Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack

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)

:{{done}}. The addition has been made. Kaeez06 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

:::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::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://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)

:These allegations are from indian newspapers so probably sensationalist lol 47.54.242.77 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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.

{{user|Aliyiya5903}} 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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1286900135 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.

{{Islamic terror attacks in India (since 1947)}}

{{Terrorist attacks in India (since 2001)}} Drat8sub (talk) 18:34, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::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)

::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aliyiya5903&diff=prev&oldid=1286900698 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)

:::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)

:::@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)

::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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

::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)

: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)

I am with User:GrabUp. It makes more sense here. No offense to the BOLD mover, but not reverted here and to discuss.Sportsnut24 (talk) 20:02, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

For motive we need RS which independently report on the nature of the attack, not news reports regurgitating social media posts of the militant org. For an exemplar see motives for the September 11 attacks. Gotitbro (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Elazığ Ahmet|Aliyiya5903}} Gotitbro (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, but i didn't edit those sources. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 21:29, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:Understood, and I’m fine with that. I’ve noticed Islamic terrorism being added without proper sourcing. we should rely on credible sources for the motive. I suspect this will come up again, and I just want us to be uniform in removing unsupported claims. Thanks. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Aliyiya5903}} Yet you added the same to the background using sources which predate the attack. Not acceptable. Simply WP:OR.

::Wait for news reports to catch-up or actually report on the background (usually such sections on enwiki cover past attacks as well), rather than reifying claims from militant social media. Gotitbro (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What do you think should go included in the background section? Issuing domicile certificates to non state subjects in a disputed region is a significant development it seems relevant to the context and not WP:OR. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Pahalgam is in Indian administered disputed Kashmir, where press freedom is frequently curtailed. Waiting indefinitely for media to report on certain views in such an environment may not be indicative of the entire story. Like with many articles relating to Kashmir, there's a danger that this event will be characterized as Islamic terrorism without fully discussing motive or wider background. That's why adding substantial developments such as the domicile certificate issue is relevant to context. not OR. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The perpetrators clearly asked the victims, their identity by reading Kalma, the six Islamic declaration or undressing to check Circumcision, an Islamic practice, before killing. Secondly, the perpetrators are islamic terrorist organisation. Why do we need RS for this? The whole article describes this. In case of September 11 attack, no such thing happened before attacks. Drat8sub (talk) 21:32, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

::User:Drat8sub Mate, not all muslims are members of these groups, you can't link it to 'Islamic terrorism'. Terrorism has no religion for sure. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::When did I say, "all muslims are members of these groups"? Ofcourse terrorism has relation to religion, that's why it is called Islamic terrorism. The article clearly says, "attacks on civilians by Islamic extremist groups come from their interpretations of the Quran, the hadith, and sharia law.", if you don't understand, then again read it and again. It seems like competence is required. Drat8sub (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No one is generalizing any particular group of people here but Islamic terrorism is indeed a thing which relates itself to a particular religion and the group that claimed this attack is one which is classified under the said class of terrorism. From what I've observed, I feel like your personal POV is conflicting with this topic. Kaeez06 (talk) 22:08, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Islamic terroism is a used Academic term and is not an islamophobic term, and your false strawman <> was not even said by them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism#Academic_definition Zpatrmm007 (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::What do you mean by terrorism has no Religion, As far as ground reports are concerned the motive behind this heinous act is an act of ISLAMIC TERRORISM. You can check the definition for that here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_terrorism . Do not downplay and play the victim card 49.206.9.76 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You ought to claim conflict of interest or biased party.

:::You'll want to censor the news sources about all of circumcision and verse verification? Should we ban them to not "malign a community" Atemperature (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::principle of due weight applies here. there's already a paragraph about this in the article so no need to include more. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::I was referring to the addition of domicile of non-Kashmiris being cited as a motive that was sourced to a social media post. Not acceptable (social media as a source or any non-independent confirmation for this motive).

::The same applies to your assertions though. Specifically WP:SYNTH. The org being a jihadist one has no bearing on the fact that we need independent reporting that explicitly lists the motive, we cannot synthesize it on our own. Gotitbro (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Fair enough, we can wait. Drat8sub (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Gotitbro The entire background section is sourced from a single Pakistani newspaper trying to play the victim and justify the terror attack. Did militancy in Kashmir start only after August 2019 and onky after the revocation of Article 370? As if there was peace and prosperity everywhere before that—what a load of crap. If anything, the situation has become somewhat more controlled; it used to be much worse. Please remove the entire Pakistani mouthpiece section. Which genius inserted this paragraph? who decided that the background starts only from 2019? Looks like the handiwork of someone trained to play the victim since birth. Remove it! As i cant. 2409:40C1:7:814C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::DAWN is a reliable source. but if you have a problem then litigate it here Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources also read this Wikipedia:Reliable sources DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Please tell me you're joking. It's a single Pakistani source being used to provide background for Indian Jammu and Kashmir. Ever heard of POV bias? Maybe it’s a reliable source—but a reliable source for terrorist motives? Oh, I mean, it might make sense on the surface, but we cannot treat it as the sole truth. It’s a newspaper, not an academic reference. And an opinion is just that—an opinion. You can’t insert it into the background section just because it’s the view of some guy from a cherry-picked and supposedly "reliable" (seriously?) single news agency from a hostile country.

:::::Anyway, acting like a hive mind and working in unison to push subpar sources to serve your motives is all too common within a certain community. Increase your numbers, and suddenly all RFCs are yours. All sources are yours. Even islamophobia becomes irrational right? In the end, it doesn’t even matter— World is not that stupid. Also there’s no actual evidence, not even in the perpetrators’ actions, that supports such a madeup background.

:::::And Dawn is only as reliable as Pakistan itself. Long story short, this background section isn’t just inaccurate—it reads like a subtle justification, which is a disturbingly common pattern on Wikipedia pages related to Islamist terrorism. In this case, it doesn’t even pass the basic logic test. Is Dawn now the mouthpiece of that militant organization?

:::::Those who can see through this nonsense will either remove it or revise it with better sources and content. Lol, Dawn. At the very least, source quotations as well as attribution is required. 2409:40C1:7:814C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Kautilya3 (Although he rarely responds to tags, I think he can bring some sense into this—if he's interested.) 2409:40C1:7:814C:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::WP:NPOV allows us, in fact requires us, to use all sources. There is no limitation to a single source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::this problem was sorted out in Bangladesh revolution wikipedia page alot of editors were talking of avoiding Indian sources but the consensus was that what is reliable is reliable so I suspect the same applies here. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::yeah, but one must remember that victims testimony just after a traumatic event is very shaky I'm also against mentioning Hindu in the lede cause as I understand it the attack was in response to 84,000 non-locals given domicile statement made in the assembly.

::It seems to be locals vs non-locals thing not Hindu vs Muslim. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::No not really, since if that was the case as previously mentioned singling out Hindu Victims would not have happened. There is clear malice against a singular religious group, while giving domicile statements to non-locals could have been a major factor it does not eliminate the fact that these attacks have been taking place in the region way before the aboragation of article 370 and do indeed target Hindus. Normstahlie (talk) 17:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::even a cursory look would tell you that the preferable target for these terrorist are always security personnel not civilians infact according to SATP( south asia terrorism portal) last year was lowest on civilian casualties. but we can't inculde this as this would be original research. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I don't see how this is relevant to the thread since, the civilians were attacked anyway and it's clear that they were singled out on the basis of religion which should attribute to the motive (i.e Islamic Terrorism and Religious Persecution). That is not saying that there weren't any other motives (i.e The Mass Domicile Certification in the region). There is a history of prosecution/mass-murder of the minorities in Kashmir, and the preferred target for these terrorists only now is security personnel because by mid- year 1990 almost the entirety of the Hindus had fled from the region . Normstahlie (talk) 05:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Again this was a terrorist attack. the region has a history of terrorism for religious persecution there's a seprate page on the migration/exodus of Kashmiri pandit. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We are discussing the motive here, and my point being that Islamic Terrorism seems a good enough motive circumstantially. Normstahlie (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::"Opposition to alleged non‑local settlement in Kashmir" has been agreed upon as the motive so motive can't be litigated everytime some new editor comes along. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:27, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I don't see a consensus. Normstahlie (talk) 10:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Motive is islamic terrorism since the organisation behind this attack is Lashkar-e-Taiba as confirmed by the intelligence agencies in india. The same organisation have led the 2008 Mumbai Attacks and the infobox have stated their motive as islamic terrorism same can be included in the infobox in this article. 007sak (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Theyre the afiliate of the claimants. That is also sourced.Sportsnut24 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The attack happened on the meadow in the Baisaran Valley.

These are the coordinates:

:34.00348638056003, 75.3333094940495

The article is currently using these coordinates (34.01, 75.19) which are 15km away from the correct location, 80.189.122.246 (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

{{requested move/dated|2025 Pahalgam massacre}}

{{notavote}}

:2025 Pahalgam attack → {{no redirect|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)

• Oppose, The name doesn't need to be changed. the region has had a history of terroism and this was a terrroist attack. Also you haven't linked any academic sources that you talk about. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

• Oppose- Most of the sources state this as an attack, not massacre. Imwin567 (talk) 02:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::>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)

:::We follow WP:COMMONNAME rather than OR 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: All sources refer to the incident as an attack. Additionally, several victims, including locals, were Muslims. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Are you saying - because its Muslims we are not allowed to call it a massacre Cinaroot (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::Untrue, multiple sources refer to it as a massacre: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1286999005 see here for a list compiled from just a google search]. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

• 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)

::You are right it must be changed to massacre.. 2409:4089:CE07:3C6F:0:0:730B:9115 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::What non-islamic force perpetrated this massacre? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

• 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)
• :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)
• :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)
• 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)

::@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)

:::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)

::::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)

::::Yep, most articles have used both words here. LΞVIXIUS💬 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::: 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)

• Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV

:Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. If more sources in the future define it as a massacre, then we can change it. Right now, most sources (including [https://x.com/AnantnagPolice/status/1915059132769730904?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet Anantnag police]) refer to the event as an attack. The intent of the attack is also not fully known and the recency is causing many Indian propaganda networks to come to vapid conclusions. Jebiguess (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose; attack fits description RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

: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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

• Oppose. A massacre is an indiscriminate killing of unarmed civilians, but sources says that they spared Muslims. Mitsingh (talk) 04:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Supportas the attack was a massacre of non-muslim tourists in indian-administered Kashmir by the pakistan-based terrorist group TRF General Phoenix (talk) 18:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose all attacks on civilians cannot be automatically called as massacres, we've to follow WP:COMMONNAME 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::The September 11 attacks are also of a very specific demographic and are called "attacks". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose : no source has been provided by OP / attack describes perfectly fine was happened and is neutral ProudWatermelon (talk) 19:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Greetings Community,

: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)

• Oppose militant activities are generally titled as "attacks" on Wikipedia articles, such as July 2016 Dhaka attack, September 11 attacks & 2008 Mumbai attack. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose 2A01:CB00:38E:B200:586A:5A84:901C:17E9 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:•

: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)

{{Strikethrough| :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)

• 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. This should be titled as a massacre 2409:40F2:3055:454B:DCB1:2CFF:FE68:E0F7 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2025 (UTC)}}
• Oppose: Most reliable sources called it attack, no major sources are calling it a massacre. This was a terrorist attack, not a massacre. GrabUp - Talk 04:16, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Some reliable sources: [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html 1], [https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir/kashmir-bandh-on-wednesday-to-mourn-pahalgam-massacre-3505142 2] -- Kartik Mistry ^talk 07:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@KartikMistry: We should follow what majority of the sources says, not some handful articles. GrabUp - Talk 07:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

:::::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)

:::::@Somajyoti: Read WP:DUEWEIGHT. GrabUp - Talk 09:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: Major news sources refer to it as a terror attack.[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/trump-putin-meloni-and-other-world-leaders-condemn-pahalgam-terror-attack/article69480106.ece][https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir-terror-attack-pahalgam-security-forces-terrorists-killed-tourist-injured-search-operation-police-pm-modi-hm-amit-shah-omar-abdullah/liveblog/120519770.cms][https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-5-tourists-from-maharashtra-dead-says-dy-cm-eknath-shinde-101745366073614.html][https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/indian-navy-officer-vinay-narwal-from-haryanas-karnal-who-married-just-5-days-ago-killed-in-jammu-kashmirs-pahalgam-terror-attack-8231617][https://indianexpress.com/article/india/jk-pahalgam-terror-attack-live-updates-9959143/] NorthernStares (talk) 04:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Even one of the news sources you shared calls it a massacre:

::[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir-terror-attack-pahalgam-security-forces-terrorists-killed-tourist-injured-search-operation-police-pm-modi-hm-amit-shah-omar-abdullah/liveblog/120519770.cms 2]: "{{tq|{{underline|Pahalgam massacre}}: Security agencies to fill 'vacuum', realign forces}} UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Article says "Jammu and Kashmir Pahalgam Terror Attack" ProudWatermelon (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

• Oppose: Terror attack is usually named as attack check the pages of 2008 Mumbai attack and September 11 attacks. Those incidents have higher dead toll and they are still named as attack. Keep the Massacre as redirect that's already existing. 007sak (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: A simple Google search of "Pahalgam" shows all news outlets reporting an attack; none use the word "massacre." Also, for comparison, the title of the Wikipedia article about the March 2024 Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow, which killed at least 145 people and injured 551, is Crocus City Hall attack Patternbuffered (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: Its too early to change it to massacre - more reliable media should report it Cinaroot (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: This isn't some normal massacre it is a attack against tourist in the region Dinocogreat (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose: As others have mentioned, I think it's too early for such a change. Most of the sources list it as an 'attack' so it would be more easier for people to find this article. Kaeez06 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Support: It was a massacre 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose: None of the sources refer this attack as "Massacre". ᶜᵒᶥᵒⁿᵉᶥ (talk) 07:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close. I wonder what all the supporters were doing in 2008? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Strong support because mass killing of civilians is a massacre and the mass killing is what makes it notable. There is precedence for such naming in the region: see for instance 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 etc. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::* Here are a multitude of sources that call it a massacre:

::[https://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-terror-with-global-audience-was-pahalgam-massacre-timed-for-massive-publicity-maximum-diplomatic-disruption-3147293 DNA] (1), [https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-jammu-and-kashmir-first-image-one-of-terrorists-tourists-opened-fire-exclusive-2713184-2025-04-23 India Today] (2), [https://www.firstpost.com/india/pahalgam-terror-attack-india-response-northern-army-chief-13882243.html Firstpost] (3), [https://kashmirlife.net/pahalgam-massacre-cm-omar-calls-for-two-minute-silence-in-government-offices-389059/ Kashmir Life] (4), [https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir/kashmir-bandh-on-wednesday-to-mourn-pahalgam-massacre-3505142 Deccan Herrald] (5), [https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/terrorists-attack-tourist-hotspot-in-pahalgam-multiple-killed-and-over-20-injured/article69478509.ece The Hindu] (6), [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/jk-attack-terrorists-massacre-28-tourists-in-pahalgam/articleshow/120529988.cms Times of India (ToI a)] (7), [https://www.timesofisrael.com/at-least-24-killed-in-massacre-of-tourists-in-indian-controlled-kashmir/ Times of Israel] (8), [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/pahalgam-massacre-as-tourists-leave-kashmir-airlines-told-to-add-extra-flights-from-srinagar/articleshow/120542128.cms ToI b] (9), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMzKqshK7Js Times Now] (7), [https://www.firstpost.com/world/pahalgam-massacre-in-first-reaction-pakistan-defends-terrorism-in-kashmir-says-locals-acting-against-govt-13882315.html Firstpost] (10), [https://thecsrjournal.in/terrorists-filmed-pahalgam-massacre-using-helmet-cameras-reveals-probe/ The CSR Journal] (11), [https://www.rediff.com/news/interview/maj-gen-retd-g-d-bakshi-we-have-no-option-but-to-strike-back/20250423.htm Reddiff] (12), [https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/owaisi-underlines-intelligence-failure-in-pahalgam-massacre-sanjay-raut-cites-bjp-hate-politics-from-bengal-to-kashmir/cid/2095574 Telegraph] (13), [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyddW-EK7Dg ToI c] (14), [https://www.newindian.in/global-leaders-unite-in-grief-over-pahalgam-massacre/ The New Indian] (15), [https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Kd6MvFQmgUo Bussiness Today] (16) UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::::Did you mean "[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/jk-attack-terrorists-massacre-28-tourists-in-pahalgam/articleshow/120529988.cms J&K attack: Terrorists {{underline|massacre}} 28 tourists in Pahalgam]"? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Selective reading. You need to change your eye glasses! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• 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)

:::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)

::::@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)

:::::@Somajyoti: We follow WP:COMMONNAME. GrabUp - Talk 04:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::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)

:::I doubt that will ever happen, since scholarly sources call them massacres. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Please cite your “scholarly sources” here. GrabUp - Talk 11:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Just off the top of my head,

:::::*Bose, Sumantra (2021), Kashmir at the Crossroads: Inside a 21st-Century Conflict, Yale University Press, p. 126,

:::::"{{tq|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)

::::::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)

:::::::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)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

:::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)

::::{{tq|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)

::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)

• oppose per my comment in the section abnove.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• 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)

::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)

:::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::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)

:::::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)

::::::# Provide a source

::::::# 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)

• 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)

::I just realised there is already a redirect lol. But anyway, still Oppose. AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose as a terrorist attack should me kept as "attack"Hionsa (talk) 15:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose and speedy close One-off terrorist attack, not a sustained campaign of massacres. Ecrusized (talk) 16:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

*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)

• Support simply based on what has been defined as massacres, such as this - massacres in the U.S:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_United_States] Qalb alasid (talk) 22:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
• :See the data from [https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=Pahalgam%20attack,Pahalgam%20massacre&hl=en-GB Google trends]. There is zero interest for the “massacre” wording. We acan use Google Trend to determine WP:COMMONNAME per WP:SET. GrabUp - Talk 04:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Google trends is not a legitimate measurement. Shakakarta (talk) 09:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::But it sure is a good way of comparison without OR 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::@Shakakarta: For you, I already cited WP:SET, which allows to do measurement and it is acceptable. GrabUp - Talk 13:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Most of the !votes on both sides ignore the applicable policy. WP:NCENPOV states that "massacre" can be included in titles if it is either part of the WP:COMMONNAME or if it is a "generally accepted word" used to refer to the event in reliable sources. Otherwise, the term "massacre" endorses a particular POV and should be avoided. This is the standard used for all of the encyclopedia. It's not based on counting the number of dead or editors' interpretations of what a massacre is or isn't. It's also not based on just showing sources, editors should show the majority of reliable sources covering this event use the word "massacre". e.g. count Google News results or whatever else. I think it'll be easier to determine what the correct title is in a few weeks after news sources have settled on what to call this event. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 00:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• :What POV does “Massacre” take here? Dazzling4 (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::"Massacre" is inherently a strong word.
• ::Things where massacre can be used on can only be a common name(such as nanjing massacre)
• ::Massacre is not a common name. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing close to becoming a common name. 223.185.23.47 (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

: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)

::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)

: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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::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)

:::[https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/srinagar/pahalgam-terror-attack-nation-mourns-as-victims-stories-emerge-from-karnataka-maharashtra-gujarat-and-beyond-full-list/articleshow/120539823.cms 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)

::::As I understand it the prevaling situation has always been local vs non-locals.

::::{{tq| 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)

:::::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)

::::::{{Talk quote block| and you saying that this should be dismissed because of the trauma state of the victims is completely unethical|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.

::::::{{Talk quote block| 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.| 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)

:::::::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)

:::::::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)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::@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)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::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)

:::::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)

:::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)

:::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)

:There were only non muslims wo were killed ..@ 2409:4089:CE07:3C6F:0:0:730B:9115 (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

::::do not spam. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::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)

Previously I'd seen a list of reactions and responses from different leaders, embassies and foreign governments condoning the massacre and offering support. Now it's nowhere to be seen. Why were they removed? 2409:40F2:3055:454B:DCB1:2CFF:FE68:E0F7 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:same, it should be readded 49.36.235.126 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::It violates WP:QUOTEFARM and is a perennial problem for terrorist incident articles. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:48, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Several of the reactions are noteworthy. For example, the condemnation from the Afghan government (Taliban) is not what one would expect.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 06:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Then there should be a citation noting the supposed unusual nature of such statement? Foreign ministries/presidents issue statements all the time even in response to disasters/attacks. Most statements are boilerplate "condolence/condemnations" including the major powers. The only noteworthy one was Pakistani defence minister which distanced themselves from the attack.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Why table in the casualties section is removed 007sak (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:What was the purpose for it? Listing out complete names of the deceased, it seemed like an unwanted addition giving undue weight, but would be open to discuss this with others before adding it back. Kaeez06 (talk) 08:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::not to list the complete name and details. I suggested to add the version which was earlier present with count and nationality only. 007sak (talk) 09:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::on this article 2025 New Delhi railway station crowd crush name of the victims are mentioned(tooltip in the infobox) but I'm not sure if this style ought to apply here also I'm worried about privacy concerns of the deceased and their families. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Hinduphobia is a vague term. I think it's unnecessary. 007sak (talk) 06:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:the terrorists specifically asked tourists of they were hindus. its and hinduphobic attack 49.36.235.126 (talk) 06:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:They targeted Hindus.It is necessary because this is exactly what happened.If people are killed in mass because of their religion then it is hatred/phobia of their religion. Zpatrmm007 (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:yes I agree especially when you place this attack under the larger context of the region. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::none of the articles have mentioned the term "Hindu phobia" 007sak (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Target ere Hindus and source are quite clear off:-

:The Hindu-As many as 26 people ere killed in their terror...singld out to their religion

:https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html-"...Since this has been an attack specifically on Hindu tourists..""..Pahalgam lies on a major pilgrimage route, known as the Amarnath Yatra, which takes place every year and has been exposed to previous attacks.

Thousands of tourists flock to Kashmir during its peak season each year, which runs from March to August.

The last major attack on tourists in the region took place in June. At least nine people were killed and 33 others injured when a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims plunged into a gorge, after suspected militants fired on the vehicle."

and much more you can add 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:page doesn't exist your URL is either wrong or the article has been retracted. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::1. [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/two-kashmiri-men-who-went-to-pakistan-in-2018-suspected-to-be-among-terrorists-who-attacked-tourists-at-pahalgam/article69481793.ece The Hindu]

::2. https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You should read both of the articles youself CNN says that this would "feed Islamophobia" in India and both of the sources don't even talk about "Hinduphobia" DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::That's not relevant, a sympathy between truth and tie what CNN said that it would be celebrated by Islamist extremists and later..

::::Further, "Eyewitnesses said the terrorists checked IDs and executed those identified as non-Muslims, point-blank."

::::Further, if you are talking from informal perspective as it seem to be , https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-kashmir-full-list-of-victims-released-2713232-2025-04-23 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 09:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::"We were just having bhelpuri... and then he shot my husband. The gunman said my husband was not a Muslim and then shot him," the officer's wife said.

IAF official Tage Hailyang and Intelligence Bureau officer Manish Ranjan were..." 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 09:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I am sure from the sources I gove qualifies for Hindu target specific, no NPOV and others in garb of neutrality. It should've remained and retained as part of common sense previously too! 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::No reliable sources says that hinduphobia was behind this terrorist attack. reliable source has to use the word Hinduphobia we can't create new information out of thin air. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Not Hinduphobia, then the surces definitely use the word targeted Hindu visitors isn't it? And no I think Hindu visitor makes more sense than Hinduphobia and it's not evenI am arguing for. 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::They have to use the word hinduphobia we can't use original research in wikipedia DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:The protesters mentioned Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs and Christians (despite no significant number). Clearly not "hinduphobia".Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::What? Didn't get your comment? Yes a Muslim with favourably all Hindu majority were victimd 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Can you please show the reference where the protesters had this much time to discuss about secularism-based killings with the victims out there? Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

• Use only third party sources before making these claims. 223.185.23.47 (talk) 02:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay so there is a lot of going back and forth with the short description between '2025 terror attack' and '2025 Islamist terror attack' so I thought I would bring this up for discussion. The organization which took claim of perpetrating this attack is deemed an Islamist militant organization and other articles involving terrorist attacks of such organizations have used the word in its descriptions, see for reference September 11 attacks, 2008 Mumbai attacks. I would like to hear what the others think. Kaeez06 (talk) 10:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The attack was carried out by a branch of LET, an Islamist terrorist organization, and specifically targeted non-Muslims. While the use of "Islamist" seems clear, if other editor need official confirmation from a government agency to verify that this specific group was responsible then we can wait for using that word for some time. राजकुमार^(talk) 10:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::The target was non-Kashmiris in regards to demographic changes by giving them residency since 2019. That is cited. No religion mention. Taht is OR.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::The target according to attacker not as a whole, target specifically singled out the religion specifically Hindu to kill them according to [ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-kashmir-full-list-of-victims-released-2713232-2025-04-23 RS]2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm the one who changed it to "Islamist" from "Islamic" which is something completely different so the distinction needs to be understood by everyone with that beign said I do support "Islamist" beign mentioned in the lead. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

can we verify this {{tq| India has permanently stationed an estimated 500,000 soldiers in the territory.}} statement in the background section I think this might be wrong cause 500,000 is a big number it would be great if there are other sources that talk about how many troops are deployed there. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy9vyzzyjzlo. This article of bbc mentioned it so it's true. 007sak (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::The article doesn't give any proper source and India's total army strength is 1.23 million and have 7 commands one which is only stationed in Kashmir, so how the break up is possible ??? Prem8660 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::What retardation. You need to go beyond BBC and find another source if it is BBC Atemperature (talk) 07:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Someone please block this guy he is beign abusive DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::There is no way BBC or anyone can confirm this. As reliable a source the mouthpiece of British monarchy is. One should understand the complexity in verifying these claims. The BBC is actually making a claim and not that it has verified it. No BBC reporter will vouch for this fact. If one cannot vouch for the fact and show concrete evidence of the fact, one should not take it for the truth by pointing to a source. Rkwiki540 (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::At the end of the day it should at least pass a smell test. Which this does not. If the BBC said we know this because an army officer high ranked of such and such a name said so!! it is a different matter. Rkwiki540 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

From [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=1287010012&oldid=1286991875 non-Muslim or Hindu tourist to just tourist] through [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research definite Original Research],

Now source for Hindu tourist or atleast Non-Muslim tourist per RS:_

1.[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/two-kashmiri-men-who-went-to-pakistan-in-2018-suspected-to-be-among-terrorists-who-attacked-tourists-at-pahalgam/article69481793.ece -As many as 26 people ere killed in their terror...singled out to their religion]

2.[https://www.businesstoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-pune-businessman-shot-dead-after-failing-to-recite-islamic-verse-says-daughter-473224-2025-04-23 There were several tourists around, but the terrorists specifically targeted male tourists after asking whether they were Hindu or Muslim]|

3. [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html "...Since this has been an attack specifically on Hindu tourists..""..Pahalgam lies on a major pilgrimage route, known as the Amarnath Yatra, which takes place every year and has been exposed to previous attacks.

Thousands of tourists flock to Kashmir during its peak season each year, which runs from March to August. The last major attack on tourists in the region took place in June. At least nine people were killed and 33 others injured when a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims plunged into a gorge, after suspected militants fired on the vehicle."]

4.[ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-kashmir-full-list-of-victims-released-2713232-2025-04-23 Eyewitnesses said the terrorists checked IDs and executed those identified as non-Muslims, point-blank.]

5. J&K attack: Terrorists targeted male tourists after asking their religion, says victim's kin

Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir/jk-attack-terrorists-targeted-male-tourists-after-asking-their-religion-says-victims-kin-3505810 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:all of them were tourists that's how most reliable sources describe it there's been no original research. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

LeT are affiliates of the claimants. LeT have not claimed anything by any source, ergo as an offshoot potential perpertrators would have once been with LeT.Sportsnut24 (talk) 12:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, has claimed responsibility for the [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/jammu-and-kashmir/the-resistance-front-the-banned-organisation-behind-pahalgam-terror-attack/article69481681.ece Pahalgam terror attack] that has claimed the lives of 26 civilians, including two foreigners, so far. 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::According to Loewy Institute there has been confirmation of LeT claiming the responsibility of the attack {{Cite web|last=REJ |first=Abhijnan |title=Terrorist attack marks grim Kashmir milestone |url=https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/terrorist-attack-marks-grim-kashmir-milestone|access-date=2025-04-23 |website=Lowey Institute |language=en}} Prem8660 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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)

: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)

It is completely irrelevant to the average reader that somebody sprained their ankle as a result of this attack. How is this even sourced? Why do readers need to know this information? It's bloating the page and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Inviting other editors @Sportsnut24 @Somajyoti and @Pachu Kannan. Let's stop edit warring over it and discuss it here. — AP 499D25 (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

: Remove. Multiple lists of victim names, genders, and ages adds nothing to the understanding of the article topic. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper, making the status and current location of the injured doubly unsuitable. Celjski Grad (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Remove. Same with this the flagsoup of WP:ROUTINE reactions. Borgenland (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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 [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/125-lakh-domicile-certificates-issued-so-far-in-jk-govt/article32500068.ece]. In the recent debate in the Assembly, the government did not give any breakdown [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-80000-non-state-subjects-have-received-domicile-certificates-in-last-two-years-jk-govt-says-9935364/]. I see it as an obvious attempt to inflame feelings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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), the would respond to the attacks as follows:

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)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=yes}}

using twitter as a source? A family from Maharashtra posted on social media to show their gratitude to a local cab driver who sheltered them in his house during the attack and ensured their well being.[23] CipherChronicle (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: It's unlikely that maintains enduring notability in the context of the overall event. Celjski Grad (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::I dont understand your point. CipherChronicle (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Twitter or social media is not reliable as a source 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The lines were already included. That is what I was asking whether tweets can be used as a source. The lines written by someone else in the article. CipherChronicle (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

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. [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/militants-indian-kashmir-segregate-men-women-children-before-opening-fire-2025-04-23/ Reuters]

2. [https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/26-dead-in-jk-terror-attack-men-who-couldnt-recite-verse-killed-5514249 NDTV]

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

:The NDTV link doesn't work. Reuters doesn't say they specifically targeted Hindu tourists. Rainsage (talk) 04:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:::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)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

The {{tq|"'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)

: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)

::Yes. This is the first version where that part appears [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1286918404] 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1286920403] 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)

:::@M Waleed, have a look. Hionsa (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Removed would be better for now until a suitable source is found 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 18:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::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)

::::::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)

:::::::We'll better wait till then as reddit isn't a reliable source 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::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)

:::::::::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)

::::::::::Doesn't wikipedia have a list? Don't offer subjective opinions Atemperature (talk) 07:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::if you have a problem with sources then litigate it on WP:RSP DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Conflict reporting is very hard. There were no reporters there. We only have eye witness testimonies. We should only be using established news sources. All the fly-by-night websites should be removed.

I am finding it difficult to square "firing indiscriminately" with "singling out non-Muslims". Many of these sources say both! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

: The Hindu said:

: {{talkquote|He said the meadow could only be approached by road or on a pony, and “around a thousand people tried to run away through the narrow path and gates”.Vijaita Singh, [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/terrorists-kept-firing-for-25-30-minutes-recalls-pahalgam-eyewitness/article69483296.ece Terrorists kept firing for 25-30 minutes, recalls Pahalgam eyewitness], The Hindu, 23 April 2025.}}

: Our text says "by foot or by pony" citing NDTV. Which is correct? The satellite map shows a perfectly find road to the location. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Cars not allowed, there are multiple roads and trek routes which can be taken either on foot or on pony or both. But cars can't go there. The last point upto which a car can go is varies with every route, but on average it's 6-10kms away from Biasaran Valley. I was there last to last year. 2405:201:8018:8071:40C7:C555:B7EF:D4DB (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::: Yes, I found other sources that said the road quality was bad. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:If you watch the videos carefully even a child will understand their pants were pulled down to check for circumcision. Firing indiscrimately is actually incorrect in this scenario hence, since it means firing without any discrimination among whom they fired upon, which is untrue. I think some edits should be allowed in Wikipedia based on common sense and knowledge of the general public too, which they have acquired and infact anyone can after watching first hand videos and ordeals from the incident. Sometimes the most reputed and trusted of the news outlets miss on this common sense while reporting and hence WP pages can't just be a copy paste of these news outlets' articles! 2405:201:8018:8071:40C7:C555:B7EF:D4DB (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:: Another source also said they "sprayed bullets". I don't mean suggest that I believe their words. Rather I believe the quality of reporting on conflicts is bad.

:: You would notice "thousand people" mentioned in the above quote, which is hard to believe. So the journalist put it inside a direct quote. It remains unverified. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:The Hindu has developed a clear tilt in the last decade. It is to mislead people who only read that newspaper into a more Islam leaning tilt (Mostly Indian Expatriates) Almost worse than Al-Jazeera and BBC. Many of those who just give a quick glance will see indiscriminate and think it's just another attack in Kashmir. This is not a suggestion for the article, merely additional information so you know the demons you sleep with if you rely on them excessively Atemperature (talk) 00:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

please add in investigation section :

File:J&K police release collage of terrorists involved in Pahalgam attack.png 雄奇 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:"Mint could not verify if these sketches are accurate." ProudWatermelon (talk) 19:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Jammu and Kashmir police have released sketches of terrorists involved in the Pahalgam attacks that resulted in 26 deaths, based on eyewitness accounts. Mint could not verify if these sketches are accurate

::Accuracy of the sketches no one can check right , unless they have a ground truth photo ! I think it is illogical for a sketch 雄奇 (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree! It is a source! Atharva210 (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=yes}}

Pakistani Terrorist group TRF offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba Pakistan dosent reconize this group and have called it a terrorist organisation

In the attack One Muslim has also died Name Syed Hassan Haider 2400:ADC1:18C:9F00:C943:7A50:3848:6D64 (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:08, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:That information was already added 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=yes}}

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned the attack as "a senseless and shocking act of violence," and offered his condolences.https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/canadian-pm-oppn-leader-condemn-terror-attack-on-civilians-in-kashmir-101745431401801.html Lucianozoic (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:Why should this be added? What difference does it make for the victims or future victims that the Canadian PM said killing people is bad, mmkay? Dreameditsbrooklyn (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

::Hello, thank you for your question. This should be added because it is an international reaction, similar to the other international reactions which are already present. Furthermore, it allows Wikipedia readers from Canada to be aware that their head of government has indeed reacted. Lucianozoic (talk) 21:31, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Done}}: Don't worry. I've added Canada's condolences in the article along with the citation provided. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 02:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think the primary importance is that it was notably delayed. Either due to the election or some the Tensions Atemperature (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::(for a member of G7) Atemperature (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Ref-talk}}

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

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)

:A Muslim was amongst the dead 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 02:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::The attack was targeted towards Hindu Civilians. The Muslim was a collateral damage. Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Can you point out to me which reliable citation in the article says exactly that? Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::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)

::::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)

::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)

:::Exactly. People are diverting sources. It was a collateral damage and nothing else Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Why are we still using fake news sources like FirstPost? It appears it was removed by Kautilya3[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1287062187] once after Dympies had added it together with other fake news like MyInd.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1286988214] FirstPost should not be used anywhere for this topic. 223.185.23.47 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

: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)

: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.

:{{TQ|"Sources and eyewitnesses said that some victims were shot at point-blank range after the gunmen confirmed they were not Muslim."}}
— [https://m.thewire.in/article/security/pahalgam-attack-at-least-two-gunmen-singled-out-and-killed-non-muslims The Wire, April 23, 2025]
{{TQ|"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." }}
—[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/terrorists-cursed-modi-asked-my-father-to-recite-islamic-verse-before-shooting-him-daughter/article69480148.ece The Hindu, 23 April, 2025]
{{TQ|"Pahalgam terror attack: Terrorists asked name and religion of male tourists, shot them, says survivor"}}
—[https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/terrorists-kept-firing-for-25-30-minutes-recalls-pahalgam-eyewitness/article69483296.ece The Hindu, 24 April, 2025]
{{TQ|"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."}}
— [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/militants-indian-kashmir-segregate-men-women-children-before-opening-fire-2025-04-23/ Reuters, 23 April, 2025]

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

: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)

{{Edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=yes}}

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)

:{{Not done}}: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::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)

:A Christian and a Muslim were also killed 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::That's irrelevant to the point. Killed and targeted are two different things. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel the description is not accurate to the event, here we are all clearly stating this is an act of terrorism where they killed anyone in their way (including Muslims) and singled out Hindus, I believe that if other articles of the same genre (Terrorism in India) can use the 'Islamist terrorist attack on …' description, it is only correct to do so here Atharva210 (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The word 'Hindu' is not even used in this article despite the clear targeting. This is deliberate omission. 103.197.103.156 (talk) 05:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:Correct, there's no reason for WP to censor this basic fact. People were specifically targeted for their Hindu identity. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::Here's a reliable source (according to Wikipedia) with witness testimony of how Hindus were targeted.

::https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/karnataka-family-pahalgam-celebrate-pu-exam-score-terrorists-killed-9961292/ Anantanni22 (talk) 07:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

Not militant attack it’s terrorist attack 2409:40C2:1049:DF80:14D8:FC53:C928:4D07 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

: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)

: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)

::@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)

:::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)

:::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)

> Following the attack, there was a wave of anti–Muslim and anti–Kashmiri sentiment expressed on social media.[45] The attack is believed to have increased Hindu–Muslim tensions in India.[45]

The source does not talk about a wave; it says local Kashmiris are fearful of growing sentiments. An expert discusses the possibility that such sentiments may increase. Also, believed by whom? The article does not support the second statement at all.103.197.103.156 (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"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)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

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)

: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)

::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)

::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)

: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)

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)

: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)

::>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)

The following 2 points should be added in the article:

How airlines are overcharging due to increased demand. [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/industry/transportation/airlines-/-aviation/pahalgam-attack-despite-aviation-ministry-request-flight-tickets-from-srinagar-remain-exorbitantly-high/articleshow/120545240.cms?from=mdr]

How local Gurudwaras are helping the tourists. [https://thekashmiriyat.co.uk/pahalgam-attack-kashmiri-gurudwaras-open-doors-to-tourists/] Jasksingh (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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)

:@राजकुमार: Read MOS:TERRORIST. GrabUp - Talk 13:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::User:King Ayan Das: Please read MOS:TERRORIST, before edit warring. GrabUp - Talk 13:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::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)

Under the subheading "Casualties", the following has been stated:

{{Blockquote|text=At least 26 civilians were killed in the attack, including 25 Indian tourists from various parts of India, one local from Jammu and Kashmir and two foreign tourists (one each from Nepal and the United Arab Emirates).|title=}}

If 25 Indian tourists, 1 local and 2 foreign tourists have been killed, the number of casualties is obviously 28. Why does it say "26" repeatedly? Shouldn't it be changed? I'm Here to Help You (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:I've adjusted the wording based on the sources and removed an out-of-date source. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

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)

{{edit extended-protected|2025 Pahalgam attack|answered=no}}

The request is made for two additions:

• Response from the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim condemning the attack on his social media channels: [https://www.instagram.com/p/DI1I6p0TCwq/ Instagram], [https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1258585705622994 Facebook]. For news sources: [https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/24/anwar-condemns-attack-in-kashmir-urges-justice-unity The Star], [https://www.nst.com.my/news/nation/2025/04/1207002/anwar-condemns-kashmir-attack 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: [https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/technology/tech-news/pahalgam-attack-account-withheld-due-to-says-government-of-pakistans-twitter-account-in-india/articleshow/120573704.cms Times of India], [https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pakistan-governments-x-account-suspended-in-india-over-pahalgam-attack-8242172 NDTV], [https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pakistan-governments-x-account-suspended-in-india-after-pahalgam-terror-attack-101745471053931.html 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)

{{tq| Men were forced to remove their trousers to check for a lack of circumcision before being shot at close range, and video footage from the scene showed scenes of panic with injured victims pleading for help and bodies strewn across the ground.}}

this line should be removed because sources like Zee news and others cited are part of Godi Media wikipedians who deal with India-Pakistan issue would know that more often than not Godi media becomes a party to the conflict instead of objectively reporting facts on ground.

I won't have any obejction to this line beign added if we can find some other reliable source like The Indian Express or The Hindu or any other source that is listed here WP:RSP DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)