Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (4)

The "'Stripped to check for circumcision, asked to recite Islamic verse': Tourists recall horror after J&K terror attack" claimed to be cited from Mansi Arora, but the news article from WION nowhere says this. Remove the parf or provide a better source for this as it could spark controversy. Hionsa (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yep it's not in the source. But it is displayed in the archived article name. I think they changed the title and article. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Yes. This is the first version where that part appears [1] Neither do this source talks about the above context. Another user added a source using the title backing up the above context, but there too lacks the actual availability of the source[2] and we can see even the news title was modified by them. Provide better sources or if no sources found remove it. I've tried by best, but couldn't find such controversial claims. Hionsa (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Two other news articles given as sources also didn't talk about any stripping being done. I think all those articles were edited. That part should be removed, in my opinion. WatermelonSeller05 (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

The names might be wrong, but there are videos on reddit which show this. Wait till it trickles down into one of the news sources. Atemperature (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Here's another source. It's trusted-

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Still a better source needed India TV comes under the category Godi media of which reliability is always questioned. Wait for more reports Hionsa (talk) 04:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 April 2025 (7)

In the opening paragraph, change "targeted civilians" to "targeted Hindu civilians" because it is currently not clear anywhere in the article who the attackers specifically targeted, which is an essential piece of information. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Here's the source-

"Eyewitnesses and survivors have revealed that the assailants targeted tourists based on their religion and identity."

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:28, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Here you go, at least two additional citations already in the article explain exactly that:

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

[20] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-syed-adil-hussain-shah-tried-to-snatch-terrorists-rifle-killed-2713505-2025-04-23 74.96.154.197 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

That's misleading because the Muslim who died was not a targeted victim. It was a local worker who was trying to save people and got killed in the process. All of the targeted victims were attacked based on being Hindu. This is clear from all sources, so no need to confuse or cover up facts. 74.96.154.197 (talk) 03:30, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2025 (2)

Syed Adil Hussain Shah the Muslim victim's name is mentioned in article while the Hindu and Christian victim's names are not mentioned. Is this Wikipedia's neutral point of view?

Bitan Adhikari, Sameer Guha, Mamish Ranjan, Vinay Narwal, Shubham Dwivedi, Prashant Kumar Satpathy, N, Ramachandran, Dinesh Agarwal, JS Chandramouli, Bharat Buushan, Sumit Parmar, Yatish Parmar, Tage Hailyang, Shailesh Kalathiya, manjunath Rao, Sushil Nathaniel, Sanjay Lakshman Lele, Hemant Suhal Joshi, Atul Shrikant Mone, Kaustabh Ganbote, Neeraj Udhwani, Sudip Neupane, Dilip Disle, Somisetti Rao, Santosh Jagdale. Metion their names in this article if Syed Adil Hussain Shah name is mentioned.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-kashmir-full-list-of-victims-released-2713232-2025-04-23

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pahalgam-terror-attack-full-list-of-victims/article69482468.ece

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/victims-pahalgam-terror-attack-2025-9961486/

If Wikipedia is mentioning Syed Adil Hussain Shah then also mention the above names.Sistersofchappel (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The Muslim is mentioned only so that the event cannot be portrayed as only against non-muslim victims 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Then stick to a factual stance and mention that 27(?) Hindu tourists and 1 local Muslim was killed. 103.197.103.156 (talk) 10:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Then why is the page not mentioning singling out Hindus for execution? This is misleading. Its trying to portray Hindus were not the target when they cleary were.

That muslim man was only shot when he tried to defend the tourist. He was not singled out to be killed. 2409:40E6:1B:D8D3:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

Muslim name is there to create false balance and hide the fact that even pants of victims were removed to check for circumscision. Someone already removed that part. Islamists are on full force on this page. 2409:40C1:2E:3339:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I request IP editors not to post nonsensical comments in anger. And Also neutral administrators must look into self admitted POV by some Pakistani editors as this comment. He believes there is a POV so he need to push his POV. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1287151876. Is he working alone or some editors have supporting him? Sistersofchappel (talk) 10:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Geez, I'm not taking any sides I vehemently oppose all terrorism and whole heartedly condemn the attack, the Muslim was mentioned because he was an exception instead of the rule which was most Hindus, please don't falsely accuse anyone and assume Good faith 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 10:29, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

>the rule which was most Hindus

The problem is that that article does not mention this at all. Why is the word 'Hindu' not used at all in this article about a targeted killing of Hindu tourists? 103.197.103.156 (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. Please obtain WP:CONSENSUS before filing an edit request. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2025 (4)

The request is made for two additions:

• Response from the Prime Minister of Malaysia, Anwar Ibrahim condemning the attack on his social media channels: Instagram, Facebook. For news sources: The Star, New Straits Times.
• The Twitter account of the Pakistani government (GovtofPakistan) being withheld (blocked) in India "in response to a legal demand". I'm not located in India but I found news sources from Indian news websites: Times of India, NDTV, Hindustan times. Also it's best to let Indian Wikipedians confirm if they can access the said Twitter account before editing.

Weareblahs (talk) 14:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

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

Militant?

Can someone break down the difference between a militant and a terrorist attack? Every country—US, France, UK, Israel, Russia, Iran, Taliban, Japan—calls it a terrorist attack. Even US agencies use the term "terrorist." So why is an attack on civilians in the West or Israel labeled terrorism, but in India, it’s just a "militant" attack? Don’t feed me garbage about it being an "insurgency." An attack on civilians is always a terrorist attack, period! राजकुमार^(talk) 12:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

That's a misuse of MOS:TERRORIST. We still describe terror attacks as terror attacks, see 9/11 or Boston Marathon Bombing, among others. JDiala (talk) 13:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

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

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

This source also states the following:

• Militants: Typically used to describe individuals or groups involved in armed resistance, insurgencies, or guerrilla warfare. The term may imply a degree of legitimacy or perceived justification for their actions, especially in contexts of self-defense or liberation struggles.
• Terrorists: Often applied to actors engaging in acts of violence or coercion with the primary aim of instilling fear, causing civilian casualties, and destabilizing societies. The term carries strong negative connotations and is frequently associated with illegitimate or unlawful conduct. (sorry for the links, direct copy-paste) Considering this is a grammar website, wouldn't this just be a grammar thing to classify as terrorist, instead of a massive edit war right now. Maybe everybody ought to read the definition??

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The US Foreign Affairs Committee has slammed The New York Times for whitewashing a "terrorist attack". But many more media houses are guilty of the same. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

References

DISCUSS weightage on Pakistan for the attack

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi نعم البدل (talk),

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Comment - The whole framework of this discussion is wrong. WP:NPOV editors don't get to decide "how much WEIGHT" should be given to Pakistan. Pakistan is not the subject here. A terror attack is. نعم البدل, it is your job to explain why this is even an issue. Tell us which policy of Wikipedia are you referring to, in raising this discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  In this edit, you removed well-sourced and pertinent content, claiming that it gives "OVEREMPHASIS" to Pakistan, is against policy. The question, and only question, is whether it is relevant to the topic, which is a terror attack. There are no Wikipedia policies for or against Pakistan. Please refrain from making such edits in future. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks Kautilya3, I fully agree with your guidance and inputs, and was trying to guide the discussion based on Wikipedia policies such as WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:LEAD.

  I also flagged the wrong edit by نعم البدل, with "I noticed that you deleted large amounts of well-sourced content from WP:RS sources.. There is no reasoning to remove such relevant content (3rd para) from quality WP:RS sources, which has been summarized from article body per WP:LEAD.

  Further, I also put the guidance "We all editors should avoid misusing WP:DUE to delete content that we do not like, as long as it is well sourced from good references." Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 13:16, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just wanted to quickly clarify again, for @Kautilya3 that in my original edit [3] (prior to the restoration of another edit), I removed certain references for being excessive. I'm not really that concerned if they want to be reinstated. The WP:UNDUE part, I will discuss at a later time. نعم البدل (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think a brief mention of Pakistan is due in the first paragraph as it is one of the most critical impacts of this attacks as reported by WP:RS sources such as NY Times, BBC, and Indian Express: The attack intensified tensions between India and Pakistan. The fourth paragraph details the diplomatic crisis. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 14:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)