Wikipedia

Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack/Archive 7

< Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack
Latest comment: 15 days ago by Day Creature in topic Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2025
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RFC: Militant attack or Terrorist attack

Latest comment: 3 months ago34 comments24 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is WP:NOTAVOTE, however, as an opening assessment, a census of opinions was conducted. That census found 19 !votes for Option 2, 6 for Option 1, and 1 for Jihadist.
Per WP:DETCON, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." In closing an RfC, per WP:NHC, the closer determines consensus by "judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it" after excluding irrelevant arguments.
This doesn't mean the closer sits in judgment of which side had the better arguments, rather, the closer evaluates the disposition of opinions and makes a determination to discard some based on our maxims as laid-out in the above-cited policies and guidelines. It is, in that sense, not a vote. Data does not go in one end and then comes out the other end aggregated. A qualitative, but non-judgmental, sorting occurs. This was operationalized thusly:
  • I, first, determined which of the !votes were from "responsible Wikipedians". This meant I generally excluded or de-weighted !votes coming from topic banned editors, SPAs, sockpuppets, and editors obviously canvassed to the discussion. This resulted in the following adjusted census: 18 !votes for Option 2, 6 for Option 1, and 1 for Jihadist.
  • Next, I discounted !votes that made no policy appeal, or made a policy appeal so strange that no reasonable editor could be expected to respond, or expressed personal preference only, or which were merely WP:VAGUEWAVEs. In doing so, I applied a very liberal standard so that even the broad hint of a !vote based on some aspect of policy was counted. This resulted in the following adjusted census: 17 !votes for Option 2, 6 for Option 1, and 1 for Jihadist.
  • Third, I evaluated the discussion to determine if there was any basis of agreement across divergent opinions. In this case, the one !vote for Jihadist indicated they would also be amenable, as an alternative, to Option 2. This resulted in the following adjusted census: 18 !votes for Option 2, 6 for Option 1.
Both sides argued that MOS:TERRORIST provided a justification for their respective opinions and, in doing so, neither side seemed to have the upper hand over the other.
After evaluating only the policy-based arguments advanced by "responsible Wikipedians", 75% support Option 2. Again, this is not a vote or a headcount. Several expressions were qualitatively suppressed, as described above. Moreover, consensus implies something more than a plurality or majority. Nonetheless, after these adjustments were made and the overall disposition of opinions evaluated, it's clear there's a broad coherence of thought. Because consensus does not require unanimity, such a coherence of thought represents the consensus in this discussion.
There is a consensus to refer to this attack as a "terrorist attack". Chetsford (talk) 12:47, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Survey

  • 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-
Note that the data slightly fluctuates but it gives almost accurate statistics. Srimant ROSHAN (talk) 13:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
Option 1: Per MOS:TERRORIST. 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 08:38, 28 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Option 2: Terrorist; sources make this clear. Qalb alasid (talk) 01:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Option 2 - as per the discussion and arguments of User:Kautilya3 below, in the next subsection.-Mossadegh2 (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Option 1 per MOS:TERRORIST. ~ HAL333 22:22, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
    no? The motives section of the infobox has no mention of religion 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Discussion

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

Refs

  1. ^ https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/india/pakistans-1st-reaction-to-pahalgam-terror-attack-says-nothing-to-do-with-it/
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should be added ASAP before any gaslighting attempt ;

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

[3] [4]

"The arrested --Parvaiz Ahmad Jothar from Batkote and Bashir Ahmad Jothar of Hill Park, both from Pahalgam-- accepted of harbouring the three terrorists, who were Pakistani nationals affiliated to the proscribed terrorist outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), the NIA officials further said. This is the first arrest by the anti-terror probe agency, coming exactly two months after the attack, which escalated tensions between India and Pakistan."

Side commentary: Attacking Pakistan was not a solution. Attacking any terrorist state is not a solution. You kill one, and hundreds will take their place. Without destroying the ideology behind it, this is just a never-ending war - one you’ll lose once you’re outbred by a large margin. The real enemies are within 2409:40C1:202C:1C22:8CC2:E070:B320:D977 (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

update "Identification of the terrorists and bounty" section

Latest comment: 2 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

excerpt from the article The breakthrough is a departure from what was previously believed about the identities of the attackers. Two days after the April 22 Pahalgam attack, the Jammu and Kashmir police had released three sketches – Pakistan nationals Hashim Musa and Ali Bhai alias Talha, and Kashmir local Adil Hussain Thoker. Sources in the central agency now say the three men in the sketches are not the Pahalgam attackers.

https://indianexpress.com/article/india/three-pahalgam-attackers-pakistan-sketches-jammu-kashmir-police-nia-probe-10081949/ DataCrusade1999 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 June 2025

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the following in 'Indian investigations' section:

On 22 June 2025, National Investigation Agency arrested two local Kashmiris for harboring the terrorists responsible for the attack. The two men allegedly provided food and shelter to the Pakistani terrorists affiliated to Lashkar e Taiba. [5] [6] [7] [8] 2405:201:4039:200B:CDEE:3766:88BE:B4F4 (talk) 13:16, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

  Done. Charliehdb (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Questionable Sources

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

These sources are not appropriate. For example, these three articles are cited:

https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pahalgam-terror-attack-hashim-moosa-hashim-moosa-pahalgam-killer-on-the-run-is-former-pak-commando-sources-8292119 https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pahalgam-massacre-pakistani-terrorist-former-para-commando-says-probe/articleshow/120709449.cms https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Apr/29/hashim-musa-ex-pakistan-army-special-forces-soldier-prime-suspect-in-pahalgam-terror-attack

They all quote anonymous sources. So this should be reflected in the wording used in the Wikipedia article. Like "Indian media quoting anonymous government sources say..." rather than taking what they report as now proven facts.

Some of these newspapers were reporting on UFOs at one point. Is that a valid source for claiming UFOs exist? These citations don't meet Wikipedia's standards at all. 2600:4041:5CC6:7200:0:0:0:1386 (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Why "anonymous government sources" instead of just "government sources"? Nakonana (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 July 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Proposed Title Change: From: Pahalgam attack To: Pahalgam massacre

🧾 Justification: Nature of the Event The incident was not a conventional armed encounter or indiscriminate attack, but a deliberate and premeditated killing of unarmed civilians. The victims were targeted based on their religious identity, which meets the definition of a massacre, not a generic "attack."

Terminology Consistency Wikipedia articles such as:

Wandhama massacre (1998)

Chittisinghpura massacre (2000)

Nadimarg massacre (2003) use the term “massacre” when similar patterns of religiously motivated killings of civilians occur. For consistency, this incident also qualifies under that precedent. Ssagarwag (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Dahawk04 (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 July 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please change this sentence in the Response section, "It was a communication device, presumably a Huawei satellite phone that had been monitored since 22 April 2025, that helped tracking down the terrorists." to, "It was a communication device, presumably a Huawei satellite phone that had been monitored since 22 April 2025, that helped track down the terrorists." 

I think it is a typo 152.57.29.179 (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)
  Done Thanks for pointing it out EarthDude (wanna talk?) 17:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Duplicate content

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SmartyPants22, with this edit you have added content in the #Response section that is already present in the article under "Investigations and operations#Indian operations". EldenMacdonald (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

EldenMacdonald, thanks for pointing that out! Was a merger from a recently created article. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 18:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 July 2025

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

[1]

[2]

Change The 2025 Pahalgam attack was a terrorist attack on tourists by five armed terrorists near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir in which 26 civilians were killed on 22 April 2025.[2][7][8] The militants mainly targeted Hindu tourists, though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed. to The 2025 Pahalgam attack was a terrorist attack on tourists by five armed terrorists near Pahalgam in Indian-administered Jammu and Kashmir in which 26 civilians were killed on 22 April 2025.[2][7][8] The militants mainy targeted male hindu tourists, leaving their widows though a Christian tourist and a local Muslim were also killed. Kannu kaushik (talk) 08:47, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The sources provided confirm the victims were mostly men, but do not corroborate that this was intentional targetting. SI09 (talk) 12:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)
26 men were killed whereas none of the women. All men. None women. It was not a mens only gathering, nor one that only had access to men and inaccessible to women. Its an open field and mountains where couples for honeymoon and families for vacation are a present in the field of view. I have added an additional source to clear this. [9]
2. My original argument contains itself only to targeting of males. Whether intentional or not, is a separate topic, outside the course of my original argument.
However it can be reasonably inferred that it's not unintentional to target 26 of a kind and to simultaneously leave more or less 26 of other in an open field of view. Again my original argument concerns itself with the targeting only. Kannu kaushik (talk) 19:09, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Infobox detail: Perpetrators

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the infobox, under 'Perpetrators', there have been two edits which have added the following information in brackets in front of 'The Resistance Front':

  1. The Resistance Front (accused by India, denied) edit
  2. The Resistance Front (claimed, later retracted)[...] edit

Both times the content in brackets has been removed. Is there any version that could be added in the infobox, or should only the name of the terror organisation 'The Resistance Front' remain, backed by references? EldenMacdonald (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Please see the Bloomberg source. It's not just accused by India, It's confirmed by US government too. King Ayan Das (talk) 16:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

M4 or M9

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Today's references point to a "M9 Carbine" being found with the terrorists, and that this M9 was the one used in the attack on 22 April.

Currently the first paragraph mentions M4 carbines. Can I can ahead go ahead and change M4 to M9? I can't seem to find a link on Wikipedia for the M9 other than 'M9 pistol'. EldenMacdonald (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

India Today is a WP:RS, so I don't think this replacement has any problem. King Ayan Das (talk) 16:31, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 August 2025

Latest comment: 29 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Out of the 26 victims two belong to christian community. One was from Arunachal Pradesh and one from Madhya Pradesh. 2405:201:AC06:D07A:BAFD:5B:6EF8:E061 (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.RegentsPark (comment) 18:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Minor spelling error - "suposedly"

Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Under the "Attack" heading, please change from:

suposedly either warning shots or celebratory in nature.

to

supposedly either warning shots or celebratory in nature.

Thank you :) also apologises if this is not an appropriate way to structure a talk message. I'm not sure how else it is supposed to be done. RandomAccountForOneTimeUseSorry (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2025

Latest comment: 20 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Proposed edit:

In the "Background" section's second paragraph, please replace the following last sentence 

" Fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area.[3][4]"

with the following 

While fears have been expressed that these changes would result in a change in demographics in Kashmir, with non-locals settling in the area,[5][6] critics of the earlier arrangement noted that it had created a legal asymmetry: Kashmiris had always been free to settle anywhere in India, but non-Kashmiris were barred from permanent residency, property ownership, and government jobs in Jammu and Kashmir. This disparity was cited as discriminatory by proponents of the constitutional changes, who also noted that the previous laws discriminated against Kashmiri women by revoking their property rights if they married a non-permanent resident.*[7][8][9][10][11]

Rationale:

The cited sources (BBC News and The Economist both meet WP:NEWSORG, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace both meet WP:TERTIARY and WP:SCHOLARSHIP) are independent, high-quality, and internationally recognized third-party sources that and meet Wikipedia’s all WP:RS reliability criteria for this contentious topic:

  • Are editorially neutral WP:NEUTRAL: not affiliated with India, Pakistan, or any advocacy group, and their reporting is based on factual analysis rather than opinion.
  • Originate from diverse geopolitical contexts: BBC (UK), CFR (US), The Economist (UK), and Carnegie (US) are based in Christian-majority or secular Western nations, eliminating concerns of pro-Indian, pro-Hindu or pro-Pakistani pro-Islamic bias, they maintain editorial independence (WP:INDEPENDENT).
  • This aligns with WP:NPOV by relying on non-partisan, non-regional sources to describe the pre-2019 legal framework.
  • Explicitly document the legal asymmetry of Article 370, noting that while Kashmiris had full rights in India, non-Kashmiris faced restrictions in J&K—a factual observation, not an ideological claim. These avoid the victimhood narratives by framing the issue as a constitutional disparity, not a Hindu-Muslim or India-Pakistan polemic. WP:NOTOPINION The original statement in the article, which I am proposing to expand, has a citation which is an "opinion" piece from The Wire - a publication known for pushing partisan POV.
  • Wikipedia precedent: All four sources are routinely used across Wikipedia for India-Pakistan Hindu-Muslim articles (e.g. Article 370, Kashmir conflict), meet the WP:CONTEXT standard for sensitive material, provide necessary context about pre-2019 legal framework without advocacy.

Notifying active editors (per article edit history) @UnpetitproleX, Arjayay, Kautilya3, Ritwik Deuba, EldenMacdonald, and Surabhi9191: Please review for NPOV/completeness, modify and incorporate my edit accordingly.

Thank you. 220.255.242.109 (talk) 18:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying. I'll take some time but I am sure other editors have also taken notes accordingly. There's much to be scrutinized and debated. And yes, your proposed edit appears fair. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay. Just checked again. Other editors have taken care of it. Have a good day. Ritwik Deuba (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2025

Latest comment: 15 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under the "Attack" heading, please change the minor spelling mistake of "suposedly" to "supposedly."

Following the killings the militants fired shots in the air, suposedly either warning shots or celebratory in nature.

Following the killings the militants fired shots in the air, supposedly either warning shots or celebratory in nature. RandomAccountForOneTimeUseSorry (talk) 12:26, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Done Day Creature (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2025 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.thehindu.com/infographics/2025-04-24/pahalgam-terror-attack-victims-tribute/index.html
  2. ^ https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze10y59j91o
  3. ^ Beg, Mirza Saaib (30 May 2020). "J&K's New Domicile Order: Disenfranchising Kashmiris, One Step at a Time". The Wire (Opinion). All these initiatives have sparked fears of demographic change, militarised settlements, dispossession and alienation of land in Kashmir.
  4. ^ Luv Puri, Brutal interruption, The Telegraph (India), 2 November 2021. ProQuest 2590738085 "After the changes brought about by the abrogation of Article 370, mass-scale hysteria about the possibility of a demographic change has swept the Valley."
  5. ^ Beg, Mirza Saaib (30 May 2020). "J&K's New Domicile Order: Disenfranchising Kashmiris, One Step at a Time". The Wire (Opinion). All these initiatives have sparked fears of demographic change, militarised settlements, dispossession and alienation of land in Kashmir.
  6. ^ Luv Puri, Brutal interruption, The Telegraph (India), 2 November 2021. ProQuest 2590738085 "After the changes brought about by the abrogation of Article 370, mass-scale hysteria about the possibility of a demographic change has swept the Valley."
  7. ^ "Kashmir special status: What Article 370 means and why it matters". BBC News. 5 August 2019. Outsiders were barred from permanently settling, buying land, or holding local government jobs. However, Kashmiris enjoyed full rights to live and work elsewhere in India—a legal asymmetry that critics called discriminatory.
  8. ^ "What India's Kashmir Moves Mean for Its Democracy". Council on Foreign Relations. 9 August 2019. Kashmiris themselves faced no such restrictions elsewhere in India—a disparity that fueled accusations of constitutional exceptionalism.
  9. ^ "India's government strips Jammu and Kashmir of special status". The Economist. 8 August 2019. Kashmiris faced no equivalent barriers in the rest of India—a lopsided arrangement that contradicted India's constitutional principles of equality.
  10. ^ Kashmir’s New Status: How the Region Fits Into India’s Constitutional Framework (Report). Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 4 February 2020. Kashmiris could migrate, work, and own property across India, but non-Kashmiris were denied reciprocal rights in Jammu and Kashmir. This imbalance institutionalized discrimination.
  11. ^ "Kashmir special status explained: What are Articles 370 and 35A". Al Jazeera. 5 August 2019. The controversial Article 35A bars female residents of Jammu and Kashmir from property rights in the event that they marry a person from outside the state... Critics of Article 35A say the provision... discriminates against women.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack/Archive_7&oldid=1307475017"