Jump to content

Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack

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

Addition of details

Details shall be added about how the terrorists specifically targeted non-muslims by checking for circumcision 49.36.235.126 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The addition has been made. Kaeez06 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen the video in question it features a single woman claiming that while they were eating golgappas, a gunman shot her husband beside her. She speculates that they might have asked whether he was a Muslim, but she herself was unsure. Indian media picked this and no other credible sources have confirmed that victims were targeted based on identity. Given the nature of the attack and the number of casualties, it seems unlikely that a few terrorists with guns could have verified the identities of all individuals present. Additionally, the source provided does not meet reliability standards, so I have removed the entry accordingly. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What more evidence do you require. A victim at the time of this horrible crime is clearly telling you that the terrorists mentioned the religion before killing him. SEEKER008 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There have been various testimonies given by the relatives of the victims that the terrorists specifically asked the name of the individuals before shooting them. which clearly justifies it was a religion targeted attack Vishisht14200 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the article relating to the claims, all of the ground sources concur with this as well. Add the edit back and do not try to divert the issue.
https://www.firstpost.com/india/pahalgam-attack-tourists-killed-jammu-kashmir-anantnag-news-updates-13882238.html 49.206.9.76 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He is trying to edit and divert the issue. THIS IS A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. But some people don't want to agree. Here's another source
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm.. Actually there are multiple instances,
Asavari Jagdale (Link 1)
Sohini Adhikari(Link 2)
Shumbham Dvivedi and his spouse.(Link 3)
I am sure if you were to actually dig around instead of blindly supporting a particular community, which is frankly in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/terrorists-targeted-male-tourists-in-pahalgam-after-asking-their-religion-says-victims-kin-he-couldnt-recite-islamic-verse-they-shot-him-in-head/articleshow/120539564.cms
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/paradise-lost-pahalgam-holidayers-bodies-reach-bengal-homes-from-valley-of-death/articleshow/120561364.cms#:~:text=*%20City%20News.%20*%20kolkata%20News.%20*,Kolkata%20News%20%2D%20The%20Times%20of%20India.
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terrorists-religion-hindu-targeted-kanpur-man-pune-businessman-recite-kalma-send-government-message-2713318-2025-04-23 RussianAtlas (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article as it is right now reflects this no need to make any changes. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add the main article Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack to the Reactions section of article. Misopatam (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add the article Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack with in main article template in the Reactions section of article. Misopatam (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Add the missing category [[[Category:April 2025 events in India]]] to the article. Misopatam (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These allegations are from indian newspapers so probably sensationalist lol 47.54.242.77 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Around three immediate family members have informed media that their accompanying males were asked about their name and religion and then shot at point-blank range.

POV push by user Aliyiya5903

Aliyiya5903 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly removing below mentioned two templates claiming Jammu and Kashmir is not part of India, and simply aligning with WP:IDHT and doing edit war. I brought the issue to his talk page but in vain since he removed the templates again to further push his point of view and vandalising the article. I am bringing the issue here so that every users who is editing the article must check on the edits.

Drat8sub (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere have I claimed “Jammu and Kashmir is not part of India.” What I have said is that the region is internationally recognized as disputed, and therefore, we should avoid templates or categories that imply undisputed sovereignty, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pulwama and many other kashmir related articles are already in that category so this should also be included. 007sak (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what you said, indirectly saying since the attack is in Jammu and Kashmir, then the template cannot be here since the template is about "attacks in India". Or is there another reason you are removing the templates. Drat8sub (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Drat8sub i checked his edits and there are no vandalising edits. Please do not make false claims over users. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Drat8sub The edits do not fall under vandalism. Please do not accuse other editors of being in bad faith. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We treat such disputes on a de-facto basis (for cats and temps etc.); your edits are a no starter per precedent for Indo-Pak (including Kashmir ones) articles. Sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Internationally recognized? What is that supposed to mean? Pakistan was carved out of the subcontinent, it has no claims to make. It is disputed to the extent that Pakistan holds part of Indian land. Rkwiki540 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
that's a new version of dispute. for layman dispute here means a disagreement about control of a piece of land now which side initiates this disagreement is not relevant as long as disagreement is there. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a question of dispute. Kashmir's king signed the treaty of acceding to India. The dispute exists because Pakistan attacked and entered what is POK today. India unfortunately took the wrong step of taking it to the UN. It is one thing for you to say, Kashmiri's want self determination. That is a different matter. However, Pakistan does not have a locus standi on the matter to dispute anything. The dispute exists because they are illegally occupying a piece of land that is not theirs. Let us be honest, study the history of the situation and write appropriately. At the end of the day one needs to be truthful and factual. Unless you want to say the territory is illegally occupied by Pakistan, a piece of land that is integral and has acceded to India, we should say nothing about it. It is not disputed territory, it is illegally occupied by one country and the other has legitimate claim over it. Rkwiki540 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
J&K is an integral part of India, as always, and will be part of India. Don't just pretend or speak with your eyes closed. If your land is in dispute because someone external has claimed ownership of your land even though you are the rightful owner, that doesn't mean this does not belong to you, right? similarly. J&K is part of India, and Pakistan just tries to play a victim role and unlawfully reserve rights over it and fight for it. It is india which is thinking of the innocent people suffering there and is not acting with military out of goodness Wenapymi (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The terminology recognizes that both parties believe they have a legitimate claim, and that there is no specifically dominant international recognition of either claim, making this objectively a disputed territory, regardless of personal or political beliefs. ExiaMesa (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how things work now? International recognition? We all know how that works. At the end of the day the smell test is, Pakistan has no locus standi on the matter as it was never in existence before it was carved out of the subcontinent. There is no legitimate claim that it has. The conditions of accession were fulfilled and Kashmir acceded to India legitimately. This is not a question of international recognition. So @ExiaMesa please understand the situation. It is not a for the rest of the world to recognize or otherwise. Rkwiki540 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I apologies if I was not clear. I noted that both sides believe they have a legitimate claim, not passing judgement on either one. In consideration of WP:WIAN,I defined "widely accepted" as dominant international recognition of a claim. Since ownership of the region is disputed both in claims, and in actual physical lines of control(Regardless of which claim is "correct" from different POVs), and there is no widely accepted claim, we cannot state that the region is definitively belonging to either party in adherence to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ExiaMesa (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We understand what international recognition means. It basically means recognition by the main western nations. The US, UK, France? Maybe Germany? The world knows what that means. The world view is Eurocentric and we do not think there is a bias? I will leave it at that. Ideally, when there are terror attacks, there is no need to reference Kashmir as disputed territory. It basically means you are justifying the act of terror. You should understand where the opposition is coming from given the situation. The west and the media dilutes the attack by first calling the perpetrators militants. To justify this term they then talk about Kashmir as a disputed region and somehow the terrorism is legitimate. We get it!!! Rkwiki540 (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make it "part of" you could list major terror attacks in India in the "See also" section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 April 2025

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: Not moved. A key dispute was about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, which supporters and opposers both claimed to favour their case. I credit editors' efforts in examining numerous sources (see e.g. UnpetitproleX 10:27, 23 April 2025; Zephyr Nova and Thehistorianisaac, beginning 03:40, 24 April 2025; ExiaMesa 14:49, 24 April 2025; NorthernStares 04:26, 23 April 2025). Collectively, the sources variously referred to the event as an attack, or terrorist/terror attack, or in some cases militant attack, or massacre. Some editors interpreted that sources from India were more likely to use the stronger words, although words like massacre or terrorist were not exclusively found in such sources. In some cases editors pointed out that "massacre" was used alongside "attack" in the same source. Of course, all assessments in this discussion were based on early reporting available at the time, and may eventually change.

On the whole, the degree of support among sources, which were divided, fell short of establishing that 2025 Pahalgam massacre is the COMMONNAME or at least that "massacre" is a "generally accepted word used when identifying the event" (WP:NCENPOV) more than "attack".

Editors also debated other arguments: comparisons with older articles titled "massacre" or "attack", how similar they are to this event, whether they are correctly titled in the first place, and what characteristics (e.g. intent, or choice of targets) might fairly define a line between "massacres" and "attacks". Many of these views were reasonable, though with no clear policy basis for preferring them over contrary views which were also reasonable. The line of discussion based on sources for this individual event had the clearest and strongest consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Pahalgam attack → 2025 Pahalgam massacre – The current title "2025 Pahalgam Attack" understates the severity of the event. Multiple reliable sources and academic references refer to it as a "massacre." Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, the article should be titled "2025 Pahalgam Massacre." Aniketkhan14 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What academic source would convince you that the murder of 20~ civilian tourists at the hands of terrorists, was a massacre? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem. Tonnes of similar incidents are known as "attacks"
See 2008 Kashgar attack, which is arguably even more of a massacre
Most famous one is September 11 attacks. You can also call that a massacre.
Point is, they are terrorist attacks though Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>A massacre is the violent and cruel killing of a large number of people, especially civilians, often in a way that is indiscriminate or without any resistance
Massacres are all attacks by definition 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We follow WP:COMMONNAME rather than OR 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying - because its Muslims we are not allowed to call it a massacre Cinaroot (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My bad i read it a 2025 pahalgam hindu massacre.that is what was mentioned in lead at that time. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Untrue, multiple sources refer to it as a massacre: see here for a list compiled from just a google search. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Several victims? Only one non-hindu is reported dead. What is that logic regardless, Muslims can't be massacred? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Fits the definition of massacre better, similar incidents in the past have also been referred to as 'massacre,' and plenty of reliable sources are also calling it a massacre. LΞVIXIUS💬 03:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right it must be changed to massacre.. 2409:4089:CE07:3C6F:0:0:730B:9115 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is was a massacre done by islamic forces were more than two dozens of hindu who are in minority in the state Jammu & Kashmir were killed. 182.77.49.15 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest to correct the "Islamic forces" to terrorists. We're not meant to route this to a whole community. And the victims includes Muslims too. Hionsa (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What non-islamic force perpetrated this massacre? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Using "islamic forces" violoates WP:NPOV. Additionally, even though they were islamic extremeists, "terrorists" is a more accurate term Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a violation only if it were false. Multiple eyewitnesses aswell as victims aswell reiterated that they were segregated on the basis of religion, essentially muslim and non muslim and were asked to recite the kalima and prove that they were indeed circumsised (A prominent islamic tradition.) It would be wrong to hide the fact that this was a religiously motivated massacre.. RussianAtlas (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be wrong to hide anything, really(see WP:NOTCENSORED)
And even so, this still violates NPOV Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it only violates NPOV if it is factually wrong. If Islamic was removed, it would violate NPOV as we are lying through omission TheonlyPuneriintown (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See MOS:TERRORIST Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The description of the incident fits that of a massacre, which is a very particular form of attack and highlights the fact that it was an atrocity. "Attack" can be anything from a sporting maneuver (as in ice hockey, to advance the puck aggressively) to a military strike. Specificity matters- Veryproicelandic (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Moreover, the massacre proves much more fitting considering the reasons and the complexities of the incident. RussianAtlas (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See 2008 Kashgar Attack and September 11 attacks
    "Attack" refers to a terrorist attack.
    " which is a very particular form of attack and highlights the fact that it was an atrocity. "
    2008 Kashgar and 911 were also atrocities, should we rename the articles then?
    ""Attack" can be anything from a sporting maneuver (as in ice hockey, to advance the puck aggressively) to a military strike."
    I doubt anybody will confuse it in this context Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It is not possible to determine whether it should be called an attack or a massacre based on what "many sources" say. Because there is nothing in Wikipedia under "many sources"; it asks for the use of reliable sources. I have seen both "attack" and "massacre" in several reliable sources.
One more thing, this is clearly a militant attack, and it will be considered a massacre because civilians were indiscriminately killed here. Somajyoti ✉ 08:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Somajyoti: You are not aware of WP:DUEWEIGHT. It says minority viewpoints should not be considered, and this case is totally clear, majority of the Indian and international sources called it a “terrorist attack” not a massacre. GrabUp - Talk 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. Those "many sources" must be reliable. You can show many unreliable sources. I’ve already said that I’ve seen both “attack” and “massacre” in several reliable sources. Perhaps you’re only looking at the headlines of the news links. Read inside those news articles. Somajyoti ✉ 13:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do a search “Pahalgam” you will find majority of the reliable sources are calling it a “attack” not a “massacre” GrabUp - Talk 13:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, most articles have used both words here. LΞVIXIUS💬 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
Reliable sources who call it a terrorist attack Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Massacre have been used in a lot of reliable sources. One of the most reliable sources is this-
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/taliban-condemns-pahalgam-massacre-calls-attack-a-blow-to-regional-security/amp_articleshow/120563204.cms Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Give me a non-indian reliable source. Indian sources are likely to be biased.
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
Reliable sources which call it a "terrorist attack" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
non indian source-
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html Zephyr Nova (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It uses massacre once, and attack multiple times. Please read the full article.
"While authorities investigate the attack, tensions are rising between India and its neighbor. Despite Pakistan denying that it had any role in the attack, India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a Wednesday press conference that “cross-border linkages of the terrorist act” had been “brought out” during a special meeting of his country’s security cabinet."
"Survivors described horror as the attack unfolded and a bloody scene wrought by the gunmen."
"“My husband was shot in the head while seven others were also injured in the attack,” one woman survivor said, according to PTI."
"Another survivor, Asavari Jagdale, told PTI the gunmen came into the tent where her family was hiding. The attackers accused the family – hailing from India’s western Pune city – of supporting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, before shooting Jagdale’s male relatives, including her father, she said."
"“I saw people crying, screaming, just lying in the aftermath of the attack. There were children, women, men, everyone,” he said. “It was a massive trauma. I did not sleep all night.”"
"A little-known militant group called The Resistance Front claimed responsibility for the attack on social media, voicing discontent at “outsiders” who had settled in the region and caused a “demographic change.” It did not provide evidence, and CNN cannot independently verify its claim."
There are even more but my point is said. No reliable non-indian source uses majority. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the killing of 26 people, mostly of a very specific demographic, does not meet the criteria of a massacre then what could possibly qualify? Dazzling4 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The September 11 attacks are also of a very specific demographic and are called "attacks". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I believe, this event must be called terrorist attack. for following reasons and characteristics, the event has.
Since the attack in question
- is on civilians.
- aims to instill fear
- as of now it is not spontaneous, or un-organized but shows full consciousness of the perpetrators.
- has network support of parent outfit L-E-T, which is definitely not a state outfit, but is allegedly state sponsored outfit.
- is sponsored by an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba (an Islamic extremist outfit). There exists a motive of Ideology, religious/ ethnic hatred, and a conspiracy of Replacement Theory as motive includes blame on 85k tourists.
- There exists motive to kill specific groups, though I acknowledge there was one Muslim person also killed. We must not forget here he does not belong to the community on target but was a threat from attacker's perspective since he stood up against them.
- There happened a verification using IDs, knowledge of Kalama, and even circumcision as per reports as of at the time of writing this.
Im looking forward to this debate, please be respectful in responses.
Thank you. Razor465r (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•
Oppose
Modern Militant/Terror action are typically are described as "attacks" on Wikipedia. (9/11, Paris Nov. 2015, etc). Further, deferring to
Wikipedia:COMMONNAME
, most sources outside of India & Pakistan use the term "attack."
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy76y52l9eo
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-calls-all-party-meet-summons-top-pakistani-diplomat-after-kashmir-attack-2025-04-24/
AP: https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-india-pakistan-pahalgam-tourist-attack-tensions-242c7a600a51793f5484e4f620402fdd
Yonhap (To cite a source outside of the West): https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20250424009000315
ExiaMesa (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It is a massacre. Plain and simple. Unarmed civilian innocents were killed. It wasn't an "attack" on an institutional outfit. It was a massacre targeted at hindus, carried out with the intention to eliminate hindus. 2409:40F2:3055:454B:DCB1:2CFF:FE68:E0F7 (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@KartikMistry: We should follow what majority of the sources says, not some handful articles. GrabUp - Talk 07:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you're right. Because Wikipedia don't have policy of majority source. It advises using reliable sources. and we ought to rely on reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
most reliable sources call it an attack. while wikipedia doesn't have majority source policy but there are multiple reliable sources terming this as an attack so some weightage has to be given to them. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Somajyoti: Read WP:DUEWEIGHT. GrabUp - Talk 09:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even one of the news sources you shared calls it a massacre:
2: "Pahalgam massacre: Security agencies to fill 'vacuum', realign forces UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article says "Jammu and Kashmir Pahalgam Terror Attack" ProudWatermelon (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The link you provided points to an article that has only two mentions of the word "massacre", one being a direct quote from a user on twitter and another referring to the Hamas targeted killing of Israeli civilians. NorthernStares (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It was a massacre 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are a multitude of sources that call it a massacre:
DNA (1), India Today (2), Firstpost (3), Kashmir Life (4), Deccan Herrald (5), The Hindu (6), Times of India (ToI a) (7), Times of Israel (8), ToI b (9), Times Now (7), Firstpost (10), The CSR Journal (11), Reddiff (12), Telegraph (13), ToI c (14), The New Indian (15), Bussiness Today (16) UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see The Times of India calling it "J&K attack". It is fine to use "massacre" in the text, but for the title we follow MOS:TITLE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean "J&K attack: Terrorists massacre 28 tourists in Pahalgam"? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective reading. You need to change your eye glasses! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it's not added in Template:Violence against Hindus in independent India, unlike all the others mentioned above. ArionStar (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Attack and massacre is often used interchangeably as far as the media is concerned, but the incident absolutely fits the definition of a massacre, so yeah. Strong support is the correct observation here/ LΞVIXIUS💬 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are some handful articles, if you search for “Pahalgam” you will see all the sources are calling it a “terrorist attack” even your provided sources like India Today, mentions “Attack” at the headline, and some of your sources are unreliable. GrabUp - Talk 10:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GrabUp I see "attack" in the headline, but the reports say the massacre was carried out through a terrorist attack. Somajyoti ✉ 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Somajyoti: We follow WP:COMMONNAME. GrabUp - Talk 04:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And here are less biased sources calling it an attack
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of these are newly created page which haven't been looked upon by experienced editors I suspect that over time all of these "massacres" would be changed to "attack" as most of these are terrorist attack. even a cursory look at those article would tell you that NPOV has been thrown in a dustbin.
I've said it before somewhere here but I'll say it again Indian subcontinent also known as South Asia also suffers from recency bias. flavour of politics nowdays in india is hindu muslim polarization so everything has to serve that narrative. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that will ever happen, since scholarly sources call them massacres. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite your “scholarly sources” here. GrabUp - Talk 11:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just off the top of my head,
"The large-scale killings of Hindu civilians escalated a trend visible since the late 1990s. Before then, such attacks were rare. In August 1993, gunmen stopped a bus on a mountain road near the town of Kishtwar, separated Hindus from Muslims and massacred sixteen Hindu passengers. ... But such massacres became more frequent from the late 1990s, when the Pakistani zealot groups took on a major role in the insurgency. In January 1998, twenty-six Kashmiri Pandits were massacred in a village called Wandhama, north of Srinagar. The gunmen wore Indian Army fatigues and pretended to be soldiers before opening fire on the villagers; this impersonation recurred in subsequent incidents. In April 1998, militants raided two villages in a remote highland area of the Jammu region’s Udhampur district and beheaded twenty-six Hindu men, women and children." UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are more sources, I will have to look for them. But please help me understand: is your point that the current mass killing, or/and the previous such mass killings were not massacres? UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
fatal attacks that happen in this region are result of terrorism and tension between India-Pakistan. Why you're giving historical perspective? this article is limited to 2025 Pahalgam attack DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said they will be changed from "massacres" to "attacks" but that will not happen because scholarly sources (which are much more reliable than news coverage) call them massacres. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once this article is done then I will direct my attention there. There are no scholarly sources aka peer reviewed research paper that describe this attack as a massacre. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And they are also not "newly created pages", most have existed now for over 10+ years. Did you make up everything in your statement? UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alot of these are newly created page
above is what I said so no need to distort what I've said ofcourse not all of them are newly created pages and certainly the edits on those pages have taken place in recent years. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOTFORUM and other discussions this is generally an unconstructive argument to make at discussions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose per my comment in the section abnove.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Out of the 26 people who have been dead as of now, only one was muslim and rest are hindus. Considering that Kashmir is a muslim-dominated state, can that one killing of the muslim be a fluke by terrorists cause clearly the stats and statements by victim's families shows it's a clear hindu massacre. Attack happens neutrally and here, in this case, the killings were purely based on religion, which clearly seems to a soft-massacre by the infiltrators. Wowlastic10 (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get this hindu muslim angle that some of people are pushing here, is this a terrorist attack fueled by antagonistic relations between India-Pakistan or is it some sort of religious crusade? this is a terrorist attack. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The antagonistic relations between the two countries is held on the basis of religion and the main cause of partition was RELIGION, so when we are talking about both countries relationship, religions will be always be the primary cause for any attack. Attacks happen, there could be majority killing of a religion that's fine. But in a state, where majority is muslim-dominated and The Pahalgam constitutes 80% muslim, how come 25/26 (96%) people died were hindus. It's a clear massacre. Moreover, when soldiers get died, it can be called an attack as they are representing the country, but when civilians has to face this wrath and that too dozens of them, that is straight out massacre. Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is Massacre but for naming an article we should take reference like September 11 attacks which is a ga level article that is peer reviewed by many editors. Despite the high dead toll that article is having name as 'attacks' 007sak (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the reference, i also believe as a title it should be named attacks but in the article intro, the term massacre should be used Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm subscriber of offensive realism and I refuse to believe that banal excuse like religion are root cause of these things. The western stereotypical view has been that Hindus and Muslims can't get along but serious observers have always termed Indo-Pak relationships as rooted in territorial dispute.
But I don't want to digress therefore i won't comment on this line of reasoning anymore as this is not a forum to hash out India Pakistan history. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are eye-witness reports saying the attacks checked IDs and spared all of the Muslim men, killing the Hindu men. Dazzling4 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Provide a source
  2. This does not mean it is a "massacre", might just as well be a "terrorist attack". Also please see WP:COMMONNAME
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose but redirect I think if you were to call it "2025 Pahalgam massacre, it is just firstly finding a synonym for the word 'attack', and secondly, as stated by other commentators, not many sources would have this name. I suggest we redirect "2025 Pahalgam massacre" to this article, as it is just different wording. AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised there is already a redirect lol. But anyway, still Oppose. AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a terrorist attack; hence it should be called an attack. Similar incidents have also been labelled as an attack and this is no exception. Helper who is a human (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Attack fits the article better than massacre. Other terrorists attack articles also have the same convention EarthDude (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Aniketkhan14 you should close this discussion 7 days period is nearing. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed.
I'm seeing an increasing number of SPAs and Sockpuppets here, trying to overturn consensus through spam. the amount of policy violations(from NOTFORUM to Sockpuppetry) I have seen in this requested move, is truly astonishing. A speedy close is best, as it is clear that "attack" follows WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and accurately describes the situation. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose and speedy close . This is a terrorist attack, not a massacre from civilians. So this attack as per all sources. MD Edit 123 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Of the sources listed in the current references section, 59 appear to call it an attack while 4 call it a massacre. That clearly shows which term is used more in reliable sources. Glades12 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV.Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:NCENPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A point: the word "massacre" is usually applied in attacks with widespread impacts or specific circunstances, like wars or genocides; vide Pazigyi massacre, Houla massacre, Kobanî massacre, Agulis massacre… But the "attack" one is more prominent. ArionStar (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 06:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose for rename, support redirect per User:ArPerfectlyEdits. saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. ~ HAL333 21:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose based on WP:COMMONNAME (see WP:SET too) and WP:NPOV. Transgenderoriole (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support : Other attacks of similar nature in Kashmir have always been described as "massacres" in Wikipedia. See 1998 Prankote massacre, 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre. I don't think we have a good reason to not follow the same. Dympies (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is of a different nature, and fails WP:COMMONNAME. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    How is it of different kind? Dympies (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To be honest, those examples should also be renamed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are nitpicking examples. There are a lot more which use the word attack instead of massacre EarthDude (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Support because this attack targetted people of a specific religious affiliation (Hindus) and of a specific sex (males) by singling them out. Unlike 9/11 and Mumbai attacks which did not single out individuals but just killed everyone in the target area, this attack was very specific and a targetted attack. Therefore, it rightly qualifies as a massacre because of the significant number of victims. Other similar attacks which targetted people based on their identities are also classified as massacres. Examples are: 1993 Kishtwar massacre, 1998 Prankote massacre, 1998 Chamba massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, 1998 Chapnari massacre, 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, 2001 Kishtwar massacres, 2006 Doda massacre. All these incidents are also related to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. This Pahalgam attack is similar to these examples where Hindus were singled out and killed in large numbers. Therefore, given these past examples, the Pahalgam attack rightly qualifies to be renamed as Pahalgam Massacre. therash09 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    911 targeted americans
    2008 Kashgar attack targeted chinese border defense policemen
    What makes you think "targeting specific groups" qualifies for "massacre" instead of "attack"?
    For your examples, those likely should also be renamed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "9/11 targetted Americans", yes but as I said the victims of that attack were not singled out. The terrorists crashed the hijacked aeroplanes into the Twin Towers without bothering about who the victims would be. There could be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Americans, Europeans, Indians, Arabs, etc. in the Twin Towers.
    2008 Kashgar Attack targetted armed policemen and not unsuspecting, defenseless common civilians. Targetting armed personnel is not considered a massacre. It would rather be termed an ambush.
    Therefore, the two examples given by you are different from the Pahalgam attack. And going by the many examples cited by me where Wikipedia's own articles termed as "massacre" the terrorist attacks where individuals were singled out by their identity and killed, this one too should rightly be titled a "massacre". Now, you may talk about renaming even those age-old articles in hindsight. Seems like you've suddenly woken up. Good morning! therash09 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS "Now, you may talk about renaming even those age-old articles in hindsight. Seems like you've suddenly woken up. Good morning!"
    2. For your 911 example, be aware that a muslim was also killed in the 2025 attacks. For the 2008 attack, the policemen were just having a morning jog and were unarmed. That ain't an ambush, that is an outright terroist attack
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, it is not appropriate for you to label my reply as a personal attack. I did not target your ideology, your beliefs, your affiliations, your ethnicity, anything. It was just a couple of lines made in jest. I strongly disagree with your warning and urge you to remove it. I feel you are misusing Wikipedia's guidelines to threaten me. Please judge others' remarks dispassionately and do justice to your position as a moderator. Do not jump at opportunities to throw warnings at other editors. My request to you, therefore, is to read my reply again, take note that it was not harassment and take back your warning.
    Secondly, the Muslim local was killed in Pahalgam because he nabbed the gun of one of the attackers to prevent him from executing the Hindu male tourists. The attackers had not planned to kill him. He was not their target.
    Thirdly, the Kashgar policemen were jogging in the area of their duty. The area attacked was a police station. The officers were not on leave at their homes. Therefore, it is an ambush. Now, an ambush can be a terrorist ambush. So, the Kashgar incident was a terrorist ambush but not a terrorist massacre. You seem to be mixing up situations and using words in isolation. That's where you're missing my side of the argument. therash09 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Well, you are targeting me as a person which counts as a personal attack. Making fun of me counts as a personal attack; I'm not easily offended, but I just need to remind you to follow wikipedia policy.
    2. You exactly prove my point. The 911 attackers were just planning to target the americans, not maybe the one or two pakistanis inside the tower. Does that make it a massacre and not an attack?
    3. Massacre can also be policemen/military if they are unarmed and not a legitimate target. See the Katyn massacre.
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I did not make fun of you. It was just some humour in our conversation. To make fun of someone, as per Wikipedia Personal attack guidelines means to target someone's beliefs, affiliations, ethnicity, religion, appearance, etc. It did neither. Nowhere does Wikipedia bar me from adding harmless humour in my reply. It clearly mentioned that you suggesting renaming those old articles was a hindsight and only then went on to add some humour to end it. It is not that I mocked you or used derogatory language against you. I feel that my remarks are being assessed by you subjectively. Can you please share the Wikipedia clause under which my "violating remark" quoted by you classifies as a violation?
    2. Again, let me reiterate. The attackers did not single out their victims. Americans is a very broad term when you are in America because almost everyone in America is an American. So, they were not singling out their targets. They were just killing everyone. By that argument of yours, every Wikipedia article on mass civilian casualties should be termed massacre.
    3. The article cited by you is about Prisoners of War. PoWs are not in the line of duty. They are hapless, powerless and not even in their country anymore. The Kashgar attack, on the other hand was directed not only at the jogging policemen but at the adjacent police station as well where they were posted. It was directed at the personnel posted at an active police station which was armed and capable of defending itself. therash09 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. See WP:WL for "Can you please share the Wikipedia clause under which my "violating remark" quoted by you classifies as a violation?". You claiming I had just waken up(and implying I was incompetent to comment) is off topic at best, and can be seen as a personal attack at worst.
    2. "The attackers did not single out their victims. Americans is a very broad term when you are in America because almost everyone in America is an American. So, they were not singling out their targets. They were just killing everyone." same thing applies to the Nanjing massacre. they were targeting Chinese, but did not go and make sure each person was a chinese. should we call it "Nanjing Attacks" instead?
    3. The jogging officers were not armed or were on any actual mission, claiming they were able to defend themselves due to the nearby police station does not change anything. Victims of the 2025 attack likely were near some police station(correct me if I'm wrong). My point is, I think WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, are, in the end the most important factors.
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Your interpretation of my remark is highly subjective. I will reiterate that with my remark I neither targetted you nor your competence. It was just a plain humorous remark not intending at demeaning anyone. However, the wikilawyering link shared by you puts this whole argument at rest because even this page talks about interpretations. So, I get the point that Wikipedia laws are subject to interpretations and therefore, keeping in mind that different people have different sensitivities and interpretations, it is best to keep discussions totally formal. I agree and request you to remove that toned-down warning from my talk page, if possible, taking note of the fact that I meant nothing wrong with my remark.
    2. In the Twin Towers, there were people of all faiths and migrants of different nationalities. This was a well-known fact which even the terrorists knew. They knew that many Muslims or Arabs would be killed as a result of their action. But they went ahead with their act not bothering about who all the casualties would include. Coming to Nanjing, I am not aware of this incident and just went through it online; it seems like the Japanese targetted Chinese civilians and PoWs, knowing or thinking that there would only be Chinese among the people they were massacring. Again, as I said, by this logic every mass civilian casualty incident should rightly be a massacre, but this is apparently what the wikipedia does not seem to follow. On Wikipedia it seems that only targetted attacks where individuals of only a specific identity are deliberately targetted is termed a massacre.
    3. The military personnel in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir were attacked when they were not on duty inside their base camp. But still, they were onsite in a militarized area, even if themselves unarmed at the time. Still, it is not considered a massacre. This is because the target was a military installation and the personnel related to it around it. This is also what happened in Kashgar. The policemen were related to that police station and around it. So, these attacks are called ambush because they targetted active military personnel (perosnally armed or unarmed at the time) in their service area. No, there is no police or military camp nearby Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam where the attack happened. It is some distance away. And despite how far the military camp would be, the people targetted were civilians who had nothing to do with the nearby military camps. Even if the victims had been military personnel posted elsewhere in the country, it would have been a massacre because those personnel would have been on leave and away from their area of duty or posting. I think the difference between massacre and ambush is relatively clear. But I agree that the naming of incidents with civilian casualties on Wikipeida could be due to Common Name in prevalence in the media. That could be the case for sure. However, the trend on Wikipedia still seems to follow what I have highlighted, which is that incidents targetting civilians based on their identity are termed massacre. Based on this trend, I support renaming this article. Otherwise, based on common name, it may continue to be named "attack". therash09 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are so many nitpicking examples here? There are many such incidents which use the word attack that you just happen to ignore, such as the 2016 Uri attack, 2019 Pulwama attack, 2024 Reasi attack, among others EarthDude (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Uri and Pulwama targetted military personnel which is called an ambush and not massacre. Massacre is a term used when unarmed civilians are targetted. As for Reasi, even though it is similar in nature to the Pahalgam attack the much lesser number of victims means that it may not be termed a massacre. A massacre clearly means that a large number of civilians were killed by the attackers which is what happened in Pahalgam and in the other incidents cited by me. therash09 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:COMMONNAME. Your examples are only called massacres because of WP:COMMONNAME, which do not apply here. otherwise they would also be called "attacks". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Skitash (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per NPOV Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)– Sock blocked. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "massacre" is much more POV than attack Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Renaming this article from attack to massacre would still be NPOV just as renaming it into synonymous words such as mass killing or slaughter would be NPOV EarthDude (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:POINT
    Instead, start a comment thread despite opposing every Support move Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (leaning Support): September 11 attacks and 2008 Mumbai attacks, both of which are being referenced in this discussion, aren't the common names of either 9/11 or 26/11. However, those titles were chosen for being more descriptive of the event. "Attack" is a very vague and broad term. It could mean anything from bombings, to shootings, to ambushes, and could target civilians, or military personnel, or militants. "Massacre" is a particular type of attack, which specifically implies an attack on civilians. It is a more descriptive term which fits the description of this attack. Why shouldn't we use a more descriptive title like we did with the 2008 Mumbai attacks (instead of "26/11 attacks")? 9ninety (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No matter how you slice and dice this both 9/11 and 26/11 were terrorist attack and what happend in Pahalgam was also a terrorist attack most of the victims in 9/11 were christian I suppose and most of the victims of 26/11 were Hindus so I don't understand why this is any different, also as someone previuosly said "masssacre" is POV.
    are you making the distinction because they(terrorist) asked religion this time? because IMHO that's not a good argument. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @DataCrusade1999 Did you actually read my comment? When did I mention anything about religion, or this being different from those other terrorist attacks?
    My primary point was that the term "massacre" is more descriptive as it denotes a specific type of attack. Quoting the Wikipedia article, "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person."
    This is as much of a terrorist attack as 9/11 and 26/11. However, I would argue that "massacre" isn't the most the most precise description of those, as 9/11 involved the hijacking and crashing of multiple planes into buildings, also targeting administrative buildings, which constitutes several other types of attack as well. What happened in Pahalgam was nothing more or less than a massacre, a targeting killing of civilians. It is the most precise description of the attack.
    Why is "massacre" considered POV? I can understand "terrorist" being considered POV as the term can be used contentiously, but the word "massacre" simply describes a type of attack. You might say it is also considered contentious, but is anyone actually arguing that the attack in question wasn't a massacre? I've only seen people cite POV and common name, not arguing that this wasn't a massacre. I do not believe it is contentious. It is merely a descriptive term; it's not any worse than terror attack. If common name is being cited as an argument, then "Pahalgam terror attack" is by far the most common name as far as I have seen. It meets WP:POV; quoting, "if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased". But I don't see anyone vouching for such a title. 9ninety (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is "massacre" considered POV? I can understand "terrorist" being considered POV as the term can be used contentiously
    the only reason some people are pushing "massacre" is because they want this article to have a sensationalist tone instead of beign encyclopediac.
    You might say it is also considered contentious, but is anyone actually arguing that the attack in question wasn't a massacre?
    have seen this talk page consensus is towards not using the term massacre this was an terroist attack not massacre. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, completely ignoring my entire point. Why do you think specifying the type of attack makes it have a sensationalist tone? This was a massacre. People are opposing this move largely on grounds of common name and POV; I haven't seen anyone arguing that the attack doesn't fit the definition of a massacre. "Terrorist attack" and "massacre" are not mutually exclusive; this was both a terrorist attack and a massacre. "Massacre" denotes the type of the terrorist attack. I and numerous other editors have already elaborated the exact definition of the term "massacre". It does not represent anyone's opinion, it is simply the factual description of what verifiably happened. As far as I can see, MOS:WTW doesn't include the term "massacre" anywhere. I still fail to see why this word should be considered contentious. P.S. It's not like terrorist attack is any less "sensationalist" than massacre; might as well call it the Pahalgam incident to stay neutral as possible. 9ninety (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support as Multiple reliable sources and academic references refer to it as a "massacre." Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, the article should be titled "2025 Pahalgam Massacre." Agree with User:Aniketkhan14 that the current title "2025 Pahalgam Attack" understates the event's severity. Also agree with Xhivetozaragrivropa massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person. RogerYg (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The vast majority of sources shown use "attack". Massacre is also a very POV name, and does not comply with NPOV guidelines. Lastly Attack is more accurate, not massacre
    https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
    https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
    https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
    https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — The incident qualifies as a massacre due to the deliberate, systematic targeting of civilians alone, with no attacks on infrastructure or state symbols. According to survivors, the perpetrators specifically questioned victims about their religion before executing them.[1] An individual was also killed for opposing the attackers. Similar events in the same region, such as the 1993 Kishtwar massacre, 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, and 2006 Doda massacre, have been categorized as massacres on Wikipedia. In contrast, broader acts of terrorism, such as the September 11 attacks and 2008 Mumbai attacks, have been classified as 'attacks'. CtrlFreak578 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @CtrlFreak578 Kudos for putting it so articulately; that's precisely why the comparisons being made to 9/11 and 26/11 are flawed. Those weren't massacres in the sense that not only civilians were targeted. 9ninety (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I recall voting against renaming an article that originally included massacre in its title, mainly because the proposed alternative was not so good, but also because the sources were pretty split on how they described the event. In this case, I have mostly seen it referred to as an attack or a terror attack. Perhaps the wisest choice is to wait and see if this trend changes. This happened less than a week ago. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2025 (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.

Infobox

"Target" in the infobox should be changed to "non-locals" DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable news sources present in the article already mentioned that target is tourist and the attack was against a tourist group. 007sak (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I saw that I don't have any obejctions now. But now under "Motive" "Islamic terrorism Hinduphobia" have been mentioned even though the page itself talk about "demographic change" beign the cause so this logical inconsistency must be resolved. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the muslim guy who died was a local and the attack was clearly against tourists changing it to non-locals would change the meaning. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Target in the infobox should be changed from "Tourists" to "Hindu tourists" because it is clear from reliable sources that people were targeted specifically based on their Hindu identity, that is a critical detail. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No every reliable source describes it tourist so hindu tourist should be removed DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The word hindu is not mentioned prominently in most of the reporting, and in those cases at least one of the mentions is devoted to identifying far-right hindu or hindutva groups, mentions outside of this are largely unrelated to the victims' identity. The coverage broadly doesn't support hindus being targeted, nor does it identify the targets as mostly or entirely hindu. Transgenderoriole (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead

the lede describes this as "hindu massacre" even though the requested move is under consideration as of now. "hindu massacre" should be chnaged to "attack" and There are Muslims among the deceased. Additionally, please refrain from altering the lede without prior discussion. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This was a hindu massacre as the tourists were asked to reveal their identity before being killed. The terrorists open fired initially that killed the muslim guy. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
list of deceased has a muslim too, also the attack seems to be local vs non local https://x.com/the_hindu/status/1914905034338525680 DataCrusade1999 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This source lists the names of the deceased and from what I can see, there is only one among them that was Muslim and a significant number of them were Hindus. Moreover various reliable sources have reported the perpetrators confirming the non-Muslim identity of the individuals before inciting harm on them, refer 2025 Pahalgam attack#Attack. Their motive was pretty clear. There have been many articles involving Islamic terrorism where Muslims were among the victims, whether by accident or not, but still their main motive is to be emphasized. Kaeez06 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it the prevaling situation has always been local vs non-locals.
Their motive was pretty clear
I think you see it from Hindu vs muslim point of view but the region has a history of violence and India and Pakistan have fought over it so it's not a Hindu muslim situation it's a terriost attack also don't buy into victim testimony as they are traumatised right now. One must also remeber that terroist organization themselves use current political scenario to further their propaganda in India politics is very polarized along hindu muslim lines so it would make sense for these terrorist organization to use that polarization for their benefit.
Also the terrorist are themselves party to the conflict so whatever they say must always be taken with grain of salt. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, majority of the sources, that too reliable ones, have reported that the attackers confirmed the religious identity of the victims before attacking them, so they did target based on religion here, and you saying that this should be dismissed because of the trauma state of the victims is completely unethical. This is not something someone would make up after someone close to them has been deceased. They clearly targeted based on the religion when carrying out the attack, whatever their true intents were which lead to the attack, we are yet to get more details on that as investigations on this incident progresses so this should remain until we get more closure. Kaeez06 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and you saying that this should be dismissed because of the trauma state of the victims is completely unethical
— User:Kaeez06

I'm sure there's some protocol when it comes to victim testimony in situations like these it's not a matter of beign ethical or unethical it's just science. Also there's a paragraph that talk about reciting Kalma so anything more than that would be giving undue weightage.

terroist organization themselves use current political scenario to further their propaganda in India politics is very polarized along hindu muslim lines so it would make sense for these terrorist organization to use that polarization for their benefit.
— User: DataCrusade1999

you forgot to comment on this line of reasoning I suspect this hindu muslim usage is also one of the aims of this terrorist organization I don't know if you've seen TRF's logo.
Indian subcontinent also known as South Asia also suffers from recency bias. flavour of politics nowdays in india is hindu muslim polarization so everything has to serve that narrative. I wonder why this hindu muslim deabte doesn't arise when security forces get killed in line of duty like in pulwama or uri most of the service member killed were hindu so should be call that a massacre too. this line of reasoning might be wrong but I would like other people's take on this. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be obtuse. They signed up for the job and knew the risks. Military target =/= Civilian Atemperature (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding? Do you know the history of partition? do you understand how this was brought about? Do you know about the pogroms that were carried out to force the had? You must review a little bit of the history there and let Indians make the appropriate modifications and tell their story. Rkwiki540 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pretend to know the region and claim expertise. When it comes to India-Pakistan it is always a Hindu Muslim issue. That is the basis of the existence of these two nations. Ignorance has a cure but prejudice and bias rarely do. Even when the security forces get killed it is about Hindus and muslims it is just that the muslims are being killed for being on the wrong side of the argument. There is no need for the debate. It becomes a debate when it is civilians because they are specifically targeted. Unlike the army where they are targetted by allegiance. This is not the first time this has happened. Go and read up on Sikh separatism and how Hindus were targeted then. They were asked to get off busses and shot. Their identity verified before doing so. I have no idea what your allegiances are, but trying to referee a topic for which you have no background and passing commentary makes me wonder why anyone will trust what they read on wikipedia? Rkwiki540 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone through more than 50 websites. They stated that before opening fire, the terrorists checked the victims' identities and religions. Eyewitnesses and survivors claimed that the attackers asked the tourists to recite religious verses (the Quran), and questioned them about their names and religious beliefs. Where did you find that Muslims were killed? Have you done original research? On Wikipedia, only what reliable sources say should be included. Somajyoti ✉ 07:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you should read the section https://x.com/the_hindu/status/1914905034338525680 I have posted the link of list of victims. also this section might be redundant cause consensus on the requested move is tilting towards "attack" not massacre. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DataCrusade1999 The victims' names are written there. Determining religion based on names is not at all the job of Wikipedia editors, because it could be considered original research. Besides, many names are common to both Hindus and Muslims.
I talked about whether "attack" or "mascara" should be used. It's fine to keep "attack" in the title of the article. But when describing it inside, everything that happened will be written with citations from reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 12:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
first of all I'm giving you a link on the talk page so that you can see the list and form opnion accordingly as a matter of personal preference and Wikipedia standards I don't include tweets as citations.
Second the word massacre shouldn't be used as it's a terrorist attack and not some religious crusade as some people are making it out be. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The two are always interlinked when it comes to India and Pakistan. Pretend to at least be neutral DataJihad1999 Atemperature (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do not name call other editors it's a violation of wikipedia policy you could be permanantly blocked from editing altogether. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have you heard of the Two Nation THEORY? Please review. Everything between India and Pakistan is religious. Hindu vs Muslim. Please understand the history of the conflict. Rkwiki540 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't a local vs non local. If it was there would be more dead, pahalgam is a famous tourist destination in kashmir and it had much more people visiting than casualties. Also the videos clearly state that they checked the religion of tourists before shooting them. Don't try to bend the facts due to your own prejudices. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just a local vs non local. The list of deceased has one muslim and all else are hindus and the muslim is a local who might have been killed during open fire or killed trying to stop the terrorists. All non locals killed are hindus and the videos clearly state that they confirmed their identity before shooting them. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There were only non muslims wo were killed ..@ 2409:4089:CE07:3C6F:0:0:730B:9115 (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the 26 people who have been dead as of now, only one was muslim and rest are hindus. Considering that Kashmir is a muslim-dominated state, can that one killing of the muslim be a fluke by terrorists cause clearly the stats and statements by victim's families shows it's a clear hindu massacre. Attack happens neutrally and here, in this case, the killings were purely based on religion, which clearly seems to a soft-massacre by the infiltrators. Wowlastic10 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
do not spam. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, people were targeted based on their Hindu identity, reliable sources have covered this point extensively. The one Muslim who died was a local worker trying to protect tourists, and was killed while fighting the attackers.
https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-pony-operator-dies-protecting-tourists-125042300844_1.html
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-syed-adil-hussain-shah-tried-to-snatch-terrorists-rifle-killed-2713505-2025-04-23 74.96.154.197 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Background seems to be Biased in Both Ways due to The source being compromised

All the sources Quoted have inherent bias towards either India or Pakistan, to remove any source bias we should remove all the article by Indian Express, Forbes India, Dawn etc. Prem8660 (talk) 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. This has been litigated above. If a source is reliable then it is reliable no two ways about it. Also it's required due to NPOV. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We should reconsider weather independent articles from even reliable sources in any sensitive matter should be considered unbiased, from the background we have to remove it after all for the incoherence with the issue or for complete misinterpretation of facts. Prem8660 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
go to WP:RSP of you have a problem with a source. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is video evidence, there are eyewitness accounts. Unless the media for some reason is disagreeing with these, on what basis do you conclude bias? Rkwiki540 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

State subjects, permanent residents and domicile

The term "state subjects" should not be used even though the locals use it and some newspapers unwittingly reproduce it. It is a British Raj-era term that was replaced by "permanent residents" in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (now defunct). The criteria said that one had to have lawfully acquired immoval property before 1954. That effectively meant that only the former "state subjects" would have qualified. People that were left out were the refugees that came from West Pakistan, the workers that J&K imported from outside (especially the cleaning staff), and Indian officials would might be posted in J&K and reside there for long periods. There was also an issue of women who might marry out of the state and lose permanent residence as a result. (Their numbers might have been small, but it was a political hot potato).

It was these categories that have been accommodated in the new domicile rules. It is not appropriate to call them "outsiders" or "non-locals". (Currently, the infobox uses "non-locals" reproducing TRF's POV claim.) In September 2020, when J&K was under central rule, their breakdown was given [7]. In the recent debate in the Assembly, the government did not give any breakdown [8]. I see it as an obvious attempt to inflame feelings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that "demographic change" is TRF POV but what should be written in motive then? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I already changed it to "alleged demographic change". That is good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it is written "alleged non-local settlement", which is more precise than demographic change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it alleged we still hold our state subject certificates. While the State Subject Law was replaced with domicile law by india. With abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. issuing new domicile certificate to non-locals under new law does not alter the historical distinction between locals and non-locals. And its fact not allegation that 83000 domiciles was issued to non-locals even all sources mention non-locals. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have a definition of "non-local" nor any justification for why such people are supposed to be "non-local". The new domicile law has its own restrictions and is in line with the domicile laws used for other states in India. One man's "non-local" can be another man's "local". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1929 state-subject law clearly define who is local and who is not its doesn’t erase the historical fact of who was originally recognised as local here. Well i have no problem with using anything. There are thousands of kashmiri pages using same one side narrative which can never be fixed.
https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/actsandordinances/State_Subject_Rules.htm Aliyiya5903 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Law Review article, which I regard as a reliable source for legal matters (though not for political matters), says this:

However, a new land order may have already superseded the domicile laws in importance, having repealed twelve former state land laws and amended fourteen others.[205] The order erased Article 35A’s vestiges, largely removing the “permanent residency” clause across Kashmir’s land regime.[206] Notably, it did not limit land transactions to newly defined domiciliaries. The law also empowers non-Kashmiris to re-purpose agricultural land, which constitutes ninety percent of the region, for non-agricultural purposes.[207]

The citations 205–207 are all primary sources (government notifications/laws/regulations). There is no mention of "domicile" here. Indeed, the domicile rules are primarily meant for state government jobs and, here, they are also applied to college seats. They don't have anything to do with settlement or purchase of property. So, any Indian citizen can purchase land and settle down in Kashmir. No "domicile status" is required. It would be wrong for us to peddle this misinformation. So, I propose that we remove the mention of "domicile status" from the main page.

Indeed, it is a fundamental right granted in the Indian constitution that any citizen of India can choose to reside in any part of India. Laws can be made to restrict it only "in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe." (Article 19, section 5) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Settler colonialism?

Wikipedious1 In this edit, you have added a speculative claim of "settler colonialism" with a large number of citations. But none of them presents any evidence of "settler colonialism" as having occurred. They only talk about "fears", including a supposed journal article in Third World Quarterly. Fears were already mentioned in the preceding sentence. Why should this new content be used here at all? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Pakistan refugees

What have been termed "West Pakistan refugees" were the partition refugees that migrated from West Pakistan to India in 1947. Some of them had settled in Jammu, and they have been given cold shoulder by the successive Kashmiri regimes. Here are some details:[2]

During the Partition, 5,764 families (47,215 people as per official records) migrated from West Pakistan and settled in parts of Jammu, Kathua and Rajouri. No land was allotted to them, but these families did occupy some government land and evacuee property, which later they were allowed to retain with certain conditions. In all, over 46,466 kanals was occupied by these families. But this was the land they cultivated, but never owned.

Lack of permanent resident certificate translates into gross disadvantages and disparities. This means that around 1.5 lakh of these West Pakistan Refugees here cannot buy immovable property, transfer land in their name, and under the rule 17 of J&K Civil Services Act, they are even barred from employment in the state government services. Also, they cannot vote in the state elections, and are even disqualified from being members of the village Panchayat under Section 6 of Panchyati Raj Act, 1989. They, however, have the right to vote in Lok Sabha elections.

Ram says disillusioned by this discriminatory attitude of Jammu and Kashmir government, these families had once even decided to leave the state and settle down in Punjab. But it was then chief minister Sheikh Abdullah who asked them to stay back and promised a settlement. But the settlement never happened.

These are the people that are being branded today as "outsiders", "non-locals" and "non-Kashmiris". In September 2020, when J&K was under central rule, the government gave a breakdown of the so-called "outsiders" that had received domicile certificates:

He said 11,398 West Pakistan refugees, 415 Valmiki community members, 10 Gorkha community members and 12,340 registered migrants have been issued the certificates so far.[3]

As you can see, roughly half of these so-called "outsiders" were the West Pakistan refugees. The other substantial half were "migrants". According to The Telegraph, these were the Kashmiri Pandits who went out of the state during the exodus.[4]

When the present J&K regime recently revealed in the Assembly that 83,000 "non-state-subjects" had received domicile certificates, it did not give a breakdown into the various categories as the central government had done in September 2020. I have said before that this seems to be an obvious attempt to inflame feelings and raise fears in the absence of accurate information. I am not minded to give platform to this kind of wooly propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
  2. ^ Bali, Pawal (January 2008), "West Pakistan Refugees: 60 years on, still refugees with no homeland", Epilogue, pp. 16–17
  3. ^ "12.5 lakh domicile certificates issued so far in J&K: Govt.", The Hindu, 2 September 2020
  4. ^ Muzaffar Raina, Jammu and Kashmir domicile certificates for 12,000 ‘outsiders’, The Telegraph (India), 4 September 2020. ProQuest 2439754407

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Response section update

We should update the response section once the article is opened.

On the 23rd of April The Indian Ministry of External Affairs announced that the Indian government, after the Prime Minister deliberated with the Cabinet Committee on Security (CCS), and resolved that it would respond to the attacks through the following measures:

1] To hold the Indus water treaty in abeyance indefinitely

2] Integrated check post Wagah-Atari is closed

3] Suspension of all Visas to Pakistani Nationals, all Pakistani nationals to deport in 48 hours

4] All military attaches form Pakistan are declared persona non-grata and, instructed to leave India by the 1st of May. India will recall all Military Attaches from Pakistan.

5] Strength of Indian and Pakistani commissions will be reduced to 30 from the current strength of 55.

Source: https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/pahalgam-attack-india-suspends-indus-water-treaty-closes-wagah-attari-border-cancels-visas-top-decisions-by-govt/articleshow/120557303.cms?from=mdr Bodha2 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Pakistani Government responded on the 24th of April declaring the suspension of the treaty to be an "act of war" and closed Pakistani airspace to all Indian aircraft. In addition, Pakistan suspended all trade with India and reserved the right to hold all bilateral agreements, including the Simla Agreement, in abeyance.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-calls-all-party-meet-summons-top-pakistani-diplomat-after-kashmir-attack-2025-04-24/ Bodha2 (talk) 07:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See the article 2025 India–Pakistan diplomatic crisis 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the point. There is a section called response. It should list the responses by all sides. If the government of India undertakes retaliatory responses against Pakistan, the response of Pakistan should so too be listed for the completeness of the article. The responses of both governments should be recorded here in brief, with a more detailed description on the diplomatic crisis page. Bodha2 (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (3)

Change:

“Victims were asked to recite Islamic verses before being shot.”

To:

“According to multiple sources, including Reuters and NDTV, the attackers specifically targeted Hindu tourists. Victims were asked to recite Islamic verses, and those who couldn’t were executed.”

Sources:

1. Reuters 2. NDTV

This edit ensures factual accuracy and provides clear religious context supported by reputable sources. Scientistdata (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The NDTV link doesn't work. Reuters doesn't say they specifically targeted Hindu tourists. Rainsage (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a valid edit request.
Here's another NDTV link with the same information:
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-terrorist-attack-live-updates-pahalgam-anantnag-tourists-prime-minister-narendra-modi-amit-shah-terrorists-news-8227401
Both sources describe how the attackers ascertained whether people were Hindus or Muslims, and only targeted the Hindus. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the article already makes it clear there is a line about reciting kalma also when you say "ascertained" I feel like that somewhere there is a line of original research that is beign crossed which shouldn't happen DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: Closing as contested ApexParagon (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (4)

The "'Stripped to check for circumcision, asked to recite Islamic verse': Tourists recall horror after J&K terror attack" claimed to be cited from Mansi Arora, but the news article from WION nowhere says this. Remove the parf or provide a better source for this as it could spark controversy. Hionsa (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep it's not in the source. But it is displayed in the archived article name. I think they changed the title and article. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. This is the first version where that part appears [9] Neither do this source talks about the above context. Another user added a source using the title backing up the above context, but there too lacks the actual availability of the source[10] and we can see even the news title was modified by them. Provide better sources or if no sources found remove it. I've tried by best, but couldn't find such controversial claims. Hionsa (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M Waleed, have a look. Hionsa (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removed would be better for now until a suitable source is found 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two other news articles given as sources also didn't talk about any stripping being done. I think all those articles were edited. That part should be removed, in my opinion. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The names might be wrong, but there are videos on reddit which show this. Wait till it trickles down into one of the news sources. Atemperature (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We'll better wait till then as reddit isn't a reliable source 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another source. It's trusted-
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No. Still a better source needed India TV comes under the category Godi media of which reliability is always questioned. Wait for more reports Hionsa (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't wikipedia have a list? Don't offer subjective opinions Atemperature (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if you have a problem with sources then litigate it on WP:RSP DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done The content has been modified with better sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (7)

In the opening paragraph, change "targeted civilians" to "targeted Hindu civilians" because it is currently not clear anywhere in the article who the attackers specifically targeted, which is an essential piece of information. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Muslim was amongst the dead 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The attack was targeted towards Hindu Civilians. The Muslim was a collateral damage. Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point out to me which reliable citation in the article says exactly that? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the source-
"Eyewitnesses and survivors have revealed that the assailants targeted tourists based on their religion and identity."
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here you go, at least two additional citations already in the article explain exactly that:
[19] https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-pony-operator-dies-protecting-tourists-125042300844_1.html
[20] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-syed-adil-hussain-shah-tried-to-snatch-terrorists-rifle-killed-2713505-2025-04-23 74.96.154.197 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's misleading because the Muslim who died was not a targeted victim. It was a local worker who was trying to save people and got killed in the process. All of the targeted victims were attacked based on being Hindu. This is clear from all sources, so no need to confuse or cover up facts. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. People are diverting sources. It was a collateral damage and nothing else Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please obtain WP:CONSENSUS before filing an edit request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of poor quality sources

Why are we still using fake news sources like FirstPost? It appears it was removed by Kautilya3[11] once after Dympies had added it together with other fake news like MyInd.[12] FirstPost should not be used anywhere for this topic. 223.185.23.47 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstpost being a fake news source isn't always true, although I am not denying that they do publish obvious fake news (or you could maybe say over exaggerated and biased [but anything is] as that's more fitting)
For proper reliable information it is probably to wait until the NIA releases sufficient information in a paper. Atharva210 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@223.185.23.47 Firstpost is not deprecated on Wikipedia and remains a generally usable source unless specific claims are challenged with evidence. Simply labeling it as "fake news" without any formal discussion or policy-based reasoning is not meaningful here. If you have an actual sourcing concern, you should raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN) or initiate a Request for Comment (RfC) regarding its reliability. Blanket accusations without process are not how source reliability is determined on Wikipedia. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources are widely available, just a quick search will give you hundreds. Dympies added a bunch in a group citation format. If Firstpost is unreliable ones, it can be removed easily, leaving the reliable ones intact.
"Sources and eyewitnesses said that some victims were shot at point-blank range after the gunmen confirmed they were not Muslim."
— The Wire, April 23, 2025
"They then asked my father to recite an Islamic verse (probably the Kalma). When he failed to do so, they pumped three bullets into him, one on the head, one behind the ear and another in the back," she said."[....] "Even the locals there were reciting the Islamic verse."
—The Hindu, 23 April, 2025
"Pahalgam terror attack: Terrorists asked name and religion of male tourists, shot them, says survivor"
—The Hindu, 24 April, 2025
"SAVED BY CHANTING ISLAMIC VERSES: Debasish Bhattacharyya, a Hindu who teaches at Assam University and grew up in a Muslim neighbourhood, said he was familiar with Islamic verses. The militants ordered him and others nearby to get on their knees, and when the others began chanting, he followed along.
"I knew the words, and at that moment, it was probably the only way to save our lives. Those who failed were killed."
— Reuters, 23 April, 2025

2409:40E3:40FC:C40:1CE1:FFF5:6A98:7997 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good source-
https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Target in the infobox should be changed from "Tourists" to "Hindu tourists" because it is clear from reliable sources that people were targeted specifically based on their Hindu identity, and that is a critical detail. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many reliable sources have covered this point extensively. Only a biased viewpoint would supress the fact that Hindus were specifically targeted. Why conceal the truth?
There are already citations in the article describing evidence of the religious profiling, here are a few more, found by a simple search:
https://www.newsweek.com/kashmir-massacre-trump-putin-iran-israel-condemn-jihadist-attack-hindu-tourists-2062760
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/pahalgam-terror-attack-hindu-america-foundation-slams-western-media-for-whitewashing-terror-attack-on-hindus/articleshow/120572525.cms
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir/pahalgam-terror-attack-religious-profiling-preceded-killings-say-eyewitnesses-3507051
https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-tourists-killed-injured-jammu-kashmir-ordeal-security-forces-2713085-2025-04-22 74.96.154.197 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Christian and a Muslim were also killed 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's irrelevant to the point. Killed and targeted are two different things. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But some active decision making goes into both. IMHO the article as it is right now describes what you're saying in a proper way there's no need to mess that up. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was not done to Hindus, but rather non-Muslims. They would have done it irrespective of whether the tourist was a Hindu, a Christian, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Jain or a Zoroastrian. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An Islamic attack - but covered up by the Wikipedia article.

This was an Islamic attack, but the only mention of the word "Muslim" in the Wikipedia article is of a heroic local Muslim who tried to wrestle a rifle away from one of the attackers. I wonder if you take the same approach to attacks in Nigeria and so many other nations. 2A02:C7C:E1BA:CE00:4109:4511:7807:1DCB (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel this is the case you can feel free to make such edits at your own discretion. I will inform you that the perpetrators that are listed are from an offshoot of an islamist organization, however they seem to be more nationalistically motivated than religiously. If you can find reliable sources that say otherwise, you are free to make edits. Knollll (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
First of all this is not an "Islamic" attack but rather an Islamist attack, that being said, the terrorists have stated the attacked to be motivated by rather nationalistic sentiment 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M Waleed Fueling nationalism by targeting non-Muslims? Tourists and settlers aren’t the same, and historically, Kashmir belongs to Kashmiri Hindus, so your argument’s nonsense! I can’t find that supposed statement from the Pakistani military general claiming Pakistan’s distinct from Hindus and promising action in Kashmir just days before the attack. राजकुमार(talk) 12:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the nationalist aspect comes from the statement by terrorists which you presumably glanced over when I said "terrorists have stated the attacked to be motivated by rather nationalistic sentiment" and as for the other parts that's whole lot of WP:OR, I'm assuming good faith and hope to be replied with the same sentiment 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Islamist and Islamic are two different thing so I am completely against calling it an Islamic attack. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@M Waleed I have to disagree quite strongly here. From the information available, it’s clear the attackers specifically targeted non-Muslims, which points to an explicitly religious motive rather than just a "nationalistic" one. Downplaying this aspect seems misleading given the nature of the attack as reported by credible sources. While I agree it's important to distinguish between "Islamic" and "Islamist," the reality is that the sectarian targeting cannot simply be brushed aside. I would suggest we stick closely to what reputable sources state rather than try to reinterpret the attackers' motives ourselves. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is imperative to add the fact that most victims were Hindu men

"Most of the victims were Hindu men."

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze10y59j91o

Please note that the BBC is considered a reliable source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources Anantanni22 (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The word "Hindu" has once again been removed from the article despite this. Meanwhile, the two Muslim and Christian victims are mentioned specifically. It should be mentioned in the casualties section that the large majority of them were Hindu. Anantanni22 (talk) 04:11, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2025 (2)

Syed Adil Hussain Shah the Muslim victim's name is mentioned in article while the Hindu and Christian victim's names are not mentioned. Is this Wikipedia's neutral point of view?

Bitan Adhikari, Sameer Guha, Mamish Ranjan, Vinay Narwal, Shubham Dwivedi, Prashant Kumar Satpathy, N, Ramachandran, Dinesh Agarwal, JS Chandramouli, Bharat Buushan, Sumit Parmar, Yatish Parmar, Tage Hailyang, Shailesh Kalathiya, manjunath Rao, Sushil Nathaniel, Sanjay Lakshman Lele, Hemant Suhal Joshi, Atul Shrikant Mone, Kaustabh Ganbote, Neeraj Udhwani, Sudip Neupane, Dilip Disle, Somisetti Rao, Santosh Jagdale. Metion their names in this article if Syed Adil Hussain Shah name is mentioned.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-kashmir-full-list-of-victims-released-2713232-2025-04-23

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pahalgam-terror-attack-full-list-of-victims/article69482468.ece

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/victims-pahalgam-terror-attack-2025-9961486/

If Wikipedia is mentioning Syed Adil Hussain Shah then also mention the above names.Sistersofchappel (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Muslim is mentioned only so that the event cannot be portrayed as only against non-muslim victims 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then stick to a factual stance and mention that 27(?) Hindu tourists and 1 local Muslim was killed. 103.197.103.156 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then why is the page not mentioning singling out Hindus for execution? This is misleading. Its trying to portray Hindus were not the target when they cleary were.
That muslim man was only shot when he tried to defend the tourist. He was not singled out to be killed. 2409:40E6:1B:D8D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the singling out of the Muslim victim to prevent the portrayal of the attack as being only against non-Muslims reflective of how reliable sources treat this event? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Muslim name is there to create false balance and hide the fact that even pants of victims were removed to check for circumscision. Someone already removed that part. Islamists are on full force on this page. 2409:40C1:2E:3339:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request IP editors not to post nonsensical comments in anger. And Also neutral administrators must look into self admitted POV by some Pakistani editors as this comment. He believes there is a POV so he need to push his POV. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1287151876. Is he working alone or some editors have supporting him? Sistersofchappel (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I'm not taking any sides I vehemently oppose all terrorism and whole heartedly condemn the attack, the Muslim was mentioned because he was an exception instead of the rule which was most Hindus, please don't falsely accuse anyone and assume Good faith 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
>the rule which was most Hindus
The problem is that that article does not mention this at all. Why is the word 'Hindu' not used at all in this article about a targeted killing of Hindu tourists? 103.197.103.156 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please obtain WP:CONSENSUS before filing an edit request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say Hindus were targeted due to their religion

1-Following the Pahalgam attack, a grim discovery was made: the trousers of approximately 20 male victims were unzipped or pulled down. Officials believe this indicates terrorists attempted to ascertain the victims' faith before their execution.

2-Pahalgam attack: Terrorists checked IDs, pulled down pants to verify religion, eyewitnesses recount horror

The victims and survivors say that Hindu males were selected based on religion, asked to read Kalima to verify their religion, and then killed.

1-“All of us are in trauma. Whenever the scene comes before my eyes, I am unable to bear it. The terrorists were asking if people are Hindu or Muslim. They were firing blindly at those who did not reply,” Mr. Jain recalled.

2-Pahalgam terrorists asked UP man to recite Islamic verse, shot him, then told wife. The terrorists asked if the couple were Muslim and demanded they recite the Kalma. When they failed to respond, they shot the husband. The wife pleaded to be killed too, but the gunmen refused.

3-Hindu Tourist Massacre in Pahalgam: Terrorists Execute Tourists After Religious Identification

4-‘They asked Hindu men to separate from Muslim men’: Pahalgam terror attack survivor

5-Pahalgam terror attack: Not any Intelligence Bureau team, Hindu tourists were the target

Christian victim- "Said He Was Christian, Shot Dead": How Indore Man Was Killed In Pahalgam


One Muslim victim was not killed due to his religion, but he tried to snatch a gun from a terrorist. SilverfangDragon (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Militant?

Can someone break down the difference between a militant and a terrorist attack? Every country—US, France, UK, Israel, Russia, Iran, Taliban, Japan—calls it a terrorist attack. Even US agencies use the term "terrorist." So why is an attack on civilians in the West or Israel labeled terrorism, but in India, it’s just a "militant" attack? Don’t feed me garbage about it being an "insurgency." An attack on civilians is always a terrorist attack, period! राजकुमार(talk) 12:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@राजकुमार: Read MOS:TERRORIST. GrabUp - Talk 13:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:King Ayan Das: Please read MOS:TERRORIST, before edit warring. GrabUp - Talk 13:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a misuse of MOS:TERRORIST. We still describe terror attacks as terror attacks, see 9/11 or Boston Marathon Bombing, among others. JDiala (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At this point it should be called militant, until there's an overwhelming majority of sources that call it terrorist.VR (Please ping on reply) 15:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vice regent: Looking at domestic news outlets in India, it is being referred to as a terrorist attack overwhelmingly. But, if we do look at the comparison between the terms militant and terrorist (I just googled this up: The Difference Between Militants and Terrorists) and it wouldn't be fair to say an attack like this is militancy really as it was more of a terrorist attack as per this source's definition of that.
This source also states the following:
Atharva210 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. A lot of editors around here think that the only legitimate sources are American ones, even when it's increasingly clear that many American sources (NYT, WPost) are basically propaganda sources for the American elite class. Bezos has admitted as much with his direct manipulation of WPost editorial stance. JDiala (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is called RACISM!!! Let us call it for what it is. These folks should be told what they are, racist. What is their modus operandi? Well they will first state that their reporting or capture of the event needs to be objective. They ought to come from reliable sources. They tell you what these sources are. Essentially they will delegitimize you and your agency. Essentially you do not have a voice. They take that away. How do they do that? Well they will tell you your sources are not reliable. WE ARE THE ARBTERS!!! This is the where todays racism resides. Most editors here that claim objectivity do not even realize it as they are raised on this cool-aid. There is this notion of legitimacy if you are NYT, WAPO etc. Despite their faulty records on most instances of international concern. WMD anyone? I have realized that it is best to not rely on Wikepedia for truth. For them the defintion of terror as targetting innocents is irrelevant. They need to be told by their nominated sources that it is. This in their mind is objectivity. After reading all the arguments and all the objects, my conclusion is pretty straight forward. RACIST!!! They are just racist and do not realize it. Rkwiki540 (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get AI to write your comment? Why are you trying to define words like "typically" and "often". The term "terrorist" is POV and using a dictionary to determine who is a terrorist is WP:NOR.VR (Please ping on reply) 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not POV a priori, especially when referring to attack type (as opposed to perpetrators). See 9/11 article for instance. JDiala (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the links come from pasted definitions from definitions.net. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ PTI, U.S. House Committee slams New York Times report on Pahalgam attack, The Hindu, 25 April 2025.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2025 (3)

Add into background section:

On Wednesday 16 April 2025 (1 week before the atttack), Pakistan's Army Chief, Gen Munir, gave a an anti-Hindu speech in Islamabad stating "Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different. Our customs are different... That was the foundation of the Two-Nation Theory,". Many media outlets signalled that this may have incited the attack in a bid to set off conflict between the two nations to divert focus away from the internal fracturing in Pakistani politics.

Sources: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/different-from-hindus-pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-two-nation-theory-jugular-vein-pahalgam-terror-attack-101745382805306.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-why-pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-risking-mini-war-with-india-2714005-2025-04-24

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/the-contradictions-in-pak-army-chiefs-speech-that-expose-flaws-in-pakistans-narrative/ R88r88 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is not relevant as to add this and conclude that Pakistan was behind this attack would be original research which isn't allowed.
We could always write that "India has accused Pakistan for this attack." DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. Needs discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2025 (4)

The request is made for two additions:

  • Response from the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim condemning the attack on his social media channels: Instagram, Facebook. For news sources: The Star, New Straits Times.
  • The Twitter account of the Pakistani government (GovtofPakistan) being withheld (blocked) in India "in response to a legal demand". I'm not located in India but I found news sources from Indian news websites: Times of India, NDTV, Hindustan times. Also it's best to let Indian Wikipedians confirm if they can access the said Twitter account before editing.

Weareblahs (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts were withheld few years back this is ANI creating confusion as always.
Some say accounts were re-activated in 2023 but I can't verify that DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done: Individual country reactions are not being mentioned, only a summary. The twitter account blockage is apparently unrelated to the topic. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TO be added

Jhantu Ali Shaikh was an Indian Army officer who was martyred on Thursday, April 24, 2025, during a counter attack. Those details also to be added in this article.

References are given below. https://www.thestatesman.com/india/who-was-havildar-jhantu-ali-shaikh-martyred-in-udhampur-ops-1503424509.html

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/west-bengal/west-bengal-leaders-pay-tribute-to-army-havildar-killed-in-jk-anti-terror-operation/article69486851.ece Akbarali (talk) 18:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Page is extended confirmed protected 007sak (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah try being bold when it's extended confirmed! But as much as I want semi protection, I understand the concern and why this is extended confirmed, thanks to the vandals and unsourced people for making it worse for the genuine ones! Atharva210 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change "demographic change" to "alleged demographic change"

quoting from cnn article

"Kashmir Resistance, also known as The Resistance Front (TRF), claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam attack on social media, voicing discontent at “outsiders” who settled in the region and caused a “demographic change.” It did not provide evidence and CNN cannot independently verify its claim."

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/24/india/pahalgam-india-pakistan-attack-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html


The demographic change is just alleged. So, we should change it to alleged demographic change

The 83k domiciled people were already part of Kashmir demography

Factpineapple (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this was the reason given and the article also talks about 80,000 domicile certificate beign issued so should we write "alleged"? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
yes, because those 80000 people were already there. In fact, it is not just alleged but is demonstrably false that demography was changed. These people are not new migrants.
So, we should also add "for which there is no evidence"
Giving them domicile didn't change demography. The domciile certificate was denied because of Article 370 allowing J&K to formulate its own policies.
If 80000 people are belonging to community X and don't have certificate, but are then granted because of change of policy. This is not demographic change. This is just issuing document since people without legal status are also part of demography.
sourcehttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-80000-non-state-subjects-have-received-domicile-certificates-in-last-two-years-jk-govt-says-9935364/ Factpineapple (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a problem shouldn't the terrorist decide the motive of the attack since they were the ones who carried out the attack? I think what you're saying would be construed as ascribing motive to TRF for the attack when they themselves have said that they carried out the attack because of "demographic change".
here's what I propose leave the infobox as is but make changes to the relevant section where TRF takes responsibility for the attack. also consult others. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are right but point is that they attacked for a motive which doesn't exist. If someone commits an atrocity, and the motive itself has factual inaccuracies, we should specify that inaccuracy Factpineapple (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are objectively "factual inaccuracies" as you mention, Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, and should only include what is reported in reliable sources.
This may help: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth
Example of motive from another article: October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Background
As such I will edit out "alleged" in the lead and try to expand more given the information in the CNN article. Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UAE National in the killed list

The article currently mentions that two foreign nationals, one from Nepal and other from UAE were also killed, but the sources do not mention anyone with their residence as UAE. Please discuss and reach a consensus on this. (The Indian Express) Xoocit (talk) 10:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources list them as "tourists from the UAE and Nepal". What is your concern with the current wording? Celjski Grad (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the dubious tag. It is now sources by two different and reliable media channels in the same line with citations, and that is enough for mentioning UAE tourists. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Hindu + Anti Indian Bias

What is wrong with the authors and editors of this page?

  • It was a terrorist attack, and the word terrorist or terrorism is not mentioned anywhere in the article. A "millitant attack" or "insurgency" is mentioned. Edit: As of this edit, it has been fixed. Thank you.
  • Multiple sources confirm the targetting of Hindus, not just non muslims. This is also not mentioned in the lead.

Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihadist terrorist not only targeted Hindus, but overall all non-muslims as it's reported from WP:RS that Christian men was also killed in the attack.[1] Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources confirmed that Hindus were targetted, with non muslims being killed. Let us be absolutely clear - this was an attack on Hindus. This needs to be mentioned Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you check details? The Hindu victims were asked to read Kalima and their pants were also pulled down to check whether they were circumcised. The Christian man was also killed when he failed to recite Kalima. So Hindus and Christians were killed for being Non-Muslims. And the only Muslim victim. terrorists did not want to kill him. he was pony rider. He tried to save tourists by snatching their gun. He was not killed due to religion. So the Hindus and one Christian were killed after verifying they were not Muslims. And the Muslim was killed as he tried to snatch gun, not due to his religion. Sistersofchappel (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said that "word terrorist or terrorism is not mentioned anywhere in the article", this seems untrue as in the first line of article it's written that :- On 22 April 2025, a terrorist attack[2][3][4] at Baisaran Valley in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir killed 26 and injured more than 20 others.[5] The attack, the deadliest of its kind in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks,[6] targeted male non-Muslim tourists,[7][8] and was reportedly aimed at resisting alleged demographic changes in the Kashmir Valley. The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the Pakistan-based, UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ ""Said He Was Christian, Shot Dead": How Indore Man Was Killed In Pahalgam".
  2. ^ "Pakistan threatens war with India after deadly Kashmir terror attack". Samaan Lateef. The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 24 April 2025.
  3. ^ "AUDIO: India-Pakistan tensions deepen over Kashmir terrorist attack". ABC News. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  4. ^ "The Kashmir attack will renew hostilities between India and Pakistan". Dr Chietigj Bajpaee. Chatham House. Retrieved 25 April 2025.
  5. ^ "US-based techie, IAF official among 26 killed in attack. Who were the victims?". India Today. 23 April 2025.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference ru1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ "Dozens killed as gunmen massacre tourists in Kashmir beauty spot". Esha Mitra, Mukhtar Ahmad, Aishwarya S Iyer, Kara Fox and Jessie Yeung. CNN. Retrieved 23 April 2025.
  8. ^ ""Said he was a Christian, then they shot him": Family of Sunil Nathaniel recounts Pahalgam terror horror during last rites". The Economic Times. 24 April 2025.

Not militants but terrorists

All the source even the The US House Foreign Affairs Committee slammed The New York Times for calling Pahalgam terrorists "militants". [13]

Also in the very first sentence of the article it mentions this is a terrorist attack (Let).

change militants to terrorists 雄奇 (talk) 15:26, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, @雄奇, Wikipedia must maintain a neutral POV. Calling them terrorists very much violates this policy. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are of Let formed by Hafiz Saeed. Even they have admitted that.
Do you call Al queda militant or terrorists ? 雄奇 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Saeed's page says that he is "a militant convicted of terrorism", not a terrorist—big difference. The page for the Taliban says they are "an Afghan political and militant movement." The pages for various IRAs during the Troubles describe them as paramilitaries, not terrorists. The page for the Continuity IRA, for example, initially says that they are "an Irish republican paramilitary group" but later does mention that it is "designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States." You can describe the group as being labeled as terrorists by certain countries/organizations, but you should not call them a terrorist group. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to answer your question, yes they are called a militant group. The first sentence of the article says "Al-Quaeda is a pan-islamist militant organization led by Sunni jihadists who self-identify as a vanguard spearheading a global Islamist revolution to unite the Muslim world under a supra-national Islamic Caliphate." They are never explicitly called a terrorist organization in the lead. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PhoenixCaelestis Be partial to humanity and change the word militants to terrorists. Call these barbarians for what they really are, terrorists. Glorifying hate is not being neutral but being complicit. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caesarian Cobol and @Hypothetical Painter: To quote the manual of style: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Not even al-Qaeda is described as a terrorist group in its article. If you want to fight this so badly, go to the talk page for the MoS and argue for the usage of the word terrorist. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PhoenixCaelestis Thank you for your reference to the Manual of Style. However, neutrality is not achieved by softening language to the point of misrepresentation. When reliable sources characterize events or actors as "terrorists," Wikipedia has a duty to reflect that through accurate attribution, not euphemistic dilution.
Adhering blindly to editorial caution at the expense of factual clarity is not neutrality — it is a failure to represent the sources faithfully. I will continue to advocate for language that accurately reflects the severity of events, supported by reliable attribution. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you use ChatGPT to help you write this response? Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedious1 I am fully capable of thinking and writing on my own. It is not clear what made you reach such a conclusion, and it is unlikely a Bot will even conform to idea of calling terrorist a terrorist given they are all trained on sources like Wikipedia and Al-Jazzera(who allegedly has ties to Qatar Government). The purpose of such a comment are to negate and/or dilute a serious discussion about the manner of language used to describe "people" who displayed acts of cowardice. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@King Ayan Das Please see this discussion before trying to push your edit. Wikipedious1 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear I am attempting to model the lead similar to Oct 7 attacks, which does not state that Oct 7 was a "terrorist attack" in the first sentence, but does include it in the lead. Wikipedious1 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As the sources clearly use the term 'terror attack' or 'terrorist attack' in the title or first line, per WP:VERIFY, the first line of the article should also use 'terrorist attack' accordingly.
Trying to model the lead after a different article is a matter of your own WP:POV and should not be imposed here.
Please edit based on what reliable sources state, in line with Wikipedia's policies. King Ayan Das (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have 2 RS that outright describe the attack as "terrorist", and I'm sure this is being described strongly as a terrorist attack by Modi and Indian media, but there are other RS that do not describe it outright in this way. Some examples I found:
In fact the NYT is being slammed by Trump and Indian govt for not referring to it as a terrorist incident.
Per the policy, the value-laden term "terrorist" should only be used if widely reported in RS. If the Oct 7 attacks (as an example) are not widely reported as "terrorist" enough to warrant Oct 7 being outright described as a terrorist attack then I cannot see how that would be different here.
So yes please edit based on what reliable sources state, in line with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedious1 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh496 You may be interested in this discussion as you are arguing in favor of placing "terrorist" in the opening sentence. Wikipedious1 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
even this page is getting same vandalized edits 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Not calling those inhumans as terrorist is not justiciable to Humanity. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Militant and terrorist are not antonyms. JJUPLOADS22 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A group can be both militant and terrorist. JJUPLOADS22 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JJUPLOADS22 Apples and Oranges aren't antonyms either, one might even say they both are fruits.
Militant comes from the Latin word militare while Terrorist comes from Latin terror. See the difference? Not all militants are terrorists. An Army Officer of a country is a militant not a terrorist. A ISIS cockroach is a terrorist not a militant.
As for the neutrality argument, LeT us recognised by the UNSC as a global terror organisation.[14]. If Wikipedia is trying not to offend a country not belonging to UN, aliens in Mars or the terrorists themselves, speak out against wrong. Languages matter. We do not want a repetition of Holocaust or the other evils humanity had to face since it's inception. Always remember to be silent is to be complicit. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Khawaja Asif narrative

When I woke up this morning I got to hear excerpts from the Sky News interview of Khawaja Asif (the defence minister of Pakistan):

“You do admit, sir, that Pakistan has had a long history of backing and supporting and training and funding these terrorist organisations,” asked Ms. Hakim.

“Well, we have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades, you know, and the West, including Britain,” replied Mr. Asif.[1]

So, while admitting that Pakistan has been backing and supporting terrorist organisations, he tried to push the blame on to the US and the West. Unfortunately for him, Christine Fair punctured that bubble quite a while ago:

According to this narrative, when the Soviets formally withdrew from Afghanistan, Pakistan redeployed its battle-hardened operatives to Kashmir. Even prominent intelligence officials repeat this truncated version of Pakistan’s jihad history. ... Despite this narrative’s staying power, it is simply inaccurate. Most important, it understates the duration of Pakistan’s involvement with nonstate actors generally and Islamist militants in particular. Pakistan has relied on nonstate actors to prosecute its policies in Kashmir since its birth in 1947... Furthermore, Pakistan’s efforts to employ political Islamists, and later Islamist militants in Afghanistan, began as early as the late 1950s. ... State-supported Islamist militants fought Bangladeshi insurgents in East Pakistan during the crackdown that spawned the 1971 war (Haqqani 2005).[2]

Former New York Times journalist Arif Jamal captured the precise manner in which jihad was introduced into Kashmir.

But according to several sources, General Zia-ul Haq called a meeting with Jamat-i-Islami's Maulana Abdul Bari in Rawalpindi in early 1980. According to Bari, the general stated his intentions plainly: he had decided to contribute to the American-sponsored war in Afghanistan in order to prepare the ground for a larger conflict in Kashmir, and he wanted to involve the Jamat-i-Islami of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. To the general, the war in Afghanistan would be a smokescreen behind which Pakistan could carefully prepare a more significant battle in Kashmir. The general said he had carefully calculated his support for the American operation, predicting that the Americans would be distracted by the fighting in Afghanistan and, as a result, turn a blind eye to Pakistani moves in the region. ... The cost of Pakistani military aid and support for the war in Afghanistan—to be reimbursed by the CIA and the Saudis—could be greatly inflated, and General Zia promised to give a large portion of the profit to Bari's Jamat-i-Islami.[3]

So, Pakistan Army can tell us a fake sob story of how it has been reluctantly pushed into terrorism by the United States, but a lot more is known to us of its history than it thinks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A more direct statement is in another article:

While Pakistan routinely asserts that the United States inveigled Pakistan into Washington’s jihad in Afghanistan, this is highly inaccurate.[44] Pakistan began its jihad policy in 1974 and financed it with its own meager resources because it was a core Pakistani policy to do so. Also noted above, the so-called “mujahideen” groups were developed solely under Pakistan’s direction and with Pakistani funds; in fact, U.S. assistance to the mujahideen effort did not begin to flow until 1982.... Finally, the concept of waging the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the lexicon of “jihad” was not the idea of the United States. Rather, Pakistan’s then-military dictator Zia ul-Haq insisted upon doing so, and the United States acquiesced.[4]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As noted at the top of the page, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I'm trying to understand – how is any of what @Kautilya3 said even relevant here? I'm trying to find any angle in which doesn't go against WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. It's almost dishonest to also be quoting Christine Fair, despite the fact she has been criticised for being overtly biased critic of Pakistan. Other points as well, but not the article to be discussing this on. نعم البدل (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ PTI, Pakistan doing West’s dirty work for decades: Pakistan Defence Minister, The Hindu, 25 April 2025.
  2. ^ Fair, C. Christine (2014), Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War, Oxford University Press, Chapter 6, ISBN 978-0-19-989271-6
  3. ^ Jamal, Arif (2009), Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir, Melville House, pp. 109–110, ISBN 978-1-933633-59-6
  4. ^ Fair, C. Christine; Ganguly, Sumit (2015), "Five Dangerous Myths about Pakistan", The Washington Quarterly, 38 (4): 73–97, doi:10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125830

Pakistan's terrorism is not a bilateral dispute

I am reopening this section since a he-said-she-said kind of exchange has been added to the Background section.

The Indian government and media have long alleged that Pakistan supports insurgent groups such as TRF. Pakistan denies any support for militants including those involved in Jammu and Kashmir, officially maintaining only "diplomatic and moral support" for the Kashmiri people.[1][2][3]

References

  1. ^ Gupta, Shishir (8 May 2020), "New J&K terror outfit run by LeT brass: Intel", Hindustan Times
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference CNN 24 Apr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference AJ 23 Apr was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

It is not just "Indian government" that blames Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism. Dozens of reliable sources do so, as do many national governments. See Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Christine Fair and Arif Jamaal are two authors that I refer to the most since they have done the most thorough study, with hundreds of pages of evidence. Pakistan had even been put on FATF grey list for four years, and when it was lifted, it was said, "there is still work to be done and that Pakistan will continue to report to the watchdog about follow-up action".[1] Mind you, this is only for "terror funding". Arms, training, military supervision etc. are not covered by FATF.

Pakistan's dry denials are WP:UNDUE for this article because they are easily contradicted by reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 would this be a better wording?

Pakistan has been long alleged to have supported terrorist and militant groups such as TRF.[2][3]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).[4][5][6][7] Although Pakistan officially denies any support for militants including those involved in Jammu and Kashmir,[8][9][10] its Defence Minister recently admitted to the country's involvement in supporting terrorist activities.[8]

IG this captures the "official" side while making clear the actual stuff the Pakistani govt has itself admitted. Although I admit the citations may be overkill, so while a source that sums these up is better - This should work for now till a better source is found. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What the Pakistan Defence Minister said is open to multiple interpretations. Let us not go there. I am challenging the very idea why a government source is so sacrosanct that we need to reproduce it. The Background section is supposed to cover what is needed to understand the main content of the article and provide any needed context. Pakistani denials are not background to anything. What Pakistan did as per scholarly analysis is the real background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While that interpretation is not for us to make, I'm going off of The Hindu's reading of his remarks

Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has admitted the country’s history of supporting, training and funding terrorist organisations as “dirty work” for the West, a mistake for which he said Pakistan had suffered.

Which seems fairly reasonable given the question and his response.
Alternately, could you modify my proposed wording to be in line with the works you mentioned above? I dont think I'm familiar with those. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but nobody believes that the "dirty work" he referred to (as having been done for the US and Britain) was directed at India. It was just some random blackmail used to get out of a tight corner. I would just stick to scholarly sources and not get into their twisted arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that he also claimed that LeT is history. It doesn't exist any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Pahalgam terror attack: Does Pakistan risk returning to FATF’s grey list?, MoneyControl, 23 April 2025.
  2. ^ "ISIS leadership enjoying hospitality of Pakistan agencies". SUNDAY GUARDIAN. Retrieved 10 December 2023.
  3. ^ "Iran Says Pakistan Backs Suicide Bombers, Warns 'Revenge' at Funeral of Victims". 16 February 2019. Archived from the original on 17 December 2020. Retrieved 24 July 2019.
  4. ^ "(I) Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism". 3 April 2006. Archived from the original on 3 April 2006.
  5. ^ "Combat terror outfits operating in your soil: Germany to Pakistan". Business Standard India. 2019-02-28. Archived from the original on 19 August 2022. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  6. ^ "Germany backs India's cross-border strikes against terrorists in Pakistan administered Kashmir". GPIL - German Practice in International Law. 2019-11-15. Archived from the original on 30 August 2022. Retrieved 2021-04-23.
  7. ^ "US, UK, France, India voice concern at FATF meet over Pakistan inaction against Terrorism". economictimes.com. 2019-01-23. Archived from the original on 1 August 2019. Retrieved 2019-02-25.
  8. ^ "Pakistan doing West's dirty work for decades: Pakistan Defence Minister".

International reactions

United States Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard condemned the Pahalgam attack, expressing solidarity with India. In a tweet, she stated: "We stand in solidarity with India in the wake of the horrific Islamist terrorist attack, targeting and killing 26 Hindus in Pahalgam. My prayers and deepest sympathies are with those who lost a loved one, PM @narendramodi, and with all the people of India. We are with you and support you as you hunt down those responsible for this heinous attack."[1] —Arysangwan (talk • contribs) 21:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Tulsi Gabbard on X". Twitter. Retrieved 23 April 2025.
 Not done The article already lists thoughts and prayers from major countries, including the US, in the Reactions section. "The attack drew condemnations and statements of condolences to the victims from several other countries including..." Celjski Grad (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okey But Its is in a very summarise way if we look at the Pakistan Defence minister comment on it then that comment is actually briefly mentioned which should not be the case. His comment also should be summarised something like he reject Indian claims. Arysangwan (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan’s comments are relevant to post-event developments. The U.S. comments are boilerplate condolances. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

probably incorrect grammar

last sentence of the lead paragraph might be a bit out of whack. might want to look into that since im not extended auto confirmed Plastixfy (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Undue lead

  • Regardless of the arguments presented above, the lead is WP:UNDUE to say "non-muslim" and "Christian" in the lead as both yield much less results than "Hindu" in Google News:
    • "Pahalgam" + "attack" + "non-muslim" - 277+
    • "Pahalgam" + "attack" + "non-muslims" - 850+
    • "Pahalgam" + "attack" + "Christian" - 8,290+
    • "Pahalgam" + "attack" + "Hindus" - 17,600+
    • "Pahalgam" + "attack" + "Hindu" - 1,28,000+

The gap is significant. So let's be more open to due weight by omitting any other terminology and rephrasing the lead as targeted mostly male hindu tourists. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good analysis, however WP:NPOV tells us to present a fair representation of all viewpoints but if numbers in WP:HITS go in favour of "Hindus" then so be it. Shakakarta (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
it's 94000 not 128000 ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fluctuation in numbers occurs, which can be updated by anyone.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Understandable, writing "non-muslim" override thousands of sources which report the casualties with "Hindus". I might be ok with this as well. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These numbers are irrelevant, I am afraid. We are not going to add material or wording that contradicts known facts, no matter how many sources have done it. India's Hindu nationalist bias and Godi media influence can easily skew the numbers to portray Hindu victimhood. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "local Muslim" who sacrificed himself had a name.

His name was Syed Adil Hussain Shah. He died a hero. Please change it out of respect for him. Sources are provided already. He died fighting terrorists. Not militants or gunmen but terrorists. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Caesarian Cobol: Please provide a source here, and which sentence/paragraph in the article would you like edited. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 23:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CX Zoom A local pony operator reportedly tried to protect the tourists and wrestle the gun from one of the attackers before being shot and killed.
Change it to:  Syed Adil Hussain Shah, a local pony operator reportedly tried to protect the tourists and wrestle the gun from one of the attackers before being shot and killed.
Sources are already provided.
[[15]] Caesarian Cobol (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Done —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 10:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Laskar-i Tayyiba should be removed

It's not neutral to showcase it as the mastermind behind the attack considering they're still just allegations. PriParaIdolLaala (talk) 01:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

There is no information in whole page about targeting of houses of active miltants dozen of houses have been bombed by Indian forces since few days. Additionally one alleged militant was reportedly killed in Bandipora. Local protests had also erupted there with residents claiming it was an extrajudicial killing by the Indian Army in a fake encounter

sources

https://x.com/OSINTJK Reporting from j&k https://kashmirlife.net/houses-of-three-active-militants-blown-up-in-south-kashmir-389375/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/top-militants-brother-killed-in-encounter-protests-in-bandipora-9966403/lite/ https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pahalgam-terror-attack-houses-razed-hundreds-detained-in-massive-crackdown-in-kashmir/article69494086.ece/amp/ Aliyiya5903 (talk) 05:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also no nothing about assault and harassment of kashmiri students in different parts of india
https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/2025/Apr/24/kashmiri-students-assaulted-harassed-across-india-after-pahalgam-terror-attack Aliyiya5903 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:UNDUE Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-Muslim tourists were also targeted

Change "Some non-Muslim tourists were also targeted"


to


One Christian tourist was also killed. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its alright Insane always (talk) 15:53, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Militant attack or Terrorist attack

Should the article refer to this attack as a militant attack or a terrorist attack?

  • Option 1: Militant attack
  • Option 2: Terrorist attack

Previous discussions

Please discuss it throught policy based arguments. GrabUp - Talk 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

  • Option 1: Militant, commonly accepted terrorist organizations are not even described as such in the first few sentences of their leads. No need to label this as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixCaelestis (talk • contribs)
  • Option 2: The UN Security Council, a major international body, has described this incident as a terrorist attack (UN News report), and multiple high-quality reliable sources (although not a majority, still significant in number) have echoed that. Per WP:RS, UN official statements reported via UN News meet reliability standards. MOS:TERRORIST calls for caution but allows such terms when widely attributed, which is the case here. Per WP:DUE, significant viewpoints must be represented proportionately — and when an entity like the UNSC describes it as terrorism, it is important to reflect that appropriately. Not mentioning it would violate WP:NPOV by downplaying a widely reported and important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Ayan Das (talk • contribs)
  • Option 2: Per widely usage in sources-
Note that the data slightly fluctuates but it gives almost accurate statistics. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:TOOSOON. Unless non-news organizations and pieces refer to the event as a terrorist attack in the future, it is best to refer to Pahalgam as a militant attack. It should also be noted that the TRF is not considered a terrorist group by anybody else besides India, lending more credence to the militant attack nomenclature (even if the attack fits both definitions). Jebiguess (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2: Terrorist; sources make this clear. Qalb alasid (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 - Some people in support of option 1 have incorrectly invoked MOS:TERRORIST - In our case, the label is not for a person or a group, and it also clears the bar of
    "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"
    since most sources call it a terror attack (see the calculations by UnpetitproleX above). Beyond search results, the term is used by a wide array of international media houses as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  • MOS:TERRORIST is about labelling people or perhaps groups of people. It is not about terror attacks. Moreover, the MOS guidance is not to use "value-laden labels". It doesn't say don't use terms with their dictionary meanings. This is a complete misunderstanding of the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is Gamergate (harassment campaign) a person or group of people? This article is used as an example at MOS:TERRORIST. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrong interpretation. That was mentioned as an example for the -gate suffix. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • No militant group claimed responsibility. TRF denied it, LeT denied it, and no other militant group claimed responsibility. They killed for religious indiscrimination. They could not be classified as militant. They killed purely based on religious discrimination. AS per Oxford a person who uses, or is willing to use, force or strong pressure to achieve their aims, In this case no RS has stated what their aim is, so Terrorist is better here. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC) blocked sock -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are some sources using the term "terror attack":
    • "India suspends Indus Water Treaty, expels Pakistani Diplomats after Pahalgam Attack", Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3194101853 Tensions mount between Pakistan and India as New Delhi suspended Key Treaties, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and shuts down Attari Border over Kashmir Terror Attack.
    • "MMU Calls for Shutdown in Kashmir to Protest Pahalgam Terror Attack", Kashmir News Service, 22 April 2025. ProQuest 3192963828
    • "Kashmir Unites In Grief Against Pahalgam Terror Attack", Kashmir Observer, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193674462
    • "Pahalgam terror Attack: MEA briefs foreign envoys", Kashmir Monitor, 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194260541
    • "Pahalgam terror attack: 'Ponywallah' Syed Adil Hussain Shah dies saving tourists", Siasat Daily, 24 April 2025. ProQuest 3194154002
    • "U.S. Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Accept Peace Plan; Zelenskyy: Ukraine Won't Recognize Russian Control Of Crimea; India Downgrades Ties With Pakistan After Kashmir Attack; Attack On Kashmir Tourists Sparks Conspiracy Speculation; U.S. Markets Rally on Trump's China Tariff Retreat: China: Won't Negotiate Under Threats or Pressure; Tesla Stock Up 5 Percent after Musk Says He'll Dial Back DOGE Work; The Race to Save the African Penguin; Global Carmakers Compete for Attention in Shanghai. Aired 1-2a ET", CNN Newsroom, 24 April 2025. ProQuest 3194792359 Protesters in three Indian cities blame Pakistan for Tuesday's terror attack which killed 26 people after gunmen opened fire in a popular tourist area in India controlled Kashmir.
    • "Terror attack on Kashmir tourists kills 26: Gunmen open fire on holidaymakers at resort in disputed territory, in worst civilian attack in years", The Daily Telegraph, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193486813
    • "Pakistan Official Calls for International Inquiry Into Kashmir Terror Attack", New York Times (Online), 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194648784
    • "India and Pakistan Exchange Fire at Kashmir Border, Lifting Already-High Tensions", New York Times, 26 April 2025. ProQuest 3194823453 The clash took place just days after a terror attack killed 26 people on the Indian side of the disputed region, raising tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations.
    • "Cross-border gunfire raises tensions between India and Pakistan after terror attack", The Independent (UK), 27 April 2025. ProQuest 3195026471
    • Penelope MacRae, "https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/25/domestic-pressures-shaping-india-response-kashmir-attacks-narendra-modi The domestic pressures shaping India’s response to Kashmir attacks", The Guardian, 25 April 2025. India’s furious response to the terrorist massacre of 26 men in a popular travel destination is being shaped by public rage at the deadliest civilian attack in Kashmir in a quarter-century.
    • "Delhi on High Alert After Terror Attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam Kills 26", Sri Lanka Guardian, 22 April 2025. ProQuest 3193509619
    • "Prime Minister Oli speaks with Indian Prime Minister Modi on terrorist attack in Kashmir", The Kathmandu Post, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193613076
    • "20 tourists killed in terror attack in Kashmir", Times of Oman, 22 April 2025. ProQuest 3194604187
    • "Kuwait PM offers condolences to India on Kashmir terror attack", Kuwait News Agency, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3194600509
    • "Kashmir retaliation vow triggers war fears", The Australian, 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194327308. India has suspended a critical water treaty with Pakistan, closed its borders and vowed “loud and clear” retaliation for the murder of 26 people in a terror attack in Kashmir...
-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Refs


Include reports of China helping Pakistan water down the attack

Sources https://www.firstpost.com/world/china-helps-pakistan-as-it-tries-to-water-down-unsc-statement-on-pahalgam-terror-attack-report-13883391.html Caesarian Cobol (talk) 15:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a less biased, more independent source? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac Firstpost is considered a mostly credible source. See: [[18]] Caesarian Cobol (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the full context, but I see tonnes of other users calling it unreliable.
Additionally it seems to be quite politically motivated, and for these things I would not suggest using such questionable sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac I would recommend you to be more knowledgeable on the matter and not dismiss a credible news agency on the basis of "other users calling it unreliable".
I am posting the link the fact checking website again for I believe it was not properly embedded due to Wikipedia mobile having weird bugs.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/first-post
Firstpost is a credible news agency that is corroborated with multiple independent fact checking websites. I am aware of the few times they made mistakes, but per WP:VERIFY the Firstpost news should be mentioned. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Caesarian Cobol
  1. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Firstpost is explicitly mentioned
  2. Information is dubious at best, information is not even needed on the article(what does this even have to do with the attack; China's response has nothing to do with it outside of the official response of "we provide condolences to the victim and we condemn the attack" which is mentioned.)
  3. See WP:ECREE
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac
1. WP:NEWSORGINDIA does mention Firstpost having paid sections. However considering the nature of the reporting ie. a terrorist attack negates any such paid reporting allegations and have to take it as a factual reporting by the organisation unless proven otherwise.
It's actually laughable that you bring up allegations of "paid articles" argument for a terrorist attack. I will request you to look at the rules stated on paid articles on WP:NEWSORGINDIA carefully.
The article does already use most/all of the sources mentioned on WP:NEWSORGINDIA including Firstpost as any Indian news is generally covered by Indian medias. Why not remove all of them cause who knows terror activity reporting might all be paid reporting after all. See: Cherry picking
2.
a. How did you came to the conclusion that the report was dubious?
b. Information is relevant to the followup of the event as Pakistan tries to downplay the attack the wiki article is on.
3. Does not fall under Exceptional Claim.
Clearly you are less knowledgeable of the situation by your own admission and by our conversation so far. I request another fellow editor to look at my points with a more neutral look and a open mind to tackle difficult topics. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This proves the source is not completely reliable. Just saying.
  2. If it truly wasn't dubious, another source would have covered it. And I'm dubious of any indian/pakistani source on india-pakistani issues unless independent third party sources or both sides have reported to. Additionally, the information you are using is specifically doing a POV targeting China, meaning that it would have to be written critically with in text attribution, along with casting even more doubt. Your quote " Information is relevant to the followup of the event as Pakistan tries to downplay the attack the wiki article is on." already shows you have quite some bias on the issue and yet you call me not neutral. And I still don't get how this would contribute to the article in any way.
  3. It is an exceptional claim with huge POV. Saying a country is downplaying a terrorist attack is a pretty POV claim.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac The sources are provided in another reply in previous thread from Economic Times and Times of India. Please refer to those. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing applies:
For such a contentious topic and such a controversial claim, only sources from one side is simply, not enough. Even if added, in text attribution would still be needed. And i doubt the information is even notable enough to include. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac More sources as requested ref. point 3
a. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/pakistan-waters-down-unscs-pahalgam-statement-with-help-from-china/articleshow/120658750.cms
b. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pakistan-backed-by-china-dilutes-unsc-statement/articleshow/120654925.cms Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, but I still would rather have more international sources. It's inevitable that indian sources will have bias against pakistan/china, and vice versa. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac Claiming a bias against Pakistan/China is a big claim against factual reports which you are in no position of making as a editor, who is expected to operate within the rules laid by Wikipedia Manual of Style. Nowhere is it required not expected per the MOS to require a report by an "international"(foreign would be the correct term since all newspapers have a nationality, and they might very well be biased;not a accusation but a statement) newspaper. It's quite clear you are arguing in bad faith as you have switched from
1. Claiming articles on terror activity are paid (which is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of rules on your part)
2. Claiming Firstpost is not credible according to "lots of users"
3. Claiming reputable Indian media is biased towards Pakistan/China. (I am aware of some Indian media like NDTV having a right wing bias, but TOI is centre leaning, Firstpost is Centre-Right and Economic Times is Centre leaning all with a high credibility rating.This is verifiable via non-afffiliated sites)
It is not expected from a international media to report on every regional issues nor is it required to. I'm sure CNN/BBC/Fox News etc. has work elsewhere to do.
I'm open to a more productive discussion which gets things done rather than showing pettiness. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I never said the articles on terror activity are paid - I just pointed out the newspaper does paid articles, which can diminish reliability. I never said that it was paid, Only saying that it proved less reliable.
  2. See #Use of poor quality sources
  3. I mean, there is literally inherent bias on both sides(not just india, but also pakistan and china). Unless we can find good third party reports, this means it is simply not notable or not reliable. See WP:THIRDPARTY. "It is not expected from a international media to report on every regional issues nor is it required to. I'm sure CNN/BBC/Fox News etc. has work elsewhere to do." therefore I would suggest in text attribution. This attack has been covered by many reliable source, it is just this claim, which I have said and will say again, is pretty controversial at best and dubious at worst.
  4. "is a big claim against factual reports which you are in no position of making as a editor" "It's quite clear you are arguing in bad faith as you have switched from" "which gets things done rather than showing pettiness" - See WP:AGF and WP:TPNO. Claiming that I am "in no position of making a claim" and "I am doing this in bad faith" basically goes against all conduct guidelines. At the end of the day, I'm just here to give advice and help with rules enforcement.
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac
1& 2. Given multiple other credible sources, all which have a credible score on independent sites, It's best we move on from here.
The thread you link show one guy claiming Firstpost is non-credible to the point of removal out of nowhere, with no sources and with other people countering his/her claim proves my point.
3. It is acceptable for an intext attribution.
4. The wording could be improved on my part.
It is imperative to note that the reports I state are factual reports done by the respective newspapers on publically available UN Statements. As editors we are all required to put our personal biases aside to report with the given material and not project bias. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I still would prefer waiting for some more consensus to whether it should be added but I'm fine with our conclusion here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Thehistorianisaac Claiming a bias against Pakistan/China is a big claim against factual reports which you are in no position of making as a editor, who is expected to operate within the rules laid by Wikipedia Manual of Style. Nowhere is it required not expected per the MOS to require a report by an "international"(foreign would be the correct term since all newspapers have a nationality, and they might very well be biased;not a accusation but a statement) newspaper. It's quite clear you are arguing in bad faith as you have switched from
1. Claiming articles on terror activity are paid (which is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of rules on your part)
2. Claiming Firstpost is not credible according to "lots of users"
3. Claiming reputable Indian media is biased towards Pakistan/China. (I am aware of some Indian media like NDTV having a right wing bias, but TOI is centre leaning, Firstpost is Centre-Right and Economic Times is Centre leaning all with a high credibility rating.This is verifiable via non-afffiliated sites)
It is not expected from a international media to report on every regional issues nor is it required to. I'm sure CNN/BBC/Fox News etc. has work elsewhere to do.
I'm open to a more productive discussion which gets things done rather than showing pettiness. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Uninvolved admin watching this page: Manual of Style has nothing to do with claims of bias and reliability; please be more mindful of what policies and guidelines actually prescribe before browbeating other editors.
The most recent RSN discussion concerning FirstPost is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#Unreliable_sources?_FirstPost_/TimeNow, which did not result in a firm consensus but which seems to lean more towards unreliability than reliability. signed, Rosguill talk 14:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications and backing up my point. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Change the tourists from hindu to non muslim

One christian also died in this. Insane always (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Insane always The victims were predominantly Hindu, with the attackers reportedly asking the tourists if they were Hindu or Muslim before opening fire. Kashmir also has a well known history of anti-Hindu violence and sentiment. The Christian victim is already mentioned specifically, but may also be included in the lead. But it should be made clear that Hindus were the primary victims and targets in this incident. 9ninety (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Logosx127 I see you just performed this request. Since I have contested it, may I (or you yourself) undo the edit until further discussion? I don't wish to engage in an edit conflict. Thanks, 9ninety (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have undone the edit for now. 9ninety (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They asked if they were muslim, not "hindu or muslim" Insane always (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The non local settlement didn't occur.

" the attack was in opposition to Indian government policy allowing Indian citizens to live and work in Kashmir, that resulted in non-local settlement in the region."


This is provably false. The domiciles given are to those whk were already resident in the region. So, non local settlement has not occurred

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-80000-non-state-subjects-have-received-domicile-certificates-in-last-two-years-jk-govt-says-9935364/

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/24/india/pahalgam-india-pakistan-attack-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html Factpineapple (talk) 10:04, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to placing "alleged" around the claims of non-local statement, since I do not think many sources have reported on there factually being non-local settlement, but the non-local settlement seems to be a very core and crux issue of the attack, and cannot be easily dismissed. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/
"Article 35A vested Kashmir’s legislative assembly with the sole authority to define “permanent residents.” Significantly, the local government was able to affix special privileges — such as the ability to purchase land — to permanent residents. The effect was that only Kashmiris could own property in a region that India has long claimed as its own. In revoking Article 35A, the Indian government unearthed a fear that Kashmiris had been wrestling with since Independence: that India would recruit non-Kashmiri settlers to dilute the region’s ethnic and religious makeup."
Continuing from harvard law review:
"The Indian government also introduced a new domicile order200 that expands the definition for residency and allows a new class of non-Kashmiris to move into the region. This legal maneuver mirrored the use of “registration by title” to facilitate the expropriation of indigenous lands in Palestine and Australia.201 The order now permits Indian citizens who have lived in the region for a set period of time to claim a “domicile certificate.”202 The children of those domiciled can also claim their own certificates, even without ever having entered the region.203 These provisions extend to armed forces stationed in Kashmir and their children as well,204 making the hundreds of thousands of armed forces in Kashmir a potentially new class of settlers themselves. By claiming domicile, these non-Kashmiris can now apply for all local government jobs, including those in police or administration, that were previously reserved for Kashmiris.
However, a new land order may have already superseded the domicile laws in importance, having repealed twelve former state land laws and amended fourteen others.205 The order erased Article 35A’s vestiges, largely removing the “permanent residency” clause across Kashmir’s land regime.206 Notably, it did not limit land transactions to newly defined domiciliaries. The law also empowers non-Kashmiris to repurpose agricultural land, which constitutes ninety percent of the region, for nonagricultural purposes.207 Similarly concerning is the government’s ability to designate “strategic area[s]” for military use without the previously required consultation with local government.208 While the full effects of these reforms are unknown, one thing is clear: “J&K is now up for sale . . . .”209"
And to be clear The Resistance Front did directly state as reason for the attack, (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/what-is-the-resistance-front-the-group-behind-the-deadly-kashmir-attack, note that AJ is RS):
"In a message that appeared on Telegram, TRF opposed the granting of residency permits to “outsiders”, who critics say could help India change the demography of the disputed region. “Consequently, violence will be directed toward those attempting to settle illegally,” it said. ... After the Indian government unilaterally revoked Kashmir’s partial autonomy in August 2019 and imposed a months-long clampdown, the group first took shape by starting messaging on social media. In reorganising Kashmir, the government also extended domicile status, which allows land owning rights and access to government-sponsored job quotas, to non-locals — the purported justification for the Pahalgam attack." Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Harvard Law Review may be right. The domocile rules have no bearing on the purchase of property. It only affects college seats and government employment (and other government benefits that might be offered from time to time).
In that case the TRF's attack has logic. Today's tourists might become tomorrow's property-buyers. So, scare away all the tourists. Too bad for the Kashmiris who will lose whatever little employment they have from the tourism industry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DISCUSS weightage on Pakistan for the attack

@King Ayan Das: – The beauty of an online encyclopedia is that you can have a discussion when there is a dispute rather than continuously reverting edits. Adding "reliable sources" doesn't make it okay to add anything you want. Read up on WP:DUE – your attempts at including Pakistan in several paragraphs in the article, including the ledes / opening paragraphs is highly WP:UNDUE. نعم البدل (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mooonswimmer Do people just not get the concept of discussing? Did you even bother to see the talk page? نعم البدل (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be wrong for me to just undo every edit leading back to Mooonswimmer's edit? I don't think it's valid to make so much change without discussing it Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikipedious1: I don't know if that's a rhetorical question or not, I restored the last stable version, given that the edits the followed (that were reverted) were also relevant to my point. I've invited the users for a discussion, but no response so far, though it hasn't been much time. نعم البدل (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I have no clue what happened. My intention was simply to fix some grammar and remove a wikilink repeated multiple times throughout the article. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Wikipedious1 It's not valid to delete large portions of well sourced content from good quality WP:RS sources, as was done by نعم البدل using arguments such as reducing emphasis on Pakistan, even though most of the deleted content did not mention Pakistan. Thanks. 23:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi نعم البدل (talk),
I appreciate that you added this topic for discussion, though I disagree with some of your recent deletions. I noticed that you deleted large amounts of well-sourced content from WP:RS sources.
You even deleted highly relevant content from High Quality WP:RS sources such as The New York Times and The Hindu.
I strongly disagree with your deletion of almost the entire third paragraph from the lead, giving reason to avoid emphasis on "Pakistan", even though there is no mention of "Pakistan" in the entire third paragraph of the lead:

"The attackers carrying M4 carbines and AK-47s entered the tourist spot, which is surrounded by dense pine forests ... one identified as a Christian."

In my humble view, there is no reasoning to remove such relevant content (3rd para) from quality WP:RS sources, which has been summarized from article body per WP:LEAD. And I agree with @Mooonswimmer on reverting these deletions.
We all editors should avoid misusing WP:DUE to delete content that we do not like, as long as it is well sourced from good references.

Thanks for your kind cooperation and civil discussion. RogerYg (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RogerYg: Hi, thanks for the reply. I can understand how that could have been issue – one thing I want to point out was that a large chunk of the removal were citations. I put up a citation overkill template, and this was me trying to remove some of the redundant references. Some other references may have been removed, but from a quick skim, it wasn't anything significant, imo.
Like I said, my main issue is with the article is that it puts an undue amount of weight on Pakistan (for the attack). That's what I'd like to discuss. نعم البدل (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your clarifying the issue and civil discussion. Yes, we can discuss if there is any undue weightage on Pakistan for the attack, especially from lower quality sources, then I would agree to delete that content.
Therefore, please discuss specific statements that you find problematic here, instead of deleting large content, which has no mention of Pakistan.
I would also like to update the topic from "DISCUSS" to "Discuss weightage on Pakistan for the attack" to make it specific. Thanks again. RogerYg (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the first paragraph of the lead, there is no mention of Pakistan.
In second paragraph, there is only 1 indirect mention of Pakistan: The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility... After four days, TRS withdrew the claim.
In the third paragraph of the lead, there is no mention of Pakistan.
I do not think the lead has any undue weightage on Pakistan for the attacks.
In the article body, we can discuss specific sections, where there may be undue weightage on Pakistan. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The whole framework of this discussion is wrong. WP:NPOV editors don't get to decide "how much WEIGHT" should be given to Pakistan. Pakistan is not the subject here. A terror attack is. نعم البدل, it is your job to explain why this is even an issue. Tell us which policy of Wikipedia are you referring to, in raising this discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In this edit, you removed well-sourced and pertinent content, claiming that it gives "OVEREMPHASIS" to Pakistan, is against policy. The question, and only question, is whether it is relevant to the topic, which is a terror attack. There are no Wikipedia policies for or against Pakistan. Please refrain from making such edits in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Kautilya3, I fully agree with your guidance and inputs, and was trying to guide the discussion based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:LEAD.
    I also flagged the wrong edit by نعم البدل, with "I noticed that you deleted large amounts of well-sourced content from WP:RS sources.. There is no reasoning to remove such relevant content (3rd para) from quality WP:RS sources, which has been summarized from article body per WP:LEAD.
    Further, I also put the guidance "We all editors should avoid misusing WP:DUE to delete content that we do not like, as long as it is well sourced from good references." Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wanted to quickly clarify again, for @Kautilya3 that in my original edit [19] (prior to the restoration of another edit), I removed certain references for being excessive. I'm not really that concerned if they want to be reinstated. The WP:UNDUE part, I will discuss at a later time. نعم البدل (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a brief mention of Pakistan is due in the first paragraph as it is one of the most critical impacts of this attacks as reported by WP:RS sources such as NY Times, BBC, and Indian Express: The attack intensified tensions between India and Pakistan. The fourth paragraph details the diplomatic crisis. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topics BRD restriction

I'm placing this article under an "Enforced BRD" restriction the Arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. In addition to the usual contentious topics restrictions, please note that, editors are prohibited re-reversion until someone has posted a note on the talk page about the revert and waited 24 hours after posting the note.RegentsPark (comment) 20:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Hindu sentiment as a motive?

Tagging @Lightspecs as you added this to the infobox. If we have RS describing this attack as being caused by Anti-Hindu sentiment, can we share that here, and additionally include that in the article. Otherwise, this should not be a listed motive. While a majority of victims were Hindus, I do not see anti-Hindu sentiment as being a motive behind the attack discussed in the lead or responsibility sections, although attacks on Hindus in Kashmir are noted in the background section. Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightspecs Wikipedious1 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point. In the 'Attack' section, there are details from reliable sources about the terrorists evaluating victims' religious affiliation before murdering them. See what happened to the Christian victim. The second listed motive in the infobox also references 'Demographics.' Hard to dissect religion from the intent here. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is Palestinian political violence directed at largely Jewish Israelis motivated necessarily by antisemtism?
Since there is a history of violence perpetrated against Kashmiri Hindus by TRF/etc, and because of the religious aspects as you mentioned, I can see how this situation could be different. But I think it would be helpful to see RS describing this attack in the context of anti-Hinduism, and as part of it.
For example this is what al Jazeera, RS, discusses when discussing the context of the attack. (BTW, will hopefully add this info to the bg section soon)
https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/4/28/burst-balloon-how-pahalgam-attack-shattered-modis-kashmir-narrative
"The abrogation of the constitutional provision that gave Kashmir its special status was accompanied by a major crackdown. Thousands of civilians were arrested, including leaders of mainstream political parties – even those that view Kashmir as a part of India. Phone and internet connections were shut off for months. Kashmir was cut off from the rest of the world. ... Since then, the arrests of civilians, including journalists, have continued. Borders of electoral constituencies were changed in a manner that saw Jammu, the Hindu-majority part of Jammu and Kashmir, gain greater political influence than the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley. Non-Kashmiris have been issued residency cards – which was not allowed before 2019 – to settle there, sparking fears that the Modi government might be attempting to change the region’s demography. ... Amid all of that, the Modi government pushed tourism in Kashmir, pointing to a surge in visitors as evidence of the supposed normalcy that had returned to the return after four decades of armed resistance to Indian rule. In 2024, 3.5 million tourists visited Kashmir, comfortably the largest number in a decade, according to government figures. ... Until the Pahalgam attack, armed fighters had largely spared tourists in Kashmir, keeping in mind their importance to the region’s economy, noted Donthi. “But if pushed to the wall, all it takes is two men with guns to prove that Kashmir is not normal,” he said."
Not a single mention of anti-Hinduism sparking this.
Wikipedious1 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

lead is too big

lead is too big it needs to be trimmed. I'm happy to help. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, the existing length is fine. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of it could go to the attack section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The lead is presently a fine length ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if that's the consensus then fine. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unverifiable, sensationalized claim in the Reactions section

"Arnab Goswami, one of India's most well-known journalists, publicly demanded a 'Final Solution' like treatment for Pakistanis and Indian Muslims as revenge for the attack.[105]"

I skimmed the video provided as a source, but I found no confirmation of this claim, nor any clip of him saying this. Rather, this seems to be taken from the editorialized description? Even then, it is inaccurate because the words "Indian Muslims" and "Pakistan" are not used in the sentence. If there is a better source for this claim, then it should be used. Otherwise, the claim should be removed. Anantanni22 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it for now @EarthDude per BRD. Re-add if you have reliable sources that clearly say this. Anantanni22 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I had used a bad source for that one. Here are some good sources that explicitly state that: https://www.thequint.com/opinion/colonial-echoes-in-post-pahalgam-hate-islamaphobia; https://newlinesmag.com/argument/india-is-reeling-as-the-illusion-of-normalcy-dissolves-in-kashmir; https://www.middleeasteye.net/trending/muslims-fear-potential-israel-like-retaliation-following-attacks-kashmir;

My bad EarthDude (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack&oldid=1288243559"