This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Crime and Criminal Biography: Serial, mass, and spree killers / Terrorism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Serial Killer task force (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Terrorism task force (assessed as Mid-importance). India: Jammu and Kashmir / History / Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Jammu and Kashmir (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). Islam: Islam and Controversy Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Islam and Controversy task force. Military history: Asian / South Asia / Post-Cold War This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Asian military history task force South Asian military history task force Post-Cold War task force Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The term "state subjects" should not be used even though the locals use it and some newspapers unwittingly reproduce it. It is a British Raj-era term that was replaced by "permanent residents" in the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir (now defunct). The criteria said that one had to have lawfully acquired immoval property before 1954. That effectively meant that only the former "state subjects" would have qualified. People that were left out were the refugees that came from West Pakistan, the workers that J&K imported from outside (especially the cleaning staff), and Indian officials would might be posted in J&K and reside there for long periods. There was also an issue of women who might marry out of the state and lose permanent residence as a result. (Their numbers might have been small, but it was a political hot potato).

It was these categories that have been accommodated in the new domicile rules. It is not appropriate to call them "outsiders" or "non-locals". (Currently, the infobox uses "non-locals" reproducing TRF's POV claim.) In September 2020, when J&K was under central rule, their breakdown was given [1]. In the recent debate in the Assembly, the government did not give any breakdown [2]. I see it as an obvious attempt to inflame feelings. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:04, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I get that "demographic change" is TRF POV but what should be written in motive then? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already changed it to "alleged demographic change". That is good enough. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is written "alleged non-local settlement", which is more precise than demographic change. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

makes sense. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it alleged we still hold our state subject certificates. While the State Subject Law was replaced with domicile law by india. With abrogation of Article 370 in 2019. issuing new domicile certificate to non-locals under new law does not alter the historical distinction between locals and non-locals. And its fact not allegation that 83000 domiciles was issued to non-locals even all sources mention non-locals. Aliyiya5903 (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a definition of "non-local" nor any justification for why such people are supposed to be "non-local". The new domicile law has its own restrictions and is in line with the domicile laws used for other states in India. One man's "non-local" can be another man's "local". -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1929 state-subject law clearly define who is local and who is not its doesn’t erase the historical fact of who was originally recognised as local here. Well i have no problem with using anything. There are thousands of kashmiri pages using same one side narrative which can never be fixed.

https://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/jandk/documents/actsandordinances/State_Subject_Rules.htm Aliyiya5903 (talk) 12:15, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Law Review article, which I regard as a reliable source for legal matters (though not for political matters), says this:

However, a new land order may have already superseded the domicile laws in importance, having repealed twelve former state land laws and amended fourteen others.[205] The order erased Article 35A’s vestiges, largely removing the “permanent residency” clause across Kashmir’s land regime.[206] Notably, it did not limit land transactions to newly defined domiciliaries. The law also empowers non-Kashmiris to re-purpose agricultural land, which constitutes ninety percent of the region, for non-agricultural purposes.[207]

The citations 205–207 are all primary sources (government notifications/laws/regulations). There is no mention of "domicile" here. Indeed, the domicile rules are primarily meant for state government jobs and, here, they are also applied to college seats. They don't have anything to do with settlement or purchase of property. So, any Indian citizen can purchase land and settle down in Kashmir. No "domicile status" is required. It would be wrong for us to peddle this misinformation. So, I propose that we remove the mention of "domicile status" from the main page.

Indeed, it is a fundamental right granted in the Indian constitution that any citizen of India can choose to reside in any part of India. Laws can be made to restrict it only "in the interests of the general public or for the protection of the interests of any Scheduled Tribe." (Article 19, section 5) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedious1 In this edit, you have added a speculative claim of "settler colonialism" with a large number of citations. But none of them presents any evidence of "settler colonialism" as having occurred. They only talk about "fears", including a supposed journal article in Third World Quarterly. Fears were already mentioned in the preceding sentence. Why should this new content be used here at all? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:23, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In January 2021, TRF shot and killed a 70-year old goldsmith, who lived in Kashmir for over 50 years. Apparently, he obtained a domicile certificate, which brought him the ire of TRF.^[1]

The TRF claimed responsibility for the killing, saying Nischal was part of a "settler project" and that anyone who obtains domicile "will be treated as occupiers."

So these op-ed writers and supposed journal authors are feeding into this extremist narrative. A supposed "historian and political analyst" called Siddiq Wahid told Deutsche Welle that "the new land laws violated India's constitution". No explanation as to how they are supposed to have violated the Indian constitution. And, Ather Zia, one of your op-ed columnists, agreed, according Deutsche Welle. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3 Any updates to this ? Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What have been termed "West Pakistan refugees" were the partition refugees that migrated from West Pakistan to India in 1947. Some of them had settled in Jammu, and they have been given cold shoulder by the successive Kashmiri regimes. Here are some details:^[1]

During the Partition, 5,764 families (47,215 people as per official records) migrated from West Pakistan and settled in parts of Jammu, Kathua and Rajouri. No land was allotted to them, but these families did occupy some government land and evacuee property, which later they were allowed to retain with certain conditions. In all, over 46,466 kanals was occupied by these families. But this was the land they cultivated, but never owned.

Lack of permanent resident certificate translates into gross disadvantages and disparities. This means that around 1.5 lakh of these West Pakistan Refugees here cannot buy immovable property, transfer land in their name, and under the rule 17 of J&K Civil Services Act, they are even barred from employment in the state government services. Also, they cannot vote in the state elections, and are even disqualified from being members of the village Panchayat under Section 6 of Panchyati Raj Act, 1989. They, however, have the right to vote in Lok Sabha elections.

Ram says disillusioned by this discriminatory attitude of Jammu and Kashmir government, these families had once even decided to leave the state and settle down in Punjab. But it was then chief minister Sheikh Abdullah who asked them to stay back and promised a settlement. But the settlement never happened.

These are the people that are being branded today as "outsiders", "non-locals" and "non-Kashmiris". In September 2020, when J&K was under central rule, the government gave a breakdown of the so-called "outsiders" that had received domicile certificates:

He said 11,398 West Pakistan refugees, 415 Valmiki community members, 10 Gorkha community members and 12,340 registered migrants have been issued the certificates so far.^[2]

As you can see, roughly half of these so-called "outsiders" were the West Pakistan refugees. The other substantial half were "migrants". According to The Telegraph, these were the Kashmiri Pandits who went out of the state during the exodus.^[3]

When the present J&K regime recently revealed in the Assembly that 83,000 "non-state-subjects" had received domicile certificates, it did not give a breakdown into the various categories as the central government had done in September 2020. I have said before that this seems to be an obvious attempt to inflame feelings and raise fears in the absence of accurate information. I am not minded to give platform to this kind of wooly propaganda on Wikipedia. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add into background section:

On Wednesday 16 April 2025 (1 week before the atttack), Pakistan's Army Chief, Gen Munir, gave a an anti-Hindu speech in Islamabad stating "Our forefathers believed that we were different from Hindus in every possible aspect of life. Our religion is different. Our customs are different... That was the foundation of the Two-Nation Theory,". Many media outlets signalled that this may have incited the attack in a bid to set off conflict between the two nations to divert focus away from the internal fracturing in Pakistani politics.

Sources: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/different-from-hindus-pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-two-nation-theory-jugular-vein-pahalgam-terror-attack-101745382805306.html

https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/pahalgam-terror-attack-why-pakistan-army-chief-asim-munir-risking-mini-war-with-india-2714005-2025-04-24

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/toi-edit-page/the-contradictions-in-pak-army-chiefs-speech-that-expose-flaws-in-pakistans-narrative/ R88r88 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this is not relevant as to add this and conclude that Pakistan was behind this attack would be original research which isn't allowed.

We could always write that "India has accused Pakistan for this attack." DataCrusade1999 (talk) 21:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now. Needs discussion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the article refer to this attack as a militant attack or a terrorist attack?

• Option 1: Militant attack
• Option 2: Terrorist attack

Previous discussions

• Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Militant?
• Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Not_militants_but_terrorists -

Please discuss it throught policy based arguments. GrabUp - Talk 07:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST I think we should call it a militant attack, rather then a terrorist attack. GrabUp - Talk 07:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1: Militant per MOS:TERRORIST. I suggest people read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WHATABOUTISM before making brash responses. Borgenland (talk) 07:42, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: Terrorists Attack was motivated by religious hatred (killing Hindus). International definitions of terrorism as defined under United Nations, FBI and Eastern Union fit this case. [3] [4] Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2025 (UTC) Sockstrike 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: WP:TERRORIST does not apply if and when the attack is being described as a terrorist attack outside of wikipedia. Look at the sources, and look also at how almost every sovereign state reacting to the attack has called it a terrorist attack, including all major western nations. --UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on google search results, comparing search results for "Pahalgam attack" without militant and without terrorist and terror: results where militant is not used: 78,20,000 hits, while results where terrorist and terror are not used: 64,30,000 hits. "Terrorist" is thus used more than "militant." UnpetitproleX (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also per User: Kautilya3's breakdown below of wide-ranging WP:RS usage of the term 'terrorist/terror' to describe the attack. Hence option 2. UnpetitproleX (talk) 05:58, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Militant, commonly accepted terrorist organizations are not even described as such in the first few sentences of their leads. No need to label this as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixCaelestis (talk • contribs)

• Option 2: The UN Security Council, a major international body, has described this incident as a terrorist attack (UN News report), and multiple high-quality reliable sources (although not a majority, still significant in number) have echoed that. Per WP:RS, UN official statements reported via UN News meet reliability standards. MOS:TERRORIST calls for caution but allows such terms when widely attributed, which is the case here. Per WP:DUE, significant viewpoints must be represented proportionately — and when an entity like the UNSC describes it as terrorism, it is important to reflect that appropriately. Not mentioning it would violate WP:NPOV by downplaying a widely reported and important fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Ayan Das (talk • contribs)

• Option 2: Per widely usage in sources-
  • "Militant" - 32,800+
  • "Terrorist" - 2,53,000+

Note that the data slightly fluctuates but it gives almost accurate statistics. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: "Terror attack" and "terrorist attack" are widely used for the Pahalgam attack. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST and WP:TOOSOON. Unless non-news organizations and pieces refer to the event as a terrorist attack in the future, it is best to refer to Pahalgam as a militant attack. It should also be noted that the TRF is not considered a terrorist group by anybody else besides India, lending more credence to the militant attack nomenclature (even if the attack fits both definitions). Jebiguess (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2, as this is how it is widely described in reliable sources per the correct interpretation of Mos:TERRORIST. 03:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk)

• Option 2 (terrorist) as this is how it is widely described. FropFrop (talk) 06:32, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: The majority of news sources call it a terrorist attack. Anantanni22 (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: Terrorist; sources make this clear. Qalb alasid (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 - Some people in support of option 1 have incorrectly invoked MOS:TERRORIST - In our case, the label is not for a person or a group, and it also clears the bar of
  "are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject"
  since most sources call it a terror attack (see the calculations by UnpetitproleX above). Beyond search results, the term is used by a wide array of international media houses as well. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 - An obvious misinterpretation of MOS:TERRORIST. The term is widely used and coherent with the reliable sources. There's no room for a "Militant attack". Shakakarta (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 - as per the discussion and arguments of User:Kautilya3 below, in the next subsection.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 per arguments of others, this is widely described as a terrorist attack in sources (terrorism is a technical term which describes extreme, usually violent methods for achieving a political goal, not the sense or morality of the goal). I'm not even sure that a 'militant attack' is meaningfully a thing, this is described as a 'terrorist attack' carried out by 'militants', but that does not invest the term 'militant attack' with any additional specific meaning.Pincrete (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 1 per MOS:TERRORIST. ~ HAL333 22:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Option 2 many reliable sources are calling it terrorist and it was clearly religiously motivated attack. Even US government called it a terrorist attack.Hellorld4 (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  no? The motives section of the infobox has no mention of religion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2 Most official sources such as those of the Indian government, US government and the UN describe it as a terror attack. https://news.un.org/en/story/2025/05/1162901 -Xoocit (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 2: Almost every reliable source I have seen calls it a terrorist attack. Arguments against calling the terrorists terrorists notes MOS:TERRORIST. MOS:TERRORIST is not a valid argument as it clearly states "unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution". Circuited (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• MOS:TERRORIST is about labelling people or perhaps groups of people. It is not about terror attacks. Moreover, the MOS guidance is not to use "value-laden labels". It doesn't say don't use terms with their dictionary meanings. This is a complete misunderstanding of the policy. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is Gamergate (harassment campaign) a person or group of people? This article is used as an example at MOS:TERRORIST. GrabUp - Talk 12:50, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wrong interpretation. That was mentioned as an example for the -gate suffix. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• No militant group claimed responsibility. TRF denied it, LeT denied it, and no other militant group claimed responsibility. They killed for religious indiscrimination. They could not be classified as militant. They killed purely based on religious discrimination. AS per Oxford a person who uses, or is willing to use, force or strong pressure to achieve their aims, In this case no RS has stated what their aim is, so Terrorist is better here. Xhivetozaragrivropa (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC) blocked sock -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Here are some sources using the term "terror attack":
  • "India suspends Indus Water Treaty, expels Pakistani Diplomats after Pahalgam Attack", Pakistan Observer (Islamabad), 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3194101853 Tensions mount between Pakistan and India as New Delhi suspended Key Treaties, expelled Pakistani diplomats, and shuts down Attari Border over Kashmir Terror Attack.
  • "MMU Calls for Shutdown in Kashmir to Protest Pahalgam Terror Attack", Kashmir News Service, 22 April 2025. ProQuest 3192963828
  • "Kashmir Unites In Grief Against Pahalgam Terror Attack", Kashmir Observer, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193674462
  • "Pahalgam terror Attack: MEA briefs foreign envoys", Kashmir Monitor, 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194260541
  • "Pahalgam terror attack: 'Ponywallah' Syed Adil Hussain Shah dies saving tourists", Siasat Daily, 24 April 2025. ProQuest 3194154002
  • "U.S. Ramps Up Pressure On Ukraine To Accept Peace Plan; Zelenskyy: Ukraine Won't Recognize Russian Control Of Crimea; India Downgrades Ties With Pakistan After Kashmir Attack; Attack On Kashmir Tourists Sparks Conspiracy Speculation; U.S. Markets Rally on Trump's China Tariff Retreat: China: Won't Negotiate Under Threats or Pressure; Tesla Stock Up 5 Percent after Musk Says He'll Dial Back DOGE Work; The Race to Save the African Penguin; Global Carmakers Compete for Attention in Shanghai. Aired 1-2a ET", CNN Newsroom, 24 April 2025. ProQuest 3194792359 Protesters in three Indian cities blame Pakistan for Tuesday's terror attack which killed 26 people after gunmen opened fire in a popular tourist area in India controlled Kashmir.
  • "Terror attack on Kashmir tourists kills 26: Gunmen open fire on holidaymakers at resort in disputed territory, in worst civilian attack in years", The Daily Telegraph, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193486813
  • "Pakistan Official Calls for International Inquiry Into Kashmir Terror Attack", New York Times (Online), 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194648784
  • "India and Pakistan Exchange Fire at Kashmir Border, Lifting Already-High Tensions", New York Times, 26 April 2025. ProQuest 3194823453 The clash took place just days after a terror attack killed 26 people on the Indian side of the disputed region, raising tensions between the two nuclear-armed nations.
  • "Cross-border gunfire raises tensions between India and Pakistan after terror attack", The Independent (UK), 27 April 2025. ProQuest 3195026471
  • Penelope MacRae, "https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/apr/25/domestic-pressures-shaping-india-response-kashmir-attacks-narendra-modi The domestic pressures shaping India’s response to Kashmir attacks", The Guardian, 25 April 2025. India’s furious response to the terrorist massacre of 26 men in a popular travel destination is being shaped by public rage at the deadliest civilian attack in Kashmir in a quarter-century.
  • "Delhi on High Alert After Terror Attack in Kashmir's Pahalgam Kills 26", Sri Lanka Guardian, 22 April 2025. ProQuest 3193509619
  • "Prime Minister Oli speaks with Indian Prime Minister Modi on terrorist attack in Kashmir", The Kathmandu Post, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3193613076
  • "20 tourists killed in terror attack in Kashmir", Times of Oman, 22 April 2025. ProQuest 3194604187
  • "Kuwait PM offers condolences to India on Kashmir terror attack", Kuwait News Agency, 23 April 2025. ProQuest 3194600509
  • "Kashmir retaliation vow triggers war fears", The Australian, 25 April 2025. ProQuest 3194327308. India has suspended a critical water treaty with Pakistan, closed its borders and vowed “loud and clear” retaliation for the murder of 26 people in a terror attack in Kashmir...

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm placing this article under an "Enforced BRD" restriction the Arbcom ruling at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan. In addition to the usual contentious topics restrictions, please note that, editors are prohibited re-reversion until someone has posted a note on the talk page about the revert and waited 24 hours after posting the note.RegentsPark (comment) 20:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Arnab Goswami, one of India's most well-known journalists, publicly demanded a 'Final Solution' like treatment for Pakistanis and Indian Muslims as revenge for the attack.[105]"

I skimmed the video provided as a source, but I found no confirmation of this claim, nor any clip of him saying this. Rather, this seems to be taken from the editorialized description? Even then, it is inaccurate because the words "Indian Muslims" and "Pakistan" are not used in the sentence. If there is a better source for this claim, then it should be used. Otherwise, the claim should be removed. Anantanni22 (talk) 13:16, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it for now @EarthDude per BRD. Re-add if you have reliable sources that clearly say this. Anantanni22 (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had used a bad source for that one. Here are some good sources that explicitly state that: https://www.thequint.com/opinion/colonial-echoes-in-post-pahalgam-hate-islamaphobia; https://newlinesmag.com/argument/india-is-reeling-as-the-illusion-of-normalcy-dissolves-in-kashmir; https://www.middleeasteye.net/trending/muslims-fear-potential-israel-like-retaliation-following-attacks-kashmir;

My bad EarthDude (talk) 17:46, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude I cannot access the first one because of a paywall, so I won't comment on it. The second is an opinion piece which cannot be use at all for something like this afaik. The third uses a tweet by a third party as a source for its claim. I'm still unable to find any reliable source that says he used the words "final solution". I cannot find any clip of him saying this either. The "final solution" thing seems to be completely fabricated.

I still say that this should be removed unless a reliable source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Sources) affirms this. Anantanni22 (talk) 19:12, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Middle East Eye, which is a partisan source. The rest are fine. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both are opinion pieces from sources that aren't listed in RS. I still maintain that unless a reliable source says that this occurred in reaction to the attack, it should be removed. Will gladly close the discussion if so.

Sidenote, not my job to do research, but I'm still not able to find any clips of this. It seems they're referring to this video from long before the attack, so the implication in the article that this was in reaction to the Pahalgam attack is likely completely false.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB0bAs9b2B8 Anantanni22 (talk) 21:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest removing it, neither of the remaining sources says when the quote is from or provides any way to confirm the claim. If it really was from the old video above, it should not be used to imply the statement was a response to the attack. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anantanni22 I believe this article should include a dedicated paragraph on India's partisan media, often referred to as "Godi media," and their overtly biased coverage of this attack in the Reaction section. What does everyone think? DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and ofcousre remove arnab if there aren't any sources. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DataCrusade1999 A dedicated para is a bit much in my opinion. This is after all an article on a terrorist attack. The article already does criticize "Godi Media". Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it were a terrorist attack in another country I might not even ask for inclusion of media coverage but it's India and media in India becomes a party to the conflcit itself with fake news and giving communal colors to everything. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DataCrusade1999 I have not advocated for the removal of critical content against the media. I agree with your points.

Dedicating a paragraph to sensational media coverage is a bit much in my opinion. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose 2-3 lines would be enough but those lines ought to cover the whole gamut of media coverage of this attack by the Indian media. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 03:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If multiple reliable, non-partisan sources state that Indian media was "overtly biased" in their coverage of this specific attack, then it should be included. We should not stray into original research. Anantanni22 (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to research a lot, but for the life of me, I could not find the original video or live stream or news report where Goswami made the final solution statement. On top of that, none of the "Big reliable" Indian news media like The Hindu of the Indian Express covered it. From what I found, it seems like this originates from a twitter post by a random user accusing Goswami of making the statements, which was then circle reported. I am removing the info from the article. EarthDude (talk) 09:57, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hallelujah! The Middle East Eye wrote:

Indian government officials said that Italian and Israeli tourists were also killed in the attack that was carried out using automatic rifles and small arms, Indian newspaper The Hindu reported.

We should never touch this paper with a bargepole! -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude The Quint article is an opinion piece afaik. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Anantanni22, @Caesarian Cobol, @DataCrusade1999, @Kautilya3, @MilesVorkosigan, in a discussion in the talk page of Godi media, an editor has located the specific instances in which Arnab Goswami asked for a final solution for Pakistan following the attacks. So the given sources can be qualified as reliable because they are providing factual information. I believe this information is warranted for inclusion in the article:

::** What's An Election in Kashmir Achieved? End Result is Terror Infiltration (22 April 2025)

• • 5:16: "Make things alright. Whether it is through our deep state or our hard state. And let's not waste time. Symbolism will not help with Pakistan. Surgical strikes don't fix Pakistan. There needs to be a final solution because as Mrs. Pallavi who's the wife of Mr. Manjunath, a 47 year old man, her husband killed."
  • 9:33: "I believe this is the kind of matter that needs a final solution, whatever that is. Not just airstrikes or surgical strikes. This time we demand a final solution. Vis a vis Pakistan."
• Debate with Arnab: Will J&K Parties Call Out Pak Over Pahalgam Terror Attack? (22 April 2025)
  • 2:23: "Ladies and gentlemen, I'm opening the debate tonight. We're demanding a final solution and, uh, I'd like Lalit Ambardar to start the conversation this evening..."
  • 25:05: "...and we need to do everything internationally to settle this matter once and for all. I've been saying it, Pakistan is weak. Move. Move. Have a final solution."
  • 47:41: "This is not a moment—momentary coverage as far as we are concerned and we will not be satisfied 'till we believe Pakistan has got a smashed nose, not a bloody nose. Ladies and gentlemen, we are calling for an absolute and final solution to Pakistan."

This is not the first time Goswami has used the phrase "final solution" in reference to Kashmir. After the December 2023 attack in Poonch, Arnab employed the same language:

• Poonch Attack: India's Response Should Be 'A Final Solution' To Pakistani Terror (22 December 2023)
  • 2:21: "A promise to the children who have lost their fathers tonight that the revenge will be so unforgiving that the world will watch. That this revenge will be a final solution to Pakistani terror at India's borders. We are told that India is going all out, ladies and gentlemen, and with the operation still on, our promise is to the forces at the border executing that final solution. And as Indians, we are together in saying that we are backing them to reach Pakistan: a befitting lesson like never before." EarthDude (talk) 08:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude here "final solution" may or may not be a reference to the Jewish Holocaust provided the context. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 08:29, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Goswami has been known to spread islamophobic and far-right conspiracy theories and claims, and open propaganda for the Hindu right. In light of this, repeated calls for a final solution shouldn't be ignored. EarthDude (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude Stick to factual reporting and not speculations. Did Goswami spread Islamophobia and all that? Yes. Did he call for a Holocaust like solution? We simply do not have evidence. See WP:OR. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He explicitly called for a final solution, and im saying we just say he called for a final solution. I never said he called for a holocaust in pakistan, i didnt say we should add in the article "he wants a genocide for revenge" or anything along those lines. What im saying is that we just include in the article what he said, which is literally the opposite of original research. EarthDude (talk) 09:24, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude Usually "final solution" refers to the Holocaust when referring like this. Out of a Holocaust context the words "final solution" is pretty harmless and not worthy of inclusion. Caesarian Cobol (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes out of context, it doesnt warrant inclusion, but it is far more notably when a controversial figure such as Goswami said those words. It would be akin to Alice Weidel of the AfD calling for an answer to the "Jewish Question", publicly, EVEN IF she didnt explicitly call for a genocide. Sure, out of context, it probably doesnt mean much, but the figure speaking about it makes it notable enough for inclusion EarthDude (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EarthDude This is a strawman argument. Did Arnab remotely mention Holocaust or Jew or something related to that? It's a weak argument from your side. If anything Hindu Nationalists like Arnab loveee Israel and Jews in general (Whether or not it's a good thing is not for us to decide) Caesarian Cobol (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely missed my point. I said that his position and his rhetorical history warrant an inclusion of the language being used. Again, giving an example, Elon Musk did a salute during Trump's inauguration some months ago. It looked suspiciously like a nazi salute. However, it was all very vague. It doesnt matter if he actually meant it as a nazi salute or not, his position, his rhetorical history, his political views, etc. warranted that the salute and the controversy surrounding it, have its own Wikipedia article. This is why, even if Goswami doesnt mean he want a genocide, it should be included that he, very explicitly, called for a final solution as revenge. We should also tweak it slightly to say that it was vague if he meant it in genocidal terms, but again, his history warrants that this be included in the article EarthDude (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter to me whether somebody found the exact clips of Goswami. What the WP:SECONDARY sources say is what matters. Why was the content removed in the first place? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:05, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was removed because the original clips couldn't be found. It was thought that he never said those words in reality which is why I removed the content. Other than that, the sources are reliable EarthDude (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a good reason to remove it. But I recall it also being mentioned that the sources were opinion columns. In addition, I wonder if the Arnab Goswami mention is relevant to that paragraph at all since his ranting was not directed at Muslims, which is what that paragraph is discussing. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 11:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the paragraph is more about the larger reaction within India, which also includes statements not fully related to Muslims. For example, the statements of Sikh communities helping Kashmirir students has little to do with Muslims, neither do the lines related to Himanshi Narwal, etc. Rise in broader nationalistic and anti-Pakistani sentiments in the wake of the attack seems pretty relevant in that section, so I believe the information about Goswami should be added too, especially because he is such a big figure.

Also, according to Wikipedia policy, while opinion articles are generally unreliable, even for information which may seem factual at first, if that specific information is verified, then those opinion articles can be used as sources. EarthDude (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph starts with The attack also prompted a surge in Islamophobic and anti-Kashmiri sentiments across the country. and elaborates in the remainder. I don't see Goswami having done either of these, at least in the quotes that have been presented. So it doesn't belong in that paragraph.

"Verified" is not enough, WP:VNOTSUFF. "Rise in broader nationalist and anti-Pakistani sentiments" and "he is such a big figure" is unevidenced WP:OR. If that is basis of your argument for inclusion, it fails. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:33, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5][6][7] 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

  @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)[reply]

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

  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.^[1] 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Some victim names have received wide national and international coverage in many WP:RS sources. It seems that many Wikipedia editors and administrators have found that the Victims of the attack are notable enough to justify mentioning them and even have a Wikipedia page for them, as in the case of Syed Adil Hussain Shah, the Muslim pony operator killed in this attack.

To keep the article balanced, and avoid naming victims from only one religion, I would suggest that names of other widely reported notable victims be included in the article body, such as Vinay Narwal and Shubham Dwivedi. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 10:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. People are named only if they are notable individuals outside the event itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I largely agree with Kautilya3, and I don't think Syed Adil Hussain Shah was a notable individual outside the event.

I see that Syed Adil Hussain Shah page is now Proposed for Deletion.

If it does not get deleted, then I think it would be fair to name other equally widely reported victims.

Thanks. 09:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC) RogerYg (talk) 09:49, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTMEMORIAL 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 09:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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] }[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

Please change the last sentence of the lead from, "On 7 May India launched precision strikes at 9 locations in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered-Kashmir." to, "On 7 May India launched precision strikes on 9 terror camps in Pakistan and Pakistan-administered-Kashmir." The sources used say so.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: as it is a violation of WP:NPOV 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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: [8] [9] [10] Jasksingh (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

2025 Pahalgam attack → Pahalgam attack – Per WP:CONCISE; This is the only article that has the name "Pahalgam attack" on Wikipedia, so there is no reason for us to use the date disambiguator 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:32, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close - Per WP:CONSISTENT. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:20, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Wikipedia:CONSISTENT is not absolute, and this attack is far more notable and consequential, when compared to past attacks such as Uri or Reasi. EarthDude (talk) 10:01, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support as we avoid unnecessary disambiguation. We do need to be consistent, I agree: Tel al-Sultan attack, Ghouta chemical attack, and many more. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:43, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close - Per WP:CONSISTENT Agree with Kautilya3 See similar attacks on Wiki

• 2008 Mumbai attacks ( Pahalgam attack is not bigger than 2008 Mumbai attacks)
• 2016 Uri attack
• 2019 Pulwama attack
• 2024 Reasi attack.

Reasoning of Concise by removing year is very Weak argument compared to WP:CONSISTENT. Thanks. RogerYg (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A good example for which attacks have dates or not is the template "Terrorist attacks in India (since 2001)". {{Terrorist attacks in India (since 2001)}} EldenMacdonald (talk) 13:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support, extremely notable attack not needing the distinction merited to large cities like Paris and Mumbai. Jebiguess (talk) 19:13, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE AND SPEEDY CLOSE: The Attack is notable and Important however simple counterstikes were also carried out after Uri and Pulwana. WP:CONSISTANT can be read as tring to make the year of the attck also quite clear RΔ𝚉🌑R-𝕏 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTCRYSTAL 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NCE. By default we include the year in event titles. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Too early to decided. This attack happened recently just a month ago, and then became a pivotal point for subsequent escalations afterward. Thus, having being talked more often in media at the moment, the term "Pahalgam attack" is sufficient enough to point to this attack. But, (unless escalate further) after cooling for the next several months or years, the term "Pahalgam attack" became less known figurately, thus the year "2025" become a useful identifier supposedly. As per Wikipedia:NOTCRYSTAL this is just wild speculation nonetheless. EdhyRa (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the word "militants" used to describe the attackers instead of "terrorists"? Because last time I checked, the definition of "terrorists" is: 'a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.' It also doesn't help that the word "terrorist" has been used liberally in September 11 attacks, 1993 World Trade Center bombing and other such pages. Then why is this any different? Idkwhattoputherelul (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while attacks such as these are generally called terrorist attacks without much issue, using the word terrorist for individuals involved in the attack is always a slippery slope. There are many articles detailing terrorist attacks that use the word militant instead of terrorist or alongside terrorists, such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, the 2008 Mumbai attacks, the Westgate shopping mall attack, etc. But I wouldn't be entirely opposed to calling the attacks terrorists, if the sources call them that. If there's a consensus to call them terrorists instead of militants, I wouldn't have an issue. I personally just don't see the differentiation between the two words as that big of a deal EarthDude (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I guess. Idkwhattoputherelul (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the zipliner was Hindu "The attack was inadvertently filmed by a Hindu tourist from Ahmedabad, who was ziplining during the attack." Can we remove the religion mentioned here? EldenMacdonald (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]