From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teşkilat-i Mahsusa article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Turkey Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the project's quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Teşkilat-i Mahsusa:
No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category

[edit] Comments

Please refrain from removing mention of the Armenian genocide in this article. This organization's direct role has been widely documented. And no, the Armenian genocide is not "alleged". - Fedayee (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Special Organization

This article should replace the article Special Organization (Ottoman Empire) since they are both about the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.20.131 (talk) 06:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Where does your citation for this claim? I would like to take a closer look at that source. The article "Special" claims executive committee of "Ministry of the Interior" (Talaat Pasha). The "Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa" article claims organized under War Department (Enver Pasha). They seem to be two different organizations. --Seemsclose (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I give a source, let me say that even if there were two separate organizations, the presentation is inconsistent. Teşkilât-ı Mahsûsa means "Special Organization", so why is an article about one group given an English name and another a Turkish name? And why would they even found two organizations with the same name? What I think has happened is the political wing and the military wing of the same organization have been given two separate articles. I guess you could justify that, but the names and articles should make that clear. You can check out Erik Jan Zürcher's well-respected "Turkey: a Modern History" for info on it (109-110). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.177.40 (talk) 04:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to add that the current state makes it quite difficult to find information. The name, Teşiklât-ı Mahsûsa is used as frequently as Special Organization in history books, so people looking for information are likely to be mislead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.177.40 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

How do we know your claim is verified, where is the citation specifically states these people belong to teskilat-i muhsasa? The existence of Teskilat-i Muhsasa ("Turkey: a Modern History") is not denied. But this article claims there is a genocidal civilian group who killed civilian Armenians. They planned raids on children. I'm asking the proof for these people belong to teskilat-i muhsasa. Can you prove beyond any doubt that either "they did not existed" or "belong to teskilat-i muhsasa." Did yo read the Wikipedia:Verifiability. You do not even use your own name or e-mail. How can we trust to you? --Seemsclose (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't turn this into a genocide discussion. I'm not trying to deny it or any of the information in either of the two articles. I've tried to explain to you that the spelling "Teskilati mahsusa" is incorrect. Check any dictionary. Secondly, read my information above about the confusion with respect to using English names in one case and Turkish in the other. Finally, there is no requirement to have an account on Wikipedia. It doesn't give you any more legitimacy than me (where's your name and email address, by the way?). 88.233.177.40 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to merge the two articles under a single title (your choice: "Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa" or "Special Organization"). And by the way, the fact that you are reverting the name change from "Teskilati Mahsusa" to "Teşkilat-ı Mahsusa" is really quite remarkable considering the fact that the source already cited (Stoddard) uses the correct spelling which you reject, claiming that I need "1 author 2 book 3 page number". Please take a deep breath and understand what I am trying to do. Don't panic. This has nothing to do with denial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.177.40 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not become personal!!! There is no place to your untested beliefs. If you believe your opinion is correct, the solution is with the Wikipedia:Verifiability. Take some time from your life, and summarize the organizational structure of these criminals according to your source. If you do that, I will believe to you. I will bring my own sources and see what is going on. Be open about the period. Tell us what your citation says, page by page. I will buy that book and verify if your summary matches. The solution lies in the path to be more open. Not I said so.. type of arguments. The citation is the route for civilization in this conflict. BE WP:CIVIL. --Seemsclose (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)