Talk:2025 Jaffar Express hijacking
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2025 Jaffar Express hijacking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is written in Pakistani English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, travelled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | A news item involving 2025 Jaffar Express hijacking was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 March 2025. |  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_without_national_boundaries.svg)
Coords
edit29°35′39″N 67°41′22″E / 29.59417°N 67.68944°E (No. 1) or 29°38′53″N 67°35′3″E / 29.64806°N 67.58417°E (No. 2)?
The The Week ref used in the article refers to it as "The Mashkaf Tunnel ... the eighth tunnel", and the Dawn ref identifies the site as both "Tunnel No 8" and the "Mashkaf Tunnel". No dispute about "Tunnel No. 8" and "Mashkaf Tunnel" being the same place, then (which is what I infer from the rv edit summary). Dawn also has a very good small-scale map of the area, showing the tunnel between the two stations: Pehro Kunri and Mushkaf.
Coords No. 2 place the site further north and west than both the named stations, so that can't be right (Google Maps shows this better than Bing Maps; OSM is pretty useless unless you can read what I'm assuming is Urdu). Conversely, coords No. 1 actually places the locator pin at the western end of the (labelled) Mashkaf Tunnel, just after what looks like a trestle bridge (Google Maps satellite view). And between the two settlements with stations.
Abductive, do you agree with that analysis? Or why do you prefer No. 2 over No. 1? Did you find the ___location indicated as "tunnel 8" somewhere? Moscow Mule (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I used Wikimapia. If you check there you can run along the track (to the SE) and count the tunnels, which are all labeled. Abductive (reasoning) 03:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- The alleged Mashkaf tunnel is Tunnel 4. Abductive (reasoning) 04:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Also, the BBC now says that the women and children managed to walk to the nearest station, Panir, which is consistent with my coords. That station is also shown on Wikimapia as "PANEER" (to the NW). Abductive (reasoning) 04:16, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
And it's fair to assume that numbering is correct (ie, official), I suppose. OK, we've got contradicting sources. And I was about to link to the BBC article that speaks of the "nearest railway station, Panir", which'd only be true with respect to coords No. 2. Fog of war, then. Maybe it'll clear up over the coming days. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
And if your coords are correct, it makes a mockery of the ___location information that I put in the first para of the "Hijacking" section, sourced to the Dawn article. Moscow Mule (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- It's been my experience that only the BBC and Wikimapia can be trusted in the developing world. One of the sources in the article has an AI concept art of the attack. Abductive (reasoning) 04:49, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Agree with you about the BBC (for speed, accuracy, but not for depth: too many single-sentence paragraphs), but Wikimapia's never really done it for me. And I'll be most upset if Dawn ("national paper of record") is shown to be wrong on this. Jagran's AI is hilarious: they didn't even specify "single track" in the prompt. Moscow Mule (talk) 05:12, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Don't use Jagran use The Hindu or The Indian Express for maximum objective coverage from India on this crisis(Source- I'm Indian. I know how media works here cause I edit Wikipedia alot) , and definitely use Dawn. DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I found these two article from Reuters.
- https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/pakistan-rescues-155-hostages-train-dozens-still-held-sources-say-2025-03-12/
- https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/how-separatist-militants-hijacked-train-pakistan-2025-03-12/ DataCrusade1999 (talk) 15:51, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Various sources (eg, BBC) are now saying it wasn't in a tunnel but out in the open (which makes more tactical sense if you think about it). But as yet, nothing clearer on the actual ___location. Moscow Mule (talk) 02:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Numbers
editThe numbers are not certain, and may not be for some time, as it might be hard to identify who is who, and people may not hang around to be counted.
- Total on train: (around) 440 according to Reuters. 12 March
- Walked to station: Unknown?
- Rescued: 346 according to PK military?
- Dead hostage-takers: 33 according to PK military
- Dead hostages: 21? 27? Killed by BLA?
- Injured hostages: 37?
- Dead military: 4?
- Injured military: ?
Feel free to update or create updated copy below. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 23:13, 12 March 2025 (UTC).
- That's a fake figure from the Pakistani government to hide the actual number of casualties and their failed mission. They also killed many hostages. There should be a neutral section that includes the casualty figures reported by the BLA as well. 2405:201:304F:B814:30C:2346:15B8:8D41 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
China
editThe press release and video released by the militants explicitly stated that the attack was directed against the Pakistan Army due to its actions in the region and against what they referred to as Chinese interference. However, there has been no mention of this important information. राजकुमार(talk) 11:18, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
- Are you referring to this video by chance? Because that one is old and not linked to the 2025 attack. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:15, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
Sections on reactions combined
editI converted the two sections on reactions into subsections within a single section. Let me know if that doesn't seem appropriate somehow, since that's a major change in the article's structure. MbShm (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2025 (UTC)