Talk:Annexation of Goa

What about the Portugese Navy

There is no mention about the Portugese navy that was sent to Goa and got stuck in Suez by the president (Nasser). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.90.248 (talk) 21:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

A line has been added about the incident as it is related to the conflict. Please let me know if you have additional sources to expand upon it. Tigerassault (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Title is POV

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Note that I have removed some forumy discussions (aka WP:FORUM) by some lesser editors, if your sole purpose here is to argue about this subject (which had been discussed many times before with no consensus being reached for a conclusive change) and have no intention(s) whatsoever to improve anything, please leave. Thank you~! --Dave1185

The current title is pov towards the indian side, the indians claim that they did not invade goa (read the archives for appropriate details). The most common name for this conflict in neutral sources is the Invasion of Goa. The current title does not reflect the article at all, as the article is about the 1961 indian invasion rather than the political annexation that occured after the war ended.XavierGreen (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• XG, last warning to you, you know that this has been discussed many times in here before and yet you alone are still pushing your view here? One more revert and I'm taking you to ANI, enough is enough. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 16:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not alone, there were several other editors who agreed with my viewpoint.XavierGreen (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm one of them. How about instead of just complaining, you gather up your sources and statistics, form an argument with precise reference to the relevant policies, and submit a formal move request? Shrigley (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also done that in the past, though the relevant threads have been archived. One major point to consider is that the article title in no way conforms with the Wikipedia manual of style for military history and is also contrary to Wikipedia Military History naming conventions.XavierGreen (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Then make a Requested Move with evidence. Sometimes though, there is no consensus on something, in which case the status quo is the way things should remain. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:57, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave1185 (talk · contribs) has asked me to look at this as an uninvolved admin. I haven't had any previous involvement with this article, but from reviewing the archives of this talk page, it's clear that there's no consensus on any single article title. Slapping a tag on the page and restarting the discussion here isn't helpful, as it's almost certain to repeat the same pattern of inconclusive discussions and tagging articles as being POV for an indefinite period is generally frowned upon. I'd strongly suggest using a different part of the dispute resolution process. Mediation would probably be particularly suitable. As a suggestion, it appears that the previous discussions were based largely on what editors personally believed the most appropriate name was; a better approach might be to compare the frequencies with which the various different names are used in the English-language literature on this topic. But I'd suggest that this discussion take place in a central area and that uninovled editors be invited to join the discussion. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I plan on starting a request move case tomorrow, as another editor pointed out to me once that if you dig back into the history page of this article the way this page got its current title was rather improper indeed.XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

You're beating a dead horse. The title has already been discussed numerous times now and the consensus reached is on the current title. To bring this issue up again is disruptive. ScienceApe (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Consensus was not reached. The involved parties were just exhausted. The closest time consensus was reached ("Indian invasion of Portuguese India"), there was a single stubborn admin who stubbornly kaboshed it on bizarre grounds. Most definitely RfC & RM is needed. If nothing else, new blood might give a better perspective. Walrasiad (talk) 00:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes it was, it's just YOU didn't agree with consensus. ScienceApe (talk) 23:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Evidently your recollection is confused. Your opinion is not consensus. Please review the debates. Many people disagreed with you. Walrasiad (talk) 09:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Portuguese Forces Kill Unarmed Indians Seeking End To Portugal's Occupation Of Goa

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Please note that this particular documentary posted on youtube, which was purportedly made by the Indians, is hardly neutral and could be another case of copyright infringement (per WP:External links#Restrictions on linking). However, books published by academic researchers and experts are admissible for citations here (Please read up on WP:Identifying reliable sources for more informations). Note also that "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources" per WP:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Out. --Dave1185

Please have a look at this video - this should be taken as a reliable source. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb_j7qRqwWA

111.91.95.86 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thread closed, read my rationale provided above. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 18:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EDITS BY NEELKAMALA

Neelkamala... your problem was with inputs that linked to goancauses.com which in your opinion was not reliable. I have corrected the link to point to the original portuguese article which was published in the O expresso in 2001. I hope this satisfies you.

I can list out the stuff you blanked out in the following section. Please let me know if any of it was POV - and if it can be retained now that the link has been updated to a proper reliable source.

BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: Portuguese military preparations began in earnest in 1954, following the Indian economic blockade, the beginning of the terrorist attacks in Goa and the invasion of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Three light infantry battalions (one each sent from European Portugal, Portuguese Angola and Portuguese Mozambique) and support units were transported to Goa, reinforcing a local raised battalion and increasing the Portuguese military presence there from almost nothing to 12,000 men. Other sources refer that, in the end of 1955, the Portuguese forces in India represented a total of around 8,000 men (Europeans, Africans and Indians), including 7,000 in the land forces, 250 in the naval forces, 600 in the Police and 250 in the Fiscal Guard, split by the districts of Goa, Daman and Diu

BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: An attempt by Portugal to send naval warships to Goa to reinforce its marine defences was foiled when President Nasser of Egypt denied the ships access to the Suez Canal.

BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: On 16 December, the Portuguese Air Force was placed on alert to transport ten tons of anti-tank grenades in two DC-6 aircraft from Montijo Air Base in Portugal to Goa, to assist in its defence. However the aircraft were denied stop-over facilities at the US Wheelus Air Base in Libya. When the Portuguese Air Force was unable to obtain such facilities at any other air base along the way - most nations including Pakistan denying passage of Portuguese military aircraft - the mission was passed on to the civilian airline TAP which offered a Lockheed Constellation (registration CS-TLA) on charter for the job. However, when permission to transport weapons through Karachi was denied by the Pakistani Government, the Lockheed Constellation landed in Goa at 18:00 hours on 17 December with a consignment of half a dozen bags of sausages as food supplies instead of the intended grenades BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: Meanwhile, back on 14 December, the Portuguese administration in Goa received orders from the Ministry of the Overseas in Lisbon to transfer the relics of St. Francis Xavier, patron saint of Goa, to Lisbon. Orders were also received ordering the Portuguese forces in Goa to destroy any buildings of non-military Portuguese heritage in Goa. Accordingly, barrels filled with petrol were transported to the Idalcao Palace in Panaji, which served as the administrative headquarters, but were removed on orders from Governor Vassalo e Silva who stated "I cannot destroy the evidence of our greatness in the Orient"

BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: The official Portuguese surrender was conducted in a formal ceremony held at 20:30 on 19 December when Governor General Manuel António Vassalo e Silva signed the instrument of surrender bringing to an end 451 years of Portuguese Rule in Goa. In all, 4668 personnel were taken prisoner by the Indians - a figure which included military and civilian personnel, Portuguese, Africans and Indians (Goans)

BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: In one incident, recounted by Lieutenant Francisco Cabral Couto (now retired general), an attempt was made on 17 January, by some of the prisoners to escape the camp. The attempt was foiled, and the Portuguese officers in charge of the escapees were threatened with court martial and execution by the Indians. This situation was defused by the timely intervention of a Jesuit military chaplain. Following the foiled escape attempt, Captain Carlos Azaredo (now retired general) was beaten with rifle butts by four Indian soldiers while a gun was pointed at him, on the orders of Captain Naik, the 2nd Camp Commander. The beating was in retaliation for Azaredo's telling Captain Naik to "Go to Hell", and was serious enough to make him lose consciousness and cause severe contusions. Captain Naik was later punished by the Indian Army for violating the Geneva Convention.

BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: During the internment of the Portuguese POWs at various camps around Goa, the prisoners were visited by large numbers of Goans — described by Captain. Azaredo as "Goan friends, acquaintances, or simply anonymous persons" — who offered the internees cigarettes, biscuits, tea, medicines and money. This surprised the Indian military authorities who first limited the visits to twice a week, and then only to representatives of the Red Cross. BLANKED OUT BY NEELKAMALA: The captivity lasted for six months "thanks to the stupid stubbornness of Lisbon" (according to Capt. Carlos Azeredo). The Portuguese Government insisted that the POWs be repatriated by Portuguese aircraft — a demand that was rejected by the Indian Government who instead insisted on aircraft from a neutral country. The negotiations were delayed even further when Salazar ordered the detention of 1200 Indians in Mozambique allegedly as a bargaining chip in exchange for Portuguese POWs.

Please repond by showing me which of these is POV, and why, if these are all backed up with a mainstream media published interview with a senior military officer who was present at the scene of conflict, this should be deleted. Thanks Tigerassault (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all you undid my edits (1,2 3 4), without leaving an edit summary violating wikipedia policy, see WP:FIES (Always provide an edit summary - It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting (undoing) the actions of other editors).

And then you re-inserted the POV rubbish from self published source goancauses.com but pointed the link to teiaportuguesa.com which is another self-published source and unreliable as per WP:RS, and you laughably even added link to a mailing list to further push your POV and muddy the article with biased sources. I have removed all of them. I suggest you start reading WP:RS before reverting my edits or adding biased sources again. Thanks. Neelkamala (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

But the source is an interview published in the O Expresso which is a reputed newspaper. 49.249.63.209 (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nope, the linked source is a language teaching site teiaportuguesa which claims the interview is from the newspaper, not reliable at all. Neelkamala (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No sir, there is no 'linked source'. The source is the interview published in the O Expresso. You can go to Panjim's Central Library and refer their archive of this interview, or ask O Expresso to send you a copy of the article.

You might be trying to say that O Expresso is a Portuguese newspaper (or that Gen. Azaredo is a Portuguese officer) and this is therefore not a neutral source. By that definition, we built this article with a lot of references from Indian websites (notably bharat-rakshak.com which is for all purposes mostly self published). If you attempted to blank out all material from Indian or Portuguese sources, you might end up with a blank article.

On a seperate note, I along with a few other editors built this article up from a one line stub from late 2007 onwards. As the article grew we branched it out into several more articles - on Goa's freedom struggle, India's relations with Portugal between 1947 and 1961. Considering that your only contribution to this article was to blank out large portions on how the Indians treated Portuguese POWs badly, you may at least refrain from calling me a vandal on an article that I helped build.

If you are serious about helping us out, I suggest you find an archived copy of the interview, scan it, and upload it for all to see. Please don't blank out the article, then call others vandals. Tigerassault (talk) 16:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Tigerassault, the onus to provide proper references to one's claims rests on the claimant. Asking me to do the leg work for you is downright rude. As far as creating this article you have failed to follow basic wiki rules and continue to ignore repeated requests to read WP:RS and WP:SPS, and follow them. Neelkamala (talk) 05:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Neelakamala, every source does not have to be available on a free internet link for it to be used in a Wikipedia article. Demanding a link to a newspaper article that is not available for free on the internet is foolish.

But lets get down to brasstacks. You have again deleted a huge amount of data that I added to this article - as usual, without any reason or justification other than calling these edits vandalism (and using the vandalism template for grotesque vandalism against me). The following are the items you deleted from the article in a single stroke:

1. Entire section on "UN Attempts at Ceasefire" removed. Are you saying that putting in info about the UN's attempts to stop the conflict is POV? Or are you suggesting that the sources for this (Keesing's Record of World Events, Volume 8, March, 1962 India, Portugal, Indian, Page 18659 © 1931-2006 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC http://web.stanford.edu/group/tomzgroup/pmwiki/uploads/1074-1962-03-KS-b-RCW.pdf) is unreliable?

2. Note on 1964 Portuguese PIDE bombings in Goa removed. You are probably suggesting that the source (Deccan Chronicle 23 July 1964) is not reliable enough.

3. POW incident recounted by Lieutenant Francisco Cabral Couto (now retired general) removed. You are suggesting here that the source (Couto, Francisco Cabral (2006). Pissarra, José V., ed. O fim do Estado Português da Índia 1961 : um testemunho da invasão [Remembering the Fall of Portuguese India in 1961]. Lisbon: Tribuna da História. pp. 22–102. ISBN 978-972-8799-53-3) is not reliable. Or you want me to provide you the whole book online and for free so that you can check it. Or you will delete it from the article.

4. International reactions of the UK and netherlands removed. The source is Keesings book as well as FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963, VOLUME XXIII, SOUTHEAST ASIA, DOCUMENT 219. Memorandum From Robert H. Johnson of the National Security Council Staff to the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v23/d219.

5. Brazil's reaction to the invasion removed: The source is Jerry Dávila, Hotel Tropico: Brazil and the Challenge of African Decolonization, 1950–1980, Pg 27 http://books.google.co.in/books?id=0-4uEqrWC00C&dq but appears to be rejected by you.

6. Reactions from a host of other countries removed.: The sources are all published books by very reliable authors who also happen to be very neutral.

It is my contention that you have attempted to reverse all my edits without even looking at them. This I therefore believe is being directed at me and not at the article in any way. Tigerassault (talk) 09:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ceylon --> Sri Lanka

I suggest changing all instances of "Ceylon" in the article to "Sri Lanka", as this is the modern name. However, if the general consensus is to keep it as Ceylon, I suggest adding a reference to the fact that Ceylon is actually Sri Lanka. Awesomeshreyo (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)