Jump to content

Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Requested move 23 April 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. A key dispute was about WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, which supporters and opposers both claimed to favour their case. I credit editors' efforts in examining numerous sources (see e.g. UnpetitproleX 10:27, 23 April 2025; Zephyr Nova and Thehistorianisaac, beginning 03:40, 24 April 2025; ExiaMesa 14:49, 24 April 2025; NorthernStares 04:26, 23 April 2025). Collectively, the sources variously referred to the event as an attack, or terrorist/terror attack, or in some cases militant attack, or massacre. Some editors interpreted that sources from India were more likely to use the stronger words, although words like massacre or terrorist were not exclusively found in such sources. In some cases editors pointed out that "massacre" was used alongside "attack" in the same source. Of course, all assessments in this discussion were based on early reporting available at the time, and may eventually change.

On the whole, the degree of support among sources, which were divided, fell short of establishing that 2025 Pahalgam massacre is the COMMONNAME or at least that "massacre" is a "generally accepted word used when identifying the event" (WP:NCENPOV) more than "attack".

Editors also debated other arguments: comparisons with older articles titled "massacre" or "attack", how similar they are to this event, whether they are correctly titled in the first place, and what characteristics (e.g. intent, or choice of targets) might fairly define a line between "massacres" and "attacks". Many of these views were reasonable, though with no clear policy basis for preferring them over contrary views which were also reasonable. The line of discussion based on sources for this individual event had the clearest and strongest consensus. (closed by non-admin page mover) Adumbrativus (talk) 08:27, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

2025 Pahalgam attack → 2025 Pahalgam massacre – The current title "2025 Pahalgam Attack" understates the severity of the event. Multiple reliable sources and academic references refer to it as a "massacre." Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, the article should be titled "2025 Pahalgam Massacre." Aniketkhan14 (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose, The name doesn't need to be changed. the region has had a history of terroism and this was a terrroist attack. Also you haven't linked any academic sources that you talk about. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
What academic source would convince you that the murder of 20~ civilian tourists at the hands of terrorists, was a massacre? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Ahem. Tonnes of similar incidents are known as "attacks"
See 2008 Kashgar attack, which is arguably even more of a massacre
Most famous one is September 11 attacks. You can also call that a massacre.
Point is, they are terrorist attacks though Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
>A massacre is the violent and cruel killing of a large number of people, especially civilians, often in a way that is indiscriminate or without any resistance
Massacres are all attacks by definition 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
We follow WP:COMMONNAME rather than OR 𐤌𐤋𐤊 Waleed (🗽) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Are you saying - because its Muslims we are not allowed to call it a massacre Cinaroot (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
My bad i read it a 2025 pahalgam hindu massacre.that is what was mentioned in lead at that time. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Untrue, multiple sources refer to it as a massacre: see here for a list compiled from just a google search. UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Several victims? Only one non-hindu is reported dead. What is that logic regardless, Muslims can't be massacred? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:31, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support. Fits the definition of massacre better, similar incidents in the past have also been referred to as 'massacre,' and plenty of reliable sources are also calling it a massacre. LΞVIXIUS💬 03:20, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
You are right it must be changed to massacre.. 2409:4089:CE07:3C6F:0:0:730B:9115 (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Yes it is was a massacre done by islamic forces were more than two dozens of hindu who are in minority in the state Jammu & Kashmir were killed. 182.77.49.15 (talk) 08:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Suggest to correct the "Islamic forces" to terrorists. We're not meant to route this to a whole community. And the victims includes Muslims too. Hionsa (talk) 15:17, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
What non-islamic force perpetrated this massacre? 2409:40E3:1EA:DBD2:C0BA:F90F:6063:30F6 (talk) 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Using "islamic forces" violoates WP:NPOV. Additionally, even though they were islamic extremeists, "terrorists" is a more accurate term Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
It would be a violation only if it were false. Multiple eyewitnesses aswell as victims aswell reiterated that they were segregated on the basis of religion, essentially muslim and non muslim and were asked to recite the kalima and prove that they were indeed circumsised (A prominent islamic tradition.) It would be wrong to hide the fact that this was a religiously motivated massacre.. RussianAtlas (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
It would be wrong to hide anything, really(see WP:NOTCENSORED)
And even so, this still violates NPOV Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Again, it only violates NPOV if it is factually wrong. If Islamic was removed, it would violate NPOV as we are lying through omission TheonlyPuneriintown (talk) 16:22, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
See MOS:TERRORIST Traumnovelle (talk) 20:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support The description of the incident fits that of a massacre, which is a very particular form of attack and highlights the fact that it was an atrocity. "Attack" can be anything from a sporting maneuver (as in ice hockey, to advance the puck aggressively) to a military strike. Specificity matters- Veryproicelandic (talk) 04:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
    Agree. Moreover, the massacre proves much more fitting considering the reasons and the complexities of the incident. RussianAtlas (talk) 12:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
    See 2008 Kashgar Attack and September 11 attacks
    "Attack" refers to a terrorist attack.
    " which is a very particular form of attack and highlights the fact that it was an atrocity. "
    2008 Kashgar and 911 were also atrocities, should we rename the articles then?
    ""Attack" can be anything from a sporting maneuver (as in ice hockey, to advance the puck aggressively) to a military strike."
    I doubt anybody will confuse it in this context Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support: It is not possible to determine whether it should be called an attack or a massacre based on what "many sources" say. Because there is nothing in Wikipedia under "many sources"; it asks for the use of reliable sources. I have seen both "attack" and "massacre" in several reliable sources.
One more thing, this is clearly a militant attack, and it will be considered a massacre because civilians were indiscriminately killed here. Somajyoti ✉ 08:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@Somajyoti: You are not aware of WP:DUEWEIGHT. It says minority viewpoints should not be considered, and this case is totally clear, majority of the Indian and international sources called it a “terrorist attack” not a massacre. GrabUp - Talk 09:15, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I am aware of Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight. Those "many sources" must be reliable. You can show many unreliable sources. I’ve already said that I’ve seen both “attack” and “massacre” in several reliable sources. Perhaps you’re only looking at the headlines of the news links. Read inside those news articles. Somajyoti ✉ 13:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Do a search “Pahalgam” you will find majority of the reliable sources are calling it a “attack” not a “massacre” GrabUp - Talk 13:49, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Yep, most articles have used both words here. LΞVIXIUS💬 13:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
Reliable sources who call it a terrorist attack Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support: Massacre have been used in a lot of reliable sources. One of the most reliable sources is this-
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/taliban-condemns-pahalgam-massacre-calls-attack-a-blow-to-regional-security/amp_articleshow/120563204.cms Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:40, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Give me a non-indian reliable source. Indian sources are likely to be biased.
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
Reliable sources which call it a "terrorist attack" Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
non indian source-
https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html Zephyr Nova (talk) 04:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
It uses massacre once, and attack multiple times. Please read the full article.
"While authorities investigate the attack, tensions are rising between India and its neighbor. Despite Pakistan denying that it had any role in the attack, India’s Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said in a Wednesday press conference that “cross-border linkages of the terrorist act” had been “brought out” during a special meeting of his country’s security cabinet."
"Survivors described horror as the attack unfolded and a bloody scene wrought by the gunmen."
"“My husband was shot in the head while seven others were also injured in the attack,” one woman survivor said, according to PTI."
"Another survivor, Asavari Jagdale, told PTI the gunmen came into the tent where her family was hiding. The attackers accused the family – hailing from India’s western Pune city – of supporting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, before shooting Jagdale’s male relatives, including her father, she said."
"“I saw people crying, screaming, just lying in the aftermath of the attack. There were children, women, men, everyone,” he said. “It was a massive trauma. I did not sleep all night.”"
"A little-known militant group called The Resistance Front claimed responsibility for the attack on social media, voicing discontent at “outsiders” who had settled in the region and caused a “demographic change.” It did not provide evidence, and CNN cannot independently verify its claim."
There are even more but my point is said. No reliable non-indian source uses majority. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
If the killing of 26 people, mostly of a very specific demographic, does not meet the criteria of a massacre then what could possibly qualify? Dazzling4 (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
The September 11 attacks are also of a very specific demographic and are called "attacks". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 02:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
I believe, this event must be called terrorist attack. for following reasons and characteristics, the event has.
Since the attack in question
- is on civilians.
- aims to instill fear
- as of now it is not spontaneous, or un-organized but shows full consciousness of the perpetrators.
- has network support of parent outfit L-E-T, which is definitely not a state outfit, but is allegedly state sponsored outfit.
- is sponsored by an offshoot of Lashkar-e-Taiba (an Islamic extremist outfit). There exists a motive of Ideology, religious/ ethnic hatred, and a conspiracy of Replacement Theory as motive includes blame on 85k tourists.
- There exists motive to kill specific groups, though I acknowledge there was one Muslim person also killed. We must not forget here he does not belong to the community on target but was a threat from attacker's perspective since he stood up against them.
- There happened a verification using IDs, knowledge of Kalama, and even circumcision as per reports as of at the time of writing this.
Im looking forward to this debate, please be respectful in responses.
Thank you. Razor465r (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
•
Oppose
Modern Militant/Terror action are typically are described as "attacks" on Wikipedia. (9/11, Paris Nov. 2015, etc). Further, deferring to
Wikipedia:COMMONNAME
, most sources outside of India & Pakistan use the term "attack."
BBC: https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cwy76y52l9eo
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-calls-all-party-meet-summons-top-pakistani-diplomat-after-kashmir-attack-2025-04-24/
AP: https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-india-pakistan-pahalgam-tourist-attack-tensions-242c7a600a51793f5484e4f620402fdd
Yonhap (To cite a source outside of the West): https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20250424009000315
ExiaMesa (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Support. It is a massacre. Plain and simple. Unarmed civilian innocents were killed. It wasn't an "attack" on an institutional outfit. It was a massacre targeted at hindus, carried out with the intention to eliminate hindus. 2409:40F2:3055:454B:DCB1:2CFF:FE68:E0F7 (talk) 04:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@KartikMistry: We should follow what majority of the sources says, not some handful articles. GrabUp - Talk 07:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't think you're right. Because Wikipedia don't have policy of majority source. It advises using reliable sources. and we ought to rely on reliable sources. Somajyoti ✉ 08:38, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
most reliable sources call it an attack. while wikipedia doesn't have majority source policy but there are multiple reliable sources terming this as an attack so some weightage has to be given to them. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 08:45, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@Somajyoti: Read WP:DUEWEIGHT. GrabUp - Talk 09:10, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Even one of the news sources you shared calls it a massacre:
2: "Pahalgam massacre: Security agencies to fill 'vacuum', realign forces UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Article says "Jammu and Kashmir Pahalgam Terror Attack" ProudWatermelon (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
The link you provided points to an article that has only two mentions of the word "massacre", one being a direct quote from a user on twitter and another referring to the Hamas targeted killing of Israeli civilians. NorthernStares (talk) 06:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Terror attack is usually named as attack check the pages of 2008 Mumbai attack and September 11 attacks. Those incidents have higher dead toll and they are still named as attack. Keep the Massacre as redirect that's already existing. 007sak (talk) 04:58, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: A simple Google search of "Pahalgam" shows all news outlets reporting an attack; none use the word "massacre." Also, for comparison, the title of the Wikipedia article about the March 2024 Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow, which killed at least 145 people and injured 551, is Crocus City Hall attack Patternbuffered (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Its too early to change it to massacre - more reliable media should report it Cinaroot (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: This isn't some normal massacre it is a attack against tourist in the region Dinocogreat (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As others have mentioned, I think it's too early for such a change. Most of the sources list it as an 'attack' so it would be more easier for people to find this article. Kaeez06 (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Support: It was a massacre 2409:40E5:100A:87DA:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Here are a multitude of sources that call it a massacre:
DNA (1), India Today (2), Firstpost (3), Kashmir Life (4), Deccan Herrald (5), The Hindu (6), Times of India (ToI a) (7), Times of Israel (8), ToI b (9), Times Now (7), Firstpost (10), The CSR Journal (11), Reddiff (12), Telegraph (13), ToI c (14), The New Indian (15), Bussiness Today (16) UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I see The Times of India calling it "J&K attack". It is fine to use "massacre" in the text, but for the title we follow MOS:TITLE. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Did you mean "J&K attack: Terrorists massacre 28 tourists in Pahalgam"? UnpetitproleX (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Selective reading. You need to change your eye glasses! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:06, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Note that it's not added in Template:Violence against Hindus in independent India, unlike all the others mentioned above. ArionStar (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Attack and massacre is often used interchangeably as far as the media is concerned, but the incident absolutely fits the definition of a massacre, so yeah. Strong support is the correct observation here/ LΞVIXIUS💬 13:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
These are some handful articles, if you search for “Pahalgam” you will see all the sources are calling it a “terrorist attack” even your provided sources like India Today, mentions “Attack” at the headline, and some of your sources are unreliable. GrabUp - Talk 10:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
@GrabUp I see "attack" in the headline, but the reports say the massacre was carried out through a terrorist attack. Somajyoti ✉ 03:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
@Somajyoti: We follow WP:COMMONNAME. GrabUp - Talk 04:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
And here are less biased sources calling it an attack
https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
Alot of these are newly created page which haven't been looked upon by experienced editors I suspect that over time all of these "massacres" would be changed to "attack" as most of these are terrorist attack. even a cursory look at those article would tell you that NPOV has been thrown in a dustbin.
I've said it before somewhere here but I'll say it again 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. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:00, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I doubt that will ever happen, since scholarly sources call them massacres. UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Please cite your “scholarly sources” here. GrabUp - Talk 11:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Just off the top of my head,
"The large-scale killings of Hindu civilians escalated a trend visible since the late 1990s. Before then, such attacks were rare. In August 1993, gunmen stopped a bus on a mountain road near the town of Kishtwar, separated Hindus from Muslims and massacred sixteen Hindu passengers. ... But such massacres became more frequent from the late 1990s, when the Pakistani zealot groups took on a major role in the insurgency. In January 1998, twenty-six Kashmiri Pandits were massacred in a village called Wandhama, north of Srinagar. The gunmen wore Indian Army fatigues and pretended to be soldiers before opening fire on the villagers; this impersonation recurred in subsequent incidents. In April 1998, militants raided two villages in a remote highland area of the Jammu region’s Udhampur district and beheaded twenty-six Hindu men, women and children." UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
There are more sources, I will have to look for them. But please help me understand: is your point that the current mass killing, or/and the previous such mass killings were not massacres? UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
fatal attacks that happen in this region are result of terrorism and tension between India-Pakistan. Why you're giving historical perspective? this article is limited to 2025 Pahalgam attack DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
You said they will be changed from "massacres" to "attacks" but that will not happen because scholarly sources (which are much more reliable than news coverage) call them massacres. UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Once this article is done then I will direct my attention there. There are no scholarly sources aka peer reviewed research paper that describe this attack as a massacre. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
And they are also not "newly created pages", most have existed now for over 10+ years. Did you make up everything in your statement? UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Alot of these are newly created page
above is what I said so no need to distort what I've said ofcourse not all of them are newly created pages and certainly the edits on those pages have taken place in recent years. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Per WP:NOTFORUM and other discussions this is generally an unconstructive argument to make at discussions. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:33, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • oppose per my comment in the section abnove.Sportsnut24 (talk) 11:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support 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) 11:57, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I don't get this hindu muslim angle that some of people are pushing here, is this a terrorist attack fueled by antagonistic relations between India-Pakistan or is it some sort of religious crusade? this is a terrorist attack. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
The antagonistic relations between the two countries is held on the basis of religion and the main cause of partition was RELIGION, so when we are talking about both countries relationship, religions will be always be the primary cause for any attack. Attacks happen, there could be majority killing of a religion that's fine. But in a state, where majority is muslim-dominated and The Pahalgam constitutes 80% muslim, how come 25/26 (96%) people died were hindus. It's a clear massacre. Moreover, when soldiers get died, it can be called an attack as they are representing the country, but when civilians has to face this wrath and that too dozens of them, that is straight out massacre. Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
It is Massacre but for naming an article we should take reference like September 11 attacks which is a ga level article that is peer reviewed by many editors. Despite the high dead toll that article is having name as 'attacks' 007sak (talk) 12:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
thanks for the reference, i also believe as a title it should be named attacks but in the article intro, the term massacre should be used Wowlastic10 (talk) 12:46, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm subscriber of offensive realism and I refuse to believe that banal excuse like religion are root cause of these things. The western stereotypical view has been that Hindus and Muslims can't get along but serious observers have always termed Indo-Pak relationships as rooted in territorial dispute.
But I don't want to digress therefore i won't comment on this line of reasoning anymore as this is not a forum to hash out India Pakistan history. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 14:01, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
There are eye-witness reports saying the attacks checked IDs and spared all of the Muslim men, killing the Hindu men. Dazzling4 (talk) 03:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  1. Provide a source
  2. This does not mean it is a "massacre", might just as well be a "terrorist attack". Also please see WP:COMMONNAME
Thehistorianisaac (talk) 03:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose but redirect I think if you were to call it "2025 Pahalgam massacre, it is just firstly finding a synonym for the word 'attack', and secondly, as stated by other commentators, not many sources would have this name. I suggest we redirect "2025 Pahalgam massacre" to this article, as it is just different wording. AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
I just realised there is already a redirect lol. But anyway, still Oppose. AravPerfectlyEdits (talk) 12:21, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose, this is a terrorist attack; hence it should be called an attack. Similar incidents have also been labelled as an attack and this is no exception. Helper who is a human (talk) 16:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
Oppose: Attack fits the article better than massacre. Other terrorists attack articles also have the same convention EarthDude (talk) 06:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
Comment: @Aniketkhan14 you should close this discussion 7 days period is nearing. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:05, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
Agreed.
I'm seeing an increasing number of SPAs and Sockpuppets here, trying to overturn consensus through spam. the amount of policy violations(from NOTFORUM to Sockpuppetry) I have seen in this requested move, is truly astonishing. A speedy close is best, as it is clear that "attack" follows WP:COMMONNAME, WP:NPOV and accurately describes the situation. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

*Oppose and speedy close . This is a terrorist attack, not a massacre from civilians. So this attack as per all sources. MD Edit 123 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ~SG5536B 03:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Oppose Of the sources listed in the current references section, 59 appear to call it an attack while 4 call it a massacre. That clearly shows which term is used more in reliable sources. Glades12 (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV.Ameen Akbar (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NCENPOV and WP:COMMONNAME. EvansHallBear (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose A point: the word "massacre" is usually applied in attacks with widespread impacts or specific circunstances, like wars or genocides; vide Pazigyi massacre, Houla massacre, Kobanî massacre, Agulis massacre… But the "attack" one is more prominent. ArionStar (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV ☞ Rim < Talk | Edits > 06:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose for rename, support redirect per User:ArPerfectlyEdits. saluere, Ɔþʱʏɾɪʊs⚔ 16:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV. ~ HAL333 21:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose based on WP:COMMONNAME (see WP:SET too) and WP:NPOV. Transgenderoriole (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong Support : Other attacks of similar nature in Kashmir have always been described as "massacres" in Wikipedia. See 1998 Prankote massacre, 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre. I don't think we have a good reason to not follow the same. Dympies (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    This is of a different nature, and fails WP:COMMONNAME. Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    How is it of different kind? Dympies (talk) 08:54, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    To be honest, those examples should also be renamed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    You are nitpicking examples. There are a lot more which use the word attack instead of massacre EarthDude (talk) 04:05, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strongly Support because this attack targetted people of a specific religious affiliation (Hindus) and of a specific sex (males) by singling them out. Unlike 9/11 and Mumbai attacks which did not single out individuals but just killed everyone in the target area, this attack was very specific and a targetted attack. Therefore, it rightly qualifies as a massacre because of the significant number of victims. Other similar attacks which targetted people based on their identities are also classified as massacres. Examples are: 1993 Kishtwar massacre, 1998 Prankote massacre, 1998 Chamba massacre, 1998 Wandhama massacre, 1998 Chapnari massacre, 2003 Nadimarg massacre, 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, 2001 Kishtwar massacres, 2006 Doda massacre. All these incidents are also related to terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir. This Pahalgam attack is similar to these examples where Hindus were singled out and killed in large numbers. Therefore, given these past examples, the Pahalgam attack rightly qualifies to be renamed as Pahalgam Massacre. therash09 (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    911 targeted americans
    2008 Kashgar attack targeted chinese border defense policemen
    What makes you think "targeting specific groups" qualifies for "massacre" instead of "attack"?
    For your examples, those likely should also be renamed Thehistorianisaac (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
    "9/11 targetted Americans", yes but as I said the victims of that attack were not singled out. The terrorists crashed the hijacked aeroplanes into the Twin Towers without bothering about who the victims would be. There could be Muslims, Christians, Jews, Hindus, Americans, Europeans, Indians, Arabs, etc. in the Twin Towers.
    2008 Kashgar Attack targetted armed policemen and not unsuspecting, defenseless common civilians. Targetting armed personnel is not considered a massacre. It would rather be termed an ambush.
    Therefore, the two examples given by you are different from the Pahalgam attack. And going by the many examples cited by me where Wikipedia's own articles termed as "massacre" the terrorist attacks where individuals were singled out by their identity and killed, this one too should rightly be titled a "massacre". Now, you may talk about renaming even those age-old articles in hindsight. Seems like you've suddenly woken up. Good morning! therash09 (talk) 07:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    1. WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS "Now, you may talk about renaming even those age-old articles in hindsight. Seems like you've suddenly woken up. Good morning!"
    2. For your 911 example, be aware that a muslim was also killed in the 2025 attacks. For the 2008 attack, the policemen were just having a morning jog and were unarmed. That ain't an ambush, that is an outright terroist attack
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Firstly, it is not appropriate for you to label my reply as a personal attack. I did not target your ideology, your beliefs, your affiliations, your ethnicity, anything. It was just a couple of lines made in jest. I strongly disagree with your warning and urge you to remove it. I feel you are misusing Wikipedia's guidelines to threaten me. Please judge others' remarks dispassionately and do justice to your position as a moderator. Do not jump at opportunities to throw warnings at other editors. My request to you, therefore, is to read my reply again, take note that it was not harassment and take back your warning.
    Secondly, the Muslim local was killed in Pahalgam because he nabbed the gun of one of the attackers to prevent him from executing the Hindu male tourists. The attackers had not planned to kill him. He was not their target.
    Thirdly, the Kashgar policemen were jogging in the area of their duty. The area attacked was a police station. The officers were not on leave at their homes. Therefore, it is an ambush. Now, an ambush can be a terrorist ambush. So, the Kashgar incident was a terrorist ambush but not a terrorist massacre. You seem to be mixing up situations and using words in isolation. That's where you're missing my side of the argument. therash09 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    1. Well, you are targeting me as a person which counts as a personal attack. Making fun of me counts as a personal attack; I'm not easily offended, but I just need to remind you to follow wikipedia policy.
    2. You exactly prove my point. The 911 attackers were just planning to target the americans, not maybe the one or two pakistanis inside the tower. Does that make it a massacre and not an attack?
    3. Massacre can also be policemen/military if they are unarmed and not a legitimate target. See the Katyn massacre.
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:10, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    1. I did not make fun of you. It was just some humour in our conversation. To make fun of someone, as per Wikipedia Personal attack guidelines means to target someone's beliefs, affiliations, ethnicity, religion, appearance, etc. It did neither. Nowhere does Wikipedia bar me from adding harmless humour in my reply. It clearly mentioned that you suggesting renaming those old articles was a hindsight and only then went on to add some humour to end it. It is not that I mocked you or used derogatory language against you. I feel that my remarks are being assessed by you subjectively. Can you please share the Wikipedia clause under which my "violating remark" quoted by you classifies as a violation?
    2. Again, let me reiterate. The attackers did not single out their victims. Americans is a very broad term when you are in America because almost everyone in America is an American. So, they were not singling out their targets. They were just killing everyone. By that argument of yours, every Wikipedia article on mass civilian casualties should be termed massacre.
    3. The article cited by you is about Prisoners of War. PoWs are not in the line of duty. They are hapless, powerless and not even in their country anymore. The Kashgar attack, on the other hand was directed not only at the jogging policemen but at the adjacent police station as well where they were posted. It was directed at the personnel posted at an active police station which was armed and capable of defending itself. therash09 (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    1. See WP:WL for "Can you please share the Wikipedia clause under which my "violating remark" quoted by you classifies as a violation?". You claiming I had just waken up(and implying I was incompetent to comment) is off topic at best, and can be seen as a personal attack at worst.
    2. "The attackers did not single out their victims. Americans is a very broad term when you are in America because almost everyone in America is an American. So, they were not singling out their targets. They were just killing everyone." same thing applies to the Nanjing massacre. they were targeting Chinese, but did not go and make sure each person was a chinese. should we call it "Nanjing Attacks" instead?
    3. The jogging officers were not armed or were on any actual mission, claiming they were able to defend themselves due to the nearby police station does not change anything. Victims of the 2025 attack likely were near some police station(correct me if I'm wrong). My point is, I think WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, are, in the end the most important factors.
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    1. Your interpretation of my remark is highly subjective. I will reiterate that with my remark I neither targetted you nor your competence. It was just a plain humorous remark not intending at demeaning anyone. However, the wikilawyering link shared by you puts this whole argument at rest because even this page talks about interpretations. So, I get the point that Wikipedia laws are subject to interpretations and therefore, keeping in mind that different people have different sensitivities and interpretations, it is best to keep discussions totally formal. I agree and request you to remove that toned-down warning from my talk page, if possible, taking note of the fact that I meant nothing wrong with my remark.
    2. In the Twin Towers, there were people of all faiths and migrants of different nationalities. This was a well-known fact which even the terrorists knew. They knew that many Muslims or Arabs would be killed as a result of their action. But they went ahead with their act not bothering about who all the casualties would include. Coming to Nanjing, I am not aware of this incident and just went through it online; it seems like the Japanese targetted Chinese civilians and PoWs, knowing or thinking that there would only be Chinese among the people they were massacring. Again, as I said, by this logic every mass civilian casualty incident should rightly be a massacre, but this is apparently what the wikipedia does not seem to follow. On Wikipedia it seems that only targetted attacks where individuals of only a specific identity are deliberately targetted is termed a massacre.
    3. The military personnel in Uri, Jammu and Kashmir were attacked when they were not on duty inside their base camp. But still, they were onsite in a militarized area, even if themselves unarmed at the time. Still, it is not considered a massacre. This is because the target was a military installation and the personnel related to it around it. This is also what happened in Kashgar. The policemen were related to that police station and around it. So, these attacks are called ambush because they targetted active military personnel (perosnally armed or unarmed at the time) in their service area. No, there is no police or military camp nearby Baisaran Valley in Pahalgam where the attack happened. It is some distance away. And despite how far the military camp would be, the people targetted were civilians who had nothing to do with the nearby military camps. Even if the victims had been military personnel posted elsewhere in the country, it would have been a massacre because those personnel would have been on leave and away from their area of duty or posting. I think the difference between massacre and ambush is relatively clear. But I agree that the naming of incidents with civilian casualties on Wikipeida could be due to Common Name in prevalence in the media. That could be the case for sure. However, the trend on Wikipedia still seems to follow what I have highlighted, which is that incidents targetting civilians based on their identity are termed massacre. Based on this trend, I support renaming this article. Otherwise, based on common name, it may continue to be named "attack". therash09 (talk) 09:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Why are so many nitpicking examples here? There are many such incidents which use the word attack that you just happen to ignore, such as the 2016 Uri attack, 2019 Pulwama attack, 2024 Reasi attack, among others EarthDude (talk) 04:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Uri and Pulwama targetted military personnel which is called an ambush and not massacre. Massacre is a term used when unarmed civilians are targetted. As for Reasi, even though it is similar in nature to the Pahalgam attack the much lesser number of victims means that it may not be termed a massacre. A massacre clearly means that a large number of civilians were killed by the attackers which is what happened in Pahalgam and in the other incidents cited by me. therash09 (talk) 07:41, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    See WP:COMMONNAME. Your examples are only called massacres because of WP:COMMONNAME, which do not apply here. otherwise they would also be called "attacks". Thehistorianisaac (talk) 07:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Skitash (talk) 23:04, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support per NPOV Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 04:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)– Sock blocked. Aydoh8[what have I done now?] 00:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
    "massacre" is much more POV than attack Thehistorianisaac (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 05:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    Renaming this article from attack to massacre would still be NPOV just as renaming it into synonymous words such as mass killing or slaughter would be NPOV EarthDude (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    WP:POINT
    Instead, start a comment thread despite opposing every Support move Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 06:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning Support): September 11 attacks and 2008 Mumbai attacks, both of which are being referenced in this discussion, aren't the common names of either 9/11 or 26/11. However, those titles were chosen for being more descriptive of the event. "Attack" is a very vague and broad term. It could mean anything from bombings, to shootings, to ambushes, and could target civilians, or military personnel, or militants. "Massacre" is a particular type of attack, which specifically implies an attack on civilians. It is a more descriptive term which fits the description of this attack. Why shouldn't we use a more descriptive title like we did with the 2008 Mumbai attacks (instead of "26/11 attacks")? 9ninety (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
    No matter how you slice and dice this both 9/11 and 26/11 were terrorist attack and what happend in Pahalgam was also a terrorist attack most of the victims in 9/11 were christian I suppose and most of the victims of 26/11 were Hindus so I don't understand why this is any different, also as someone previuosly said "masssacre" is POV.
    are you making the distinction because they(terrorist) asked religion this time? because IMHO that's not a good argument. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    @DataCrusade1999 Did you actually read my comment? When did I mention anything about religion, or this being different from those other terrorist attacks?
    My primary point was that the term "massacre" is more descriptive as it denotes a specific type of attack. Quoting the Wikipedia article, "A massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person."
    This is as much of a terrorist attack as 9/11 and 26/11. However, I would argue that "massacre" isn't the most the most precise description of those, as 9/11 involved the hijacking and crashing of multiple planes into buildings, also targeting administrative buildings, which constitutes several other types of attack as well. What happened in Pahalgam was nothing more or less than a massacre, a targeting killing of civilians. It is the most precise description of the attack.
    Why is "massacre" considered POV? I can understand "terrorist" being considered POV as the term can be used contentiously, but the word "massacre" simply describes a type of attack. You might say it is also considered contentious, but is anyone actually arguing that the attack in question wasn't a massacre? I've only seen people cite POV and common name, not arguing that this wasn't a massacre. I do not believe it is contentious. It is merely a descriptive term; it's not any worse than terror attack. If common name is being cited as an argument, then "Pahalgam terror attack" is by far the most common name as far as I have seen. It meets WP:POV; quoting, "if a name is widely used in reliable sources (particularly those written in English) and is therefore likely to be well recognized by readers, it may be used even though some could regard it as biased". But I don't see anyone vouching for such a title. 9ninety (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Why is "massacre" considered POV? I can understand "terrorist" being considered POV as the term can be used contentiously
    the only reason some people are pushing "massacre" is because they want this article to have a sensationalist tone instead of beign encyclopediac.
    You might say it is also considered contentious, but is anyone actually arguing that the attack in question wasn't a massacre?
    have seen this talk page consensus is towards not using the term massacre this was an terroist attack not massacre. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    Again, completely ignoring my entire point. Why do you think specifying the type of attack makes it have a sensationalist tone? This was a massacre. People are opposing this move largely on grounds of common name and POV; I haven't seen anyone arguing that the attack doesn't fit the definition of a massacre. "Terrorist attack" and "massacre" are not mutually exclusive; this was both a terrorist attack and a massacre. "Massacre" denotes the type of the terrorist attack. I and numerous other editors have already elaborated the exact definition of the term "massacre". It does not represent anyone's opinion, it is simply the factual description of what verifiably happened. As far as I can see, MOS:WTW doesn't include the term "massacre" anywhere. I still fail to see why this word should be considered contentious. P.S. It's not like terrorist attack is any less "sensationalist" than massacre; might as well call it the Pahalgam incident to stay neutral as possible. 9ninety (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Strong support as Multiple reliable sources and academic references refer to it as a "massacre." Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NPOV, the article should be titled "2025 Pahalgam Massacre." Agree with User:Aniketkhan14 that the current title "2025 Pahalgam Attack" understates the event's severity. Also agree with Xhivetozaragrivropa massacre is an event of killing people who are not engaged in hostilities or are defenseless. It is generally used to describe a targeted killing of civilians en masse by an armed group or person. RogerYg (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    The vast majority of sources shown use "attack". Massacre is also a very POV name, and does not comply with NPOV guidelines. Lastly Attack is more accurate, not massacre
    https://m.thepaper.cn/newsDetail_forward_30712546
    https://www.dw.com/en/kashmir-attack-india-downgrades-ties-with-pakistan/a-72315605
    https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/4/23/india-downgrades-pakistan-ties-after-attack-on-kashmir-tourists
    https://www.npr.org/2025/04/23/g-s1-62285/india-kashmir-attack-indus-water-treaty-pakistan
    https://www.mfa.gov.sg/Newsroom/Press-Statements-Transcripts-and-Photos/2025/04/20250423-Terrorist-Attacks-in-PJK
    https://edition.cnn.com/2025/04/22/asia/gunmen-open-fire-jammu-kashmir-intl/index.html
    Thehistorianisaac (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Support — The incident qualifies as a massacre due to the deliberate, systematic targeting of civilians alone, with no attacks on infrastructure or state symbols. According to survivors, the perpetrators specifically questioned victims about their religion before executing them.[1] An individual was also killed for opposing the attackers. Similar events in the same region, such as the 1993 Kishtwar massacre, 2000 Chittisinghpura massacre, and 2006 Doda massacre, have been categorized as massacres on Wikipedia. In contrast, broader acts of terrorism, such as the September 11 attacks and 2008 Mumbai attacks, have been classified as 'attacks'. CtrlFreak578 (talk) 10:25, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
    @CtrlFreak578 Kudos for putting it so articulately; that's precisely why the comparisons being made to 9/11 and 26/11 are flawed. Those weren't massacres in the sense that not only civilians were targeted. 9ninety (talk) 10:39, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Oppose I recall voting against renaming an article that originally included massacre in its title, mainly because the proposed alternative was not so good, but also because the sources were pretty split on how they described the event. In this case, I have mostly seen it referred to as an attack or a terror attack. Perhaps the wisest choice is to wait and see if this trend changes. This happened less than a week ago. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References

  1. ^ {{cite web}}: Empty citation (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack/Archive_5&oldid=1288994818"