Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Addition of details

Details shall be added about how the terrorists specifically targeted non-muslims by checking for circumcision 49.36.235.126 (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

 Done. The addition has been made. Kaeez06 (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

I have seen the video in question it features a single woman claiming that while they were eating golgappas, a gunman shot her husband beside her. She speculates that they might have asked whether he was a Muslim, but she herself was unsure. Indian media picked this and no other credible sources have confirmed that victims were targeted based on identity. Given the nature of the attack and the number of casualties, it seems unlikely that a few terrorists with guns could have verified the identities of all individuals present. Additionally, the source provided does not meet reliability standards, so I have removed the entry accordingly. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

What more evidence do you require. A victim at the time of this horrible crime is clearly telling you that the terrorists mentioned the religion before killing him. SEEKER008 (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

There have been various testimonies given by the relatives of the victims that the terrorists specifically asked the name of the individuals before shooting them. which clearly justifies it was a religion targeted attack Vishisht14200 (talk) 10:43, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

Here is the article relating to the claims, all of the ground sources concur with this as well. Add the edit back and do not try to divert the issue.

https://www.firstpost.com/india/pahalgam-attack-tourists-killed-jammu-kashmir-anantnag-news-updates-13882238.html 49.206.9.76 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

He is trying to edit and divert the issue. THIS IS A RELIGIOUS ISSUE. But some people don't want to agree. Here's another source

https://www.indiatvnews.com/news/india/pahalgam-attack-terrorists-checked-ids-pulled-down-pants-to-verify-religion-eyewitnesses-recount-horror-2025-04-23-986863 Zephyr Nova (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Uhm.. Actually there are multiple instances,

Asavari Jagdale (Link 1)

Sohini Adhikari(Link 2)

Shumbham Dvivedi and his spouse.(Link 3)

I am sure if you were to actually dig around instead of blindly supporting a particular community, which is frankly in violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/terrorists-targeted-male-tourists-in-pahalgam-after-asking-their-religion-says-victims-kin-he-couldnt-recite-islamic-verse-they-shot-him-in-head/articleshow/120539564.cms

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/kolkata/paradise-lost-pahalgam-holidayers-bodies-reach-bengal-homes-from-valley-of-death/articleshow/120561364.cms#:~:text=*%20City%20News.%20*%20kolkata%20News.%20*,Kolkata%20News%20%2D%20The%20Times%20of%20India.

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terrorists-religion-hindu-targeted-kanpur-man-pune-businessman-recite-kalma-send-government-message-2713318-2025-04-23 RussianAtlas (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Article as it is right now reflects this no need to make any changes. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:16, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Add the main article Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack to the Reactions section of article. Misopatam (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Add the article Reactions to the 2025 Pahalgam attack with in main article template in the Reactions section of article. Misopatam (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Add the missing category [[[Category:April 2025 events in India]]] to the article. Misopatam (talk) 08:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

These allegations are from indian newspapers so probably sensationalist lol 47.54.242.77 (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Around three immediate family members have informed media that their accompanying males were asked about their name and religion and then shot at point-blank range.

Anti-Hindu sentiment as a motive?

Tagging @Lightspecs as you added this to the infobox. If we have RS describing this attack as being caused by Anti-Hindu sentiment, can we share that here, and additionally include that in the article. Otherwise, this should not be a listed motive. While a majority of victims were Hindus, I do not see anti-Hindu sentiment as being a motive behind the attack discussed in the lead or responsibility sections, although attacks on Hindus in Kashmir are noted in the background section. Wikipedious1 (talk) 22:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Lightspecs Wikipedious1 (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Interesting point. In the 'Attack' section, there are details from reliable sources about the terrorists evaluating victims' religious affiliation before murdering them. See what happened to the Christian victim. The second listed motive in the infobox also references 'Demographics.' Hard to dissect religion from the intent here. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, is Palestinian political violence directed at largely Jewish Israelis motivated necessarily by antisemtism?

Since there is a history of violence perpetrated against Kashmiri Hindus by TRF/etc, and because of the religious aspects as you mentioned, I can see how this situation could be different. But I think it would be helpful to see RS describing this attack in the context of anti-Hinduism, and as part of it.

For example this is what al Jazeera, RS, discusses when discussing the context of the attack. (BTW, will hopefully add this info to the bg section soon)

https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/4/28/burst-balloon-how-pahalgam-attack-shattered-modis-kashmir-narrative

"The abrogation of the constitutional provision that gave Kashmir its special status was accompanied by a major crackdown. Thousands of civilians were arrested, including leaders of mainstream political parties – even those that view Kashmir as a part of India. Phone and internet connections were shut off for months. Kashmir was cut off from the rest of the world. ... Since then, the arrests of civilians, including journalists, have continued. Borders of electoral constituencies were changed in a manner that saw Jammu, the Hindu-majority part of Jammu and Kashmir, gain greater political influence than the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley. Non-Kashmiris have been issued residency cards – which was not allowed before 2019 – to settle there, sparking fears that the Modi government might be attempting to change the region’s demography. ... Amid all of that, the Modi government pushed tourism in Kashmir, pointing to a surge in visitors as evidence of the supposed normalcy that had returned to the return after four decades of armed resistance to Indian rule. In 2024, 3.5 million tourists visited Kashmir, comfortably the largest number in a decade, according to government figures. ... Until the Pahalgam attack, armed fighters had largely spared tourists in Kashmir, keeping in mind their importance to the region’s economy, noted Donthi. “But if pushed to the wall, all it takes is two men with guns to prove that Kashmir is not normal,” he said."

Not a single mention of anti-Hinduism sparking this.

Wikipedious1 (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

"Borders of electoral constituencies were changed in a manner that saw Jammu, the Hindu-majority part of Jammu and Kashmir, gain greater political influence than the Muslim-majority Kashmir valley." So, how come J&K has a Muslim Kashmiri chief minister? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

lead is too big

lead is too big it needs to be trimmed. I'm happy to help. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think it is fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, the existing length is fine. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

I think some of it could go to the attack section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The lead is presently a fine length ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

if that's the consensus then fine. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

There is no need for trimming the lead. In fact, the lead is quite short compared to leads for similar Wiki pages 2008 Mumbai attacks, October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel, etc. It should be expanded accordingly as more details emerge to include relevant information. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Death toll

I see the death toll oscillating between 26 and 28. I see earlier sources saying 28, but later sources and more authentic ones revising it to 26. So, changing it to 26. If you disagree, please comment here. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree with 26, which is mentioned by most WP:RS sources, and the list of 26 has also been published by Indian Express. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Renaming

Can this article be renamed, "2025 Pahalgam terror attack"?-Mossadegh2 (talk) 01:23, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

No. We are using WP:COMMONNAME. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Khawaja Asif narrative

When I woke up this morning I got to hear excerpts from the Sky News interview of Khawaja Asif (the defence minister of Pakistan):

“You do admit, sir, that Pakistan has had a long history of backing and supporting and training and funding these terrorist organisations,” asked Ms. Hakim.

“Well, we have been doing this dirty work for the United States for about three decades, you know, and the West, including Britain,” replied Mr. Asif.

So, while admitting that Pakistan has been backing and supporting terrorist organisations, he tried to push the blame on to the US and the West. Unfortunately for him, Christine Fair punctured that bubble quite a while ago:

According to this narrative, when the Soviets formally withdrew from Afghanistan, Pakistan redeployed its battle-hardened operatives to Kashmir. Even prominent intelligence officials repeat this truncated version of Pakistan’s jihad history. ... Despite this narrative’s staying power, it is simply inaccurate. Most important, it understates the duration of Pakistan’s involvement with nonstate actors generally and Islamist militants in particular. Pakistan has relied on nonstate actors to prosecute its policies in Kashmir since its birth in 1947... Furthermore, Pakistan’s efforts to employ political Islamists, and later Islamist militants in Afghanistan, began as early as the late 1950s. ... State-supported Islamist militants fought Bangladeshi insurgents in East Pakistan during the crackdown that spawned the 1971 war (Haqqani 2005).

Former New York Times journalist Arif Jamal captured the precise manner in which jihad was introduced into Kashmir.

But according to several sources, General Zia-ul Haq called a meeting with Jamat-i-Islami's Maulana Abdul Bari in Rawalpindi in early 1980. According to Bari, the general stated his intentions plainly: he had decided to contribute to the American-sponsored war in Afghanistan in order to prepare the ground for a larger conflict in Kashmir, and he wanted to involve the Jamat-i-Islami of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. To the general, the war in Afghanistan would be a smokescreen behind which Pakistan could carefully prepare a more significant battle in Kashmir. The general said he had carefully calculated his support for the American operation, predicting that the Americans would be distracted by the fighting in Afghanistan and, as a result, turn a blind eye to Pakistani moves in the region. ... The cost of Pakistani military aid and support for the war in Afghanistan—to be reimbursed by the CIA and the Saudis—could be greatly inflated, and General Zia promised to give a large portion of the profit to Bari's Jamat-i-Islami.

So, Pakistan Army can tell us a fake sob story of how it has been reluctantly pushed into terrorism by the United States, but a lot more is known to us of its history than it thinks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A more direct statement is in another article:

While Pakistan routinely asserts that the United States inveigled Pakistan into Washington’s jihad in Afghanistan, this is highly inaccurate.[44] Pakistan began its jihad policy in 1974 and financed it with its own meager resources because it was a core Pakistani policy to do so. Also noted above, the so-called “mujahideen” groups were developed solely under Pakistan’s direction and with Pakistani funds; in fact, U.S. assistance to the mujahideen effort did not begin to flow until 1982.... Finally, the concept of waging the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the lexicon of “jihad” was not the idea of the United States. Rather, Pakistan’s then-military dictator Zia ul-Haq insisted upon doing so, and the United States acquiesced.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

As noted at the top of the page, this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Celjski Grad (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

This is what I'm trying to understand – how is any of what @Kautilya3 said even relevant here? I'm trying to find any angle in which doesn't go against WP:NPOV and WP:IMPARTIAL. It's almost dishonest to also be quoting Christine Fair, despite the fact she has been criticised for being overtly biased critic of Pakistan. Other points as well, but not the article to be discussing this on. نعم البدل (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

References

Pakistan's terrorism is not a bilateral dispute

I am reopening this section since a he-said-she-said kind of exchange has been added to the Background section.

The Indian government and media have long alleged that Pakistan supports insurgent groups such as TRF. Pakistan denies any support for militants including those involved in Jammu and Kashmir, officially maintaining only "diplomatic and moral support" for the Kashmiri people.

References

It is not just "Indian government" that blames Pakistan of sponsoring terrorism. Dozens of reliable sources do so, as do many national governments. See Pakistan and state-sponsored terrorism. Christine Fair and Arif Jamaal are two authors that I refer to the most since they have done the most thorough study, with hundreds of pages of evidence. Pakistan had even been put on FATF grey list for four years, and when it was lifted, it was said, "there is still work to be done and that Pakistan will continue to report to the watchdog about follow-up action". Mind you, this is only for "terror funding". Arms, training, military supervision etc. are not covered by FATF.

Pakistan's dry denials are WP:UNDUE for this article because they are easily contradicted by reliable sources. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 would this be a better wording?

Pakistan has been long alleged to have supported terrorist and militant groups such as TRF. Although Pakistan officially denies any support for militants including those involved in Jammu and Kashmir,^[8][9][10] its Defence Minister recently admitted to the country's involvement in supporting terrorist activities.

IG this captures the "official" side while making clear the actual stuff the Pakistani govt has itself admitted. Although I admit the citations may be overkill, so while a source that sums these up is better - This should work for now till a better source is found. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What the Pakistan Defence Minister said is open to multiple interpretations. Let us not go there. I am challenging the very idea why a government source is so sacrosanct that we need to reproduce it. The Background section is supposed to cover what is needed to understand the main content of the article and provide any needed context. Pakistani denials are not background to anything. What Pakistan did as per scholarly analysis is the real background. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

While that interpretation is not for us to make, I'm going off of The Hindu's reading of his remarks

Pakistan Defence Minister Khawaja Asif has admitted the country’s history of supporting, training and funding terrorist organisations as “dirty work” for the West, a mistake for which he said Pakistan had suffered.

Which seems fairly reasonable given the question and his response.
Alternately, could you modify my proposed wording to be in line with the works you mentioned above? I dont think I'm familiar with those. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I understand, but nobody believes that the "dirty work" he referred to (as having been done for the US and Britain) was directed at India. It was just some random blackmail used to get out of a tight corner. I would just stick to scholarly sources and not get into their twisted arguments. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Either way it should be mentioned as India alleges Pak of harboring terrorism. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 10:13, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I also believe it should be mentioned as India alleges Pak of harboring terrorism.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written using WP:SECONDARY sources as far as possible. WP:PRIMARY sources come in only as part of the narrative. There is no reason at all why a "Background" section should depend on them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:59, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Remember that he also claimed that LeT is history. It doesn't exist any more. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

They are just using a different name now.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Please don't add citations

When content is written, it already has enough citations. Please don't add more and more citations. You are not making it better by doing so, rather worse. And, don't add citations to words or phrases in mid-sentence, unless it is a contentious term or issue.

We all read our own favourite sources. But it is not the purpose of Wikipedia to sell your favourite sources. If you genuinely believe that you have a better source than the only already cited, then replace it. We don't want citations accumulating day by day. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

In my humble view, since many statements are being debated and often deleted by editors for apparent lack of reliable references, it's important to add relevant reliable references that support the statements, becasue references is the only evidence we have when we discuss the issues on TALK page.

Given the past week editing on this article, I am sure lot of the content added will be challenged or deleted if we do not have multiple references. So, please allow additional references until we have a stable agreed upon version. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@RogerYg if a large number of citations is breaking the flow of the article, a possible solution could be to add some of them together inside a note, which takes up less space. 9ninety (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

That is called WP:CITEKILL and it is against policy. Whatever disputes exist, they should be resolved here on the talk page, not in the mainspace. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

To my understanding, WP:CITEBUNDLE indicates that my suggestion isn't against policy. CITEKILL, which is an essay, also suggests bundling citations "If there is a good reason to keep multiple citations, for example, to avoid perennial edit warring", which I believe was RogerYg's concern. 9ninety (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Intro mention

Can we add that the terrorists/militants are still at large/haven't been captured as yet? EldenMacdonald (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Celjski Grad (talk) 12:21, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Ok. So that would mean to wait for something definite, as definite as a capture dead or alive, surrender or escape etc. EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don't add archived sources

IAbot is very convenient, I know. But it is not needed unless you find dead url's. archive.org automatically archives all the sources we cite. Our help is not needed. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree on this. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Wait what? Archive.org automatically archives Wikipedia sources??? EarthDude (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes. My experience shows that it does. Even if it doesn't, the time for archiving is not here. It can be done a couple of years down the road. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting EarthDude (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

original research concern

In the weeks preceding the Pahalgam attack, India acquired the extradition of former Pakistan Army officer Tahawwur Rana, who was linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba and convicted (in the US) for supporting 2008 Mumbai attacks. Pakistan Army chief Asim Munir gave a speech describing Kashmir as "our jugular vein" and branding Hindus as being different from Muslims in every way via an appeal to two-nation theory.

this seems work of original research, is there any article that conclusively links Munir's speech and Tahawwur Rana's extradition to this attack? either rephrase this line or remove it altogether. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Asim Munir's speech has been reported in multiple WP:RS sources in the context of the attacks, and has been provided as such in this Wiki article. I do not see any claim of direct link of these individuals to attack being addded to this Wiki article, so I do not see WP:OR concern, though I am fine with removing details on Rana. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

If Munir's speech is relevant to this attack, it should be mentioned; otherwise, it should either be rephrased or removed. In describing the attack's background, it's important to note that the region has a history of terrorism and the revocation of Article 370, along with "demographic changes", the Background section touches all those point I see no reason as to why munir's speech is relevant here.

but I'll go ahead and remove Rana. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Munir's speech has been mentioned in multiple WP:RS sources in terms of the background of this attack, and the same has been mentioned in this Wiki article. Everything in background does not have a direct link, so there is no WP:OR concern in my view. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

DataCrusade1999, Background is not required "conclusively link" to the present events. Background means just that. What happened in the past that might have had an impact on the present events. I object to the removal Tahawwur Rana's extradition. Multiple sources have mentioned the links. After all, he was associated with the Pakistan Army as well as LeT. They have much to lose from the possible beans he might spill in India.

• Pahalgam terror attack during US Vice President JD Vance's visit brings external ramifications, Business World, 22 April 2025.
• How world leaders reacted to terror attack in Kashmir’s Pahalgam Baisaran valley, The Indian Express, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193469049
• The Pahalgam Terror Attack May Well Be A Failure Of The Pakistan-Boycott Policy, The Free Press Journal, 24 April 2025.
• Vappala Balachandran, Before Pahalgam: What past attacks tell us about the convoluted logic of terror: None, The Indian Express, 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194470933
• Mukesh Ranjan, Pahalgam terror attack: NIA looking at whether timing is linked to Tahawwur Rana’s extradition, The New Indian Express, 24 April 2025.
• NIA probes 26/11 attack plotter Tahawwur Rana's link to Pahalgam terror attack, The Economic Times, 24 April 2025.
• Charanjit Ahuja, The Message from Pahalgam & a Glimmer of Hope, Tehelka, 1 May 2025.

The CNN Newsroom had an expert link it to the entente between India and the US. LeT is both anti-India and anti-US.

AWASTHI: I would like to counter it by saying that probably Pakistan or the terrorist organizations are seeing that India and U.S. have strengthened their bonds with the Tahawwur Rana coming back to India for investigation. I think that kind of pinched Pakistan and that is why they are taking these kinds of action and making such stupid claims that, you know, India is doing it to its own people.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate you posting a message here before deleting the content. But I am afraid it is wishy-washy. How can you possibly call it "original research" when sources have been provided? It looks like you are ignoring the sources and using your own judgement, which is in turn "original research". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The Pakistani army chief delivers speeches every once in a while, and it's important to consider the context in which these speeches occur, especially in relation to recent attacks. Historically, there have been multiple instances where the army chief, including the former General Bajwa, has made speeches without any subsequent attacks happening.

Additionally, I have a concern regarding the article's neutrality. Over time, it seems to be shifting from discussing a terrorist attack to resembling a narrative of a religious crusade led by the predominantly Muslim nation of Pakistan against the Hindu-majority India. Munir's recent speech appears to align with this emerging Hindutva perspective, which is becoming increasingly prevalent in the article. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying we should ignore the WP:RS and follow your judgement? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying we should ignore the WP:RS and follow your judgement?

read again what I wrote. this whole article is tilting towards a religious crusade instead of a terrorist attack the Kalima line is mentioned in the lead and then mentioned again in the attack section then there's the munir's speech this whole article is acquiring Hindutva tilt. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

there's no need to mention rana's extradition or munir's speech but it's been thrown into the mix. how many reliable sources link the extradition and munir's speech( on munir's speech I'll concede but only because it's a constant theme in Indian reliable sources) to the attack especially the extradition. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

You don't need a whole lot of sources, one or two good ones are enough. I have mentioned plenty of sources above. You are trying to fight WP:RS with WP:OR. I think you should desist. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 You're violating NPOV by waging a religious crusade and giving the article a Hindutva tilt, so I suggest you remove yourself from this article altogether.

You don't need a whole lot of sources, one or two good ones are enough.

In an article like this you do need more sources, specially more reliable sources.

On a completely unrelated note, please don’t respond to my comments. I might say something that you probably won't like. Let someone else handle this. I know you’re not fond of me, and I definitely don’t want to talk to you, especially after the whole non-argument you initiated in the Islamist section. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@DataCrusade1999 Since you have raised the issue, in my humble view, I don't think @Kautilya3 has violated WP:NPOV as K3 has provided good relevant references and WP policies for the edits made, and Kautilaya3 is discussing the relevant queries on TALK page.

I understand your query: "whole article is tilting towards a religious crusade instead of a terrorist attack the Kalima line is mentioned in the lead and then mentioned again in the attack".

The main reason for that is that the Initial reports in WP:RS were very general, and article reflected that, but subsequent reports from WP:RS sources show the nature of this attack was not general but religious.

Wiki editors need to report the details coming out in WP:RS sources, and WP:RS sources are detailing based on multiple survivor accounts that it was not a regular terror attack where militants fire at tourists. Instead, it was a religion based attack, where militants asked for the religion of the tourists, and targetted Hindus and non-Muslims, who were unable to recite the Kalima.

Therefore, the WP:RS based details should be reflected in Wikipedia article per WP:RS and WP:NPOV. And the lead should summarize the article body per WP:LEAD. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

they also killed a christian so how does that fit into the targeted hindu line of thinking. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I've said it before that I'll concede on munir's speech cause it's mentioned in Indian RS but linking rana's extradition to this attack is very far-fetched. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:33, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Regarding targetted killing of Hindus, we have multiple good cited WP:RS sources, where many survivors have stated that militants asked: Are you Hindu or Muslim, and asked them to recite the Kalima. They separated Hindu men and shot them, so this is clearly targetted killing of Hindus. One Christian got killed because he could not recite the Kalima.

I agree that the finer detail may be:

militants targetted Hindu and non-muslim tourists

and we should mention this detail in the article body.

Since the main target of militants were Hindus, so I will not insist that this detail be mentioned in th lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:55, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think a reasonable grammar based on above discussion would be:

The militants mainly targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed in the attack RogerYg (talk) 10:38, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

References

First paragraph discussion

I would strongly argue that we need to mention Hindu victims in the first paragraph, as it has now been reported in multiple high quality WP:RS sources that the attackers asked for the religion of the victims.

• Associated Press, often considered one of the best WP:RS sources has also reported:Indian survivors of Kashmir attack say gunmen asked if they were Hindus and opened fire

https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-attack-india-pakistan-victims-a5492962cd86174262cb73b85c04c51a

• India's one of the best WP:RS sources The Hindu:

Pahalgam terror attack: Terrorists asked name and religion of male tourists, shot them, says survivor https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/terrorists-kept-firing-for-25-30-minutes-recalls-pahalgam-eyewitness/article69483296.ece

• The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF)

“We are deeply concerned by the explicit targeting of Hindus and other non-Muslims,” said Commissioner Vicky Hartzler.

• Newsweek:

Kashmir Massacre: Trump, Putin, Iran, Israel Condemn Jihadist Attack on Hindu Tourists https://www.newsweek.com/kashmir-massacre-trump-putin-iran-israel-condemn-jihadist-attack-hindu-tourists-2062760

• Hindustan Times:

They asked Hindu men to separate from Muslim men: Pahalgam terror attack survivor https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/they-asked-hindu-men-to-separate-from-muslim-men-pahalgam-terror-attack-survivor-101745485984890.html Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

The New York Times also clearly mentioned :"A list of the victims circulating online, which was verified by local officials in Kashmir, showed that 25 of the 26 killed were Hindus."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/23/world/asia/kashmir-attack-india-pakistan.html

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:30, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree; the lead should mention that Hindus were specifically targeted, instead of implying that victims happened to be Hindu. Anantanni22 (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, the Template:Violence_against_Hindus_in_independent_India should be added.

Persecution of Hindus should be added in the 'See also' section. Edit: Here is an RS source that specifically states "The assailants segregated men, asked their names and targeted Hindus before shooting them at close range in the Pahalgam area, killing 26 people, officials and survivors said." (emphasis mine) https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-shuts-over-half-kashmir-tourist-spots-security-review-2025-04-29/ Anantanni22 (talk) 07:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• Comment. Please see the section 2025 Pahalgam attack#Claims of responsibility for the ideology at play. I also recommend the article of Luv Puri cited there. He is an expert on Kashmir conflict. He states, in particular, that neither the local politicians nor the central government seem interested in highlighting the facts so that the myths are disspelled. Pakistan is of course propagandising it to the hilt. The oft-used phrase "demographic change" means the apprehension that the BJP is trying to change the demography into a Hindu majority. That is what people are reacting against. I would not characterise it as "anti-Hindu sentiment". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  But I agree that Hindu victims should be mentioned in the first paragraph. I will work on it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  "Demographic change" as motive for this particular attack comes from a retracted statement by TRF. As the terrorists have not released other statements, I suppose I would agree that attributing any other motive to them would be original research unless WP:RS say it directly. I wonder if even attributing this motive without clarification is valid, because the statement it is based on is retracted.

  However, the fact remains that terrorists targeted Hindus by asking them if they were Muslim or Hindu before shooting them. This is asserted in multiple survivor interviews, in reliable sources, both international and national. The lead should reflect that. Anantanni22 (talk) 08:48, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Multiple WP:RS sources have reported that attackers asked for religion of the tourists, separated Hindus and Muslims and shot dead the Hindus. As Wiki editors, we need to report that.

  I my humble view, what one expert "Luv Puri" said in 2021, can be provided in the relevant section, but should not be used to override or sideline multiple WP:RS survivor accounts that show that it was a targetted attack based on religion. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  As further evidence that the attack was not against non-Kashmiris, rather it was on non-Muslims, please see the WP:RS source, Indian Express below, where a clearly non-Kashmiri Assam man was sparred because he could recite the Kalima.

  Pahalgam terror attack: How Islamic verse ‘Kalma’ saved Hindu professor at Assam University

  "The terrorist checked on us twice," said Professor Debasish Bhattacharya, head of the Bengali Department of Assam University, after returning from Kashmir.

  https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/kolkata/pahalgam-terror-attack-islamic-verse-kalma-hindu-professor-assam-9967392/

  Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Please check carefully all references to "Hindu" in the section I referenced. We follow WP:NPOV and pay attention to WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Repeated WP:OR arguments will not help. -- Kautilya3 (talk)

  Sorry, there was no reference to "Hindu" but there was reference to "agents of RSS", which is similar.

  What Luv Puri points out is that the local politicians are not interested in disspelling the myths because they profit from making people believe that Hindus are flooding Kashmir.

  BJP/RSS are also not interested in disspelling the myths because they also profit from making people believe that Hindus are flooding Kashmir.

  The truth is the casualty. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  Okay, I am not disputing those points on background of the issue from 2021. My limited point was that we should report relevant details of the attack from the 2025 WP:RS sources. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. The Newsweek article ranks very high in my estimation because it is written by a very senior editor, himself of Kashmiri origin. He knows his stuff. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for addinh Hindu victims per WP:RS. I will add more details under Attack section from the WP:RS sources that I have provided.

Also, the figure of 28 is only in one source ET. Most sources have 26, so we should have that. Ind Express listed 26, so that is most reliable. Thanks. 09:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit. Since this seems to be a very controversial claim, I recommend one more RS be used. I linked this elsewhere, but I recommend citing this Reuters article as a tertiary source for this. It's an RS which clarifies that both survivor accounts and officials said Hindus were targeted. [1] Anantanni22 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 If emphasis is paid to Hindu victims in first paragraph then other victims religious identity should also be mentioned in the first paragraph and not in third paragraph all victims of this terror attack should be treated proportionally. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

I would not oppose adding information about the Christian tourist and the local Kashmiri Muslim in the first paragraph, as long as the fact that Hindus were singled out/targeted is clearly conveyed. This information can be misrespresented to obfuscate and downplay the targeting. Anantanni22 (talk) 10:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry it would be WP:UNDUE. Hindus were added to the first paragraph because a high-profile and high-quality WP:RS did it. There is too much WP:OR debating going on this talk page and it is getting tiresome. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:50, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me, thanks. Anantanni22 (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Pincrete Please see the discussion above and avoid going against consensus and reliable sources. Mentioning the other victims is fine, but your latest edit removes the fact that Hindus were targeted from the lead. Anantanni22 (talk) 07:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I saw this discussion after making my edits, which were motivated by clarity, and 'flow' (eg mentioning the date last of all in the first sentence seems clumsy IMO). I decided not to revert since the lead already deals in depth in para 3 with the 'filtering/targetting' by religion. There is consensus that the topic should be covered in the lead, there isn't consensus that it needs be in the opening para, nor that the topic of who was targetted need to be repeated. Obviously it was not chance that almost all of the victims were Hindu and the 'selection' needs to be covered adequately. But what does this have to do with RS? Nothing I edited is contradicted by sources. Pincrete (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

This discussion is mainly about first paragraph and after a long discussion, I think there is reasonable consensus that primary targets were Hindu tourists, which needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph. Using language such as majority of victims were Hindus, which could also happen by chance, seems unfair per WP:LEAD, as the article body has a long section detailing the Targetting of Hindu tourists. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:09, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was only addressing your latest edit at the time and not any others.

> But what does this have to do with RS?

Mostly the removal of specification about targeting/singling out, which is asserted by multiple RS (though I admit I could have worded that better). Regardless, I think the paragraph in the current revision is fine and does not need to be changed. Thank you. Anantanni22 (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I also agree with the current version of the first paragraph which clarifies that mainly Hindu tourists were targeted. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:24, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Multiple high quality WP:RS sources clearly mention Hindus were singled out and killed, so that has been reported in the first paragraph. According to proportional reporting also, the majority of victims need to be addressed in the first paragraph. In my humble view, every detail cannot be mentioned in first paragraph, and it is unfair to add details to obfuscate and mislead the reader by adding all religions. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Anantanni22 I support the inclusion of christian and muslim victims in the first paragraph and I also support singled out/targeted wording regarding Hindus.

@RogerYg No one is disputing the fact that hindus were targeted but at the end they were all victims of a terrorist attack so one victim cannot have more relevace than the other that's why religion of other victims should be mentioned in the first paragraph if we're mentioning the relgion of other victims too. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I would be okay to add the Christian and Muslim victims, but with some brief context.

We can add in the first paragraph:

While the main target of the attacks were Hindu tourists, a Christian tourist and a local Muslim pony operator were also killed by the militants.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I think we will need to update the sentence:

The majority of the victims were Hindus, who were singled out by the militants. to avoid repetition.

The miltants targetted Hindu tourists, and the majority of victims were Hindus, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim pony operator were also killed in the attacks.

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

wasn't the christian also targeted? on Hindus beign singled out I have no problem though that phrase should stay IMHO. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 09:20, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

As per cited WP:RS sources, multiple survivors have stated that militants asked: Are you Hindu or Muslim, and asked them to recite the Kalima. They separated Hindu men and shot them, so this is clearly targetted killing of Hindus. One Christian got killed because he could not recite the Kalima.

I agree that the finer detail is that:

militants targetted Hindu and non-muslim tourists

and we should mention this detail in the article body.

Since the main target of militants were Hindus, so I will not insist that this detail be mentioned in th lead. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@RogerYg To be honest I think the current lead is alright and requires no changes

The militants mainly targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed in the attack. this line in the lead aptly sums up what happend. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, yes I agree. I have made that update, based on above discussion including your inputs. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2025

In the political leaders sub-section of the Domestic subsection of the Reactions section, after the sentence, "Asaduddin Owaisi, the AIMIM chief and a popular Muslim politician, criticised Pakistan for its involvement in the terror attack at Pahalgam, accusing the country of being the successor of ISIS", please add, "Reacting to Bilawal Bhutto's warning that India's blood will flow if our water doesn't, he told him to avoid using childish language, that their domestic terrorists assassinated his mother and questioned if he is aware of what he's saying" Mossadegh2 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: See WP:NOTNEWS. Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Lead

Can you change first sentence 's word from militants to terrorist as many reliable sources like NYT calling it a terrorist attack. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/world/asia/india-pakistan-kashmir-history.html Hellorld4 (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Please add your comment to the RFC: Militant attack or Terrorist attack . King Ayan Das (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Change the tourists from hindu to non muslim

One christian also died in this. Insane always (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Insane always The victims were predominantly Hindu, with the attackers reportedly asking the tourists if they were Hindu or Muslim before opening fire. Kashmir also has a well known history of anti-Hindu violence and sentiment. The Christian victim is already mentioned specifically, but may also be included in the lead. But it should be made clear that Hindus were the primary victims and targets in this incident. 9ninety (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

@Logosx127 I see you just performed this request. Since I have contested it, may I (or you yourself) undo the edit until further discussion? I don't wish to engage in an edit conflict. Thanks, 9ninety (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

I have undone the edit for now. 9ninety (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

They asked if they were muslim, not "hindu or muslim" Insane always (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Well some cited sources mention that militants asked: "Are you Hindu or Muslim?". Please see the cited sources in Attack section.

However, I agree that they also killed a Christian tourist, even after he told them he was Christian. The militants also asked to recite the Islamic Kalma, and anyone who was unable to do was killed. Therefore, while primary target were Hindu tourists, but the broader target were non-Muslim tourists. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What happened to the "Islamist terrorism" and "Anti-Hindu sentiment" tags?

The terrorists shot civilian tourists after confirming they were non-Muslim. In at least one (but probably more, I'll check) interview, a victim's relative said they were specifically asked if they were Muslim OR Hindu, and then the Hindus were shot. One of the victims being Christian doesn't somehow negate this targeting. The large majority of sources describe this as a terror attack. There seems to be a lot of lying by omission going on in this article, and the POV push here is strong. Anantanni22 (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Please produce WP:RS for all content you want to see, and refrain from WP:OR. It is not enough of victim said something. We need RS saying it. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

As far as calling it a terror attack is concerned, this is a moot point because multiple RS have been provided throughout this talk page that call it a terror attack. However, I will link two here:

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/sc-dismisses-pil-seeking-judicial-probe-into-pahalgam-terror-attack/article69520995.ece

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/pahalgam-attack-live-updates-9962260/

Here is an RS where it has been described as a terrorist attack by world leaders:

https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-tourist-attack-dc7067a18899d9e7ff7726d4e05982c3

Here is an RS where the nation of Pakistan refers to it as a terrorist attack:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/27/kashmir-attack-live-india-pakistan-troops-exchange-fire-for-third-day

Here is an RS where the prime ministers of France and the UK refer to it as a terrorist attack:

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/liveblog/2025/4/23/kashmir-attack-live-india-looks-for-gunmen-after-26-killed-in-pahalgam

However, any edit calling it a terror attack gets reverted by citing an (incorrect) use of MOS:TERRORIST (applies to organizations as written, not attacks). Anantanni22 (talk) 20:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

To add further, here is an international RS that states "Many survivors stated that the gunmen specifically targeted Hindu men." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgnw9kydgqo Anantanni22 (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for providing good WP:RS sources that mention that it was a terrorist attack on Hindu men. We need to update the relevant sections and the lead accordingly. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Secondly, if you are talking about the WP:INFOBOX, it can only summarise the content in the article. So, you need to work on the content first, before talking about the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

I think the content of the article body has been updated, and now it justifies changing the INFPBOX target from tourists to either Hindu tourists or non-muslim tourists. There is more than enough cited WP:RS sources showing that attacks were targeeted based on religion and Hindus and non-muslims were targetted. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I think in INFOBOX and opening line, we should mention non-muslim tourists as that is more correct and broader term. Main targets being Hindus is rightly mentioned in the second line. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:11, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you have sources discussing the attack as being motivated by, precipated by, or caused by Hinduphobia? If not, and if at best, all we have is that Hindus were targeted by the attackers, then that alone is not a motive - we cannot intepret, invent, or postulate about a motive for the attackers ourselves. Even if it is the objective truth.

Per WP:TRUTH. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

And I will add that attacks on Hindus and Kashmiri Hindus by TRF/etc are acknowledged and discussed in the background section. Wikipedious1 (talk) 01:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, yes we need to add relevant details from WP:RS sources as mentioned in the next discussion on First paragraph. But, we need to add relevant info in the article sections, before updating first paragraph. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:15, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Background and sources

@EarthDude I reverted an edit you made to the background section with a stated reason in my edit summary. Per WP:BRD, which is especially enforced on this article, the appropriate next step was to bring the discussion to the talk page. Instead, you reverted my edit claiming my statement was OR despite it being sourced in the article. Also, you didn't state your reasons for reverting my source removals, for which I had stated my reasons. I'm happy to engage in constructive discussion rather than edit warring. 9ninety (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for replying kind of late. I had reverted your edits because, firstly it messed up the sourcing for the settler colonialism part. Following your changes, the sources were not redirecting to the bibliography section, if that makes sense. Secondly, your line about insurgents waging war against the government was not backed by the HRW source you had given for it, which thus qualified it as original research. Although it appears while I was gone from Wiki for some days, the changes have already been reverted. EarthDude (talk) 12:50, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Intro mention of TRF

Considering the size of the intro, there is too much of a mention about The Resistance Front (TRF) in the intro. It is also positioned too promptly, in the second para, now that they don't claim responsibility. 05:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC) EldenMacdonald (talk) 05:47, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

TRF is mentioned in multiple high-quality sources. Their retraction doesn't matter to us, being a WP:PRIMARY source claim. We follow WP:RS. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3, I am not disputing the reliability, just the positioning. Say even shifting the intro paragraph from the second one to the third one.EldenMacdonald (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, per the wide reporting on TRF in WP:RS sources for this attack, I think it should have a brief mention in first paragraph, which is missing. Then details on TRF can be 2nd or 3rd paragraph. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Islamist?

DataCrusade1999, what is the point you are making here? (It is not a good idea to conduct dialogue in edit summaries on contentious points.) Neither of the two sources used "Islamist". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 On this talk page I've argued that Islamist and Islamic are different things if a news portal describes the attack as Islamic then they are wrong. I agree that conducting dialogue in edit summary is not appropriate but educating experienced editors about the difference between Islamic and Islamist is not something that I expected in any case there are enough scholarly sources available that would support my edit. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npxq0 (right now I don't have time to go through the book again and give you the exact page number I hope you can find if not then I will link that page here when I have time) there are more such sources if you can't find those ping me I'll link them here. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

You are hardly educating me. You don't even seem to have educated yourself. You say you don't have time. Then why should you be wasting our time? This is called stonewalling. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3

First, Watch your tone.

You say you don't have time.

Second, I have a life outside wikipedia I gave you a link you could just read what's written on that page and find it yourself but no you have to play all high and mighty.

if you can't act like a civilised human beign then I'll wait for someone else who can think about this logically and not throw tantrums. don't reply if you don't have something constructive to add cause I don't want to enagage with a troll.

Then why should you be wasting our time?

there's no our it's just you you're the one who changed it to Islamic.

Also since I have to spoonfeed you here https://www.britannica.com/topic/Islamism

The adjective Islamist, denoting someone or something in pursuit of a sociopolitical objective using the symbols and traditions of Islam, is distinguished from the term Islamic, which refers directly to aspects of Islam as a religion.

Next time try not to be condescending and again I'll give the exact page number from the book when I have enough time to go through the book again. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you think "educating senior experienced editors" is an acceptable tone?

Leave that aside. The answer to "what is the point you are making here?" could be something like TRF is "Islamist" for reasons XYZ. I see no such information forthcoming. Even now, it hasn't.

So, once again, where is the evidence that TRF is "Islamist". The Britannica page you linked doesn't mention any Kashmiri groups. It is not relevant to the issue at hand. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, you think "educating senior experienced editors" is an acceptable tone?

quite presumptive of you to assume that I was talking about you but still if you beleive that I was talking about you then I won't contest it and I'll let your words stand. but know that I would never use the word senior to describe you 🤣. After the kind of language that you've used I'd say you deserve all kinds of tone.

Leave that aside. The answer to "what is the point you are making here?" could be something like TRF is "Islamist" for reasons XYZ. I see no such information forthcoming. Even now, it hasn't.

my point was a narrow one, that Islamist and Islamic are different and I gave you refrences that prove my point.

So, once again, where is the evidence that TRF is "Islamist". The Britannica page you linked doesn't mention any Kashmiri groups. It is not relevant to the issue at hand.

bad faith argument. but go ahead coat it with original research and defend the indefensible argument that you started. TRF is an Islamist organization, like I said revert my change and I'll change it back. I don't have time to bicker with you. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Also the current newsweek article doesn't describe TRF as Islamic terrorist either so you can remove Islamist and I'll remove Islamic. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I feel this entire quarrel could've been avoided if you provided sources calling the TRF Islamist rather than trying to define the word Islamist. I'll go ahead and do it myself to put this argument to rest.

This Reuters article mentions LeT as an Islamist group, along with the claim that the TRF is a front of the LeT. This article states "Witnesses report that the assailants were Islamist extremists" and cites this article which states "In contrast to the supposed “neutral” ostensibly non-Islamist nature of the TRF, the LeT (which translates as Army of the Righteous/Pure), is a Sunni terrorist group." I found a few articles [2][3][4] claiming that the LeT rebranded itself as TRF to "shed" or "distance itself from" its Islamist identity (which could be included in the article).

It's surprisingly difficult to find sources which directly reference the TRF specifically as an Islamist group; however, most sources do describe the attackers as terrorists. I also searched for mentions of "Islamic terror" in relation to the TRF, but couldn't find any reliable sources. Most direct mentions of the word "Islamist" in sources were used to mention Islamist extremists celebrating the attack, or Pakistan more broadly being accused of harbouring Islamist groups. This is my conclusion based on my own research, attempting to directly address @Kautilya3's request. Hopefully, we can engage in constructive discussion now rather than personal attacks. 9ninety (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

@Kautilya3 Infact here's how newsweek the article that is cited describes it

The Resistance Front (TRF)—which has claimed responsibility for the attack at Pahalgam—is an Islamist group widely seen as a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba. Within hours of the massacre, TRF circulated a message on social media justifying the killings

this is where this debate ends. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Also since you're in a hurry revert my edit I'll change it again when I have the time. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

On this issue of "Islamist", I would agree with @DataCrusade1999 (talk) that instead of Islamic, it's more appropriate to mention Islamist.

I see that 2008 Mumbai attacks are mentioned as Islamist attacks on Wikipedia, so we should follow the same here, and DataCrusador has also provided some good arguments.

Please see 2008 Mumbai attacks

The 2008 Mumbai attacks, also referred to as 26/11 attacks, were a series of coordinated Islamist terrorist attacks

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 21:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

• Our own Islamism page has a very good description of the concept, citing high-quality sources, including the one that DataCrusade1999 bandied about. TRF is not known to have espoused such an ideology. So far, all that we know is that they have ranted out non-locals, demographic change etc. and targeted Hindus, and some Sikhs as well. That doesn't qualify them as "Islamist". No doubt some sources, including the Newsweek article, brands them as Islamist, but without any evidence or discussion. This would amount to a knee-jerk tendency of branding all Muslim militants as "Islamist". There are half-a-dozen sources that discuss TRF specifically. None of them has described it as "Islamist". In fact, many of them pointed out that they seem to want to project a "neutral" or "secular" character. As per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, the Newsweek description is made in the passing and doesn't get much WP:WEIGHT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  @Kautilya3 First of all, please do not mention my name. I prefer not to engage with you, so feel free to proceed as you wish; I won't mind. However, I will revert any changes if I notice "Islamic" being used instead of "Islamist."

  Secondly, you are embarrassing yourself. This article should not be compromised due to your ego. The TRF is a proxy for LeT; some even argue that TRF is essentially LeT itself. They rebranded as TRF to protect Pakistan from being placed on the FATF gray list.

  Investigations revealed that PAFF and TRF were not new entities but rebranded versions of the notorious Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), respectively. This rebranding was a calculated move to mask their jihadist roots and present a façade of indigenous resistance. this line is from The Economics Times https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/defence/from-jihad-to-resistance-how-pakistan-based-terror-groups-are-changing-their-names-to-mask-their-dirty-origins/articleshow/120580211.cms

  So far, The Resistance Front (TRF) has claimed responsibility. The group is a proxy for Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a terrorist organization with Islamist Salafi roots that primarily operates in the Kashmir Valley. LeT was founded in the 1980s during the Soviet-Afghan War with funding from then–al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. this line is from Council on foreign relations https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/latest-attack-kashmir-escalates-india-pakistan-tensions

  TRF emerged in 2019 and is considered an offshoot of the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba, according to the South Asia Terrorism Portal, a Delhi-based think tank.Indian security officials said TRF uses the name Kashmir Resistance on social media and online forums, where it claimed responsibility for Tuesday's attack in Indian Kashmir's Pahalgam area.

  Lashkar-e-Taiba, listed as a foreign terrorist organisation by the United States, is the Islamist group accused of plotting attacks in India and in the West, including the three-day assault on Mumbai in November 2008.

  "This is basically a front of the LeT. These are groups which have been created over the last years, particularly when Pakistan was under pressure from the Financial Action Task Force and they were trying to create a pattern of denial that they were involved in terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir," said Ajai Sahni, head of the South Asia Terrorism Portal.

  The above excerpt is from Reuters https://www.reuters.com/world/india/kashmir-resistance-group-that-claimed-attack-tourists-indian-kashmir-2025-04-23/

  the Newsweek description is made in the passing and doesn't get much WP:WEIGHT.

  Oh! So here one source isn't enough but When it comes to Munir's speech and especially Rana's extradition in the background section one or two reliable source is enough. Man you really are something.

  TRF is LeT combine all of these sources with the Newsweek one that is cited the word Islamist will stay. You can't insert your hatred of a religion in the article in this case the religion is Islam. DO NOT PUSH YOUR POV. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 01:28, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Here's few more source

  During this communication blockade by the government, handlers across the borders floated a new outfit using the cadre of Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM), and other militant groups through ‘Over Ground Workers’ (OGWs). Hence, TRF emerged as a smokescreen and an offshoot of LeT, aimed to give a new face to the Kashmiri cause as ‘homegrown’ and ‘indigenous’. this line is from Observer research foundation which say that TRF is LeT because TRF is composed of LeT cadre. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/positioning-the-resistance-front-trf-in-kashmirs-militancy-landscape

  The alleged surrogates of LeT and JeM operating in Indian Kashmir reportedly reactivated themselves in August 2019 as The Resistance Front (TRF) and PAFF to secularize their original religious identity after India revoked the special status of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019. Unlike in the cases mentioned above, where the groups’ identity remodeling occurred in reaction to proscription, in Kashmir, it ensued to localize the resistance to evade attention and prospective proscription aftera blanket lockdown and a “crippling curfew” was imposed by the Indian government across Kashmir Muhammad Feyyaza and Brian J. Phillips "How do Militant Organizations Respond to Counterterrorism?Introducing the LIVE Typology, with Examples from Proscription in Pakistan". https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/09546553.2024.2385015?needAccess=true

  Mind you that this attempt to secularize is TRFs POV So if you want to mention it then do it but Islamist stays.

  “The name TRF was an attempt to secularise the idea of jihad to present the Kashmir insurgency as a political cause rather than a religious war as was manifested by the names such as the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and the Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM),” a senior police officer said. One more source make of it what you will https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/the-resistance-front-faceless-killers-in-the-valley/article36919542.ece

  So to conclude the thrust of my argument is that since TRF uses LeT cadre and most sources descirbe TRF as a Proxy of LeT, with the LeT beign an Islamist terror organization itself there remain no doubt that TRF is also Islamist since TRF uses LeT cadre. The sources I have provided prove my point. And to preempt any allegation of original research I would suggest everyone to go through all of the sources and then form your opinion. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  @RogerYg Kautilya3 is again raking up a settled issue. can you weigh in on this issue? we seriously need a third editor to put an end to this Islamist Islamic thing. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I think DataCrusade1999 (talk) has brought out some important points that TRF has been linked to LeT by most WP:RS sources, and LeT is widely considered an Islamist militant group.

  TRF's earlier attempts to appear secular or distance from LeT have been largerly exposed in its multiple terror attacks, and their association with LeT widely recognized, so I don't see much reasoning that its hard to call them Islamist.

  Also, previously Kautilya3 (talk) recognized Newsweek reference as one of the important reference for this page, based on experienced Kashmiri Muslim author, and that reference also mentions Pahalgam as an Islamist attack.

  Also, Reuters article mentions LeT as an Islamist group, along with the claim that the TRF is a front of the LeT.

  Also, several WP:RS sources have noted the parallels between 2025 Pahalgam attack and 2008 Mumbai attack, which has been widely considered an Islamist attack

  Therefore, in my view, as noted by Newsweek and Reuters, this Pahalgam attack should be considered an Islamist attack ( not Islamic).

  Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 09:41, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  If there is no consensus on Islamist or Islamic, then just leave it as militants in the opening line, rather than having a pov tag, which disturbs the readability for Wiki readers per WP:Readbility. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  I'm fine with militant attack. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 10:31, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  We are discussing opening line phrase "five armed Islamist militants". Since, there seems to be no consensus on Islamist or Islamic, we may leave it as "five armed militants", instead of disturbing readers with pov tags. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  @RogerYg I'm thinking what would happen when discussion is closed on terrorist or militant phrasing? will it affect this Islamist Islamic debate which in my opinion is closed now. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  No I don't think that should impact Islamist vs Islamic debate. RogerYg (talk) 07:43, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  This is a classic case of WP:SYNTHESIS, which page you should see. It may be that TRF is a front for LeT, and it may be that LeT is Islamist but it does not follow from those two facts that TRF is Islamist, when it is itself not known to espouse Islamism. Besides, several sources counter that idea: The group portrays itself as a secular movement, distancing itself from overt Islamist rhetoric. When sources are saying that they don't appear as Islamist, you can't expect Wikipedia to claim to have looked under the hood, and discovered for itself that it is "Islamist".

  On the other hand, "Islamic" is clear. They shouted Islamic slogans, they asked people to chant Islamic verses, and they singled out non-Muslims. They are not religiously neutral. Your objections to it don't make any sense to me. We have Islamic terrorism as the title of a page, which I am sure was decided after considerable head-scratching. We also have a Hindu terrorism and a Christian terrorism page. Wikipedia does not WP:CENSOR for the sake of some imagined goodness. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC) Kautilya3 (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

  Please see the opening line of Wike page Islamic terrorism

  Islamic terrorism (also known as Islamist terrorism or radical Islamic terrorism or jihadist terrorism) refers to terrorist acts carried out by fundamentalist militant Islamists and Islamic extremists.

  I am no expert on this issue, but based on reading the WP:RS sources, Islamist militants or radical Islamic militants, is widely used rather than Islamic militants.

  None of the WP:RS sources call the Pahalgam attackers as Islamic militants, while some WP:RS sources mention them as Islamist militants.

  In my limited understanding , as argued by DC1999, Islamist terror is now more widely reported term than Islamic. So we can follow the WP:RS sources, and go with Islamist militants or can we agree on "radical Islamic" militants. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 06:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  radical Islamic militant also makes sense. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

  None of it is synthesis read all the sources that I gave specially TRF using LeT cadre also both articles on "Hindu terrorism" and "Christian terrorism" are being presented as examples, despite both of these articles not being rigorously developed. In the case of "Hindu terrorism," there are already discussions about changing the name of the article to "Hindutva terrorism," which I would support. At this point any objection is just about your ego there's no merit or substance in any of your argument.

  1. https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/positioning-the-resistance-front-trf-in-kashmirs-militancy-landscape

  2. https://www.cfr.org/expert-brief/latest-attack-kashmir-escalates-india-pakistan-tensions

  Of course, there are always individuals who raise the censorship flag when they feel they are not being given the latitude to spread misleading information or impose their point of view on readers. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

References

Update target to non-muslim tourists

Contunuing earlier discussion above {Secondly, if you are talking about the WP:INFOBOX, it can only summarise the content in the article. So, you need to work on the content first, before talking about the infobox. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:17, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply] }

I think the content of the article body has been updated with a reasonable section on Targetted attacks on Hindu tourists. Now it justifies changing the INFOBOX target

• from tourists
• to non-muslim tourists or Hindu tourists or Hindu and non-muslim tourists , based on WP:RS sources and article body content.

There is more than enough cited WP:RS sources showing that attacks were targeted based on religion and Hindus and non-muslims were targetted.

Similarly, in the opening line, we should mention non-muslim tourists instead of tourists. And the main targets being Hindus is rightly mentioned in the second line. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 07:55, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Some more Sources for "non-muslim" tourists

• Pahalgam and Pakistan’s two-nation delusion In making Hindu pilgrims recite the Kalima — a Muslim declaration of faith — to identify and then execute non-Muslims https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/pahalgam-and-pakistan-s-two-nation-delusion-3513370
• Terrorists marked out non-Muslims, we saw it https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pahalgam-attack-victims-wife-counters-congress-leaders-claim-terrorists-marked-out-non-muslims-not-able-to-sleep-101745923699068.html
• attacker targeted her husband for being non-Muslim https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/toi-original/shot-my-husband-suspecting-hes-a-non-muslim-pahalgam-attack-witness-as-toll-surges/videoshow/120520786.cms

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Recap the sources for Hindu tourists:

• Kashmir Massacre: Trump, Putin, Iran, Israel Condemn Jihadist Attack on Hindu Tourists https://www.newsweek.com/kashmir-massacre-trump-putin-iran-israel-condemn-jihadist-attack-hindu-tourists-2062760
• Indian survivors of Kashmir attack say gunmen asked if they were Hindus and opened fire https://apnews.com/article/kashmir-attack-india-pakistan-victims-a5492962cd86174262cb73b85c04c51a

Sources for Christian tourist

• "Said He Was Christian, Shot Dead": How Indore Man Was Killed In Pahalgam https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-said-he-was-christian-shot-dead-how-indore-man-was-killed-in-pahalgam-8242829
• He said I’m Christian, they shot him, I couldn't save him’: Wife’s anguished cry after Pahalgam valley attack https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bhopal/he-said-im-christian-they-shot-him-wifes-anguished-cry/articleshow/120561292.cms

Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 08:15, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

If you use the term non-Muslim, it should link to the Kafir article.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 10:24, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Well, the WP:RS sources only mention non-Muslim. I am not sure if all non-Muslim usage should link to Kafir. You can discuss Kafir in the article body. I will wait for some other editor also give their opinion on this. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:28, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, no. You can't link to the Kafir page unless an WP:RS has mentioned that concept. Are you people out of your mind? This is WP:OR on steroids! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Helped offered by Sikhs to Kashmiris present in other states

In Reactions -> Rest of India, it should mention about the humanitarian efforts of Sikh volunteers in assisting Kashmiri students facing hostility and threats in various parts of India following the Pahalgam terror attack. Sources: [5] [6] [7] Jasksingh (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Trimming of motives section in infobox

The previous wording was quite long, so I have substituted in "Islamist terrorism" in it's place. I'm not strongly against it being reverted. Fantastic Mr. Fox 13:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Drat8sub you reverted this edit. I had a look at other Wikipedia articles regarding terrorist attacks (Specifically IS) and usually "Islamist terrorism" is listed as the motive . Yes, WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST but I would argue it better than what we currently have, considering it comes off as vaguely promotion (especially the tourist industry bit) Fantastic Mr. Fox 19:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

The best article to take example is September 11 attacks. And why would it be a promotion when tourism is just totally stopped after the attack, it just a straight fact, since tourism is the life line of the valley and the figure atually gives reader a better understanding of the motive.. Drat8sub (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

@Drat8sub Government press release can't be a determining source, it clearly provides a government point of view. Need third party sources to truly determine the motive. Plus your wording is NOT neutral. Ahammed Saad (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Motives are identified by the govt intellegence agencies of the country against whom the attack took place. Motives of September 11 attack were identified by US intellegence agencies only. Drat8sub (talk) 09:02, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Himanshi Narwal

Should we mention her beign trolled? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, her being harassed and trolled online should be added but only if it is backes by various reliable sources. Otherwise, it'd seem to minor to include in the article EarthDude (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cr5dgvmn6y5o

https://www.thenewsminute.com/news/from-symbol-of-grief-to-target-of-hate-how-himanshi-narwal-is-being-harassed

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-vinay-narwal-himanshi-narwal-wife-of-navy-officer-killed-in-pahalgam-trolled-womens-panel-speaks-out-8332227

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/ncw-support-pahalgam-attack-victims-wife-online-trolling-9983192/ DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Im fine with this being added then EarthDude (talk) 04:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I added the information to the article EarthDude (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)