Talk:2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Indian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, analysed, defence) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Protests covered by media

Protests widely being covered by media, Can check http://www.google.co.in/search?q=land%20acquisition%20protests%20in%20Uttar%20Pradesh&hl=en&ned=in&tab=nw As the events is current, help updating the events. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

Since this appears reletivly recent, I must remind everyone of policies such as WP:NPOV, and be very careful, as much will be written by the opposing party at first, and then the defending party may come in and begin page blanking. Make sure you back up what you add to the article with WP:RS Thank you. Phearson (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming

The article can be renamed as '2011 land acquisition protests in Greater Noida' as that would be more specific for it. Mahesh Kumar Yadav (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. What if the protests spead? If anything, the article title should be less specific. - Sitush (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis

The said section should ~~contain closely paraphrased quotations from RS~~ stick closely to reliable sources that justify the title The motivation for land acquisition in India, in its present state it looks like wp:OR. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is an essay and probably needs to be removed on those grounds. However, you are wrong to say that it "should contain closely paraphrased quotations". In fact, close paraphrasing is not permitted on Wikipedia except in an extremely limited number of situations (eg: an alphabetised list). - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I quote a few relevant guidelines The problem of plagiarism on Wikipedia is unique, because no original research is allowed. Wikipedians are required to stick closely to reliable sources that support their edits, and in contentious topics this requirement is rigorously enforced.[1] Quoting (with or without quotation marks) or closely paraphrasing public domain source material is appropriate if properly attributed to avoid plagiarism.[2]. So the safe way is acknowledge and cite appropriately.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I quote Wikipedia:Close_paraphrasing. No-one should closely paraphrase, except in extremely unusual situations. Now, if you want to start another argument then feel free. I'll bring in the people who specialise in this, notably Moonriddengirl. The user who contributed the two recently added sections is, unlike you, a new user. You have come here because you saw my comment to that new user on my talk page, when you posted your own message there. I grant you, there are problems here but there are ways of dealing with these issues - telling them to do something wrong is not one of them. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it, it is 5.20 am and I've been up all night, and am a little groggy, are you accusing me of stalking?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. I am saying that you have given poor advice to a new contributor & you should have perhaps realised that they were new because you saw my reply to them on my talk page. Nothing wrong with you checking it out. OTOH, if I had not spent so long dealing with you today then I might actually have got round to looking at this and helping the person a bit more. I'll have to do it tomorrow now. - Sitush (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for striking your comment. - Sitush (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The feeling is mutual, that is why I said that your work would attract and waste time, but the reply came that didn't really appreciate my concerns.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only person wasting everyone's time was yourself. The other two parties to the discussion agree with that. And the reason for the waste was, as here, because of your failure to understand the Wikipedia way of doing things. - Sitush (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(od) I see one party, MV, you and ZEE, on one side and the tens of anon and registered users who discuss the issue over various articles on the other.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 00:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Yogesh and Sitush. After reading through 100s of pages from reliable sources such as IMF/WB/India's MoF, to write the few sentences in this section, I am struggling with three issues:

(1) WP:NOR reminds us - Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material.

(2) I believe that unless one reads the reports in its entirety, one may be innocently led to assume WP:SYNTH issues in my past version; Even though everything in there was written in the articles I cite, I find them distributed on different pages (so for now, I have voluntarily deleted some clauses that aren't directly attributable from the same section of a reliable report, but were attributable to the source if one read the entire source). WP:SYNTHNOT explicitly states "SYNTH is not summary". There it reads: On the contrary, "coming up with summary statements for difficult, involved problems" has been described as "the essence of the NPOV process." Wiki authors must summarize, not copy and paste a 100 page report! I submit that a summary of 100+ page report, or even 2 page report will often involve distilling the report into clauses from different paragraphs or sections of the report. What else defines summary? Nevertheless, I am new here. I want to reflect on this a bit more. I want to assume I have not done as good a job as I may be able to. I want to creatively challenge myself to make my contribution better. I want to respect wiki rules. So, for now, I have voluntarily deleted few clauses. While I reflect on it, I urge you to reflect on this too in light of suggestions in WP:SYNTHNOT.

(3) I want to keep my contribution readable while being one with a NPOV; I do not like collection of ad hoc statements. Our goal should be "contribute readable NPOV summary attributable to most reliable sources."

The two sections I wrote are necessary, as are a few more sections I plan to work on in the coming weeks, to address the wp:recentism issue cited long before I visited this wiki page; as well as to give the protests an encyclopedic NPOV perspective. I have already cited each paragraph, with page or chapter numbers in some cases. If there are any specific clauses or sentences that you can not find in the sources I cite, please let me know. I will be happy to post the line numbers and page numbers for you here on the talk page. Please be kind and helpful to me: write here which section and clause specifically; and also, allow me few days to return to those citations and dig out the line numbers etc.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 02:36, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic about things. I need to go through the entire section. (The other one - history - looks ok to me, but I'll check that also). When someone has been around here for a while they tend to develop a sense of whether something is ok or not even without digging into it, but I would rather be sure on this occasion and that will also enable me to help you better. If Yogesh wants to do the same then that is fine by me, of course. - Sitush (talk) 04:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)Apostle you need a statement that uses the words, for example According to X "the motivation for land grab is thisandthat[3]. And then source it properly (2)You are right, it is a tight rope walk, everyone is learning all the time. Good luck and best wishes.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right with that ability to summarise, but you need the very words, motivation for land grab, I don't disagree with anything you have written on talk here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are again right about readability, you need to find a via media between various parameters, and never sacrificing wp:5P. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And wp:OSE, I am just showing you my stumbling blocks.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Sitush and Yogesh. I look forward to your review and specific comments Sitush - both on what you find ok, and what you don't. I really appreciate your thoughts.

On Yogesh's comments, I am delighted to note that you don't disagree with anything I wrote on this talk page. You offer one specific comment, and I hope your will offer some additional specific comments. The one specific comment you mention is one I am not convinced about yet.

Yogesh suggests I need to use words like: According to X "the motivation for land grab is thisandthat."" He repeats his advice later again: "you need the very words, motivation for land grab" That is not convincing Yogesh.

For one, I find the phrase "land grab" is not a neutral phrase. Grab is a biased word, not even part of this wiki page title, and shouldn't be part of this wiki page title. I find slanting land acquisition to land grab as something inappropriate with the good WP:NPOV rules. To be NPOV, we must not slant one way or the other. "Land acquisition" is more relevant to this wiki page, and more neutral. Join me in keeping this NPOV.

I am also not convinced that wiki sections or paragraphs or sentences should start with "According to X," even though I am convinced content must be attributable and compliant with WP:NOR. One does not necessarily imply the other. Read any page of any encyclopedia (Britannica for example); vast majority of sentences in any article do not start with "According to X" phrase. I am not saying it is wrong to start that way; I am saying it is not necessary to start your sentences that way. This is more a matter of style. After all, if you cite your reference within the paragraph, the source of your summary is obvious. In the sentence: "According to The Wall Street Journal, X happened [1]," you are repeating yourself if [1] is nothing but a citation to WSJ. Why repeat yourself? I prefer jargon-free, lucid, easy to read style that summarize verifiable facts in a NPOV manner. Wiki recommends our writing be accessible and jargon-free when it asks us to know your audience, see WP:10SIMPLERULES. I urge you to help me remain jargon-free and accessible. Let us be simple. Let us reveal verifiable facts and truth in few words, rather than verbosity. Let us contribute content that is neutral and complete yet accessible and easy to read.

Before I close this reply, I confess I feel bit uncomfortable writing what I wrote above, because you are experienced, with expertise and I feel you know so much more than me because I am new here. If you feel I am right in my concept and approach, but possibly erring in the specific about a wiki rule or content in the article - then do share with me the specific. That will help me focus, and improve my contribution. Thank you.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)No Apostle I am not suggesting that you use the term land grab for aquisition, I just gave an example, of how to quote close to the original without plagiarism. I don't want you to use the term land grab for aquisition, unless you find reasons to do so, I am just giving an example. I hope I am clear. It is like X and thisthat or http://www.iana.org/domains/example/. I hope I am clear. One thing we all need to learn. To communicate effectively, which means both transmit and receive communication properly. Perhaps you should have asked if it wasn't clear, perhaps it would have saved a lot of your time and energy. (2)Apostle the second point that you mentioned is I am also not convinced that wiki sections or paragraphs or sentences should start with According to X, my reasoning for that is not wp:NOR which the citation at the end takes care of but Wikipedia:Plagiarism, you see the statement the motivation for aaaaaa is yyyy is not yours it is someone's else's creation, copyright or left, the According X makes that amply clear, see in text attribution. (3)The third part Before I close this reply, I confess ..... was entirely unnecessary, imo there are no heirarchies amongst editors here, (though different types of editors have different editing and administrative prievileges.) Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:20, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yogesh for your reply. Your advice on "how to quote close to the original without plagiarism," feels preemptive. Do you see any specific example in the sections I posted that worries you?

While we are sharing preemptive suggestions for the future, please consider the section "what is not plagiarism" in Wikipedia:Plagiarism. You do not plagiarize non-creative contents, and even creative contents, if you do two things: (1) write in your own words without bias, without extension, and without distortion, and (2) cite properly.

I also believe that in this age of internet, where research is just a google or many clicks away, it is unethical to simply cut and paste, then add "According to X." Rewrite it, summarize it, cite it - so that those who seek knowledge and the joy of reading creative work can do so with the originals. That will help the original authors, editors, publishers get paid, they too must pay their bills. Wiki should not be simply a cut and paste compilation of other people's hard work. I am sure you know how much effort background research done with honesty, and good writing done with humility and integrity requires.

Lets move away from this preemptive advice giving. Let us focus on the article here. Please share with me anything that I wrote in History or Motivation, that you can not verify. I want to learn from you and improve the contribution.

Thanks for the tea, by the way. That was sweet of you.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)Yes Apostle that is why I put the tag, you put the sub-title Motivation.... and then write all that is below, those statements..... how do connect to them to the motivation??? It looks like Synthesis, you have to find statements that say, motivation x, motivation y, motivation z..... (2)Well the advice wasn't preemptive, I said earlier, please give exact quotation, Sitush said but that would be plagiarism, so I tried to find a way of how to avoid plagiarism. (3)If you write here motivation is x, it should be written in some RS.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Yogesh. I am following WP:STYLE guidelines. Motivation is relevant as subtitle, synonymous with "the why, what is driving this, and similar terms" in this context. Each of the sources I cite is a reliable source. The WSJ article, The World Bank and the IMF each, for example, explicitly write why India needs infrastructure and discuss land acquisition. As a further specific example, please read the IMF report I cite. Go to the end of that report. Line 1 of 2nd last para says India needs infrastructure for its future. Line 2 of 2nd last para says the needed infrastructure requires land acquisition. Such, I humbly believe, are sufficient and necessary connection and support.

I added two sections today. I hope Sitush, you and others will critically check each of the specific statements there too. Have a wonderful weekend.

ApostleVonColorado (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush and Yogesh - Please guide me on two other items. (1) When you convert one currency into another, what should be the conversion rate per wiki policy? I wanted to be neutral and balanced, so I used a 6 month average conversion rate between USD and Rs.; is that ok? I prefer both currency because people like me, outside of India, can relate to US$. (2) I couldn't understand the source document language from Uttar Pradesh government web site - it is on New Land Acquisition Policy. I did check the numbers there. It matched with the numbers in the newspaper. If you can read and confirm that rest of the content therein is consistent with my section, I will appreciate it. Thanks. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1)No Apostle, you should have the words xxx is the motivation in the source to use it in your article, what you have done is, oh the population is growing, we need land for that[4] and put it under motivation, how can you read minds of those who engage in acquisition? And even if you can that would be wp:OR, you would need to publish those mind reading results in sources considered reliable. (2)There are many currencies belonging to English speaking countries, for example, why don't you include Nigerian naira or Philippine Peso or Pound sterling too?????? (3)You could seek help from Wikipedia Hindi for translation.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yogesh - Please see the 2006 report by Govt of India and its National Housing Bank I cited in the section. I read it again and I can not understand the basis of your comment. The report mentions population growth, housing need, their motivation for infrastructure and land acquisition in this context. For example, go to page 34 section 4.10, and page 51 section 4.57 which discuss land acquisition in the context of housing in India. The benefits section in the document I cited, one published by the government of Uttar Pradesh in 2007, long before current protests, is even more direct in stating what was driving the land acquisition, development and infrastructure project, at least since 2007; for more, read first 10 pages and then page 27 onwards. I am sorry Yogesh, in accordance with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV rules, I want to summarize in my own words. Even Sitush, another Wiki editor, agrees with Wiki and me on that. I concur with Wikipedia's repeatedly recommended guidelines, and therefore I do not want to cut and paste sections from the reliable sources I cite, which discuss the motivation, that is the why, as well as what, where and when of infrastructure needs and land acquisitions in India. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 20:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Synthesis continued

Apostle: (1)I can't open the file, get an error message. Will you please quote the exact text here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which reference didn't open? I can open each of the references I cite; so can friends working on their own different computers elsewhere. Some of these citations require subscription or you may have to visit a university library (The WSJ, The Financial Times, some science journals, etc). ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on this, but the onus of providing evidence is on the person who cites. You can provide notes.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is the evidence. I have already given you page numbers, paragraphs numbers, even line numbers for you, above and on the article page. Please read these. Study also Wikipedia's policy on this - WP:SOURCEACCESS, WP:SOURCES. The burden is on you to click the links, open and read them. Or, visit a university library, get a subscription to these mainstream publications and reliable sources. Some of the sources I cite, do not require subscription, just a click and willingness to read them. Did any reference open for you? ApostleVonColorado (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the burden of evidence is on the person who provides content, see wp:V which is a fundamental principle. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided the evidence. WP:V policy simply requires that evidence of verifiability for content be provided through inline citation that directly supports the material. See 2nd paragraph of the page on WP:V. I already did that, on the article page, for everything I added. I will not cut and paste sections of copyrighted book, newspaper article, or journals in this talk section that you ask, or on the article page - because it is against copyright laws, it is unethical, and as Sitush explained to you above: it is also against Wiki guidelines. Please join me in making Wiki useful while respecting Wiki policies, respecting the rights of other authors and publications, and respecting applicable laws.

I want to help you check and improve the article. Before I help, please tell if any reference links I cited on the article page open for you? If nothing opened, I would like to check into this. Help someone new like me make Wiki better. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Offline sources Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RESOURCE ApostleVonColorado (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. wp:V. Please provide extract that says The motivation is xxxxxxx.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For evidence per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:SOURCES, read references 9-20 cited in the article, at chapter numbers, page numbers, and lines numbers mentioned above and in the reference section of the article. If you do not understand the reference, need translation, or can not locate the references, please get help from WP:RESOURCE.ApostleVonColorado (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No burden of providing evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, I have informed above, that the pdf files do not open, I get an error message, other pdf files from other sources work fine. You could simply provide the text on which you have based the title "Motivation for xxxx".Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle, ignore Yogesh on this one. He has misunderstood the very material which he is citing, which unfortunately is a mistake that he is making in all sorts of places at the moment. You are correct that WP:V says statements must be verifiable rather than verified. WP:Offline sources has been misquoted by Yogesh before and it seems that he still does not get it. The most important thing about it is that it is not even a policy or guideline, but it also specifically advises options such as a local library, using WP:RX etc. What he believes to be a policy is in fact an essay: it is useful guidance but not mandatory. You do not have to provide evidence to every Tom, Dick and Harry who asks for it, although if you can possibly assist then that is great.

Yogesh, what precisely do you require to see? As long as Apostle has adequately cited then it should be possible for you to copy/paste the citation here. I will see what I can do about it and, yes, that may involve using WP:RX. Is it really all of those refs, number 9 to 20? - Sitush (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apostle do whatever suits you, perhaps after a while you my appreciate my concerns. All the best.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns about synthesis are valid. Your insistence about sources is not (I can see all of the PDFs which I have tried to open here, for example). I can resolve the sourcing issue for you because I have perhaps a bit more technical knowledge than Apostle. I can arrange for them to be put somewhere where you can download them. Ibnstead, you do as you often do, which is create a storm and then walk away. It is bad mannered, in my opinion. - Sitush (talk) 07:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sitush for checking the article. After you checks and corrections, the page is looking more useful than it was 2 months ago. Help me a bit on your SYNTH claims in the edits you made. I start by confessing that I struggled on whether I should include the verifiable data on land prices from France and USA, whether it belongs here, and whether I might commit the "original syn" as mentioned in WP:SYNTHNOT. Then I read the wiki's whole page on what is not synth, again. I decided to include it. I give you two reasons why? I would be delighted if you critique me and guide me.

Wiki suggests on WP:SYNTHNOT the following: SYNTH is not presumed. If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources. You don't have to put the whole explanation in the edit summary, but if someone asks on the talk page, you should have something better ready than "Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't." The burden of proof is light: just explaining what new assertion is made will do, and then it's up to the other editor to show that your reading is unreasonable. But in any disagreement, the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim, and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception. Wiki also suggests on WP:SYNTHNOT the following: SYNTH is not a catch-all. If there's something bugging you about an edit, but you're not sure what, why not use SYNTH? After all, everything under the sun can be shoehorned into a broad-enough reading of SYNTH. Well, because it isn't SYNTH. It's shoehorning. To claim SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the claim.

So, guided by Wiki page notes above, I asked myself: what new thesis or assertion am I making by including France and USA data, particularly as new paragraphs. My answer: none. I am just presenting verifiable information. No assertion is made.

I now touch upon the question of relevance. I was inspired by the statement in a later section of this 2011 land acquisition protests article, someone wrote, months ago: The farmers believe that the compensation paid by the state government for their land was inadequate, whereas the government believes it to be generous. I wondered what sort of information would be relevant to that claim (that even now exists in the article). I thought if that statement is relevant, any verifiable and reliable information that relates to that statement is also relevant. It would be relevant whether the farmer was being paid $10 per acre, or $1000 per acre, or $100,000 per acre. So, I asked the following series of question: will it be relevant information if the government of Uttar Pradesh was paying $10 per acre to its farmers using the force of law, when average land prices were $200 per acre in the same state? I thought if such data were available, verifiable and from a reliable source, such data would be relevant. I tried to find such data. I failed. So then I asked the second question in the series of questions: will it be relevant information if the government of Uttar Pradesh was paying $10 per acre to its farmers using the force of law, when average land prices were $200 per acre in the neighboring Indian state? Again I thought it would be relevant. But again, even though I tried, I couldn't find a reliable and verifiable data. So I went to the next question: will it be relevant information if the government of Uttar Pradesh was paying $10 per acre to its farmers using the force of law, when average land prices were $200 per acre in all of India? Again I thought it would be relevant. But again, even though I tried, I couldn't find a reliable and verifiable data. So the final question I researched was land prices globally. I asked myself: will it be relevant information if the government of Uttar Pradesh was paying $10 per acre to its farmers using the force of law, when average land prices worldwide were $2000 per acre? Again I thought it would be relevant. So, in summary, I feel if you or I or anyone can find data to above series of questions; such information will be relevant to this article.

Please note that in the original section, which now is missing, I never included any thesis or assertion: whether it was too high, too low, too reasonable - because I do not know, and it is not Wiki's or any encyclopedia to synth such opinions. Our goal must be to find and share the most reliable, verifiable and relevant information. I included that information on land prices because it meets all three of those requirements. Further, I believe if we can find additional verifiable and reliable data on land prices within India, that too should be included - no matter whether data is same or different than what the state government is paying the farmer.

Please note I am open to creating a new wiki page on land prices worldwide, if that is technically better for wiki. Presently such a page does not exist, or I do not know where it is. I feel it is best if such reliable and verifiable information is available on wiki, to anyone who is curious and seeks such information. We can then link this article to that page.

I await your thoughts on all this, and I also ask you that WP:SYNTHNOT question: Since you claim SYNTH, when you saw France and USA land price data included, as separate paragraph, please explain what new claim was made, and what sort of additional research a source would have to do in order to support the new claim you believe was made.

Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 17:29, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section title

Acquisition means government forces a land owner to part with his property at a rate the government decides? The title is mis-leading. Changing it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yogesh - please provide any reliable reference that gives the meaning you provide above for the word acquisition. Per Wiki dictionary and google dictionary, acquisition - in the context of this article - simply means the act of getting, buying or obtaining an asset. The word does not mean and does not imply who is acquiring, whether force is used or not used, or whether government or third party decides a rate. I await support for the unusual "acquisition means..." you claim above. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See you may revert I won't war with you. We have a context here. 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The context indeed is obtaining land, not skill learning or organizational M&A - some of the other contextual definitions of acquisition. Ok, I will revert it. Thank you. ApostleVonColorado (talk) 23:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 land acquisition protests in Uttar Pradesh. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130913005309/http://dolr.nic.in/hyperlink/acq.htm to http://dolr.nic.in/hyperlink/acq.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/0%2C%2CcontentMDK%3A22006280~pagePK%3A141137~piPK%3A141127~theSitePK%3A295584%2C00.html

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) 13:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]