This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eelam War I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
@ 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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Eelam War I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
@ 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)