Jump to content

Talk:Farmers' suicides in India

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The large number of suicides among farmers in India

[edit]

The large number of suicides among farmers in India does seem somewhat exaggerated to those not familiar with how things can go bad, very bad. Here is a link to an interview with one of the researchers who did indepth study of farmers suicide. In case I can get the original work of Dr. Nagaraj on line I would include a link to that in the future. http://specials.rediff.com/news/2007/nov/22sld1.htm upendra 13:05, 19 February 2009 ((talk —Preceding undated comment was added on 12:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]


The current data regarding farmers suicide has been added. (Nagraj 2008). As to the question of neutrality: so long as information is provided the doubts regarding neutrality are untenable. upendra 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Upendraupendra 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The farmers crisis in India is definitely something worth exploring for the wikipedia. How to get a neutral tone for something that involves a large number of seemingly contrary factors is difficult. The literature on this theme is scattered. The one big book that came out some years ago was on the crisis in Yavatmal. It has been mentioned in the bibliography but one also needs to take into account the large number of newspaper reports coming out from Uttar Pradesh about farmers crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.201.69.106 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's all Monsantos fault !!!!!!!!

[edit]

Monsanto is very bad. They kill all these Indian Farmers with their shit productions. I'm a Indian farmer and I'm RUINED!!! But I don't commit suiced but I gonna attack the Monsanto headquarter in the shit USA. (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2008(UTC)

By talking only of the genetic modified crops and their producers we divert the attention away from the more important issue of agrarian distress in India. The agrarian distress is a fact widely accepted by the government, the media and the people; the benefits of genetic modified crops are also accepted by a number of farmers, especially from Gujarat, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Punjab to name some of the states where gm seeds sell well. At the same time, it is also accepted that when the gm crop fails, like any other crop, the losses are far higher than in the case of using local seeds and local techniques since growing the gm crop requires much more capital. But to blame Monsanto so categorically-- that would not be appropriate for the wiki. upendra 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Upendraupendra 13:07, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Monsanto may be bad according to some ways of thinking. Big capital is always not good, that is for sure. However, too strong an attack on Monsanto and genetic modified crop ignored the reality that many farmers took to bt cotton because it seemed to them to give better profits. In the rich agricultural state of punjab in India, after a spate of suicides that was being reported in the past years bt cotton seems to have become the choice crop for the farmers. see the report based on figures from the department of agriculture in Punjab http://www.tribuneindia.com/2009/20090323/punjab.htm#2. upendra 10:58, 24 March 2009 (UTC)upendra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upendrabaxi2004 (talk • contribs)

Genetically modified cotton?

[edit]

I have heard suggestions that one reason for farmers' suicides is the failure of genetically-modified cotton. Farmers who borrowed to get into the publicised GM Cotton programme found that it did not work, for one reason or another, and they were stuck with no crop to harvest. Does anyone have further info? Snezzy (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out that genetically modified cotton is not the cause of farmers'distress in India. In Andhra Pradesh when the government began to play a pro-active role in supporting farmers in their agricultural operations through providing instruction on more responsible farming techniques the incidence of suicides among farmers showed a dramatic decline. This is not to absolve the gm lobby for on the benefits to Indian farmers or otherwise of gm crop is still an open issue on which detailed research is still awaited. Also for consideration is a point: the rapidly changing economic scene in India pushed a large number of people into farming who did not have a farming background. Neither did they have adequate training or experience in farming. To make things worse the government had stopped all its farm extension activities and agriculture universities had virtually stopped doing any research. These factors too contributed to agrarian distress in India. The issue was emotive and politically loaded. Also, the financial stakes involved were very very high according to Indian standards. The government, in the name of farmers, for example, was handing out a subsidy of over Rs. 77,000 crores [770 billions] to fertilizer factories. The fact was that only about 20% of the farmers were even in a position to use chemical fertilizers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Upendra 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC) see the report from the Government of India: http://planningcommission.nic.in/reports/genrep/rep_vidarbha.pdf —Preceding upendra 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)Upendra 13:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Poor Article Quality

[edit]

There is a need of more information in the article cause its not perfect enough to increse ones knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoro1999 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs to be completely rewritten, if not deleted.

First of all, it's far too vague. "Thousands of farmers in the last decade" is not specific enough. If this is a real phenomenon the article needs real data with specific numbers.

Secondly, the style of writing is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. It reads like it's written for an advocacy group's newsletter. In addition, The prose is poor and confusing.

Most importantly it is not balanced. It contains many normative statements like "Research on agriculture and agricultural products needs to be conducted to tackle the diverse agro–climatic differences." as well as non-neutral language like "The report concluded quite alarmingly...". Furthermore, an entire section of the article is spent repeating the conclusions of a non-peer-reviewed report from an NGO that states very clearly on its website that its reports are biased.

Finally, this situation might not be noteworthy enough to warrant an article. One of the only specific statistics in the article's cited sources estimated that there were 150,000 farmer suicides in India over an eight year span, which averages to 18,750 per year. There are ~760 million farmers in India, so that means there has been an annual suicide rate of 2.5 suicides per 100,000 farmers. But the overall suicide rate of India in 2006 was 10.5 suicides per 100,000 people. So if the statistics in the cited article are even remotely true, then farmers actually have a far LOWER suicide rate than the rest of the population. My guess is that the statistic is wrong or poorly reported. The point is this: THERE ARE NO STATISTICS CITED THAT DEMONSTRATE A SUICIDE RATE AMONG FARMERS THAT IS HIGHER THAN AVERAGE. And that necessary to prove that there is a noteworthy crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.176.197.88 (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC) >[reply]

It's been years since this comment was posted and yet the article remains. I think it should be flagged for deletion since there aren't any good numbers (anywhere, including the Indian government(s)) to support the claims made (but I don't know how to flag for deletion). It IS odd that the Indian government(s) would set up programs specifically for families of farmer suicide, considering their suicide rate is lower (IF any of the numbers in this article are actually valid). 75.92.79.231 (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article suffers from serious issues pertaining to the whole analysis of the agrarian crisis and of farmer distress and suicides in India. The article particularly suffers from the lacunae of the vaguely incorporated but very important section of "Reason". Primarily, various Wikipedia authors have chosen to include and sight economists and economic reasons behind the suicides. This section has in particular ignored the sociological and psychological factors that not only contribute in a significant manner but also exacerbate the pre-existing economic factors. Durkheim's hypothesis regarding suicides and his conception of mixed varieties of suicides needs to be explored in depth in the context of the aforementioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niyati.malhotra (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on quality and neutrality issues

[edit]

Have been following this article for some months now along with the modifications being made to it. I preferred the previous version of the page rather than the current one. The previous verisons were more neutral, gave information in specific form even though they did not address specifically the matter of the gravity of farmers suicides in India.

Briefly, I would say, this page should be retained.

The point raised in the comment above has been discussed for long through the early years of this century: that the suicide rate for farmers is no greater than the suicide rate among other population groups. That might be. But, looking at figures provided by the National Crime Records Bureau, which is a government of India body and its state level affiliates, the State Crime Records Bureau, says that while among other population groups the reason for suicide are varied, among farmers there is a preponderance of those who commit suicide because of farm related problems. That is what caught the attention of various commentators in the past two decades. As of today the issue of farmers suicide is not a ngo driven thing anymore and the public at large is well conversant with the specificities of farmers' distress. That is another matter that a number of ngos do push their specific agendas using the issue of farmers suicide as their excuse. Of this one of the more widely known agendas has been about the problems emanating from the use of genetically modified crops. On that see the comment above with respect to 'Monsanto'. At least from Punjab there is a lot of information coming out in the newspapers since Feb 2009 about reports being generated by university departments on the matter of farmers suicide. Unfortunately this information is still not available on the internet other than in the form of newspaper reports. A similar report by a south Indian based organisation has still not been published on the internet. The only detailed and formal studies that I have come across till now on the issue of farmers suicide concerns a specific district in Maharashtra. This study has already been referenced in the Wiki article on farmers suicides in India. Another is by the Planning Commission of India, a government of India body.

I guess the issue of farmers suicide is emotive, politically charged and complex and therfore there is a reluctance on part of neutral observers to comment upon it publicly. I shall wait and see what other comments are made on this issue and see how this page progresses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upendrabaxi2004 (talk • contribs) 22:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the historical context

[edit]

The perplexing question: why is farmers suicide such an intense issue in India? Have added a section giving the historical context to explain it.

I have just tagged that section as original research. "Context" sections are very often unacceptable per WP policies. The only way that this section would be okay would be if a reliable source actually discussed this context specifically. I'll leave it a bit to see if anyone has any sources, but I may come back and remove it (assuming I remember, of course). Qwyrxian (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

[edit]

I don't see the point of having a pic of cotton in a suicide article. For a moment I thought that eating cotton was a suicide method. 190.75.249.17 (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've removed it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC) ansameskjcskl[reply]

ytdgn

Removal reverted

[edit]

At some point User:Bobrayner deleted the entire first paragraph of the Causes section, with an edit summary seeming to vaguely indicate he does not consider the given source valid. I have restored this paragraph as being an accurate precis of the cited source; if said user would like to contend unreliability for the given source, then then talk page is the appropriate forum for that. Thank you. Eaglizard (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every time globalresearch gets taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, it's rejected. However, because it says things which reliable sources don't, people often try citing it when they want to put WP:FRINGE content into wikipedia. For instance, when editors want to say that global warming is a myth, HAARP is a weapon, the Gaddafi and Milošević and Assad regimes are peaceful victims of NATO aggression, 9/11 was an inside job, H1N1 is a government plot to kill billions of people, &c then globalresearch.ca gets cited. Sure enough, here we are with the International Food Policy Research Institute - an impeccably reliable source - saying that Bt cotton didn't cause farmer suicides; nonetheless, some editors want to say that Bt cotton causes farmer suicides, and if you shop around it's always possible to find some unreliable sources that support any ideology. A good rule of thumb is that where globalresearch has been cited, that means there's a reliable source available which says exactly the opposite. bobrayner (talk) 02:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Farmer suicide chart

[edit]

User:Semitransgenic removed a chart with the concern that "the information depicted in the chart is clearly not supported by the citation". Please identify which data in the chart is not supported by the source?

I double checked the data. Please note that routine calculations is not original research (see WP:NOR, WP:CALC). These sources provide the data:

  1. The total suicides and farmer suicide data for India is from: National Crimes Record Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, ADSI Reports 2001 to 2010 (please see each report individually, the data is there for both total suicides and farmers suicide.)
  2. Total suicide rates per 100,000 (all ages), from 2001-2010, for USA is from: Deaths: Final Data for 2010 National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 61, No. 4, May 8 2013, Page 34, Table 9, CDC, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

M Tracy Hunter (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

you need to cite a WP:RS that has already reviewed both sources, analysed the data, compared it, and then produced a result that corresponds to what you are presenting as content. Without a reliable secondary source your actions amount to WP:OR. Semitransgenic talk. 22:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Semitransgenic - I have simply plotted the data in the tables from the above sources. For example, every single data point on the chart for USA can be verified on page 34 of the U.S. DHHS source above. Similarly, every single total and rate per 100,000 data point for India can be verified from the annual reports of the Government of India source above. From 2012 ADSI report, see page xx of summary, for example. Both sources are WP:RS.
See WP:OR. Quote: "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. If you still allege I did OR, then please identify the fact, allegation or idea in the chart for which no reliable, published sources exist.
I have done no analysis of data. I simply put the data in a pictorial chart format, citing the sources. I do not want to cut and paste the tables or chart from those reliable sources, as that may be copyright violation. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are misrepresenting the guideline on original research, it states: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist."
  • the chart you inserted compares data taken from two sources. One of those sources of information, an Indian government website containing WP:PRIMARY information has multiple links to multiple documents. For you to sift through the primary data contained in each of those documents and compare it with data extracted from an article dealing with general suicide rates in America (nothing to do with farmer suicides), using a pictorial chart format, is an act of original research. You are presenting a WP:SYN analysis that is based solely on the extraction of primary data. We need a secondary source for the comparison offered in the chart. Semitransgenic talk. 09:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Semitransgenic - How are reports and studies published by Government Agencies not reliable, published sources? They are published in paper/web version, and they are reliable.

They are also WP:Secondary. According to WP:RS, WP:Primary are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. In this case, primary sources would be suicide affected families or neighbors/politicians/social workers in suicide prone rural area or police or local medical staff/coroners - they qualify as "people who are directly involved". The annual reports is written by people far removed, not directly involved, who take primary field reports from all over the country and then create a WP:Secondary report with recompiled data. These agencies have data procedures, internal controls, verification and editorial supervision. Further, wikipedia policy at WP:PSTS reads -

Quote - Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.

Your allegation of WP:Synthesis is strange. The guideline is: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The chart neither makes nor implies any conclusions at all; please identify what new conclusion the chart synthesized? No forward or backward projections are in the chart, nor is the axis manipulated for sensationalism. The chart simply plots verifiable historical data from secondary source. However, in the spirit of reaching a consensus to improve this article, I am willing to split the chart into two charts, or consider any collaborative idea you propose to present that useful information.

Should we take this through dispute resolution process? M Tracy Hunter (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the National Crime Records Bureau of India, is a primary source in the context of Indian crime statistics, it is not an independent third-party source. Analysis of this data by a secondary source is what we need here. Would you mind elaborating on why you believe it is necessary to juxtapose the Indian data against general suicide statistics for America? If you wish to pursue dispute resolution that is your privilege, I have no objection. Semitransgenic talk. 14:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Semitransgenic - you ask, "why you believe it is necessary to juxtapose the Indian data against general suicide statistics for America?"
Answer: I wanted to be WP:NPOV. Neutral point of view implies there are more than a single view/side/aspect/perspective. Not hiding data, presenting all data and all relevant perspectives in a neutral way, is necessary for NPOV. A good encyclopedic article presents all relevant data and lets the reader conclude whatever he or she may. Ideally, that chart should have more WP:RS data from other countries too.
Next step: Before I take this to appropriate discussion boards and dispute resolution process, would you help me pinpoint our dispute. Were you able to verify the data? Can I list our dispute as, (1) Are those sources primary or secondary? (2) Are they acceptable as reliable, published sources? (3) Is plotting data on a chart from two or more countries, from same agency but different reports, a case of synthesis (your view); or is presenting such data helpful for NPOV (my view)? M Tracy Hunter (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are engaging in WP:OR, pure and simple, that's all I have to say on the matter and I'm sorry, but I don't find your NPOV explanation convincing, the presentation of contrasting perspectives on the same topic would perhaps make some sense (and ideally a secondary source should already have done this for us), but contrasting general suicide statistics for the United States against farmer suicide statistics for India has zero to do with NPOV. If you are genuinely interested in NPOV why have you not, instead of drawing on primary data, cited either of the following secondary sources: The political economy of farmers’ suicides in India: indebted cash-crop farmers with marginal landholdings explain state-level variation in suicide rates , Suicide mortality in India: a nationally representative survey. Semitransgenic talk. 18:30, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Semitransgenic - The Kennedy and King paper uses 2003 data (see Fig 1 etc), it does not provide any trend study from 2003-2013 like the chart did. Thanks for The Lancet paper. It focuses on a single but more recent year, 2010. Its India versus developed world results for that single year supports the data in the chart I had - I could incorporate it into the chart, but doubt it would help resolve our differences. The paper does not provide time trend, the useful information that I tried to present with the chart. The Lancet paper does make several remarks about farmers suicide, which I will summarize into this article.

Will you be fine if I created a chart that showed only India data - farmer suicides, total suicides and population trends over time, all from WP:V published source? M Tracy Hunter (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

best you propose the source first.
  • I notice you state here that the Kennedy and King paper uses 2003 data and that Patel et al. focus on a single year (2010), this is incorrect. The 2010 figures are based on data collected between 2001 and 2003 which were then adjusted to give estimates for 2010, Kennedy and King clearly state this, this is one of the reasons they decided to look at the data more closely, they also analyse data from 2001-2005, not simply 2003.
  • If you can get something like this wrong it is all the more reason for insisting that you use secondary sources to build content here. You should also present verifiable secondary sources in a manner that supports material "clearly and directly."
  • I note also a very good reason why it is misleading to compare general suicide data for the US with India farmer suicides, The Lancet study demonstrated that "suicide in India is a very different social phenomenon to suicide in high-income countries (HICs): suicide rates in rural areas are almost double those in urban areas, whereas in HICs there is little difference." your WP:OR chart therefore has the potential to mislead to our readers. Semitransgenic talk. 22:07, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take it easy User:Semitransgenic. I made no assertions on how 2010 figures were derived in my reply above. Don't start patronizing here. Yes, Patel et al. use 2001 and 2003 representative survey, then project it to focus on the single year: 2010. I do see 2007-2009 discussion on page 2344, but don't see your 2001-2005 claim. You probably missed the suicide ideation discussion on page 2349, where they compare social phenomenon in South India and high income countries. Any way, it is clear we disagree on what primary, secondary, tertiary sources are, as well as what OR and NPOV is.
My chart data source for India-only time trend would be official data from NCRB, India. I am checking if World Health Organization can provide me a published source with the same 10 or 20 year farmers suicide in India data instead, preferably in some graphic form. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 22:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

suicide statistics are badly off

[edit]

The cited statistics are badly calculated. For instance, in the drop-down table "Farmer suicides rate per 100,000 in the state (2012)" we see an entry as follows:

  • Farmer suicides rate per 100,000 in the state (2012)[15]
  • State: Maharashtra
  • Farmer suicides rate per 100,000: 3.3

This is quite incorrect. If we take the previous drop down table's total suicides for Maharashtra's farmers to be correct at:

  • Maharashtra: 3,786

Then we must know the total number of farmers (in India there are two labor groups: "cultivators" and "agricultural labor") in Maharashtra to calculate the suicide rate per 100k. [This Times of India article] pegs the number of Maharashtra cultivators at 12.6 million. Thus, 3786 divided by 12.6 million times 100,000 equals 30.0 suicides per 100k. That is 10x more than the number listed on this wikipedia entry, "3.3". The cited government document does not contain the 3.3 number and I suspect a wikipedia contributor calculated this number based on the total population of Maharashtra state, which is more than 114 million -- this would explain the 10x error. I expect the same error to be present in the rest of the wikipedia tabular data.

Tarnas (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing WP:OR and combining sources to do WP:SYNTHESIS - both are against wiki policies and guidelines for article content.
The Times of India opinion piece data is derived from advocacy source and is unreliable. It claims India had a total of 144.3 million total agricultural laborers in 2011. With a total population of about 1.21 billion in 2011, this means just 12% of its population is dedicated to agriculture (what is 88% doing?). That data is inconsistent with other sources such as World Bank, FAO, India's 2011 NSSO, India's Agriculture Census, India's Registrar General (see this), etc. - all of whom suggest India's agri laborer count to be much higher than the claim in the opinion piece you mention.
In wiki articles, we cannot do original research or synthesis to derive new conclusions. The rate per 100,000 data in the chart is supported by the source, which is from a peer reviewed journal article, and therefore the chart stays. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 15:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with you there. I am not doing any synthesis, I'm checking a source against other sources, and arrive at the conclusion that there's been a numerical mistake by a wikipedia editor. Source 15 is not peer reviewed, as you claim, but let's suppose that we can trust it. Source 15 is not accompanied by a page number, which makes our job difficult. In fact, there are three drop-down tables in question in this article, and only one of them actually is assigned a source at all (the middle one, #2 of 3), source 15, but that middle table contains numbers which do not exist in source 15 -- tables #1 and #3 do. I don't think you'll find the contents of that table #2 in source 15 -- someone synthesized (did some math) based on data points taken out of context in source 15. They did the math wrong. Let's continue with the case of Maharashtra state. On page 198/318, we see a graph showing total suicides around 16,000 people and a rate of 14 per 100k. Thus the implied population of Maharashtra ([16000/14]*100000) is 114 million, which lines up with other sources.
The suicide rate for Maharashtra state is given again as 14/100k on page 173/318. The total suicides for that state are given as 16,211 on p276/318. On page 272/318, the total number of suicides related to "farming/agriculture" is given as 3786 people, and the percentage as a share of the total suicides is listed as 23.5% ([3786/16112]*100). These facts from source 15 are shown in our wikipedia article tables #1 and #3, but #2 remains elusive. If you divide 3786 by 114 million and multiply by 100k, you get the erroneous suicide rate for ag laborers of "3.3/100k". Since we know that not all of Maharashtra state's people are ag labor, we know that 3.3/100k rate is false, and thus the wikipedia table full of such numbers is false. We must use other sources to estimate the total ag labor pool in Maharashtra state, because it does not appear to be listed in source 15, but we do not need to go any further than this to know that the "3.3" number is a radical miscalculation.
The same error was made by the person who calculated every other "rate" in table #2 of 3, titled "Farmer suicides rate per 100,000 in the state (2012)". They simply divided the ag labor suicides by the total state population and multiplied by 100k. That's bogus. I'm not very good at combing through edit history to see who it was, but they just made those numbers up with a faulty calculation, they didn't take them from source 15. You will not find the rate of 3.3/100k anywhere in source 15. Conclusion: table #2 of 3 is full of easily understood miscalculations.
EDIT: I see I confused part of your response. There are two sources in question, and two bits of article content -- a bar chart and a graph. We have source 2 (Gruère, G. & Sengupta, D. (2011)) and source 15 (National Crime Reports Bureau, ADSI Report Annual – 2012). I thought you were claiming that source 15 was peer reviewed. You were apparently claiming that source 2 is peer reviewed. Source 15 is not, source 2 is. However, source 2 contains a major error that was not caught during peer review. In fact, the same kind of error you are claiming for me. The authors, Gruère and Sengupta, cite the following for their chart which you made your image of: Sainath, P. 2004. How the better half dies. The Hindu, July 31, 2004. As you can see, the digital copy of that article does not contain any of the cited data. It's quite possible that the original printed article does contain a graph that Gruère and Sengupta are referring to, but then we face two problems: first, they are relying on a journalist to come up with what would normally be produced by a government. Second, Sainath uses the common Indian numerical convention of "lakh", which as you must know by now, means "one hundred thousand", and which has tripped up many numerical investigation into India's business by westerners. The graph that Gruère and Sengupta created, and which you duplicated, contains precisely a 10x error that would come from a misreading of "lakh" units. I'll have to come back in the future and explore Gruère and Sengupta further to demonstrate how they are mixing up their datasets, it's 3am here now! But let me direct you to some of Sainath's other work, in which he cites a suicide rate for farmers of 16.3/100k in 2011 [2]. Sainath has long championed the idea that farmer suicide rates in India are truly very high and undereported -- why would he put out a graph in 2004 (your graph) showing that they are 10x lower than they are in 2011... have they changed so much in 7 years? Or did Gruère and Sengupta screw up the "lakh". The answer is Gruère and Sengupta screwed up.
EDIT #2: WOW! It really doesn't pay to stay up so late, but I made another mistake. A really delicious one. Gruère and Sengupta got their chart from Sainath, but I mixed up the articles. They went to "Sainath 2007a. Farm suicides rising, most intense in 4 states. The Hindu, November 12, 2007", not the 2004 article. And wouldn't you know, the Nov 12, 2007 article contains a familiar error: Gruère and Sengupta generated their own chart by miscalculating figures from Sainath's chart, which itself contains no farmer suicide rate per 100k, and Sainath takes his chart from NCRB data, which I've already shown does not contain a rate per 100k for farmer suicides. Anyway, consider the following quote: "But even in 2001, when the farm suicides were not yet at their worst, the farm suicide rate (FSR) at 12.9 was much higher than the general suicide rate (GSR) at 10.6 for that year. But the GSR slowed down after that to 10.3 by 2005 even as the total number of suicides went up. It means that the increase in the number of general suicides did not keep pace with the growth in general population. But the FSR seems to have risen more steeply after 2001." Gruère and Sengupta appear to have simply taken the percent of farmer suicide from the total suicides and assigned it a 100k rate based on the total population, with no regard for the actual subpopulation total of farmers -- a major error and an invalid way to show a death rate in a subpopulation. Which is what whoever created bar graph #2 did in the wikipedia article!
Tarnas (talk) 07:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha! The plot thickens! It turns out Gruère and Sengupta 2011 exists in two forms, only one of which is peer reviewed, and the peer-reviewed version found in JDS (Journal of Development Studies. 01/2011; 47(2):316-37. DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2010.492863) DOES NOT CONTAIN the data that is duplicated in your (M Tracy Hunter's) image. The bad data that is in your image exists in the October 2008 "Discussion Paper" version of Gruère and Sengupta, which is not peer reviewed. By the time the paper got through peer review and was publish in Jan 2011, that table of data was removed -- and rightly so! As is explained at length above.
Tarnas (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policy on synthesis is, "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Lets not do that. I will accept if you do basic math on data by a single source, per WP:CALC.

One key issue you raise, is to question what the denominator in per 100,000 numbers should be. You suggest it should be actual numbers of farmers. However, there is no reliable peer reviewed secondary or tertiary source for that. You mention questionable sources that allege between 10 to 15% of Maharashtra/Indian population is involved in farming. This is highly contentious. All reliable sources I have seen suggest a majority of women and men in India continue to be part time or full time employed in some stage of agriculture. Reliable sources do not suggest 85 to 90% of Indian people are full time employed in India's manufacturing and services sector.

Returning to this article, we can only summarize what reliable peer reviewed sources state. We can also clarify the language that the denominator basis is total population, where appropriate.

BTW, census of India data and sources 14, 15, 16 are all reliable - because they have been extensively used in peer reviewed secondary publications. Similarly, both the discussion paper and JoDS are reliable as they have been cited in secondary sources. There was, for example, a Nature Biotechnology article on farmer suicides in India, which cited Gruère's work. There are others. They state what this wiki article is. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Table 2 in this article seems to be based on suicide per 100,000 incidence rate and % suicide by farmers data, by state, in Tables 2.2 and 2.11 of [15]. I checked one number and was able to verify. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 07:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, my above string of comments is rather long, and it seems you did not understand them. In the wikipedia article, your image [3] and Bar Chart #2 ("Farmer suicides rate per 100,000 people in the state (2012)") both need to be removed. They contain false data that cannot be backed up. Table / Bar Chart #2 lists "National Crime Reports Bureau, ADSI Report Annual – 2012 Government of India" as its source, but that document does not contain those numbers. YOU CANNOT DIVIDE total farmer suicides in a state by the total population of that state and arrive at a "rate per 100k". That's not how demographers or epidemiologists calculate a "rate". Since we do not know the number of farmers in any given state, and since "National Crime Reports Bureau, ADSI Report Annual – 2012 Government of India" does not contain that data, NO RATE CAN BE PUBLISHED in this wikipedia article based on the cited sources, and Bar Chart #2 must be removed.
As for your image [4], the problem still stands. You made your image based on Gruère and Sengupta 2008. That was not a peer-reviewed document. Gruère and Sengupta 2011 is peer reviewed, and DOES NOT CONTAIN the data in your image. The peer reviewers, or someone, removed that data from the final published Gruère and Sengupta 2011 article, probably for the reasons that I explain above: because Gruère and Sengupta 2008 referenced Sainath 2007a (p60/64), which does not contain any farmer suicide rate chart, and which explicitly pegs the national Indian farmer suicide rate at 12.9 farmer suicides per 100,000 farmers in 2001. Sainath explains this and other figures at length in Sainath 2007a, located here. Here's an excerpt: "A clear national ‘farm suicide rate’ can be derived only for 2001. That is because we have the Census to tell us how many farmers there were in the country that year. For other years, that figure would be a conjecture, however plausible. But even in 2001, when the farm suicides were not yet at their worst, the farm suicide rate (FSR) at 12.9 was much higher than the general suicide rate (GSR) at 10.6 for that year." This stands in direct opposition to the idea that Gruère and Sengupta 2008 (p12/64) could somehow read the exact same article by Sainath and conclude that in 2001 the farmer suicide rate was 1.60 -- Sainath EXPLICITLY SAYS that it is 12.9/100k.
Your image [5] contains false data, and is incorrectly referenced to Gruère and Sengupta 2011, when it is in fact derived from Gruère and Sengupta 2008, a non-peer-reviewed document containing false data.
That's all there is to say. I'm not talking about estimating actual suicide rates right now. I'm just talking about removing false data. We need to remove Bar Chart #2 and your image from this wikipedia article. I'm going to do it myself soon, but I would hope that you see this reasoning and do the removal yourself, since you appear to be the source of this false wikipedia content. Tarnas (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The 2008 discussion paper by Gruere et al is a reliable source. It has been cited by scholarly publications. For example, see this on pages 180 - 183, edited by David Bennett and Richard Jennings, published by Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1107026704. Thus the data in the chart is verifiable and from a reliable source (Table 3). It should stay, because it is relevant, and it satisfies all wiki policies on content and sources. If you disagree, we have a dispute. I encourage you to take it to the appropriate dispute resolution boards of wikipedia.
The table too is verifiable. It is WP:CALC of two columns of a single source. So it too should stay. Will you feel better if we replace that column with two columns of data without any WP:CALC (total suicide incidence rate per 100000 by state, and % of total in farming profession by state). M Tracy Hunter (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, we have a dispute. I find it incredible that you can't see the difference between G&S 2008 [6] and G&S 2011 [7]. They are different documents and no peer-reviewed paper cites G&S 2008, which is the only document containing your image file data, which you falsely attribute to G&S 2011 -- go read G&S 2011 again, your table is not in there, PERIOD. You just linked to Bennett & Jennings 2013 but they merely list G&S 2008 in the references, they don't actually use cite it directly in the text at all, and they certainly don't include the false data from G&S 2008 "Table 3". It is incredible to me that you can't see how a draft, G&S 2008, had the data you're clinging to REMOVED during peer review for G&S 2011, and somehow you want to defend the draft as reliable! The peer review process removed the false data! The bar chart #2 is also NOT verifiable. WP:CALC does not cover incorrectly combining two datasets to produce a new dataset with false units. You cannot combine the percent of farmer suicides with the total suicide rate per 100k -- it's a meaningless number. What about that don't you get? Why do you think that it's a valid calculation operation? I haven't ever taken anything through a dispute resolution process, so it may be a few days before this gets started. Tarnas (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You allege, "You just linked to Bennett & Jennings 2013 but they merely list G&S 2008 in the references, they don't actually use cite it directly in the text at all". Not so. The 2008 paper by Gruere et al is cited on page 180. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are technically correct about that. Allow me to transcribe that passage here, from Bennett & Jennings 2013 p180: "(d) 'Failure of Bt cotton is responsible for innumerable farmer suicides in India', a charge that was not upheld by international (Gruere et al., 2008; Gruere and Sengupta, 2011) or Indian reports accepted by the MoEF in his Bt brinjal moratorium order (Kameswara Rao, 2010)."

What about this paragraph gives you such immense confidence that Table 3 in G&S 2008 is accurate? B&J 2013 did not refer to that data, OR ANY DATA from G&S 2008. I've shown conclusively that Table 3 in G&S 2008 is false; directly contradicts its own cited source of Sainath 2007a; and was removed from the peer-reviewed G&S 2011. You want to play this game? You know who else is cited in G&S 2011? Flip to p23/24 and you will see "Mishra, S. (2006a) and (2006b), both of which include the following about Maharashtra state: "We can arrive at the SMR [suicide mortality rate] for farmers by normalising it with the population of cultivators. The SMR for male farmers increased by nearly four times from 15 in 1995 to 57 in 2004, but for females the trend fluctuated to reach a peak of 12 in 2001, but thereafter it has been declining."

Check out G&S 2011 p23/24 again, and see Nagaraj, K. (2008) on page 7/29: "The farm suicide rate in the country in 2001 was 12.9, which was about one fifth higher than the general suicide, which was 10.6 in that year. As one would expect, the suicide rate among male farmers was much higher at 16.2, which was nearly two and a half times the rate for the female farmers (which was 6.2)"

This is in DIRECT OPPOSITION to your image and Bar Chart #2 in the wikipedia article. But it's in G&S 2011, so it must be good data right? A peer reviewed article refers us to this data. I could go on and on because the fact is that the farmer suicide rate per 100k farmers is known to generally be higher than the suicide rate for the general population, which is somewhere near 10 suicides per 100k -- nowhere near the ridiculous numbers that you generated for your image (~1.5/100k), which is in turn based on the FALSE Table #3 from G&S 2008, which was incorrectly based on Sainath 2007a (which didn't contain any such data) and then removed during peer review. You're somehow better than the peer reviewers? Every piece of common sense and evidence points at the invalid data in your image and Table 3 from G&S 2008, and you're going to fight this fight? Tarnas (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this dispute to the following page, Wikipedia:Third_opinion#Active_disagreements. If no one jumps in to help via that page, I'll take this dispute to Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard. Tarnas (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a few more links here for context, by Sainath, containing data from Nagaraj, the Census of India 2001 and 2011, and the NCRB. Again, your position is inexplicable to me: you defend G&S 2008 Table 3, which cites Sainath 2007a, when Sainath repeats himself so many times that the farmer suicide rate is well above average -- more than the 10 suicides per 100,000 people from the general population of India.
I'll continue to use your own sources against you. At the beginning of this discussion, you said I shouldn't rely on the Times of India and instead pointed to this document as more reliable. Have you actually read that document? It contains many citations to Vandana Shiva, a well-known charlatan who is not a reliable source. She is on a campaign to point out that Indian farmer suicides are above the general population rate and very under-reported. She wants to tie them to the use of GM crops. You referring me to this document does not bode well. You seem to want to prop up your graph showing farmer suicides at a rate near 1.5/100k, but then you cite a document that uses sources clearly claiming a much higher rate.
Anyway, lets just assume there's good data mixed in with bad data in that report you linked to. On page 2/204 we see, quote: "According to population census of India 2001, there are about 402.5 million rural workers of which 127.6 million are cultivators and 107.5 million are agricultural labourer". So this report you refer to claims there are ~235 million people in India who might loosely be considered "farmers". Remember what NCRB ADSI 2012 said on page 272/318? Total "self–employed (farming/agriculture)" suicides: 13754. NCRB uses a different way of classifying workers than the census, but let's just combine the two for the hell of it: ((13754 suicides / 235 million "farmers") * 100,000) = 5.85 farmer suicides for every 100,000 farmers. That's 4x higher than the numbers in your image, and as we know from others who study the difference between census and crime statistics in India, the NCRB likely only included "cultivators" in their data, because only cultivators are "self employed" whereas "agricultural laborers" are not. Meaning that a better estimate can be had by taking ((13754 farmer suicides / 127.6 million cultivators) * 100,000) = 10.77 farmer suicides for every 100,000 cultivators. That's looking like a pretty normal number to me. Nothing like what we see in your image based on G&S 2008 Table 3, or in the wikipedia article's Bar Chart #2. Suppose we use data from closer to 2001? NCRB ANSI 2002 shows on p13/19 that of all 110,417 people who committed suicide in India that year, "16.3 per cent were engaged in Farming / Agriculture activities". That means that about 18000 farmers committed suicide in 2002. From Census 2001 data, we know that there were 127.6 million self-employed farmers in India near that time. Again we find a similar result to what I've been bringing up again and again, and which you continue to obstinately ignore: ((18,000 / 128 million) * 100,000) = 14 farmer suicides for every 100,000 self-employed farmers. NOTHING like your image or bar chart #2.
Tarnas (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth noting also that there is still no mention of Kennedy and Kings 2014 study, the interpretation of Patel's data concerning farmer suicide figures contains a number of caveats worth highlighting (see here also). There are also multiple reliable sources that discuss the problem of indebtedness arising from the increasing costs associated with using GM seed, again, discussion of this in the article has been omitted.Based on the edits I have seen here, M Tracy Hunter appears to favour one particular view of why it is farmers commit suicide, which is fine, but without other valid opinions found in reliable sources we will have an issue with NPOV here. Semitransgenic talk. 09:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, why are we ignoring the graph found here?

The alternate view is already in the article, in the following form, "By gender, the suicide rate was 16.2 male farmer suicides per 100,000 male farmers compared to 12.5 male suicides per 100,000 for general population. Among women, the suicide rate was 6.2 female farmer suicides per 100,000 female farmers compared to 8.5 female suicides per 100,000 for general population." The same data is in Panagariya chart. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not an "alternate view" -- they are completely contradictory numbers! You cannot cite a farmer suicide rate in your image for year 2001 of 1.60/100k, and then have a citation elsewhere in the article that gives a farmer suicide rate of 12.9/100k for 2001 (Das 2011). 1.60/100k versus 12.9/100k, which is right? They cannot BOTH be right. ONE MUST GO. Das is right. Sainath is right. Nagaraj is right. G&S 2008 Table 3 is flat out wrong, and your image with it. I don't care about the GM crops angle. Your image needs to go.
I see you made a slight change to the units in Bar Chart #2... you think that fixes it? Incredible. Bar Chart #2 can be read in only one correct way: "For every 100,000 Indians living in X state, there were Y suicides and Z of them were farmers." That's what that chart is actually saying, but it is not made explicit or listed iwth the correct units -- it's formatted in a nonsensical way that hides the actual facts. It is beyond WP:SYNTH, it is not covered by WP:CALC, it is misleading and without precedent in demographics or epidemiology to present numbers in that way. We are not going to start the precedent here. It must be deleted. Tarnas (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the graph should be corrected or deleted, additionally two other graphs that appear to conflict with this graph might want to be considered (in the interests of NPOV). Semitransgenic talk. 20:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both are correct and both should remain. One is farmer suicides per 100,000 people. Another is farmer suicides per 100,000 farmers. Both are useful information. Highlighting one, hiding the other creates an NPOV problem. The farmer suicide per 100,000 people data is very commonly reported (along with per 100,000 farmers basis). See this for Australia, this for New Zealand, etc. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

M Tracy Hunter, you are quite wrong. Both of those links contain only rates adjusted for subpopulations. The concept of "100,000 people" meaning what you think it means is ABSOLUTELY RIDICULOUS and I'm unable to contain my exasperation. Educate yourself! Quote any number from either of those links you posted, I will demonstrate that you are wrong. From the Australian article, there is only one rate cited: "Australia's rural suicide rate, 17 per 100,000 people, is above the national suicide rates of Canada and the United States." You think "100,000 people" here means the whole population of Australia? IT MEANS 17 RURAL SUICIDES FOR EVERY 100,000 RURAL CITIZENS. They don't need to spell it out because they are not catering to the few people on this planet like you who don't comprehend demographic statistics. Do you need me to calculate this from first principles for you? I guess it wouldn't help because you can't follow any of the math we've done up to this point. Tarnas (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is an editor cherry picking data to push a particular view?

[edit]

M Tracy Hunter you didn't answer the question above, so can I ask why are we ignoring very different graphs found in the following secondary sources?

Are you cherry picking citations to push a particular point of view? or is there a good reason for this?

I'll give another example. In this section you have placed the following graph:
Can I ask why you chosen a graph for a single state (one that is not even mentioned in said section) rather than the all India graph found in the following secondary source?: Gruère, G. & Sengupta, D. (2011), "Bt cotton and farmer suicides in India: an evidence-based assessment", The Journal of Development Studies, 47(2), pp 316–337 (page 27 in the file linked).
You will note that the trend line in the all India graph offers a more complete picture, so why are we focusing on a single state that is not even mentioned in the subsection text?
Until we have a clear rationale for what is happening here I suggest removing the misleading graphs. Semitransgenic talk. 20:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Semitransgenic - Please assume good faith. We had a dispute back in June. The discussion is above on this talk page. I think a better chart would present Panagariya and data from other sources in one graph - but that may go against your concerns in June about combining data from two sources into one graph.
Multiple sources state that only 2001 data is reliable for "suicides per 100,000 farmers" incidence rate for India. We need to consider those sources, or clarify that in this article. Currently the article does.
The chart for single state is relevant to the Bt cotton discussion and reliably sourced. It is self explanatory. If you want to add a discussion in the subsection, go ahead add the discussion. If you want to add all India graph from Gruère & Sengupta (2011) as well, go ahead create the graph and add it. How does adding relevant information from secondary peer review sources, such as the graph above, mislead? Mislead from which point of view?
Frankly, less information or hiding information is POV, and will mislead. I welcome addition of more information and that we collaboratively help build an article with a more complete picture, that respects wiki's NOR, no synthesis and NPOV policies. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 01:13, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
pictorial representations are added to illustrate written content, farmer suicides in Maydha Pradesh were not discussed in the sub-section, so it's an irrelevant graph, it tells us what happened in one state (and the most dramatic example), but the content dealt with India generally, so it's pretty clear which graph would have been appropriate if we wanted to accurately illustrate the content. Semitransgenic talk. 01:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added relevant discussion of the specific state. It ties in with the summary from 2014 Ian Plewis publications. I would welcome if you create and add the all India graph. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1995-2013 total suicides data

[edit]

@Randhwasingh: You added "From 1995 to 2013, a total of 296,438 farmers have killed themselves in India" to the lead.

Is that important enough to belong to the lead? Unless you persuasively explain it should remain in the lead, I intend to move it to the main article, because it does not contribute to the WP:LEAD guideline, "that the lead should be an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects". If it is important enough to be in the lead, you should explain the significance of the 18 year total in an NPOV manner, in the main article. M Tracy Hunter (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GM cotton and Indian farmers to suicide

[edit]

Just find good article "GM cotton really is helping to drive Indian farmers to suicide".-- . Shlok talk . 12:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[1][reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

India has 12.9 annual suicides per 100000 citizens which is close to the global average

[edit]

According to the List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate India has around 12 annual suicides per 100000 citizens. This is very close to the global average, and lower than countries such as Russia and the US. I think that the article should reflect this.

Every suicide is obviously a tragedy, but it also helps to put the numbers into perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.23.239.207 (talk) 15:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Farmers' suicides in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Farmers' suicides in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Farmers' suicides in India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers sucide

[edit]

Farmer suicide 

For my social history very dangerous society doing in very poor villages are poor farmers because of droughts no rainfall that's it 43.241.123.183 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translte to english

[edit]

ಮಳೆಯು ಸರಿಯಾಗಿ ಆಗಲಿಲ್ಲ ಅಂದರೆ ರೈತರು ಆತ್ಮಹತ್ಯೆ ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳುತ್ತಾರೆ 223.186.198.81 (talk) 13:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

India Education Program course assignment

[edit]

This article was the subject of an educational assignment supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors through the India Education Program.

The above message was substituted from {{IEP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 20:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Examine the factors behind the increaseing case of farmers suicides suggest suitable solution and measures for prevention of suicide

[edit]

Information 106.51.198.30 (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Farmers%27_suicides_in_India&oldid=1249297172"