Talk:Eelam War I

message: This doesn't make sense (4th para): "Following the successful completion of the mission, and faced with the possibility of further involvement of the Indian military, including reports that Indian ground forces were been for possible involvement in Sri Lanka, ...".  Should it be "were being accused of possible..." or "were being mobilised for possible..." or what?  Please will someone tidy it up!  (I'm just editing the phrase "were been" everywhere I can find it as it's always wrong).  PamD (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This has still not been fixed - please will someone do so.  Thanks. PamD (talk) 16:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And again - is there anyone interested in this article? PamD (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Confused text

message: @Cossde could you explain why the Civilian killings section should be longer than the main topic of the article which is about the war? is it not already too long, with individual subsections too? undue weight is given to this subtopic which detracts from the main topic of the article. But if you insist, then i would have to add more massacres by government forces for balance. it would be too excessive when separate articles for these massacres already exist. -- Petextrodon (talk) 15:28, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Petextrodon, I don’t understand what you mean. You add two subsections and now tell me that it’s longer than the article? And then why do have to add more? Cossde (talk) 16:31, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Because most of the massacres that had been included were by the LTTE. That's not very balanced, so I added a massacre by the government to even it out. 2 by GoSL and 2 by LTTE are proportionate. Now you have tilted that balance in favour of one side by adding more massacres. I suggest you remove the additional ones, otherwise I will have to add more massacres by the GoSL forces. Alternatively, we can remove the individual subsections and summarize the notable massacres by both sides under the civilian killings section. -- Petextrodon (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I still don't understand, are you saying you added the government massacres you did to balance out the LTTE massacres. Why ? I mean can you please explain your thinking behind it? Cossde (talk) 05:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, to maintain neutrality, as it gave undue weight to one side, especially considering it was the government that was responsible for most of the massacres. Are two by GoSL and two by LTTE not reasonable? We need to set certain limits otherwise we can go on adding indefinitely. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:33, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cossde I'm still waiting for your constructive feedback. -- Petextrodon (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What can I say? You have clearly indicated that you are on a crusade against the government of Sri Lanka when you said " the government that was responsible for most of the massacres ". Cossde (talk) 13:58, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't address the points I raised. As for government being responsible for most massacres of civilians, that's confirmed by other secondary reliable sources. So how shall we sort this out since without certain limits we can go on adding indefinitely but that would defeat the whole purpose of the article. - Petextrodon (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cossde is 2 by GoSL and 2 by LTTE not acceptable? If not, why? -- Petextrodon (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilian killings section too long