Talk:Annexation of Goa/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Annexation of Goa. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Changing the Article 'Annexation of Goa' to the "Liberation of Goa'
Unless the change is made the article itself is inherently biased towards the occupying Portuguese forces, thereby qualifying it as a constructive change. Goa has and will always be an integral part of India, and the article itself reflects this through the sections detailing the liberation and independence movements that occurred both before, during, and after the necessary military action undertaken by the Indian Forces. This was indisputably a liberation movement, there is nothing more to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.29.24 (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
- Using the term "Liberation" is clearly pov towards the Indian point of view, and most English language sources outside of India do not use that term in describing the conflict. In fact there are several scholarly publications on international law which cite the Indian invasion and annexation of Portuguese India as one of the more recent examples of acquisition by conquest, given that Portugal had governed the territory for more than 400 years, well before India declared independence in 1947.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- The word 'liberation' is in the point of view of India as well as the countries who had to bear the scrouge of colonialism. The point of view of all colonialists(most of the western world) it would be a conquest, disregarding the fact that they were very much away from their home committing autocracies. Regarding the governing of territory for 400 years before the Independence of India, the British ruled India for about 200 years, and if Azad Hind Fauj would've liberated India, it would have been liberation, not annexation of India by Azad Hind Fauj. By definition, taking back one's own is not annexation. Aditya8993 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- From the point of view of Portugal, the military invasion of Portuguese territory isn't seen as a "liberation". Annexation is neutral and appropriate Crenelator (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- No matter what your point of view, Goa had to be invaded before it was annexed/liberated or enslaved/freed. That this article describes the events of a military invasion is moot, and '1961 Invasion of Goa' should be its correct name. Actually, given that more than just Goa was invaded, it should ideally be '1961 Invasion of Portuguese India'. The year is critical, since Portuguese India faced invasions from the Marathas and the British long before 1961. Another extremely non-POV title proposed earlier was the very apt 'Fall of Portuguese India'. Unfortunately, this discussion keeps getting hijacked by European fascist types and by Indian nationalist types and eventually ends up nowhere. Tigerassault (talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
- From the point of view of Portugal, the military invasion of Portuguese territory isn't seen as a "liberation". Annexation is neutral and appropriate Crenelator (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
- The word 'liberation' is in the point of view of India as well as the countries who had to bear the scrouge of colonialism. The point of view of all colonialists(most of the western world) it would be a conquest, disregarding the fact that they were very much away from their home committing autocracies. Regarding the governing of territory for 400 years before the Independence of India, the British ruled India for about 200 years, and if Azad Hind Fauj would've liberated India, it would have been liberation, not annexation of India by Azad Hind Fauj. By definition, taking back one's own is not annexation. Aditya8993 (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
- Using the term "Liberation" is clearly pov towards the Indian point of view, and most English language sources outside of India do not use that term in describing the conflict. In fact there are several scholarly publications on international law which cite the Indian invasion and annexation of Portuguese India as one of the more recent examples of acquisition by conquest, given that Portugal had governed the territory for more than 400 years, well before India declared independence in 1947.XavierGreen (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
undo - broken link
Thanks to user AdamGerber80 my correction of a broken link was reverted, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Annexation_of_Goa&diff=prev&oldid=831443039 - I will stop editing the english wikipedia. --Cholo Aleman (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
- Cholo Aleman The old link still redirects you to the correct page. I don't understand what the fuss is about? In the future please mention in the edit comment that you are updating a redirect link. Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
About the terms used !
The terms like "Annexation " are a blunder. It was India's territory which was taken forcefully or by intimidating the rulers of that time. Portuguese have married the locals and collected inappropriate customs and had made huge large scale conversions to Christianity! Their ruling for a brief period and india's reclaiming it's lost land in Goa, daman and diu does not comes under annexation. It is just taking back the land which was colonised and plundered.It is Portuguese who came here but not india went to Portugal.. How come was it annexation? The author should do proper research and publish the facts in an unbiased way. nothing (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
- I like to see the sources that back your claim, but I highly doubt they exits. Without these source, I consider your edits vandalism and blatant POV. The Banner talk 10:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
"'Liberation of Goa' redirects here. For the conquest by Portugal in 1510, see Portuguese conquest of Goa."
@Wareon:
I'm not sure who would be calling the Portuguese conquest a "liberation"; "Portuguese liberation of Goa" yields not a single relevant result.
Per Wikipedia:Hatnote, which states that we must "mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind", "Liberation of Goa" redirects here. For the conquest by Portugal in 1510, see Portuguese conquest of Goa.
is unnecessary at best and misleading at worst, as readers may assume that the Portuguese conquest in 1510 is indeed referred to as a liberation. We should either drop "Liberation of Goa" redirects here
or change it to "Invasion of Goa" redirects here
, as the Portuguese conquest is indeed commonly referred to as an invasion.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- Karaeng Matoaya Thousands of reliable sources do. It was the former title of this page. Wareon (talk) 06:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Wareon: I'm not sure you understand how hatnotes are used in this site. The current hatnote means that the Portuguese conquest in 1510 from the Bijapur sultanate is considered a liberation, which is obviously not the case. The hatnote is there for when a certain search term is ambiguous, which is clearly not the case for the term "Liberation of Goa," used to refer only to this specific event.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Liberation of Goa redirects here, that's why I made [2] reversion of your edit. You are confusing this subject with the one from 1510 which is completely irrelevant here. Wareon (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- I believe this issue has been resolved, although perhaps a separate hatnote is needed to refer to its 1951 annexation into Portugal as an Overseas province. CMD (talk) 07:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- Liberation of Goa redirects here, that's why I made [2] reversion of your edit. You are confusing this subject with the one from 1510 which is completely irrelevant here. Wareon (talk) 07:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Wareon: I'm not sure you understand how hatnotes are used in this site. The current hatnote means that the Portuguese conquest in 1510 from the Bijapur sultanate is considered a liberation, which is obviously not the case. The hatnote is there for when a certain search term is ambiguous, which is clearly not the case for the term "Liberation of Goa," used to refer only to this specific event.--Karaeng Matoaya (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Subramaniam Raghavendran
Recently the following quote from Subramaniam Raghavendran was added to the article:
| “ | Air Marshal S Raghavendran, who met some of the captured Portuguese soldiers, wrote in his memoirs several years later "I have never seen such a set of troops looking so miserable in my life. Short, not particularly well built and certainly very unsoldierlike."[1] | ” |
To my opinion, this quote says absolutely nothing about the Annexation of Goa and, again to my personal opinion, this is a kind of grave dancing. An therefore, I suggest removal of this quote. The Banner talk 16:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
- I second this opinion. S Raghavendran's derogatory remarks on the physicals appearance of enemy POWs do not contribute to this article. It is merely an expression of Mr Raghavendran's personal (IMHO: racist) beliefs and should be deleted as irrelevant. In fact, I had done exactly that, but @The Alternate Mako: undid my deletion. Maybe Mako could explain the relevance of Raghavendran's racist remarks to this article? --Rabbit without ears (talk) 04:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
- If there is consensus to remove this, which The Banner's and your comments suggest, I will not oppose it. Thanks for letting me know. Mako001 (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)