Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence

Tag
DiplomatTesterMan, Please read WP:RSPM it says '''There is no need to edit the article in question. Once the above code is added to the Talk page, a bot will automatically add the following notification at the top of the article:'''--Venkat TL (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * @DiplomatTesterMan How about we follow the rules first? The rule does not say that you put the tag and then wait for the bot. Venkat TL (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 13 October 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Lakhimpur Kheri violence. Favonian (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Lakhimpur Kheri massacre → Lakhimpur Kheri incident – Media/news sources use both 'incident' and 'massacre'. The incident itself has violence from both sides. Also, usage of the word such as 'terror' on one side, and that human rights shouldn't be selective from the other, points at this being highly charged and politicised. Wikipedia guideline and policies need to be kept in mind such as those dealing with sensationalism and opinions. All this points to a change in title. DTM (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I just noticed, Lakhimpur Kheri violence has already been made. This is another alternative. DTM (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose Incident is a generic word and does not adequately clarify that several men had died in this. Violence is another generic word unsuitable for the same reason. Killing is a better word but it is rarely used by the newspapers. The word massacre has been widely used in multiple languages. The article should remain at massacre following the naming policy of WP:COMMONNAME. Venkat TL (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Venkat TL, please list citations using violence and incident as well. DTM (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Lakhimpur Kheri violence sound fair enough since the violence happened from both sides and because the case is under investigation and there is no evidence that support it was a pre-planed attack, this could be an accident which happened after some protestors attacked the convoy with stones (can be verified throgh sources). As per WP:COMMONNAME "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article" and there is hundreds of sources that used the word violenece and incident. Wikipedia can't be selective and should maintain a natural point of view. 123.136.188.8 (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Lakhimpur Kheri violence is used by several major news outlets. LK violence is more neutral (massacre is loaded term here IMO.) and more specific than incident. Usage examples by several major Indian news publications:FinExpress, India TV, India Today, TOI, TOI, Indian Express, Ind Express, India TV, The Hindu. -Nizil (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * --Since it was a conflict, it is wrong to say it was a massacre which typically implies a one sided action. Also, typically massacre involves at least tens of fatalities. Most of media in India is referring to the incident as violence. ~rob108 https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/another-accused-in-lakhimpur-kheri-case-surrenders-in-court-324039 https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/bjp-mp-varun-gandhi-warns-against-hindu-vs-sikh-narrative-in-lakhimpur-kheri-violence-322734 https://m.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/8-dead-in-violence-during-farmers-protest-in-ups-lakhimpur-kheri-319626https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/nation/lakhimpur-kheri-violence-union-ministers-son-ashish-mishra-questioned-for-over-9-hours-by-up-police-322311 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob108 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support for Lakhimpur Kheri violence. Massacre referes only one part of the incident and negates the subsequent killings. Also, IMO the massacre word is a bit too far for the incident. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 20:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree, massacre sounds premeditated and preplanned and action from one, but in this case, that's clearly not the case. I would upvote to change the page to Lakhimpur Kheri violence. OpenMindedBloke (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Lakhimpur Kheri violence sound fair enough since the violence happened from both sides and because the case is under investigation and there is no evidence that support it was a pre-planed attack, this could be an accident which happened after some protestors attacked the convoy with stones (can be verified through sources). As per WP:COMMONNAME "In Wikipedia, an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article" and there is hundreds of sources that used the word violenece and incident. Wikipedia can't be selective and should maintain a natural point of view. Massacre is clearly biased pre-judgement of the incident. Dhy.rjw (talk) 07:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support LK violence: most sources, whether print or media, use violence, making it the WP:COMMONNAME.  Java Hurricane  16:34, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 19:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC) 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.
 * Support Lakhimpur Kheri violence or even Lakhimpur Kheri incident is a much more accurate depiction of the article than using the word massacre. We have Christchurch mosque shootings and not Christchurch mosque massacre even though 40 people died there and it was a premeditated one-sided violent attack. Most major media outlets report it as Lakhimpur Kheri violence or simply Lakhimpur Kheri case.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 October 2021
Some of the info from reputed publications such as times of India and India today should be included, otherwise, it seems like this page is being vandalized by those who support mob lynching of BJP workers. I request the following info to be included in introduction or somewhere else:

Leader of farm protest Rakesh Tikait defended the accused in lynching of BJP workers[18] as well as the role of Sikh extremists in the mob-lynching.[19]

[18] https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/reaction-to-action-rakesh-tikait-killing-of-bjp-workers-lakhimpur-kheri-violence-1862893-2021-10-09 [19] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/ludhiana/jarnail-singh-bhindranwale-sant-or-terrorist/articleshow/86907837.cms Rob108 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

❌. Indiatoday owned by TV Today Network and TOI, both are not  reliable sources in political and sensitive matters in India. - The9Man  ( Talk ) 20:31, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Using a slang "Godi Media" page to deny that Times of India is not legitimate is unfortunate. I will edit the page soon when I get proper status. Rob108 (talk) Rob108

Terrorism tag
I see you are repeatedly adding the template can you explain your purpose? Can you provide sources that mention this incident as a terrorist attack independently? rather than quoting the farmers' unions point of view? Are there any terrorists involved in the incident? I can see news articles regarding the involvement of "khalistani" supporters so are you referring to them? The tag was removed by multiple people including me so please don't restore it without a proper discussion. Thanks 123.136.151.205 (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Farmer protestors vs workers
Hey you have undone my edits on the article 'Lakhimpur Kheri violence' for the second time, terming them as 'non-constructive edits' without explaining as to why you have termed it as such. It is understandable as to why you would term 2402:E280:3D13:AC:78DF:F23A:18B5:7A1's edit as non-constructive. I had assumed that you had accidentally undone my edit while undoing 2402:E280:3D13:AC:78DF:F23A:18B5:7A1's edit, as a result of which I had decided to revert to my revision of the article after making one minor change to it. But you have undone my contributions to the article for the second time while providing no reasons whatsoever as to why you have done so. Would it be possible for you to explain here? Rockcodder (talk) 08:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Rockcodder, you are referring to this and this edit. Please note that Farmers and party workers is already mentioned in the column above. It is an unnecessary repetition. The link to farmer protest article has already been added many times in the infobox and article. Why add it again? because of these reasons, I judged your edit as unconstructive and reverted it. Please explain why you insist on adding it. Venkat TL (talk) 08:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia articles about conflicts usually show the organizations/entities/parties involved and the casualties separately. The column above is meant for the organizations/entities/parties involved and the one below is meant for the casualties. 'Protesters' is more appropriate than 'Farmers' as non-farmer protesters were also involved in the protest which took place on that day. Moreover, '4 farmers', '2 workers', '1 car driver' and '1 journalist' give more clarity and look better than '4', '2' etc in big nearly empty boxes. And by the way, how is this incident considered a mass shooting when no one was killed as a result of being shot? Rockcodder (talk) 09:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Rockcodder, Any reliable source for the claim that non farmer protestors were involved? The casualty figures are listed separately. The column header clearly identified their group/organisation. It is unnecessary to repeat it again while adding the casualty figure. I have removed the word worker after BJP as it is implied. About the Other column, it is subjective, but generally the sum of the casualty figure is listed. So I prefer "2 (car driver, journalist)" instead of saying " 1 car driver + 1 journalist". You can check the Quote below --Venkat TL (talk) 09:38, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

"Kashyap’s brother Pawan, 32, says they were shocked that some “bikau (sold-out)” channels were trying to “distort” what had happened. “The video that is viral (of the car running into the protesters) shows everything. My brother died after he was crushed by the SUVs. His body had car wheel marks. It can be seen clearly how it happened. There is no doubt how he died. It was because he was crushed by the minister’s son’s cars,” he says. Our narrative has been the same from the beginning,” Pawan adds. “Some channels edited and distorted our statements.”" Their father Ram Dulare Kashyap, a farmer, submitted a written complaint to the Nighasan Police Station on Monday, saying Kashyap died after a car linked to Ashish drove over him, and that he was also “shot at”. “As per eyewitnesses, the journalist was shot at while he was covering the car. Gunshots can be heard in the footage as well,” reads the complaint.


 * Mass shooting is generally defined as a minimum of three or more deaths as a result of being shot. Your own article states that the primary and established cause of their deaths is being rammed and run over by a vehicle. And please do keep in mind that the article itself is just quoting the complaint. How does that qualify as proof? And no, 'worker' is not implied as 2 could also be misinterpreted as 2 party members, leaders etc. I do not prefer '2 (car driver, journalist)' as the two of them were not related in any way. And as for non-farmer protesters being involved. Can friends and families of farmers be considered farmers? I don't think so. Read this extract from a quint article...

WHO ARE THE VICTIMS? The youngest victim of the Lakhimpur violence is 19-year-old Lovepreet Singh, resident of Chowkhda farm. According to his father Satnam Singh, Lovepreet was preparing for IELTS and wanted to pursue his career in Australia. He had left for the protest site after one of his best friends insisted him to accompany. Other three victims from the farmer side include Daljit Singh and Gurvinder Singh, both residents of Nanpara area in Bahraich and Nakshatra Singh, resident of Dharora in Lakhimpur Kheri.
 * As is evident from this extract of the article, Lovepreet Singh was not a farmer and was pursuing a different career. Similarly, many protesting farmers had also brought their families and friends to the protest. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to use 'Protesters' instead of 'Farmers' in the column above (the infobox one). It should be clear now that my version of the article is better and not 'unconstructive'. Rockcodder (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Please WP:INDENT your posts correctly. The column on driver and journo, clearly says Others in the header. It is very clear to me. I note your disagreement. Let others weigh in on this dispute. Your source does not talk about his current profession. He may be planning to pursue studies in future, that does not mean he is not a farmer. In Indian agricultural family all able bodied family members participate in farming in different capacities. Moreover there are reliable sources who called the victims as farmers. Venkat TL (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Victims refers to the dead and injured. The dead and injured being called farmers need not mean that the protest did not have members who were not farmers. What is wrong with calling them protesters (it is not false it it?) and including '4 Farmers' in the deaths? (By the way, I have indented my replies properly. I tried indenting 'cquote' as well but I was unable to do so). 'His current profession'? What do you mean? That person was killed. And you haven't addressed the shooting part in the above reply. This does not qualify as a Mass Shooting event. Neither does it qualify as a terrorist event (like the above section says). Rockcodder (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Indian express called them protesting Farmers. Several others called them Farmers. They were pedestrians too. In my opinion farmer is the best qualifier and reliably sourced too. You can disagree, let others comment. Sorry about the indent, yes I understand the indent confusion happened due to quotes. I have struck it. The shooting is clearly mentioned in the quote I presented. I thought it was clear. What more is left to say on that? What change are you proposing, about shooting and terrorist event. Please mention point wise so that I do not miss any point for which you are expecting a reply. Or you can start new sections for each stuff. Venkat TL (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume that you have missed the portion of my reply in between the quotes which you and I have posted. Please go through that part of the reply once. Rockcodder (talk) 13:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I had read it. I have started another thread below please reply. Regarding the party workers, all leaders are party workers, Karyakarta as they like to call themself. Regardless these party workers, party leaders, etc are all party members. Adding a number below the Party name makes it clear to the readers that they are party members. I dont see the need to mention them again as workers in the infobox, as it is already implied by default. The article body clearly mentions them as party worker, so it should be sufficient. I understand you disagree, I respect it. Let others page watchers weigh in on if it makes sense to add party workers in the infobox. We can discuss on other points of your disagreement. Venkat TL (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder, you have been clearly explained, the parameters of the infobox, workers, members, casualty counts. You have failed to generate consensus to add party worker. And now you have started edit warring to push through your edits without consensus. Please do not edit war, or you will be reported. Venkat TL (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Mass Shooting
The article on Mass shooting covers it well. The reader is best served by clicking it and reading what it means. If you Rockcodder, have an objection or a better suggestion please explain below. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "There is a lack of consensus on how to define a mass shooting. Most terms define a minimum of three or four deaths due to gun violence (not including the shooter), although an Australian study from 2006 prescribed a minimum of five; and added a requirement that the victims actually died as opposed to being shot and injured but not necessarily killed" (Taken from the first line of the Mass shooting article). According to these definitions, this incident does not qualify as a mass shooting as no one was killed as a result of being shot (according to the autopsy reports). Rockcodder (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I get your point. As I understand, if there is a mass shooting and no one dies, will it not be called mass shooting? I dont think so. They are countless mass shooting incidents from USA where people are not dead, just injured, or even when no one gets injured, they are still mass shooting. What else is the best term to mention what happened. Reliable sources have published that there was shooting after the ramming. Gun battle is not appropriate here. Mass shooting is the most suitable term to describe what happened here. Whether they lead to death or not is a different matter. --Venkat TL (talk) 13:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I'll just put my version of the infobox here. Rockcodder (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Shooting is not an important aspect in whole incident in my opinion. Can be dropped from infobox.- Nizil (talk) 07:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * And what about the infobox? Which one do you prefer? The one which is currently in the article or the one in here? (btw, the pointer on the map inside the infobox in this section shows up in the preview; but for some reason, it doesn't show up after I publish changes). Rockcodder (talk) 08:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

"Kashyap’s brother Pawan, 32, says they were shocked that some “bikau (sold-out)” channels were trying to “distort” what had happened. “The video that is viral (of the car running into the protesters) shows everything. My brother died after he was crushed by the SUVs. His body had car wheel marks. It can be seen clearly how it happened. There is no doubt how he died. It was because he was crushed by the minister’s son’s cars,” he says. Our narrative has been the same from the beginning,” Pawan adds. “Some channels edited and distorted our statements.”" Their father Ram Dulare Kashyap, a farmer, submitted a written complaint to the Nighasan Police Station on Monday, saying Kashyap died after a car linked to Ashish drove over him, and that he was also “shot at”. “As per eyewitnesses, the journalist was shot at while he was covering the car. Gunshots can be heard in the footage as well,” reads the complaint. Ashish was not able to explain the presence of empty cartridges in his vehicle. A forensic team had visited the site of the alleged killings in Banbirpur on Wednesday and recovered two empty .315 cartridges from Ashish’s vehicle. Ashish has been accused of shooting at farmers. The cartridges have been sent for a forensic examination.


 * Nizil on what basis are you suggesting it be dropped. Just your opinion cannot be a reason for this apparent white washing. Some quotes for you.
 * @Rockcodder This discussion is about the shooting. I suggest you discuss your infobox and other matters in another thread. Venkat TL (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Like I said before. The first quote, which is an extract from a news article, itself is only quoting from the complaint. How can a quote of a complaint whose investigation report is yet to be released be used to brand this incident as a mass shooting? How is it justified to call an incident involving two to three alleged gunshots a 'mass shooting'? In my opinion, it would be better for us to wait for the forensic reports to be published. Even reliable sources are only quoting complaints and statements from others on this incident, and not issuing statements themselves. Rockcodder (talk) 12:26, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources have reported quoting witnesses. That reporting is in addition to the reporting from the police investigation.Venkat TL (talk) 12:36, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * This incident did not have any deaths caused directly as a result of being shot. Neither did it have more than 2 to 3 shots as told by witnesses quoted in reliable sources. Thus this incident does not qualify as a Mass shooting event according to most (if not all) definitions of 'mass shooting'. Rockcodder (talk) 13:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * At least one shot was fired. So that is how we classify it. Venkat TL (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No! That is not how it is classified. Who are the 'we' here? Just look up the definition of 'mass shooting'. Even the Wikipedia article on 'mass shooting' says "Most terms define a minimum of three or four deaths due to gun violence (not including the shooter)". Even the most lenient definition of it on the article says "Mass Shooting Tracker, defines a mass shooting as any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed". Do you have any reliable sources which show that four or more people were shot? I believe I have made my point clear. I am going to remove the term mass shooting from the article until you bring reliable sources to prove that at least four people were shot. Rockcodder (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read my first 2 comments on this thread once again. The term is reliably sourced. It stays. If you have a better word to suggest, then we can discuss. Venkat TL (talk) 16:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If it is reliable sourced then bring those sources. Sources which specifically state that at least four were shot. It doesn't stay as the incident wasn't a mass shooting. As it was you who added the term 'mass shooting', the onus is on you to bring sources to show that at least four were shot. Rockcodder (talk) 16:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Enough sources have been provided in the article and the talk page about shooting during the incident. Venkat TL (talk) 18:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I asked for sources that state at least 4 being shot and that is the most lenient definition of a mass shooting (most definitions state that incidents have to have deaths as a result of being shot). Moreover, WP:ONUS clearly states that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content". So until you get reliable sources which state that at least 4 people were shot the disputed content will be excluded. Rockcodder (talk) 18:50, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Rockcodder, There is no std def that 4 need to die, "most" does not mean "all". Shooting has taken place attacking a crowd, and it is mass shooting. The reliable sources for shooting are in this very thread and also in the article, also repeated below for your reference. If you remove the content again or edit war over it you will be reported for Edit warring. Venkat TL (talk) 19:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not stated that four people have to have died for it to qualify as a mass shooting. I said that the most lenient definition (on mass shooting) states that at least four people have to be shot (regardless of whether they are injured or killed). Moreover, it is quite evident that the main means of attack was car-ramming and not shooting. This article mentioned this incident as a massacre at one point in time, but it was decided that terming it as a massacre would be an exaggeration. Similarly, trying to push through that this incident was a mass shooting without presenting reliable sources which state that at least four people were shot by means of edit warring would be nothing more than exaggerating this incident beyond what it truly was. Most reliable sources term this incident as a car ramming followed by a mob lynching. No reliable sources have used the term 'mass shooting'. Rockcodder (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

"Kashyap’s brother Pawan, 32, says they were shocked that some “bikau (sold-out)” channels were trying to “distort” what had happened. “The video that is viral (of the car running into the protesters) shows everything. My brother died after he was crushed by the SUVs. His body had car wheel marks. It can be seen clearly how it happened. There is no doubt how he died. It was because he was crushed by the minister’s son’s cars,” he says. Our narrative has been the same from the beginning,” Pawan adds. “Some channels edited and distorted our statements.”" Their father Ram Dulare Kashyap, a farmer, submitted a written complaint to the Nighasan Police Station on Monday, saying Kashyap died after a car linked to Ashish drove over him, and that he was also “shot at”. “As per eyewitnesses, the journalist was shot at while he was covering the car. Gunshots can be heard in the footage as well,” reads the complaint. Ashish was not able to explain the presence of empty cartridges in his vehicle. A forensic team had visited the site of the alleged killings in Banbirpur on Wednesday and recovered two empty .315 cartridges from Ashish’s vehicle. Ashish has been accused of shooting at farmers. The cartridges have been sent for a forensic examination. Of the four weapons sent for ballistic examination to the FSL, it has been confirmed that firing took place from three, including Ashish Mishra’s rifle. However, the report did not confirm when the firing took place,” a senior official said here. “Around 3 pm, Ashish Mishra, along with 15-20 armed men, in three speeding four-wheelers, reached the protest spot in Banbirpur. Ashish Mishra, who was seated on the left side of a Mahindra Thar, opened gunfire. The Thar mowed down the crowd and sped ahead,” the FIR stated. “Because of the firing, farmer Gurvinder Singh, son of Sukhwinder, a resident of Matronia in Nanpara, died,” it stated.


 * The above quote has clearly been manipulated by you for it to seem that shots were fired on the day of the incident. The article from which the above quote is taken clearly states that the report did not specify whether the recovered weapons were fired on the day of the violence. The FIR (which is separate from the report and has been registered by a victim's family member) states “Around 3 pm, Ashish Mishra, along with 15-20 armed men, in three speeding four-wheelers, reached the protest spot in Banbirpur. Ashish Mishra, who was seated on the left side of a Mahindra Thar, opened gunfire. The Thar mowed down the crowd and sped ahead,” and “Because of the firing, farmer Gurvinder Singh, son of Sukhwinder, a resident of Matronia in Nanpara, died,”. Meaning that these statements have been sourced from a complaint and not from a report. You are mixing various statements from the FSL report and the FIR to manipulate the sourced article to prove your point of this incident being a mass shooting. And has also stated that Shooting is not an important aspect of the incident and can be dropped from infobox. Therefore as of now, the consensus is that 'mass shooting' be excluded from the article. It is you who is trying to push the term through edit warring without presenting sources that explicitly state that at least four people were shot. Rockcodder (talk) 07:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I have not manipulated anything. You are free to copy post your so called unmanipulated quote below, if you feel so. I am trying to convey to you that there are multiple reliable sources talking about shooting. That is enough to mention shooting in the article and infobox. The WP:BURDEN has been met. There is no hard requirement that four people need to be confirmed dead before an incident can be called a mass shooting. You are making up that definition and I am not agreeing to such definition. Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by me making up that definition? Have you even read the Wikipedia article on mass shooting? It has various definitions from multiple sources, and the most lenient one from among those defines a mass shooting as "any incident in which four or more people are shot, whether injured or killed". It is quite clear that your quote mixes statements from the FSL report and the FIR as I have stated above. The FSL statement states that those weapons were fired, but it doesn't state that they were fired on the day of the incident. The FIR, which is a complaint lodged with the police by the victim of a cognizable offence or by someone on his or her behalf, states that shots were fired on that day and that a farmer was killed as a result of being shot. An investigation is started after an FIR is lodged. Meaning that an FIR is a complaint and not a report. The news article which you have cited clearly separates statements from the FSL report and the FIR. How can you mix statements from the FSL report and the FIR to present your narrative? Most reliable sources state that farmer Gurvinder Singh was killed as a result of being rammed by a vehicle, like the other three farmers and the journalist. Even the source which you have cited states "However, two successive autopsies conducted on Gurvinder Singh had ruled out bullet injuries". Not all incidents involving shots being fired qualify as a mass shooting, and this one certainly doesn't. Rockcodder (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Lakhimpur shooting: Evidence against Union Minister's son Two cartridge casings of .315 bore have reportedly been found by a forensics team from the scene of the 3 October violence in Lakhimpur Kheri.

Seen fleeing, shooting. Persons claiming to be eyewitnesses in Tikonia said they saw Ashish Mishra sitting in the SUV that moved down the farmers on Sunday and alleged that after his car lost balance, he abandoned the vehicle and fled on foot. While doing so, he fired at Gurvinder who tried to catch him.

There is no standard definition of what constitutes a mass shooting, and different data sources—such as media outlets, academic researchers, and law enforcement agencies—frequently use different definitions when discussing and analyzing mass shootings. By then, Jogmittal said, everyone started screaming, “Men have died, men have died.” Another vehicle also lost control and toppled over. “That’s when the shooting began,” he said. “One farmer was shot at his temple. I heard the sounds of the shooting.” Corroborating Singh’s account, Guramneet Mangat, who was present at the spot when the alleged shooting and killings occurred, said, “After the minister was gone, and the farmers were about to disperse, Ashish Mishra, his brother, and a few goons arrived at around 3 – 3.15 pm in three cars. They drove haphazardly and ran over farmers who were there on the side of the road. They started firing at the famers as well. One farmer was shot at from a very close distance. He has died.” FIR lodged against Mr. Ashish Mishra in Lakhimpur Kheri in the wee hours on October 4 on the complaint of Hari Singh of Bahraich, it is mentioned that the Minister’s son ran towards the sugarcane fields after his car lost balance and that he was firing shots while trying to hide. Hari Singh, the complainant, accused Mr. Ashish Mishra of shooting dead Gurvinder. They were allegedly mowed down by the convoy of union minister of state for home Ajay Mishra Teni and his son Ashish Mishra. Three others were also killed in the violence that followed the alleged hit-and-run and shooting at the spot. The Samyukt Kisan Morcha has sought his dismissal and accused him, his son and his uncle of shooting farmers dead. It is confirmed that Ashish Mishra Teni (son of Union Minister of State for Home Affairs Ajay Mishra Teni) came with three vehicles around the time that farmers were dispersing from their protest at the helipad and mowed down farmers and towards the end also attacked SKM leader Tajinder Singh Virk directly, by trying to run a vehicle over him. There were also shots fired, and one of the deaths was by this shooting by Ashish Mishra Teni and his team Some more quotes. Venkat TL (talk) 13:19, 5 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I will no longer discuss this issue in this section. You are just filibustering at this point. A talk page with discussions that go on and on, and reverts with edit summaries that accuse me of edit warring. I have already put in an RfC on this talk page. You have already removed my RfC once without my approval. Please don't remove it again. Rockcodder (talk) 13:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC about this incident being termed a 'mass shooting'
Should this incident be termed a 'mass shooting'? Rockcodder (talk) 07:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

(Or Rather, should the article infobox mention 'Mass shooting' in Methods? What about shooting? --Venkat TL (talk) 09:49, 6 December 2021 (UTC) )


 * No. This was primarily a car-ramming attack followed by a lynch mob.  There appears to only have been one shooting.  "A shooting" is someone being shot, not a gun being fired. Someone here seems to be under the impression that "mass shooting" means "there was a mass of people and there was some shooting". It means "a mass of people were shot".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC); rev'd. 04:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Multiple shots from 4 fire arms were shot on the crowd of protestors. See refs above. This RFC is badly drafted because it does not even say "where" the term was used. @SMcCandlish what are you suggesting? Do you want "mass shooting" to be replaced by "shooting"? And shooting wikilinked to what target article? Or do you want to censor both "shooting" or "mass shooting" from the infobox. Venkat TL (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Falisifiation of facts! Your own quote from the above section says "Of the four weapons sent for ballistic examination to the FSL, it has been confirmed that firing took place from three, including Ashish Mishra’s rifle. However, the report did not confirm when the firing took place". And as for this RfC being drafted badly, both SMcCandlish and AlexEng have understood as to what the RfC is asking. So please stop accusing me of not drafting the RfC properly. Rockcodder (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should include "shooting", since a shooting was included in the violence. You need to tone it down; going around accusing people of "censoring" you, and (just below) of sockpuppetry, without any evidence is stacking up to good reason to have you topic-banned, especially since this entire talk page appears to be a firehose of Venkat_TL starting shit continuously.  You do not WP:OWN this article, and arguing people to death like on a venty social-media forum is not how things get done around here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Um..... Isnt this reply meant for Venkat TL? Why is it under my reply? I am Rockcodder, not Venkat. I guess you accidentally used '*:::' instead of '*::'. Rockcodder (talk) 12:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was mis-indented. Fixed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No. Per above. Just because there was gunfire at the event does not mean that it was a mass shooting. The gunfire is adequately covered in the article body. We don't need to miscategorize the event. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @AlexEng Could it be called a shooting then? Venkat TL (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Both 'mass shooting' and 'shooting' need not be used in the infobox. The alleged shootings were not an important aspect of the incident. Autopsy reports of the dead have clearly stated that no bullet injuries were found (as reported by the sources which you have quoted in the above section). Rockcodder (talk) 10:21, 6 December 2021 (UTC); edited 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Is your name AlexEng? you have already made your opinion clear in the above section. Stop spamming. Venkat TL (talk) 11:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you want to accuse someone of sockpuppetry, the venue for that is WP:SSP, and you'd better have very convincing evidence or you may be subject to WP:BOOMERANG sanctions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes The RFC is vague and misleading and badly framed. The infobox mentions "mass shooting" in the section "Methods". Multiple shots from 4 fire arms were shot on the crowd consisting of hundreds of protestors. Police have recovered all 4 guns and also recovered spent cartridges from the location of the incident. Please refer to the quotes and reliable sources linked in section above. It is wrong to censor both "shooting" or "mass shooting" from the methods section infobox, because it did happen and it is reliably sourced --Venkat TL (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Your own quote from the above section says "Of the four weapons sent for ballistic examination to the FSL, it has been confirmed that firing took place from three, including Ashish Mishra’s rifle. However, the report did not confirm when the firing took place". It is wrong to falsify and exaggerate the incident beyond what it truly was. And as for this RfC being drafted badly, both SMcCandlish and AlexEng have understood as to what the RfC is asking. So please stop accusing me of not drafting the RfC properly. Rockcodder (talk) 10:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because you deliberately drafted a bad RfC and did not even discuss or consult anyone for the phrasing. The incident is not termed "mass shooting" but you misrepresented it as "termed". It mentions it in the list of methods among others. Did you miss the news and quote about spent cartridges being found at the location? Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Two cartridge casings of .315 bore have reportedly been found by a forensics team from the scene of the 3 October violence in Lakhimpur Kheri. Venkat TL (talk) 10:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * For your kind information, mass shootings are defined as events and not methods. This is why my RfC question was 'Should this incident be termed a 'mass shooting'?' and not 'Was 'mass shooting' used in this incident?'. So you mentioning it as a 'method' was wrong in the first place. And as for spent cartridges being found at the location. I have mentioned multiple times during the course of our discussion in the above section that shots being fired at someone at an event doesn't automatically make that event a mass shooting. The lack of deaths and injuries caused by gunfire automatically disqualifies this incident from being a 'mass shooting'. I have also noticed that you have mentioned "Forensic tests conducted at the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) on the fire arms that were recovered from Ashish and others confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence" in the article while mentioning "Of the four weapons sent for ballistic examination to the FSL, it has been confirmed that firing took place from three, including Ashish Mishra’s rifle. However, the report did not confirm when the firing took place" in this talk page. This clearly indicates your intent to falsify reports to support your narrative. Rockcodder (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no false narrative, just efforts to object to your deliberate white washing and censoring of shooting from infobox. Venkat TL (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So according to you, turning 'the report did not confirm when the firing took place' into 'Forecsic tests . . . confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence' isn't wrong? Rockcodder (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No but the video of the incident and statement of the witness in addition to the spent cartridges found in the area does. The reliable source have mentioned it and Wikipedia should too. Venkat TL (talk) 11:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So you do admit that you knew that the FSL report did not state anything which even remotely indicated that the guns were fired during the incident, and yet you published 'Forecsic tests . . . confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence' while knowing fully well that this was completely false. Rockcodder (talk) 11:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not the authority to confirm anything. We report what reliable source say. They reported about shooting. And it needs to be included in the methods. Venkat TL (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a bit of a malformed request, what exactly is the simple question? Anyways, the infobox should mention shooting since that's well documented by RS, but the incident should not be termed a "mass shooting" since the car ramming attack and the lynching, being the causes of the deaths are also a major focus of the coverage. Tayi Arajakate  Talk 01:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Like AlexEng said the gunfire is adequately covered in the article body. It need not be mentioned in the infobox. RS have only documented people claiming that shots were fired and that certain people were killed/injured as a result of being shot. So we could mention it as 'alleged shooting' in the infobox. Moreover, as SMcCandlish said, a 'shooting' is someone being shot, not a gun being fired. There are no reliable sources which state that bullet injuries have been found either on the injured or the dead. Even the autopsy reports of the dead state that no bullet injuries were found. RS clearly state that the FSL report has not conformed if firing took place on the day of the violence. Would it be appropriate to mention it as 'shooting' and not as 'alleged shooting' in the infobox on the basis of witness claims and FIR reports? If it were appropriate to do so, then this incident would also have been classified as a 'terror attack' and part of ‘pre-planned conspiracy’ based on the claims of the Samyukta Kisan Morcha (SKM), an umbrella body of farmer organisations protesting against the farm laws 'Mass shooting' should be replaced with 'shooting' in the infobox . And about the RfC being a bit of a malformed request, Venkat TL had mentioned 'mass shooting' as a method in the infobox. It wouldn't be appropriate to ask if 'mass shooting' was 'used' in this incident, as mass shootings are described as events and not as methods, which is why I had to frame the question as "Should this incident be termed a 'mass shooting'?". Rockcodder (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC); edited 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think the RfC is pretty clear. Is the event a mass shooting or not? If the answer is "no", then it follows that it should not be referred to as a mass shooting in the infobox or lead. For the record, "alleged shooting" should not be in the infobox either. The gunfire is discussed in the article body, and that is enough. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 04:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The details of the gunfire discussed in the article are not only wrong but also peddle a narrative. This is evident in the fact that Venkat TL has knowingly turned 'the report did not confirm when the firing took place' into 'Forecsic tests . . . confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence' in the article. I accuse him of doing this on purpose based on the fact that he himself posted 'the report did not confirm when the firing took place' in one of the quotes in the 'Mass Shooting' section above. The factually incorrect line in the article which says 'Forecsic tests . . . confirmed, that they were used to fire during the violence' should be changed after this RfC reaches a consensus on the issue of gunshots being fired. Rockcodder (talk) 07:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This RfC is not formulated to address any questions on the issue of gunshots being fired. Please do not misinterpret it as such. Please also review WP:ASPERSIONS and try to assume good faith on behalf of of Venkat TL. Alex Eng ( TALK ) 22:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Can we be done with this, please? There have been little to no productive discussions on this RfC since 2 to 3 days. Every editor involved in this discussion, except for you, has suggested (or agreed to) replacing 'mass shooting' with 'shooting'. Moreover, mass shooting isn't even a method, it's defined as an event; whereas shooting can be described as a method in this instance. Please be practical. Going through the long and intricate process of discussing this for months together, just for the sake of it and in order to replace two words with one, when it is quite clear that to replace 'mass shooting' with 'shooting' would be the most sensible thing to do. Don't you think that this would be quite impractical? I started this RfC because I wasn't able to convince you on my own. I thought that you would change your mind at least after reading what 2 to 3 other editors have to say on why using 'mass shooting' here just isn't appropriate. But clearly, this doesn't seem to be happening. Please don't stonewall this change. If you have any substantive arguments with which to support your position of maintaining 'mass shooting' instead of changing it to 'shooting' please do present them here. Please don't revert my changes citing this RfC as not being concluded on the sole basis of you being the lone dissenter. Rockcodder (talk) 07:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * A clear consensus has not been achieved yet. Stop trying to short circuit the RfC process. You started the long RfC, not me. An Admin will eventually close this and judge consensus. Not me and you. Venkat TL (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Requests for comment says, "Anyone who wants an uninvolved editor to write a closing summary of the discussion (ideally with a determination of consensus) can formally request closure by posting at Closure requests". But it also says, "Written closing statements are not required. Editors are expected to be able to evaluate and agree upon the results of most RfCs without outside assistance". Who am I to stop you from requesting a formal closure. If that is what you wish, then so be it. From what I can see in this discussion, me (Rockcodder), Tayi Arajakate and SMcCandlish support replacing 'mass shooting' with 'shooting' in the infobox. AlexEng is of the opinion that 'shooting' need not be mentioned in the infobox at all as it has already been covered in the article sufficiently. You (Venkat TL) support maintaining 'mass shooting' in the infobox. Let me also clarify that this is just my observation and not a judgement of any sort. Rockcodder (talk) 09:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)


 * No, broadly, per above. That a firearm, or a few, were shot during a violent act does not make that act a mass shooting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
I would like to replace the existing infobox with the one here. The 'mass shooting' part can be added or removed based on the consensus of the RfC. In my opinion, combining the car driver and the journalist under the 'others' column isn't right as the journalist's family claims that he was hit by the vehicle and died as a result of that; while the car driver, who was Ajay Mishra's driver, died as a result of being lynched by the mob of protestors. Moreover, the journalist was among the protestors while he was covering the incident. What say you? Rockcodder (talk) 08:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It is factually incorrect and completely unsourced. Journalist was not protestor. I have not seen any report that the Driver was a BJP member, he was an employee of Teni. Where is the source that Virk was the leader there? Venkat TL (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I never told that the journalist was a protestor. I said he was among the protestors. Neither did I say that the driver was a BJP member. I have listed him in the infobox as a car drive. But he was associated to the BJP as he was introduced to Ajay Kumar Mishra through his uncle, a local BJP worker. The source for Tajinder Singh Virk being the leader:- "Tajinder Singh Virk, a 48-year-old who led the farmers’ protest held in Uttar Pradesh’s Lakhimpur Kheri on 3 October . . .". Rockcodder (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If it is not your intention to convey that the journalist was a protestor then you should not put the journalist in the side of protestors. Please read WP:SYNTH. Unless a reliable source says that the driver was a BJP member, we cannot call him a BJP member, or put him with BJP. Ok. thank you for adding the ref for Virk. Please mention this in the article body first. Who was the leader of the independents ( journalist and driver) Venkat TL (talk) 09:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We could mention the names of the driver and the journalist under lead figures for the others column. Rockcodder (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * it would be misleading. as they were not associated in any way. It is better to leave the leader section empty for Others. It is self explanatory, as there was no leader for others. Venkat TL (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Leaving it empty will result in it looking like this Rockcodder (talk)
 * I added a dash instead of empty. Now it is better. I am fine with it. But please include the reference and the line about leaders in the article body first. Infobox cannot have items without mention in article with reference.Venkat TL (talk) 10:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What about adding 'Arrests:2' to the infobox. Does WP:SUSPECT cover that as well? Rockcodder (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Already added before your post. Please check. Venkat TL (talk) 12:08, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Ohio State University attack which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)