Talk:2020 Indian agriculture acts

Renaming of the article

The article could be called Farm Acts 2020 or Indian farm acts 2020 (as per the original name of the page Farm Bills 2020) DTM (talk) 09:59, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan:, it should be renamed 2020 Indian agriculture reforms following Wikipedia's general naming style of "when" "where" "what". I propose to use Agriculture instead of Farm because it is broader and more appropriate term. Farm is associated with land while agriculture is associated with farming practise and trade etc. Please feel free to give opinion. 2020 Indian farm reforms can be a redirect. Nizil (talk) 08:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Nizil, please go ahead. DTM (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I support Indian farm acts 2020. The word Reform means the improvement or amendment of what is wrong, corrupt, unsatisfactory, etc. which assumes that the new bills are better than the previous one; the Government's version of the story. I strongly propose this should be called 'Acts' as these are Acts. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed merge of 2020 Indian farmers' protest into Indian farm reforms 2020

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: Don't merge . Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 15:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Parent article DTM (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

• Merge per above unless the protests get widespread coverage which will be known much later. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 04:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose protests are getting widespread coverage. Article needs expansion.SangrurUser (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose seems big enough to have its own article Germartin1 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Merge I don't think either articles will be sizeable on their own. Guavabutter (talk) 08:41, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose this is the important protests regarding Indian farmer's. The article needs expansion.Vins (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Article need expansion. Protest has more coverage than the bill itself. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The protests have got widespread coverage now as of Dec 1, 2020. The topic will pass WP:GNG by itself.ChunnuBhai (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Opppse Different topics and needs separate coverage. One on Bills and one on Protests. Nizil (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Significant coverage exists of the protests as of today. KyloRen3 (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - At the time of writing, the protests have garnered broad international attention, much more than the farm bills themselves ever did. CalicoMo (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2020 (EST)
• Oppose sorry to hop in. Both articles are large enough and have several sections by now.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above Germartin1 (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
• Merge as per nom. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | edits)} 07:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose These two are different topics with significant amount of coverage, just like Indonesia omnibus law protests and Omnibus Law on Job Creation. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Both articles are different. There is no need to merge them. Manakpreet Singh (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Protests are notable enough to have its own article. EelamStyleZ (talk) 06:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Comment This can clearly be closed now. DTM (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The topics are complementary and both are likely to expand as the reforms are likely to be discussed more, possibly cancelled or radically modified, and there's no sign yet of the protests stopping. Boud (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose the merge. The context of both articles are totally different. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose The protests are very, very notable on their own and warrant their own article. There's no need to merge these two articles together, especially with the sheer size of the protests in question. Nekomancerjade (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2020 (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.

866 academics expressed approval of the farm laws

This was recently removed from the article. Considering you agree that the sources don't mention the names of the academics, on what basis do you claim those academics aren't notable? The academics come from notable universities, and the reputable sources do say that they have signed this letter (their anonymity can be due to prevent them being witch-hunted), here is another source https://indianexpress.com/article/india/over-850-academics-sign-open-letter-in-support-of-farm-laws-7129098/. In light of this, I am undoing your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karunavajra (talk • contribs) 12:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

These people are no way directly related to the topic or they are notable to be quoted. This is in all probability just a PR stunt to gain the traction. Hence WP:MILL. - The9Man ^(Talk) 12:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I suppose, yes, that is indeed a possibility. But I think it would be better to include this point in the article than remove the topic altogether. I believe something along the lines, "it has not been stated who these academics are, nor has it been mentioned whether their speciality is relevant to the farm laws", would be suitable to add to what is already there. I'll add in this sentence myself later if you don't have any remarks over it. Karunavajra (talk) 13:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

While agreeing to keep it, it is in excess details and I have moderated it. - The9Man ^(Talk) 11:21, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Opinions

The whole articles presents some kind of misinformations Which is wrong on so many levels. This is a not factual article but rather like an opinion piece in favour of government. Hawkeye2100 (talk) 19:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC). In this article , the content named "the farm acts" , there is a bill named "The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020" a clause written at the end of the this bill "It will result into closing of government from mandis and after that private players will exploit farmers" which is an accusation and no government source has claimed this as an part of a bill . I request the team wikipedia to have a fact check on this and edit this clause <by Rupanshu Kundal> |- answered .'''Bold text

We haven't stopped you from editing this article. If you can find reliable sources that highlight the bad provisions in the farm laws, then feel free to add it. Karunavajra (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I like men. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neburner (talk • contribs) 17:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

How the hell is the last point still there? Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 10:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 March 2021

The summaries of the Acts include unsourced opinions on what will happen if implemented. They should be removed - the rest of the article handles the criticisms quite well. I suggest amending that section as follows:

Timzog (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

== The Farm acts ==

1. The Farmers' Produce Trade and Commerce (Promotion and Facilitation) Act, 2020
   • expands the scope of trade areas of farmers' produce from select areas to "any place of production, collection, aggregation".
   • allows electronic trading and e-commerce of scheduled farmers' produce.
   • prohibits state governments from levying any market fee, cess, or levy on farmers, traders, and electronic trading platforms for the trade of farmers' produce conducted in an 'outside trade area'.
2. Farmers (Empowerment and Protection) Agreement on Price Assurance and Farm Services Act, 2020
   • provides a legal framework for farmers to enter into pre-arranged contracts with buyers including mention of pricing.
   • defines a dispute resolution mechanism which excludes the courts
3. Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 2020
   • removes foodstuff such as cereals, pulses, potato, onions, edible oilseeds, and oils, from the list of essential commodities, removing stockholding limits on agricultural items produced by Horticulture techniques except under "extraordinary circumstances"
   • requires that imposition of any stock limit on agricultural produce only occur if there is a steep price rise. Timzog (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Timzog (talk) 09:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: It looks like the article text and the requested change are the same. NightWolf1223 (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

No they aren't (At least for me). I can still see some unsourced opinions as the last points in the acts. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 11:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Alluburam's edits (16:04 12th March) are still visible. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 12:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

@NightWolf1223: the article is different from the requested change. The last points under each act differ in the article and the suggested changes. In the article, User Alluburam has added some unsourced opinions on March 12. Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized that @NightWolf1223 is on leave. @El C: can you edit the article to remove the unsourced opinions I and @Timzog: have mentioned about in the above replies? Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 11:52, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, the text I'm saying should be removed is the last bullet under each act: "It will result into closing of government from mandis and after that private players will exploit farmers" "In case of any dispute Farmer cannot file case against trader but it will be solved by SDMs only" "It will legalise storage of above mentioned items and results in increase of prices." The second item has a useful point, but it's not well expressed, and I suggested alternate wording for it, but if it would be simpler just to remove it, that would be better than leaving it there unchanged. Timzog (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: can you please edit this article to remove the unsourced statements @Timzog: and I have mentioned about? Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done As requested KyloRen3 (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 July 2021

To provide the context of these bills, please add these either (a) in the "background/context" section, (b) before the "reaction" section under a new section titled "related schemes", (c) add these as "see also", or {d) as a para in the background section bu collapsing bullets into prose.

Agriculture initiatives schemes launched by the Modi regime are:

• 2020 Indian agriculture acts
• Atal Bhujal Yojana
• E-NAM for online agrimarketing
• Gramin Bhandaran Yojana for local storage
• Micro Irrigation Fund (MIF)
• National Mission For Sustainable Agriculture (NMSA)
• National Scheme on Fisheries Training and Extension
• National Scheme on Welfare of Fishermen
• Pradhan Mantri Kisan Samman Nidhi (PMKSN) for minimum support scheme
• Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY) for irrigation
• Paramparagat Krishi Vikas Yojana (PKVY) for organic farming
• Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) for crop insurance

Thanks. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 11:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

References