Talk:2021 Delhi Republic Day violence/Archive 1

Title
Renamed the article to 2021 Farmers' Republic day parade from "2021 Indian farmers' Republic day tractor parade". Republic day is already a qualifier. There were not just tractors. see name at Tribune. If there are suggestions for other titles then we can discuss.--Walrus Ji (talk) 08:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI is not reliable source
, I am removing the biased and unreliable sources ANI and newssites whose articles are based on reports by ANI. ANI is not a reliable source. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Instead of reverting you can easily find an alternative source if you can't you can ask me or someone else to do so. Thank you, GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 11:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, why this particular claim "& flashed swords" and its supporting source was removed? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 11:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , see WP:SYNTHESIS. Article said Nihangs were displaying sword. DavidWood synthesized it to say that protesters were doing it. Anyway, the quality level of sources need to be improved. Please use Neutral international sources. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The thedailyguardian.com is an international natural source and Nihangs were also protesting so there is no point to remove that claim. I'll find more better sources. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It is based on ANI, just see the pics on their article. Kindly self revert. Feel free to add fresh content from international reliable sources. Not ANI and ANI based sources. Please self revert or I will be reverting you for using https://thedailyguardian.com/anti-farm-laws-protestors-wave-flags-from-ramparts-of-red-fort-in-delhi/ Walrus Ji (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I won't self revert my edit but find better sources for these claim. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * multilple rs has been cited and ANI has been removedDavidWood11 (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Plz provide the discussion page where reliability of ANI has been disputedDavidWood11 (talk) 12:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Just search for ANI there. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think you will agree that the article needs lot of improvement, the first step should be to cull out unreliable content from unreliable sources. If the reliable international sources says same thing it can be re-added this time with better source. International sources will summarize the event and only cover the more relevant incidents, which is preferable as Wikipedia is supposed to summarize what the reliable sources say. I exhort you to self revert and remove the ANI based source. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I saw your last edit. No It does not improve the problem with the content. Police did not issue a statement that swords were flashed. This is misrepresentation. ANI is unreliable source this has been discussed on the talk. Please only use the reliable sources as explained on the talk page. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to add AP, NYT, BBC into the article now. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliability of ANI has been challenged but its not concluded. Reliability of any source has to be established on relible sources noticeboard only, and not on the talk page of any article.DavidWood11 (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Walrus Ji please stop removing sourced content and edit warring. If you don't like something please use this place to discuss instead of removing well sourced claims. Also, please provide a link to the discussion regarding ANI at WP:RSN. Thank you, GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please refer to this link with comment by, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_307 Walrus Ji (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This discussion was about the reliability of LiveMint and not ANI so, that one comment not going to help. Please use WP:RSN and seek consensus before removing those sources. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 12:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please self revert your edit where you restored sources using ANI. Walrus Ji (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Self revert? why? there is no consensus as of yet that challenges the reliability of ANI so please. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 13:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you see my links below? Walrus Ji (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * , See these links       they discuss the unreliability of ANI--Walrus Ji (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The links you provided are external links that talk about the reliability of ANI. However you are required to start a thread on reliable source notice borad and gain a consensus there regarding the relibility of any source. The links you provided are immaterial untill you reach a consensus on wiki reliable source notice borad.DavidWood11 (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Addition of religious flag hoisting on red fort pics
Can some body plz add pics of hoisting of religious flag on the mast of Red Fort and arsoning by rioters. DavidWood11 (talk) 17:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , They are not free images. see WP:COPYVIO page about images. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

When did police say they flashed swords
I have Reverted blatant misrepresentation of police statement added by Davidwood and repeatedly edit warred and restored by GSS. Instead of edit warring with me to restore this blatant misrepresentation that was raised, you should discuss this on the talk page first. Kindly provide the source which you are referring to about the police statement on swords.--Walrus Ji (talk) 05:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Here and it is also mentioned in the FIR that a policeman was attacked with a sword. So, please stop removing sourced contents or those that can be easily verified. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , TIMES NOW is not a reliable source see RSN. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:50, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Also your non reliable source does not attribute the swords to police statements. Either self revert or I will be reporting this misrepresentation to admin noticeboards. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh comeon are you kidding me? There is plenty of sources to verify this claim and I can provide you more. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am waiting for your reliable source. You can take all the time. But first self revert and remove your misrepresentation. Walrus Ji (talk) 05:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have already provided a better source. If you need more let me know. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 05:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Do you realize that Kirpan is carried mandatorily by every Sikh. Delhi police have an obvious axe to grind here. (see The Hindu article: Delhi Police connived with splinter group: Yechury) Please clarify what is your axe here? Why are you adding such motivated comments into this article when they clearly don't deserve in this article. Walrus Ji (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This comment by an individual not going to change the fact. This is their own opinion and we must focus on statements made by the police, not by a political leader of any party. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 07:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Also, the NDTV link you added says Nihangs carried swords, which they always do. Kind of like their job description. You are misrepresenting the statement to claim the protestors brandished swords. If you are neutral, you should be stating it clearly that the line about sword was meant for Nihangs. Walrus Ji (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nihangs were also a part of the protest as I said earlier so they were protestors. Carrying swords is their business but attacking police is not. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * here is another source that said "Drunken farmers or whoever they were, attacked us suddenly with swords, lathis, and other weapons. The situation was worsening and it was too difficult for us to control the violent crowd: Sandeep, Operator of DCP North, Delhi". GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 06:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dainik Jagran is the worst Hindi newspaper out there, in terms of biased and fake reporting when it comes to political topics. Interesting to note that the sources you are finding for your claims are only the unreliable ones. Speaks a lot about the content you are supporting. Anyway, I expect that you rephrase the disputed content so that it is inline with the source it is being referenced to. This is the root cause of the dispute, being discussed in this thread. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well this is how you see. Dainik Jagran is a widely accepted source so no question on their reliability and NDTV is a reliable as well and that's enough for verification and I found another source. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 07:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You convinetaly judge various sources as unreliable that did not satisfy your point of view. earlier on various occasions you said ANI, Times Now, and now you say Dainik Jagran as an unreliable source. However, as a matter of fact ANI, Times Now, and Dainik Jagran has a huge following, secondary citations, reach and readership. Here again, I am reminding you just dont give your verdict on unreliability in a random fashion. If you have any dispute regarding reliability of any source discuss it over reliable sources noticeboard and gain a consensus before reverting any edit which is in your opinion involves a reliability issue. Your any revert without gaining consensus account for edit warring DavidWood11 (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Many of article's sentences is ungrammatical and date format is inconsistent
Please check this main article, i see that many words that include in Farmers' Republic Day Parade was too ungrammatical and there are many inconsistent date format and spellings that used in the article. Because thisb article use Indian English and country officially use DMY date format, please rewording many sentences that have broken in the article. Thank you. 110.137.117.75 (talk) 07:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Republic is not a reliable source
please do not add Republic again. --Walrus Ji (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What is the issue with Republic now? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It is a shockingly biased source that is deemed unreliable on Wikipedia. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please link to that discussion where it deemed unreliable. Also, why this claim "Protesters recklessly driving their speeding tractors rammed barricades and attempted to mow down the policeman on duty." was removed when there is two reliable sources for verification? GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Why can't you do a quick search on WP:RSN yourself? Anyway I did the searching for you. Please read this discussion. []. I have copy edited that phrase into WP:NPOV language. Addition of mowing down of cops would need consensus, as they are claims by police. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You are keep removing that particular claim and that shows your biased behaviour so please stop edit waring again. Both sources are reliable and clearly support what is written in the article. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:28, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Republic is unreliable. I also showed you the RSN thread. If you add it ever again, you will be reported to admins. Please keep in mind. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * When I said I will add Republic source again? <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Read the title of this thread where you are responding. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:35, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You started this thread after I cited the Republic source for the first time and it wasn't restored and my message above read that "When I said I will add Republic source 'again'?" <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , in the comment you made at 19:28 you were defending the source, so I responded. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

If, as you say, Republic has been deemed unreliable by RSN standards, then I'm curious to know as to what motivates you to use equally, if not more, biased and unreliable portals like the wire, the quint, et alia, not just to push POV but also to disparage and discredit reputed agencies like ANI when they too have been treated the same way at RSN (i.e., unreliable) from time to time. You can't have it both ways,. MBlaze Lightning 06:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note that I've placed a POV tag on this article for the time being, for the article is replete with instances of NPOV violations (usage of disparage terms like Godi media to describe 'sections of the media' when the same is not found anywhere in the cited sources, major emphasis on the rioters' point of view to the point that it reeks of personal bias and as if we are taking sides, attributing documented statements of facts (pertaining to violence) to police and stuff. The article could do with a lot of copy-editing for correction of tenses and stuff too, otherwise a new, separate tag might be warranted. MBlaze Lightning  07:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think there are existing instances of non neutral statements. You are expected to post them on the talk page. If there are Copy edit issues you need to use the correct copy edit tag. using POV tag is a misuse. If the issues in tag are not appropriately discussed on the talk page then they will be removed. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Death of the protestor
and regarding this edit  Can you please comment below why you are reverting this. I have seen the edits and this is a minor dispute not worth edit warring over. We should only include the content that is mentioned in the reliable source. Regarding the farmer's death, both versions shooting accusation vs death in accident can be included as both are supported by reliable source. Several sources have called out Deep Sidhu as BJO activist, I think it should be included. What are your disagreements to my comment? --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of these claims cite a reliable source for WP:V so can you provide a reliable source for each claim made by Jaskeerat2302? I found some sources to support previous claims especially for contents like "Protesters recklessly driving their speeding tractors rammed barricades and attempted to mow down the policeman on duty ", "The rioters protestors also caused damage and vandalised facilities inside the fort" and "and gangster turned activist Lakha Sidhana". There is no evidence I can find that verify that the vandalism inside the Red Fort happened because of a clash between police and farmers. I don't mind mentioning Deep Sidhu as BJP activist as there is panty of sources to support this claim. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 18:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I added one source for Deep Sidhu. I will try to search for others too, and replace if I find. in the mean time please do not edit war. Walrus Ji (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I restored some contents with sources. Also, I found these two sources that confirm over 1,000 protesters were injured do you have a source to support "thousands of farmers were reported injured"? <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:06, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am fine with word "protestors were injured". Farmers were protesting. So it is ok from my side, no objection. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Reckless is a POV word. Please use neutral International sources for a less passionate and more neutral coverage of the incidents. Or else the edit wars on the article will never end. After a couple of edits from both of us. I think the issue of edit war should be resolved. Please let me know if you still have any pending concern. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't find international sources for every claim so we need to use high-quality Indian news sources and statements made by the police. <span style="font-family:monospace;font-weight:bold;font-size:16px;color:hsl(205, 98%, 55%);">GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 19:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , No. There is no need to add each and every minor detail into this article. If there are no high quality sources, then it is better to not add that controversial information, until it is covered by neutral international sources. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Protesters in tractors attempted to pass through the obstacles put on road by speedily ramming the barricades." is my copy edited version.

GSS you are trying to add "Some protesters driving their speeding tractors rammed barricades and attempted to mow down the policeman on duty."

Do you have a concern on my copy edited version for the first half? the mowing down of cop would need better source as it is a contentious claim. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2021 (UTC) GSS, Instead of furiously edit warring, why dont you check my edits and discuss them first? you are making a complete fool of yourself by adding the sources that I had already restored. just check your last edit and the line after that. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC) , I am talking about the financialexpress.com/opinion piece. You have added it twice already. When it should not even be added as it is a op ed piece. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

, I welcome this partial self revert by you. Please note that you need to remove it again as you have added it twice. the other source has also been added twice by you in the next lines. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Death at ITO
 * A farmer named Navreet Singh reportedly died on the spot while driving the tractor. Farmer union leaders and victim's family claimed that he died after being shot in the head by the police, and the event was witnessed by other farmers near ITO. The police claimed he died after he lost control and his tractor overturned on him while he was trying to break through barricades. Later the Delhi Police releases CCTV footage of the incident to counter the claim. The postmortem conducted at 2 am on January 27, noted the cause of death as "shock and haemorrhage due to anti-morten injuries". No bullet injuries were mentioned in the report. The family disputes the police version of the incident, and maintained that the death was due to bullet injury. The family referred to the mention of two "lacerated" wounds, one on Navreet's chin and the other behind his ear, in the post-mortem report. His family referred to the chin wound as entry and the deep gash above ear as the 'exit wound' of bullet. The family also released a video of the Navreet's face, showing the deep holes visible in his left chin and above his right ear, making the point that this was a bullet injury.
 * The police in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana have filed three sedition cases against journalists including India Today's Rajdeep Sardesai, and the Congress politician Shashi Tharoor for blaming his death on a gunshot.
 * The police in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Haryana have filed three sedition cases against journalists including India Today's Rajdeep Sardesai, and the Congress politician Shashi Tharoor for blaming his death on a gunshot.

More Sources for sedition case.


 * , Read the consensus achieved in this section above. with . The  above is the version that I had added and was reverted and removed by Raymond3023 and MBlaze Lightning. Everything That is added has been sourced appropriately. If you have any concerns or objections with regard to sourcing or phrasing then you will have to be specific so that it can be resolved. If no specific concerns, are pointed then the content will be restored. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:09, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Added more sources to show that newspapers have created articles with the headline as this person, and provided detailed coverage. The sedition case has also attracted exclusive coverage as the refs show. Accordingly the death of this protestor merits a section in this article. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

The neutrality is disputed tag
The issues have been resolved. I will remove the tag after some hours accordingly. If you believe that some neutrality issues still remain in the article, then please point them clearly and explicitly below with diffs for them to be resolved.--Walrus Ji (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the neutrality issues has been resolved, the tag can be removed now.

Government attempt
why are you deleting sourced information. If you have objections you are supposed to raised them on the talk page. If you have a better phrasing you should propose them below.--Walrus Ji (talk) 08:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I am trying to remove whitewashing done by some FELLOW editors. The content I removed is cleary not in line with WP:NPOV. Further, it doesn't even comply with WP:IMPARTIAL(words like demoralise, undermine, government succeeded). It doesn't even follow MOS:WTW. And the main thing is that, none of the sources provided support the content.  Trend SPLEND  ✉ 09:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * After searching in history, I found that it was added by . Jnanaskanda can you provide the source of this content that has objected to? May be we can reach a consensus version of this content after discussion.--Walrus Ji (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)


 * It's nonsensical to even think that a reliable source could write such non-neutral, biased and lopsidedly skewed lines. The text lacks even a speck of objectivity and smacks of partisan editorializing. It goes against everything that WP:NPOV stands for, and was duly removed before here, and the same was never challenged. Walrus Ji your restoration of this problematic text by falsely claiming that no objection was ever raised is absolutely false. This disregard for policies must stop. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , And your constant personal attacks must stop. Take it as a warning. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Other content removed in revert without raising any concern
Raymond3023 and MBlaze Lightning, In these 2 edits   both of you have removed content that has got nothing to do with Godi Media. Please explain your specific concern with the content you removed so that it can be resolved per consensus. If there is no response in this thread, all the other content will be restored back. --Walrus Ji (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It doesn't work that way. You need to explain your edits and get consensus for the same, the onus lies squarely on you, not on anyone else. Several editots had flagged issues with your edits before you began edit warring, that you were in fact violating BLP, much worse by misrepresenting sources . The undue focus on the death of a protestor and attempt to create a controversy where there is none is also unwarranted; edit warring to restore the same by pretending otherwise in edit summaries in order to mislead others indicates misconduct on your part. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Read the consensus achieved in the section with  now if you have something new to add here I am all ears.
 * The death of the protestor is a major event because an MP has been booked along with multiple journalists. what are your reasons for trying to water this down?
 * Which edit summary did you find misleading, Unless you point out how do you even expect an answer? Walrus Ji (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Since the only concern you have expressed in this version is related to the death of the protestor. I assume you do not have concern with the other content that I had added and you removed as part of your blanket reverts. I will be restoring them soon. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the so-called consensus is inconsequential and takes a backseat when the content in question has been challenged not by one or two, but three editors on grounds of WP:BLP and WP:V.As regards your proposal, your text has got problems galore, and to me it seems nothing but a pandora box. First, a perusal of your text shows that it is poorly written and laced with undue trivia: the unintelligent and arbitrary shifting of tenses from past to present for instance at the outset itself (').The detailed sequence of the claims made by the dead protestor's family similarly need not be covered in this article. In fact the inordinate and undue disproportionate weight given to the whole incident in general and the accompanying, unsubstantiated claims of the family, the trivia concomitant to it in particular is unmistakably striking. That you have sourced most of it to a non-mainstream, unreliable source, The Wire,  further buttresses our argument with regards to WP:UNDUE.To be sure, nobody is trying to 'water down' the incident, as you have alleged. But this is an encyclopaedia, and as a matter of fact, what, and how much of something is covered in an article hinge on the touchstone of WP: WEIGHT. The article as it is covers this incident succinctly without entering into the specific details (vide #Farmers'_parade).Take this BBC article for instance; it details the violence that had ensued on the concerning day, but  has only three words to write about the incident in question. The Times of India reference (#2) that you have used in your text has similarly summed up the incident in one line (').This is  what folks have been trying to get you to understand, but, alas!Furthermore, and this is something I have mentioned before, the phrase 'The police claimed he died..' implies that this is an unproven statement made by the police when the same has been validated through the post-mortem report and CCTV footages. Most importantly, the aforesaid has been treated as documented statements of fact by mainstream, reliable sources. So your proposed phrasing is again unacceptable.The phrasing employed in the article currently, which I've quoted below, is representative of the  of reliable sources and ergo will stay.""At best, the family's contestation can be summed up in the following words: "Nothwithstanding this, the protestor's grandfather contested this, holding the government responsible for his grandson's death and insisting that he was shot in the head."The filing of FIRs, similarly, can be summed up in a line or two, no more than that.  MBlaze Lightning  18:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , Since the only concern you have expressed in this version is related to the death of the protestor. I assume you do not have concern with the other content that I had added and you removed as part of your blanket reverts. I will be restoring them soon. Walrus Ji (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the so-called consensus is inconsequential and takes a backseat when the content in question has been challenged not by one or two, but three editors on grounds of WP:BLP and WP:V.As regards your proposal, your text has got problems galore, and to me it seems nothing but a pandora box. First, a perusal of your text shows that it is poorly written and laced with undue trivia: the unintelligent and arbitrary shifting of tenses from past to present for instance at the outset itself (').The detailed sequence of the claims made by the dead protestor's family similarly need not be covered in this article. In fact the inordinate and undue disproportionate weight given to the whole incident in general and the accompanying, unsubstantiated claims of the family, the trivia concomitant to it in particular is unmistakably striking. That you have sourced most of it to a non-mainstream, unreliable source, The Wire,  further buttresses our argument with regards to WP:UNDUE.To be sure, nobody is trying to 'water down' the incident, as you have alleged. But this is an encyclopaedia, and as a matter of fact, what, and how much of something is covered in an article hinge on the touchstone of WP: WEIGHT. The article as it is covers this incident succinctly without entering into the specific details (vide #Farmers'_parade).Take this BBC article for instance; it details the violence that had ensued on the concerning day, but  has only three words to write about the incident in question. The Times of India reference (#2) that you have used in your text has similarly summed up the incident in one line (').This is  what folks have been trying to get you to understand, but, alas!Furthermore, and this is something I have mentioned before, the phrase 'The police claimed he died..' implies that this is an unproven statement made by the police when the same has been validated through the post-mortem report and CCTV footages. Most importantly, the aforesaid has been treated as documented statements of fact by mainstream, reliable sources. So your proposed phrasing is again unacceptable.The phrasing employed in the article currently, which I've quoted below, is representative of the  of reliable sources and ergo will stay.""At best, the family's contestation can be summed up in the following words: "Nothwithstanding this, the protestor's grandfather contested this, holding the government responsible for his grandson's death and insisting that he was shot in the head."The filing of FIRs, similarly, can be summed up in a line or two, no more than that.  MBlaze Lightning  18:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

27 January 2021
This article should be renamed to reflect the violent nature of the events on January 26th. I propose "Republic Day farmers' riots" or "Republic Day riots" rather than "parade." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shivj80 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The violent event were at specific locations. The entire event of Farmers' parade was non violent. You can include the violent events in a section. Walrus Ji (talk) 08:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I now I see someone has created a separate page called "2021 Republic Day violence" so it's probably not necessary to change the title of this article. However, it still might be prudent to combine this article into the other one, as the second article is currently quite short and I'd say the violence is the more important event to document than the parade that occurred beforehand (which turned into the violence anyway). Shivj80 (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 2021 Republic Day violence is an unnecessary duplicate. It has been redirected to this article. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, I still contend that it is necessary to change this article's name. Compare how Wikipedia refers to what occurred at the US Capitol building, which was a similar event: the title of that article is "2021 Storming of the United States Capitol" even though the events of that day also began as a peaceful "Stop the Steal" protest, only later devolving into violence. There's a clear double standard when we're referring to what occurred in India as a parade even though the violence is the more critical aspect to highlight. When someone is coming to Wikipedia to read about what happened on Republic Day, they would be doing so to read more about the violence, obviously not about a tangential parade. Keeping the current title will only create confusion. "2021 India Republic Day violence" would in fact be the ideal title. Shivj80 18:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , read WP:POVFORK Walrus Ji (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see how this is relevant? I accept that you absorbed that other POV fork article, I have no problem with that. I am simply asking for agreement that the title of this current article needs to be changed. Most every article that I have seen online that mentions the "farmers parade" immediately mentions the violence in the same headline. Wikipedia should reflect that. Shivj80 20:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that capitol incidents are comparable to this. I hope you will agree that the Violent incidents are a smaller subset of the Farmer's Parade. There has to be an article about the Parade and this Parade article has to have a section on the violence. I don't think the reader is better served by reading about the violence separately and not as a part of the larger article on Parade. You have a right to disagree. Walrus Ji (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it is certainly comparable to the Capitol riots. This very article says that "the tractor rally turned into a violent protest." Thus I don't think it's fair to say that the violent incidents are a smaller subset of the Farmers' Parade. Most of the articles I have read, including the ones that are linked to this page, suggest that the parade turned into a riot. You say there has to be an article about the parade, but why? The more important event was the violence, so that's what needs to be highlighted. There is no article about the Stop the Steal protest on Jan 6, there's only an article on the Capitol storming. In this article therefore, the violence should be primary and the parade should be secondary, not the other way around. I don't know how to change the title which is why I'm asking for assistance. Shivj80 (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Only a small section of the protestors clashed with the police.   The overwhelmingly large majority of the protestors carried on with their protests as planned and concluded peacefully. You should probably change your news provider that is feeding you lies and propaganda.--Walrus Ji (talk) 04:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, so perhaps it is true that not all sections of the protests turned into violent ones, but the articles you linked are not sufficient evidence to make such extreme statements like the idea that only "a small section of the protestors clashed with the police" and "the overwhelmingly large majority of the protestors carried on with their protests." The three articles you linked to me don't even support your claim, you just gave me random statements from politicians making very dubious claims that the violence was a government plot. The international media articles like Guardian, NY Times, etc. do not imply this at all, they only say that the farmer leaders lost control of the protests. Surely you are not calling these newspapers "lies and propaganda?" Do you have a better source that says that only a very small section of the protests turned violent? Shivj80 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

"Here is an alternate source: 'Out of 10 lakh people who joined the rally, nearly 20,000 to 30,000 reached the Red Fort while others maintained the route and came back peacefully by 6 in the evening. I think more than 95 percent farmers maintained peace, but in a protest which involves more than 10 lakh people, even 5 percent can create a huge ruckus, just like the one we experienced on Tuesday.' Tanyasingh (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)"

Shouldn't the article be moved to an appropriate title?
Something along the lines of Republic day violence; especially given what happened on the 26th of January was anything but parade. A cursory Google search too turns up scores of articles employing the same term i.e., violence. MBlaze Lightning 06:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. I demanded that above; see Talk:2021_Farmers%27_Republic_Day_parade. I was pleased that 2021 Republic Day violence was created but they unnecessarily redirected it to here. "Violence" is far more popular title for this page. Shivj80 (talk) 15:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the name should be changed. In my view, it must be 2021 Farmer's Republic day violence.  Trend SPLEND  ✉ 17:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I object. The name proposed here is not used by newspapers and others. see more comment on  Walrus Ji (talk) 07:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I too see more results for "violence" and "riots". This incident is now mainly getting coverage over the violence. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * * I Support. Renaming the page to 2021 Farmers' Republic Day violence as the objective of the parade was never met and it eventually turned into violence, arsoning and rioting. DavidWood11 (talk) 04:35, 5 February 2021 (UTC)




 * I Don't Support: While the violence errupted via the protest, most of those protesting remained non-violent. That being said, most of this article is about events that happened prior to the republic day parade. Not about the violence at Red Fort, per se. Hence the original title fit better. I don't see why it should be changed to violence. Tanyasingh (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Godi Media
That is the claim by the farmers and has been appropriately attributed in the article. Using a properly attributed and reliably sourced claim in the article does not make it POV. There are many sources for this. --Walrus Ji (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * They attribute the term to the protestors than treat it as a legitimate term. Read sources properly and stop misrepresenting them. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , And so is the article. Please provide your preferred phrasing if you disagree with the current phrasing. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please stop edit warring and raise concerns on the talk page here. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It is factually wrong so there is nothing about agreeing or disagreeing. Can you move on to a different issue given there are too many with your recent edits here? If you don't want, then stop edit warring to reinsert the problematic edits. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Everything is factually right and sourced to reliable source. Again if you have specific examples of problems I am willing to discuss. Walrus Ji (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

, you've been edit warring for long on this article, and by taking recourse to misleading, inadequate, and deceptive edit summaries(, as these diffs from today demonstrate to repeatedly re-insert content that has been challenged on grounds of WP:NPOV, misrepresentation of sources, and the non-neutral tone which you've used throughout this article. Should you continue to engage in such disruptive editing, know this that you will be hauled off to WP:AE.As far as the 'Godi media' bit is concerned, you are yet to show us a source that supports the wording you've used in the article. The DW refrence makes no mention of the said term, the telegraph one attributes the label to a single protestor. Needless to say but we're not going to even bother opening the other two links, for the outlook one happens to be an opinion piece and the wire is an unreliable portal for anything remotely connected to politics on Wikipedia, let alone for contentious statements like this. MBlaze Lightning 16:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The telegraph article clearly mentions that Godi Media is part of the slogan used by the farmers. Quote: "The slogans are loud here: “Desh ki ekta (unity) zindabad, kisan ekta zindabad, Modi sarkar murdabad, boycott Ambani-Adani, Godi media murdabad…Godi media” is a term used by critics to refer to a brand of pliant journalism that has taken shape over the past few years, unquestioningly toeing the line of the government and running vitriolic campaigns against those who speak up against the administration."
 * While DW does not mention GODI word it says Quote "Attempts at sabotage? Farm leaders have condemned the role played by India's mainstream media, alleging that they ignored the massive tractor rallies that stayed on course and were carried out in a peaceful manner." Walrus Ji (talk) 16:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And If the above is somehow not sufficient, there are many more reliable sources that point the usage of the word Godi Media in Farmer's protest. See      --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And If the above is somehow not sufficient, there are many more reliable sources that point the usage of the word Godi Media in Farmer's protest. See      --Walrus Ji (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Well, if your source doesn't even mention the said term itself to begin with, then it goes straight into the trash can. By trying to equate the term with "mainstream media" using your own guesswork or personal interpretation, you're running afoul of our policy on WP: Original research.And again, with regards to the Telegraph source, you've misrepresented it big time. There is nothing in it that could be used to remotely support the wording that you have used in the article i.e., 'sections of the media' (which one?) have been labelled Godi-media by farm unions or whatever.... MBlaze Lightning  17:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the article content before making talk page comments. The diff where I added the source is here it was added to source this line from the Wikipedia article  that says " sections of the media, which the farmers call the Godi-media,". Telegraph article is used to support this claim. This claim by the farmers and has been appropriately attributed in the article. Using a properly attributed and reliably sourced claim in the article does not make it POV. How is this misrepresentation? Here on the talk page I have added 4 sources for your satisfaction, since you seem to have a problem with this word. 3 source mentions the word and the fourth source explains it. In addition to 4 refs, I have added 7 more refs for this claim. I think this is enough to show the content is reliably sourced and attributed. Walrus Ji (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Walrus Ji: You yourself are admitting that you used a completely new source for backing up something that wasn't in the first sources you added, which establishes that your content is a case of synthesis there. You haven't proven why we should use this term in wikivoice. Your new sources don't changed that. Shivj80 (talk) 18:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * where did I use it in wikivoice. Please check the article first it was appropriately attributed, as I already explained above. Walrus Ji (talk) 07:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

"What? I don't understand - what is the argument here? Is it about using the term godi media? Also why is verified content being removed by @Raymond3023 here.Tanyasingh (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)" I do not think it is fair to delete content like this. Perhaps the solution to this is to attribute: to say, that 'according to XYZ, this happened'. See this for more. Please revert the deleted content into the talk page? Tanyasingh (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Title
2021 Republic Day violence - This should be the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.41.21 (talk) 08:34, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2021
Following 2 changes need to be updated in this article:
 * 1. As a mark of protest against the violence and siege on Red Fort Bharatiya Kisan Union (Bhanu) and All India Kisan Sangharsh Coordination Committee has declared to quit from agitation. Reference: https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/two-farmer-unions-withdraw-from-agitation-against-farm-laws-citing-republic-day-violence/article33676668.ece


 * 2. More than 300 cops were injured in the violence created by protesters using batons and sharp weapons.

Punjab Chief Minister Captain Amarinder Singh condemned the violence. Pawar said that he does not support the violence that took place during the farmers' protest in Delhi but noted that the Centre should realise why the chaos erupted during the tractor parade in Delhi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4071:211d:68b7::23e1:f0a5 (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * and, please add all the above information.

I have declined to add this information to the article because it does not specify where in the article it would be placed. I am also concerned that the information does not conform to WP:NPOV. If you would still like this information to be added to the article, please submit a new proposal. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 Feb 2021
The Delhi police is trying to trace the instigators of the violence through Google according to this. Please add it to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:5227:4403:0:0:4D8:D0AD (talk) 08:45, 7 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I have declined this request because it does not state where in the article this information should be placed and what exactly should be stated. Another request can be submitted once the above concerns are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)