Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Move

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

Correct coordinates for the Baisaran Valley

The attack happened on the meadow in the Baisaran Valley. These are the coordinates:

34.00348638056003, 75.3333094940495

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

Casualties table

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

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

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

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

Short description edit war

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

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

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

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

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

LeT

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

The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the Lashkar-e-Taiba, has claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack that has claimed the lives of 26 civilians, including two foreigners, so far. 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 13:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

According to Loewy Institute there has been confirmation of LeT claiming the responsibility of the attack Prem8660 (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Povish edit being made to whitewash the Islamic terrorism

From non-Muslim or Hindu tourist to just tourist through definite Original Research, Now source for Hindu tourist or atleast Non-Muslim tourist per RS:_

1.-As many as 26 people ere killed in their terror...singled out to their religion

2.There were several tourists around, but the terrorists specifically targeted male tourists after asking whether they were Hindu or Muslim|

3. [https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html "...Since this has been an attack specifically on Hindu tourists..""..Pahalgam lies on a major pilgrimage route, known as the Amarnath Yatra, which takes place every year and has been exposed to previous attacks. Thousands of tourists flock to Kashmir during its peak season each year, which runs from March to August. The last major attack on tourists in the region took place in June. At least nine people were killed and 33 others injured when a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims plunged into a gorge, after suspected militants fired on the vehicle."]

4.[ https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-kashmir-full-list-of-victims-released-2713232-2025-04-23 Eyewitnesses said the terrorists checked IDs and executed those identified as non-Muslims, point-blank.] 5. J&K attack: Terrorists targeted male tourists after asking their religion, says victim's kin

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

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

We should remove the list of victims, especially the injuries

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

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

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

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

Conflict reporting is very hard

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

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

The Hindu said:

He said the meadow could only be approached by road or on a pony, and “around a thousand people tried to run away through the narrow path and gates”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (6)

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (Mark Carney Reaction)

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney condemned the attack as "a senseless and shocking act of violence," and offered his condolences. Lucianozoic (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

References

Infobox motives

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

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

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

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

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

Target ere Hindus and source are quite clear off:-

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

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

Thousands of tourists flock to Kashmir during its peak season each year, which runs from March to August. The last major attack on tourists in the region took place in June. At least nine people were killed and 33 others injured when a bus carrying Hindu pilgrims plunged into a gorge, after suspected militants fired on the vehicle." and much more you can add 2409:40E4:131F:E782:4D9:E08E:8AF1:1117 (talk) 09:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

1. The Hindu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (2)

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

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

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

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

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

The description

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

sketches

please add in investigation section :

File:J&K police release collage of terrorists involved in Pahalgam attack.png

J&K police release collage of terrorists involved in Pahalgam attack

雄奇 (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Sensationalized information under the Domestic Response section

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

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

The terrorists targeted Hindus. This should be made and remain clear.

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

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

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

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

Reactions from different leaders edited

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

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

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

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

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

Motive

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

@Elazığ Ahmet and Aliyiya5903: Gotitbro (talk) 21:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You ought to claim conflict of interest or biased party.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fact-check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Airlines overcharging in this tradegy & other points

The following 2 points should be added in the article:

How airlines are overcharging due to increased demand. [1]

How local Gurudwaras are helping the tourists. [2] Jasksingh (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

"Casualties" count

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

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

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

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

Discuss first

Magentic Manifestations can you please discuss on talk page instead of reverting. You have been removing large amounts of sourced and relevant content without any edit summaries or discussion on the talk page.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Kashmiri student

in the domestic reaction a paragraph should be added about the plight of kashmiri student after the attack and we should aslo mention role of media

https://maktoobmedia.com/india/kashmiri-students-attacked-given-ultimatum-to-leave-student-body-lists-8-incidents-in-punjab-himachal-uttarakhand/

https://article-14.com/post/-what-did-i-do-after-pahalgam-attack-kashmiri-students-in-at-least-4-northern-states-face-intimidation-threats-isolation--680b16d1a8d53

https://maktoobmedia.com/india/we-are-cursed-cost-of-being-kashmiri-after-pahalgam-attack/

here's an opnion piece https://theprint.in/opinion/telescope/for-one-death-10-necks-indias-news-tv-calls-for-revenge-after-pahalgam-terror-attack/2601314/ we can quote this DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Motive "Opposition to alleged non‑local settlement in Kashmir"

Does this qualify as xenophobia, and should it be added there in the infobox? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 05:15, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It's not the place of Wikipedia as a tertiary source to analyze and categorize phenomena and events based on their definitions; we follow reliable secondary sources. Absent reliable secondary sources that describe the attack as being motivated by xenophobia, adding this to the infobox would be original research. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:33, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Domestic Reaction

In the domestic reaction section of the article, it is inaccurately stated that Rahul Gandhi specifically criticized the BJP. The article only mentions him referring to the "Government," which is currently led by the NDA, a coalition government. Additionally, the article notes that after an all-party meeting, Rahul Gandhi expressed that the opposition stands united with the government on upcoming actions. Please revise the section to reflect these points accurately, using the same article as the source. राजकुमार^(talk) 05:13, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, done ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Background

The background section is full of content from sources that are not about this attack. The background section should follow the framing of this attack in reliable sources, not attempt to provide an overview of the Kashmir conflict or any other matter judged by editors to be relevant to this subject. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Well the attack was part of Kashmiri insurgency I don't know how we could de-link from that. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

We can draw from sources that directly relate to this attack. Otherwise the background section can include the history of Islam and the ecology of Kashmir. We have to follow relevant sources. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 06:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)