Muslims were driven from their lands. Five and one-half million Muslims died, some of them killed in wars, others perishing as refugees from starvation and disease” (McCarthy 1995, 1)."

:::I swear none of you read the sources in question. As I expected he is directly quoting Justin McCarthy. Not paraphrasing but in quotation marks. At least change the source to McCarthy. Furthermore there are reasons to object. McCarthy includes between 1914 and 1922 military deaths and his figure does not differentiate between murder and disease/famine. It would be highly improper to put that figure there as if they were all murdered. Furthermore his Balkan Wars (1912-1913) deaths include many missing not dead as he apparently admitted in a later book of his. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

::::We didn't say anywhere that the numbers are only for those killed directly. As far as I know, these infoboxes also include indirect loss of life, such as due to disease etc.

::::For reliability of sources, you can ask in WP:RSN.

::::For other issues, you can ask in WP:NPOVN or WP:ORN Bogazicili (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am not quibbling with that. My point is this, during war-time conditions deteriorate causing famines, diseases e.t.c. For example, if infrastructure is damaged and crops destroyed it can be to hurt civilians or to prevent your enemy getting hold of them (Scorched-earth tactics.). This unfortunately would cause famine and conditions breed disease (Which is not necessarily attributable to one side or the other.). However we do not thereby attribute all such deaths to the malevolent intentions or acts of the other side (Most deaths during war-time historically have been disease-related but that does not mean either side is committing mass-genocide every time there is a War.). The best example I can think of is the Allied blockade of the Central-Powers, does that mean the Allies committed a war-crime because there was mass-starvation and death as a result? Furthermore we were asked why the higher figure should not be used and the answer is that it includes those not involved in war as Justin McCarthy writes: "Deaths of Muslim soldiers and deaths of civilians who were not in war zones (from war-caused famine, disease, etc.) have not been included, even though they can justifiably be called the results of the same factors that killed those recorded in the table. (For example, Muslim population losses in Anatolia from 1914 to 1922 were actually almost three million; only 2.4 million are listed in the table because central and northern areas of Anatolia that were not in the war zone have been excluded.)...If estimates for the "unknowns" are factored in, approximately five and one-half million Muslim dead are the result."-Death and Exile The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (1995), page 138 Again why are we including those not in a war-zone or soldiers? Let alone how ballooned that figure is compared to other sources, Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk wrote the "total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated as close to two million." This is including between 1911 and 1913 which McCarthy excludes and non-killed and bearing in mind the stuff I wrote above. It would make sense to include this information in the information box's death-toll estimate as a lower bound. Additional proof is this letter the third of September 1919: "Refik; I met with some high-ranking dignitaries of a medical committee sent by the German Emperor to examine the diseases of Anatolia in Ankara. They have been examining every patient who comes for a year free of charge and conducting their examinations on healthy people (like school students) as much as possible, and have understood that the stomachs of the Anatolian Turks are loaded with worms and their blood is full of parasites secreted by these worms. Do you know what is the reason for this situation that threatens the species with imminent extinction? Lack of nutrition."-Ahmet Haşim to Refik Şevket Bey ( https://www.tarihbilimleri.com/3-eylul-1919-da-anadolunun-icler-acisi-halini-anlatan-bir-mektup.html ) John Not Real Name (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

::::Literally none of that is true, let alone relevant, you seem to know absolutely nothing about how death toll figures are calculated, formulated, and displayed for public information. If we go by your logic, then 900,000 shouldn’t be shown in the infobox as the death toll of the Greek genocide nor should 1,500,000 for the Armenian genocide, or 6,000,000 for the Holocaust since those numbers also include a very significant and large number of deaths from disease, famine, exhaustion, thirst etc (which were regardless all directly attributable to the genocides) not just direct murder. I suggest you familiarize yourself with basic wiki principles in the future before initiating discussions like this 47.150.120.119 (talk) 01:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

:::::You misunderstood my statement. One can kill intentionally by direct action (Shooting and cutting.), famine and disease. However one can also indirectly cause famine and disease which does not mean you murdered them. That was the distinction I was trying to make and which has not been answered. Genocide requires intent. That is my point. If you want some proof here is Justin McCarthy himself: "Deaths of Muslim soldiers and deaths of civilians who were not in war zones (from war-caused famine, disease, etc.) have not been included, even though they can justifiably be called the results of the same factors that killed those recorded in the table. (For example, Muslim population losses in Anatolia from 1914 to 1922 were actually almost three million; only 2.4 million are listed in the table because central and northern areas of Anatolia that were not in the war zone have been excluded.) With the exception of the figures for the period from 1914 to 1922, most of the Turkish soldiers who died in the wars are also not included. Soldiers from Anatolia, in particular, fought in all the Ottoman-Russian wars and died in great numbers."-Death and Exile The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922 (1995), page 138 This is him talking about how up to 500,000 deaths (Including soldiers.) were not within any warzone but they nonetheless caused so many deaths. Extending this logic to warzones it seems unfair to attribute all such deaths to the Greeks doing something. Additional proof is this letter the third of September 1919: "Refik; I met with some high-ranking dignitaries of a medical committee sent by the German Emperor to examine the diseases of Anatolia in Ankara. They have been examining every patient who comes for a year free of charge and conducting their examinations on healthy people (like school students) as much as possible, and have understood that the stomachs of the Anatolian Turks are loaded with worms and their blood is full of parasites secreted by these worms. Do you know what is the reason for this situation that threatens the species with imminent extinction? Lack of nutrition."-Ahmet Haşim to Refik Şevket Bey ( https://www.tarihbilimleri.com/3-eylul-1919-da-anadolunun-icler-acisi-halini-anlatan-bir-mektup.html )John Not Real Name (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi there, just as the header of this says, given that the scope of this article mentions the Habsburg and Venetian conquests and persecutions in the 17th-18th centuries, I believe this should also be included in the infobox to a degree at least, so that the infobox better matches the scope of this article. 8.48.3.236 (talk) 21:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:Please amend the lower-bound to reflect lower estimates. I do not think 5,500,000 is a good upper-bound but 5,000,000 is definitely not a good lower-bound. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Where is the source for {{Tq|These figures do not discriminate based on perpetrator ...}}? Unless there is a source it is WP:OR. Do Roger Owen and Şevket Pamuk mention this issue in their estimates? Bogazicili (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:The closest I can get is "Moreover, the Armenian population of Anatolia declined from close to 1.5 million to less than 100,000 as a result of the deportation of most Armenians to the Syrian desert by the Young Turk government in 1915. Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process, even more died of hunger and disease, and the rest of the Armenians fled Anatolia."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 131-132 He includes that muslims were massacred in the process of deporting the Armenians as indeed after 1916 Kurds were deported and many died as a result. Pamuk explicitly recalls the Kurdish and Turkish population is what is dealt with so it is neutral as to who did it and why. I am merely stating that the figures do not discriminate as to who caused the deaths and would include ottoman repression of Kurds who are muslim as Pamuk explicitly recalls. How is it original research to recall that muslims were killed in what would become Turkey between 1913-1922 by other muslims? Furthermore it would be improper to claim otherwise as de facto one is asserting that they were killed by other than muslim sources alone. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:27, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{replyto|John Not Real Name}} There's nothing about Kurds being deported in pages 131 and 132, can you provide a quote?

::This is what it says:

::{{tq2|Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million ... Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process}}

::Can you provide a quote about Kurds getting deported? Bogazicili (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I am a bit confused about what you are asking me to inform you on? That Kurds were being deported? There is a Wikipedia article on that which I linked to. If you mean is there a quote in the book about it then no there is not however the matter dealt with includes the population losses of Kurds in Anatolia (Turkish and Kurdish muslims.) which would include the deportation of Kurds since...they are no longer there. I am merely pointing out that the datum does not specify who did it and I gave an example otherwise. In any case your point is slightly moot as my point does stand from the quote as muslims were massacred during the deportations of Armenians by the Young Turk government. At the very least you have to concede it is not specific as to who committed what. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:42, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The source says "as well as Muslims were massacred during this process" without saying who did it. You rephrased it as {{tq| These figures do not discriminate based on perpetrator or reason however and includes the deportation and deaths of Kurds by ottoman forces for example}}

::::This is WP:OR. You also admit this is WP:OR: {{tq|If you mean is there a quote in the book about it then no}}

::::If you want to add something about this into the article, please find a way without WP:OR or WP:UNDUE.

::::Your quotes are also excessive within text. Bogazicili (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Well by that logic "The source says "as well as Muslims were massacred during this process" without saying who did it." would be original research and you literally just conceded my point. My entire point is that the text is not determining who killed what and deported whom. If you want me not to include the Kurds being deported in Anatolia in the relevant period by the ottoman government as an example then okay I guess but the point does stand that the source is not claiming who killed what. All I admitted is that there is nothing explicitly about the Kurds. The quote is about the population loss of Kurds and Turks in what would become Turkey, it is neutral about who did what. At the very least there should be a disclaimer as readers would otherwise think all of that population was killed by non-muslims which is not what is written at least. This page is about the persecution of muslims by non-muslims so we have to clarify.

:::::If you can amend it without getting rid of the gist then I am okay with it but please do not just get rid of it all. Furthermore I did other amendments like changing citations to make them more accurate and changing the Mark Biondich bit as the quote is not the same as whatever was written beforehand. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:09, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::You don't know how the authors arrived at their estimations. If some Kurds were deported and then came back, those wouldn't be included in population decline estimations anyway.

::::::What you are doing is WP:OR. You are also edit warring. I'd suggest you to self revert, find a proper source for what you are trying to say, and add it without WP:OR.

::::::Per WP:ONUS and WP:Burden, you should do this if you are trying to add content. Bogazicili (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Kurds did die during the deportations so that would be included in the population decline estimate even if all other Kurds returned.

:::::::No, it is not. You accepted that here: "The source says "as well as Muslims were massacred during this process" without saying who did it." You wrote that I was assuming who did it but my point is that the sources are neutral as to who did something so your argument is what I have been stating this whole time. In fact it is disingenuous as you are de facto asserting non-muslims did all the killing and deportations. One has to clarify, again "At the very least you have to concede it is not specific as to who committed what." Edit-wars are thrice not twice. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am not "de facto asserting" anything, I didn't write that paragraph.

::::::::Edit warring does not have to be reverts 3 times.

::::::::If you want to add something, make it without WP:OR.

::::::::Also don't add ridiculous quotes in text such as {{tq| decade are estimated as close to two million. ... Close to two-thirds of this decline was due }}

::::::::If you have any questions, you can go to WP:Teahouse or you can try WP:DR Bogazicili (talk) 19:16, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh my you do not understand. If I write in a page about the genocide of Telions (Not a real group.) by Masterions (Not a real group.) that the population of Telions was reduced by 1,000,000 in the period in question but I know that the Telion government had also committed mass-atrocities in the time in question (Something no-one disputes.) then it would be disingenuous for me to present that 1,000,000 as the nefarious deeds of the Masterions alone. That is my point.

:::::::::See this: ( Wikipedia:Edit warring#The three-revert rule ). If you mean the general theme of edit-wars is not three then I hate to do this but you literally started it. You did it twice before me so that is not a route you want to go down.

:::::::::I did not do original research!!! The text mentions the population-decline of muslim Turks and Kurds and I merely pointed out that it would include the persecution of Kurds by the ottoman government since there is no indication of perpetrator (In fact the population-decline figure does not specify if they were all murdered.) or the reason for the same.

:::::::::There is an ellipsis there and that sentence makes perfect sense. Close to 2,000,000 people either died, emigrated or were deported and nearly 2/3rds of that 2,000,000 died. Can you not read? John Not Real Name (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I already explained why I'm against your changes.

::::::::::If you disagree, you can proceed to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, such as Wikipedia:Third opinion, or Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard.

::::::::::If you are not sure about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, you can ask help in WP:Teahouse, WP:Help desk. Or you can request WP:Mentorship Bogazicili (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Your explanation makes no sense. Either the mention of muslims massacred during the same process wherein the Armenians were is at least evidence the ottomans killed some of the muslims in Anatolia or if you reject that for the reason you gave then you would have to accept that my contention that since no mention is made of who did the acts in question you have to clarify that the figure includes ottoman actions against Kurds for example. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I'd recommend you to file a case in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard Bogazicili (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I have put it up for a Third Party thing here: ( Wikipedia:Third opinion#Active disagreements ). Can I just ask like @Demetrios1993? It would be much easier and surer to get an answer. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

style="border-top: solid thin lightgrey; padding: 4px;" | Image:Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:

style="padding-left: 1.6em;" | I agree that the passage, as written in this diff, represents WP:SYNTH. I agree that we have no indication that the figures of the authors account for perpetrator, so we should not state that it does. However, unless a quote is provided where a WP:RS states that they do not account for perpetrator, we likewise cannot state this in wikivoice. My understanding is that Bogazicili wants to be sure we only include what is stated by WP:RS. Similarly, John Not Real Name wants to be sure we don't give the impression that the figure is exclusive of the Turk government. I don't think these desires are incompatible. I suggest we simply remove the quote and rephrase the claim to avoid ambiguity without calling undue attention to the uncertainty. I'd propose the text would look something like: :Roger Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, the Muslim population decreased by between 2 million[Cite Owen & Pamuk 1998] and 3 million.[cite Biondich 2011] Estimates indicate anywhere between half[cite Pamuk 2005] and two thirds [Owen & Pamuk 1998] were due to emigration, and the remainder due to death. This is pretty rough, but the idea is that by describing it as a population decrease, it is implicitly agnostic to party or purpose, but still presents the figures that are known. In the meantime, I think this reversion should be kept. It may allow confusion, which is not good, but we can massage out ambiguity. I'd like to hear your thoughts. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC) EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:My only contention is that the text does not mention who the perpetrator is and I would suggest it makes no sense other than including as he does lay out the population decline figure as from 17,000,000 to 13,000,000 and gives the reasons for that decline as from Armenian attacks, Greek population exchange and muslim population decline:

:"From 1912 the Ottoman Empire and its principal successor state of Turkey were engaged in a series of wars that continued for a decade. The Balkan Wars of 1912–13 were followed by the World War and then the War of Independence from 1920 to 1922. Demographic changes were one important and long-lasting legacy of this decade. The population of the areas that were later included in Turkey was close to 17 million in 1913. Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million. Moreover, the Armenian population of Anatolia declined from close to 1.5 million to less than 100,000 as a result of the deportation of most Armenians to the Syrian desert by the Young Turk government in 1915. Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process, even more died of hunger and disease, and the rest of the Armenians fled Anatolia. Finally, in the largest agreement of population exchange signed between two governments, approximately 1.2 million Greeks left Anatolia, and in return approximately half a million Muslims arrived from Greece and the Balkans after 1923. These figures include the large numbers of Greeks who left western Anatolia after the defeat of the Greek occupation army in 1922. As a result of these massive changes, the population of Turkey stood at around 13 million at the end of 1924; of the decrease of about 20 per cent on a decade previously more than half had died and the rest had fled or emigrated."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 131-132 If you add the numbers and subtract his figure is correct from 17,000,000 down to 13,000,000. The obvious question being, where did the Kurds go (If we assume that is not dealt with in the text.)? That did happen so unless it is included in the estimate the text makes no sense.

:I should note the statement: "Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process, even more died of hunger and disease, and the rest of the Armenians fled Anatolia."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 132 clearly suggests muslims were also massacred by the ottomans in the deportation of Armenians. It has been documented that Kurds aided Armenians and were meted the same treatment as them here for example: "Whereas many Kurdish tribes joined the Young Turks, some Kurdish groups like the Alevis from Dersim (today Tunceli) decided to oppose the government and gave refuge to Armenians."-Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 9 In their citation they write: "The Kurds of the Dersim had to pay a high price for their courage. Riggs noted in his report: “One distressing incident which followed the uprising of the Kurds in the Dersim was the effort on the part of the Turkish government to terrorize those Kurds by treating them as they had treaded the Armenians.”"-Late Ottoman genocides: the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and Young Turkish population and extermination policies—introduction (2008) By Dominik J. Schaller and Jürgen Zimmerer, page 12 The muslims massacred in the process would be these Kurds who were protecting Armenians and both of these are from reliable sources (I think it was meant to be treated not treaded. My version of the text.).

:I am afraid your suggestion is incorrect. The only estimate for Turkish population decline in the relevant period there is by Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk. Furthermore, they are estimating it at below 2,000,000 not between 2,000,000 and 3,000,000.

:Mark Biondich is estimating population losses in the Balkans between 1878 and 1923.

:Finally Owen and Pamuk's decline proportion is the other way around and includes all of the Anatolian population. They are writing that of the decline in population, between a half and 2/3rds (Closer to 2/3rds. Including Armenians, Greeks, Kurds and Turks e.t.c.) had died whilst the remainder had emigrated.

:So your suggestion would be factually incorrect. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::(ec)First, if possible, try to be a little more concise; it's difficult to make times to read walls of text. Second, thank you for workshopping my suggestion; you've made some good comments!

::Re: Population: So we have the Pumak 2005 source, which gives 2 M casualties, as does the Pumak and Owen 1998 text. The 2005 Source gives 2/3 of that as deaths, (Good catch on me switching the emigration-fatality figures. That'll show me to be in a rush!) while the 1998 text gives only 1/2 as deaths. These represent deaths and displacements of Muslims in modern-day Turkey from all causes. Do we agree on this? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry, I was quoting at length so that you know what the quote our tumult is over is. It is that first chunky quote.

:::Also I think some of this is because of my prior error but I shall try to be brief. What Owen and Pamuk are writing is that of the gamut of ethnicities in Turkey at the time (So including Turks, Armenians, Kurds and Greeks.) the population decline (Estimated as 4,000,000 here by Owen and Pamuk.) consists of close to 2/3rds deaths and the rest emigrating. Neither gives exclusive figures for the muslim population (If you had seen the article text you would see I had amended it to make this clear but I had not in this thread before so again Sorry.).

:::The second paragraph contains the evidence from reliable sources for my contention as it clearly shows muslims were massacred and there is proof that these muslims were Kurds protecting Armenians as I shewed. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the concise summary at the top! That was very useful. Okay, so the source texts (Pamuk and Owen) don't lay out who the perpetrator is. Do we agree on this? If so, the next question is how do we represent this in the article. I maintain that just describe the decline from all sources is clear and agnostic as to perpetrator. That seems to solve the issue, but I'm guessing I misunderstood something. Can you clarify things for me? EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::So far I agree with the sentiment but there is one problem. Even if I were to accept that, the article itself is about the persecution of muslims by Christians. I will quote the example I gave above to @Bogazicili:

:::"If I write in a page about the genocide of Telions (Not a real group.) by Masterions (Not a real group.) that the population of Telions was reduced by 1,000,000 in the period in question but I know that the Telion government had also committed mass-atrocities in the time in question (Something no-one disputes.) then it would be disingenuous for me to present that 1,000,000 as the nefarious deeds of the Masterions alone."

:::By not at least pointing out these other atrocities the wrong impression is given. By leaving the population decline out there the assumption is that the decline was caused by the Christian forces. I may not be able to reply soon so Sorry for the delay. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Okay, I think I'm understanding better now. Thank you! So, your point is that, in the context of this article, displaying a population reduction figure without further context implies that the reduction is solely due to persecution by Christians. I can see that. Perhaps then we could open the paragraph with, "While there are no estimates for casualties from persecution specifically, the population decreased..." or add to the end, "Causes of this decrease include the persecution of Muslims, [list other things stated by Pumak 2005 and cite]." What do you think of that? Bogazicili, what are your thoughts on this? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am willing to accept something like that. Something like it is unclear whether this decline was caused by Christian persecution exclusively and may include actions by the Young Turk government? Is that acceptable? Especially since you can make a prima facie that the muslims massacred during the deportation of the Armenians are the Kurds who protected the Armenians and were treated roughly by ottomans. How about that there is no indication who caused the population decline of the muslim population and it may include ottoman repression? John Not Real Name (talk) 09:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{replyto|EducatedRedneck}} I am good with any improvement that:

:::::* has a WP:RS

:::::* is not WP:OR and not WP:UNDUE

:::::* does not have excessive quotations. Bogazicili (talk) 12:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Good, it sounds like we're close to an agreement! John, my concern about the way you phrased things is, in the same way that not mentioning what else could've caused the population decline implies it was mainly caused by persecution, mentioning just one other thing that may have contributed equally implies that it was mainly responsible. I think we either have to list all the factors the RS uses, or none of them. Would something like "These estimates of a reduction in population include all causes, such as Ottoman oppression, the various wars of the time, hunger, disease, deportation, and emigration as well as violent death." This is still phrased awkwardly, but I hope you see what I'm getting at with listing everything Pumak did so we don't draw the reader's attention to any one in particular. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think "violent death" is redundant but other than that I have no problems with it. I accept. John Not Real Name (talk) 17:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Yeah, I was struggling with that one, too. I'm glad we have an agreement in principal! I hope you won't mind if I ask for your help to phrase it better; I concur that "violent death" doesn't feel like it captures the meaning of the article. Does "...as well as population reductions directly caused by persecution." work? I think you know more about this subject than me, so I appreciate the help! EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Oh, you meant violent deaths as in shooting and the like? I thought violent death was redundant because being deported and dying of hunger and disease is violence. Well just write "as well as other violent deaths." John Not Real Name (talk) 18:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{tq|Ottoman oppression|q=yes}} is this mentioned somewhere?

:::::::{{tq|"violent death" is redundant|q=yes}} summary executions is more precise. M.Bitton (talk) 18:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Fair; what do you think of the phrasing discussed above of, "These estimates of a reduction in population include all causes, such as Ottoman oppression, the various wars of the time, hunger, disease, deportation, and emigration as well as other violent deaths"? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Is "Ottoman oppression" mentioned in the article?

:::::::::To be honest, I found the above discussion (especially prior to your intervention) extremely hard to follow (I'm still not even sure I understand why the addition is necessary). M.Bitton (talk) 18:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Ah, I forgot to change that. My bad! What phrase do you think would fit best? I'm trying to say that the reduction of population figures may not be caused entirely by the subject of this article.

::::::::::As far as following the discussion, I agree it's all over the place. I think the main point is that the casualty figures in this section likely includes reductions from other causes. Presenting the bald figures gives the impression that persecution is responsible for the entire 2 M reduction, but other events were also happening which may have impacted it. It'd be like, in the Holocaust#Death toll article, stating "Between 1941 and 1945, 11 to 17 million people died due to Hitler's policies." It's a true statement, but conflates the Holocaust with all deaths in that period. I hope that clarifies a little. EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:56, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::No.

::::::::::The addition is due to the fact the relevant quote (I included it above.) does not mention who caused the muslim population decline. It was not only Christians attacking muslims but also the ottomans themselves as has been documented (I quote sources for this above as well.). Thus it would be absurd to present in the article the population decline figure as if it was caused exclusively by Christians. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{tq|likely includes reductions from other causes|q=yes}} can you back this claim with a reliable source?

:::::::::::{{tq|Presenting the bald figures gives the impression|q=yes}} according to which source? M.Bitton (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::No, I cannot, because that's not going into the article. This is editorial judgement, evaluating how broadly a source applies. Similarly, giving an impression is an editorial decision, and is more an WP:NPOV issue. Perhaps we're talking past each other, here? The quoted "These estimates..." passage is the only one I'm proposing be added to the article. The remainder is us, as editors, figuring out what WP:RS say. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:03, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::@EducatedRedneck: those questions were meant for John. M.Bitton (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Ah, I was confused, as you seem to have been quoting me. My apologies! EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Above the bolded bit includes muslims killed in the same process that deported Armenians. As I show later on it is clear that Kurds protected Armenians and were similarly treated. Next, we know Kurds were deported by the ottomans in the relevant time-period.

::::::::::::According to me. If you read the population decline occurred without any other context in this page you would think it was exclusively Christians killing muslims however the text does not mention any of that. So to clarify that we should give some sort of proviso which is what we are figuring out now. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:20, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::That a lot of WP:OR for not much in return. Personally, I see no problem with that section. M.Bitton (talk) 19:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::It is a clarification. It is not clear and this article is about Christian persecution. I would be fine with a line that just reads "although it is unclear whether this only includes Christian persecution." Since we do not know. Also I did cite both of those things above. That muslims were killed in the same process when Armenians were being deported is quoted above. That is from a reliable source. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{tq|this article is about Christian persecution|q=yes}} Nope. The article is about the "persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction". M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::"Perpetrators

::::::::::::::::Various European Christian nations and empires" John Not Real Name (talk) 19:50, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::So? M.Bitton (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::So, when you present the population decline figure (I quoted the whole section above. If you want to see the surrounding context that is fine by me I shall get it for you.) what you are de facto stating is that this muslim population decline was done by the Christians alone. Hence I think there should be an appositive clarifying that the population decline estimate does not specify whether it was Christians or also any other impact on the muslim population including the persecution of Kurds by the ottomans. As I noted above you could just state it is unclear whether it includes only Christian persecution. My point being we cannot assert it is only Christian persecution (Not in the text anywhere. We would be asserting that without an addendum.) so we need to include a brief clarification. John Not Real Name (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I am not opposed to summary executions either...as in for the clarification. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:59, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} {{replyto|EducatedRedneck}} what is the source for your suggested text? Please provide the source, page number and a quote. If it's unsourced, see WP:V, which is a core Wikipedia policy.

As for perpetrators, it is already sourced. For example, Kaser 2011:

{{tq2|The emerging Christian nation states justified the prosecution of their Muslims by arguing that they were their former 'suppressors'. The historical balance: between about 1820 and 1920, millions of Muslim casualties and refugees back to the remaining Ottoman Empire had to be registered; estimations speak about 5 million casualties and the same number of displaced persons}}

Bogazicili (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I am referring to the population decline estimate by Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk. Find where in Pamuk's text which I quoted above that he mentions whether Christians killed all of those muslims. If your assertion is that it does not mention whether it includes ottomans (Even though it explicitly refers to muslims being massacred during the process of deporting Armenians!) then I state right back that it does not mention whether the Christians did it. This is a different estimate for a specific period by a reliable source. Thus we should just clarify thusly: "however it is unclear whether this figure only includes Christian persecution." That is brief and indicates my point without specifying anyway. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Then the simple solution would be to delete that part rather than adding WP:OR Bogazicili (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::No, the simple solution is add that it is unclear as we simply do not know which is not original research but clarifying for the reader. The text is useful because it is an estimate of muslim population decline even if overall which is relevant to our topic. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, the above source says 5 million deaths was due to "Christian nation states". The rest is WP:OR. Bogazicili (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why was the source that says {{tq|In the period between 1878 and 1912, as many as two million Muslims emigrated voluntarily or involuntarily from the Balkans. When one adds those who were killed or expelled between 1912 and 1923, the number of Muslim casualties from the Balkan far exceeds three million. By 1923 fewer than one million remained in the Balkans|q=yes}} removed? M.Bitton (talk) 15:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Do not ask me. I am the one who helped clarify that. I even warned him twice that it is a separate issue. He is the one who deleted it. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I misread the deletion. M.Bitton (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{replyto|M.Bitton}} that's Biondich 2011. It's still there, I didn't remove it.

::::::I removed A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century, because it wasn't specifically about Persecution of Muslims. Bogazicili (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::My bad then. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am a bit confused. What exactly do you think this whole issue is over? I keep referring to the texts of Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk. I quoted Pamuk's text above. Why are you just labelling everything original research? Okay, let me break it down.

:::::Pamuk writes this: "The population of the areas that were later included in Turkey was close to 17 million in 1913. Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 131

:::::The meaning of the text is that of the areas that later became the Turkish republic between 1912 and 1922, the population of muslims went down by nearly 2,000,000.

:::::In the text he does not mention whether this 2,000,000 is only those muslims who were killed by Christian persecution.

:::::Therefore we have a figure for muslim population decline which is rather important for this article but to be clear for readers it is unclear why they died thus I propose we add a bit that merely states it is unclear. That is all. That is not adding any preconceived notions or original research. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:26, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@EducatedRedneck What do you think of that formulation? This: "although it is unclear whether this only includes Christian persecution." Just a note of unclarity. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:53, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::{{u|John Not Real Name}}, what is the source for that suggestion? Can you provide the source, page number and quote? Bogazicili (talk) 15:56, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You want a source for what? A source that it is unclear? You have proven it is unclear by this whole dialogue. Why not you try proving that the text in question is solely Christian persecution of muslims? If not then we have to clarify that it is not clear. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::See the quote above from Kaser 2011.

:::::::::Also Anscombe 2023, bolding is mine:

:::::::::{{tq2|Traumatic waves occurred in 1875–1878 and 1912–1923, but in all, between 1821 and 1922, 5.5 million Muslims died and 5 million became refugees in conflicts with Christian forces in the Balkans, Crimea and Caucasus.}} Bogazicili (talk) 16:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::That is original research. See WP:OR. You cannot use a different source with it's own estimates to explain this separate one. That is original research according to you so please try again. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I concur in that I'm confused at how reporting what a WP:RS says is WP:OR. Adding this source does add further granularity to the casualty data; the 5-6 M figure is for 1820 - 1920, the 3 M figure is for 1878 - 1923, and this Pamuk source is 2 M for 1913-1922. I view this as an improvement. I'm still uncertain about saying, in wikivoice, that the estimates are unclear. I think if we describe it as that, "It is unclear whether this estimate includes..." it's factual, as we're only reporting that it's uncertain what the source includes. I'd be firmly against the more general, "It is unclear whether this figure includes..." as there may be other RS which are clear. I still would prefer phrasing that doesn't evaluate the figure at all, such as, "This estimate includes casualties from all causes during this time, such as persecution, disease, and unrelated emigration."

:::::::I will say that, given that we already have two timeframes sourced in the text, unless we get consensus here on how to rephrase, the idea of excising the ambiguous passage is probably for the best. While they aren't for the same time frame as Pamuk, they are unambiguous in cause. It's better to have less information that is clear, than more information that is misleading. EducatedRedneck (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Not sure what you mean. "Pamuk source" is deleted.

::::::::Also the geographic areas are different. Bogazicili (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@EducatedRedneck Yeah, to be clear Justin McCarthy's 5,000,000 deaths figure is for between 1820 and 1922 all over the area including Circassia.

:::::::::Mark Biondich is only estimating population decline between 1878 and 1923 in the Balkans (So 3,000,000 and more includes deaths and emigration.).

:::::::::Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk are estimating population decline between 1912 and 1922 in the area of what would become Turkey (So the nearly 2,000,000 includes deaths and emigration. This figure includes military.).

:::::::::Justin McCarthy estimates that nearly 3,000,000 died in the area of what would become Turkey between 1914 and 1922 (This figure includes military.). John Not Real Name (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Bogazicili, have you read the rest of the discussion? I ask because that's twice now you've asked for sources that were specifically identified earlier in the discussion. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{replyto|EducatedRedneck}} the discussion is hard to follow.

::::::::::Where is the source? Is it A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century?

::::::::::If you want to add it back, that's fine. That source says "military and otherwise" Is that it? Bogazicili (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::The sources are this one{{cite book |last=Roger John Owen |first=Edward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC&q=Total+casualties%2C+military+and+civilian%2C+of+Muslims+during+this+decade+are+estimated+at+close+to+2+million&pg=PA11 |title=A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century |last2=Pamuk |first2=Şevket |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-39830-6 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=11 |language=en}} and this one.{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}} John Not Real Name (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::There may be other reliable sources on this issue but we are discussing this reliable source. I can accept a formulation that states it was the result of all causes but the issue is perpetrator and why not method. The perpetrator does not need to be specified though. So would this be okay: " however this estimate includes all causes of population decline."

::::::::This text even if we accept that it was all Christians is a million fewer than other estimates so it is a good source. Meaning it does contribute to the article. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I'd be very pleased with that phrasing. It identifies the issue, but makes no assertions otherwise. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Please put it on the record that I read, compromised and agreed with your suggestions as a third-party. @Bogazicili keeps trying to get me censured when he has now three times done WP:OR according to his own logic.

::::::::::This is the phraseology I plan on including then:

::::::::::"Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, the "total casualties, military and civilian, of Muslims during this decade are estimated as close to two million."{{cite book |last=Roger John Owen |first=Edward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC&q=Total+casualties%2C+military+and+civilian%2C+of+Muslims+during+this+decade+are+estimated+at+close+to+2+million&pg=PA11 |title=A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century |last2=Pamuk |first2=Şevket |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-39830-6 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=11 |language=en}} Pamuk would later affirm this, writing that of: "The population of the areas that were later included in Turkey....Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million."{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}} However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." John Not Real Name (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Let's leave aside the "by your own logic" arguments for now; we're all on the same side of improving the encyclopedia. Also, note that WP:3O is non-binding, so while I'm glad you agree with me, I'm just another editor.

:::::::::::As for the text, I like the substance, but I think we can paraphrase and do without the quotes. I'd suggest amending it to, "...later to become part of Turkey, the total population of Muslims went down by nearly 2 million. This estimate includes all causes of population decline." Does that still capture the gist of what you're trying to convey? EducatedRedneck (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::What about "...later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population.{{cite book |last=Roger John Owen |first=Edward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC&q=Total+casualties%2C+military+and+civilian%2C+of+Muslims+during+this+decade+are+estimated+at+close+to+2+million&pg=PA11 |title=A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century |last2=Pamuk |first2=Şevket |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-39830-6 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=11 |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}} However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." Is that okay? John Not Real Name (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yeah I'm fine re-adding "A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century" and adding "The Ottoman economy in World War I" sources.

::::::::::::We can just re-add the part I deleted here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290861325&oldid=1290829007]

::::::::::::And then we can just say: {{tq|According to Pamuk, these two million casualties were due to both military and non-military reasons}}. Bogazicili (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::For starters the estimate is nearly 2,000,000 and secondly the plan is to add "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." This assuages my problem. However it should include mention of military and civilian and that it is casualties (Death and emigration.). As long as those three are included I have no issue any more. John Not Real Name (talk) 18:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I'd be fine with any of the above formulations. I appreciate y'all working with me on this! EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::@Bogazicili Is this okay:

:::::::::::::::"Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population.{{cite book |last=Roger John Owen |first=Edward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC&q=Total+casualties%2C+military+and+civilian%2C+of+Muslims+during+this+decade+are+estimated+at+close+to+2+million&pg=PA11 |title=A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century |last2=Pamuk |first2=Şevket |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-39830-6 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=11 |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}} However this estimate includes all causes of population decline."

:::::::::::::::I think putting a note in the article that casualties means dead and emigration would solve that problem. So the note would be:

:::::::::::::::"Casualties means dead and emigrated."

:::::::::::::::I have no objections to this. John Not Real Name (talk) 19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::@Bogazicili I shall assume your silence means you do not object and I shall include it. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::First of all, the fact that they didn't respond doesn't make them "silent". Second, you don't assume anything. M.Bitton (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::::I have waited over 12 hours for a response. My suggestion is in line with what the third-party has already passed off as okay. Why is there a delay? John Not Real Name (talk) 13:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

I'm fine with the first part. The last part can be changed a little:

style="background:silver; color: black"

Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk estimate that during the last decade of the Ottoman Empire (1912–1922), when the Balkan Wars, the First World War and the War of Independence took place in areas that were later to become part of Turkey, there were nearly 2 million muslim casualties of the military and civilian population.{{cite book |last=Roger John Owen |first=Edward |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC&q=Total+casualties%2C+military+and+civilian%2C+of+Muslims+during+this+decade+are+estimated+at+close+to+2+million&pg=PA11 |title=A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century |last2=Pamuk |first2=Şevket |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-39830-6 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=11 |language=en}}{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}} According to Pamuk, this nearly 2 million casualties were due to both military and non-military reasons.{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}}

I don't like just "this estimate" because it is not clear what it refers to. The 2 million or the 5.5 million in the previous paragraph? "Military and non-military reasons" is closer to the text without WP:CLOP.

These sources are not specifically about Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction, such as [https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-16266-4_3 Attitudes to Islam and Muslims in the Christian Balkans], but given the overlapping dates, I think it's fine in terms of WP:DUE. Bogazicili (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{u|John Not Real Name}}, if you are ok with above text, you can add it into the article. Bogazicili (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Would you be okay with "...However their estimate includes all causes of population decline including both military and non-military reasons."? This makes it clear that it refers to Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's estimate and includes your point as well.. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Please stick to in text attribution (According to Pamuk...), as this entire section uses that: Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction#Death_toll

::"all causes of population decline" is redundant when we say both military and non-military reasons. Also did Pamuk include people who died of old age for example, or "military and otherwise" includes things like people starving only? Bogazicili (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh, I think you have misunderstood the text. The text is stating that the total population decline of the muslim population including both the military and civilian population between 1912 and 1922 in the area that would become the Turkish republic is nearly 2,000,000. The bit at the end was added by me and @EducatedRedneck as you can see above. It is to assuage my point. My point being the text is not clear as to who is the perpetrator and why they did it. I am fine with "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." It can be "However their estimate includes all causes of population decline." That would cover your issue about what we are referring to. I reckon it includes your point about people dying of old age or whatever and meets my point of perpetrator without pointing at one source. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am not sure what you are saying here. The source says "military and otherwise". I paraphrased it as "both military and non-military reasons". Anything else is redundant. Bogazicili (talk) 14:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That means military and civilian. He is writing that the estimate he is providing is of the military and civilian population. If you read my suggestion I already mention both military and civilian population. So my suggestion okay? John Not Real Name (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::No it's not ok. Sorry, but I can't constantly keep responding to you.

::::::Please wait for {{u|EducatedRedneck}} or feel free to proceed to WP:DRN. Bogazicili (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The whole point of a third-party thing is that three of us are responding to each other right? Have you not been following this discussion? @EducatedRedneck is the one who okayed that language. This was his suggestion above:

:::::::"As for the text, I like the substance, but I think we can paraphrase and do without the quotes. I'd suggest amending it to, "...later to become part of Turkey, the total population of Muslims went down by nearly 2 million. This estimate includes all causes of population decline." Does that still capture the gist of what you're trying to convey?" He subsequently stated my adding that it was of the military and civilian population was okay as well. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|The bit at the end was added.. to assuage my point. My point being the text is not clear|q=yes}} the most important thing about that bit is that it's inadmissible WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I am referring to this: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." @EducatedRedneck okayed this as not original research as it does not specify anyone but clarifies. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::What does the source say? M.Bitton (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The text does not mention perpetrator, why it occurred or the cause and states "Total casualties" (Hence it includes all causes.).

:::::::For Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's book go to the citation (Scroll down to References.) which has a link to the relevant page where you can read there.{{cite book |last=Owen |first=Edward Roger John |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=jn-PdUK9AzgC&q=Total+casualties%2C+military+and+civilian%2C+of+Muslims+during+this+decade+are+estimated+at+close+to+2+million&pg=PA11 |title=A History of Middle East Economies in the Twentieth Century |last2=Pamuk |first2=Şevket |publisher=Harvard University Press |year=1998 |isbn=978-0-674-39830-6 |location=Cambridge, Massachusetts |pages=11 |language=en}}

:::::::Also here:

:::::::"From 1912 the Ottoman Empire and its principal successor state of Turkey were engaged in a series of wars that continued for a decade. The Balkan Wars of 1912–13 were followed by the World War and then the War of Independence from 1920 to 1922. Demographic changes were one important and long-lasting legacy of this decade. The population of the areas that were later included in Turkey was close to 17 million in 1913. Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million. Moreover, the Armenian population of Anatolia declined from close to 1.5 million to less than 100,000 as a result of the deportation of most Armenians to the Syrian desert by the Young Turk government in 1915. Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process, even more died of hunger and disease, and the rest of the Armenians fled Anatolia. Finally, in the largest agreement of population exchange signed between two governments, approximately 1.2 million Greeks left Anatolia, and in return approximately half a million Muslims arrived from Greece and the Balkans after 1923. These figures include the large numbers of Greeks who left western Anatolia after the defeat of the Greek occupation army in 1922. As a result of these massive changes, the population of Turkey stood at around 13 million at the end of 1924; of the decrease of about 20 per cent on a decade previously more than half had died and the rest had fled or emigrated."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 131-132.{{Cite book |last=Pamuk |first=Şevket |title=The Economics of World War I |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-511-13234-6 |editor-last=Noel Broadberry |editor-first=Stephen |location=Cambridge |pages=131-132 |language=en |chapter=The Ottoman economy in World War I |editor-last2=Harrison |editor-first2=Mark}}

:::::::I bolded the sentence in question and have given all the surrounding context. If you want more then as I wrote previously I shall provide it. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

{{od}} {{u|M.Bitton}}, this is what the source says.

[https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/economics-of-world-war-i/A9528E1394637261A7ABD08D9D7148B5 The Economics of World War I], p. 131

{{tq2|To discuss the long-term consequences of the war in the Ottoman case, we need a wider focus than on these four years alone. From 1912 the Ottoman Empire and its principal successor state of Turkey were engaged in a series of wars that continued for a decade. The Balkan Wars of 1912–13 were followed by the World War and then the War of Independence from 1920

to 1922. Demographic changes were one important and long-lasting legacy of this decade. The population of the areas that were later included in Turkey was close to 17 million in 1913. Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million.}} Bogazicili (talk) 15:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you. The solution is fairly simple: either we mention exactly what the source says, or we don't mention it at all. The idea that editors should fiddle with the text because it doesn't mention the perpetrators is against our polices and not something worth discussing. M.Bitton (talk) 15:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed.

::This source is not even about persecution of muslims per se, but I am ok with it given the overlapping dates and in order to compromise.

::My suggestion for how to add this source is above: "According to Pamuk, this nearly 2 million casualties were due to both military and non-military reasons." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1291007890&oldid=1291005699] Bogazicili (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC) According to Pamuk, this nearly 2 million casualties among Muslims were due to both military and non-military reasons." Bogazicili (talk) 15:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Oh my...the text is referring to which populations were reduced not the cause of the population reduction. It means the military and civilian population declined by 2,000,000 in the area that would become Turkey between 1912-1922 amongst muslims. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::If it's not clear 2 million refers to Muslims from previous sentence, "Muslim" can also be added. Bogazicili (talk) Bogazicili (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Actually, that's a good idea: "According to Pamuk, this nearly 2 million Muslim casualties were due to both military and non-military reasons" should do. M.Bitton (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agreed. {{u|EducatedRedneck}}, what do you think? Bogazicili (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Oh my...@EducatedRedneck is the one who came up with the formulation I am proposing: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APersecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290883070&oldid=1290882626 ). I am using his words. He later accepted my addition that it was the military and civilian population together that declined. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Both of you are not reading the text properly. They are writing that the muslim population including military and civilian declined as a whole.

::::::They are not specifying the reason the population declined (Which is my point. It includes all causes.). John Not Real Name (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Amazing, you have finally admitted that the text does not include a reason why population declined. That means all your suggestions about "all causes" are WP:OR.

:::::::Why did we start this reason debate about "all causes" at the first place then? I was trying to compromise but the whole thing looks ridiculous now.

:::::::Here's my updated suggestion for how to add the above source, {{ping|John Not Real Name|EducatedRedneck|M.Bitton}}

:::::::"According to Pamuk, there were nearly 2 million casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds between 1912 to 1923. These included both military and non-military casualties."

:::::::I will not waste any more time on this. If there is no agreement, we can proceed to WP:DRN. Bogazicili (talk) 15:51, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::That looks good to me. There's also no reason why it shouldn't be acceptable to John Not Real Name. M.Bitton (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, there is. The clear implication of that text in this context is that Christians caused the population decline. That is incorrect. It is why me and @EducatedRedneck agreed to the formulation I proposed. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Good luck finding a consensus for that. M.Bitton (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Well @EducatedRedneck is one. I guess I will go for the Dispute resolution noticeboard then. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::{{tq|The clear implication of that text in this context is that Christians caused the population decline}} is one the reasons why I removed the source in the first place [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1290861325&oldid=1290829007]

::::::::::But you seem to insist on adding the source.

::::::::::Either the source should be deleted or if you are going to add something, add it without WP:OR Bogazicili (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::No, you removed it because I added the bit about Kurds. It was already there for months at least. It is a good source since it has a figure. Just as Justin McCarthy has. Since it is not specific we should show it is not specific and that is all.

:::::::::::I have already done so. I brought in a Third Party (@EducatedRedneck) who suggested that and agreed it does not have original research. John Not Real Name (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Okay so you did not follow the discussion at all since I stated that at the beginning. My point is that since the discussion does not mention a perpetrator or why it would include ottoman repression of it's Kurdish population however that is too specific so me and @EducatedRedneck agreed that the claim has to be total as to perpetrator and cause hence he gave that as the suggestion. That is not adding any new information especially since you cannot prove the text means it is Christian persecution alone. If you leave the text in the article the meaning is that Christians caused the population decline however that is not mentioned in the text. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What? No, you are not reading the sentence properly. It is stating that the population decline estimate is of muslim soldiers and muslim civilians. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is in line with what the source says. M.Bitton (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::You do realise me and @EducatedRedneck have been discussing the issue and came to that as the compromise. It is to add a line just clarifying that it includes all causes since otherwise an inappropriate impression is given. He is the one who suggested such a compromise and stated it was not original research. The text is good as it deals with a related topic. Hence the line: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." John Not Real Name (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::WP:OR is a non-negotiable policy. M.Bitton (talk) 15:32, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Did you read what I wrote? @EducatedRedneck agrees it is not that. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think we all agree that WP:OR is mandatory. I think we disagree that it is OR. Please, if you believe it's OR, describe how. From where I'm sitting, the source presents a before and after total population. Doing basic subtraction (explicitly permitted under WP:OR) gives a differential of 2 M dead, 2 M emigrated. Because these are total populations, they necessarily include all causes. There is no reasonable interpretation of the text whereby it examines only a subset of the population based on cause. It's entirely possible I'm mistaken in a premise or logical step, but repeating "WP:OR! WP:OR!" doesn't help us see this, and thus doesn't help us resolve this dispute. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Let's first make sure that we're talking about the same thing. The text without the proposed addition is:

:::::{{tq|According to Pamuk, there were nearly 2 million casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds between 1912 to 1923. These included both military and non-military casualties.|q=yes}}

:::::The proposed addition is:

:::::{{tq|However this estimate includes all causes of population decline.|q=yes}}

:::::Does that look correct to you? M.Bitton (talk) 22:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Close enough, and thank you. Good call making sure we're talking about the same thing. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Great. Which estimate is the addition referring to? M.Bitton (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Another good question! I'm referring to the Pumak, 2005 source, reproduced (but collapsed) below.

::::::::{{collapse | title=Pumak, 2005 | "From 1912 the Ottoman Empire and its principal successor state of Turkey were engaged in a series of wars that continued for a decade. The Balkan Wars of 1912–13 were followed by the World War and then the War of Independence from 1920 to 1922. Demographic changes were one important and long-lasting legacy of this decade. The population of the areas that were later included in Turkey was close to 17 million in 1913. Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million. Moreover, the Armenian population of Anatolia declined from close to 1.5 million to less than 100,000 as a result of the deportation of most Armenians to the Syrian desert by the Young Turk government in 1915. Many Armenians as well as Muslims were massacred during this process, even more died of hunger and disease, and the rest of the Armenians fled Anatolia. Finally, in the largest agreement of population exchange signed between two governments, approximately 1.2 million Greeks left Anatolia, and in return approximately half a million Muslims arrived from Greece and the Balkans after 1923. These figures include the large numbers of Greeks who left western Anatolia after the defeat of the Greek occupation army in 1922. As a result of these massive changes, the population of Turkey stood at around 13 million at the end of 1924; of the decrease of about 20 per cent on a decade previously more than half had died and the rest had fled or emigrated."-The Ottoman economy in World War I (2005) By Şevket Pamuk, page 131-132. (Emphasis mine)}} If I'm entirely misreading the source, that'll make a swift conclusion to this dispute. Thank you for taking the time to explain to me. EducatedRedneck (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::By the way the estimate is for between 1912 and 1922. This is the same time period that for example Justin McCarthy uses in his book. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Please refrain from bludgeoning the discussion. M.Bitton (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::What? That statement is one of accuracy. If you planned on including 1912 to 1923 I would object since it is about between 1912 and 1922. That is constructive I would have thought. I want to correct myself. Justin McCarthy's text is from 1914-1922. Furthermore the decade is actually 1913-1924 for Owen and Pamuk. Pamuk states the same as between 1913 and 1924. I am so Sorry I confused you. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:I could be mistaken, but to me it looks like you're referring to another part of the source that the initial text {{tq|According to Pamuk... casualties|q=yes}} doesn't mention.

:The way I see it, the estimate refers to the {{tq|2 million casualties|q=yes}} and nothing else. M.Bitton (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::First, the estimate is included in both works cited numerous times here so it is Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's estimate.

::Secondly, the estimate is...well that one. I do not get the question. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The first sentence says {{tq|this estimate|q=yes}} to refer to the {{tq|2 million casualties|q=yes}}. M.Bitton (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I do not follow, the first sentence of what? John Not Real Name (talk) 23:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I am afraid I do not follow what you are trying to convey. Please explain. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Okay, I think I see where some of the confusion is. What I'm hearing is this: in the original {{tq|q=y|According to Pamuk... casualties}} passage, the source was intended to refer only to the part, "Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during [1913-1924], military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million." Given that, attempting to bring the surrounding text into it would be, at best, WP:SYNTH because it'd be linking two separate thoughts.

::I think I was operating under the assumption that the citation was for the entire paragraph, and that the 2 million casualties were derivative of the start and end populations, and thus {{tq|q=y|this estimate}} referred to the change in population, and thus its context was included in the cite.

::Does it sound like I'm on the right track toward understanding the dispute? EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Okay the text we are referring to is this: "Total casualties among Muslim Turks and Kurds during this decade, military and otherwise, are estimated at close to 2 million. " That text is referring to the 2,000,000 dead and emigrated amongst muslim Turks and Kurds between 1913 and 1924 within the area that would become Turkey. The addition suggested is "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." That is referring to the loss as described of the muslim population. I can do the mathematics for this from the text. The starting population is 17,000,000 for the area that would become Turkey in 1913. The number for muslim population decline is nearly 2,000,000 so 1,900,000, Armenian population decline is 1,400,000, Greek movement to Greece is 1,200,000 all of which is subtracted from 500,000 muslims who went from the Balkans to Turkey. If you add it all up and subtract you get this 1,900,000+1,400,000+1,200,000-500,000=4,000,000. 17,000,000-4,000,000 is 13,000,000. Hence the population being 13,000,000 in 1924. John Not Real Name (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|That text is referring to the 2,000,000 dead and emigrated|q=yes}} this is factually incorrect. M.Bitton (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::What exactly do you think casualties means? John Not Real Name (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq|2 million casualties were derivative of the start and end populations|q=yes}} isn't the difference between the start population and end population 4 million? M.Bitton (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I think I'm starting to see where I went wrong. I was thinking there was a 4 M decline, and "more than half had died and the rest had fled or emigrated", meaning ~2 M dead. This is inconsistent with my earlier statements that it included other causes of population decline, such as emigration. I think I got confused about how Pamuk defined casualties. While I still think the numbers will check out, I'm coming around to the line of thinking that it takes too much explanation to explain properly, and we have other (albeit more general) estimates, so there's no need for this particular reference. M. Bitton, if I'm misunderstanding, please let me know. EducatedRedneck (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I'm not sure I fully understand what you were thinking, but it doesn't really matter since we seem agree on the gist of the issue and the fact that this unclear source is not really needed. M.Bitton (talk) 01:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I do not see how you find it unclear. You seem to be misreading it. I have explained it a bunch of times. It is a general statement about muslim population decline (Dead and emigrated.) in areas that would become Turkey between 1913 and 1924 for both civilians and military. That is not hard to understand. John Not Real Name (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Okay. Edward Roger John Owen and Şevket Pamuk's estimate is a population decline estimate. To be counted you have to either not be alive anymore (Dead.) or have left the area (Emigrated.). They explain at the end that of the 4,000,000 decline nearly 2/3rds died and the rest emigrated. There are only two options available. Since some did not die they wrote "Total casualties" meaning total dead and emigrated. Also I do not see how the line is inconsistent with either: "However this estimate includes all causes of population decline." It would still include all causes whether perpetrator and why or method. John Not Real Name (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, 17,000,000 to 13,000,000. The nearly 2,000,000 is for the muslim population. John Not Real Name (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::::The drop in population overall is 4,000,000 and the drop in population amongst muslims is nearly 2,000,000. The nearly 2,000,000 is contained within the 4,000,000. John Not Real Name (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

{{Reflist-talk}}

I had problems with 5,500,000 but how did we get to 6,000,000? Also is Christanisation the correct term for the motive? Also the lower bound should not be 5,500,000. That is way too high. John Not Real Name (talk) 15:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:This claim and sources appear to have been copied without any prior verification from the respective article in the Turkish Wikipedia, and without even including the lower estimate of 1,000,000 shown there. Furthermore, {{alink|Total number of casualties}} is ignored. There are clear WP:NPOV issues with all these. I reverted the change. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 02:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thank You. I was flabbergasted by that. The Lower-Bound is way too high. For example Justin McCarthy for 1914-1922 including military deaths (I am unsure whether his estimate is only deaths. It may include expelled or emigrated.) within what would be the future Turkish republic puts the figure at 3,000,000 whilst Roger Owen and Şevket Pamuk put the figure at nearly 2,000,000 between 1912-1923 in the same area (Not all of those are deaths. They write that close to 2/3rds died. Those expelled or killed are not even all attributed to Christians so it would include for example the deportation and mass-killing of Kurds by the ottoman empire.). Furthermore, the extra 500,000 is from McCarthy's estimate of the deaths in Anatolia outside a war-zone (No, Greek occupation was there.) so that really should not be counted. In any case it makes no sense that 5,000,000 is the lower-bound. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::But the 5–5.5 million estimate presented in the article concerns Muslims who died during the Ottoman contraction in the 19th and early 20th centuries; not just in Anatolia, not only in the last decade of this period, and not necessarily in war zones. If you can share a reliable source presenting a lower death-toll estimate for the entire aforementioned period, then we can certainly add it. I am also not opposed to adding a parenthesis or a note next to the figure, clarifying that these deaths concern Muslims who were either killed in wars, or perished as refugees from starvation and disease, which is what the cited sources say. – Demetrios1993 (talk) 14:36, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::You have completely misunderstood what I wrote. The extra 500,000 is explicitly not from Greek occupation (There were no Greeks there to do anything but it was in areas of Anatolia which suffered from disease and hardship. My point being it makes no sense to attribute that to Greek malintent.). Justin McCarthy writes that in his book. Also the estimate is indeed for that whole century in various places however the individual eras such as between 1912 and 1923 in the area of what would become Turkey have widely different estimates. McCarthy estimates around or nearly 3,000,000 muslims whilst Roger Owen and Şevket Pamuk put the figure at nearly 2,000,000 muslims with close to 2/3rds dying (The 2/3rds is for the total Anatolian decline not just of muslims. So including Armenians and Greeks. That is close to 2/3rds of the decline in the Anatolian population between 1912 and 1923 is from death.). That is evidently going to affect the lower-bound estimate as an example. You do not need to add that in parenthesis I have never disputed that as such. John Not Real Name (talk) 13:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Did Greeks collaborated with the balkan populations in 1821 and for two centuries all together and in the independence war to genocide 6 million Ottomans? What is this genocide called, the ottoman one and was perpetrated with the collaboration of different countries for 2 centuries?

As far as I could read (because it is a huge, difficult article as it is) Greeks killed some 30 000 in the 1821 and some hundreds thousands in 1923

Now I just learnt that Greeks killed 6 million (6 million were the Jews killed by Nazis!!) Citing this page. Did we? Why are you putting us all together as if the Balkans were the same state for 2 centuries and have the same responsibility for what the other did?

And why the word genocide exists in the title? Did Greece commit a genocide and we are included? Shouldn't it be at least a genocide recognised by some organisations other than the laughable Mc Carthy and some sources you have that "there were some acts genocidal". By whom? Nobody knows, Greece Bulgaria, irrelevant to state it with this crime as I see. So anybody were doing it? As long as there is this word, genocide, this stains countries without committing it. Or at least show me any such ottoman genocide supported. But a genocide needs a perpetrator, you cannot stain everyone (especially a genocide victim, greeks, a recognised one this time)

This is an ahistorical page, as we don't see who did what, but everyone are blamed all together combined with generalisations and numbers fixed as i see from the other topics.

We know how many Greeks the Turks genocided, 350-750 thousands. if someone tries to find if Greeks did the same, he will find out (because noone can navigate in this page and understand numbers and who did what, especially someone who doesn't know the complex history and series of different conflicts) that Greeks among the other balkans, killed as many ottomans as the Nazis killed Jews! 6 million! And committed a genocide as well! Why don't you clarify so important and sensitive facts?

It is obscure, either make it many different pages or make many paged and keep this one (i don't get why, as if they are one event) with specific numbers for each nation (not total) from the start. And no allegations of genocide for Greeks for example which are unfounded. Of someone claimed it (like the shunned by his colleagues Mc Carthy) it can be written as an opinion in details, not as an established fact!!

Bothsideism (greeks genocided as well, Turks weren't the only) is a form of Genocide denial. There is no such things as Greeks having genocided, it is unfounded. Having so many events together to account is also manipulation.

Can we put the massacres of ottomans against Greeks in Chios in 1821 for example (100k dead plus many thousand more) along with the victims of the genocide in the Greek turkish war? We don't do that and there is a reason. Can we even start counting the greeks killed in Anatolia and the Balkans from Matzikert or 1453, how many in total? 10-20 million? Just because there was a genocide confirmed in 1915-23, can we say that Turks genocided 10 millions since the 14th and 15th. century? Do you see my point if you just use information out of context? And in the case of Turkey there is not even a genocide recognised.

Can a student make any kind of work with this? We shall say that Turks killed up to 750 k Greeks but Greeks along with Balkans killed 6 million and they also committed genocides? This is deeply misleading to say it, unless there are sources for a genocide against Turks by Greeks, because we all know that it is the other way around (greek pontic genocide, a recognised one). This is deeply misleading i repeat.

Thank you AlickyH (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:1. Commit in my title, wrong spelling sorry

:2. I meant genocide not in the title of the page but in the index. This index though doesn't differiate numbers or who did what, and puts all the Balkans as if we are one people for 2 centuries as genociders of 6 million people. It is unfounded. When did we do these things? AlickyH (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::just a last thing. This page doesn't explain who did what, during which specific war, how many were expelled/killed/persecuted/fled/were missing/exchanged with Laussane or anything useful. I am here for an hour and I can not understand who killed all those millions and if these 6 millions are indeed dead, have i understood it right? It is a mess. AlickyH (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, true. It does not focus on the countries in question. It is not all Greeks. The Bulgarians, Russians, Serbians and Armenians are the culprits as well. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:I would caution that the Greeks did commit atrocities in the relevant periods and this is a collation of the century and a bit (Although it includes prior events.) between 1821 and 1923. That muslims were massacred and the like has been documented. My main issue are the exaggerations and use of poor sources. Some of the sources are Armenian-genocide denying Turkish nationalist blogs. I approve of other sources though. Another issue I have is the motive, there was plenty of intra-faith violence during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) so I do not see how it was just against muslims. Of course one does not have to mention the former in a discussion of the latter except to clarify. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

extremely biased and heavily dependent on Turkish sources 62.73.122.27 (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:The part that annoys me the most is that many of the sources used are Armenian-genocide denying Turkish nationalist blogs and the estimates at the end are almost all just repeats of Justin McCarthy (I looked at their reference for the claim. Always him.). I could understand that if the lower-bound at least would reflect this but it does not. John Not Real Name (talk) 14:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)