Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Attack section

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

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

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

Since you mentioned the Indian Express, here's an article from them that mentions the inspections for circumcision per witness testimony: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/bangalore/karnataka-family-pahalgam-celebrate-pu-exam-score-terrorists-killed-9961292/ Anantanni22 (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't find any international or other GREL sources that mention this. So even if true, I wonder if this is undue.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 18:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Mentioned it on your user page earlier, but here is a second article from a GREL source mentioning the circumcision checks:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/madhya-pradesh/15-year-old-boys-among-the-attackers-says-pahalgam-victims-son/article69487247.ece

I hope this puts the confusion to rest. Anantanni22 (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

In both of the sources it came from witness testimony so we should put this whole statement in quotes DataCrusade1999 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Curious to know what other ways can you identify the incidents of a terrorist attack rather than victim's testimony? Xoocit (talk) 10:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

if someone says it it becomes a quote DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Forensic evidences and digital fingerprints are the main sources to identify the nature of attack. Also the court testimony of the perpetrators and the witness helps to identify the nature of attack. This is a recent incident so it will take some time for the investigation agencies to arrest the perpetrators and obtaining details from the witness, after that they would release proper details and evidences. Until then the testimony from victim's are the only sources. 007sak (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Tourist or Hindu tourist

@Elazığ Ahmet most reliable sources describe them as tourist and not as hindu tourist also I think the lead already mentions "specifically targated male hindu" so IMHO infobox should just mention tourist cause a muslim has also been killed DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 Why are you downplaying this attack by focusing solely on India's perspective, ignoring the terrorists and Pakistan's role? You omitted the Pakistani army general's recent hate speech against Hindus and his warnings to India about Kashmir before the attack. The article also failed to mention threats to India and Kashmir from the Prime Minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. This attack specifically targeted Hindus, with the only Muslim casualty occurring early on when he attempted to intervene, after which the terrorists exclusively killed Hindus. राजकुमार^(talk) 02:24, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You omitted the Pakistani army general's recent hate speech against Hindus and his warnings to India about Kashmir before the attack.

To link the two things requires original research which isn't allowed.

The article also failed to mention threats to India and Kashmir from the Prime Minister of Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

Again this requires original research.

This attack specifically targeted Hindus, with the only Muslim casualty occurring early on when he attempted to intervene, after which the terrorists exclusively killed Hindus.

"specifically targated male hindu" this is mentioned in the lead I'm saying that infobox should mention only "tourist".

Why are you downplaying this attack by focusing solely on India's perspective, ignoring the terrorists and Pakistan's role?

Wikipedia works on reliable sources also I've said somewhere on the talk page that we should write "India accuses Pakistan for the attack." DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Here are some sources linking Pak Army General's speech to the attack (Hindustan Times) (Quint)

About the tourists or hindu men thing, most media sources describe them as tourists because that was their primary identity in the Kashmir valley, as "outsiders" or tourists or visitors, however they were killed for their religion which makes this a targetted crime towards the followers of a specific religion, which should be mentioned in the infobox. There are reports of people being left alive as they were wrongly identified as muslims. (The Hindu)

The Muslim man was killed for opposing and obstructing the terrorists, not for his muslim identity, identity-based killings happened for the 27 other people killed in the attack. Xoocit (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• There was a Christian victim too [1]. So this useless debate should be put to bed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  that settles it then go with tourist. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Security lapse

a new section on security lapse should be added

This could be included too https://www.newslaundry.com/2025/04/24/beaten-at-bjp-protest-for-pahalgam-question-journalist-says-accused-wanted-to-teach-him-a-lesson

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pahalgam-terror-attack-tourists-taken-to-meadow-without-police-permission-government-informs-all-party-meeting/article69488066.ece DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Every terrorist attack globally involves an intelligence failure. Terrorists target locations with weaker security, not those fully secured. Isn't that obvious? राजकुमार^(talk) 02:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

so the section should be included or not? to make this article qualify for good article we should make it concise but also offer full spectrum of the current but important dialouge that is taking place in India. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

An entire section would be quite undue. But some comments made by the tourists about the absence of security personnel at the meadow and enroute should be included. My impression that is that it fell through cracks between the multiple forces involved in J&K. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I agree let's drop the section but make it a paragraph with 2-3 lines. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Anti Hindu + Anti Indian Bias

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

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

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

Jihadist terrorist not only targeted Hindus, but overall all non-muslims as it's reported from WP:RS that Christian men was also killed in the attack. Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources confirmed that Hindus were targetted, with non muslims being killed. Let us be absolutely clear - this was an attack on Hindus. This needs to be mentioned Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Do you check details? The Hindu victims were asked to read Kalima and their pants were also pulled down to check whether they were circumcised. The Christian man was also killed when he failed to recite Kalima. So Hindus and Christians were killed for being Non-Muslims. And the only Muslim victim. terrorists did not want to kill him. he was pony rider. He tried to save tourists by snatching their gun. He was not killed due to religion. So the Hindus and one Christian were killed after verifying they were not Muslims. And the Muslim was killed as he tried to snatch gun, not due to his religion. Sistersofchappel (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You said that "word terrorist or terrorism is not mentioned anywhere in the article", this seems untrue as in the first line of article it's written that :- On 22 April 2025, a terrorist attack at Baisaran Valley in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir killed 26 and injured more than 20 others. The attack, the deadliest of its kind in India since the 2008 Mumbai attacks, targeted male non-Muslim tourists, and was reportedly aimed at resisting alleged demographic changes in the Kashmir Valley. The Resistance Front, an offshoot of the Pakistan-based, UN-designated terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba Lionel Messi Lover (talk) 12:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Fixed Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:11, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Infobox

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

Reliable news sources present in the article already mentioned that target is tourist and the attack was against a tourist group. 007sak (talk) 05:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that I don't have any obejctions now. But now under "Motive" "Islamic terrorism Hinduphobia" have been mentioned even though the page itself talk about "demographic change" beign the cause so this logical inconsistency must be resolved. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

the muslim guy who died was a local and the attack was clearly against tourists changing it to non-locals would change the meaning. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Target in the infobox should be changed from "Tourists" to "Hindu tourists" because it is clear from reliable sources that people were targeted specifically based on their Hindu identity, that is a critical detail. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 04:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No every reliable source describes it tourist so hindu tourist should be removed DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

The word hindu is not mentioned prominently in most of the reporting, and in those cases at least one of the mentions is devoted to identifying far-right hindu or hindutva groups, mentions outside of this are largely unrelated to the victims' identity. The coverage broadly doesn't support hindus being targeted, nor does it identify the targets as mostly or entirely hindu. Transgenderoriole (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

"Most of the victims were Hindu men."

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

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

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

probably incorrect grammar

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

UAE National in the killed list

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

Many sources list them as "tourists from the UAE and Nepal". What is your concern with the current wording? Celjski Grad (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I have removed the dubious tag. It is now sources by two different and reliable media channels in the same line with citations, and that is enough for mentioning UAE tourists. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 09:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

If you feel this is the case you can feel free to make such edits at your own discretion. I will inform you that the perpetrators that are listed are from an offshoot of an islamist organization, however they seem to be more nationalistically motivated than religiously. If you can find reliable sources that say otherwise, you are free to make edits. Knollll (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

First of all this is not an "Islamic" attack but rather an Islamist attack, that being said, the terrorists have stated the attacked to be motivated by rather nationalistic sentiment 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@M Waleed Fueling nationalism by targeting non-Muslims? Tourists and settlers aren’t the same, and historically, Kashmir belongs to Kashmiri Hindus, so your argument’s nonsense! I can’t find that supposed statement from the Pakistani military general claiming Pakistan’s distinct from Hindus and promising action in Kashmir just days before the attack. राजकुमार^(talk) 12:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, the nationalist aspect comes from the statement by terrorists which you presumably glanced over when I said "terrorists have stated the attacked to be motivated by rather nationalistic sentiment" and as for the other parts that's whole lot of WP:OR, I'm assuming good faith and hope to be replied with the same sentiment 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 13:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Islamist and Islamic are two different thing so I am completely against calling it an Islamic attack. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@M Waleed I have to disagree quite strongly here. From the information available, it’s clear the attackers specifically targeted non-Muslims, which points to an explicitly religious motive rather than just a "nationalistic" one. Downplaying this aspect seems misleading given the nature of the attack as reported by credible sources. While I agree it's important to distinguish between "Islamic" and "Islamist," the reality is that the sectarian targeting cannot simply be brushed aside. I would suggest we stick closely to what reputable sources state rather than try to reinterpret the attackers' motives ourselves. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Use of poor quality sources

Why are we still using fake news sources like FirstPost? It appears it was removed by Kautilya3[2] once after Dympies had added it together with other fake news like MyInd.[3] FirstPost should not be used anywhere for this topic. 223.185.23.47 (talk) 02:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Firstpost being a fake news source isn't always true, although I am not denying that they do publish obvious fake news (or you could maybe say over exaggerated and biased [but anything is] as that's more fitting)

For proper reliable information it is probably to wait until the NIA releases sufficient information in a paper. Atharva210 (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

@223.185.23.47 Firstpost is not deprecated on Wikipedia and remains a generally usable source unless specific claims are challenged with evidence. Simply labeling it as "fake news" without any formal discussion or policy-based reasoning is not meaningful here. If you have an actual sourcing concern, you should raise it at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (WP:RSN) or initiate a Request for Comment (RfC) regarding its reliability. Blanket accusations without process are not how source reliability is determined on Wikipedia. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Sources are widely available, just a quick search will give you hundreds. Dympies added a bunch in a group citation format. If Firstpost is unreliable ones, it can be removed easily, leaving the reliable ones intact.

"Sources and eyewitnesses said that some victims were shot at point-blank range after the gunmen confirmed they were not Muslim."
— The Wire, April 23, 2025
"They then asked my father to recite an Islamic verse (probably the Kalma). When he failed to do so, they pumped three bullets into him, one on the head, one behind the ear and another in the back," she said."[....] "Even the locals there were reciting the Islamic verse."
—The Hindu, 23 April, 2025
"Pahalgam terror attack: Terrorists asked name and religion of male tourists, shot them, says survivor"
—The Hindu, 24 April, 2025
"SAVED BY CHANTING ISLAMIC VERSES: Debasish Bhattacharyya, a Hindu who teaches at Assam University and grew up in a Muslim neighbourhood, said he was familiar with Islamic verses. The militants ordered him and others nearby to get on their knees, and when the others began chanting, he followed along.
"I knew the words, and at that moment, it was probably the only way to save our lives. Those who failed were killed."
— Reuters, 23 April, 2025

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

Here's a good source-

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

International reactions

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

References

 Not done The article already lists thoughts and prayers from major countries, including the US, in the Reactions section. "The attack drew condemnations and statements of condolences to the victims from several other countries including..." Celjski Grad (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Okey But Its is in a very summarise way if we look at the Pakistan Defence minister comment on it then that comment is actually briefly mentioned which should not be the case. His comment also should be summarised something like he reject Indian claims. Arysangwan (talk) 11:40, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Pakistan’s comments are relevant to post-event developments. The U.S. comments are boilerplate condolances. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

TO be added

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

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

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

WP:BEBOLD Ahammed Saad (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Page is extended confirmed protected 007sak (talk) 11:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah try being bold when it's extended confirmed! But as much as I want semi protection, I understand the concern and why this is extended confirmed, thanks to the vandals and unsourced people for making it worse for the genuine ones! Atharva210 (talk) 16:02, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Infobox

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

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

Many reliable sources have covered this point extensively. Only a biased viewpoint would supress the fact that Hindus were specifically targeted. Why conceal the truth?

There are already citations in the article describing evidence of the religious profiling, here are a few more, found by a simple search:

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

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/pahalgam-terror-attack-hindu-america-foundation-slams-western-media-for-whitewashing-terror-attack-on-hindus/articleshow/120572525.cms

https://www.deccanherald.com/india/jammu-and-kashmir/pahalgam-terror-attack-religious-profiling-preceded-killings-say-eyewitnesses-3507051

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-tourists-killed-injured-jammu-kashmir-ordeal-security-forces-2713085-2025-04-22 74.96.154.197 (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

But some active decision making goes into both. IMHO the article as it is right now describes what you're saying in a proper way there's no need to mess that up. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

It was not done to Hindus, but rather non-Muslims. They would have done it irrespective of whether the tourist was a Hindu, a Christian, a Sikh, a Buddhist, a Jain or a Zoroastrian. Pur 0 0 (talk) 16:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Change "demographic change" to "alleged demographic change"

quoting from cnn article

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

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

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

The 83k domiciled people were already part of Kashmir demography

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

But this was the reason given and the article also talks about 80,000 domicile certificate beign issued so should we write "alleged"? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

yes, because those 80000 people were already there. In fact, it is not just alleged but is demonstrably false that demography was changed. These people are not new migrants.

So, we should also add "for which there is no evidence"

Giving them domicile didn't change demography. The domciile certificate was denied because of Article 370 allowing J&K to formulate its own policies.

If 80000 people are belonging to community X and don't have certificate, but are then granted because of change of policy. This is not demographic change. This is just issuing document since people without legal status are also part of demography.

sourcehttps://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-80000-non-state-subjects-have-received-domicile-certificates-in-last-two-years-jk-govt-says-9935364/ Factpineapple (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Here's a problem shouldn't the terrorist decide the motive of the attack since they were the ones who carried out the attack? I think what you're saying would be construed as ascribing motive to TRF for the attack when they themselves have said that they carried out the attack because of "demographic change".

here's what I propose leave the infobox as is but make changes to the relevant section where TRF takes responsibility for the attack. also consult others. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

You are right but point is that they attacked for a motive which doesn't exist. If someone commits an atrocity, and the motive itself has factual inaccuracies, we should specify that inaccuracy Factpineapple (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Even if there are objectively "factual inaccuracies" as you mention, Wikipedia is not an arbiter of truth, and should only include what is reported in reliable sources.

This may help: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth

Example of motive from another article: October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Background

As such I will edit out "alleged" in the lead and try to expand more given the information in the CNN article. Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Not militants but terrorists

All the source even the The US House Foreign Affairs Committee slammed The New York Times for calling Pahalgam terrorists "militants". [4]

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

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

Respectfully, @雄奇, Wikipedia must maintain a neutral POV. Calling them terrorists very much violates this policy. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

They are of Let formed by Hafiz Saeed. Even they have admitted that.

Do you call Al queda militant or terrorists ? 雄奇 (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Saeed's page says that he is "a militant convicted of terrorism", not a terrorist—big difference. The page for the Taliban says they are "an Afghan political and militant movement." The pages for various IRAs during the Troubles describe them as paramilitaries, not terrorists. The page for the Continuity IRA, for example, initially says that they are "an Irish republican paramilitary group" but later does mention that it is "designated a terrorist organisation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and the United States." You can describe the group as being labeled as terrorists by certain countries/organizations, but you should not call them a terrorist group. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

And to answer your question, yes they are called a militant group. The first sentence of the article says "Al-Quaeda is a pan-islamist militant organization led by Sunni jihadists who self-identify as a vanguard spearheading a global Islamist revolution to unite the Muslim world under a supra-national Islamic Caliphate." They are never explicitly called a terrorist organization in the lead. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:51, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

@PhoenixCaelestis Be partial to humanity and change the word militants to terrorists. Call these barbarians for what they really are, terrorists. Glorifying hate is not being neutral but being complicit. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Caesarian Cobol and @Hypothetical Painter: To quote the manual of style: "Value-laden labels – such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, sexist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion – may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." Not even al-Qaeda is described as a terrorist group in its article. If you want to fight this so badly, go to the talk page for the MoS and argue for the usage of the word terrorist. PhoenixCaelestis (Talk · Contributions) 17:01, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@PhoenixCaelestis Thank you for your reference to the Manual of Style. However, neutrality is not achieved by softening language to the point of misrepresentation. When reliable sources characterize events or actors as "terrorists," Wikipedia has a duty to reflect that through accurate attribution, not euphemistic dilution.

Adhering blindly to editorial caution at the expense of factual clarity is not neutrality — it is a failure to represent the sources faithfully. I will continue to advocate for language that accurately reflects the severity of events, supported by reliable attribution. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Did you use ChatGPT to help you write this response? Wikipedious1 (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Wikipedious1 I am fully capable of thinking and writing on my own. It is not clear what made you reach such a conclusion, and it is unlikely a Bot will even conform to idea of calling terrorist a terrorist given they are all trained on sources like Wikipedia and Al-Jazzera(who allegedly has ties to Qatar Government). The purpose of such a comment are to negate and/or dilute a serious discussion about the manner of language used to describe "people" who displayed acts of cowardice. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@King Ayan Das Please see this discussion before trying to push your edit. Wikipedious1 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

And to be clear I am attempting to model the lead similar to Oct 7 attacks, which does not state that Oct 7 was a "terrorist attack" in the first sentence, but does include it in the lead. Wikipedious1 (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

As the sources clearly use the term 'terror attack' or 'terrorist attack' in the title or first line, per WP:VERIFY, the first line of the article should also use 'terrorist attack' accordingly.

Trying to model the lead after a different article is a matter of your own WP:POV and should not be imposed here.

Please edit based on what reliable sources state, in line with Wikipedia's policies. King Ayan Das (talk) 19:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

You have 2 RS that outright describe the attack as "terrorist", and I'm sure this is being described strongly as a terrorist attack by Modi and Indian media, but there are other RS that do not describe it outright in this way. Some examples I found:

• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/what-is-the-resistance-front-the-group-behind-the-deadly-kashmir-attack
• https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/24/india/pahalgam-india-pakistan-attack-explainer-intl-hnk/index.html
• https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwynx7kgyqvo
• https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/world/asia/kashmir-pahalgam-attack-victims.html
• https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/23/kashmir-attack-live-india-looks-for-gunmen-after-26-killed-in-pahalgam

In fact the NYT is being slammed by Trump and Indian govt for not referring to it as a terrorist incident.

Per the policy, the value-laden term "terrorist" should only be used if widely reported in RS. If the Oct 7 attacks (as an example) are not widely reported as "terrorist" enough to warrant Oct 7 being outright described as a terrorist attack then I cannot see how that would be different here.

So yes please edit based on what reliable sources state, in line with Wikipedia's policies. Wikipedious1 (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@Pharaoh496 You may be interested in this discussion as you are arguing in favor of placing "terrorist" in the opening sentence. Wikipedious1 (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

even this page is getting same vandalized edits 2025 India–Pakistan border skirmishes. Not calling those inhumans as terrorist is not justiciable to Humanity. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 12:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Militant and terrorist are not antonyms. JJUPLOADS22 (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

A group can be both militant and terrorist. JJUPLOADS22 (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@JJUPLOADS22 Apples and Oranges aren't antonyms either, one might even say they both are fruits.

Militant comes from the Latin word militare while Terrorist comes from Latin terror. See the difference? Not all militants are terrorists. An Army Officer of a country is a militant not a terrorist. A ISIS cockroach is a terrorist not a militant.

As for the neutrality argument, LeT us recognised by the UNSC as a global terror organisation.[5]. If Wikipedia is trying not to offend a country not belonging to UN, aliens in Mars or the terrorists themselves, speak out against wrong. Languages matter. We do not want a repetition of Holocaust or the other evils humanity had to face since it's inception. Always remember to be silent is to be complicit. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Laskar-i Tayyiba should be removed

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

Aftermath

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

sources

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

Also no nothing about assault and harassment of kashmiri students in different parts of india

https://www.newindianexpress.com/amp/story/nation/2025/Apr/24/kashmiri-students-assaulted-harassed-across-india-after-pahalgam-terror-attack Aliyiya5903 (talk) 05:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

That is WP:UNDUE Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 11:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Undue lead

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

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

Good analysis, however WP:NPOV tells us to present a fair representation of all viewpoints but if numbers in WP:HITS go in favour of "Hindus" then so be it. Shakakarta (talk) 02:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

it's 94000 not 128000 ProudWatermelon (talk) 05:00, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Fluctuation in numbers occurs, which can be updated by anyone.Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 12:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Understandable, writing "non-muslim" override thousands of sources which report the casualties with "Hindus". I might be ok with this as well. Maniacal ! Paradoxical (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

These numbers are irrelevant, I am afraid. We are not going to add material or wording that contradicts known facts, no matter how many sources have done it. India's Hindu nationalist bias and Godi media influence can easily skew the numbers to portray Hindu victimhood. See WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)