Talk:Second Battle of İnönü

Comments

Bias?

this page is not accurate, it clearly reflects a biased pro-greek point of view. even though the writer agrees the greek loss, he/she does not seem to admit that the greeks were never in an advantageous position

We also have to accept that there is a popular view which argues that such a battle didn't even occur or it was a mere clash of small groups, rather than an actual decesive battle, which was used as a propaganda material by the military officers, including İsmet İnönü himself, in order to escape from the strong opposition they were facing at the National Assembly sessions about the process of the newly formed Turkish military force. Deliogul (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The dates also seem to be a problem. The battle was in Jan not in March and it was a very important turning point, regardless of the size of the fight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.156.90 (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

My mistake. That was the First Inonu Battle.

Casualties part of Template

Is this part, more than (11th infantry division, 1st and 2nd cavalry division, 3 infantry regiments not included): supposed to be in the Casualties section of the template?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Second Battle of İnönü. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804001507/http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_8_Turk_Tarihinde_Onemli_Gunler/Ikinci_Inonu/Ikinci_Inonu_Muharebesi.html to http://www.tsk.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_8_Turk_Tarihinde_Onemli_Gunler/Ikinci_Inonu/Ikinci_Inonu_Muharebesi.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism

I checked the earlier edits of this article and saw that there were 2 users(2A02:587:221C:2C00:1DB4:DD7C:C0F0:49E8 and fjdh) who only changed the outcome of the battle without explaining the reason for the revision. Furthermore, they have not used their source to at least write a paragraph on this article so that we could understan the main reason of the revision of the outcome of the battle. What they did is actually, providing a random source and only changing the outcome of the Battle a month ago. Ichecked their edit history, the user Fjdh(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fjhd), changed the outcome of the 6 different battles as well on the same day without providing any reason at all that would make a senso for the revisions he did. Check the Battle of First Inonu, Battle of Sakarya and Battle of Gediz. People undid his revision for the Battle of Sakarya article and also Battle of Gediz. On the other hand, this page is totally forgotten. I would suggest admins to lock the article to stop further vandalsim so that we can actually discuss on talk page before changing anything on article.