Talk:Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli

Biased POV

This article should be renamed, it's very biased.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.233.145 (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2010

The title of the article is very pro-India, but the article itself is very pro-Portugal. Could someone fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.228.7 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Article title bias

The title of this article is biased and not neutral. I propose to change it to Indian annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli or 1954 Indian annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Thanks, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 04:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for your note. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Oppose. India regained its territory from portuguese colonial rule. It's improper to label it annexation since dadra and nagar haveli has always been part of India since centuries. Reverting this unilateral move. --Neelkamala (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

The result of the proposal was moved. This was a tough close. It really was. Sometimes an alternative proposal can become a runaway favorite, but it can also muddy the waters. While some editors favored the current title, more wanted a change of some sort, and furthermore, most of the oppose votes were light on policy-based arguments. Replacing "liberation" with a less loaded word is much more in line with the Wikipedian pillar of neutrality. But this still leaves us with annexation vs. accession. Maybe it's just because it was around earlier, but annexation attracted more support, so I'm moving the article as initially requested. If you'd rather see this at the accession title, don't go to WP:MRV; you can start another RM here. --BDD (talk) 22:59, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli → Indian annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli – "Liberation" is not neutral; it takes the viewpoint of Indian nationalists. The geo-political act of annexation is neutral as it does not takes sides. Relisted. Favonian (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC). Binksternet (talk) 05:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Reading through article, find no citations for neither "Liberation" nor "Annexation". Appreciate if the regular editors of this page would list various citations to match for/against the change. We could then review it again. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Oppose- Annexation is the viewpoint of the portuguese colonials who brutally ruled over Indians. Its totally unfair to call liberation of Indian territory as annexation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neelkamala (talk • contribs) 05:15, 1 June 2013‎

• Support – Annexation is a more neutral term. There was no Indian Union or Republic of India when Dadra and Nagar Haveli were Portuguese territories and hence can not be seen as being 'liberated'. This is similar to the 1961 Indian annexation of Goa, which has been discussed a lot on its talk page. Thank you, Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 05:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. The 1961 Indian annexation of Goa article was moved multiple times (move-warring) in 2010; in 2008, a requested move from "Invasion of Goa" to "Liberation of Goa" resulted in no consensus. In 2010, no support was gained for the word "Liberation" at two discussions: Talk:1961 Indian annexation of Goa/Archive 3#Case for Liberation of Goa and Talk:1961 Indian annexation of Goa/Archive 4#Liberation of Goa. The word "Liberation" was shown to be non-neutral, a viewpoint of Indian nationalists but not everyone. Binksternet (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Annexation describes what happened. I wouldn't confess to be an expert on Indian history, but from my study of European imperialism in India made it quite clear that for the most part the subcontinent was fragmented between various rulers and the modern India does not exactly reflect the past. Liberation therefore appears to be a POV nationalist position. If on the other hand, it had been the Maratha's retaking the province then 'liberation' would appear completely justified.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 07:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - liberation is the right word. Going by the the historical events as recorded in the WP page, it is clear that the local people liberate themselves from the foreign ruler Portugal. Then the local people enter into the Indian Union. Prodigyhk (talk) 07:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• The "local people", the Koli people, were invaded by the Rajput in 1262. In the middle of the 18th century, the "local people" (who were now a mix of Koli + Rajput) were invaded by the Maratha. Shortly thereafter in 1783, the Maratha ceded Naga Haveli to the Portuguese as compensation for shipping damages. In 1785 the Portuguese acquired Dadra. In 1947, it was not the "local people" but nationalists in Goa who fomented the independence of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, which was achieved in 1954. I think your argument is mistaken, based as it is on the viewpoint of a non-existent group of locals from Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Binksternet (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on a reading of the article, this doesn't appear to be an annexation. The people involved were local and there appear to be no Indian forces involved. Apparently, the territory was not even incorporated into India until 1961, seven years later. Completely different from the Goa case which was clearly annexed by India but this does look more like a liberation (at least as written in the article). --regentspark (comment) 15:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support move to Accession Having read the article and the comments below, it is clear to me that even annexation is probably not the word we need. I suggest the proposal be modified to substitute Accession for Annexation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I like your idea. It matches your username. :)
    Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
    • Agreed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 06:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
      • Support for Accession. Peroxwhy2gen ^Talk 06:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Peacemaker67 Support move to Accession Prodigyhk (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sounds ok. Since the article describes the process by which the territory ended up in India, it does seem to be the correct term. --regentspark (comment) 13:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support - the term "annexation" is much more neutral than the terms "liberation" (point of view of India) and "invasion" (point of view of Portugal). 85.88.134.35 (comment) 09:56, 3 June 2013‎ (UTC)
• Oppose - It was liberated by local people not annexed by Indian forces. -sarvajna (talk) 15:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support for Accession per Peacemaker67.--Joshua Issac (talk) 10:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Annexation. I think this is better than "Acession", see e.g. Texas annexation, which was a proposal by the Texan government and would also qualify as an accession, but is referred to as an annexation. Knight of Truth (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support; annexation is a more neutral title. bobrayner (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The current title appropriately captures the event. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support either Annexation or Accession: of the options "liberation" is the least neutral so should be the first possibility eliminated. "Accession" is very neutral but dry, "annexation" is technically dry but I can certainly see how it could be seen as having anti-India feel. "Liberation" however positively has a POV anti-Portuguese slant (not supporting Portugal, just NPOV), and also I completely agree with EnigmaMcmxc that it is ahistorical to imply that D/NH have always belonged to "India" when the unified nation-state is quite modern. MatthewVanitas (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support either Annexation or Accession per MatthewVanitas. Mild preference for "Accession" perhaps even if the word is less familiar. SnowFire (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Encyclopedia Britannica says the Koli people in Dadra and Nagar Haveli were invaded by the Rajput people in 1262. It says that the Portuguese did not seize Dadra and Nagar Haveli militarily, but gained them by economic means. It says that Indian nationalists from Goa were the ones who pushed for Dadra and Nagar Haveli to be united with India, not locals from Dadra and Nagar Haveli. It uses both the phrases "accession to the Indian union" and "liberation from the Portuguese".
• Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, says that "in 1954, indigenous freedom movements forced the Portuguese out, and it became a union territory of India in 1961." The word "liberation" is not used.
• The ABC-CLIO book India Today uses passive language such as "became" to describe how Dadra and Nagar Haveli entered into the Indian Union. No "liberation".
• The Psychology Press book The Territories and States of India says Dadra and Nagar Haveli were "acquired by India" in 1954, not liberated from Portuguese rule. It says the areas were "formally annexed" in 1961.
  • All of the above are high quality sources, respected reference books. They do not use consistent language to describe the events of 1954 and 1961: "accession", "liberation", "became", "acquired" and "annexed" are all in play. The source that uses liberation also says accession. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101224100740/http://goancauses.com/gabriel_figueiredo/ to http://www.goancauses.com/gabriel_figueiredo/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140102072826/http://www.navhindtimes.in/ilive/how-18th-june-road-got-its-name to http://www.navhindtimes.in/ilive/how-18th-june-road-got-its-name
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.austlii.edu.au/~andrew/CommonLII/INSC/1986/43.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:58, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

MB's edits

@MB: I was basically restoring this last good version as the article had enough vandalism until now. In what world these edits[1][2] are not vandalism? Where in this unreliable source "44 killed" is supported? Apart from making these reverts you should be more careful with providing edit summaries[3] as I never removed a maintenance template but your edits removed reliably sourced content. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:35, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Replying your reply here, I have restored the minor edits but I would note that "Decisive Indian victory" is wholly correct since Indian territory was expanded while Portugal completely lost the territory and the conflict. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 05:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

You did not restore all the minor edits. You left the misspelling "riversid", and you left the deprecated parameters in the infobox. My edit summary was correct, I did not say you removed a maintenance template, I said you removed "maintenance updates" - which you did (the infobox parameters and the citation parameters). I have gone ahead and made these corrections. I also removed the word "decisive" because that is adding your perspective. In WP's voice, it is either a defeat or a victory. MB 13:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 21 November 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: there is no consensus as to whether a common name has been established for this topic. Evidence that "annexation" and "liberation" are in use was presented below, but there was no agreement as to contentions that the the proposed title is used in a preponderance of reliable sources, so there was no consensus that the proposed title passes WP:POVNAME. The current title can be considered a descriptive title, but there was no consensus that the proposed title is superior to the current title in terms of neutrality. Thus, it is clear that there is no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below, which means that the status quo remains in effect. While I recognize that there are strong opinions on each side of this argument, please understand that this close does not represent any claim regarding the real-world legitimacy of one or the other position. Dekimasuよ! 10:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli → Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli – I have never heard that the mission was an 'annexation' outside this Wikipedia page. Sources generally refer the mission as 'liberation'. NavjotSR (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2019 (UTC) —Relisting. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:27, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per last RM. What sources are these? Can you link some? I checked Google Books for "Dadra and Nagar Haveli 1954" and the topic is covered very sparsely. "Indian foreign policy and the border dispute with China" doesn't call it anything. Some 1970s publications by the Government of India appear to use "liberation" but these are pretty weak sources. Anyway, "liberation" is usually used for the reversing of a short-term occupation, e.g. Liberation of France. The Portuguese ran these territories for 150+ years and acquired them via economic means, so "liberation" is a bit of a pro-India POV (in the same way that "Conquest" is a bit pro-Portuguese POV). SnowFire (talk) 20:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment First you have to agree that the whole region was a colony and not a new found land, where portuguese invaded it(means may be different) and captured it and making it a colony just like England, France & other countries. That being said this is a part of colonial history, so if we were to take your logic there never existed any colonies in the world, it was simply the european countries occupied different part of the world for "very long time" and with time this was "invaded" by local people who were living there for thousandes of years before there arrival. Sorry I guess we have to change lot of history text books and wiki pages with this logic.

& I doubt the definition of "liberation" is usually refered to "short-term" occupation, what does " short-term" mean ?, does any standard dictionory has ever depicted short term to be months, days or years if we take a millenium 150 years is really a "short-term" makes no sense in this logic too Shrikanthv (talk) 09:39, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:01, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support Annexation means "possession taken of a piece of land or a country, usually by force or without permission"[4], and to say that this mission of regaining land lost to the colonial empire was an 'annexation' is a blatant POV.

Reliable sources also appear to be saying referring to it as 'liberation'.

• "In July 1954, volunteers of the United Front of Goans liberated Dadra and Nagar Haveli."[5] Leadership in the Indian Army: Biographies of Twelve Soldiers, VK Singh, SAGE Publishing, 2005.
• "The Dadra and Nagar Haveli was liberated from the Portuguese Rule on 2nd August 1954"[6], The Police in India, MB Chande, Atlantic Publishers, 1997
• "After the successful liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli, there were great expectations"[7], The Quint.
• "Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli,"[8] India Today.
• "eventually leading up to the liberation of Goa and, before that, the liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli[9], by The Economic Times, 2017.
• "The new content will be more detailed and will include the liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli"[10] by The Times of India, 2019
• "The RSS played an important role in the liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli in 1954".[11] RSS-BJP Symbiosis On the Cusp of Culture and Politics: On the Cusp of Culture and Politics, Suchitra Kulkarni, Prabhat Prakashan
• "After some time the fighters liberated Dadra and Nagar Haveli also."[12], Veer Savarkar, Dhanajay Keer, Popular Prakashan, 1966
• "This had made grave injustice to a group of bravehearts, who had liberated Dadra and Nagar Haveli".[13] Marching Ahead!, Prabhat Prakashan, Ram Naik, 2016.

I don't see any such results for "annexation". I have not counted the government sources but the above independent reliable sources confirm that liberation is a far more WP:COMMON term for referring this incident. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 05:02, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• Well, Portugal didn't give permission to India on this, so still qualifies as an annexation, no? Anyway, I don't think your search is useful. My search didn't include "Liberation" or "Annexation" at all, and came up with comparatively few results for Liberation (and none for Annexation, to be clear). The point is that there is no WP:COMMONNAME for this event; the Indian press using the word "liberation" in reference to this sometimes doesn't mean too much and isn't surprising. So we're stuck with a "descriptive title", aka one made up by Wikipedia editors. And for this, there's a strong mandate to keep it as neutral as possible (WP:NPOVTITLE). While the event could be described as a liberation, it could also be accurately described as annexation with fewer accusations of POV. Article already uses "liberation" quite a bit in the actual text, which is fine. SnowFire (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

• The arguments offered for opposition are non-policy based. Just like Portuguese conquered these island regions, British too engaged in conquests. Those were annexations, not the subsequent regain by India. Just because some country managed to hold of the regions that belonged to another country for some 150 years does not make the annexation legal. Whatever the Indian regain can only be deemed as a liberation. What is NPOV is decided by the neutral reliable sources which I have already detailed above. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• You're forgetting that the Indian state that annexed these territories in 1954 did not exist when they were established. You cannot liberate something that you never owned in the first place! These territories were ceded to by and purchased by Portugal from the Maratha Empire, which hasn't existed since 1818. Just because it occupied some of the territory now occupied by India does not make it India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• That is called liberation from Portuguese colonial rule, as reliable sources state. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 12:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Which is clearly POV! It is obviously POV to claim one type of rule is legitimate and another was not. In any case, Portugal was ceded part of the territory by treaty and purchased the other part. It's no more liberation than it would be if Portugal took it back again. Less, in fact. And as has already been established, there is no consensus as to its description in reliable sources. Cherrypicking sources that use "liberation" is not valid. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately the current title is a POV! legitmizing Portugese colonial rule! , cherrypicking and labeling neutral comments as "nationalists" and biased is also not civil would suggest to wiki rules and framework for workingShrikanthv (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. The article and the attached sources use the term "liberation" per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONSISTENT. "Annexation" really comes off as a surprise. --RaviC (talk) 08:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per Snowfire. No searches show "Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli" as established name but too many sources per Aman.kumar.goel show "Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli" is the correct name. Bharatiya29 13:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• Support per prevalence of proposed name in reliable sources. Srijanx22 (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:NPOVTITLE. You couldn't get more POV than the proposed title. These territories had been Portuguese for 175 years. They had never previously been part of the modern state of India which annexed them in 1954. How was their seizure (which included murdering a police officer) possibly a "liberation"? I'm sure Indian sources do refer to it as such, but they're likely to be biased. Consistent with Annexation of Goa. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:10, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NPOVTITLE does not recommend WP:OR, but WP:COMMONNAME which is "Liberation of Goa". Scholarly sources show that Liberation of Goa is the appropriate name for this article. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Maybe in Indian sources. Which, as I said, are undoubtedly biased. It's like Israeli sources invariably referring to the Israeli War of Independence, which almost certainly is also the common name in English-language sources, but that's not the title we use because it would be objected to by the Arab world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:RS does not mention the ethnicity of the sources as the factor in deciding the reliable sources. Thus your flawed POV is rather too unfounded and nonsensical when it comes to the evaluation of sources per WP:IRS.

Your comment only tells "what portuguese world would prefer" which would be blatant violation of WP:OR, instead what we prefer should be preferred by WP:RS for the title.Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 18:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Weird, because I'm not Portuguese! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. POVTITLE / NPOVTITLE allows a "prejudicial" title if it is nevertheless the overwhelming WP:COMMONNAME - hence Boston Massacre. To be clear, Indian sources can contribute to this too! However, as best I can tell, there is no common "title" for this event whatsoever. Many of the above evidence links were found by searching for a confluence of these words, but the same technique could be used for anything; the required standard is most common, not "used at all somewhere." My search was very precisely only for "Dadra and Nagar Haveli 1954" [14] and "liberation" came up rarely in the early Google Books results. If it really was the common name, that shouldn't happen. If you search for "Boston 1770" [15] then you'll find tons of "Boston Massacre" hits, by comparison. So if there is no WP:COMMONNAME, a descriptive name should be used, and those should nearly always be neutral descriptions - annexation works for that. SnowFire (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose - move rationale seems to be WP:COMMONNAME, but as mentioned above there doesn't seem to be a clear common name. The event is variously referred as annexation, liberation, or incorporation, with none of them appearing clearly dominant as far as I can see from quick google books searches I did: [16] [17] [18].--Staberinde (talk) 20:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• Support - Reliable sources such as this have used "Liberation of Dadra & Nagar Haveli" as the title to describe this battle. "Liberation of" is not a POV title but one of the standard title used across Wikipedia as we can see on Liberation of Belgium, Liberation of Finnmark, Liberation of Kuwait campaign, Liberation of Khorramshahr, Liberation of Jurf Al Sakhar and lots of other articles. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:15, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • These are liberations of territories taken by one country from another during war, held for a short time and then recaptured. You cannot compare them with this situation, where a country that did not exist at the time the territories were established forcibly seized them from the legitimate owner that had held them for 175 years. That is annexation. That is the only NPOV title. If Portuguese forces suddenly took these territories back would you describe it as a liberation, even if Portuguese sources did? I think not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• But the "NPOV title" is not even supported by reliable sources. Given the human rights abuses that were being committed by Portuguese in this region and the region was being used as a colonial economy, freeing it from all those hardships can be easily described as 'liberation' as stated by WP:RS. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 12:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think you need to read what others have written above about the name in reliable sources. Your second point is POV again. Annexation is the only NPOV title. It is neutral to both sides and a statement of fact about what actually happened. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• How is Annexation "neutral" ? makes no sense ? Shrikanthv (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support based on WP:COMMONNAME and relevant book references (dating back to significant history in relevance). It sounds WP:CONSISTENT and in compliance with WP:POVTITLE. Devopam (talk) 04:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
• Oppose Liberation is mostly used by English-speaking Indian sources, while Portuguese sources are not in English. All the liberations given as examples were against short-lived occupations. Only French sources claim that the 1914-1918 war ended with the "Liberation of Alsace" (from German rule). Read for instance this article (in French). So talking about liberation for a territory colonized centuries ago is a POV.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 13:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

"Liberation is mostly used by English-speaking" which perfectly abides by WP:AT. The region was being used as a colonial economy before it was gained back by the Indians that is they say they it was "liberated" by Indians.

French and Portuguese sources also say this was "liberation":

• "22 volontaires a libèrent » l'enclave de Dadra le 22 juillet 1954"[19] (French)
• "Attendu que la libération de Dadra fut l'affaire de quelques minutes"[20] (French)
• " Goa, Damão ou Diu, circunscrevendo assim a libertação daquelas províncias"[21] (Portuguese)
• "O seu fim começou com a libertação de Dadra e Nagar-Aveli"[22] (Portuguese)
• "habitantes de Dadrá, apoiando o movimento para a libertação do controle português"[23] (Portuguese)
• "Libertação dos territórios de Dadrá e Nagar"[24] (Portuguese)

It is not in our hands to decide what is NPOV, but what is frequently mentioned by WP:RS and it is "liberation". Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:35, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per SnowFire, Cristiano Tomás, Necrothesp and Staberinde. This is not a case such as Liberation of Paris (along with other "Liberation of..." articles dealing with occupation by Hitler's Germany) or Liberation of Kuwait (which was supported by a UN Security Council Resolution). No one is contending that Portugal's administration of Portuguese India had ever been declared illegal by the UN, nor was there any UN Resolution which would have been able to provide a cover of international legality to the forcible removal of Portugal's administrative authority. Thus the concept of "liberation" is inapplicable and forms such as Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli or Annexation of Goa are not nearly as harsh as the occasionally proposed replacement header, "Invasion of Goa", in the manner used by the Wikipedia main title header, Turkish invasion of Cyprus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

• UN is not the authority on deciding what was lawful or unlawful, and the fact that the UN recognized these regions as part of India is enough for deeming the fact this was "liberation" as unanimously supported by the reliable sources, not your contradictory opinion. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 06:24, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is the 2019 hardcover book by Dr. Shimran Khan, Annexation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. The product description states, "The 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa was an Action by India's armed forces that ended Portuguese rule in its indian enclaves in 1961". —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 23:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I was talking about the "reliable sources" not Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable self published sources. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 06:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

• Indian Nationalists Seize Village in Portuguese Colony of Damao (The New York Times, July 23, 1954)
• Dadra and Nagar Haveli was annexed by India in 1954... (January 2019 Exams Exclusive by Dheeraj Sharma, Exams Excusive) [Published in India and "Dedicated to Our Honourable PM - Sh. Narendra Modi. and All Member of Exams Exclusive Family"]
• Indian Occupation of Portuguese Territories in India. - Invasion of Goa, Daman, and Diu. - Incorporation in Indian Union. (Keesing's)
• On the eve of the Indian invasion of the Portuguese Estado da Índia, or Portuguese India (European Architectural History Network)
• https:/p/prevent-genocide-of-goan-christians-by-communal-corrupt-illegal-indian-administration-in-goa-former-portuguese-colony-where-goans-are-forced-to-immigrate-from-their-own-motherland-to-other-countries There is even an online petition: "FREE GOA from INDIAN Invasion & it's Continued Illegal Occupation against UN Resolution." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 11:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Source 1[25] not supporting "Annexation". Source 2[26] is an unreliable self-published source that copied wikipedia. Source 3[27] is not supporting "annexation". Source 4(change.org a blacklisted site), is a self-published petition is only crying a river over de-colonization of Goa and has made no mention of "Dadra and Nagar Haveli". Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 16:10, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The point remains that no mainstream media outlets in the English-speaking world (where English is the first language) used the term "liberation" in describing the local takeover of Dadra and Nagar Haveli. A search in 1954–55 newspaper archives reveals that The Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post or The Wall Street Journal referred to it as an Indian-supported seizure which remained unapproved by the United Nations. Ultimately, the term "liberation" retains a strong taint from the Cold War era when the Soviets described the 1956 invasion of Hungary, the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia or the imposition of Castro's one-party regime in Cuba as "liberations". Saddam Hussein called his takeover of Kuwait a "liberation". Unlike the 1944 Liberation of Paris from Hitler's occupation, self-proclaimed "liberations", declared without UN approval, cannot gain consensus. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 16:50, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Haven't I already detailed enough reliable sources from English language which say that this was incident was referred as 'liberation', while you have done nothing except throwing up self-published 2019 unreliable sources (which are equivalent to your rather baseless observation)? We don't subscribe to your make-believe defintion of 'liberation' but go by what reliable sources have stated in English sources. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 00:40, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, even the most distinguished sources emanating from India, while reliable regarding most news events, cannot be considered neutral or unbiased as to matters concerning modern-era Indian history or politics. English Wikipedia includes the entire English-speaking world and individual entities within that world may not be objective regarding their own self-examination. Historically, "liberation" has been one of the most misused and abused terms, including its appearance in books representing the possibly-biased view of individual authors. Thus the modern-history use of the term in Wikipedia articles would be best confined to events sanctioned by the United Nations. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

You can let me know which make-believe reliable sources would prove your point. Right now I am seeing none. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 04:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

As far as the term "liberation" is concerned, there are none to see. To repeat the opening sentence from above (16:50, 15 December 2019), "The point remains that no mainstream media outlets in the English-speaking world (where English is the first language) have used the term "liberation" in describing the local takeover of Dadra and Nagar Haveli." —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:45, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Annexation" is more neutral than "liberation" and this is a descriptive title, not a proper name. The issue of whether it was or was not a liberation is not something we as Wikipedians need to discuss. Srnec (talk) 04:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Oppose comments reeks of WP:JDL since the proposed title is used all over Wikipedia when concerning similar subjects as well as by the RS about this subject. Making up a "neutral name" out of thin air is POV pushing. We don't depend on the analysis of POV wiki comments but what WP:RS say. Orientls (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Totally neutral name and supported by good quality sources worldwide. I also agree that "Annexation" was created out of thin air in the context of this battle. Shashank5988 (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • To claim "liberation" is neutral is frankly laughable. Of course it's not neutral. A state that did not exist when the territory last changed hands claims to have "liberated" it from the state that had ruled it for so long, in the process murdering a police officer? Come on! These support opinions are frankly a joke and show a clear bias, unlike the completely neutral "annexation", which describes exactly what happened without passing judgement on either side. WP:NPOVTITLE. It has already been proved that "liberation" is not the WP:COMMONNAME outside India, and possibly not in reliable sources even within India. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
• Strong Support as per Aman Kumar Goel, as it clearly depicts WP:NPOVNAME and WP:COMMONNAME and if we go with Snowfire & —Roman Spinner logic all the colonial era history was wrong and each colonies were rightfull owners of the "new found " land and the locals invaded ! these lands, The whole English colonial India was invaded by local tribes ? really creepy logic. The word Annexation is a clear distortion of the whole Colonial era history and putting it in a narrow perspective of the history and giving wrongfull depection of the forgone colonial era Shrikanthv (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
• Support I would rely on reliable sources such as this one saying the area was liberated. --Mhhossein ^talk 06:06, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Merely reports what the Indian government described it as. Of course it did; it was trying to justify its own actions. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:26, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
    • • Atleast can you state one reliable source affirming your conviction of opposing? Shrikanthv (talk) 14:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support Sources decide what is a neutral name, not wiki editors. Zindagi713 (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

• But neither the current title nor the proposed are names. They are descriptive titles. See WP:NPOVTITLE, specifically WP:NDESC: "[Non-judgmental descriptive titles] are often invented specifically for articles, and should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words." The term "liberation" is neutral when there is no question whether the object was free or not. Nobody denies that concentration camps were liberated. "Liberation" is not neutral when the non-free status is questionable (or the free status afterwards!). Srnec (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. There might be a better title than either the current or proposed, since this page covers the events of 1954 and 1961 and things in between. Srnec (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

• If there might be, then you need to propose them with reliable sources. Globally, only 'liberation' is the appropriate title for this subjecct as evidenced by vast amount of reliable sources, per WP:NPOVTITLE and WP:COMMONNAME. To say that all reliable sources are wrong and some relevations on this particular talk page are correct is too much of a good thing. NavjotSR (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:SnowFire and User:Necrothesp's comments (way) above. Although there may be a better title than this per User:Srnec, ("integration of...into"?), as a descriptive title, "liberation" is inaccurate. Also oppose per User:Staberinde's comments above, i.e. the term "liberation" doesn't seem particularly common. —  AjaxSmack  16:26, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

• See WP:ILIKEIT. Doesn't seem good to single out comments by opposers, even though few of them agree that "Liberation of Dadra and Nagar Haveli" is a more common name since Wikipedia relies on WP:RS. NavjotSR (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose per SnowFire and Necrothesp and AjaxSmack. The common name in sources has not been demonstrated in this RM, other than as a non-neutral descriptor used by Indian government sources. Looks like a classic case of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by those who wish that the world would call this something different.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:51, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• @Amakuru: You are wrong. No one mentioned "Indian government sources" but independent reliable sources have been provided above[28][29] proving that "liberation" is the term used by all WP:RS and not only in English but also in Portuguese, French languages. None of the oppose comments, all of them based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, have provided a single reliable source to justify their oppose. NavjotSR (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. There are of course plenty of reliable sources that refer to this as an "annexation".[30][31][32][33][34] While the comments above demonstrate that "liberation" is in use, they don't show that it is the most common name. "Annexation" seems like the more direct and neutral term for what happened here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

First 4 personal blog sources are not WP:RS, and they are talking about 1961 war of Goa and not this war and your 5th source makes no mention of "annexation" during this 1954 war, and your last source (published by an unreliable publisher) is talking about war from 1961 not 1954. You are not only misrepresenting unreliable sources but also talking about a completely different subject. NavjotSR (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2020 (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.

Alternative proposal

It seems that some of the oppose comments suggested that there is some other neutral name for the page. Since above discussion has been closed as "no consensus" and the disagreement remains over the title, I looked upon each of the suggestions above and found Srnec considered both titles to be problematic whereas AjaxSmack suggested "Integeration of" to be the better title. "Integeration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli" has been supported by reliable sources: [35][36][37][38][39] (at least three of these sources are scholarly).

It may fit the WP:NPOVTITLE. And before starting the straw-poll I would like to hear what others say. NavjotSR (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

There are really two events here. One can be called a liberation (but that's POV term we should avoid when dealing with political as opposed to military or carceral status) and the other an annexation or integration. Currently we lump it all under the one word, which is okay but not ideal. A neutral description of the 1954 event would be "uprising". Trying to get the title to clearly describe both events (i.e. the whole episode that took place over several years) is difficult. Integration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli into India might be better than the current title because, to my mind, "integration" suggests a process more than "annexation". Another option is to split off an article on the Uprising in Dadra and Nagar Haveli and leave this page to deal solely with the annexation. Srnec (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support Integration of Dadra and Nagar Haveli into India per sources. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2020 (UTC)