Talk:Captain Miller (Tamil militant)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Why is this an Indian Biographical page when it's about a Tamil Sri Lankan?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Firewater101 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of picture[edit]

Have reverted removal of picture, do not see any problem in using it. Ulflarsen 15:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources[edit]

There’s only four references in this article and unfortunately two of them are can count as unreliable. I'm not going to remove those sections But, I will tagged them with the {{fact}} tag. So if some one can find any reliable sources, please cite them in the article. Thank you!!!  ♪♫ĽąĦĩŘǔ_Қ♫♪  (Ŧ) 17:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link From BBC[edit]

I have got news links from BBC,Newsday is a USA based paper and from Asia times none of them is Tamil paper or anyway connected with Sri Lanka.Please correct if i am wrong.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC) I have removed the link to a non existent article.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edits[edit]

To go through recent edits, firstly, the picture is captioned correctly, or at least according to the LTTE official site so I removed some text, I however moved it to a link at the bottom of the page for those who wish to see the photos of Captain Miller.

Secondly, I added several setences to add to the significance of the article, mentioning that it was the first attack by the Black Tigers, asymetric warefare, etc.

Thirdly and most controversial, I removed the Terrorist Catergory. As described in the article, Miller attacked a military encampment with a truck ladened with explosives, he did not, however, attack a civilian target specifically, with the goal to create fear or terror. --Sharz 07:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism is defined by the US Department of Defense as "The unlawful use of -- or threatened use of -- force or violence against individuals or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives."[2]. Hence I'm gonna restore the cat. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The U.S State Department states to "coerce or intimidate", however, when you blow up a military establishment, it's an act of war, there was no attached demands to "coerse or intimidate" in this one single attack, it was an attack aimed to further the LTTE's military goals. If the U.S Army drops a bomb on a group of Muhajadeen fights in Afghanistan, they are not "coercing or intimidating" them, they are killing them and cause property damage for further their military objectives, as such, your definition is not applicable. --Sharz 09:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read this article first, Khobar Towers bombing (Dhahran bombing).
For your easiness here is the comparison of the place and causalities with the Nelliady School bombing.
A Housing complex - A School
Fuel truck - Explosive laden mini van
Eight-story building housed United States Air Force personnel from the 4404th Wing - Suicide terrorist drove the mini van through the main gate of the school and blew up his van while the students follow-on their studies in the other side of the school.
When looking at this comparison anyone can understand which terror attack was the worst one. I will restore the category and if you still wish to whitewash this blood spilled LTTE's attack, please come though with this list. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 13:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison is invalid, this is because the attack upon the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia targetted a predominantly civilian base of a non-military function, whereas, the Tamil Tigers blew up a military camp. Should every time the Sri Lankan Airforce fires a bullet or bombs a Tamil Tiger base, we record it as a terrorist attack? --Sharz 09:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I told you once that in Khobar Tower, it is the 4404th fighter wing that has been deployed. Can't you even understand something as simple as that? Please do not say lame things. Or is it that you have some hidden propaganda that you always try to white wash the suicide bombing that the LTTE has done?
You have no right to speak of what SLAF does as terrorist attacks as a responsible government has a right to protect law, peace and its sovereignty. Do you think what LTTE doing is protecting those mentioned above of our country??? Now how many excuses do you have? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 11:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you read my said reply, "because the attack upon the Khobar Towers....targetting a predominantly civilian base". Essentially, the Khobar Towers were civilian buildings being used by the U.S Military to house personal, essentially like attacking a serviceman's house, whereas the attack by Captain Miller was upon a MILITARY INSTALLATION. And in return to your accusations, I have every right in the world to spreak about whatever the hell feel like, do you know why? because I live in a country that values and tenenants of democracy and free society...unlike certain other nations. Oh, and the LTTE don't do a very good job protecting civil rights and whatnot, but when I look at the stats of how many people are killed or "disappeared" by the GoSL and how many by the Tigers, the Tigers are certainly the lesser of two evils. --Sharz 11:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forwarded to Biography to decide Captain Miller could be called as a terrorist.SAR23 09:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Defense/State Departments are not the international judicial arms to listen their views and rules. Tamils have the right to question the SLAF bombing. Mostly Sinhala or foreign pilots bombing in the Tamil areas. Sri Lankan government is not a responsible government and it has violated over the decades Tamil rights under the name protecting an ilusive/unaccepatable law, and sovereignty. SAR23 02:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Targetting a Military base which violated Tamil minority rights with the Sinhala majority dominated "Sri Lankan Government" is not "Terrorism" but "Self-Defense".SAR23 01:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BiographiesSAR23 15:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He became suicide bomber for the self-defense of his communitySAR23 14:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which community? black tigers? --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 14:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he may be refering to the Tamil communities of the North and East of Sri Lanka. --Sharz 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Discussion on Terrorist Tagging[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_ReconciliationSAR23 14:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective[edit]

Based on the below mentioned Information according to terrorism and Definition of terrorism, the Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective.

Extended content

Terrorism: A political judgment?[edit]

Terrorism is a crime in all countries where such acts occur, and is defined by statute; see Definition of terrorism for particular definitions. Common principles among legal definitions of terrorism provide an emerging consensus as to meaning and also foster cooperation between law enforcement personnel in different countries. Among these definitions there are several that do not recognize the possibility of legitimate use of violence by civilians against an invader in an occupied country and would, thus, label all resistance movements as terrorist groups. Others make a distinction between lawful and unlawful use of violence.

Ultimately, the distinction is a political judgment.

A LEGAL THEORY OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM

Causes[edit]

The context in which terrorist tactics are used is often a large-scale, unresolved political conflict.

The type of conflict varies widely; historical examples include:

  • Secession of a territory to form a new sovereign state
  • Dominance of territory or resources by various ethnic groups
  • Imposition of a particular form of government, such as democracy, theocracy, or anarchy
  • Economic deprivation of a population
  • Opposition to a domestic government or occupying army

Few words are as politically or emotionally charged as terrorism. A 1988 study by the US Army[1] counted 109 definitions of terrorism that covered a total of 22 different definitional elements. Terrorism expert Walter Laqueur in 1999 also has counted over 100 definitions and concludes that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence". For this and for political reasons, many news sources avoid using this term, opting instead for less accusatory words like "bombers", "militants", etc.

Weapon of the weakest[edit]

As terrorism ultimately involves the use or threat of violence with the aim of creating fear not only to the victims but among a wide audience, it is fear which distinguishes terrorism from both conventional and guerrilla warfare. While both conventional military forces may engage in psychological warfare and guerrilla forces may engage on acts of terror and other forms of propaganda, they both aim at military victory. Terrorism on the other hand aims to achieve political or other goals, when direct military victory is not possible. This has resulted in some social scientists referring to guerrilla warfare as the "weapon of the weak" and terrorism as the "weapon of the weakest".[2]

Unlawfulness or illegitimacy[edit]

Some official (notably government) definitions of terrorism add a criterion of illegitimacy or unlawfulness[3] to distinguish between actions authorized by a "legitimate" government (and thus "lawful") and those of other actors, including individuals and small groups. Using this criterion, actions that would otherwise qualify as terrorism would not be considered terrorism if they were government sanctioned. For example, firebombing a city, which is designed to affect civilian support for a cause, would not be considered terrorism if it were authorized by a "legitimate" government. This criterion is inherently problematic and is not universally accepted, because: it denies the existance of state terrorism; the same act may or may not be classed as terrorism depending on whether its sponsorship is traced to a "legitimate" government; "legitimacy" and "lawfulness" are subjective, depending on the perspective of one government or another; and it diverges from the historically accepted meaning and origin of the term.[3][4][5][6] For these reasons this criterion is not universally accepted. Most dictionary definitions of the term do not include this criterion.

Pejorative use[edit]

In his book "Inside Terrorism" Bruce Hoffman wrote in Chapter One: Defining Terrorism that

" On one point, at least, everyone agrees: terrorism is a pejorative term. It is a word with intrinsically negative connotations that is generally applied to one's enemies and opponents, or to those with whom one disagrees and would otherwise prefer to ignore."

'What is called terrorism,' Brian Jenkins has written, `'thus seems to depend on one's point of view. Use of the term implies a moral judgment; and if one party can successfully attach the label terrorist to its opponent, then it has indirectly persuaded others to adopt its moral viewpoint.' Hence the decision to call someone or label some organization `terrorist' becomes almost unavoidably subjective, depending largely on whether one sympathizes with or opposes the person/group/cause concerned. If one identifies with the victim of the violence, for example, then the act is terrorism. If, however, one identifies with the perpetrator, the violent act is regarded in a more sympathetic, if not positive (or, at the worst, an ambivalent) light; and it is not terrorism.Google cached copy

The difference between the words "terrorist" or "terrorism" and the terms above can be summed up by the aphorism, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." This is exemplified when a group that uses irregular military methods is an ally of a State against a mutual enemy, but later falls out with the State and starts to use the same methods against its former ally. During World War II the Malayan People’s Anti-Japanese Army was allied with the British, but during the Malayan Emergency, members of its successor, the Malayan Races Liberation Army, were branded terrorists by the British.Malayan People's Anti-Japanese ArmyMalayan Emergency, 16 June 1948 More recently, Ronald Reagan and others in the American administration frequently called the Afghan Mujahideen freedom fighters during their war against the Soviet Union,Ronald Reagan, speech to National Conservative Political Action Conference 8 March, 1985. On the Spartacus Educational web site</ref> yet twenty years later when a new generation of Afghan men are fighting against what they perceive to be a regime installed by foreign powers, their attacks are labelled terrorism by George W. Bush.[4] Groups accused of terrorism usually prefer terms that reflect legitimate military or ideological action.[5]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[6]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Reasons for controversy[edit]

The definition of terrorism is inherently controversial. The use of violence for the achievement of political ends is common to state and non-state groups. The difficulty is in agreeing on a basis for determining when the use of violence (directed at whom, by whom, for what ends) is legitimate. The majority of definitions in use have been written by agencies directly associated to a government, and are systematically biased to exclude governments from the definition.

Definitions[edit]

  • The definition of the term in the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2nd edition) begins:
Term with no agreement amongst government or academic analysts, but almost invariably used in a pejorative sense, most frequently to describe life-threatening actions perpetrated by politically motivated self-appointed sub-state groups.
  • The Online Etymology Dictionary refers to terrorism as the "systematic use of terror as a policy" and describes the word's origin in the specific sense of "government intimidation during the Reign of Terror in France".

United Nations[edit]

United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism

United States[edit]

Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania:

In 1985, when I was the Deputy Director of the Reagan White House Task Force on Terrorism, they asked us — this is a Cabinet Task Force on Terrorism; I was the Deputy Director of the working group — they asked us to come up with a definition of terrorism that could be used throughout the government. We produced about six, and each and every case, they were rejected, because careful reading would indicate that our own country had been involved in some of those activities. […] After the task force concluded its work, Congress got into it, and you can google into U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says — one of the terms, “international terrorism,” means “activities that,” I quote, “appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping.” […] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder.[7]

Criticisms of the term[edit]

Jason Burke, an expert in radical Islamic activity, has this to say on the word "terrorism":

"There are multiple ways of defining terrorism, and all are subjective. Most define terrorism as 'the use or threat of serious violence' to advance some kind of 'cause'. Some state clearly the kinds of group ('sub-national', 'non-state') or cause (political, ideological, religious) to which they refer. Others merely rely on the instinct of most people when confronted with an act that involves innocent civilians being killed or maimed by men armed with explosives, firearms or other weapons. None is satisfactory, and grave problems with the use of the term persist. Terrorism is after all, a tactic. the term 'war on terrorism' is thus effectively nonsensical. As there is no space here to explore this involved and difficult debate, my preference is, on the whole, for the less loaded term 'militancy'. This is not an attempt to condone such actions, merely to analyse them in a clearer way." ("Al Qaeda", ch.2, p.22)

Other arguments include that:

  • There is no strict worldwide commonly accepted definition.
  • Any definition that could be agreed upon in, say, English-speaking countries would be biased towards those countries.
  • Almost every serious attempt to define the term have been sponsored by governments who instinctively attempt to draw a definition which excludes bodies like themselves.
  • Most groups called "terrorist" deny such accusations. Virtually no organisation openly calls itself terrorist.
  • Many groups call all their enemies "terrorist".
  • The word is very loosely applied and very difficult to challenge when it is being used inappropriately, for example in war situations or against non-violent persons.
  • It allows governments to apply a different standard of law to that of ordinary criminal law on the basis of a unilateral decision.
  • There is no hope that people will ever all agree who is "terrorist" and who is not.
  • The term as widely used in the West reflects a bias towards the status quo. Violence by established governments is sold as "defence", even when that claim is considered dubious by some; any attempt to oppose the established order through military means, however, is often labelled "terrorism".
  • If we labelled groups terrorist on the basis of how their opponents perceive them, such labels would be very controversial, for example:

State sponsors[edit]

A state can sponsor terrorism by funding a terrorist organization, harboring terrorism, and also using state resources, such as the military, to directly perform acts of terrorism. Opinions as to which acts of violence by states consist of state-sponsored terrorism or not vary widely. When states provide funding for groups considered by some to be terrorist, they rarely acknowledge them as such.

The contemporary label of "terrorist" is highly pejorative; it is a badge which denotes a lack of legitimacy and morality. For terrorist groups and their government sponsored supporters, it is crucial that they not be labeled a terrorist group; so as not to be labeled "terrorists" and by association as "terrorist nations". Groups that have described themselves as terrorists are therefore unknown. It is equally important for a group's opponents that the label "terrorist" be applied. The application "terrorist" is therefore always deliberately disputed. Attempts at defining the concept invariably arouse debate because rival definitions may be employed with a view to including the actions of certain parties, and excluding others.

Thus, each party might still subjectively claim a legitimate basis for employing violence in pursuit of their own political cause or aim. SAR23 14:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ (PDF)
  2. ^ Terrorism. (2006). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved October 28, 2006, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-217761
  3. ^ FBI, "Terrorism in the United States 1999" [1]
  4. ^ http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/02/20060209-2.html President Discusses Progress in War on Terror to National Guard White House web site February 9, 2006
  5. ^ Sudha Ramachandran Death behind the wheel in Iraq Asian Times, November 12 2004, "Insurgent groups that use suicide attacks therefore do not like their attacks to be described as suicide terrorism. They prefer to use terms like "martyrdom ..."
  6. ^ BBC News: PROFILES: Menachem Begin BBC website "Under Begin's command, the underground terrorist group Irgun carried out numerous acts of violence."Straight talk on terrorism" Monthly Review, January, 2002. "including Menachem Begin, appearing in "Wanted" posters saying, "Terrorists, reward this much." The highest reward I have seen offered was 100,000 British pounds for the head of Menachem Begin"NEWS: World: Middle East: Sharon's legacy does not include peace BBC website "Ariel Sharon will be compared to Menachem Begin, another warrior turned statesman, who gave up the Sinai and made peace with Egypt."
  7. ^ Democracy Now.

Terrorism & Terrorist Tagging are POV & Subjective[edit]

For more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SAR23/Terrorism_%26_Terrorist_Tagging_are_POV_%26_Subjective SAR23 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE![edit]

Read the dictionary definition for a terrorist then USE common sense.. If he is not a terrorist then none of the AL-Qaeda members are terrorists.. Even though I respect it a lot, SLR do not have the sole authority over issues related to Sri Lanka..thanksIwazaki 03:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What Sharz referred to is not something SLR invented. The criteria of Category:Terrorists have been defined long before SLR even existed (in 2005) and by a consensus of a number of people who were uninvolved in the Sri Lanka conflict.
Sharz' reference only means: In the discussion WT:SLR#Captain Miller, nobody has shown any reason why the criteria that work for all of Wikipedia should not work for Sri Lanka related articles. If you feel you have a good reason, please feel free to write it here or on WT:SLR. As long as we have no reason to differ from the rest of Wikipedia, we have to go with the criteria laid down on Category:Terrorists. — Sebastian 05:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

actually I did read the criteria before tagging him..I think this person belongs to the following two categories and hence can be tagged as a terrorist.

  • Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence
  • Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).
  • Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes(In Sri Lanka we dont have state terrorism).

what do you think ?--Iwazaki 06:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Targeting civilians? — Sebastian 06:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting civilians is certainly a war crime and a act of terrorism..But if these civilians are in fact terrorist or their henchmen, such as members of Al-Qaeda and the LTTE, respective governments have every right to target those civilians,just my thought.Iwazaki 11:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two issues I would like to raise. Firstly, How can something be unlawful if you do not regonise the laws of a country or state or, a country or state no longer excecuates authority in the area in which you are operating? To be specific to this article, how can the laws of Sri Lanka be applied to an organisation that claims to be adhere to their own nation? Should International Laws apply?
Secondly, who determines the differance between civillians and terrorists and their so-called henchmen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharz (talk • contribs) 13:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer is there but blind LTTE supporters cant see it..There is only one law in Sri Lanka.I dont know whether they have hundreds of laws in sydney(AUS), BUT in Sri Lankan there is only one law, and people are bound to obey it..And for your second questions, answer is humans..Humans who love humanity have the right to decide who are the terrorist or not..If LTTE are not terrorists, there are no terrorists in the world !! actually I would prefer a better, or worse, name than terrorist for prabha and gang, as the tag terrorist is kinda too good for them..If you find any, p;-)lease let me know, we can also add it.. Iwazaki 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my question "What about Targeting civilians?" wasn't clear. Since the discussion in the NOTE section took a different turn, let me write a new section. — Sebastian 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Questions were simply. Is terrorist defined by so-called national law, or by international law. Very simply question, no? --Sharz 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC) --Sharz 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
again answer was there to be seen for everyone!! The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries..So, we can simply state that, those who work for this terrorist organization are terrorists.And if you really want to know about the existing laws defining terrorists, please visit to UN or US state governments web sites.thanksIwazaki 03:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So say you live in a country with more backwards laws and regulations like Sri Lanka, where human rights can be abused with relative ease, they're definition of terrorism etc should be disregarded for the U.N and or U.S one?--Sharz 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn’t mean anything of the statement The LTTE is proscribed as a terrorist organisation by 32 countries when you read the following
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism#Criticisms_of_the_term
If you go through the UN definition below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#United_Nations
You will understand the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism
Terrorism definicions
If you go through the US definition below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism#United_States
What Edward Peck, former U.S. Chief of Mission in Iraq and ambassador to Mauritania said, will give you a different picture of Terrorism. ".......U.S. Code Title 18, Section 2331, and read the U.S. definition of terrorism. And one of them in here says - one of the terms, "international terrorism," means "activities that," I quote, "appear to be intended to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination or kidnapping." [....] Yes, well, certainly, you can think of a number of countries that have been involved in such activities. Ours is one of them. Israel is another. And so, the terrorist, of course, is in the eye of the beholder." SAR23 14:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, "terrorist" is in the eye of the beholder. Therefore, I don't think we can act as if we were an international tribunal here. It is not up to us to determine if people are terrorists. We are writing an encyclopedia, and all we need to agree on is if we include this article in a category. This is a simple practical issue, for which Wikipedia has its own criteria: Category:Terrorists. Please, let's not blow this out of proportion. If you feel I'm overlooking an important reason to take this more seriously, please explain on WT:SLR#What is the point of Category:Terrorists? — Sebastian 17:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does Captain Miller fulfill the criterion "targeting civilians"?[edit]

The criteria of Category:Terrorists include the following:

  • targeting civilians

Does this apply to Captain Miller? — Sebastian 18:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

he killed 40 soldiers in non combat situation..PLUS , the organization he was in, had killed several hundreds civilians by then..We all know that there is no proof that Bin Laden nor his top leaders personally involved in killings, but they are still terrorists.--Iwazaki 03:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of the Tamils and the LTTE consider Sri Lankan Army(99.9% Sinhala dominated) as the occupied force in the Tamil traditional area. At the time he attacked they were in defensive position in an area surrounded by LTTE. So non combat situation is not valid. SAR23 14:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

There is alot of dead convo with extremely confusing formatting on this talk page. I will archive it within 36 hours if no objections are raised.--Sharz 06:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Captain Miller. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 15:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorism[edit]

captain miller was a ltte terrorist ChaamikaP (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source that describes him that way? ... discospinster talk 18:38, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is against using terms like terrorist, freedom fighter as per MOS:TERRORIST.Only terms like rebels or separatist is usedLankancats (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Contentious labeling like Terrorist needs to be avoid as per consensus. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 19 January 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Captain Miller (Tamil militant). There is a consensus to move, as for the dab selection, WP:BARTENDER in effect, but primarily out of the four proposed dabs, rebel, Tamil activist, Tamil militant, and Tamil separatist, 3 (rebel, militant, and separatist) have similar tone. Tamil militant is selected for consistency in the categories presented by Roman Spinner. A separate RM can be opened without reservations to determine the final dab. Basename to be converted into a dab page. – robertsky (talk) 06:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Miller → Captain Miller (rebel) – Because an unrelated film and soundtrack have released, and get more views than this, better to convert "Captain Miller" into a DAB page. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:21, 19 January 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 14:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Sri Lanka has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Captain_Miller_(Tamil_militant)&oldid=1208362657"