Talk:Annexation of Goa/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Edit request

Not sure if the syntax is correct! I want to raise a request for the title to be changed to Annexation of Goa instead of Invasion of Goa.

The title already contains Annexation of Goa. Perhaps you came here from a redirect? --RegentsPark (talk) 16:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Dispute Tag

The title is still disputed, the current title fails as original research among other factors. Invasion of Goa is a sourcable title that is neutral and accurately describes the events covered in the article. The current title is not.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Well since you have already judged the case and delivered the verdict, why not carry out the sentence too. Or are you just interested in keeping the tag on until the article name suits your peronal prefference? You have not provided anything new yourself since 10th October. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 17:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
My previous arguments are still valid and i stand by them. There was concensus that the current article name is not acceptable, what there was no concensus on is what the new title should be.XavierGreen (talk) 00:31, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
No one has asked you to change your stand. But disputed tags cannot stay on for eternity. Dont try to game the system by making a differnece between " concensus that the current article name is not acceptable" and "no concensus " are different. There is no consensus for a name change. Period. Take any remedial mesasure that you want but your habit of imposing you personal preferences is unacceptable. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 06:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The article title is not discriptive, not commonly used, and is biased. They need not be consenus for a change in order for it to still be in dispute. If there were consensus there would be no dispute.XavierGreen (talk) 07:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

People who use "you" or "yours" on the discussion page are not helping to keep the conversation on topic. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

What have neutral reliable sources referred to this as? (advice: try Google Books/Scholar) If an overwhelming majority favors one title, this article needs to be moved to that per WP:COMMONAME. If there are two or more favored names, a requested move should be opened, listing the possible moves, so outside editors can come in and consensus can be reached. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:42, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just protected the article for three days to allow for dispute resolution. What Ed is suggesting above seems like a good place to start, and if that doesn't work you should try the options recommended at WP:DR. I'd also remind involved editors that it doesn't have to take three reverts to before a block for edit warring is applied. Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at google books there are two titles that are commonly used for this conflict, Invasion of Goa and Liberation of Goa. Invasion of Goa has 15,600 hits on Google Books, Liberation of Goa has 17,000. Invasion of Goa is preferred by authors outside of India and is used in such notable neutral sources as Janes Fighting Ships [[1]] and [[2]], [[3]]. Of the sources that use Liberation of Goa the majority are published by indian authors or published in india and have a tendency to be biased towards an indian view point of the conflict. It should also be noted that there are some 1000 hits on google books when both titles are inserted into search box. The current title gets less than 1400 hits in the search box, with most not using the term as a title and those that do being wikipedia related books and the like.XavierGreen (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Google Scholar which generally produces higher quality sources posts 16,900 hits for Invasion of Goa and 8070 hits for liberation of goa. The majority of publications using Liberation of Goa again are published by Indian authors while usage of Invasion of Goa is more widespread among the origins of publication. The current title gets only 1070 hits and as before generally do not use the term as a title. Therefore clearly Invasion of Goa is heavily favored in scholarly publications in a 2:1 ratio over Liberation of Goa.XavierGreen (talk) 04:50, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I think hits and common usage are not good arguments here since the title is a contentious subject. Similar to Fixed-wing aircraft which is a name used by almost no one, the name was agreed upon since Americans wanted to call it Airplane, while Brits wanted to call it Aeroplane. Fixed-wing aircraft is a neutral title even if it isn't commonly used. 1961 Indian annexation of Goa is about as neutral as it's gona get, regardless of how common its usage is, so I think it should remain as it is. ScienceApe (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I will also add that perhaps the title should just be changed to just "Indian annexation of Goa". Was there any other time India annexed Goa? Putting 1961 before it doesn't seem necessary. ScienceApe (talk) 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

India annexed Goa in 1962, not 1961. What happened in 1961 was a military action. The annexation was later. Walrasiad (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Since when are wars called annexations? Does anyone call the Third Punic War the Roman Annexation of Carthage? Or the French and Indian War the British Annexation of Canada? The articles substance covers the conflict between india and portugal (the war) not the integration of goa into india afterwords (the annexation).XavierGreen (talk) 08:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
It's a neutral title. That's what matters since the title is contentious. I don't support calling it Invasion or Goa or Liberation of Goa regardless of whichever gets more hits. This is a neutral encyclopedia, those are POV titles which slant the action towards either being an aggressor or a liberator. Obviously we will not reach a consensus on either of those titles so you have to compromise. If you have another name that isn't contentious, but accurately describes the conflict put it forth and we can discuss it. ScienceApe (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Neutrality is not all that matters, Verifiability and No original research also are part of Wikipedia Article Titles as well. No reputable source calls the conflict Annexation of Goa, its original research to lable it as such and not verifiable by reliable sources. Invasion of Goa is a neutral title, unless you want to argue that India never invaded Goa in 1961.XavierGreen (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Without commenting on the viability of alternative titles, when the current title—which, as part of Wikipedia, receives a plethora of links to mirrors, etc.—is still on the low end of 17:1 and 15:1, and the first ten links are Wikipedia copies, we're definitely running into COMMONNAME problems. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)
Then find a reliable source that calls the war something that is neutral. Invasion of Goa obviously is not agreed upon to be a neutral title. We've been through this already. Indians don't see it as an invasion, the Portuguese do. Indians see it as a liberation, the Portuguese don't. We can argue this until our heads turn blue but nothing will ever be resolved. ScienceApe (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
So are you saying that the Republic of India did not conduct a military invasion of Goa in 1961? If they didnt, they how did they eject the portuguese military from the area?XavierGreen (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure they did. But they also liberated it from the POV of the Indians, but I'm assuming you don't want to call it the Liberation of Goa. ScienceApe (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

How about India-Portuguese War? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a good suggestion, but it fails verifyiablity as it is not commonly used in scholarly sources when discussing the subject. It only brins up a few hundred hits in google scholar, and virtually none of them use it as a title for the conflict.XavierGreen (talk) 21:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
@ScienceApe, You're missing the point. This is not about compromising between Portuguese and Indian POVs. It is about a neutral title, or more precisely, a title which accurately and informatively describes the topic of the article. The POVs of the belligerent parties shouldn't matter one iota. Walrasiad (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
If we can't agree then I think it should be a compromise. Fixed-wing aircraft was a compromise because Brits and Americans couldn't agree even though no one calls an airplane or aeroplane a fixed-wing aircraft. This debate has already been raging for a while and the archives prove it. No one can agree, so why don't we stick with what we have right now? It seems perfectly neutral, and accurately describes the event. ScienceApe (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Accurate? An article titled "annexation" without ANY discussion of annexation within it? How is that accurate? And certainly NOT neutral. The term "annexation" is being used here to exclusively support the Indian POV and Indian POV alone, for that is the only POV which seeks to minimize and obfuscate the use of military force, which the title "annexation" DELIBERATELY does. Yet the content of the article is all about a military operation. Far from being a a compromise, the title is a complete capitulation to a POV. It is definitely NOT neutral, NOT accurate and NOT informative of the content. Walrasiad (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
From wiki's article on annexation, "Annexation (Latin ad, to, and nexus, joining) is the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity (either adjacent or non-contiguous). Usually, it is implied that the territory and population being annexed is the smaller, more peripheral, and weaker of the two merging entities, barring physical size. It can also imply a certain measure of coercion, expansionism or unilateralism on the part of the stronger of the merging entities. Because of this, more positive terms like political union or reunification are sometimes preferred." Note the remarks about how an annexation can imply a measure of coercion, expansion or unilateralism. I fail to see how the word is POV in favor for Indians at all. ScienceApe (talk) 05:12, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I feel like I am repeating myself. Annexation is a LEGAL AND POLITICAL ACTION. There is absolutely NO discussion of any LEGAL AND POLITICAL steps of annexation in this article (a process which only begun in 1962, incidentally). An article on the annexation of Goa would be excellent and I've urged this before. But this is NOT an article on the annexation of Goa. There is NO discussion of the LEGAL AND POLITICAL process of annexation. As far as I can tell, this article exclusively describes a MILITARY operation, the armed forces of one country sending soldiers over an internationally-recognized border, into the territory of another, in order to seize control of a territory. It is describing what the dictionary calls an "INVASION", not annexation. Titling it "Annexation" is inaccurate for not only is it about an invasion, about, oh, 0% of the article is dedicated to a discussion of annexation! If I am looking for an article about the ANNEXATION of Goa - the actual annexation - this article provides ZERO information about it! It is inaccurate. It is not descriptive of content. It is misleading. And moreover deliberately so - deliberately seeking to satisfy a particular political POV that seeks to use terms that OBFUSCATE and MISLEAD for POLITICAL ends. And that is unacceptable. Walrasiad (talk) 05:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
And to reiterate one point: this article says "1961 Indian Annexation of Goa", which is likely prompt students around to world to cite that India annexed Goa in 1961 .... which is UNTRUE. The Indian parliamentary acts which put the process of annexation of Goa into motion were passed only in 1962, and the process took a little longer to be finally anexed. The article title, designed to satisfy a political POV, is consequently propagating error and misinformation. Which is fundamentally contrary to an encyclopedia's mission. Walrasiad (talk) 05:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
First of all I'm going to ask you to keep a cool head and stop typing in caps. We get your point, don't type in caps. However I see nothing in the article on annexation that states that it has to be legal and political. I wanted to quote part of that article so you would clearly see that it states an annexation can be "coercion, expansionism or unilateralism". Hence, it's a neutral term. The 1961 part is misleading and unnecessary though so it should be removed from the title. ScienceApe (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Just underlining the critical words so there would be no ambiguity as to what the my point is. But it seems to have been of no asssistance in aiding your comprehension. So I'll repeat it in low caps to see if maybe it sinks in that way. Annexation is a political and legal act. That is how the term is used. Many countries have invaded territories, but they haven't annexed them. Other have annexed territories without invading them. The term "annexation" is used in international contexts exclusively to refer to the political & legal act - the acts of parliament, treaties, etc that incorporate territory into a specific legal jurisdiction. It is not a synonym of military invasion, nor is military invasion implied. It is a reference to a political & legal operation. But of course, you know that. That is why it is being mischieveously proposed here by one party, precisely to mislead readers into imagining it was a political & legal operation, and not a military operation. Yet, funny enough, it is an article completely about military invasion. It is entitled annexation, yet contains not a single word about annexation. It is inaccurate, misleading and not neutral. Walrasiad (talk) 17:13, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
As the chap above me said, the main problem with the article is that it is about the military invasion of goa, and focuses very little on the annexation and integration of goa into the country. In reality there should be two articles, one on the war and one on the annexation and integration.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
When I asked you to keep a cool head, that also means being respectful and not patronizing me. Find a credible, verifiable source that states annexation is a legal act and cite it here. According to Encyclopedia Britanica,, "Annexation is frequently preceded by conquest and military occupation of the conquered territory. Occasionally, as in the German annexation of Austria in 1938, a conquest may be accomplished by the threat of force without active hostilities." ScienceApe (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Ha! Your very own sources prove my point! The first you quoted Wiki of annexation as "de jure incorporation". You know what de jure means right? It means "by law", i.e. an act of parliament, a court decision, a constitutional ammendment. A military operation is "de facto", not "de jure". And one does not imply the other. Your second source notes it is "frequently preceded", meaning annexation is NOT the act of invasion, but something else, something that might (but not always) follow it, and might (but not always) be preceded by it. i.e. it is a separate action, a political and legal action. Is that enough? Take the simpler definition from 2. To incorporate (territory) into an existing political unit such as a country, state, county, or city. A "political unit" is a political-legal definition; incorporation into a political unit is a political/legal act. It is not a military act. But I don't need to press this any longer. If I were to be generous, if I were to ignore the fact that the article nowhere mentions the annexation, you can see yourself that even the most generous interpretation of your definition leaves ambiguity as to whether military action was involved, proving that the use of term here is not seeking to inform, but to introduce ambiguity, mislead and obfuscate. It is being used for deliberately misleading political purposes (indeed, there is no other purpose as yourself have asserted, but to "compromise" with the political POV of a belligerent party). That is not the purpose of the title. The title isn't about accomodating the POV of the Indian government, or any other government or political party. It is about informing readers clearly of the content of the article. Which it doesn't. The title is inaccurate, uninformative of content and non-neutral. And that is simply unacceptable. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I have raised my objections to the use of the term "annexation" in the title, and I believe they are clear enough. So its time to put the shoe on the other foot. I'd like to hear your objections to the term "invasion". And stating that the "Indian government" or the "BJP" doesn't believe it isn't an argument. The title doesn't have the purpose to satisfy or accomodate any government or party's views. It has the purpose to be (1) accurate, (2) informative of content, (3) neutral, (4) conventionally used in scholarly research contexts. So please restrict your objections to the term "invasion" in reference to those four points only. Walrasiad (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

As to my own view:

(1) Accuracy: invasion is the act of sending armed forces over an international border to seize control of territory. That is an accurate description of Operation Vijay. Indian soldiers were dispatched, they crossed a border and their orders were to seize control of the territory - they were not on a holiday package tour.

(2) Informative of content: invasion necessarily implies military action of sending soldiers over a border to seize control of territory. The article discusses a military operation in which soldiers were sent over a border to seize control of territory. Indeed it even has a military operation box. It accurately reflects what is contained in the article.

(3) Neutral: "invasion" is the dictionary definition of the act of sending soldiers over a border to seize control of territory. It does not imply or insinuate any political view, it does not claim justification or lack of it, for the invasion. There are plenty of articles in Wiki which use "invasion" in their title, e.g. Allied invasion of Sicily, Invasion of Normandy, 2003 Invasion of Iraq, Invasion of Grenada, Invasion of Kuwait, etc., all of which were claimed by the invading party to be "liberations" or some such thing. It is clear that Wiki considers "invasion" to be a neutral term. There is no reason not to consider it neutral here as well.

(4) Scholarly research context: "invasion of Goa" is the standard term used in scholarly research articles. Annexation is never used (except in reference to the actual annexation acts). And 'liberation' used almost exclusively in articles with evident and open political bias.

That is my case. Walrasiad (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Would "Operation Vijay" be acceptable alternative? howcheng {chat} 22:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Alas its not commonly used as a title and publications do use it they are often slanted towards an indian viewpoint. When searched as Operation Vijay Goa it shows only 592 hits much much less than either Liberation of Goa or Invasion of Goa[[4]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
It's neutral title, that's all that matters. As for common usage, at this point neutrality is more important since we can't agree. Who calls an airplane a fixed-wing aircraft? It's a compromise decided upon since people couldn't agree on the topic title. ScienceApe (talk) 03:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I presume you haven't had time to examine my arguments or request. I look forward to your reply. Walrasiad (talk) 05:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gentlemen, The POV argument here originates in the (nearly 50 year old) debate of whether Goans were sympathetic to the Indians or to the Portuguese at the time of the military action.

The moment you use the term Goa in the title, you make a connection in the reader's mind to what he knows as the homeland of Goans, and you hence start to infer that Goans were somehow being invaded, annexed or liberated as the case may be.

Be very clear about this: Goa and Goans were only incidental to the conflict in 1961. This was a battle between an independent ex-colony and an ageing colonial master... a war that would have been fought not because this was called Goa or because there was a problem with the Goans, but because this place was called Portuguese India. The Indians did not invade Goa, they invaded Portuguese India.

The ideal NPOV term for this article would therefore be Invasion of Portuguese India, 1961

What was it? A military Invasion... that is what the article describes in detail.

Who was being invaded? I could say Goa, but I'll keep out the POV references and say correctly that it was Portuguese India (Portuguese India was the official Portuguese term for the colonies, which included other places besides Goa which were also invaded)

When did it occur? 1961. Portuguese India had been invaded before by the Marathas in the 18th century.

I rest my case.Tigerassault (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  • I find that acceptable. I'd support a change to "Invasion of Portuguese India, 1961" - Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
I would be more accepting of it than the current title, though according to Wiki-milhistory precidents it would need to be titled Invasion of Portuguese India (1961)XavierGreen (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Invasion of Portuguese India does not satisfy either the common name requirement or the reliable source requirement.--rgpk (comment) 03:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure it does. And certainly satisfies it a lot better than the current title. Walrasiad (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. I must be missing something. 832 hits on google search doesn't seem to give me the same level of confidence that it apparently gives you. :) --rgpk (comment) 15:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Should it? It is a rather long phrase, crafted for neutrality and accuracy, on a topic which is rarely discussed with neutrality and accuracy. I don't expect machines, however magical, to catch that. Does google search know that "Portuguese India" is the very title for Goa, Damao and Diu is referred to in Wikipedia? Does google search know that Operation Vijay captured not only Goa, but also Damao and Diu? Does google search know that the common (but erroneous) usage of the term "Goa" was a popular shorthand reference to "Portuguese India" (all of it) up to the 1960s, but that since the 1960s, Goa means, you know, Goa itself, popular beach party central? Google search is not that subtle. In the long miserable discussion we've had over the title, this is one of the very few proposals which has found general support, and I'd like to press ahead. We could go back to acrimonious fighting over the title, if you would prefer? Walrasiad (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't really title articles to satisfy some perception of neutrality amongst wikipedia editors (to quote from WP:AT, a wikipedia policy page, the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors.). Settling on a title that has little currency outside of wikipedia just to satisfy the needs of wikipedia editors is not the right way to go about this. --rgpk (comment) 16:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's just taking it one derivative further - a quarrel over which sources are neutral. See the problem? On a serious note, what is your objection to this proposal, really? Walrasiad (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
In this case, it is not just a question of which sources are neutral. Rather, the issue, or objection if you will, is that the term Portuguese-India is rarely used to describe the invasion or annexation. Therefore we shouldn't either. --rgpk (comment) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Your objection is to the term "Portuguese India" rather than "Goa"? Well, that's the wiki article title for the relevant territories. I believe tigerassault has a good point when he notes that now, in 2011, the term "Goa" means the modern state of of Goa, Republic of India, and is no longer customary shorthand for all of Portuguese India (as it was 40 years ago). That googlesearch doesn't throw many hits on that phrase is simply because nobody writes about it anymore (the few who do are still quirkily re-fighting that war, and thus ignorable). When it was written about with neutrality and seriousness - that is, back in the 1960s & 1970s - the term "Goa" still had customary connotations as a reference to all of Portuguese India, and did not risk much confusion (and saved printers ink!) But language usage has evolved, and it is necessary and useful to be precise. Your objection is akin to objecting to articles titled "Columbus's voyage to America" because back in 1500s, the overwhelming number of articles about it referred to as "Columbus's voyage to the Indies". At what point do you update the language? Would you be happier with "Portuguese Goa" rather than "Portuguese India"? (although your magical machine might not be any kinder). Walrasiad (talk) 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You don't have to make me happy, just attempt to follow policy. Anyway, on jstor, I count 39 results for "invasion of Goa", 21 for "Annexation of Goa", 1 for "Annexation of Portuguese India" (oddly enough in biology journal), and 0 for "Invasion of Portuguese India". In plain terms, we should not be making up titles just to satisfy the concerns of wikipedia editors. --rgpk (comment) 20:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
From what dates? Walrasiad (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
The entire jstor database. Which would run from about late 19th century to today. --rgpk (comment) 21:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Pfft. Checked it myself. Your "Invasion of Goa" got three articles from 2000s, two articles from 1990s. Everything else quite older than that. "Annexation of Goa" (all articles relating to international law issues, incidentally) has no articles from the 2000s (latest is 1998). It is hardly contemporary. Tigerassault's point still stands. Walrasiad (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't see how the point stands when 'annexation of portuguese india' and 'invasion of portuguese india' get no references at all other than the single reference from 1973. You are still trying to use a non-existent name as an article title.--rgpk (comment) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
You expect the exact phrase "Invasion of Portuguese India" to be found in a search? Besides the silliness of looking for exact phrases via hits (not really a 'method' in any proper sense, but I'll humor it), how can you assess contemporary scholarly usage when scholars have not been writing about that event in the last couple of decades? The convention used back in 1965 or 1975 is not sufficient for 2011, particularly if it risks confusion (there is no longer an automatic connation that "Goa" means "Portuguese India" as there used to be). The term Wikipedia gives Goa, Damman and Diu is "Portuguese India". Are you suggesting that article title should be changed too? Emphasizing "Portuguese" is a clarifying point. Wikipedia titles use plently of 'clarifying' terms in their titles which would not generate one JSTOR hit. You are fussing over a point that doesn't deserve to be fussed over. Walrasiad (talk) 22:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Regardless of your opinions about silliness, the reality is that no one calls the event "Invasion of Portuguese India" but scholars to refer to it as "Invasion of Goa" or "Annexation of Goa". Wikipedia does not exist to resolve your concerns about neutrality but rather to reflect reality. The moment scholars pick up their pens and start using the term "Invasion of Portuguese India", I'll be the first person to rally to your side on this. In the meantime, we might as well stick with what is real rather than what is imaginary. --rgpk (comment) 22:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
No one calls this event anything because no one is writing about it! My point here is about information - that is, a title which is informative of content, and not confusing or obfuscatory. You seem to be taking a very odd approach to the meaning of "scholarly usage". It doesn't mean "the exact phrase has to be found in a JSTOR hit". That is is characterized as an invasion is confirmed in usage. That Goa, Daman and Diu are referred to as "Portuguese India" is confirmed in usage. Why necessarily the exact phrase? Common sense should prevail, resorting to usage is to resolve contentious alternatives. But the only one making this a contentious point is .... you! And not for any point of substance or content about the title, not even about the usage of the terms in in it, but only about the usage of the exact phrase itself! You have thus far supplied no substantive objection to the title "Invasion of Portuguese India" other than saying you can't find that exact phrase in JSTOR hit. Thus far, everyone is happy enough with it, after months of wrangling and bad feeling, a consensus has been practically reached on what is an acceptable title, except you are suddenly introducing an absurd stumbling block. If you have a problem with the phrase "Invasion of Portuguese India" - that is, with the actual content of the phrase, the terms "Invasion" or "Portuguese India" or even the word "of", I'd like to hear it, and maybe we can go back to the drawing board and come up with another consensus. But if your sole issue is one of how many hits that exact wording gets on JSTOR, then I don't know what to say. Why are you even bothering to read this talk page when you already have your answer in JSTOR hits? Use "Invasion of Goa" and lock the page down. Walrasiad (talk) 22:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand you. Are you suggesting that wikipedia should ignore scholarly sources and instead focus solely on what makes its editors 'happy'? Or is your objection to JSTOR that you consider it a 'less than scholarly' database? --rgpk (comment) 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider "counting hits" in a search engine for an exactly worded long phrase is a competent way of assessing anything. Particularly if there is no contention to assess, except how many hits an exact phrase gets. Walrasiad (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the 'Invasion of Goa' on Google Scholar brings out the following as well:

Invasion of Goa by the Mohammedans

threats of a French invasion of Goa

invasion of Goa, in 1510

invasion of Goa by Sambhaji in 1683

nonviolent invasion of Goa in 1955

But tell me.... If all the sources on JSTOR were to call it "Glorious Liberation of Goa", it would still be a POV title and inadmissible. We have argued that 'Invasion of Goa' may be a commonly used term in the western media and scholarly press, but this reflects a western POV. Likewise, most Indian sources refer to this as the "Liberation of Goa", but this is again POV. Tigerassault (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec) :Regardless of the suitability of this title or that, your comment above reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of our policy on neutrality. Commonality is more important than 'neutrality' when selecting a title. If a common name is available, we use it regardless of the existence of judgmental terms in it. According to WP:POVTITLE, sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids.In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors. True neutrality means we do not impose our opinions over that of the sources, even when our opinion is that the name used by the sources is judgmental (emphasis mine). If JSTOR, and I assume that we accept JSTOR as a reasonable facsimile of scholarly opinion, were to call it "Glorious liberation of Goa", then not only would it be admissible, it would the the appropriate title for the page. --rgpk (comment) 16:37, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
However, your other point above (about the content of the jstor articles) is well taken. Let me take a closer look at the jstor and google results. --rgpk (comment) 16:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
RegentsPark, you are missing the fundamental point. It is not the EXACT title (that is the precise word order), but the terms IN the title that matter. Phrases like "invasion by Indian forces of Portuguse India", "Indian invasion of the colonies constituting Portuguese India", "the armed forces of the republic invaded Portugese India", "Portuguese India was invaded by the Indian army" are ALL equivalent to "Invasion of Portuguese India", even if their exact wording is slightly different and thus won't turn up in a JSTOR search. Does that make sense? What scholarly usage should resolve is (1) whether it is proper to call the events of December, 1961 an "invasion"; (2) whether it is proper to call the Portuguese colonies of Goa, Damao and Diu "Portuguese India". The point of an article title is to inform readers what's in the article. The term "Portuguese India" is not misleading or non-neutral. It is descriptive and informative of what's in the article, and indeed clarifying - i.e. this is about a conflict over the Portuguese colonies in India, not the invasion of Goa by European party kids for the Goa Trance Music Beach Festival. Informativeness should be the number one priority in choosing a title. That's why Wiki recommends common usage - not for its own sake, but so people can recognize what's in the article and not be confused or assume its about something else. Unless you are proposing the "Portuguse India" is somehow confusing, you are taking a very narrow and unhelpful interpretation of what the mission is here. Walrasiad (talk) 20:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There is no point missed here. Tigerassault stated title neutrality is more important than common name and I pointed out that the policy is exactly the opposite. His jstor content argument, on the other hand, makes sense and is worth exploring further. Let's do that first and get emotional later. --rgpk (comment) 21:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All searches for the exact phrase indicated in "quotes".

1st figure is for Google Web (with a -Wikipedia added), 2nd for Google Scholar and the 3rd for JSTOR

1. "Liberation of Goa" - 42100, 218, 34

2. "Invasion of Goa" - 24500, 143, 39 (as mentioned earlier Goa has been invaded several times in history)

3. "Indian Invasion of Goa" - 1880, 55, 11 (This is obviously a subset of the preceding result)

4. 1961 + "Invasion of Goa" - 8710, 123, 20 (This is again a subset of result 2)

5. "Annexation of Goa" - 14800, 70, 21

6. 1961 + "Annexation of Goa" - 12800, 53, 16

7. "Invasion of Portuguese India" - 193, 2, 0

8. "Goa Conflict" - 239, 10, 0

9. "Glorious Liberation of Goa" - 0, 0, 0

A search for the exact phrase is necessary here. A search for "Invasion" "of" "Goa" will return articles that possibly talk about an unrelated invasion while referencing Goa. eg: Chinese invasion of India, and a passing reference to India's policy with regard to Goa. Instead a search for "Invasion of Goa" will return more relevant results and will count the number of times that exact phrase has been used.

These are all English language sources even if some are predominantly Indian or western. Since Wikipedia states that the most commonly used phrase must be used, shall we move the article to "Liberation of Goa"? (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm..... the number of sources using 'Liberation of Goa' is almost one and a half times the number that uses 'Invasion of Goa'. I note that 'Liberation of Goa' returns almost 70% Indian/Goan sources on Google Scholar, while 'Invasion of Goa' returns only 20% Indian/Goan sources. I figure this is probably since the incident has been discussed within India - and particularly within Goa - far more than in the west. As per WP policy, the article should be named as 'Liberation of Goa', regardless of how POV this sounds. Tigerassault (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

"Invasion of Goa" with -wikipedia gives 24,500 hits on Google Web. but the first 30 results include "Russian Invasion of Goa" 4 times (refers to Russian tourists), "Passive Invasion of Goa"(the 1955 non violent attempt), "Portuguese invasion of Goa" 5 times, "invasion of Goa by the Bahamini Kingdom", "Maratha Invsaion of Goa" and one "Cultural invasion", resulting in only 57% of the results referring to the 1961 incident

"Indian Invasion of Goa" and "India's Invasion of Goa" together give 2498 hits on Google Web.

"Portuguese Invasion of Goa" gives 422 results

"Russian invasion of Goa" gives 2750 results!

Meanwhile "Liberation of Goa" with -wikipedia gives 42,000 hits! The 1st 30 results include "The so called Liberation of Goa", "Liberation of Goa from the Goans" "FAKE LIBERATION OF GOA"... 3 results which seem to suggest that the authors do not favour the term and 2 results referring to domestic attempts at liberation before 1961 (total of 5 false results) resulting in almost 83% of the results referring to the 1961 incident.

I think that the ideal end to this acrimonious debate should be to move the article to "Liberation of Goa"***TiGERSSAULT 11:05, 12 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tigerassault (talkcontribs)

Well, if nothing else, it has certainly become amusing. Walrasiad (talk) 08:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
A very large percentege of the sources that use liberation of goa are skewed towards the indian point of view and cannot be regarded as reliable sources. As ive stated before, the majority of sources that use liberation of go come from india. Virtually no other english speaking country uses liberation of goa in writing, to use Liberation of Goa would further slant this article towards the Indian point of view.XavierGreen (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I could be wrong, but methinks the point of the exercise is to show RegentsPark that his "criteria" for thumbing down the earlier consensus title is a little problematic. Walrasiad (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that Walrasiad, I was wondering what the point of this whole exercise was. About the only thing that it does clearly show is that Invasion of Portuguese India is a made up title and is not really viable here. --rgpk (comment) 22:43, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a title that works quite well. It's your criterion that isn't really viable here. Walrasiad (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't seen any argument for not sticking to the common name policy. Simply reiterating that an argument is silly or non-viable is not really the way to build consensus on wikipedia. --rgpk (comment) 16:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps my wording came out as a little rude. What I meant is relying completely on "counting hits" for entire phrases. Search engine counts can be informative, but ought not to be decisive. You have to use some common sense. Walrasiad (talk) 18:40, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I repeat what Regentspark has indicated earlier: According to WP:POVTITLE, sometimes that common name will include non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids.In such cases, the commonality of the name overrides our desire to avoid passing judgment (see below). This is acceptable because the non-neutrality and judgment is that of the sources, and not that of Wikipedia editors.

Xaviergreen, it doesn't matter if 'Liberation of Goa' veers towards one or the other point of view. It is clearly the dominantly used English language title for the event even in the scholarly press. I propose we move to Liberation of Goas inspite of its POV.

Xaviergreen has stated "A very large percentege of the sources that use liberation of goa are skewed towards the indian point of view and cannot be regarded as reliable sources."


They cannot be regarded as 'reliable' because they are indian? I don't know what gives you the idea, but the indian accounts on, by Anil Shore, and by PN Khera are what this article relies very heavily on. Whats more 'reliable'? Some politically opinionated piece in the NYT?

Walrasiad: the point of this exercise was to take up on Regentspark's assertion that if the articles on JSTOR were to call it 'Glorious Liberation of Goa', the article would be named as such regardless of the POV slant. And to speak the truth, I was unaware of WP:POVTITLE until he pointed it out for me. WP:POVTITLE is a very simple and elegant solution to the whole problem, and if 'Liberation of Goa' describes the term in a manner recognizable to most people, then it should be the title, Xaviergreen's borderline bias against indian articles notwithstanding.

I should also note that most recent articles (with dates after 1990) refer to it as 'Liberation of Goa' even in the international press, whereas most articles and essays that refer to it as 'Invasion of Goa' date from the sixties immediately after the incident.

      • TiGERSSAULT 16:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Liberation of Goa

I'm not going to push this but I'm curious why Liberation of Goa is considered to be a POV title. On the face of it, Goa was ruled by a colonial power. By 1961, the legitimacy of colonial rule anywhere was seriously questionable. And today it is generally accepted that colonial powers had no right to their colonies. Since the takeover by India, Goa has been a contented part of India with no sign of a desire for not being a part of India so one assumes that they don't feel less than liberated. So what we have here is an action that removed a colonial power and resulted in land with a reasonably content populace. Why then is liberation considered such a bad word? Surely, in this day and age, we can't be saying that Portugal had a right to its colonial territories? --rgpk (comment) 16:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

As an African and a life-long opponent of colonialism, this is going to pain me to say, but no, it is not "generally acccepted" that colonial powers had no right to their colonies. Not only does international law recognize that, the ICJ recognized it, the Indian Union itself recognized Portugal's sovereignty for the first decade of its existence. Moreover, overseas colonies still exist (viz. Puerto Rico, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Falklands, Reunion, French Guyana, Greenland, Ceuta & Melilla, Andaman & Nicobar, etc.) As to the opinions of Goans (certainly Goans back then), that is very acrimonious, particularly since no referendum of Goan opinion was conducted and the degree of support/opposition has been a point of endless argument between Portuguese and Indian researchers. Years later, there was a referendum to incorporate Goa into Maharashtra and Daman & Diu into Gujarat - and despite the government of India's attempts to ensure a particular outcome, both posposals were overwhelmingly rejected by the populations - which, while not conclusive, is at least indicative that the Goan population wasn't "content" to give up their singular identity. The only thing you can accuse is that Portugal may have had the obligation to consult the colonial populations on their status, and that this is a step the Portuguese government never took (for a variety of reasons - for one, it was a dictatorship, and dictatorships are not apt to consult their populations, metropolitan or overseas, on anything; secondly, the obligation was conceived only in December 1960 - that is a mere one year before India invaded, hardly enough time for anything.) Generally speaking, "Liberation" is very much POV, indeed, a weasel-word, as EVERY invader in history has always called his invasion a "liberation". Indonesia "liberated" East Timor, Morocco "liberated" Sahrawi, Iraq "liberated" Kuwait, the US "liberated" Iraq, etc., etc. It is clearly POV as it an attempt to claim a right where no right exists (the UN charter clearly and unambiguously forbids invasions) and nobody but the belligerent power involved uses the term. It is simply unacceptable. Walrasiad (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Walrasiad said it all. That's irrefutable. And i hope his intervention isn't deliberately forgotten. I think i've already said this, but i'll say it again; Goa was an entity way before the Indian Union got together. Just because Goa is in the Indian peninsula doesn't mean that the remaining bigger part of the peninsula had any right over Goa. The Arabian peninsula isn't only Saudi Arabia. As for the legitimacy of colonisation, we can't discuss it retroactivley. Slavery is wrong, but it was once fair. So, at that time, taking Goa (Portuguese India) was so illegitimate as taking any other part of continental or insular Portugal like Alentejo or the Azores for example. I hope that the "liberators" allow the logic title for this article and don't keep this matter going round in circles with no reason for it. --Bluedenim (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

(od) Rest assured that, even though tigetassault's research shows that this is the common name of the event, I'm not "yet" advocating we title the article Liberation of Goa. I'm just curious why it is generally accepted as a POV term. I agree that 'liberation' is an oft misused word, for example the Chinese say that they 'liberated' the people of Tibet, but that doesn't mean that it is always incorrectly used. In the slavery example, to take one rather odd argument above, one could confidently say 'we liberated the slaves' even if it were perfectly legal to keep slaves. India as a singular administrative unit did not exist prior to Indian independence so there is nothing odd about Goa having had independent existence prior to the arrival of the Portuguese. The various legal issues seem dubious to me because they are tantamount to saying that legal right trumps moral right. Were the protestors in Egypt wrong in demanding freedom because their constitution legally required Mubarak to be at the helm? Morally speaking, the people of Goa were ruled by a dictator who lived far away and ruled as a colonial ruler and the Portuguese had no moral right to rule Goa and it does not seem far-fetched to me to say that 'India liberated Goa'. --rgpk (comment) 23:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, legal right does trump moral right. There are many shades and interpretations of morality, all very ambiguous. If nothing else, law tends to be clearer. And, in the case of international contests, it is paramount. When a country joins the United Nations, it takes upon itself the legal obligation to respect the sovereignty of other nations and commits itself to refraining from any military action without prior UNSC approval. That legal obligation is not conditional on "morality". It just is. And for good reason: if there is to be peace in the world, the first premise must be the mutual recognition of sovereignty and commitment to respecting that sovereignty. Countries cannot go around citing "moral cases" to justify war, since any war can be justified on some moral grounds. The peace of the world depends on legal right, not moral right. Moral right can automatically become legal right in a few, narrowly defined conditions (e.g. genocide). But that the country is ruled by a dictator isn't one of these conditions. Otherwise wars would be breaking out all over the place.
And in this case, not even the moral case makes sense. Conditions in Goa were not particularly deplorable. If the government of India had actually allowed a referendum, or evacuated the territory to allow the people to determine their own destiny, there might be a case (although not a very strong one, since international law would still not allow it.) But it didn't.
You are right to cite Egypt. As that was a clear case of Egyptian citizens solving their own internal issues. Just as the case of Goa should have been a matter resolved by Portuguese citizens - metropolitan and colonial - as was ultimately done with the rest of the colonies in 1974. Should a foreign power have invaded Egypt (and annexed it!) in the past few weeks "to liberate it" from Mubarak, imagine only the outrage.
One country invaded another and seized a bit of territory it wanted. Just like it has happened so many times in the long sorry history of the human race. The invasion was brought about by nothing more enlightened than raw nationalist fervor in India. It wouldn't make a difference if Portugal was more democratic, or if Goans voiced their desire to stay part of Portugal. Nehru himself, who wasn't even nearly as radical as other nationalists in India, said as much himself in his speech of September 1955 - "We are not prepared to tolerate the presence of the Portuguese in Goa, even if the Goans want them to be there." This hardly makes for a moral case. Walrasiad (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Walrasiad is right. Laws are supose to be moral guides (so that decisions don't be subjective) and society is constantly perfecting them.

RegentsPark, i just mention slavery because it is a good example of an event that is susceptible of being evaluated retroactiveley.



— "India as a singular administrative unit did not exist prior to Indian independence so there is nothing odd about Goa having had independent existence prior to the arrival of the Portuguese."

This is revealing of someone who doesn't understand the concept of "global empire" (non-contiguous territory). You're saying that Goa belonged to India even before India was founded. You just have to know that what happened was a forceful appropriation of a foreign territory. Even this, an act of good against an evil never seen, has always been called "invasion". If someone feels uncomfortable with the word "invasion" is because, in the back of their minds, knows that the "liberation" was wrongful. --Bluedenim (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume therefore that we are not applying WP:POVTITLE? Even though its accepted that 'Liberation of Goa' is the common name, its not going to be used here since its indian and therefore not reliable.

I have earlier given my opinion on why Indians call it 'Liberation'. After the invasion/annexation/whatever, Goa received democracy and self-rule. Goa is today ruled by a self elected government and is an autonomous state under the Federal Indian Republic. That may qualify it to be called a 'Liberation'.

And please stop calling it 'Union of India'. That was India's name between 1947 and 1950, after which it was called 'Republic of India'

      • TiGERSSAULT 16:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
The same Indian nationalists pushing their POV throughout this entire article. No point in arguing with someone who renames an invasion a "liberation". Goali (talk) 09:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

In December 1961, just days before the annexation of Goa by Indian troops, the Vatican appointed Dom José Pedro da Silva, a Portuguese priest as the auxiliary bishop of Goa, and granted him the right to succeed as the Patriarch of the Church in Goa. Although the Vatican did not voice its reaction to the annexation of Goa, it delayed the appointment of a native head of the Goan Church until the inauguration of the Second Vatican Council in Rome, when Msgr Francisco Xavier da Piedade Rebelo was consecrated as the Bishop of Goa. Simultaneously, the Church in Goa was placed under the patronage of the Cardinal of India and its links with the Church in Portugal were severed

Why is this piece of information so significant? A lot of things are usually delayed until a major council of every Bishop in the World is finished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That only says that the Church of Goa severed ties with the Church of Portugal. It doesn't say that the Portuguese State of India severed ties with the Portuguese Republic. The Catholic Church was not the Government of Portugal. I'm sorry if i didn't understand, but English is not my native language. --Bluedenim (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
I think these Indian fundamentalists have some anti-Christian hang-up and may not really understand the concept of separation between State and religion, which holds true for Portugal and as such did so for Goa until it was invaded by India.Goali (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Let the record show that Goali wants to discuss the editors, not the article.

Nothing is 'insignificant' in Wikipedia. The insertion about the change in the patronage of the Catholic Church in Goa (transfer from Portugal to India) was my edit. For Goali's record, I am a Roman Catholic.

  • Tigerassault, I am a little confused by that passage (or what you intend with it). Who is the "Cardinal of India"? Do you mean the papal nuncio Cardinal Knox? Or do you mean Valerian Gracias, the archbishop of Bombay? To be clear: the Diocese of Goa & Damao was never, ever folded under Bombay. And Rebelo was never made bishop of Goa. The Bishop of Goa & Damao was and remained José Vieira Alvernaz, until his resignation in 1975. For obvious political reasons, Alvarnaz had to physically leave Goa in March 1962. The day-to-day administration of the churches in Goa was managed by Rebelo, a long-time secretary of the Padroado. He was indeed consecrated by Vatican II as bishop, but that is only auxiliary bishop; he was not appointed Bishop of Goa. He official title was Apostolic administrator, notionally on behalf of the absent Alvernaz. Alvernaz remained Bishop of Goa until 1975.
  • P.S. - And if you're a Catholic, you know there is no "Church of Goa" and "Church of Portugal". There's only one Church. ;) What I'm guessing you mean is that the old privileged relationship between the Portuguese State and the Patriarchate of Goa (the Padroado treaty with the Holy See) was snipped at Vatican II. But that is something the Vatican had been trying to do for a while. - Walrasiad (talk) 09:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Actually, Walrasiad, I did not say 'Church of Goa' or 'Church of Portugal'.... Look closely. Bluedenim said that.

And the text which refers to 'Church *in* Goa' is sourced (and cited) from an article by the Portugal based Goan historian Dr. Teotonio R. de Souza. Dr. de Souza, a former Jesuit priest, is a fellow of the Portuguese Academy of History since 1983, and of the Sociedade de Geografia de Lisboa since 2000, as well as HOD at the Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias... and I assume highly reliable (weird, considering that troll, User:Goali, calls me anti-Christian for citing a Jesuit Historian!!). If you have corrections, please insert them and cite your sources.

I note the following passage in de Souza's autobiography "There was no question of my changing my mind. It was not an opportunity to be missed and quick action followed. The seminarians were attending the consecration of the new Vicar Apostolic of Goa, Mgr. F.X. Rebelo, at the See Cathedral in Old Goa, and the Jesuit Provincial Superior would be present. It was arranged for me to meet him there. I had found out that he descended partly from my village. This little detail made me feel more at ease. My admission was decided on the spot. The required formalities followed, and in June of 1967 I was leaving my family with my small trunk and a violin to join the Jesuit Novitiate in Desur near Belgaum."

I can update the word 'bishop' to 'Vicar Apostolic'.

And while citing Dr. de Souza, I will note that this Portugal-based Goan Jesuit Historian writes, "The democratic process in Goa began where it should have been, namely, at the village level. Panchayati Raj was brought into existence within less than a year after liberation. The elections held in October 1962 changed the entire character of the political process in Goa. No elections of the Portuguese-type had any parallel with the universal suffrage that brought the propertyless and uneducated masses into consideration for the first time, giving them a sense of self-dignity. The elections for the first State Assembly the following year further strengthened the political process."[5] Do note that the Head of the History Department at the Universidade Lusófona de Humanidades e Tecnologias calls it the Liberation of Goa ... even while Wikipedia editors ignore the basic principle of WP:POVTITLE and compete in acrimonious arguments. Tigerassault (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

    • Hmmmm.... an interesting pattern comes up when analysing the results thrown up by Google Scholar for 'Liberation of Goa'. 14 of the 1st 30 results are by Goan authors. The others are 8 non-Indian, and 8 Indian non-Goan authors. Apparently the word 'Liberation' is how Goan authors describe it. Tigerassault (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
      • Tigerass. in any issue, be it Goa or any other, arguements based on intellectual dishonesty go nowhere and only prove weakness. You Catholic? Please spare us... your page says "This user accepts Karma. This user values reason over faith."Goali (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
    • Goali, Thanks for confirming that you're a WP:TROLL. Makes it so much easier to report this. Tigerassault (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content

Hi, usually, I should not have been writing this at all after my explanation in the edit summary, but because of the probability of an edit war, I would like to clarify the following:

  1. The section with attribution to, has been removed by me.
  2. The website, as per its owner's statement, is an online group/community only and hence fails WP:RS.
  3. The paragraph, which was attributed to an eyewitness, one Fransesco Monteiro, fails both reliability and verifiability.

Please do not restore such content in to the article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Funny you want to apply WP:RS only to parts that don't suit your POV. I haven't the faintest clue why you removed the whole part that discussed the political and press reaction from the United States. Considering the role that the US had to play before hostilities, it sure would be necessary to mention how that country reacted to how the story unfolded. Tigerassault (talk) 17:58, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Data regarding Strength and Casualties and Losses

The data for strength, casualties and losses regarding the conflict is not at all reliable in this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Most of this page is unreliable, especially its title.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 26 December 2011 (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 above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

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 (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)


Neelkamala... your problem was with inputs that linked to 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.[1] 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. [2]

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.[3] 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 but pointed the link to 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. (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 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 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

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 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)

The country was called Ceylon when this happened, so it should not be changed. It is similar to how we have the article Anglo-French war of 1202–14, instead of United Kingdom-France war of 1202-14, and how many articles refer to Zaire, rather than to DR Congo. Since it is wikilinked, readers can follow the link and see that Ceylon is modern Sri Lanka. --Joshua Issac (talk) 13:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Annexation of Goa/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This is quite an effort. Consider nominating for a higher grade for more feedback. Ncmvocalist 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Substituted at 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Annexation of Portuguese India. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Azaredo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ India's Foreign Policy in the 21st Century edited by V. D. Chopra, page 219,
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference autogenerated3 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Requested move 22 November 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) Fuortu (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Annexation of Portuguese IndiaAnnexation of Goa – As per WP:COMMONNAMEFilpro (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
*Contest. Portugese India, while sometimes known as Goa, also included other areas. I'm not necessarily opposed to the move, but I do think that it should be discussed. Ebonelm (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Filpro: This request has been moved to full discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The restructuring, reordering and additional writing required to turn the redirect Annexation of Goa into a separate article alongside Portuguese India, Annexation of Portuguese India and Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli would be welcome, but unless someone knowledgeable with these subjects volunteers to undertake the assignment, this article, as presently constituted, is still only about the Annexation of Goa, rather the Annexation of entire Portuguese India. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 19:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support: The article is almost entirely about what constitutes present day Goa. Annexation of Goa would be a better name. Pratyush (talk) 10:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.