Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Sources say Hindus were targeted due to their religion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some non-Muslim tourists were also targeted

Change "Some non-Muslim tourists were also targeted"

to

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

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

lead

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

This was a hindu massacre as the tourists were asked to reveal their identity before being killed. The terrorists open fired initially that killed the muslim guy. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

list of deceased has a muslim too, also the attack seems to be local vs non local https://x.com/the_hindu/status/1914905034338525680 DataCrusade1999 (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

This source lists the names of the deceased and from what I can see, there is only one among them that was Muslim and a significant number of them were Hindus. Moreover various reliable sources have reported the perpetrators confirming the non-Muslim identity of the individuals before inciting harm on them, refer 2025 Pahalgam attack#Attack. Their motive was pretty clear. There have been many articles involving Islamic terrorism where Muslims were among the victims, whether by accident or not, but still their main motive is to be emphasized. Kaeez06 (talk) 06:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Their motive was pretty clear

I think you see it from Hindu vs muslim point of view but the region has a history of violence and India and Pakistan have fought over it so it's not a Hindu muslim situation it's a terriost attack also don't buy into victim testimony as they are traumatised right now. One must also remeber that terroist organization themselves use current political scenario to further their propaganda in India politics is very polarized along hindu muslim lines so it would make sense for these terrorist organization to use that polarization for their benefit.

Also the terrorist are themselves party to the conflict so whatever they say must always be taken with grain of salt. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

As I said, majority of the sources, that too reliable ones, have reported that the attackers confirmed the religious identity of the victims before attacking them, so they did target based on religion here, and you saying that this should be dismissed because of the trauma state of the victims is completely unethical. This is not something someone would make up after someone close to them has been deceased. They clearly targeted based on the religion when carrying out the attack, whatever their true intents were which lead to the attack, we are yet to get more details on that as investigations on this incident progresses so this should remain until we get more closure. Kaeez06 (talk) 07:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

you forgot to comment on this line of reasoning I suspect this hindu muslim usage is also one of the aims of this terrorist organization I don't know if you've seen TRF's logo.

Indian subcontinent also known as South Asia also suffers from recency bias. flavour of politics nowdays in india is hindu muslim polarization so everything has to serve that narrative. I wonder why this hindu muslim deabte doesn't arise when security forces get killed in line of duty like in pulwama or uri most of the service member killed were hindu so should be call that a massacre too. this line of reasoning might be wrong but I would like other people's take on this. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't be obtuse. They signed up for the job and knew the risks. Military target =/= Civilian Atemperature (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Are you kidding? Do you know the history of partition? do you understand how this was brought about? Do you know about the pogroms that were carried out to force the had? You must review a little bit of the history there and let Indians make the appropriate modifications and tell their story. Rkwiki540 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Don't pretend to know the region and claim expertise. When it comes to India-Pakistan it is always a Hindu Muslim issue. That is the basis of the existence of these two nations. Ignorance has a cure but prejudice and bias rarely do. Even when the security forces get killed it is about Hindus and muslims it is just that the muslims are being killed for being on the wrong side of the argument. There is no need for the debate. It becomes a debate when it is civilians because they are specifically targeted. Unlike the army where they are targetted by allegiance. This is not the first time this has happened. Go and read up on Sikh separatism and how Hindus were targeted then. They were asked to get off busses and shot. Their identity verified before doing so. I have no idea what your allegiances are, but trying to referee a topic for which you have no background and passing commentary makes me wonder why anyone will trust what they read on wikipedia? Rkwiki540 (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I have gone through more than 50 websites. They stated that before opening fire, the terrorists checked the victims' identities and religions. Eyewitnesses and survivors claimed that the attackers asked the tourists to recite religious verses (the Quran), and questioned them about their names and religious beliefs. Where did you find that Muslims were killed? Have you done original research? On Wikipedia, only what reliable sources say should be included. Somajyoti ✉ 07:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

you should read the section https://x.com/the_hindu/status/1914905034338525680 I have posted the link of list of victims. also this section might be redundant cause consensus on the requested move is tilting towards "attack" not massacre. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 The victims' names are written there. Determining religion based on names is not at all the job of Wikipedia editors, because it could be considered original research. Besides, many names are common to both Hindus and Muslims.

I talked about whether "attack" or "mascara" should be used. It's fine to keep "attack" in the title of the article. But when describing it inside, everything that happened will be written with citations from reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 12:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

first of all I'm giving you a link on the talk page so that you can see the list and form opnion accordingly as a matter of personal preference and Wikipedia standards I don't include tweets as citations.

Second the word massacre shouldn't be used as it's a terrorist attack and not some religious crusade as some people are making it out be. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:51, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The two are always interlinked when it comes to India and Pakistan. Pretend to at least be neutral DataJihad1999 Atemperature (talk) 07:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

do not name call other editors it's a violation of wikipedia policy you could be permanantly blocked from editing altogether. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Two Nation THEORY? Please review. Everything between India and Pakistan is religious. Hindu vs Muslim. Please understand the history of the conflict. Rkwiki540 (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

it wasn't a local vs non local. If it was there would be more dead, pahalgam is a famous tourist destination in kashmir and it had much more people visiting than casualties. Also the videos clearly state that they checked the religion of tourists before shooting them. Don't try to bend the facts due to your own prejudices. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

It wasn't just a local vs non local. The list of deceased has one muslim and all else are hindus and the muslim is a local who might have been killed during open fire or killed trying to stop the terrorists. All non locals killed are hindus and the videos clearly state that they confirmed their identity before shooting them. 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Out of the 26 people who have been dead as of now, only one was muslim and rest are hindus. Considering that Kashmir is a muslim-dominated state, can that one killing of the muslim be a fluke by terrorists cause clearly the stats and statements by victim's families shows it's a clear hindu massacre. Attack happens neutrally and here, in this case, the killings were purely based on religion, which clearly seems to a soft-massacre by the infiltrators. Wowlastic10 (talk) 11:54, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

It's true, people were targeted based on their Hindu identity, reliable sources have covered this point extensively. The one Muslim who died was a local worker trying to protect tourists, and was killed while fighting the attackers.

https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-pony-operator-dies-protecting-tourists-125042300844_1.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-syed-adil-hussain-shah-tried-to-snatch-terrorists-rifle-killed-2713505-2025-04-23 74.96.154.197 (talk) 04:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

No. This has been litigated above. If a source is reliable then it is reliable no two ways about it. Also it's required due to NPOV. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

We should reconsider weather independent articles from even reliable sources in any sensitive matter should be considered unbiased, from the background we have to remove it after all for the incoherence with the issue or for complete misinterpretation of facts. Prem8660 (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

go to WP:RSP of you have a problem with a source. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:44, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

There is video evidence, there are eyewitness accounts. Unless the media for some reason is disagreeing with these, on what basis do you conclude bias? Rkwiki540 (talk) 16:27, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

POV push by user Aliyiya5903

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

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

Nowhere have I claimed “Jammu and Kashmir is not part of India.” What I have said is that the region is internationally recognized as disputed, and therefore, we should avoid templates or categories that imply undisputed sovereignty, in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Pulwama and many other kashmir related articles are already in that category so this should also be included. 007sak (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

This is what you said, indirectly saying since the attack is in Jammu and Kashmir, then the template cannot be here since the template is about "attacks in India". Or is there another reason you are removing the templates. Drat8sub (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Drat8sub i checked his edits and there are no vandalising edits. Please do not make false claims over users. Elazığ Ahmet (talk) 20:06, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

@Drat8sub The edits do not fall under vandalism. Please do not accuse other editors of being in bad faith. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

We treat such disputes on a de-facto basis (for cats and temps etc.); your edits are a no starter per precedent for Indo-Pak (including Kashmir ones) articles. Sorry. Gotitbro (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Internationally recognized? What is that supposed to mean? Pakistan was carved out of the subcontinent, it has no claims to make. It is disputed to the extent that Pakistan holds part of Indian land. Rkwiki540 (talk) 23:14, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

that's a new version of dispute. for layman dispute here means a disagreement about control of a piece of land now which side initiates this disagreement is not relevant as long as disagreement is there. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

This is not a question of dispute. Kashmir's king signed the treaty of acceding to India. The dispute exists because Pakistan attacked and entered what is POK today. India unfortunately took the wrong step of taking it to the UN. It is one thing for you to say, Kashmiri's want self determination. That is a different matter. However, Pakistan does not have a locus standi on the matter to dispute anything. The dispute exists because they are illegally occupying a piece of land that is not theirs. Let us be honest, study the history of the situation and write appropriately. At the end of the day one needs to be truthful and factual. Unless you want to say the territory is illegally occupied by Pakistan, a piece of land that is integral and has acceded to India, we should say nothing about it. It is not disputed territory, it is illegally occupied by one country and the other has legitimate claim over it. Rkwiki540 (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

J&K is an integral part of India, as always, and will be part of India. Don't just pretend or speak with your eyes closed. If your land is in dispute because someone external has claimed ownership of your land even though you are the rightful owner, that doesn't mean this does not belong to you, right? similarly. J&K is part of India, and Pakistan just tries to play a victim role and unlawfully reserve rights over it and fight for it. It is india which is thinking of the innocent people suffering there and is not acting with military out of goodness Wenapymi (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The terminology recognizes that both parties believe they have a legitimate claim, and that there is no specifically dominant international recognition of either claim, making this objectively a disputed territory, regardless of personal or political beliefs. ExiaMesa (talk) 13:41, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Is that how things work now? International recognition? We all know how that works. At the end of the day the smell test is, Pakistan has no locus standi on the matter as it was never in existence before it was carved out of the subcontinent. There is no legitimate claim that it has. The conditions of accession were fulfilled and Kashmir acceded to India legitimately. This is not a question of international recognition. So @ExiaMesa please understand the situation. It is not a for the rest of the world to recognize or otherwise. Rkwiki540 (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I apologies if I was not clear. I noted that both sides believe they have a legitimate claim, not passing judgement on either one. In consideration of WP:WIAN,I defined "widely accepted" as dominant international recognition of a claim. Since ownership of the region is disputed both in claims, and in actual physical lines of control(Regardless of which claim is "correct" from different POVs), and there is no widely accepted claim, we cannot state that the region is definitively belonging to either party in adherence to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ExiaMesa (talk) 22:34, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

We understand what international recognition means. It basically means recognition by the main western nations. The US, UK, France? Maybe Germany? The world knows what that means. The world view is Eurocentric and we do not think there is a bias? I will leave it at that. Ideally, when there are terror attacks, there is no need to reference Kashmir as disputed territory. It basically means you are justifying the act of terror. You should understand where the opposition is coming from given the situation. The west and the media dilutes the attack by first calling the perpetrators militants. To justify this term they then talk about Kashmir as a disputed region and somehow the terrorism is legitimate. We get it!!! Rkwiki540 (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Do not make it "part of" you could list major terror attacks in India in the "See also" section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

@Caesarian Cobol: Please provide a source here, and which sentence/paragraph in the article would you like edited. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 23:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

@CX Zoom A local pony operator reportedly tried to protect the tourists and wrestle the gun from one of the attackers before being shot and killed.

Change it to:  Syed Adil Hussain Shah, a local pony operator reportedly tried to protect the tourists and wrestle the gun from one of the attackers before being shot and killed.

Sources are already provided.

[[1]] Caesarian Cobol (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 10:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Change:

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

To:

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

Sources:

1. Reuters 2. NDTV

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

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

This is a valid edit request.

Here's another NDTV link with the same information:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/jammu-and-kashmir-terrorist-attack-live-updates-pahalgam-anantnag-tourists-prime-minister-narendra-modi-amit-shah-terrorists-news-8227401

Both sources describe how the attackers ascertained whether people were Hindus or Muslims, and only targeted the Hindus. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I think the article already makes it clear there is a line about reciting kalma also when you say "ascertained" I feel like that somewhere there is a line of original research that is beign crossed which shouldn't happen DataCrusade1999 (talk) 06:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Include reports of China helping Pakistan water down the attack

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

Can you find a less biased, more independent source? Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Firstpost is considered a mostly credible source. See: [[2]] Caesarian Cobol (talk) 10:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't know the full context, but I see tonnes of other users calling it unreliable.

Additionally it seems to be quite politically motivated, and for these things I would not suggest using such questionable sources. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 10:54, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac I would recommend you to be more knowledgeable on the matter and not dismiss a credible news agency on the basis of "other users calling it unreliable".

I am posting the link the fact checking website again for I believe it was not properly embedded due to Wikipedia mobile having weird bugs.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/first-post

Firstpost is a credible news agency that is corroborated with multiple independent fact checking websites. I am aware of the few times they made mistakes, but per WP:VERIFY the Firstpost news should be mentioned. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Caesarian Cobol

1. See WP:NEWSORGINDIA - Firstpost is explicitly mentioned
2. Information is dubious at best, information is not even needed on the article(what does this even have to do with the attack; China's response has nothing to do with it outside of the official response of "we provide condolences to the victim and we condemn the attack" which is mentioned.)
3. See WP:ECREE

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 11:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac

1. WP:NEWSORGINDIA does mention Firstpost having paid sections. However considering the nature of the reporting ie. a terrorist attack negates any such paid reporting allegations and have to take it as a factual reporting by the organisation unless proven otherwise.

It's actually laughable that you bring up allegations of "paid articles" argument for a terrorist attack. I will request you to look at the rules stated on paid articles on WP:NEWSORGINDIA carefully.

The article does already use most/all of the sources mentioned on WP:NEWSORGINDIA including Firstpost as any Indian news is generally covered by Indian medias. Why not remove all of them cause who knows terror activity reporting might all be paid reporting after all. See: Cherry picking

2.

a. How did you came to the conclusion that the report was dubious?

b. Information is relevant to the followup of the event as Pakistan tries to downplay the attack the wiki article is on.

3. Does not fall under Exceptional Claim.

Clearly you are less knowledgeable of the situation by your own admission and by our conversation so far. I request another fellow editor to look at my points with a more neutral look and a open mind to tackle difficult topics. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

1. This proves the source is not completely reliable. Just saying.
2. If it truly wasn't dubious, another source would have covered it. And I'm dubious of any indian/pakistani source on india-pakistani issues unless independent third party sources or both sides have reported to. Additionally, the information you are using is specifically doing a POV targeting China, meaning that it would have to be written critically with in text attribution, along with casting even more doubt. Your quote " Information is relevant to the followup of the event as Pakistan tries to downplay the attack the wiki article is on." already shows you have quite some bias on the issue and yet you call me not neutral. And I still don't get how this would contribute to the article in any way.
3. It is an exceptional claim with huge POV. Saying a country is downplaying a terrorist attack is a pretty POV claim.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac The sources are provided in another reply in previous thread from Economic Times and Times of India. Please refer to those. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:37, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Same thing applies:

For such a contentious topic and such a controversial claim, only sources from one side is simply, not enough. Even if added, in text attribution would still be needed. And i doubt the information is even notable enough to include. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:43, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac More sources as requested ref. point 3

a. https://m.economictimes.com/news/india/pakistan-waters-down-unscs-pahalgam-statement-with-help-from-china/articleshow/120658750.cms

b. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pakistan-backed-by-china-dilutes-unsc-statement/articleshow/120654925.cms Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

That's great, but I still would rather have more international sources. It's inevitable that indian sources will have bias against pakistan/china, and vice versa. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Claiming a bias against Pakistan/China is a big claim against factual reports which you are in no position of making as a editor, who is expected to operate within the rules laid by Wikipedia Manual of Style. Nowhere is it required not expected per the MOS to require a report by an "international"(foreign would be the correct term since all newspapers have a nationality, and they might very well be biased;not a accusation but a statement) newspaper. It's quite clear you are arguing in bad faith as you have switched from

1. Claiming articles on terror activity are paid (which is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of rules on your part)

2. Claiming Firstpost is not credible according to "lots of users"

3. Claiming reputable Indian media is biased towards Pakistan/China. (I am aware of some Indian media like NDTV having a right wing bias, but TOI is centre leaning, Firstpost is Centre-Right and Economic Times is Centre leaning all with a high credibility rating.This is verifiable via non-afffiliated sites)

It is not expected from a international media to report on every regional issues nor is it required to. I'm sure CNN/BBC/Fox News etc. has work elsewhere to do.

I'm open to a more productive discussion which gets things done rather than showing pettiness. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

1. I never said the articles on terror activity are paid - I just pointed out the newspaper does paid articles, which can diminish reliability. I never said that it was paid, Only saying that it proved less reliable.
2. See #Use of poor quality sources
3. I mean, there is literally inherent bias on both sides(not just india, but also pakistan and china). Unless we can find good third party reports, this means it is simply not notable or not reliable. See WP:THIRDPARTY. "It is not expected from a international media to report on every regional issues nor is it required to. I'm sure CNN/BBC/Fox News etc. has work elsewhere to do." therefore I would suggest in text attribution. This attack has been covered by many reliable source, it is just this claim, which I have said and will say again, is pretty controversial at best and dubious at worst.
4. "is a big claim against factual reports which you are in no position of making as a editor" "It's quite clear you are arguing in bad faith as you have switched from" "which gets things done rather than showing pettiness" - See WP:AGF and WP:TPNO. Claiming that I am "in no position of making a claim" and "I am doing this in bad faith" basically goes against all conduct guidelines. At the end of the day, I'm just here to give advice and help with rules enforcement.

Thehistorianisaac (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac

1& 2. Given multiple other credible sources, all which have a credible score on independent sites, It's best we move on from here.

The thread you link show one guy claiming Firstpost is non-credible to the point of removal out of nowhere, with no sources and with other people countering his/her claim proves my point.

3. It is acceptable for an intext attribution.

4. The wording could be improved on my part.

It is imperative to note that the reports I state are factual reports done by the respective newspapers on publically available UN Statements. As editors we are all required to put our personal biases aside to report with the given material and not project bias. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 13:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I still would prefer waiting for some more consensus to whether it should be added but I'm fine with our conclusion here. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

@Thehistorianisaac Claiming a bias against Pakistan/China is a big claim against factual reports which you are in no position of making as a editor, who is expected to operate within the rules laid by Wikipedia Manual of Style. Nowhere is it required not expected per the MOS to require a report by an "international"(foreign would be the correct term since all newspapers have a nationality, and they might very well be biased;not a accusation but a statement) newspaper. It's quite clear you are arguing in bad faith as you have switched from

1. Claiming articles on terror activity are paid (which is laughable and shows a lack of understanding of rules on your part)

2. Claiming Firstpost is not credible according to "lots of users"

3. Claiming reputable Indian media is biased towards Pakistan/China. (I am aware of some Indian media like NDTV having a right wing bias, but TOI is centre leaning, Firstpost is Centre-Right and Economic Times is Centre leaning all with a high credibility rating.This is verifiable via non-afffiliated sites)

It is not expected from a international media to report on every regional issues nor is it required to. I'm sure CNN/BBC/Fox News etc. has work elsewhere to do.

I'm open to a more productive discussion which gets things done rather than showing pettiness. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 12:58, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin watching this page: Manual of Style has nothing to do with claims of bias and reliability; please be more mindful of what policies and guidelines actually prescribe before browbeating other editors.

The most recent RSN discussion concerning FirstPost is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_424#Unreliable_sources?_FirstPost_/TimeNow, which did not result in a firm consensus but which seems to lean more towards unreliability than reliability. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications and backing up my point. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Response section update

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

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

1] To hold the Indus water treaty in abeyance indefinitely

2] Integrated check post Wagah-Atari is closed

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

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

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

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

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

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

See the article 2025 India–Pakistan diplomatic crisis 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 07:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

The non local settlement didn't occur.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continuing from harvard law review:

"The Indian government also introduced a new domicile order²⁰⁰ that expands the definition for residency and allows a new class of non-Kashmiris to move into the region. This legal maneuver mirrored the use of “registration by title” to facilitate the expropriation of indigenous lands in Palestine and Australia.²⁰¹ The order now permits Indian citizens who have lived in the region for a set period of time to claim a “domicile certificate.”²⁰² The children of those domiciled can also claim their own certificates, even without ever having entered the region.²⁰³ These provisions extend to armed forces stationed in Kashmir and their children as well,²⁰⁴ making the hundreds of thousands of armed forces in Kashmir a potentially new class of settlers themselves. By claiming domicile, these non-Kashmiris can now apply for all local government jobs, including those in police or administration, that were previously reserved for Kashmiris.

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

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

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

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)