Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack#rfc F0ECF36

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)

::::Article as it is right now reflects this no need to make any changes. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Add the main article Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack to the Reactions section of article. Misopatam (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Add the article Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack with in main article template in the Reactions section of article. Misopatam (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Add the missing category [Category:April 2025 events in India] to the article. Misopatam (talk) 08:30, 30 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.

{{reflist-talk}}

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)

:I get that "demographic change" is TRF POV but what should be written in motive then? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::I already changed it to "alleged demographic change". That is good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Actually, it is written "alleged non-local settlement", which is more precise than demographic change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::::makes sense. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Why is it alleged we still hold our state subject certificates. While the State Subject Law was replaced with domicile law by india. With abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. issuing new domicile certificate to non-locals under new law does not alter the historical distinction between locals and non-locals. And its fact not allegation that 83000 domiciles was issued to non-locals even all sources mention non-locals. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::We don't have a definition of "non-local" nor any justification for why such people are supposed to be "non-local". The new domicile law has its own restrictions and is in line with the domicile laws used for other states in India. One man's "non-local" can be another man's "local". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::The 1929 state-subject law clearly define who is local and who is not its doesn’t erase the historical fact of who was originally recognised as local here. Well i have no problem with using anything. There are thousands of kashmiri pages using same one side narrative which can never be fixed.

:::::::https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/actsandordinances/State_Subject_Rules.htm Aliyiya5903 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

{{od}}

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

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

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

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

{{U|Wikipedious1}} In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1288143609 this edit], you have added a speculative claim of "settler colonialism" with a large number of citations. But none of them presents any evidence of "settler colonialism" as having occurred. They only talk about "fears", including a supposed journal article in Third World Quarterly. Fears were already mentioned in the preceding sentence. Why should this new content be used here at all? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

: In January 2021, TRF shot and killed a 70-year old goldsmith, who lived in Kashmir for over 50 years. Apparently, he obtained a domicile certificate, which brought him the ire of TRF.World: Kashmir: Militants target non-locals amid tensions over land laws, Deutsche Welle, via Asian News Monitor, 21 January 2021. {{ProQuest|2479053665}}

: {{talkquote|The TRF claimed responsibility for the killing, saying Nischal was part of a "settler project" and that anyone who obtains domicile "will be treated as occupiers."}}

: So these op-ed writers and supposed journal authors are feeding into this extremist narrative. A supposed "historian and political analyst" called Siddiq Wahid told Deutsche Welle that "the new land laws violated India's constitution". No explanation as to how they are supposed to have violated the Indian constitution. And, Ather Zia, one of your op-ed columnists, agreed, according Deutsche Welle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 Any updates to this ? Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

What have been termed "West Pakistan refugees" were the partition refugees that migrated from West Pakistan to India in 1947. Some of them had settled in Jammu, and they have been given cold shoulder by the successive Kashmiri regimes. Here are some details:{{citation |last=Bali |first=Pawal |title=West Pakistan Refugees: 60 years on, still refugees with no homeland |newspaper=Epilogue |date=January 2008 |pp=16–17 |url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xAFfIgzs5_UC&pg=PA16}}

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

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

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

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

{{talkquote|He said 11,398 West Pakistan refugees, 415 Valmiki community members, 10 Gorkha community members and 12,340 registered migrants have been issued the certificates so far.{{citation |title=12.5 lakh domicile certificates issued so far in J&K: Govt. |newspaper=The Hindu |date=2 September 2020 |url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/other-states/125-lakh-domicile-certificates-issued-so-far-in-jk-govt/article32500068.ece}}}}

As you can see, roughly half of these so-called "outsiders" were the West Pakistan refugees. The other substantial half were "migrants". According to The Telegraph, these were the Kashmiri Pandits who went out of the state during the exodus.Muzaffar Raina, [https://www.telegraphindia.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir-domicile-certificates-for-12000-outsiders/cid/1790913 Jammu and Kashmir domicile certificates for 12,000 ‘outsiders’], The Telegraph (India), 4 September 2020. {{ProQuest|2439754407}}

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

{{reflist-talk}}

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

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

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)

{{done}} The content has been modified with better sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

{{not done}}. Please obtain WP:CONSENSUS before filing an edit request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

::Is the singling out of the Muslim victim to prevent the portrayal of the attack as being only against non-Muslims reflective of how reliable sources treat this event? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

: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)

{{not done}}. Please obtain WP:CONSENSUS before filing an edit request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 29 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)

:At this point it should be called militant, until there's an overwhelming majority of sources that call it terrorist.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{reply to|Vice regent}} Looking at domestic news outlets in India, it is being referred to as a terrorist attack overwhelmingly. But, if we do look at the comparison between the terms militant and terrorist (I just googled this up: [https://www.grammar.com/the_difference_between_militants_and_terrorists The Difference Between Militants and Terrorists]) and it wouldn't be fair to say an attack like this is militancy really as it was more of a terrorist attack as per this source's definition of that.

::This source also states the following:

::* Militants: [https://www.definitions.net/definition/Typically Typically] used to [https://www.definitions.net/definition/describe describe] individuals or [https://www.definitions.net/definition/groups groups] involved in [https://www.definitions.net/definition/armed armed] resistance, insurgencies, or [https://www.definitions.net/definition/guerrilla guerrilla] warfare. The term may [https://www.definitions.net/definition/imply imply] a [https://www.definitions.net/definition/degree degree] of [https://www.definitions.net/definition/legitimacy legitimacy] or [https://www.definitions.net/definition/perceived perceived] justification for [https://www.definitions.net/definition/their their] actions, [https://www.definitions.net/definition/especially especially] in [https://www.definitions.net/definition/contexts contexts] of self-defense or [https://www.definitions.net/definition/liberation liberation] struggles.

::* Terrorists: [https://www.definitions.net/definition/Often Often] applied to [https://www.definitions.net/definition/actors actors] engaging in acts of [https://www.definitions.net/definition/violence violence] or [https://www.definitions.net/definition/coercion coercion] with the [https://www.definitions.net/definition/primary primary] aim of [https://www.definitions.net/definition/instilling instilling] fear, [https://www.definitions.net/definition/causing causing] civilian casualties, and [https://www.definitions.net/definition/destabilizing destabilizing] societies. The term [https://www.definitions.net/definition/carries carries] strong [https://www.definitions.net/definition/negative negative] connotations and is [https://www.definitions.net/definition/frequently frequently] associated with [https://www.definitions.net/definition/illegitimate illegitimate] or [https://www.definitions.net/definition/unlawful unlawful] conduct. (sorry for the links, direct copy-paste) Considering this is a grammar website, wouldn't this just be a grammar thing to classify as terrorist, instead of a massive edit war right now. Maybe everybody ought to read the definition??

::Atharva210 (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Agreed. A lot of editors around here think that the only legitimate sources are American ones, even when it's increasingly clear that many American sources (NYT, WPost) are basically propaganda sources for the American elite class. Bezos has admitted as much with his direct manipulation of WPost editorial stance. JDiala (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It is called RACISM!!! Let us call it for what it is. These folks should be told what they are, racist. What is their modus operandi? Well they will first state that their reporting or capture of the event needs to be objective. They ought to come from reliable sources. They tell you what these sources are. Essentially they will delegitimize you and your agency. Essentially you do not have a voice. They take that away. How do they do that? Well they will tell you your sources are not reliable. WE ARE THE ARBTERS!!! This is the where todays racism resides. Most editors here that claim objectivity do not even realize it as they are raised on this cool-aid. There is this notion of legitimacy if you are NYT, WAPO etc. Despite their faulty records on most instances of international concern. WMD anyone? I have realized that it is best to not rely on Wikepedia for truth. For them the defintion of terror as targetting innocents is irrelevant. They need to be told by their nominated sources that it is. This in their mind is objectivity. After reading all the arguments and all the objects, my conclusion is pretty straight forward. RACIST!!! They are just racist and do not realize it. Rkwiki540 (talk) 12:25, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Did you get AI to write your comment? Why are you trying to define words like "typically" and "often". The term "terrorist" is POV and using a dictionary to determine who is a terrorist is WP:NOR.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:38, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::It's not POV a priori, especially when referring to attack type (as opposed to perpetrators). See 9/11 article for instance. JDiala (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I think the links come from pasted definitions from definitions.net. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• The US Foreign Affairs Committee has slammed The New York Times for whitewashing a "terrorist attack".PTI, [https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/us-house-committee-slams-new-york-times-report-on-pahalgam-attack/article69489290.ece U.S. House Committee slams New York Times report on Pahalgam attack], The Hindu, 25 April 2025. But many more media houses are guilty of the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2061279572}}

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

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)

:this is not relevant as to add this and conclude that Pakistan was behind this attack would be original research which isn't allowed.

:We could always write that "India has accused Pakistan for this attack." DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

{{not done for now}}. Needs discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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)

:Accounts were withheld few years back this is ANI creating confusion as always.

:Some say accounts were re-activated in 2023 but I can't verify that DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{not done}}: Individual country reactions are not being mentioned, only a summary. The twitter account blockage is apparently unrelated to the topic. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

{{talkquote|“Well, we have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades, you know, and the West, including Britain,” replied Mr. Asif.PTI, [https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-doing-wests-dirty-work-for-decades-pakistan-defence-minister/article69490687.ece Pakistan doing West’s dirty work for decades: Pakistan Defence Minister], The Hindu, 25 April 2025.}}

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

{{talkquote|According to this narrative, when the Soviets formally withdrew from Afghanistan, Pakistan redeployed its battle-hardened operatives to Kashmir. Even prominent intelligence officials repeat this truncated version of Pakistan’s jihad history. ... Despite this narrative’s staying power, it is simply inaccurate. Most important, it understates the duration of Pakistan’s involvement with nonstate actors generally and Islamist militants in particular. Pakistan has relied on nonstate actors to prosecute its policies in Kashmir since its birth in 1947... Furthermore, Pakistan’s efforts to employ political Islamists, and later Islamist militants in Afghanistan, began as early as the late 1950s. ... State-supported Islamist militants fought Bangladeshi insurgents in East Pakistan during the crackdown that spawned the 1971 war (Haqqani 2005).{{citation |last=Fair |first=C. Christine |authorlink=C. Christine Fair |title=Fighting to the End: The Pakistan Army's Way of War |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=szaTAwAAQBAJ |year=2014 |publisher=Oxford University Press |ISBN=978-0-19-989271-6 |at=Chapter 6}}}}

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

{{talkquote|But according to several sources, General Zia-ul Haq called a meeting with Jamat-i-Islami's Maulana Abdul Bari in Rawalpindi in early 1980. According to Bari, the general stated his intentions plainly: he had decided to contribute to the American-sponsored war in Afghanistan in order to prepare the ground for a larger conflict in Kashmir, and he wanted to involve the Jamat-i-Islami of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. To the general, the war in Afghanistan would be a smokescreen behind which Pakistan could carefully prepare a more significant battle in Kashmir. The general said he had carefully calculated his support for the American operation, predicting that the Americans would be distracted by the fighting in Afghanistan and, as a result, turn a blind eye to Pakistani moves in the region. ... The cost of Pakistani military aid and support for the war in Afghanistan—to be reimbursed by the CIA and the Saudis—could be greatly inflated, and General Zia promised to give a large portion of the profit to Bari's Jamat-i-Islami.{{citation |last=Jamal |first=Arif |title=Shadow War: The Untold Story of Jihad in Kashmir |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TNO5MAAACAAJ |year=2009 |publisher=Melville House |ISBN=978-1-933633-59-6 |pp=109-110}}}}

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

:A more direct statement is in another article:

:{{talkquote|While Pakistan routinely asserts that the United States inveigled Pakistan into Washington’s jihad in Afghanistan, this is highly inaccurate.[44] Pakistan began its jihad policy in 1974 and financed it with its own meager resources because it was a core Pakistani policy to do so. Also noted above, the so-called “mujahideen” groups were developed solely under Pakistan’s direction and with Pakistani funds; in fact, U.S. assistance to the mujahideen effort did not begin to flow until 1982.... Finally, the concept of waging the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the lexicon of “jihad” was not the idea of the United States. Rather, Pakistan’s then-military dictator Zia ul-Haq insisted upon doing so, and the United States acquiesced.{{citation |first1=C. Christine |last1=Fair |first2=Sumit |last2=Ganguly |year=2015 |title=Five Dangerous Myths about Pakistan |journal=The Washington Quarterly |volume=38 |number=4 |pages=73-97 |doi=10.1080/0163660X.2015.1125830 }}}}

:-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:As noted at the top of the page, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::This is what I'm trying to understand – how is any of what @Kautilya3 said even relevant here? I'm trying to find any angle in which doesn't go against WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. It's almost dishonest to also be quoting Christine Fair, despite the fact she has been criticised for being overtly biased critic of Pakistan. Other points as well, but not the article to be discussing this on. نعم البدل (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

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

{{talkquote|The Indian government and media have long alleged that Pakistan supports insurgent groups such as TRF. Pakistan denies any support for militants including those involved in Jammu and Kashmir, officially maintaining only "diplomatic and moral support" for the Kashmiri people.{{citation |last=Gupta |first=Shishir |title=New J&K terror outfit run by LeT brass: Intel |date=8 May 2020 |work=Hindustan Times |url=https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/new-j-k-terror-outfit-run-by-let-brass-intel/story-wLZ5ACFQJMHVa8kt7weTPO.html }}{{reftalk}}}}

It is not just "Indian government" that blames Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism. Dozens of reliable sources do so, as do many national governments. See Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Christine Fair and Arif Jamaal are two authors that I refer to the most since they have done the most thorough study, with hundreds of pages of evidence. Pakistan had even been put on FATF grey list for four years, and when it was lifted, it was said, "{{tq|there is still work to be done and that Pakistan will continue to report to the watchdog about follow-up action}}".[https://www.moneycontrol.com/news/india/pahalgam-terror-attack-does-pakistan-risk-returning-to-fatf-s-grey-list-13001714.html Pahalgam terror attack: Does Pakistan risk returning to FATF’s grey list?], MoneyControl, 23 April 2025. Mind you, this is only for "terror funding". Arms, training, military supervision etc. are not covered by FATF.

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

::@Kautilya3 would this be a better wording?

::{{talkquote|1=Pakistan has been long alleged to have supported terrorist and militant groups such as TRF.{{cite web |title=ISIS leadership enjoying hospitality of Pakistan agencies |url=https://sundayguardianlive.com/top-five/isis-leadership-enjoying-hospitality-of-pakistan-agencies |publisher=SUNDAY GUARDIAN |access-date=10 December 2023}}{{cite web|title = Iran Says Pakistan Backs Suicide Bombers, Warns 'Revenge' at Funeral of Victims|url = https://www.news18.com/news/world/iran-says-pakistan-backs-suicide-bombers-warns-revenge-at-funeral-of-victims-2038969.html|date = 16 February 2019|access-date = 24 July 2019|archive-date = 17 December 2020|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20201217022306/https://www.news18.com/news/world/iran-says-pakistan-backs-suicide-bombers-warns-revenge-at-funeral-of-victims-2038969.html|url-status = live}}{{Cite web|title=India, Pakistan envoys trade heated accusations of terrorism|date=2022-11-15|url=https://apnews.com/article/pakistan-india-united-nations-hillary-clinton-terrorism-4b56ace894fadd0d0bc1199ec9b0b613|access-date=2023-04-23|website=The Associated Press|language=en}}International Terrorism: Threats and Responses: Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary By United States Congress House Committee on the Judiciary, {{ISBN|0-16-052230-7}}, 1996, pp. 482.{{cite web|url=https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20060403032830/https://2001-2009.state.gov/s/ct/rls/crt/2000/2441.htm|url-status=dead|archive-date=3 April 2006|title=(I) Overview of State-Sponsored Terrorism|date=3 April 2006}}{{Cite news|date=2019-02-28|title=Combat terror outfits operating in your soil: Germany to Pakistan|work=Business Standard India|url=https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/combat-terror-outfits-operating-in-your-soil-germany-to-pakistan-119022801008_1.html|access-date=2021-04-23|archive-date=19 August 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220819191633/https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/combat-terror-outfits-operating-in-your-soil-germany-to-pakistan-119022801008_1.html|url-status=live}}{{Cite web|date=2019-11-15|title=Germany backs India's cross-border strikes against terrorists in Pakistan administered Kashmir|url=https://gpil.jura.uni-bonn.de/2019/11/germany-backs-indias-cross-border-strikes-against-terrorists-in-pakistan-administered-kashmir/|access-date=2021-04-23|website=GPIL - German Practice in International Law|language=en-US|archive-date=30 August 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220830125548/https://gpil.jura.uni-bonn.de/2019/11/germany-backs-indias-cross-border-strikes-against-terrorists-in-pakistan-administered-kashmir/|url-status=live}}{{Cite news|url=https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/us-uk-france-voice-concern-at-fatf-meet-over-pak-inaction-against-saeed-azhar-sources/articleshow/69893411.cms|title=US, UK, France, India voice concern at FATF meet over Pakistan inaction against Terrorism|date=2019-01-23|work=economictimes.com|access-date=2019-02-25|language=en|archive-date=1 August 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190801200950/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/us-uk-france-voice-concern-at-fatf-meet-over-pak-inaction-against-saeed-azhar-sources/articleshow/69893411.cms|url-status=live}} Although Pakistan officially denies any support for militants including those involved in Jammu and Kashmir,^[8][9][10] its Defence Minister recently admitted to the country's involvement in supporting terrorist activities.{{cite web| url=https://www.thehindu.com/news/international/pakistan-doing-wests-dirty-work-for-decades-pakistan-defence-minister/article69490687.ece|title=Pakistan doing West’s dirty work for decades: Pakistan Defence Minister}}}}

::IG this captures the "official" side while making clear the actual stuff the Pakistani govt has itself admitted. Although I admit the citations may be overkill, so while a source that sums these up is better - This should work for now till a better source is found. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::: What the Pakistan Defence Minister said is open to multiple interpretations. Let us not go there. I am challenging the very idea why a government source is so sacrosanct that we need to reproduce it. The Background section is supposed to cover what is needed to understand the main content of the article and provide any needed context. Pakistani denials are not background to anything. What Pakistan did as per scholarly analysis is the real background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::While that interpretation is not for us to make, I'm going off of The Hindu's reading of his remarks{{talkquote|Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has admitted the country’s history of supporting, training and funding terrorist organisations as “dirty work” for the West, a mistake for which he said Pakistan had suffered.}}Which seems fairly reasonable given the question and his response.
Alternately, could you modify my proposed wording to be in line with the works you mentioned above? I dont think I'm familiar with those. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::I understand, but nobody believes that the "dirty work" he referred to (as having been done for the US and Britain) was directed at India. It was just some random blackmail used to get out of a tight corner. I would just stick to scholarly sources and not get into their twisted arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Kautilya3 Either way it should be mentioned as India alleges Pak of harboring terrorism. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I also believe it should be mentioned as India alleges Pak of harboring terrorism.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Wikipedia is written using WP:SECONDARY sources as far as possible. WP:PRIMARY sources come in only as part of the narrative. There is no reason at all why a "Background" section should depend on them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Remember that he also claimed that LeT is history. It doesn't exist any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::They are just using a different name now.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1748764870}}

{{rfc|hist|rfcid=F0ECF36}}

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

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

Previous discussions

• Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Militant?
• Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Not_militants_but_terrorists -

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

• Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST I think we should call it a militant attack, rather then a terrorist attack. GrabUp - Talk 07:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 1: Militant per MOS:TERRORIST. I suggest people read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WHATABOUTISM before making brash responses. Borgenland (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2: Terrorists Attack was motivated by religious hatred (killing Hindus). International definitions of terrorism as defined under United Nations, FBI and Eastern Union fit this case. [https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/dot/dot.html?utm_source=chatgpt.com] [https://www.un.org/en/observances/prevention-extremism-when-conducive-terrorism-day] Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2: WP:TERRORIST does not apply if and when the attack is being described as a terrorist attack outside of wikipedia. Look at the sources, and look also at how almost every sovereign state reacting to the attack has called it a terrorist attack, including all major western nations. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Based on google search results, comparing search results for "Pahalgam attack" without militant and without terrorist and terror: results where militant is not used: [https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=pahalgam+attack&as_oq=&as_eq=militant&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=w&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&as_filetype=&tbs= 78,20,000 hits], while results where terrorist and terror are not used: [https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=pahalgam+attack&as_oq=&as_eq=terrorist+terror&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=lang_en&cr=&as_qdr=w&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&as_filetype=&tbs= 64,30,000 hits]. "Terrorist" is thus used more than "militant." UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Also per User: Kautilya3's breakdown below of wide-ranging WP:RS usage of the term 'terrorist/terror' to describe the attack. Hence option 2. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Militant, commonly accepted terrorist organizations are not even described as such in the first few sentences of their leads. No need to label this as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixCaelestis (talk • contribs)

• Option 2: The UN Security Council, a major international body, has described this incident as a terrorist attack ([https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/04/1162641 UN News report]), and multiple high-quality reliable sources (although not a majority, still significant in number) have echoed that. Per WP:RS, UN official statements reported via UN News meet reliability standards. MOS:TERRORIST calls for caution but allows such terms when widely attributed, which is the case here. Per WP:DUE, significant viewpoints must be represented proportionately — and when an entity like the UNSC describes it as terrorism, it is important to reflect that appropriately. Not mentioning it would violate WP:NPOV by downplaying a widely reported and important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Ayan Das (talk • contribs)

• Option 2: Per widely usage in sources-
• "Militant" - [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pahalgam%22+%2B+%22militant%22+%2B+%22attack%22&client=ms-android-oppo-rvo3&sca_esv=6983e842059c9cf0&biw=980&bih=1884&tbs=qdr%3Aw&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AHTn8zpuyC9piEJ-wChfy9e78dWFASDWew%3A1745758201902&ei=-ScOaJjtNvaZseMP6JCZgQ0&ved=0ahUKEwjYzfOLoPiMAxX2TGwGHWhIJtAQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=%22pahalgam%22+%2B+%22militant%22+%2B+%22attack%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiIiJwYWhhbGdhbSIgKyAibWlsaXRhbnQiICsgImF0dGFjayIyBBAAGB4yCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMggQABiABBiiBDIFEAAY7wUyCBAAGIAEGKIEMggQABiABBiiBEicE1D6EVj6EXAAeACQAQCYAe0BoAHtAaoBAzItMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAaACmAKYAwCIBgGSBwMyLTGgB8sDsgcDMi0xuAeYAg&sclient=gws-wiz-news 32,800+]
• "Terrorist" - [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22pahalgam%22+%2B+%22terrorist%22+%2B+%22attack%22&client=ms-android-oppo-rvo3&sca_esv=6983e842059c9cf0&biw=980&bih=1884&tbs=qdr%3Aw&tbm=nws&sxsrf=AHTn8zoNVetEe9YEf2GTZpPBmmkEYKOxeA%3A1745758178964&ei=4icOaJy4Ovr2seMPwvepmAw&ved=0ahUKEwicsfuAoPiMAxV6e2wGHcJ7CsMQ4dUDCA4&uact=5&oq=%22pahalgam%22+%2B+%22terrorist%22+%2B+%22attack%22&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LW5ld3MiIyJwYWhhbGdhbSIgKyAidGVycm9yaXN0IiArICJhdHRhY2siMgQQABgeMgQQABgeMgsQABiABBiGAxiKBTILEAAYgAQYhgMYigUyCxAAGIAEGIYDGIoFMggQABiABBiiBDIIEAAYgAQYogQyCBAAGIAEGKIEMgUQABjvBUjBFFDCEljCEnAAeACQAQCYAYwCoAGMAqoBAzItMbgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAaACqAKYAwCIBgGSBwMyLTGgB-kFsgcDMi0xuAeoAg&sclient=gws-wiz-news 2,53,000+]

: Note that the data slightly fluctuates but it gives almost accurate statistics. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2: "Terror attack" and "terrorist attack" are widely used for the Pahalgam attack. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:TOOSOON. Unless non-news organizations and pieces refer to the event as a terrorist attack in the future, it is best to refer to Pahalgam as a militant attack. It should also be noted that the TRF is not considered a terrorist group by anybody else besides India, lending more credence to the militant attack nomenclature (even if the attack fits both definitions). Jebiguess (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2, as this is how it is widely described in reliable sources per the correct interpretation of Mos:TERRORIST. 03:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk)

• Option 2 (terrorist) as this is how it is widely described. FropFrop (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2: The majority of news sources call it a terrorist attack. Anantanni22 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

• Option 2: Terrorist; sources make this clear. Qalb alasid (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - Some people in support of option 1 have incorrectly invoked MOS:TERRORIST - In our case, the label is not for a person or a group, and it also clears the bar of
  {{tq|1="are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"}}
  since most sources call it a terror attack (see the calculations by UnpetitproleX above). Beyond search results, the term is used by a wide array of international media houses as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - An obvious misinterpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. The term is widely used and coherent with the reliable sources. There's no room for a "Militant attack". Shakakarta (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 - as per the discussion and arguments of User:Kautilya3 below, in the next subsection.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• Option 2 per arguments of others, this is widely described as a terrorist attack in sources (terrorism is a technical term which describes extreme, usually violent methods for achieving a political goal, not the sense or morality of the goal). I'm not even sure that a 'militant attack' is meaningfully a thing, this is described as a 'terrorist attack' carried out by 'militants', but that does not invest the term 'militant attack' with any additional specific meaning.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

• MOS:TERRORIST is about labelling people or perhaps groups of people. It is not about terror attacks. Moreover, the MOS guidance is not to use "value-laden labels". It doesn't say don't use terms with their dictionary meanings. This is a complete misunderstanding of the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Is Gamergate (harassment campaign) a person or group of people? This article is used as an example at MOS:TERRORIST. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Wrong interpretation. That was mentioned as an example for the -gate suffix. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{strikethrough|No militant group claimed responsibility. TRF denied it, LeT denied it, and no other militant group claimed responsibility. They killed for religious indiscrimination. They could not be classified as militant. They killed purely based on religious discrimination. AS per Oxford [https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/militant%201 a person who uses, or is willing to use, force or strong pressure to achieve their aims,] In this case no RS has stated what their aim is, so Terrorist is better here. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)}} blocked sock -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• Here are some sources using the term "terror attack":
• "India suspends Indus Water Treaty, expels Pakistani Diplomats after Pahalgam Attack", Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), 23 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194101853}} {{tq|Tensions mount between Pakistan and India as New Delhi suspended Key Treaties, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and shuts down Attari Border over Kashmir Terror Attack.}}
• "MMU Calls for Shutdown in Kashmir to Protest Pahalgam Terror Attack", Kashmir News Service, 22 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3192963828}}
• "Kashmir Unites In Grief Against Pahalgam Terror Attack", Kashmir Observer, 23 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3193674462}}
• "Pahalgam terror Attack: MEA briefs foreign envoys", Kashmir Monitor, 25 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194260541}}
• "Pahalgam terror attack: 'Ponywallah' Syed Adil Hussain Shah dies saving tourists", Siasat Daily, 24 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194154002}}
• "U.S. Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Accept Peace Plan; Zelenskyy: Ukraine Won't Recognize Russian Control Of Crimea; India Downgrades Ties With Pakistan After Kashmir Attack; Attack On Kashmir Tourists Sparks Conspiracy Speculation; U.S. Markets Rally on Trump's China Tariff Retreat: China: Won't Negotiate Under Threats or Pressure; Tesla Stock Up 5 Percent after Musk Says He'll Dial Back DOGE Work; The Race to Save the African Penguin; Global Carmakers Compete for Attention in Shanghai. Aired 1-2a ET", CNN Newsroom, 24 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194792359}} {{tq|Protesters in three Indian cities blame Pakistan for Tuesday's terror attack which killed 26 people after gunmen opened fire in a popular tourist area in India controlled Kashmir.}}
• "Terror attack on Kashmir tourists kills 26: Gunmen open fire on holidaymakers at resort in disputed territory, in worst civilian attack in years", The Daily Telegraph, 23 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3193486813}}
• "Pakistan Official Calls for International Inquiry Into Kashmir Terror Attack", New York Times (Online), 25 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194648784}}
• "India and Pakistan Exchange Fire at Kashmir Border, Lifting Already-High Tensions", New York Times, 26 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194823453}} {{tq|The clash took place just days after a terror attack killed 26 people on the Indian side of the disputed region, raising tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations.}}
• "Cross-border gunfire raises tensions between India and Pakistan after terror attack", The Independent (UK), 27 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3195026471}}
• Penelope MacRae, "https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/25/domestic-pressures-shaping-india-response-kashmir-attacks-narendra-modi The domestic pressures shaping India’s response to Kashmir attacks", The Guardian, 25 April 2025. {{tq|India’s furious response to the terrorist massacre of 26 men in a popular travel destination is being shaped by public rage at the deadliest civilian attack in Kashmir in a quarter-century.}}
• "Delhi on High Alert After Terror Attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam Kills 26", Sri Lanka Guardian, 22 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3193509619}}
• "Prime Minister Oli speaks with Indian Prime Minister Modi on terrorist attack in Kashmir", The Kathmandu Post, 23 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3193613076}}
• "20 tourists killed in terror attack in Kashmir", Times of Oman, 22 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194604187}}
• "Kuwait PM offers condolences to India on Kashmir terror attack", Kuwait News Agency, 23 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194600509}}
• "Kashmir retaliation vow triggers war fears", The Australian, 25 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194327308}}. {{tq|India has suspended a critical water treaty with Pakistan, closed its borders and vowed “loud and clear” retaliation for the murder of 26 people in a terror attack in Kashmir...}}

: -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

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

:@Insane always The victims were predominantly Hindu, with the attackers reportedly asking the tourists if they were Hindu or Muslim before opening fire. Kashmir also has a well known history of anti-Hindu violence and sentiment. The Christian victim is already mentioned specifically, but may also be included in the lead. But it should be made clear that Hindus were the primary victims and targets in this incident. 9ninety (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Logosx127 I see you just performed this request. Since I have contested it, may I (or you yourself) undo the edit until further discussion? I don't wish to engage in an edit conflict. Thanks, 9ninety (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I have undone the edit for now. 9ninety (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

::::They asked if they were muslim, not "hindu or muslim" Insane always (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

:I am not opposed to placing "alleged" around the claims of non-local statement, since I do not think many sources have reported on there factually being non-local settlement, but the non-local settlement seems to be a very core and crux issue of the attack, and cannot be easily dismissed. https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/

:"Article 35A vested Kashmir’s legislative assembly with the sole authority to define “permanent residents.” Significantly, the local government was able to affix special privileges — such as the ability to purchase land — to permanent residents. The effect was that only Kashmiris could own property in a region that India has long claimed as its own. In revoking Article 35A, the Indian government unearthed a fear that Kashmiris had been wrestling with since Independence: that India would recruit non-Kashmiri settlers to dilute the region’s ethnic and religious makeup."

:Continuing from harvard law review:

:"The Indian government also introduced a new domicile order^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-200 200]} that expands the definition for residency and allows a new class of non-Kashmiris to move into the region. This legal maneuver mirrored the use of “registration by title” to facilitate the expropriation of indigenous lands in Palestine and Australia.^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-201 201]} The order now permits Indian citizens who have lived in the region for a set period of time to claim a “domicile certificate.”^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-202 202]} The children of those domiciled can also claim their own certificates, even without ever having entered the region.^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-203 203]} These provisions extend to armed forces stationed in Kashmir and their children as well,^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-204 204]} making the hundreds of thousands of armed forces in Kashmir a potentially new class of settlers themselves. By claiming domicile, these non-Kashmiris can now apply for all local government jobs, including those in police or administration, that were previously reserved for Kashmiris.

:However, a new land order may have already superseded the domicile laws in importance, having repealed twelve former state land laws and amended fourteen others.^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-205 205]} The order erased Article 35A’s vestiges, largely removing the “permanent residency” clause across Kashmir’s land regime.^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-206 206]} Notably, it did not limit land transactions to newly defined domiciliaries. The law also empowers non-Kashmiris to repurpose agricultural land, which constitutes ninety percent of the region, for nonagricultural purposes.^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-207 207]} Similarly concerning is the government’s ability to designate “strategic area[s]” for military use without the previously required consultation with local government.^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-208 208]} While the full effects of these reforms are unknown, one thing is clear: “J&K is now up for sale . . . .”^{[https://harvardlawreview.org/print/vol-134/from-domicile-to-dominion-indias-settler-colonial-agenda-in-kashmir/#footnote-ref-209 209]"}

:And to be clear The Resistance Front did directly state as reason for the attack, (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/what-is-the-resistance-front-the-group-behind-the-deadly-kashmir-attack, note that AJ is RS):

:"In a message that appeared on Telegram, TRF opposed the granting of residency permits to “outsiders”, who critics say could help India change the demography of the disputed region. “Consequently, violence will be directed toward those attempting to settle illegally,” it said. ... After the Indian government unilaterally revoked Kashmir’s partial autonomy in August 2019 and imposed a months-long clampdown, the group first took shape by starting messaging on social media. In reorganising Kashmir, the government also extended domicile status, which allows land owning rights and access to government-sponsored job quotas, to non-locals — the purported justification for the Pahalgam attack." Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::I think the Harvard Law Review may be right. The domocile rules have no bearing on the purchase of property. It only affects college seats and government employment (and other government benefits that might be offered from time to time).

::In that case the TRF's attack has logic. Today's tourists might become tomorrow's property-buyers. So, scare away all the tourists. Too bad for the Kashmiris who will lose whatever little employment they have from the tourism industry. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

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

:@Mooonswimmer Do people just not get the concept of discussing? Did you even bother to see the talk page? نعم البدل (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Would it be wrong for me to just undo every edit leading back to Mooonswimmer's edit? I don't think it's valid to make so much change without discussing it Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{re|Wikipedious1}} I don't know if that's a rhetorical question or not, I restored the last stable version, given that the edits the followed (that were reverted) were also relevant to my point. I've invited the users for a discussion, but no response so far, though it hasn't been much time. نعم البدل (talk) 22:15, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::::My apologies. I have no clue what happened. My intention was simply to fix some grammar and remove a wikilink repeated multiple times throughout the article. Mooonswimmer 22:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree with User:Wikipedious1 It's not valid to delete large portions of well sourced content from good quality WP:RS sources, as was done by نعم البدل using arguments such as reducing emphasis on Pakistan, even though most of the deleted content did not mention Pakistan. Thanks. 23:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:Hi نعم البدل (talk),

:I appreciate that you added this topic for discussion, though I disagree with some of your recent deletions. I noticed that you deleted large amounts of well-sourced content from WP:RS sources.

: You even deleted highly relevant content from High Quality WP:RS sources such as The New York Times and The Hindu.

: I strongly disagree with your deletion of almost the entire third paragraph from the lead, giving reason to avoid emphasis on "Pakistan", even though there is no mention of "Pakistan" in the entire third paragraph of the lead:

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

: In my humble view, there is no reasoning to remove such relevant content (3rd para) from quality WP:RS sources, which has been summarized from article body per WP:LEAD. And I agree with @Mooonswimmer on reverting these deletions.

:We all editors should avoid misusing WP:DUE to delete content that we do not like, as long as it is well sourced from good references.

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

:{{re|RogerYg}} Hi, thanks for the reply. I can understand how that could have been issue – one thing I want to point out was that a large chunk of the removal were citations. I put up a citation overkill template, and this was me trying to remove some of the redundant references. Some other references may have been removed, but from a quick skim, it wasn't anything significant, imo.

:Like I said, my main issue is with the article is that it puts an undue amount of weight on Pakistan (for the attack). That's what I'd like to discuss. نعم البدل (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::I appreciate your clarifying the issue and civil discussion. Yes, we can discuss if there is any undue weightage on Pakistan for the attack, especially from lower quality sources, then I would agree to delete that content.

::Therefore, please discuss specific statements that you find problematic here, instead of deleting large content, which has no mention of Pakistan.

::I would also like to update the topic from "DISCUSS" to "Discuss weightage on Pakistan for the attack" to make it specific. Thanks again. RogerYg (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In the first paragraph of the lead, there is no mention of Pakistan.

:::In second paragraph, there is only 1 indirect mention of Pakistan: The Resistance Front (TRF), an offshoot of the Pakistan-based UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba, initially claimed responsibility... After four days, TRS withdrew the claim.

:::In the third paragraph of the lead, there is no mention of Pakistan.

:::I do not think the lead has any undue weightage on Pakistan for the attacks.

:::In the article body, we can discuss specific sections, where there may be undue weightage on Pakistan. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - The whole framework of this discussion is wrong. WP:NPOV editors don't get to decide "how much WEIGHT" should be given to Pakistan. Pakistan is not the subject here. A terror attack is. نعم البدل, it is your job to explain why this is even an issue. Tell us which policy of Wikipedia are you referring to, in raising this discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1287781037 this edit], you removed well-sourced and pertinent content, claiming that it gives "OVEREMPHASIS" to Pakistan, is against policy. The question, and only question, is whether it is relevant to the topic, which is a terror attack. There are no Wikipedia policies for or against Pakistan. Please refrain from making such edits in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Thanks Kautilya3, I fully agree with your guidance and inputs, and was trying to guide the discussion based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:LEAD.
• ::I also flagged the wrong edit by نعم البدل, with "I noticed that you deleted large amounts of well-sourced content from WP:RS sources.. There is no reasoning to remove such relevant content (3rd para) from quality WP:RS sources, which has been summarized from article body per WP:LEAD.
• ::Further, I also put the guidance "We all editors should avoid misusing WP:DUE to delete content that we do not like, as long as it is well sourced from good references." Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• :::Just wanted to quickly clarify again, for @Kautilya3 that in my original edit {{diff|2025 Pahalgam Attack|1287562752}} (prior to the restoration of another edit), I removed certain references for being excessive. I'm not really that concerned if they want to be reinstated. The WP:UNDUE part, I will discuss at a later time. نعم البدل (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::::I think a brief mention of Pakistan is due in the first paragraph as it is one of the most critical impacts of this attacks as reported by WP:RS sources such as NY Times, BBC, and Indian Express: The attack intensified tensions between India and Pakistan. The fourth paragraph details the diplomatic crisis. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Pin message|}}{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|2061383101}}

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

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

:@Lightspecs Wikipedious1 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Interesting point. In the 'Attack' section, there are details from reliable sources about the terrorists evaluating victims' religious affiliation before murdering them. See what happened to the Christian victim. The second listed motive in the infobox also references 'Demographics.' Hard to dissect religion from the intent here. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is Palestinian political violence directed at largely Jewish Israelis motivated necessarily by antisemtism?

:::Since there is a history of violence perpetrated against Kashmiri Hindus by TRF/etc, and because of the religious aspects as you mentioned, I can see how this situation could be different. But I think it would be helpful to see RS describing this attack in the context of anti-Hinduism, and as part of it.

:::For example this is what al Jazeera, RS, discusses when discussing the context of the attack. (BTW, will hopefully add this info to the bg section soon)

:::https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/4/28/burst-balloon-how-pahalgam-attack-shattered-modis-kashmir-narrative

:::"The abrogation of the constitutional provision that gave Kashmir its special status was accompanied by a major crackdown. Thousands of civilians were arrested, including leaders of mainstream political parties – even those that view Kashmir as a part of India. Phone and internet connections were shut off for months. Kashmir was cut off from the rest of the world. ... Since then, the arrests of civilians, including journalists, have continued. Borders of electoral constituencies were changed in a manner that saw Jammu, the Hindu-majority part of Jammu and Kashmir, gain greater political influence than the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley. Non-Kashmiris have been issued residency cards – which was not allowed before 2019 – to settle there, sparking fears that the Modi government might be attempting to change the region’s demography. ... Amid all of that, the Modi government pushed tourism in Kashmir, pointing to a surge in visitors as evidence of the supposed normalcy that had returned to the return after four decades of armed resistance to Indian rule. In 2024, 3.5 million tourists visited Kashmir, comfortably the largest number in a decade, according to government figures. ... Until the Pahalgam attack, armed fighters had largely spared tourists in Kashmir, keeping in mind their importance to the region’s economy, noted Donthi. “But if pushed to the wall, all it takes is two men with guns to prove that Kashmir is not normal,” he said."

:::Not a single mention of anti-Hinduism sparking this.

::: Wikipedious1 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::"{{tq|Borders of electoral constituencies were changed in a manner that saw Jammu, the Hindu-majority part of Jammu and Kashmir, gain greater political influence than the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley.}}" So, how come J&K has a Muslim Kashmiri chief minister? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:I think it is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::I mean, the existing length is fine. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I think some of it could go to the attack section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::The lead is presently a fine length ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::if that's the consensus then fine. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

: There is no need for trimming the lead. In fact, the lead is quite short compared to leads for similar Wiki pages 2008 Mumbai attacks, October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, etc. It should be expanded accordingly as more details emerge to include relevant information. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

:I have reverted it for now @EarthDude per BRD. Re-add if you have reliable sources that clearly say this. Anantanni22 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::Sorry, I had used a bad source for that one. Here are some good sources that explicitly state that: https://www.thequint.com/opinion/colonial-echoes-in-post-pahalgam-hate-islamaphobia; https://newlinesmag.com/argument/india-is-reeling-as-the-illusion-of-normalcy-dissolves-in-kashmir; https://www.middleeasteye.net/trending/muslims-fear-potential-israel-like-retaliation-following-attacks-kashmir;

My bad EarthDude (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@EarthDude I cannot access the first one because of a paywall, so I won't comment on it. The second is an opinion piece which cannot be use at all for something like this afaik. The third uses a tweet by a third party as a source for its claim. I'm still unable to find any reliable source that says he used the words "final solution". I cannot find any clip of him saying this either. The "final solution" thing seems to be completely fabricated.

:::I still say that this should be removed unless a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources) affirms this. Anantanni22 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I removed Middle East Eye, which is a partisan source. The rest are fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Both are opinion pieces from sources that aren't listed in RS. I still maintain that unless a reliable source says that this occurred in reaction to the attack, it should be removed. Will gladly close the discussion if so.

::::Sidenote, not my job to do research, but I'm still not able to find any clips of this. It seems they're referring to this video from long before the attack, so the implication in the article that this was in reaction to the Pahalgam attack is likely completely false.

::::https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB0bAs9b2B8 Anantanni22 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would also suggest removing it, neither of the remaining sources says when the quote is from or provides any way to confirm the claim. If it really was from the old video above, it should not be used to imply the statement was a response to the attack. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Anantanni22 I believe this article should include a dedicated paragraph on India's partisan media, often referred to as "Godi media," and their overtly biased coverage of this attack in the Reaction section. What does everyone think? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::and ofcousre remove arnab if there aren't any sources. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@DataCrusade1999 A dedicated para is a bit much in my opinion. This is after all an article on a terrorist attack. The article already does criticize "Godi Media". Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If it were a terrorist attack in another country I might not even ask for inclusion of media coverage but it's India and media in India becomes a party to the conflcit itself with fake news and giving communal colors to everything. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@DataCrusade1999 I have not advocated for the removal of critical content against the media. I agree with your points.

::::::::Dedicating a paragraph to sensational media coverage is a bit much in my opinion. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I suppose 2-3 lines would be enough but those lines ought to cover the whole gamut of media coverage of this attack by the Indian media. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::If multiple reliable, non-partisan sources state that Indian media was "overtly biased" in their coverage of this specific attack, then it should be included. We should not stray into original research. Anantanni22 (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I tried to research a lot, but for the life of me, I could not find the original video or live stream or news report where Goswami made the final solution statement. On top of that, none of the "Big reliable" Indian news media like The Hindu of the Indian Express covered it. From what I found, it seems like this originates from a twitter post by a random user accusing Goswami of making the statements, which was then circle reported. I am removing the info from the article. EarthDude (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Hallelujah! The Middle East Eye wrote:

::::{{talkquote|Indian government officials said that Italian and Israeli tourists were also killed in the attack that was carried out using automatic rifles and small arms, Indian newspaper The Hindu reported.}}

::::We should never touch this paper with a bargepole! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@EarthDude The Quint article is an opinion piece afaik. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The terrorists shot civilian tourists after confirming they were non-Muslim. In at least one (but probably more, I'll check) interview, a victim's relative said they were specifically asked if they were Muslim OR Hindu, and then the Hindus were shot. One of the victims being Christian doesn't somehow negate this targeting. The large majority of sources describe this as a terror attack. There seems to be a lot of lying by omission going on in this article, and the POV push here is strong. Anantanni22 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please produce WP:RS for all content you want to see, and refrain from WP:OR. It is not enough of victim said something. We need RS saying it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::As far as calling it a terror attack is concerned, this is a moot point because multiple RS have been provided throughout this talk page that call it a terror attack. However, I will link two here:

::https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-dismisses-pil-seeking-judicial-probe-into-pahalgam-terror-attack/article69520995.ece

::https://indianexpress.com/article/india/pahalgam-attack-live-updates-9962260/

::Here is an RS where it has been described as a terrorist attack by world leaders:

::https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-tourist-attack-dc7067a18899d9e7ff7726d4e05982c3

::Here is an RS where the nation of Pakistan refers to it as a terrorist attack:

::https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/27/kashmir-attack-live-india-pakistan-troops-exchange-fire-for-third-day

::Here is an RS where the prime ministers of France and the UK refer to it as a terrorist attack:

::https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/23/kashmir-attack-live-india-looks-for-gunmen-after-26-killed-in-pahalgam

::However, any edit calling it a terror attack gets reverted by citing an (incorrect) use of MOS:TERRORIST (applies to organizations as written, not attacks). Anantanni22 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

::To add further, here is an international RS that states "Many survivors stated that the gunmen specifically targeted Hindu men." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgnw9kydgqo Anantanni22 (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks for providing good WP:RS sources that mention that it was a terrorist attack on Hindu men. We need to update the relevant sections and the lead accordingly. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Secondly, if you are talking about the WP:INFOBOX, it can only summarise the content in the article. So, you need to work on the content first, before talking about the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:Do you have sources discussing the attack as being motivated by, precipated by, or caused by Hinduphobia? If not, and if at best, all we have is that Hindus were targeted by the attackers, then that alone is not a motive - we cannot intepret, invent, or postulate about a motive for the attackers ourselves. Even if it is the objective truth.

:Per WP:TRUTH. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::And I will add that attacks on Hindus and Kashmiri Hindus by TRF/etc are acknowledged and discussed in the background section. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, yes we need to add relevant details from WP:RS sources as mentioned in the next discussion on First paragraph. But, we need to add relevant info in the article sections, before updating first paragraph. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I would strongly argue that we need to mention Hindu victims in the first paragraph, as it has now been reported in multiple high quality WP:RS sources that the attackers asked for the religion of the victims.

• Associated Press, often considered one of the best WP:RS sources has also reported:Indian survivors of Kashmir attack say gunmen asked if they were Hindus and opened fire

https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-attack-india-pakistan-victims-a5492962cd86174262cb73b85c04c51a

• India's one of the best WP:RS sources The Hindu:

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 U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom ([https://www.uscirf.gov/ USCIRF])

“We are deeply concerned by the explicit targeting of Hindus and other non-Muslims,” said Commissioner [https://www.uscirf.gov/about-uscirf/commissioners/vicky-hartzler Vicky Hartzler].

• Newsweek:

Kashmir Massacre: Trump, Putin, Iran, Israel Condemn Jihadist Attack on Hindu Tourists

https://www.newsweek.com/kashmir-massacre-trump-putin-iran-israel-condemn-jihadist-attack-hindu-tourists-2062760

• Hindustan Times:

They asked Hindu men to separate from Muslim men: Pahalgam terror attack survivor

https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/they-asked-hindu-men-to-separate-from-muslim-men-pahalgam-terror-attack-survivor-101745485984890.html

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:The New York Times also clearly mentioned :"A list of the victims circulating online, which was verified by local officials in Kashmir, showed that 25 of the 26 killed were Hindus."

:https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/world/asia/kashmir-attack-india-pakistan.html

:Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree; the lead should mention that Hindus were specifically targeted, instead of implying that victims happened to be Hindu. Anantanni22 (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Additionally, the Template:Violence_against_Hindus_in_independent_India should be added.

:Persecution of Hindus should be added in the 'See also' section. Edit: Here is an RS source that specifically states "The assailants segregated men, asked their names and targeted Hindus before shooting them at close range in the Pahalgam area, killing 26 people, officials and survivors said." (emphasis mine) https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-shuts-over-half-kashmir-tourist-spots-security-review-2025-04-29/ Anantanni22 (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Please see the section 2025 Pahalgam attack#Claims of responsibility for the ideology at play. I also recommend the article of Luv Puri cited there. He is an expert on Kashmir conflict. He states, in particular, that neither the local politicians nor the central government seem interested in highlighting the facts so that the myths are disspelled. Pakistan is of course propagandising it to the hilt. The oft-used phrase "demographic change" means the apprehension that the BJP is trying to change the demography into a Hindu majority. That is what people are reacting against. I would not characterise it as "anti-Hindu sentiment". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :But I agree that Hindu victims should be mentioned in the first paragraph. I will work on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :"Demographic change" as motive for this particular attack comes from a retracted statement by TRF. As the terrorists have not released other statements, I suppose I would agree that attributing any other motive to them would be original research unless WP:RS say it directly. I wonder if even attributing this motive without clarification is valid, because the statement it is based on is retracted.
• :However, the fact remains that terrorists targeted Hindus by asking them if they were Muslim or Hindu before shooting them. This is asserted in multiple survivor interviews, in reliable sources, both international and national. The lead should reflect that. Anantanni22 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Multiple WP:RS sources have reported that attackers asked for religion of the tourists, separated Hindus and Muslims and shot dead the Hindus. As Wiki editors, we need to report that.
• :I my humble view, what one expert "Luv Puri" said in 2021, can be provided in the relevant section, but should not be used to override or sideline multiple WP:RS survivor accounts that show that it was a targetted attack based on religion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::As further evidence that the attack was not against non-Kashmiris, rather it was on non-Muslims, please see the WP:RS source, Indian Express below, where a clearly non-Kashmiri Assam man was sparred because he could recite the Kalima.
• ::Pahalgam terror attack: How Islamic verse ‘Kalma’ saved Hindu professor at Assam University
• ::"The terrorist checked on us twice," said Professor Debasish Bhattacharya, head of the Bengali Department of Assam University, after returning from Kashmir.
• ::https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/pahalgam-terror-attack-islamic-verse-kalma-hindu-professor-assam-9967392/
• ::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Please check carefully all references to "Hindu" in the section I referenced. We follow WP:NPOV and pay attention to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Repeated WP:OR arguments will not help. -- Kautilya3 (talk)
• :::Sorry, there was no reference to "Hindu" but there was reference to "agents of RSS", which is similar.
• :::What Luv Puri points out is that the local politicians are not interested in disspelling the myths because they profit from making people believe that Hindus are flooding Kashmir.
• :::BJP/RSS are also not interested in disspelling the myths because they also profit from making people believe that Hindus are flooding Kashmir.
• :::The truth is the casualty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Okay, I am not disputing those points on background of the issue from 2021. My limited point was that we should report relevant details of the attack from the 2025 WP:RS sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

{{done}}. The Newsweek article ranks very high in my estimation because it is written by a very senior editor, himself of Kashmiri origin. He knows his stuff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for addinh Hindu victims per WP:RS. I will add more details under Attack section from the WP:RS sources that I have provided.

:Also, the figure of 28 is only in one source ET. Most sources have 26, so we should have that. Ind Express listed 26, so that is most reliable. Thanks. 09:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the edit. Since this seems to be a very controversial claim, I recommend one more RS be used. I linked this elsewhere, but I recommend citing this Reuters article as a tertiary source for this. It's an RS which clarifies that both survivor accounts and officials said Hindus were targeted. [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-shuts-over-half-kashmir-tourist-spots-security-review-2025-04-29/] Anantanni22 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 If emphasis is paid to Hindu victims in first paragraph then other victims religious identity should also be mentioned in the first paragraph and not in third paragraph all victims of this terror attack should be treated proportionally. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would not oppose adding information about the Christian tourist and the local Kashmiri Muslim in the first paragraph, as long as the fact that Hindus were singled out/targeted is clearly conveyed. This information can be misrespresented to obfuscate and downplay the targeting. Anantanni22 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Sorry it would be WP:UNDUE. Hindus were added to the first paragraph because a high-profile and high-quality WP:RS did it. There is too much WP:OR debating going on this talk page and it is getting tiresome. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Fine by me, thanks. Anantanni22 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Pincrete Please see the discussion above and avoid going against consensus and reliable sources. Mentioning the other victims is fine, but your latest edit removes the fact that Hindus were targeted from the lead. Anantanni22 (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I saw this discussion after making my edits, which were motivated by clarity, and 'flow' (eg mentioning the date last of all in the first sentence seems clumsy IMO). I decided not to revert since the lead already deals in depth in para 3 with the 'filtering/targetting' by religion. There is consensus that the topic should be covered in the lead, there isn't consensus that it needs be in the opening para, nor that the topic of who was targetted need to be repeated. Obviously it was not chance that almost all of the victims were Hindu and the 'selection' needs to be covered adequately. But what does this have to do with RS? Nothing I edited is contradicted by sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::This discussion is mainly about first paragraph and after a long discussion, I think there is reasonable consensus that primary targets were Hindu tourists, which needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Using language such as majority of victims were Hindus, which could also happen by chance, seems unfair per WP:LEAD, as the article body has a long section detailing the Targetting of Hindu tourists. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Hi, I was only addressing your latest edit at the time and not any others.

:::::> But what does this have to do with RS?

:::::Mostly the removal of specification about targeting/singling out, which is asserted by multiple RS (though I admit I could have worded that better). Regardless, I think the paragraph in the current revision is fine and does not need to be changed. Thank you. Anantanni22 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I also agree with the current version of the first paragraph which clarifies that mainly Hindu tourists were targeted. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::Multiple high quality WP:RS sources clearly mention Hindus were singled out and killed, so that has been reported in the first paragraph. According to proportional reporting also, the majority of victims need to be addressed in the first paragraph. In my humble view, every detail cannot be mentioned in first paragraph, and it is unfair to add details to obfuscate and mislead the reader by adding all religions. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Anantanni22 I support the inclusion of christian and muslim victims in the first paragraph and I also support singled out/targeted wording regarding Hindus.

:::@RogerYg No one is disputing the fact that hindus were targeted but at the end they were all victims of a terrorist attack so one victim cannot have more relevace than the other that's why religion of other victims should be mentioned in the first paragraph if we're mentioning the relgion of other victims too. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I would be okay to add the Christian and Muslim victims, but with some brief context.

::::We can add in the first paragraph:

::::While the main target of the attacks were Hindu tourists, a Christian tourist and a local Muslim pony operator were also killed by the militants.

::::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I think we will need to update the sentence:

:::::The majority of the victims were Hindus, who were singled out by the militants. to avoid repetition.

:::::The miltants targetted Hindu tourists, and the majority of victims were Hindus, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim pony operator were also killed in the attacks.

:::::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::wasn't the christian also targeted? on Hindus beign singled out I have no problem though that phrase should stay IMHO. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::As per cited WP:RS sources, multiple survivors have stated that militants asked: Are you Hindu or Muslim, and asked them to recite the Kalima. They separated Hindu men and shot them, so this is clearly targetted killing of Hindus. One Christian got killed because he could not recite the Kalima.

:::::::I agree that the finer detail is that:

:::::::militants targetted Hindu and non-muslim tourists

:::::::and we should mention this detail in the article body.

:::::::Since the main target of militants were Hindus, so I will not insist that this detail be mentioned in th lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::@RogerYg To be honest I think the current lead is alright and requires no changes

::::::::{{tq|The militants mainly targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed in the attack.}} this line in the lead aptly sums up what happend. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay, yes I agree. I have made that update, based on above discussion including your inputs. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{tq|In the weeks preceding the Pahalgam attack, India acquired the extradition of former Pakistan Army officer Tahawwur Rana, who was linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and convicted (in the US) for supporting 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir gave a speech describing Kashmir as "our jugular vein" and branding Hindus as being different from Muslims in every way via an appeal to two-nation theory.}}

this seems work of original research, is there any article that conclusively links Munir's speech and Tahawwur Rana's extradition to this attack? either rephrase this line or remove it altogether. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:The Asim Munir's speech has been reported in multiple WP:RS sources in the context of the attacks, and has been provided as such in this Wiki article. I do not see any claim of direct link of these individuals to attack being addded to this Wiki article, so I do not see WP:OR concern, though I am fine with removing details on Rana. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::If Munir's speech is relevant to this attack, it should be mentioned; otherwise, it should either be rephrased or removed. In describing the attack's background, it's important to note that the region has a history of terrorism and the revocation of Article 370, along with "demographic changes", the Background section touches all those point I see no reason as to why munir's speech is relevant here.

::but I'll go ahead and remove Rana. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Munir's speech has been mentioned in multiple WP:RS sources in terms of the background of this attack, and the same has been mentioned in this Wiki article. Everything in background does not have a direct link, so there is no WP:OR concern in my view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{U|DataCrusade1999}}, Background is not required "conclusively link" to the present events. Background means just that. What happened in the past that might have had an impact on the present events. I object to the removal Tahawwur Rana's extradition. Multiple sources have mentioned the links. After all, he was associated with the Pakistan Army as well as LeT. They have much to lose from the possible beans he might spill in India.

:* [https://bwpoliceworld.com/article/pahalgam-terror-attack-during-us-vice-president-jd-vances-visit-brings-external-ramifications-554565 Pahalgam terror attack during US Vice President JD Vance's visit brings external ramifications], Business World, 22 April 2025.

:* [https://indianexpress.com/article/india/how-world-leaders-reacted-to-terror-attack-in-kashmirs-pahalgam-baisaran-valley-9959603/ How world leaders reacted to terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam Baisaran valley], The Indian Express, 23 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3193469049}}

:* [https://www.freepressjournal.in/analysis/the-pahalgam-terror-attack-may-well-be-a-failure-of-the-pakistan-boycott-policy The Pahalgam Terror Attack May Well Be A Failure Of The Pakistan-Boycott Policy], The Free Press Journal, 24 April 2025.

:* Vappala Balachandran, [https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/pahalgam-past-attacks-logic-of-terror-9-11-26-11-9965309/ Before Pahalgam: What past attacks tell us about the convoluted logic of terror: None], The Indian Express, 25 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194470933}}

:* Mukesh Ranjan, [https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Apr/24/pahalgam-terror-attack-nia-looking-at-whether-timing-is-linked-to-tahawwur-ranas-extradition Pahalgam terror attack: NIA looking at whether timing is linked to Tahawwur Rana’s extradition], The New Indian Express, 24 April 2025.

:* [https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/nia-probes-26/11-attack-plotter-tahawwur-ranas-link-to-pahalgam-terror-attack/articleshow/120561373.cms NIA probes 26/11 attack plotter Tahawwur Rana's link to Pahalgam terror attack], The Economic Times, 24 April 2025.

:* Charanjit Ahuja, [https://tehelka.com/the-message-from-pahalgam-a-glimmer-of-hope/ The Message from Pahalgam & a Glimmer of Hope], Tehelka, 1 May 2025.

:The CNN Newsroom had an expert link it to the entente between India and the US. LeT is both anti-India and anti-US.

:{{talkquote|AWASTHI: I would like to counter it by saying that probably Pakistan or the terrorist organizations are seeing that India and U.S. have strengthened their bonds with the Tahawwur Rana coming back to India for investigation. I think that kind of pinched Pakistan and that is why they are taking these kinds of action and making such stupid claims that, you know, India is doing it to its own people."U.S. Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Accept Peace Plan; Zelenskyy: Ukraine Won't Recognize Russian Control Of Crimea; India Downgrades Ties With Pakistan After Kashmir Attack; Attack On Kashmir Tourists Sparks Conspiracy Speculation; U.S. Markets Rally on Trump's China Tariff Retreat: China: Won't Negotiate Under Threats or Pressure; Tesla Stock Up 5 Percent after Musk Says He'll Dial Back DOGE Work; The Race to Save the African Penguin; Global Carmakers Compete for Attention in Shanghai", CNN Newsroom, 24 April 2025. {{ProQuest|3194792359}}}}

:-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:

:I appreciate you posting a message here before deleting the content. But I am afraid it is wishy-washy. How can you possibly call it "original research" when sources have been provided? It looks like you are ignoring the sources and using your own judgement, which is in turn "original research". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::The Pakistani army chief delivers speeches every once in a while, and it's important to consider the context in which these speeches occur, especially in relation to recent attacks. Historically, there have been multiple instances where the army chief, including the former General Bajwa, has made speeches without any subsequent attacks happening.

::Additionally, I have a concern regarding the article's neutrality. Over time, it seems to be shifting from discussing a terrorist attack to resembling a narrative of a religious crusade led by the predominantly Muslim nation of Pakistan against the Hindu-majority India. Munir's recent speech appears to align with this emerging Hindutva perspective, which is becoming increasingly prevalent in the article. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Are you saying we should ignore the WP:RS and follow your judgement? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::{{tq|Are you saying we should ignore the WP:RS and follow your judgement?}}

::::read again what I wrote. this whole article is tilting towards a religious crusade instead of a terrorist attack the Kalima line is mentioned in the lead and then mentioned again in the attack section then there's the munir's speech this whole article is acquiring Hindutva tilt. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::there's no need to mention rana's extradition or munir's speech but it's been thrown into the mix. how many reliable sources link the extradition and munir's speech( on munir's speech I'll concede but only because it's a constant theme in Indian reliable sources) to the attack especially the extradition. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::You don't need a whole lot of sources, one or two good ones are enough. I have mentioned plenty of sources above. You are trying to fight WP:RS with WP:OR. I think you should desist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::@Kautilya3 You're violating NPOV by waging a religious crusade and giving the article a Hindutva tilt, so I suggest you remove yourself from this article altogether.

::::::{{tq|You don't need a whole lot of sources, one or two good ones are enough.}}

::::::In an article like this you do need more sources, specially more reliable sources.

::::::On a completely unrelated note, please don’t respond to my comments. I might say something that you probably won't like. Let someone else handle this. I know you’re not fond of me, and I definitely don’t want to talk to you, especially after the whole non-argument you initiated in the Islamist section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::@DataCrusade1999 Since you have raised the issue, in my humble view, I don't think @Kautilya3 has violated WP:NPOV as K3 has provided good relevant references and WP policies for the edits made, and Kautilaya3 is discussing the relevant queries on TALK page.

::::::: I understand your query: "whole article is tilting towards a religious crusade instead of a terrorist attack the Kalima line is mentioned in the lead and then mentioned again in the attack".

::::::: The main reason for that is that the Initial reports in WP:RS were very general, and article reflected that, but subsequent reports from WP:RS sources show the nature of this attack was not general but religious.

:::::::Wiki editors need to report the details coming out in WP:RS sources, and WP:RS sources are detailing based on multiple survivor accounts that it was not a regular terror attack where militants fire at tourists. Instead, it was a religion based attack, where militants asked for the religion of the tourists, and targetted Hindus and non-Muslims, who were unable to recite the Kalima.

:::::::Therefore, the WP:RS based details should be reflected in Wikipedia article per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And the lead should summarize the article body per WP:LEAD. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::they also killed a christian so how does that fit into the targeted hindu line of thinking. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I've said it before that I'll concede on munir's speech cause it's mentioned in Indian RS but linking rana's extradition to this attack is very far-fetched. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Regarding targetted killing of Hindus, we have multiple good cited WP:RS sources, where many survivors have stated that militants asked: Are you Hindu or Muslim, and asked them to recite the Kalima. They separated Hindu men and shot them, so this is clearly targetted killing of Hindus. One Christian got killed because he could not recite the Kalima.

:::::::::I agree that the finer detail may be:

:::::::::militants targetted Hindu and non-muslim tourists

:::::::::and we should mention this detail in the article body.

:::::::::Since the main target of militants were Hindus, so I will not insist that this detail be mentioned in th lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::I think a reasonable grammar based on above discussion would be:

::::::::::The militants mainly targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed in the attack RogerYg (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

{{U|DataCrusade1999}}, what is the point you are making [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1288397906 here]? (It is not a good idea to conduct dialogue in edit summaries on contentious points.) Neither of the two sources used "Islamist". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:@Kautilya3 On this talk page I've argued that Islamist and Islamic are different things if a news portal describes the attack as Islamic then they are wrong. I agree that conducting dialogue in edit summary is not appropriate but educating experienced editors about the difference between Islamic and Islamist is not something that I expected in any case there are enough scholarly sources available that would support my edit. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npxq0 (right now I don't have time to go through the book again and give you the exact page number I hope you can find if not then I will link that page here when I have time) there are more such sources if you can't find those ping me I'll link them here. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::You are hardly educating me. You don't even seem to have educated yourself. You say you don't have time. Then why should you be wasting our time? This is called stonewalling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Kautilya3

:::First, Watch your tone.

:::{{tq| You say you don't have time.}}

:::Second, I have a life outside wikipedia I gave you a link you could just read what's written on that page and find it yourself but no you have to play all high and mighty.

:::if you can't act like a civilised human beign then I'll wait for someone else who can think about this logically and not throw tantrums. don't reply if you don't have something constructive to add cause I don't want to enagage with a troll.

:::{{tq| Then why should you be wasting our time?}}

:::there's no our it's just you you're the one who changed it to Islamic.

:::Also since I have to spoonfeed you here https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamism

:::{{tq|The adjective Islamist, denoting someone or something in pursuit of a sociopolitical objective using the symbols and traditions of Islam, is distinguished from the term Islamic, which refers directly to aspects of Islam as a religion.}}

:::Next time try not to be condescending and again I'll give the exact page number from the book when I have enough time to go through the book again. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Oh, you think "educating senior experienced editors" is an acceptable tone?

::::Leave that aside. The answer to "what is the point you are making here?" could be something like TRF is "Islamist" for reasons XYZ. I see no such information forthcoming. Even now, it hasn't.

::::So, once again, where is the evidence that TRF is "Islamist". The Britannica page you linked doesn't mention any Kashmiri groups. It is not relevant to the issue at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{tq|Oh, you think "educating senior experienced editors" is an acceptable tone?}}

:::::quite presumptive of you to assume that I was talking about you but still if you beleive that I was talking about you then I won't contest it and I'll let your words stand. but know that I would never use the word senior to describe you 🤣. After the kind of language that you've used I'd say you deserve all kinds of tone.

:::::{{tq|Leave that aside. The answer to "what is the point you are making here?" could be something like TRF is "Islamist" for reasons XYZ. I see no such information forthcoming. Even now, it hasn't.}}

:::::my point was a narrow one, that Islamist and Islamic are different and I gave you refrences that prove my point.

:::::{{tq|So, once again, where is the evidence that TRF is "Islamist". The Britannica page you linked doesn't mention any Kashmiri groups. It is not relevant to the issue at hand.}}

:::::bad faith argument. but go ahead coat it with original research and defend the indefensible argument that you started. TRF is an Islamist organization, like I said revert my change and I'll change it back. I don't have time to bicker with you. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Also the current newsweek article doesn't describe TRF as Islamic terrorist either so you can remove Islamist and I'll remove Islamic. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::I feel this entire quarrel could've been avoided if you provided sources calling the TRF Islamist rather than trying to define the word Islamist. I'll go ahead and do it myself to put this argument to rest.

::::::This [https://www.reuters.com/world/india/kashmir-resistance-group-that-claimed-attack-tourists-indian-kashmir-2025-04-23/ Reuters] article mentions LeT as an Islamist group, along with the claim that the TRF is a front of the LeT. [https://pacforum.org/publications/pacnet-35-the-pahalgam-attack-in-kashmir-why-we-should-expect-a-forceful-response-from-india/ This] article states "Witnesses report that the assailants were Islamist extremists" and cites [https://theconversation.com/what-is-the-resistance-front-an-expert-explains-the-terror-group-that-carried-out-the-latest-kashmir-attack-250663 this] article which states "In contrast to the supposed “neutral” ostensibly non-Islamist nature of the TRF, the LeT (which translates as Army of the Righteous/Pure), is a Sunni terrorist group." I found a few articles [https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-resistance-front-new-face-of-terror/article69495443.ece][https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/why-jem-let-have-shed-islamist-identities/articleshow/120564123.cms][https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/from-jihad-to-resistance-how-pakistan-based-terror-groups-are-changing-their-names-to-mask-their-dirty-origins/articleshow/120580211.cms?from=mdr] claiming that the LeT rebranded itself as TRF to "shed" or "distance itself from" its Islamist identity (which could be included in the article).

::::::It's surprisingly difficult to find sources which directly reference the TRF specifically as an Islamist group; however, most sources do describe the attackers as terrorists. I also searched for mentions of "Islamic terror" in relation to the TRF, but couldn't find any reliable sources. Most direct mentions of the word "Islamist" in sources were used to mention Islamist extremists celebrating the attack, or Pakistan more broadly being accused of harbouring Islamist groups. This is my conclusion based on my own research, attempting to directly address @Kautilya3's request. Hopefully, we can engage in constructive discussion now rather than personal attacks. 9ninety (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Kautilya3 Infact here's how newsweek the article that is cited describes it

:::::{{tq|The Resistance Front (TRF)—which has claimed responsibility for the attack at Pahalgam—is an Islamist group widely seen as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Within hours of the massacre, TRF circulated a message on social media justifying the killings}}

:::::this is where this debate ends. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Also since you're in a hurry revert my edit I'll change it again when I have the time. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::On this issue of "Islamist", I would agree with @DataCrusade1999 (talk) that instead of Islamic, it's more appropriate to mention Islamist.

::::I see that 2008 Mumbai attacks are mentioned as Islamist attacks on Wikipedia, so we should follow the same here, and DataCrusador has also provided some good arguments.

::::Please see 2008 Mumbai attacks

::::The 2008 Mumbai attacks, also referred to as 26/11 attacks, were a series of coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks

::::Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I see the death toll oscillating between 26 and 28. I see earlier sources saying 28, but later sources and more authentic ones revising it to 26. So, changing it to 26. If you disagree, please comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I agree with 26, which is mentioned by most WP:RS sources, and the list of 26 has also been published by Indian Express. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

When content is written, it already has enough citations. Please don't add more and more citations. You are not making it better by doing so, rather worse. And, don't add citations to words or phrases in mid-sentence, unless it is a contentious term or issue.

We all read our own favourite sources. But it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to sell your favourite sources. If you genuinely believe that you have a better source than the only already cited, then replace it. We don't want citations accumulating day by day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:In my humble view, since many statements are being debated and often deleted by editors for apparent lack of reliable references, it's important to add relevant reliable references that support the statements, becasue references is the only evidence we have when we discuss the issues on TALK page.

:Given the past week editing on this article, I am sure lot of the content added will be challenged or deleted if we do not have multiple references. So, please allow additional references until we have a stable agreed upon version. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::@RogerYg if a large number of citations is breaking the flow of the article, a possible solution could be to add some of them together inside a note, which takes up less space. 9ninety (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::That is called WP:CITEKILL and it is against policy. Whatever disputes exist, they should be resolved here on the talk page, not in the mainspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::::To my understanding, WP:CITEBUNDLE indicates that my suggestion isn't against policy. CITEKILL, which is an essay, also suggests bundling citations "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring", which I believe was RogerYg's concern. 9ninety (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

IAbot is very convenient, I know. But it is not needed unless you find dead url's. archive.org automatically archives all the sources we cite. Our help is not needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I fully agree on this. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wait what? Archive.org automatically archives Wikipedia sources??? EarthDude (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes. My experience shows that it does. Even if it doesn't, the time for archiving is not here. It can be done a couple of years down the road. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Huh, that's interesting EarthDude (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Can this article be renamed, "2025 Pahalgam terror attack"?-Mossadegh2 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:No. We are using WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

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

In the political leaders sub-section of the Domestic subsection of the Reactions section, after the sentence, "Asaduddin Owaisi, the AIMIM chief and a popular Muslim politician, criticised Pakistan for its involvement in the terror attack at Pahalgam, accusing the country of being the successor of ISIS", please add, "Reacting to Bilawal Bhutto's warning that India's blood will flow if our water doesn't, he told him to avoid using childish language, that their domestic terrorists assassinated his mother and questioned if he is aware of what he's saying"{{cite web | title=On Bilawal Bhutto's 'blood will flow' threat, Asaduddin Owaisi's one-word put-down | website=India Today | date=28 April 2025 | url=https://www.indiatoday.in/amp/india/story/asaduddin-owaisi-on-bilawal-bhuttos-blood-will-flow-threat-homegrown-terrorists-killed-your-mother-2716251-2025-04-28?utm_source=taboola&utm_medium=recirculation | access-date=3 May 2025}} Mossadegh2 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

Can we add that the terrorists/militants are still at large/haven't been captured as yet? EldenMacdonald (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Ok. So that would mean to wait for something definite, as definite as a capture dead or alive, surrender or escape etc. EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@EarthDude I reverted an edit you made to the background section with a stated reason in my edit summary. Per WP:BRD, which is especially enforced on this article, the appropriate next step was to bring the discussion to the talk page. Instead, you reverted my edit claiming my statement was OR despite it being sourced in the article. Also, you didn't state your reasons for reverting my source removals, for which I had stated my reasons. I'm happy to engage in constructive discussion rather than edit warring. 9ninety (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Considering the size of the intro, there is too much of a mention about The Resistance Front (TRF) in the intro. It is also positioned too promptly, in the second para, now that they don't claim responsibility. 05:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC) EldenMacdonald (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Some victim names have received wide national and international coverage in many WP:RS sources.

It seems that many Wikipedia editors and administrators have found that the Victims of the attack are notable enough to justify mentioning them and even have a Wikipedia page for them, as in the case of Syed Adil Hussain Shah, the Muslim pony operator killed in this attack.

To keep the article balanced, and avoid naming victims from only one religion, I would suggest that names of other widely reported notable victims be included in the article body, such as Vinay Narwal and Shubham Dwivedi.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)