Jump to content

Talk:Annexation of Goa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Indian Casualty?

Infobox and body of the article gives Indian KIA as 34 but Intro gives it as 14. None sourced or is it only me?122.163.79.45 (talk) 19:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC) Adi

Title

The title Operation Vijay seemed to me a bit too Indian-POV as only the Indian name was used for the article--TheFEARgod (Ч) 15:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

True.... but the term "Portuguese-Indian War" was very rarely been used to describe the conflict. Most Goans refer to it as "Goa Liberation". I believe that after the 1974 carnations revolt, even the Portuguese began to use that term. 220.226.29.21 (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
No, the Portuguese do not call it "Goa Liberation". Since 1757, by a Royal Decree, the native people from Goa, and from the other Portuguese Indian colonies, were full Portuguese citizens with full Portuguese citizenship rights,that is, with the same rights as the Portuguese people from Portugal. Portugal is known for being the only country to have given full citizen rights to the inhabitants of an eastern colony. In 1952, all colonies from Portugal were made overseas provinces and made part of main land Portugal, they were no longer considered colonies or treated as such. Goa was not a colony but a province. And after the conflict it did not become independent like Timor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.180.47.66 (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, they were colonies, even if the Portuguese governement tried to disguise it... The Ogre (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd beg to differ Mr. 89.180.47.66! you may be right when you say that the Portuguese theoretically gave Goans the same rights as full Portuguese citizens. But this was on paper only. In reality the Portuguese still referred to Goans as 'pretos' or 'blacks' - a derogatory term for colonial natives handed down the generations. In practice you could see how equal the whites were with their pretos when you found that almost all senior government officials were European in origin.

My great grandfather was the first native goan to rise to the post of deputy director of customs in Portuguese Goa- and it sure wasnt easy for him to get there.

Another telling sign of this 'equality' in the Portuguese Empire was the fact that the Portuguese never dared to raise an army of Goans to defend Goa. Almost all fighting units in Goa were European. Maybe they just didn't trust the idea of native Goan Portuguese citizens defending overseas Portuguese soil. Tigerassault (talk) 10:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Right: the portuguese born in a overseas province, even if of european ascent, were "second class portuguese" and had it in their ID cards. Maybe they had the same rights in paper, but in practice it would have been very difficult to exert them.
On the other hand, and this I find very odd of you, the portuguese of indian ascent weren't called "blacks", at least in european Portugal. The names for them were other (you will naturally excuse me if I don't refer to them). --85.243.179.115 (talk) 08:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic

I would request users not to get involved in discussing their viewpoints and emotions but stick to the article. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 13:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Article title

I read somewhere in the guidelines of wikipedia that the titles of the articles should be consensual, among other things. This title, especially the part of the liberation it's not consensual, and no matter what we may think, we know that it's not neutral. I don't support changing it to invasion either. I don't know what should be done too, but the title as it is, it's not right. I've just made a quick search on google in English and in Portuguese (didn't search in Hindi because i don't understand), and these are the results: liberation of goa (pt) - 103.000 results, invasion of goa (pt) - 13.700 results, liberation of goa (en) - 151.000 results and invasion of goa (en) - 369.000 results. These are rough numbers and much is probably unrelated but these numbers should be probably well consulted and taken into account. Maybe i'm not bringing nothing new that hasn't been discussed yet, but i didn't see nothing here on this talk page.

Best regards --Bluedenimtalk 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Blue Denim. I went further and investigated the cream of those hundred thousand odd results from Google. The top 20 results 'Liberation of Goa' threw up all related to the 1961 battle. 'Invasion of Goa' threw up 1 result for the 1954 protest march into Goa, 2 for the 1510 Portuguese Invasion of Goa, 2 for the hippy invasion of Goa, and 2 for techno groups 'Alien Invasion Goa' and 'Goa Sound Invasion'.

'Portuguese-Indian War' is a silly name because (1) no one declared war on anyone, and (2) no one calls the battle by the name. I would rather call it the 'Invasion of Goa'. Or maybe to be more specific, '1961 Invasion of Goa'. Tigerassault (talk) 16:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Title: Invasion of Goa???

Sure , a search for "Invasion of Goa" in Google gives a much higher count, but here are some of the gems included in this count

  1. "The Psy Invasion project has started on October 2006 with the mission to keep everyone informed specially in the UK about Psychedelic World including: ... "
  2. The Portuguese Invasion. image : indpride.com ... In 1510, the Portuguese fleet under Afonso Albuquerque landed in Goa, only to be driven out by Adil Shah ...
  3. The people of Goa were not consulted before, after or during the invasion. We seek only like-minded Goans to actively participate in ensuring the freedom of ...www.freegoa.com/ - 12k - Cached - Similar pages (Btw this a site run by disgruntled people who still dream of a "reconquitsa")
  4. "colaco.netTGF: The hippie invasion of Goa took place AFTER 1961. Is that so!?! I would like to request TGF to visit the following website ... "
  5. "Goa Sound Invasion Part ll on TechnoratiGoa Sound Invasion Part ll. http://youtube.com/watch?v=_jV5HC4gUls. all other videos are @ http://www.veoh.com/channels/goa-sound-invasion to watch "the hole ..."
  6. "Lost in Goa beachesVasco da Gama was the one who spearheaded the Portuguese invasion of Goa. Christians and Hindus seem to co-exist peacefully. The famous Mangesh Temple, ... "
  7. "Gogoa.net Complete information about Goa(Goa Flights, Goa Hotels ...The Portuguese invasion of Goa resulted in the spread of Christianity .About 26 per cent of the population today constitutes of Christians. ... "

Me thinks you should do a rethink about renaming it to "Invasion of Goa" based soleley on the google count--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

popular term in media/literature is generally "Liberation of Goa.", so I would second changing name to "Liberation of Goa" as per wikipedia policies. Desione (talk)

Legality of Goa under Indian rule

Some gentleman has been trying repeatedly to insert comments that the UN mandated a plebiscate in Goa which was not honoured by the Indians. Please understand that the UN resolution on Goa which was proposed on 18th December 1961, was vetoed by the Soviet Union.

If you insist that Goa annexation is still debated by international law experts, please post a link to a document that supports your statement. Also, please place your statement in the right context and with a neutral point of view. 220.226.35.104 (talk) 09:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I Agree!! We won't though, because there aren't any. This is just a case of anti-Indian POV. The Ogre (talk) 14:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
??? Desione (talk) 08:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Goa → Liberation of Goa — The term "Liberation of Goa" is a more popular and better used in both common usage and print media. Hence, as per wikipedia policies, the title of this page should be "Liberation of Goa". Please read wikipedia policies regarding picking a name for an article before commenting (see WP:COMMONNAME —Desione (talk) 05:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support A search on google books website indicates that "Liberation of Goa" gets 642 hits; while as, Invasion of Goa gets 472 hits. A search on government of India websites gives 78 hits for Liberation of Goa[1] and 0 hits for Invasion of Goa [2] Desione (talk) 05:53, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. There is no question that this is the POV of the Government of India; that is the argument against using it. (They may be correct sub specie aeternitatis; but that's not a viewpoint WP is qualified to take.) If this were definitely greatest usage, so be it; but how about Annexation? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Again this would be WP:OR. Our goal here is not to assign a new name to historical events, but to refer to them by their most common and well recognized name (see WP:COMMONNAME). In this case (irrespective of views of government of india no matter how significant that view might be or that of common individuals like us no matter how insignificant those views might be) the actual commonly recognized English name for this event is Liberation of Goa Desione (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't know enough about the history of the page to have an opinion. But I will note that if you do a Google Scholar binary search (more rigorous than Google Books or plain old Google), here's what you get:
Scholarly sources seem to prefer "invasion." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
PS Apparently, this debate has been going on for quite some time.  :) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
In rep to Fowler Agreed that the count for invasion will always be hiigher than that for liberation , but I hope you have read this point I have written earlier:Talk:Invasion of Goa#Title: Invasion of Goa??? above. The invasion count also includes the count for "Portuguese invasion" and you are assuming that the count returned for invasion is necessarily retured for "indian invasion of Goa". Clearly, this assumption is inocrrect --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Including 1961 in the searches makes invade slightly less common that liberate, but invasion is still more common than liberation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You beat me to it. Since I have the stats, here they are:
Thus "invade/invasion" and "annex/annexation" together have 370+1560 =1,930 sources; "liberate/liberation" have 1,150 sourcesFowler&fowler«Talk» 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Please don't add numbers for different terms together. Thats flawed logic. Desione (talk) 09:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

As per WP:COMMONNAME, we need to focus on what the common name for this event his. This should help:

  • Complete google search on: +"Invasion of Goa" +1961 gives 1870 hits [3]
  • Complete google search on: +"Liberation of Goa" +1961 givens 2820 hits [4]

This proves beyond a reasonable doubt that most common well recognized name for this event (see WP:COMMONNAME) is "Liberation of Goa". Desione (talk) 09:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose "Liberation" is quite an evident Indian pov. There was hardly anything to be "liberated" in Goa, it had been a constituent part of the Kingdom of Portugal for centuries, long before India came to be. It was thus an invasion by the very meaning of that term, as foreign land was raided and taken by force. Húsönd 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Comment So it was a part of Portugal even though Portugal was thousands of miles away and had occupied Goa as a coloniser??? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Comment This move for "Invasion of Goa" was initiated by a Portuguese Wikipedian who apperantly cannot disagree with his country's stance any more than an Indian cannot disagree with his countrys stated viewpoint. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
A search on government of India websites gives 78 hits for Liberation of Goa[1] and 0 hits for Invasion of Goa [2] is a biased representation, is what I meant. All that proves is that "Liberation of Goa" is a valid term to refer to this event, not that it is unbiased. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It does not appear to be a clearcut liberation, as Goa was not part of a country called India, or it's predecessor state previous to Portuguese occupation, and post-Indian-takeover, does not appear to have been made an independant state, so it wasn't exactly liberated, it was annexed. 70.55.84.13 (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it is for us to interpret legality or illegality of the event or decide whether an event is more appropriately called this or that (see WP:OR. All we need to do (as per wikipedia policies) is to figure out what is the most common English name for this event. Please see WP:COMMONNAME. In this case, the most common english name is "Liberation of Goa." Thanks Desione (talk) 06:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
And I never made any interpretations of legality on the event. Nothing in what I said has anything to do with legality. And "annex~" "invad~" "liberat~" whatever Goa are terms associated with the event, which I did nothing to invent, including "annexation" GOOGLE SCHOLAR - annexation 70.55.84.13 (talk) 05:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree Yes this still was an Invasion and should remain as a Invasion, even though India had the right to take Goa, it still was an Invasion--Rockybiggs (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR, but please note that armies don't always invade, they liberate as well. Please review definition of invasion [5] and liberation [6] Desione (talk) 07:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is fairly summoned up already, the Invasion title should remain and reference in the intro to Liberation is clearly stated. This is enough.
This was a Military Invasion; this doesn’t mean it was a slur on India because the word Invasion is mentioned. Does this mean the D-Day Invasion of Europe is a slur on the Allies, I think not. It is what it is--Rockybiggs (talk) 09:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
You are the only one here who is thinking about "Slur on India" or whether the action was right or wrong based on whatever assumptions or sense of morality that you may be applying. Again, please try to get away from things like legality, illegality, slur, right, wrong, etc. My point is simple: The most common English name for this event is Liberation of Goa and hence the article should be titled Liberation of Goa. Can you show evidence which would prove that the most common name for this event is not "Liberation of Goa"? Thank you Desione (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
And please do not confuse "Invasion of Goa" with "Portuguese Invasion of Goa" or "Hippy invasion of Goa" etc as has been pointed out earlier. Desione (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Question. Why hasn't the article been titled "Portuguese-Indian War" as it is called in the lead? I don't know anything about the article history but right now it seems like one POV vs another. Why not use the neutral approach if that is acceptable to both sides? Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The only time I heard of "Portuguese-Indian War" was when I read this article. Apparently, the name "Portuguese-Indian War" seems like a WP:OR. As per (WP:COMMONNAME), the title of the article should be the most common and well recognized English name. In this case, the most common and well recognized English name is "Liberation of Goa." Desione (talk) 06:50, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV

To be frank by reading the article it seems biased towards pro-invasion pov (example -- Indian newspapers only from the time of the invasion). Without discussing the merits of what is written, may be an improve-flag and some effort from more knowledgeable people might be nice. afaik in Goa there was a large chunk of the population who was wither pro-Portuguese or pro-self determination. the fact that India respected that after a referendum (proposal was to merge with contiguous indian state) making goa the smallest territory in India may tell a bit about that.--BBird (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you be more specific please. One instance does not make the entire article POV. Any more instances of POV. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
mainly this part --

In Goa, popular support had been built up against Portuguese colonial rule by civil leaders like Ram Manohar Lohia who advocated the use of non-violent Gandhian techniques to oppose the government[citation needed]. A major popular protest against colonial rule on the 18th of June 1946 was brutally suppressed by the Portuguese[citation needed]. Similarly, in 1954, the Portuguese used force to put down an attempt by non-violent Satyagrahi activists to march into Goa, and followed up with a purge of supporters of independence, many of whom were jailed. This action led to the closure of the Indian consulate in the city of Panjim in Goa in 1955 and the imposition of economic sanctions against Portuguese held territories. In addition to non violent protests, several armed groups such as the Azad Gomantak Dal (The Free Goa Party) conducted guerilla and terrorist operations against the Portuguese in Goa[citation needed].

afaik there were a large part of the population who wanted to remain as part of Portuagal or a separate territory from India. The reasoning behind Portuguese position, however critisisable, was that the Goa was portuguese for around 500 years. Lots of people fled following the invasion. --BBird (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The ones that fled were Europeans/Portuguese. The indigenous inhabitants supported independence movements which were put down by Portuguese rulers. ScienceApe (talk) 03:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Citations will be provided if available. There may be sections which wanted to continue as a Portuguese colony, others who wanted self- determination. That cannot be denied. The question is "How many?". You claim thta "a large part of the population.." . You will need to back up your claim. I think that you are mistaking the Goa Opinion poll of 1967( I was thinknig of putting an article on that, till then you can reffer this article: Dr. Jack de Sequeira) as being a referendem on merging with the union whereas it was a referendum on merger with another state after the demand from Maharashtrawadis sections for merger with Maharashtra. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
That is why i put these notes in talk not changing the article, as an alert. why? i don't have the time for research and edit at the moment.--BBird (talk) 11:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I have added two refs for the cite tags you palced. Could not find a ref for one of the cite tags for the statement directly stating that the 18th June satyagraha was repressed brutally, nevertheless the reference article basically agrees with the statement. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah! reading the references can sometimes bring in unexpected tidbits of information. Here is one from a Portuguese officer[7]. Definetely does not say anything about the people being pro-Portuguese.: The author admits that he did not stay in Goa long enough to take the pulse of the civil society, but remained with the impression that most Goans favoured autonomy or integration with India. Felt that the Portuguese presence was tolerated and even respected, but not much loved: «Quanto aos portugueses, é importante dizê-lo, pareceu-me que eram, dum mode geral, respeitados, bem tolerados, mas não amados, a não ser por aqueles que com eles tinham fortes laços familiares» (pp. 20-21). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 13:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Commander in the Template

If I remeber my civics lessons correctly then the President of India is the Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, not the PM. So shouldn't the President's name appear instead of Jawaharlal Nehru in the Commander's section of the template.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move to "Invasion of Goa (1961)"

Requested move

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was do not move for now.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Invasion of Goa → Invasion of Goa (1961) — Goa was invaded twice ,in 1510 and in 1961 — Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 09:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Discussion

Any additional comments:

In rep to Husond[8]: If there isnt an article , it needs to be created. And this renaming is the first step in that direction. The 1510 invasion was the first European colonial invasion in India(that makes it relevant) and deserves an article of its own. I dont see how it is "far less relevant" as comapred to the events of 1961.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense, Deepak. Creating an article on Wikipedia has no such dependency. And furthermore, the creation of that particular article will prove difficult as there's very, very little verifiable content available for its creation. Even those notes about the settlement of the Portuguese in Goa in the 16th century are craving for [citation needed] tags. In fact, I'll deal with them later. For the moment, it just makes no sense to move this article to a new location under the unlikely hypothesis that an article with a similar name will appear and justify disambiguation. Húsönd 12:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
No problems, an article titled:"Portuguese Invasion of Goa" will also be fine! I am sure there is sufficient verifiable content to cite for that article. But I dont get your message. Are you saying that the Portuguese never invaded Goa?--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
"If there isnt an article , it needs to be created." That may be true but a better case for moving this article would be to create the 1510 article first and then request this move. — AjaxSmack 02:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What happened at the turn of the 16th century was not so much an invasion of Goa as the events of 1961. It can probably be called the "Portuguese Invasion of India" if anything and spanned decades from the naval confontration with Calicut in 1502 to the establishment of portuguese supremacy on the Indian west coast years later. The '1510 Invasion of Goa' you refer to, was actually Portuguese naval and ground troops assisting in a popular uprising against the islamic sultan, in return for control of Goa's lucrative port at Velha Goa. Tigerassault (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't a popular uprising. The Portuguese captured Goa at the behest of a local satrap of the Vijayanagar empire. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll get you the appropriate citations, but Timayya, who you describe as a Vijayanagara satrap, was a local insignificant raja who had been subdued by the Sultan. The main cause of the uprising against the Sultan was not so much Timayya's maneuvring, as it was popular resentment amongst the Hindoo locals against the islamic ruler. The conflict that followed was popular (or you could call it communal) but Timayya remained a figurehead to rally around -- somewhat like Emperor Bahadur Shah in 1857. So it wasn't an invasion - the locals actually invited in their eventual colonial masters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerassault (talk • contribs) 07:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

From whatever I have read on the history of Goa , I have not come accross anything that says that the local inhabitants were personally involved (as soldiers or as millitia) in the invasion. Still anything detaild on this topic will be welcome.--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 10:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Irrelevant matter

Since this is an encyclocpedia, and not some kind of 'fun facts' book for your easy reading pleasure, it is imperative that the original text of the Portuguese PM's instructions to the Goan Governor be included. True, not many English speakers can read Portuguese, but people interested in researching the topic will be interested in what the original text said... so that they do not have to deal with what was lost in translation. If for some reason you believe that it cramps up space on an already long article, please add a link to a location where the original text can be accessed. But, please do not completely delete it, that too with crude comments like "how many english speakers read Portuguese??" or "people interested in the original text can go to Portuguese Wikipedia!!".

I always see pictures and photographs as complementing the text, offering insights to the topic and acting as footnotes. Additionally they act as relief - both visual and textual - to the monotony of plain text. The caption to the photograph of Portuguese soldiers in Africa is meant to remind readers that although the portuguese were ill prepared for war in Goa, they did fight very well barely a year later in Africa. As a researcher in military history, it might leave you to ponder over what might have passed had they prepared for war in earnest in '61. Tigerassault (talk) 18:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the most common reaction to having someone edits reverted is being called "rude"! Facts are facts and if you dont like them then , sorry, but calling me "rude" does not change facts. And how about "wikipedia is not a fun and facts books". That isnt rude? is it?
  1. Salazar's orders in Portuguese: If the text is relevant, it is relevant on the Porgtuguese wikiepdia where people can understand it. Please past it there. Wikiquoates would also be a good place(and add a link to it in this article) . But unnecessarily adding text from other langs which are not really needed nor understandable unnecesarily bloats the article. Why not add Nehrus speeches (in Hindi) using the same logic. Such texts are only added if they are something memorable(something like "Ich ben ein berliner" or something).
  2. Portuguese soldiers in Africa photo: the situations may be simmilar, but it was not the same event. Can a photo of Indian soldiers in the jungles of Sri Lanka be added to the Kargil conflict article or vice versa just because it was about the Indian army. No. The photo of Nehru meeting Bogra was similarly out of place. Nothing links the photo except for the fact that Bogra was the PM of Pakistan when India liberated Goa. Nothing to sugest that Goa was discussed in hte meeting. Not that Pakistan had any role to play in the whole affair, except to wail as ususal.

And as for this: "This is an encyclopedia, not a fun facts website", youre right! and this is not flickr or photobucket either!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

i had no intention of being rude, and if it appeared so, i apologize. Meanwhile please avoid an edit war and let discussions complete before taking any actions. I support the idea of not having the portuguese text of Salazar's orders. However in its place, a link should be provided to a location where a serious researcher can access it. There is currently no page on the 1961 action on Portuguese Wikipedia, and I lack the skills to create one. I am looking on the net for the location the portuguese text so that I can insert a link instead of the whole transcript - till such time, please avoid indiscriminate reverts.

Also I strongly disagree that a photograph of Nehru is out of place, when most of the accompanying text describes events that hinged on his critical decisions.

I am more willing to concede on the photograph of Portuguese soldiers in Africa. I will attempt to look for a copyright free image to accompany the description of Portuguese military preparations: Either of Portuguese soldiers in Goa (unlikely) or at least of the Portuguese naval frigates that participated in the naval stand off on the 17th of December. As requested, I remove the photograph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerassault (talk • contribs) 07:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

A photo of Nehru is fine, but the present image of Nehru meeting Bogra will give the reader the impression that Nehru was discuussin Goa with him, while there is nothing to suggestthat the meeting was about Goa. A photo of Nehru with Menon would be great! Regarding Salazar's orders(firstly i am surprised as to why the related Portuguese wp article is small.) I would suggest that you can paste it on the talk page there and ask someone to add it. Alternately you can ask some of the Portuguese editors discussing on this talk page to do it. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Move section

I feel that this section:Invasion of Goa#Goa under Indian rule is more appropriate here:Portuguese India#Post-Annexation. This article talk just about the war and the "Goa under Indian rule" section talks about administrative issues which have little relation to the war itself. A short pointer section should suffice in this article. Any objections? --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Since no one has raised any objections I have moved the section to Portuguese India#Status of the new territories]]. --Deepak D'Souza 08:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:INS Vikrant.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

New York Times

I have removed this statment by New York Times for the following reasons:

  1. It is unreferenced, so we cannotverify it.
  2. It gives undue weightage to one newspaper's opinion. It is possible that other major newspapers in trhe US might have supported the Indian actions.
  3. For that matter anyone can argue that the Washington Post or Chicago tribune is just as important or more important than NYT.
  4. If the reason to add it is to convey the western world's oppision to India, it is already mentioned in sufficient detail, so we need not add to it.
  5. Why not mention TImes of India or the Hindu or any other prominent Indian newspaer's view too. --Deepak D'Souza 05:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for ignoring edit war guidelines and forcing the sysops to lock the article. I trust you will contain such childish behaviour in the future.

  1. I shall reference the editorial from the NYT website.
  2. It is meant to display on a general level the reaction of the western press to the invasion.
  3. If you wish to give the Chicago Tribune's reaction instead of the NYT's, please go ahead... as long as you illustrate the reaction of the western press
  4. The detail is not sufficient. It does not mention what the media said... unless you have decided that this is unimportant.
  5. I have yet to compile and add the reaction of the Indian Press. If you wish to help, please include the general reaction, and also include that of the Eastern Economist - the sole dissenting newspaper.

Also, please consider adding to the article, or modifying, or even moving rather than arbitrarily deleting portions of articles that you deem irrelevant. Tigerassault (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do consider adding newspaper accounts as undue becasue it is obvious that newspapers will stand by their government's positions. The western reaction is covered in sufficient detail. I don't see newspaper accounts in other war-related articles. At least it doesn't seem to be a standard practice .
I can understand how bitter you feel that this article is not currently available for your editing pleasure due to my ignoring edit war guidelines, but I hope you understand the Hindi saying "Taali ek haat se nahin bajti": You cannot clap with one hand!. So if "my" edit-warring has resulted in the locking of this article it makes sense that i cannnot edit-war alone! can I? An edit war would need at least two parties? And, in this case that other party would be...????
With regard to your suggestion that I "please consider adding to the article, or modifying, or even moving rather than arbitrarily deleting portions of articles that you deem irrelevant."; you certainly do not seem to believe in practicing what you preach :[9] and [10] do you?
And lastly please readWP:NPA. Do I call your behaviour childish just because you do not agree with me? Please be civil in your discussions. --Deepak D'Souza 05:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The article was locked because you went to war with Husond over the correct spelling of a place - making you and him the two hands that caused the problem. Unlike Husond, I am aware of your tendency to roadroll your views regardless of what others say and know who is at fault. Being well aware of edit war guidelines, I refrain from opposing you too often, even though I am frequently tempted.

However I am still not convinced as to why the press reaction in the US is not considered important enough to be listed. Newspapers are not spokespersons for their governments, as much as they are reflections of public opinion. It is public opinion that i am trying to illustrate when i quote the NYT. Pleae let me know if you think otherwise - but please don't go to war over it.Tigerassault (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure Husond was involved, and what about you? I guess this was done by Husond too:[11].

Again please read WP:NPA. you have ignored my previous warning. You called my behavior as childish. That isn't roadrolling?? Wow! imagine this: every editor in a dispute dismisses his opponents arguments as childish. Wikipedia would be a great place to work in then!! No my dear, your behavior is more apt to described as "roadrolling".

Encyclopedia articles are meant to be terse and to the point and describe the subject in just sufficient detail to cover it without bogging the user down in unnecssary intricacies( NYT said this, Chicago tibune said that...and so on.). The western opposition is sufficiently conveyed. We dont need the views of NYT to elaborate on it. And how odes some newspaers reaction actually affect the war. Did the war stop because NYT opposed it no. Hence WP:UNDUE. --Deepak D'Souza 04:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I repeat what i said earlier and ask for your response: "It is public opinion that i am trying to illustrate when i quote the NYT." Please let me know if you have a better way of illustrating public opinion in the West following the conflict and I'll gladly replace the NYT quote with it.

I did not call your arguments childish. I was pointing out that repeatedly reverting edits instead of discussing them first is childish behaviour... and requested you politely to contain such behaviour in the future. Tigerassault (talk) 10:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Really, how many times did you discuss your edits or reverts? You have readded the NYT edit even though our discussion is not completed. By your own definition you have indulged in childish behaviour. Please stop poiting fingers at others and examine your own behaviour. --Deepak D'Souza 13:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, a newspaper is not necessarily reflective of popular opinion. Rather the opinions are those of individual editors. The section states the opinion of two important US leaders. That in itself is sufficient. --Deepak D'Souza 14:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I re-added the section after considerably modifying it after receiving your comments. Your reaction was to again delete it. Meanwhile take a look at this diagram[12]. Maybe we need to work more on the box that says "Seek a Compromise". A Compromise is something halfway between your opinion and mine.... and that is what wikipedia is about.

Please consider taking action on a controversial section only after the discussion is complete. Leave the section as is, so that other editors may see it, comment and edit. Tigerassault (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the chart, but consensus does not mean compromise. And the issue here is not how long or short it should be but whether it should be there at all. Also as a general practice contended edits are kept out until a consensus is achieved. And yes I did wait for a week before deleting it.
Regarding your point that NYT illustrates public opinion, again my point is that 1) a newspaper is meant to report the news and not public opinion 2)The opinions(that are featured in the Editorial page) are reflective of the newspapers own opinions( and maybe its readers, in the Letters column) and not that of the public. 3) The opinons of NYT or the American public had no bearing on the events itself. 4)their opinions are not releavnt to an encyclopedic article.
I will remove the section for now and make an apropriate RfC. If there are no third party opinions after a month from now, please re-add it; else the decision will be based on the RfC. Agreed? --Deepak D'Souza 01:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

As a consequence of the recent edit war over the spelling of a place, I have protected the article for 3 days. Please resolve your disagreement via discussion in this talk page. If the issue is not resolved after 3 days, I will protect it for longer periods. --Ragib (talk) 05:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Mormugao has many alternate spellings(not names) :Mormugao, Marmagoa, Marmugao, Mormugoa etc. Mormugão isn't "another name" or "the older name". It is just an alternate spelling. In case of such ambiguitites it is best to stick to one name. The article on Mormugao metions the alternate spellings. It is not necessary to put all alternative spellings everywhere. --Deepak D'Souza 06:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Simple question for you Deepak: "What was the official English name of the place at the time of the events?"

My answer is equally simple: It was called Marmagoa only after Indian occupation. This is the Official English Name after 19 December 1961. Before that it was officially called Mormugão - even in English. It is another matter than young 'uns today - schooled in Queen's english as they are - neglect to place the accent above the 'a'.

But here's another lesson for you: Panaji is what the Capital of Goa is officially called today. But Portuguese times, it was called Pangim in portuguese and Panjim in English. Another place - Bangim - was left as it was, being neither corrupted to Banjim, nor being renamed as Banaji. Tigerassault (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Húsönd 18:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Why aske someone a question if you have decided to answer it yourself? My simple question in response to your simple answer: Do you have any reliable source that says that the name Marmagoa was used only after 1961? As for "young 'uns neglecting to write diacritics" can you prove that using diacritics is a standard practice in English. I know it is used in Portuguese, but you are talking about Enlgish.
The Portuguese use "Pajim" because the name Panaji is pronounced as PoNjae~, ending in a nasal tone. So all names ending with an m in Goa are not pronounced with an m but with a nasal tone; it is not Pan-Jim, it is PoNjae~. SO Thivi~ is still written in English (and Konkani(roman script)) as Tivim and so on.
I find Tigerassault's tone very condescending:"Here's another lesson for you". Im sorry but please let me know if I have been enrolled for some tutorial without my consent. --Deepak D'Souza 04:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
One more thing : You have said that "It was called Marmagoa only after Indian occupation.". Well I don't see "Marmagoa" anywhere on this map, which, I assume, was created well after 1961.--Deepak D'Souza 05:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the lesson on the pronounciation. All said and done, we are talking spellings here and not pronounciation. :)The official name was Pangim before liberation, and Panaji after.

In any case, there were only two names in use before liberation: The Portuguese called it Mormugão, while the British called it Marmagoa. (i stand corrected on the situation after liberation. The Indian military administration referred to it as Marmagoa - making it the official English name, untill 1966, when the civil government reverted it to Mormugao, without the diacritic.)Tigerassault (talk) 17:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, please provide some reliable sources for the following :

In any case, there were only two names in use before liberation[citation needed]: The Portuguese called it Mormugão, while the British called it Marmagoa[citation needed]. (i stand corrected on the situation after liberation. The Indian military administration referred to it as Marmagoa[citation needed] - making it the official English name, untill 1966[citation needed], when the civil government reverted it to Mormugao[citation needed], without the diacritic.[citation needed])>

Regarding Pangim, please note that throught the articles Pangim is mentioned as Pajim which according to you were respetively the Portugues and English names for Panaji. Since the english name for Panaji is used througout the article(even though Portuguese was the official language in Goa) why insist on using the "Portuguese name" for Mormugao?

--Deepak D'Souza 04:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'l correct the places where Panaji is used instead of Panjim. Meanwhile please look up Mormugao on Wikipedia. Tigerassault (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

"please look up Mormugao on Wikipedia" is not a citation. And anyway you cannot cite Wikipedia itself as it is a tertiary source. You did not consider Panjim as incorrect until today though have been editing this article for a long time and you knew its Portuguese name was different? Why did it become incorrect today? Just because you could not cite the arguments you have made above. --Deepak D'Souza 13:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I checked the article, and I was unable to find "Panaji" anywhere. Let there not be any misunderstanding:

1. Panjim was the Official English name before 1961. 2. Pangim was the Official Portuguese name before 1961. 3. After 1961, the Indians officially renamed Panjim / Pangim to Panaji.

Therefore we must refer to the place as Panjim in this article. (which is what the article does)

Similarly for Mormugao,

1. Marmagoa was the Official English name before 1961 2. Mormugão was the official Portuguese name before 1961 3. Mormugao became the official English name after 1961

Shall we therefore use the word Marmagoa instead of Mormugao? Or is Mormugão more acceptable.Tigerassault (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's an interesting guideline for naming European places (considering that Goa was a Portuguese colony at the time of the events): "In the absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used. When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name, with the current local name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for details"--Tigerassault (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To cut a long story short: you don't have any references, corrrect? --Deepak D'Souza 02:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Even shorter: and you do? Húsönd 10:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Im not the one making any claims here, so there is no need for me to make any references. What about you Husond, do you have any refs, because you have "seconded" Tigerassault's statements. Or dou you think that this is some sort of vote too?--Deepak D'Souza 17:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Haha. Of course there's need for you to provide refs, if you demand us to. Go ahead and find refs that state that the official name of Mormugão was not precisely that one in English, by the time it was a part of Portugal. It's ludicrous to claim that you are not making a claim. Húsönd 12:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
First of all no one asked me for a reference. As far as references are concerned, so far, I am the only one who has given a reference here. I have already proved that one of Tigerassault's premises (which you seconded) was wrong; whereas you and Tigerassault have not come up with a single reference in nearly a month(despite being repeatedly asked too). So if you cannot find a single reference that says "X is Y", you can surely understand that finding a reference that says"not X is not Y" is totally impossible. Tiger has changed his opinion 3 times whereas you have not added anything of substance. Which is what I have said from the very start, that in the case of an ambiguity it is best to stick to one name. --Deepak D'Souza 18:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Provide a reference please. Húsönd 10:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
???Havent you read my message. Please read throught it again. And read the entire thread too --Deepak D'Souza 08:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia
Naming conventions (geographic names)

I finally had the time to reply to this. Nice argument but unfrotunately Goa being a colony of a Eurpoean country does not make it a part of Europe. Europe is a continent; a geographic entity with fixed borders. Being a colony of a European country does not make it a part of the continent. That would be as corny as saying that :Since India was a colony of Great Britan, it was one of the British Isles till 1947 after which it joined the continent of Asia".

I couldnt find the articular text that Tigerassault has mentioned above in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) so I will refer to the first guidline instead:

The title: When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always. If the place does not exist anymore, or the article deals only with a place in a period when it held a different name, the widely accepted historical English name should be used. If neither of these English names exist, the modern official name, in articles dealing with the present, or the modern local historical name, in articles dealing with a specific period, should be used. All applicable names can be used in the titles of redirects.

The text says that the widely accepted historical English name should be used. We have no reason to beleive that the name was Mormugão in English and not Mormugao because using diacritics is not a standard part of English. The old maps I've found of Goa mention the name Margao without the diacritics(Ill post the links soon), so I dont think it would be any different case for Mormugao.Anyway the guidline says that the local name should be used in case of an ambiguity , which means the name of the place in the local language; and certianly not the local language of the colonisers. Which rules out the Portuguese name of Mormugao. --Deepak D'Souza 12:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, No oppositions after nearly two weeks. I will take that as a sign that my fellow-editors agree. I an removing all diacritic marks from Place names in this article as per Wikipedia naming conventions. --Deepak D'Souza 09:51, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh ... more edit war, 7 reverts in the last 2 days. I have protected it for 1 week. I think you two should open an RFC here, and get third opinion. --Ragib (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My opinion is that the spellings used at the time should be used in the article. --John (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
On reflection, perhaps the best thing is to use the contemporary English place name first, and also show the Portuguese and modern variants the first time we mention each name. Does that seem like a fair compromise? --John (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
If there are no contrary opinions I am going to unprotect and implement that solution. Any objections? --John (talk) 06:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Protection lapsed before I got to it. Can you make a list here of place names that need to be translated, please? --John (talk) 08:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Object. There is no reason for why we should open a exception and refer to a location in the past under its present name. Húsönd 12:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Using two names would be most useful if there was a major difference in the names(in one language). For e.g it is always helpful in the case of Bombay->Mumbai or Madras->Chennai where a reader cannot be expected to infer that both names reffer to the same place. Also in the above cases the name changes were specific to their English usage. In our case the issue is a minor difference in the name in two languages:English and Portuguese(The only difference is a diacritic mark, not in the name itself). And the naming conventions are clear about using "historical English name". As per my understanding the guideline clearly insist on the English useage, regardless of whether we reffer to the past or present. --Deepak D'Souza 11:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Thought I should mention this. I recently passed through Goa via train. At Margao I noticed that the nameboards spelled "Mhadgaon" not Margao. Probably in keeping with the renaming fever taking place in India for the past decade. Again I feel that it is best to stick to the original English names at the time of the events rather than having 3-4 names repeated throughout the article. --Deepak D'Souza 04:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is NYT quote relevant in section "International Reactions to Invasion of Goa"?

When describing American reaction to the Indian invasion of Goa in 1961, is it relevant to quote an article published in the NYT? The section also lists the USA's official statement at the UN, along with President Kennedy's famous quote to the Indian ambassador on the day after the conflict.

Please see Talk:Invasion of Goa#New York Times above for the discussion related to this RFC. This is the particular edit that is being discussed: [13]. A summary of arguments is given here for the benefit of readers.

  • Arguments for inclusion
  1. It is meant to display on a general level the reaction of the western press to the invasion.
  2. Newspapers reflect public opinion
  3. it is important to illustrate (western) public opinion
  4. The reaction of western media is important
  • Arguments against
  1. Newspapers are meant to report news and not public opinions.
  2. Opinions in newspapers are strictly restricted to editorials and reader's letters. Hence opinions if any are those of the editors and its readers and cannot be extended to the entire "western world" in general
  3. The opinions of newspapers or the western public did not influence this particular event in any way. Hence WP:UNDUE applies.
  4. only those countries/organizations whose opinions mattered to the event should be included.
  5. The western reaction is already illustrated sufficiently in the opinions of JFK and Adlai Stevenson.

Responses

The New York Times is one of the leading American newspapers. I think it is relevent to quote it as reflecting American opinion of the time, though strictly the view is only that of the editor. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Maybe it will be better to create subsection: "Western media about invasion" (or something similar) ?--Rjecina (talk) 02:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Good suggestion. --John (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
w.r.t Rjecina's suggestion above, I hate to sound like a spoilsport but the real issue is not "how to write it" but "whether to include it at all". I feel that encylcopedia articles should be consise in the information they provide. That the West opposed India's actions and conisdered India hypocritical is understood. A couple of lines will suffice to say that. Western newspapers would naturally stand by this perception; just as much as Indian newspapers would support India's actions. We could add the reactions of the 5/10 largest newspapers in the West but I do not see how it would qualitiatively help the reader. It will mean repeating the same thing over and over again and unnecessarily lenghtening the article when a couple of lines do the same job effectively. When a reader comes to this article he/she has primarily three questions in mind:
  1. Why did the war take place?
  2. What happend during the course of the war?
  3. What were the consequences?
The actions and reactions of other parties do matter ,but only to the point where they were involved. I have opposed the inclusion of Japan's views on the same count[14] and also feel that this [15] should be done away with. --Deepak D'Souza 12:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very sure... but is one supposed to actively argue one's case when asking for an RFC? Tigerassault (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes I am not supposed to. I only interjected because I felt that the discussion was going in a totally different trajectory that what the RfC was intended to and a clarification was in order; and I guess I ended up "arguing my case". Feel free to argue your case too.I owe you one --Deepak D'Souza 11:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Indian invasion of Goa

"Invasion of Goa" is not enough, so ambiguous. Google reference given was not the title or definition, and it was mentioned in Indian action. So moving it to "Indian invasion of Goa" would be nice. Doorvery far (talk) 10:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Or may be, "Indian annexation of Goa"? Shovon (talk) 10:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Invasion is the correct term. A military operation was taken and it was invaded. Maybe change it to Invasion of goa (1961). However a requested move was taken and the name change rejected--Rockybiggs (talk) 11:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The move was rejected because some Portuguese editors doubted whether the Portuguese had invaded Goa at all in 1510. Apparently a lot of user have issues with the title. Can we seek a Request for renaming the article again?--Deepak D'Souza 09:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Invasion is a Portuguese point of view during dictatorial rule. Since Wikipedia cannot have the right term which is liberation. So trying to be neutral taking into account Portuguese dictators view at that time, it is better to use the term Decolonization instead of Invasion or liberation.Bcs09 (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Elric Pinto

This article claims that Pinto was the Indian air force commander during the war, but Elric Pinto sounds Portuguese to me. Reenem

About as Portuguese as me :-). OK, jokes apart there are approx 1 - 1.5 million people in India(my guesstimates) who have Lusitanic names. Elric Pinto was probably a descendant of migrants from Portuguese India to British India or maybe came from another Lusitanised community on the west coast of India. You can read up on the following History of Goaand Goan Catholics to know more. --Deepak D'Souza 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Annexation_of_Goa/Archive_1&oldid=1092042940"