Talk:Annexation of Goa/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Portuguese Public and Press Response

This article needs to throw more light on Portuguese public opinion and press responses to varius issues which unfolded leading to the fall of Portuguese India.

For instance the 1955 firing on unarmed activists by Portuguese police officers was reported across the world - part of it happened in front of international journalists... like this report in Time Magazine in 1955 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,823878,00.html which describes foreign journalists in tears stepping into the line of fire to rescue wounded activists.

There's a lot of data on the reaction in India to the shooting of unarmed civilians. But I was unable to find anything about how the press and public in Portugal reacted to the incident. Did they demand an explanation from their government over its actions? Did they support the violent crackdown on the activists and justify it? Was there a demand for increased or reduced military presence in Goa? Any sources on this would be helpful.

Also, apart from the government responses (mostly represented by Salazar's speeches) what was the reaction in the press and public to the fall of Portuguese India? How did they react to the idea that Goa was being invaded? That their forces hadd surrendered? We need data.Tigerassault (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Portugal at the time was ruled by a dictator with full censorship of the press. I doubt you'd find an accurate sense of the real Portuguese public opinion in contemporary articles. Walrasiad (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

POV Tags

Two POV tags have been hitched on to this article. They state:

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (July 2010) & The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (January 2010)

Personally I'm tired of facing the 'I-Hate-India-Club' on every conflict involving that country who insist that whatever they were fed by way of propaganda is the only sustainable neutral version. In this case we have editors who will not rest until Wikipedia makes the invasion of Portuguese India look something like the Rape of Nanking.

I want the guys who put up these tags to point out - below - the exact parts of hte article which in their opinion are (a) not 'worldview' enough and (b) not 'neutral' enough. Failing this, I will take down the tags. Tigerassault (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I will note that sources for this article include (in addition to Goan and Indian sources), 1. Accounts by retired Portuguese military officers like Fransisco Couto, José Krus Abecasis and Carlos Azaredo, several of whom were eye witnesses. 2. Accounts of international journalists like Andrew Jon Rotter, Arthur Mark Weisburd, Arthur G. Rubinoff, Dennis Kux and Welles Hangen. Quite a few, like Welles Hangen, were present in Goa at the time of the invasion. 3. Declassified files from the US Department of State with links to the original files. 4. UN Documents with links to the original files. 5. Articles from Time Magazine and NYT written by correspondents present in the field. Granted that we can still add a lot more non Indian sources, exactly how much more 'worldview' and 'neutral' are we expected to get? Tigerassault (talk) 09:16, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Indian neutral or Indian nationalist, tiger assault?Goali (talk) 15:52, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

OK.... this guy - in addition to trolling around - is saying that even Portuguese General Carlos Azaredo's version of the story is 'Indian Nationalist' since its not fascist enough. I'm taking down the tags. Try to put back the tags, Goali, and you can enjoy an edit war with me. Tigerassault (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Fascist for not agreeing with you? What does that make you?

Regarding Azeredo, that's one point of view, as valid as yours or mine, I know more points of view contrary to his: Gouveia, Monteiro, Aragão, and many more which had been listed in the source list and other sites from Goan, Portuguese, Brazilian and even Angolan, American and S.African sources; curiously you and your cyber-pal Deepak insist on removing these quotes with lame excuses as to what is or isn't correct. Now, who are the real fascists? Goali (talk) 14:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)Goali (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I intend to restore the POV tags on two accounts:

- (1) The title. Sorry, but I reiterate that 'Annexation of Goa' is simply not acceptable. It is not NPOV. It is deliberately misleading for POV purposes.

- (2) Background. It is an utter shambles. For starters, it is plagued with errors (e.g. that Darda & Nagar Haveli were a colony since the 16th C., that Nehru presented an ultimatum (implied 1947?), that force was used in 1954, that Portugal was found to be in violation of Resolution 1541, etc.) Moreover, it is disordered. Chronological sequence is not respected. Portuguese and Indian positions evolved and changed in the 13 years leading up to the invasion. To pluck arguments and positions from one period as an explanation of another period is misleading. Unfortunately, edits that have been made to rectify certain statements are themselves not improving the situation. While this objection is more about accuracy and improvement of writing than about POV per se, the way it is currently structured is rather POV. Walrasiad (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the background issue (though, everything you mention seems to be fixable so perhaps fixing things is better than tagging) but consensus on this page seems to be leaning toward annexation of goa as the title. Methinks it would be disruptive to tag the title as non-neutral at this point. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The examples I mentioned are just a handful of the things that need to be fixed. But that's not all that's wrong with it. The entire section is a shambles. Background requires a complete overhaul, which will take time & effort. Until that is done, a tag is merited. As for the title, I don't agree at all there is a consensus. Just three people of apparently the same POV agree with it, and just as many (or more) disagree. I wouldn't call that a consensus. At any rate, consensus =/= NPOV. NPOV is NPOV. Walrasiad (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't really tag stuff based on personal opinion. Clearly, from the discussion on this page, there are good reasons to believe that the current title is not NPOV (whether there is consensus or not) so I'd consider not tagging the title. Whatever title the article has, a sizable minority will believe that it is NPOV. Are we to understand therefore that this article will always be tagged with an NPOV title? That doesn't make sense. --RegentsPark (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The title is definitely not NPOV. This is an article describing a military invasion, practically nothing about annexation. Yet it bears a title with a deliberately obfuscating intent. I have not seen a single argument in the discussion above about 'Invasion' not being NPOV. I have only seen arguments suggesting to modify it deliberately to change the meaning & context and comply (or if not comply, at least compromise with) a particular POV (which happens to be the POV of one of the belligerents involved). That doesn't make it NPOV. It is not attempting to achieve neutrality, it is attempting to compromise with a POV. That's not what NPOV is about. It is a title, consciously and confessedly by its proponents in the discussion above, to satisfy a particular POV. The title is not NPOV. A tag is merited. Readers can turn here for discussion.

At any rate, a consensus most definitely has not been reached. And that's not my opinion, that's a fact. So a tag is necessary. Walrasiad (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Goali.... I haven't touched any of your edits n sources other than the awful areamilitar one which called nehru a 'hindu fundamentalist' n claimed that hundreds of indian soldiers were massacred at diu. Please give a link to the edits u made to include the accounts of the sources u mentioned and i will take a look at them. Portuguese language sources are no problem, but since i don't live in lisbon, any references to hard copy documents retrieved from some library or archive should be scanned n uploaded for reference. 203.88.11.129 (talk) 14:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here's a very brief list of some interesting sources which depict the invasion as seen by the Portuguese and Goans, mostly by people who were in Goa (Portuguese and Goan):

A comprehensive report prepared by the Portuguese Navy magazine “Revista da Armada”:

"Acção da Marinha Durante a Invasão do Estado da Índia" Revista da Armada, n.º 348, December 2001

http://www.marinha.pt/Conteudos_Externos/RevistaArmada/_flipversion/2001/index.html

A full account of the naval battle, prepared by the first officer of the Portuguese frigate (who was in charge after the captain was wounded), with full details and accurate figures regarding the sloop and its brief combat. Actually amongst other issues, the entire section on the naval battles in this Wikipedia site are extremely imprecise and have been systematically manipulated, they should be fully reviewed by accurate sources from both the Indian and Portuguese navies such as these sources.:

"O Combate do Afonso de Albuquerque", Sarmento Gouveia, Anuário da Escola Naval 1985-86, Lisboa

An interesting Goan account of the air services in Goa prior to the invasion:

"50 Anos Depois, Recordando os TAIP e Dabolim", Francisco Monteiro, site: Super Goa http://www.supergoa.com/pt/read/news_noticia.asp?c_news=603

The point of view of a Goan regarding the invasion:

"Como Eu Vi a Invasão de Goa", Francisco Monteiro, site: Goan Causes

http://www.goancauses.com/invasaogoa.htm

Goali (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Goali. I shall examine the sources and add in whatever I can to the article. I have already gone through Monteiro's first hand account of the invasion, and although it deals mostly with his own personal experiences, it does note the timings of some of the air raids, and also records some movements of the Portuguese troops.

Mr. Monteiro however makes errors in his last paragraph where he refers to UN resolutions 1414(XV), 1541(XV) and 1542(XV).

There is no resolution called 1414(XV). There are resolutions 1541(XV) and 1542(XV) which deal with definitions of what a colony is, and what self-determination is..... but this is one resolution which was pretty unhelpful for Portugal since it was used to pass UNSC resolution 180 which called upon Portugal to grant independance to its colonial possessions - see [1] - and evens says that it "Deprecates the attitude of the Portuguese Government, its repeated violations of the principles of the Charter and its continued refusal to implement the resolutions of the General Assembly and of the Security Council;"

Obviously the UNSC resolution that Monteiro wants to refer to was vetoed by the USSR and was hence never passed.

I will include in the article that the Indian military looted shops and canteens and that curfew was imposed on Panjim for the first time by the Indians - as Mr. Monteiro has recorded. Tigerassault (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Monteiro made a mistake. He probably meant UNGA 1514 (XV) - the declaration of principle of decolonization - not 1414. The reference to 1514, 1541 and 1542, while indeed very unhelpful for Portugal, on the other hand did insist on popular consultation. I presume that is the point Mr. Monteiro is lamenting. Walrasiad (talk) 23:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide View and Pov tag

The reason ive added these tags is because the title of the article reflects the indian side of the conflict and hence the whole discussion above, the pov tag i added because the article takes an indian point of view in many aspects of its content. For example the article presents many of the issues regarding the indian position towards goa before the invasion, but does not discuss the political aspects from the portuguese side. I really could care less about india or portugual and i hold both of the countries in a pretty low regard. Its amazing how on one page i will be accused of being anti-portuguese and on this one accused of taking their side. In reality i just want an article that is neutral in its point of view and fully explains the history of the conflict, the article in its current form does not meet that description.XavierGreen (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So..... if we add in the political processes behind the Portuguese stand on the issue.... we get to be more NPOV? Very well. It shall be done. On a parallel note, nobody cares about what you think about India or Portugal. Tigerassault (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I care actually. As far as I can tell, most of the opinions on this talk pages are being pushed by people who are citizens of one of the belligerent countries. In the title issue, I counted 6 for 'invasion' vs. 7 for 'annexation'. Checking the discussion & user pages, it was easy to determine that 2 of the 6 were Portuguese, 6 of the 7 were Indian (the remainder indeterminate). So it is good to know if there are neutral or non-compromised parties participating in this discussion. Walrasiad (talk) 17:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Going by your user space, you are also a part of one of the two belligerents, isn't it? :) Shovon (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Close, but not quite. Think Africa. :) Walrasiad (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason why i mentioned it in the first place was to show that i dont personally care about either side in the conflict, the only thing that i care about is that history is represented accurately and in a neutral manner.XavierGreen (talk) 21:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This talk about the title has lost me completely. How exactly is 'annexation' any more or nay less POV than 'Invasion'? I'm not even sure which is pro indian and pro portuguese POV. While I grant that liberation is POV, I think that using the word 'Goa' in th title gives it all its POV juju. I seriously suggest -again - that we move the article to 'Fall of Portuguese India'. Meanwhile I have overhauled the background completely as suggested, and have removed the POV tags. Please don't re-insert the tags over the title issue as the tags specifically state that the article (and not the title) is POV. Tigerassault (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

An invasion is a military action. An annexation is a political action. One implies the use of force, the other implies nothing in particular. The Indian POV is that the operation wasn't really force, trying to obscure or minimize the element of force. That is the reason the word 'Liberation' is used in Indian POV - to obscure the force factor. The annexation title, by deliberately removing the military element, obfuscating the element of force, is doing exactly the same thing. And thus corresponds to the Indian POV.

To call it an 'invasion' is not to adopt the Portuguese POV. It is not decontextualizing or obscuring or modifying the event. It is an accurate, cold description of the event, without trying to give it any twist.

An NPOV title is not whether it corresponds to one party or the other party's view, or even whether it strikes a compromise between them, but the what it actually is, irrespective of POV. POV aside, does it fall under the dictionary definition of an invasion? Yes? That's all there is to it.

Thanks very much for improving the background. Some errors still remain, e.g.

• the first aide-memoire was on 27 February 1950, not 1948. The reply was on 15 July 1950.
• I am not sure about the withdrawl of the Indian mission in Lisbon. My notes date it in June 1954, not 1953, but I need to confirm that. Portuguese mission in Delhi was only closed in late 1954, around the same time of the closure of the Indian consulate in Goa.
• India did not institute an economic blockade of the territories until 1955. It did introduce visa restrictions in March 1954 and there was a dockers union boycott of shipping to Goa (unrelated to the government). I have to confirm the exact introduction of that.
• If it helps any, I started writing up the background myself. It is not finished and (IMO) is perhaps too much in 'essay voice' (i.e. not suitable for straight article format). This was written before your latest fixed-up background, so I don't intend to override your corrections. But it has information which can possibly be useful to double-check & improve the current background. It is located here Walrasiad (talk) 23:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! The text you have written is actually far better than what i managed.... I am going to replace of lot of my text with yours. Tigerassault (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Whitewash

No point in whitewashing the invasion of Goa, that's exactly what it was -an invasion, war, death, violence, killing- perpetrated by a state and its rulers (I doubt common Indians or Goans considered the invasion of Goa as a priority for bettering their livelihood). Whatever words you choose, the small territory was invaded/overrun/taken over/usurped by a large state who chose to use its most modern weaponry and outnumbering a small defending force by a ratio of at least 10:1. As for Goans being better off under Indian, Portuguese or Self Rule, that's another question and maybe the wording used is sensitive on this issue, especially because all of Portugal's possessions were granted independence from Portugal in 1975 and are now major partners with that nation. Goali (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

And Macau, transferred to China on Dec. 20th, 1999 (because China didn't want the transfer proposed by Portugal in 1975), was granted full autonomy, democratic elections, Portuguese-based justice, police, and health systems and consistently one of China's most prosperous regions since the mid 1970's. A Chinese example for Goa, had India's diplomacy been wiser. Goali (talk) 16:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Goali, this isn't a politics discussion forum. Your idea that Goans would have eventually been better off under Portuguese rule is your opinion. Go, voice it in strategypage or somewhere, not here! Tigerassault (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But its an interesting argument.... and the first time I've heard it. By your reasoning - therefore - India should have stayed under British rule and would have been as prosperous as Hong Kong was in 1997. Although, even by 1975, East Timor was nowhere as cool as Macau was. But thats my argument... and if we discuss it here we'll take up all the space. Tigerassault (talk) 15:20, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tiger, but you forgot that Timor was invaded by Indonesia in 1975, given independence in 1999 due to Portugal's insistence as a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council at the time, supported by the Portuguese speaking countries (CPLP) and public opinion worldwide...

Now returning to Goa and your attempt at whitewashing the invasion, if you try to be precise, the site will be enrichened... worry about that and not trying to manipulate the information conveyed.Goali (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Why compare a city like Hong Kong to India. Why you need Timor for comparison. Just look at India itself. From the time before colonial rule and just after the colonial rule, compare the wealth. From rich to famine. So such thoughts are totally useless.Bcs09 (talk) 02:05, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Two more Portuguese sources of interest:

Carlos Alexandre de Morais "A Queda da Índia Portuguesa. Crónica da Invasão e Cativeiro", Lisboa, Estampa, 1995,

Francisco Cabral Couto "O Fim do Estado Português da Índia - 1961 - Um Testemunho da Invasão", Lisboa, Tribuna da História, 2006.Goali (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought: Lisbon's mayor António Costa is of Goan descent, both parents were Goan, his father was head of the Goan Communist Party who challenged the Salazar regime in the 1950's but escaped during the invasion, the CEO of Portugal's largest telecommunications company (PT)os also of Goan descent, his parents opted for Portugal also, Portugal's most important weekly newspaper Expresso is also headed by a descendant of Goans, and one of the most prominent clothing companies is also from a family of Goan descent, as are many other important companies in the country in various sectors. Porugal's governing and major opposition parties have Goan descendants as prominent members of parliament or within the parties. How about India, are Goans as well integrated as they are in Portugal? Can that be considered as a fact for who invaded who?Goali (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i was dreaming when I visited Macau in 1971.... but it seemed to be a bustling metropolis where Timor was still a jungle. Surprising that both were blessed with Portuguese governance, judiciary etc....

But returning to whitewashing.... I noticed while rehauling the background section that you inserted some unreferenced statements about Goa being part of Metropolitan Portugal, then manipulated an unrelated source to support it. I have seperated out your insertion and now expect you to find and insert a source to back it up. Tigerassault (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

And to answer your question "How about India, are Goans as well integrated as they are in Portugal?", the answer is no. Indians occupy all positions of power in the nationalist military state structure, surpressing violently the aspirations of impoverished Goans who subsist by scavenging for food on the margins of society. Will you help us organize a rebellion? Tigerassault (talk) 20:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I guess you can't answer that reasonably. I was expecting that.Goali (talk) 20:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your attitude has been so comic that it warranted such a response. The answer is on your talk page. see here User talk:Goali. Our conversation on this page closes Tigerassault (talk) 21:03, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It closes tiger because you have no valid arguments. Just as that invasion severed an interesting connection between East Asia and Western European cultures, a nationalist attitude justifies the invasion of a small territory. As for your knowledge of current Portuguese society, or Goan culture in 1961 it is appallingly limited to your own POV.Goali (talk) 14:57, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Funny. I've been to Lisbon so many times, and yet I've never met someone who talks like you. Where were you when they were pulliung down the old regime in 1975? In any case.... my response to your question is on your talk page. Go see it there. Tigerassault (talk) 17:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The regime was ousted in April 1974, and back then I was too young to have an opinion. As for your visits to Lisbon I don't know who you've been speaking to, but being a democratic and plural society I'm sure there are many different POV's, that's great! For your interest, my father was briefly imprisoned by the Salazar regime and my uncle was a navy officer, imprisoned by Indian Troops in Goa. Curiously, the accounts of imprisonment by "democratic" India are far more appalling than those by the Salazar regime. Goali (talk) 13:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please.... let us discuss this on your talk page. Meanwhile you can vote in the title war below. Tigerassault (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Title tag

Since the title issue has not been resolved im adding a much less harsh tag than was previously there to the page to indicate so, though it does look like the actual content of the article is shaping up to be much better than it was previously. As such i will refrain from readding any general pov tags.XavierGreen (talk) 04:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets vote on it. The candidates are as follows

• Indian Annexation of Goa
• Invasion of Goa
• Invasion of Portuguese India
• Fall of Portuguese India
• Liberation of Goa

• • I would support Invasion of Goa.XavierGreen (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• To make it neutral, I have added Liberation of Goa also to the list. And my vote goes to Liberation of Goa.Bcs09 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
• 1961 Indian Annexation of Goa is well and fine. This way we won't have this invasion vs liberation debate--Sodabottle (talk) 10:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Leaderboard

• Indian Annexation of Goa Sodabottle (talk) RegentsPark (talk) Zuggernaut (talk)
• Invasion of Goa XavierGreen (talk) CarTick Walrasiad (talk) Goali (talk)
• Invasion of Portuguese India
• Fall of Portuguese India Tigerassault (talk)
• Liberation of Goa Bcs09 (talk)

Tigerassault (talk) 09:47, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

what about "Indian Invasion and Annexation of Goa". I dont see "Invasion" to be a POV word equivalent to "liberation". "aggression" would be. --CarTick 12:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I prefer 'Indian Annexation of Goa" (or even better just 'Annexation of Goa' since there is no other annexation of Goa). IMO, annexation includes the possibility of invasion and is more descriptive of the event than just plain invasion would be. Invasion is rarely followed by annexation which is what happened in this case. Liberation of Goa would be too POV and, with apologies to CarTick, Invasion and Annexation is too wishy washy. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

There is another annexation of Goa, the Portuguese Annexation in the 1500's. And historically Invasions were almost always followed by Annexations. Alexander the Great, Louis XIV of France, McKinley, Polk, the Mongolian Khans, and virtually every other wartime leader to rule during historical times has invaded territory specifically to annex land. Wars not aimed at expansion (with a few exceptions) have only become prevelent in the modern age. Virtually every major indian war was aimed at either expanding or solidifying indian land claims or defending against land claims of other nations. I dont see how this war is any different from the rest that have occured in history.XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Attila 'invaded' Europe, he did not annex it. Portugal 'colonized' Goa, they did not annex it. Annexation generally implies a joining or uniting and is more often used for contiguous territory than for the taking over of far flung regions. Thus we have the annexation of Alsace and Lorraine but the colonization of the Americas or the Indies. Regardless of all that, the reality is that Goa and the other former Portuguese territories in India are now a part of India. Annexation much better describes this reality than does invasion. If, for example, Goa had become independent in 1961 (after India's military action), then this article would have been titled 'Independence of Goa' not 'Invasion of Goa'. It seems fair to say that not only is annexation the neutral term but it is also the most descriptive term for what happened there. (Technically speaking, the most neutral title for this article is Incorporation of Goa into India because it says nothing about whether that act of incorporation was welcomed or not.) --RegentsPark (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The portuguese did annex Goa, you need to annex land before you can colonize it. Neutrality has nothing to do with the names of wars, if it did the American Civil War page would be in utter chaos. Mind you attilla did annex large portions of eastern Europe into his empire.The term annexation refers to the political process of incorporating territory into another, this article is primarily focused on the military invasion of portuguese india by the Republic of India it has virtually nothing in its content on the political ramafications of incorporating that said territory into the republic.XavierGreen (talk) 23:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not 'Fall of Portuguese India'? Portuguese India was the official name for Goa, Daman, Diu and Anjidiv. And it was the fall of that nation. When you say invasion/annexation/anything of 'Goa' you imply that Goa and Goans were being annexed or invaded which is what is POV. Tigerassault (talk) 13:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

'Fall of Portuguese India' would be suitable if it was only one step in a larger military war. (think: Fall of Singapore, Fall of Saigon, Fall of Berlin, etc.) 'Liberation of Goa' is unabashedly POV, not a serious proposition for an article title. My objections to Annexation have already been voiced. I wouldn't mind a separate article about the Annexation of Goa - i.e. the political process after the military invasion. But not this one. So I vote for 'Invasion of Goa' as suitably brief and descriptive. 'Invasion of Portuguese India' could also do (or 'Indian invasion of Portuguse India'), but it is needlessly cumbersome. Walrasiad (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider the 'Fall of Portuguese India' as the first step in the Portuguese colonial wars. Or maybe we should re name it to the Japanese annexation of Singapore. Tigerassault (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

To add: I don't think Car Tick's proposal of "Indian Invasion and Annexation of Goa" to be all that bad, even if a bit long. Although I'd prefer two separate articles, one on invasion (overall), another on annexation (sub-article on political process). Walrasiad (talk) 14:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I came here from the India noticeboard (and I wish others would make more use of that board to help sort out India related matters). Two of the propositions make sense to me. Some of the others are insipid or attempts to re-write history.

• Liberation of Goa - first preference.
• Indian Annexation of Goa - second preference.

Zuggernaut (talk)

If the Indians did not Invade than how else did they eject the Portuguese?XavierGreen (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Indians did send force. The Indians did wage war. And Indians did liberate. The war can be seen as a part of liberation.Bcs09 (talk) 02:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasion leaves you wondering what happened next - did the invasion succeed, did it fail, why did they invade? The two that I support summarize the entire event, the result, the motivation behind the act in a concise way. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

@ Zuggernaut: The article doesn't say anything about 'what happened next'. It describes a military operation. What happens next is actually not discussed in the article. Annexation is not mentioned at all. (I would like there to be such an article, but this is apparently not it.) Walrasiad (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How much will that content amount to? Military action is already described in much detail in the current article. I have not looked at the topic in detail but I would guess that annexation would amount to a paragraph? Zuggernaut (talk) 07:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite a bit. There's constitutional ammendments, administration, legal issues, quarrels over plebiscites & incorporation into states, and, last but not least, concerns of international law. (The legal element looms large. Keep in mind this is one of only two instances since 1945 when one country has invaded and deducted sovereign territory from another and gotten away with it. Others have tried, but the legal/political/military obstacles have prevented their realization. So it is a rather unique example of considerable legal interest.) Walrasiad (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, if the material to be covered is so large then it makes sense to have a separate article on the topic as you proposed below. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of Goa, no doubt.Goali (talk) 17:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Zuggernaut's point about "invasion". "Liberation", however, is about as one-sided a view as you can get. The Portuguese (well, the government at any rate) saw it as an "occupation" rather than a "liberation". Given that it was a unilateral act, unlike, say, the handover of Macau to China, "annexation" neutrally describes the event. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:51, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If it's Wikipedia's view to be neutral to the devil and the good man, then it's fine. With annexation/invasion etc. But thinking differently ain't it a Liberation in reality. Without taking any POV's truly neutral view is Liberation right? I don't think neutral means to be nice to everyone. When there is wrong it need to be pointed out. Else we have to say the destruction of twin towers as not done by terrorists. Should we stoop so low, just to be perceived as neutral, when we are not neutral actually? I just made my point. But you're free to vote for anything. Thanks.Bcs09 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In response to Goali's vote, I would rather compromise and switch my first and second preference than see "invasion of Goa" win the vote. I would urge Bcs09 to do the same. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Also how about re-wording it to "India's Annexation of Goa" - wouldn't that be a better way? Zuggernaut (talk) 18:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick - OK, now that we agree on something despite our very significant differences, why don't you vote with me? Zuggernaut (talk) 18:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to agree with you on something, "Indian" works better than "India's" in a title. You don't really see the possessive form in Wikipedia article titles. e.g. see where India's independence redirects to. Sorry. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

In what way was the war in goa a unilateral act? It takes two to make a war, its not like the Portuguese just got up and left, they stayed and fought it out.XavierGreen (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The invasion was unilateral (in the sense that it was a decision taken by one side without the agreement or consent of the other). The war was of course two-sided (though it would be rather bizarre to use the terms unilateral/bilateral/multilateral with respect to war, and I'm not sure one would fight a war with only one belligerent). The fact that there was a war goes to demonstrate that the decision was unilateral. If it had been a bilateral decision (agreed upon by both sides) there would be no need to invade - there would have been a Macau style handover - and hence no war. (Think Iraq's invasion of Kuwait - that was unilateral, but Kuwait fought back). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 09:44, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that it's Liberation of Goa rather than invasion/annexation. India's Independence and freedom came after a long freedom struggle and the British colonialists left. But the Portuguese was not ready to leave and was holding on to Goa using force. So the Indian land was liberated from Portuguese colonial holding. Annexation/invasion may be part of Liberation, but it's Liberation overall. Bcs09 (talk) 02:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But that's very POV and the effort here is to make it NPOV. Walrasiad (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually it's not (what I meant is Liberation is a NPOV term and not a POV term). But perception always prevails.Bcs09 (talk) 02:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidently you're not taking this seriously. Walrasiad (talk) 02:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I read the annexation page and it says this "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." So we are into NPOV's then annexation itself is a POV. So it be changed to more politically correct term like reunification. I don't have objection in supporting it. I think it's above liberation as well like in order of precedence Reunification>liberation>annexation>invasion. Thanks.Bcs09 (talk) 02:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) In simple terms. Invade to annex the territory to liberate it with the objective of reunification.;)Bcs09 (talk) 02:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that the Mexicans who were stuck on the US side of the border were liberated upon being forced to join the US after America annexed New Mexico? Or that the Beors were liberated when their own independent republics were invaded and annexed by the British Empire. You are equating four very different terms to the same concept. You also imply that Goa was reunified with India, the matter of fact is that before the invasion Goa was never a part of india or its predecessor polities (IE the raj, and before that the holdings of the British East India company.) Various parts of Portuguese India were orginally parts of different states for example Goa itself was annexed from the Bijapur Sultanate while Diu was taken from the Gujarat Sultanate.XavierGreen (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to go through, the above. Do all invasions lead to liberation? So to make it easier let me put a hypothetical situation. This seems to explain the Indian situation much better to you. The Chinese Armada sailed and took Italy and started ruling it. Say 400 years they ruled. One fine day European Union was formed and they fought a war with the Imperial Chinese Army and liberated Italy. So is that liberation or annexation by European Union? May be annexation to liberate and to reunite. It seems according to you India starts with Gujarat Sultanate and ends with British Raj. Before that there was no India at all. May be Portugal existed even before that and Goa was part of it then. Indian land has been liberated and reunited to the Indian nation. That's all.Bcs09 (talk) 06:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The first predicessor of the Modern indian state was the East India company's holdings on the subcontinent. That is the polity that modern india descended from. Portuguese India did not have the same origins as the Republic of India, in otherwords Portuguese India and the Republic of India were not linked politically in any way whatsoever until the Indians siezed the territory from the Portuguse. Goa itself was a possesion of the Bijapur Sultanate a polity that is extinct with no successor state. As for your hypothetical example, no one would be liberated. The only times the words liberation is used in wikipedia is when a previous government is restored to independence. Such as the Liberation of France or the Liberation of Kuwait. Goa was not liberated, it was simply incorporated into another state (the Republic of India). These terms are well established within political science.XavierGreen (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What's Modern Indian state and Old Indian state. India is India only, one need not have to put it as old and new. Absolutely not. India was there even before the British came in search of India. West indies, what a sweet name right. Rather than say Indians seized from Portuguese, is it wise to state it being liberated as similar to U.S liberation of Kuwait and Liberation of France. In this case the Portuguese must have held on to the territory for too long compared to Kuwaiti liberation and Liberation of France. But still it's Liberation and reunification.Bcs09 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

India has had several (and long) periods during which it was unified nation over the same or similar geographical landscape as of modern India since or before the time of Maurya Zuggernaut (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

XavierGreen, I thought you knew it. But now here it is [2]Bcs09 (talk) 17:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

India in the sense you speak of relates to the Geographical region, the subcontinent. Technically according to your definition Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and the Maldives would all be part of India in the Geographical sense. Politically India has only legally existed since the start of East India Company rule in the mid 1700's. The subcontinent has never been completely unified, there have always been competeing polities in the region. Even the Mugal Empire and the Mauryans were unable to rule the entire subcontinent at the hieght of their power as various minor states persisted in Southern India at the times of their empires. In any regard these large empires were broken up and destroyed as political entities, they have no liniage to the Republic of India at all, as the Roman Empire has no political succesion to the Republic of Italy today. See Succession of states for more information on the subject.XavierGreen (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As you said that the India is not complete, without other parts not being part of the Indian nation is true. Even they are Indians but live in different political setup. There cannot be any comparisons but still if something to be compared it can be European Union to a certain extent. Mauryans and Mughals were able to rule almost all of India expect a very small part of the southern tip. But if you look at their empire they extended upto present day Afghanistan. And also the southern kingdoms that flourished extended their rule to southeast Asia and influence far beyond. But I do believe the part which is part of our discussion that's Goa was part of it both the Mauryan and Mughal empires. Even the British Empire that came after wards has all the parts expect the part of Goa being annexed by the Portuguese beyond it's control. Once it's being liberated and reunified with the Indian nation, I don't think it has to be called with other names. Even present Portugal don't have any problem with that. Bcs09 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

@Bsc09, it is evident you are not taking the task seriously, but just engaging in relentless and unabashed POV-pushing and polemics. If you want to engage in a political or historical debate, please pursue it in an appropriate forum. This is not the place for it. The point here is about settling on an NPOV title & structure. Walrasiad (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What you meant by not serious that I don't push colonial Portuguese POV. The title that's being considered and trying to be imposed is pure POV from colonial Portuguese. Even today's Portugal don't have a problem with the title being called Liberation. It's being accepted by Portugal nation itself that Goa is a part of the Indian nation. So what's the problem for the people here.Bcs09 (talk) 02:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You are pushing a term which is clearly and unambiguously associated with a particular POV. Indeed, you have admitted it yourself. But then proceeded to throw sand in the air and claim "it is all POV" and then derailed this discussion to discuss competing POVs.

Discussing POVs is not the point of this exercise. That is for political or historical talk forums. What we are being sought here is to determine a NPOV title & structure.

You assert that using the word 'invasion' in the title is POV. How so? 'Invasion' is a NPOV description of a military operation of this kind, used in numerous Wiki articles (see examples listed above helpfully by Lairor).

Invasion did not give the complete picture.Bcs09 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that Operation Vijay was not an invasion? Then what was it? A training exercise? An ambassadorial mission? A holiday package tour? An accidental left turn on the road to Mumbai?

Or a wrestling in which the Portuguese military was pushed into the sea.Bcs09 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Until you explain why 'Invasion' is POV, you are doing nothing here but sabotaging the earnest efforts of others.

Walrasiad (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Invasion did not give the correct and compete view.Bcs09 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You see, I cannot say that there is no war, no fighting, no deaths etc. But what is that happened is the prime importance when we discuss the heading? Here it will end with Liberation or if needed to go to a higher leave and see it from top down approach it's Reunification. Going from below to the top in terms of choosing the title, it will end with liberation or even higher reunification. That's what I say. There is no POV in it. Liberation or Reunification is the best title suited for this article.Bcs09 (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration?

This debate has been going on and on, forever!! I don't see any parties reaching a consensus here, even after months of discussion. Perhaps you guys need to take this to ARBCOM and start a case? --Ragib (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's the right direction to go in for content related matters. Another way to move forward is to agree on how to canvass so each side can attempt to bring more participants to the debate. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Three Articles Proposal

This title thing is continuing to return to familiar acrimonious grooves. As an alternative, I'd like to forward a different proposal: split the article into three separate articles.

• - (1) An article on the background to the Goa conflict (1947-1961)
• - (2) An article on the invasion of Goa (military operations 1961)
• - (3) An article on the annexation of Goa (1962 & after, the actual steps of incorporation of Goa into India)

• [On (1), despite Tigerassault's efforts, the Background remains far too brief and confusing. It can and should be expanded upon in more detail in its own article; this will allow us to reduce this section here to a mere paragraph, and refer to the main separate Background article for detail, rather than bulk it up here. I started a draft of such an background article here. It is unfinished and still too 'essay-voice'. But it can be improved upon.]
• [On (2), although primarily military, this would be the main article. Background & Annexation articles would be linked through here.]
• [On (3), this needs to be done. It is unconscionable that there is absolutely no discussion of the 1962 annexation in the article - that is the legal, political and administrative process of 1962 & after. It was a complicated process that merits detailed description.]

Walrasiad (talk) 02:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

• • I definately would support this, and would be happy to help contribute to such a project.XavierGreen (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The current article size is 78,996 bytes per the history tab. WP:Article size says up to 60K is alright so I think we are in limits (of the ~79K, there's a lot of non-countable text such as footnotes, references, etc). In addition to this, the size will shrink further after a copy-edit. I see no reason to split right now. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually the background be considerably expanded n was kept short in this article. I suggest we appropriate goa liberation movement which is in shambles and put it there. The military part can also be expanded since detailed timelines of various battles are available. This will be the Indian Invasion of Goa. The third article will comprise the political incorporation of goa into the indian republic right down to statehood. This will describe how a portuguese colony or 'overseas province' was turned into a self governing state under the Indian federation. This article will be called 'Indian Incorporation of Goa' 203.88.8.1 (talk) 11:27, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Walrasiad's three article proposal makes sense, I fully support this division. Maybe the first part, regarding the background of the conflict (1947-61) could be what Tigerassault was considering as The Fall of Portuguese India.Goali (talk) 13:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Three articles and three of them having to remain with inappropriate titles. Brilliant. Bcs09 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That will become a complete colonial Portuguese POV.Bcs09 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Any Portuguese colonial POV was "liberated" by the Portuguese themselves over 36 years ago; Bcs09 wake up and smell the coffee!Goali (talk) 17:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What about mindsets of some? Not liberated right? Even by Portugal.Bcs09 (talk) 02:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly you are referring to those who have some chip on their shoulder for having been colonised? Those will definitely take generations to become "liberated", which in some ways explains the extrapolated nationalisms in young nations such as India, with border conflicts and problems with most of its neighbours. More mature and developed nations, such as Portugal, have no need for these primordial politics (which in part explains India's invasion of Goa).Goali (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments are more like that of a Pakistani. Lucky that developed and mature nation of Portugal did not have fundamentalist nations as neighbors. And what was Portugal doing in India?Bcs09 (talk) 00:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

This is not a very useful conversation to pursue here; it does not help in improving the article. You guys can take it to your respective talk pages. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You're correct, that's why the entire article should be divided in three and adopt the sections proposed by Walrasiad, thus avoiding the overall bias it contains at the momement.Goali (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Is anyone still interested in this 3 article idea? It’s the best solution of the bunch.--Lairor (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Case for Liberation of Goa

The word Liberation of Goa isn't all that POV as suggested. Liberation is NPOV if a previous government or regime was re-instated after the ouster of an occupying force. Consider this:

1. Republic of India (1950-present day) preceeded by
2. Indian Union (1947-50) preceeded by
3. British Indian Empire (1858-1947) preceeded by
4. Mughal Empire(1526-1858) preceeded by
5. Delhi Sultanate (1206–1526)

In 1510, the Portuguese forcibly seized Goa from the Adil Shahi Sultan - a subsidiary of the Delhi Sultanate.

India was represented by the Delhi Sultanate in 1510, and by the Republic of India in 1961, and it was a question of ousting the occupying Portuguese regime in between and reinstating the status quo of 1510. Clear case of liberation.

A lot pf people can poke a hundred holes in this argument, but i just wanted to explain what Nehru was talking about when he said that Goa was 'historically indian territory'.

December 19 is a public holiday in Goa and Goans celebrate what is locally called 'Liberation Day' Tigerassault (talk) 05:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Succession of states is entirely wrong, The British Raj was not the successor of the Mughal Empire, rather the successor of the British East India company. The Mughal Empire was completely destroyed through debellation. Its laws were not kept, rather the laws of the British East India company rule were used and amended. The authority of the Mughal state was completely wiped away. Similarly the Delhi Sultanate is not the predecessor state of the Mughal empire, the empire was founded before the destruction of the delhi sultanate. Dehli was debellated as well with no successor states.XavierGreen (talk) 05:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

My point is that 'India' as a political entity was represented by the Delhi Sultanate, then by the Mughal Empire, then the British Indian Empire, the Indian Union and today by the Republic of India. To say that Goa was never politically part of 'India' is a false statement. By claiming such, the Republic of India was laying its claim as the lawful successor of all the states mentioned in my list.

Queen Victoria, in 1876, took on the title of Empress of India which was in direct succession of the Mughal Emperors of India, making the British Raj a successor of the Mughal Empire. The East India Company on the other hand was a public corporation (even if a bizarre one that operated its own army), and not a country. Tigerassault (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

-::

• Note #1 - Neither the Delhi sultanate nor the Mughal empire ruled the territory of what is now the Rupublic of India. They ruled some territory. Indeed, the bulk of their core domains is what is now Pakistan, not India.
• Note #2 - Portuguese title to Goa, Daman, Diu, etc. were legally ceded or recognized by treaties with the Bijapur sultanate, the Gujarat sultanate and the Maratha empire. Sovereignty was recognized and respected by all Indian states thereafter - even the Republic of India (at first).
• Note #3 - You are correct in the chain of succession, but are incorrect in the extent. The Republic of India did inherit titles to dominions that once belonged to Mughal empire and the Delhi sultanate - but only those dominions which it inherited in 1947, not their entire empires. Pakistan and Afghanistan also legally succeeded to titles from the Mughal and Delhi sultanates, and are as much successors to the Mughals and Delhi as the Republic of India.
• Note #4 - the Republic of Portugal was the legal successor to the Kingdom of Portugal, which included legal title to those territories that had once belonged to the sultanates of Bijapur, Gujarat and the Marathas, and constituted the 'Estado da India'. The Republic of India had no more legal succession claim on Goa than it has on Pakistan, Czechoslovakia or South Carolina.

Of course, points #1-#4 are the legal succession case, a mode of argument that was pretty much abandoned by the Republic of India relatively quickly (certainly, the ICJ put a stone on what remained of it). India's legal case rested on popular sovereignty, not legal succession - that is, it rested on the argument that that the Goan people desired union with the Republic of India, not that India had a succession claim to the territories. The 'liberation' part of the Indian theory was that (1) the desires of the Goan people were not being respected, or even addressed, by the Portuguese administrators; (2) that only by the forcible ejection of the Portuguese government and administration could Goese desires be realized. In other words, the Indian army did not 'seize' Goa by sovereign right, but merely 'assisted' the realization of the self-determination desires of the Goan people.

I hope that makes sense. Walrasiad (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Legal claim? Makes ample sense if one were at the ICJ. Although there's no argument to my idea that in 1510, Goa was politically part of India, and returned to the status quo in 1961.

On a parallel note, Goa after 1961 democratically elected its own government, cabinet, and chief minister and enacted its own laws. It became an independant state (except for currency, defence, foreign affairs and some other aspects) under the Indian federal system. So in a sense, the Indians did liberate Goa, since they gave self rule to the Goans as soon as they were done with ousting the Portuguese. Tigerassault (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In 1510, Goa was politically part of the Bijapur Sultanate, not 'India'. Which political entity are you identifying as 'India' in 1510?

As a mental exercise, suppose Portugal ceded Goa to Pakistan by treaty in 1960. Would that be returning to status quo? Walrasiad (talk) 11:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

pakistan was created as a homneland for the muslims of the Indian sub continent. So, Goa with its hindu majority would not qualify as liberated if annexed to Pakistan Tigerassault (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the Bijapur Sultanate and Gujarat Sultanate were Muslim states. To use the definition of 'liberation' as restoration of status quo ante (as you proposed) that means restoring the old ruling powers. Pakistan fits the bill closer than India.

But now you've changed your definition to predicate it on religion, Bcs09's insinuates ethnicity. Is there a way of conceiving 'liberation' without embracing what can be characterized as sectarian or racist ideologies? 'Cause I got a feeling such ideologies are not NPOV. Walrasiad (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You see, whatever you say, Portugal has no role to be in India. Be it Bijapur sultanate or Be it Maratha confederacy. So if Portugal has been removed from India, it's liberation. Portugal must have better thought of invading France or Britain. Isn't it simple.Bcs09 (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet Bcs your simplified view of history demonstrates that Goa wasn't liberated at all, unless you're an Indian nationalist of course, which also justifies India's war-making with Pakistan, China, and involvement in problems in other neighbouring areas. When Portugal established a colony in Goa 500 years ago, India wasn't even close to being a unified nation state, and Portugal's presence at Goa since the early 16th Century gave it education, development and a clear upper hand over neighboring areas in opportunity and contacts to other areas of the world. The ethnic mixture promoted by the Portuguese had nothing to do with the (existing?) stratified Indian class system or the racist British colonization up to 1947. Its true that by 1961 Portugal should have been preparing its departure from Goa, but what reasons does India have to be there? Did the Indian State create Goa or contribute to its social development in the last 500 years? Does this mean that the Moors have rights over the Iberian peninsula? Where do you draw the line Bsc? Your arguments are used to justify violence everywhere by terrorists and from the looks of it to justify an act of violence by Nehru's Indian gov't in 1961. Were Goan's consulted?Goali (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

lol. India's war-making with Pakistan. Lol. You need to read history first. All the wars were initiated by Pakistan. Even though your love for Pakistan is appreciated, but all your arguments has no validity as you yourself don't know basic facts and you try to talk about history. Better not. The last few lines clears all doubts about you and your intentions. It's pure hatred and i do strongly believe only one nations citizens are mind poisoned enough to hate India and Indians like that.Bcs09 (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Goali - Your claims of greater development in Goa than elsewhere are quite dubious. And at any rate, irrelevant. Sovereign title does not depend on economic policy. It depends on the law - that is, treaties, etc.

@Bcs09 - Portugal has no role on the Indian subcontinent? Why not? Is this a 'race'/ethnicity issue with you? Walrasiad (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Brother, the reverse can also be said. But India did not invade Portugal. If it's just coming and going, like say for trade etc it's fine but occupying is bad. India being good never makes India bad and Colonial Portugal being bad never makes them as good and correct.Bcs09 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a case can be made for Liberation of Goa because, in a sense, Goa was liberated from a colonial ruler and that liberation was a part of a post war trend where local rulers replaced colonial rulers in a process that is commonly accepted as being a liberation. However, one would like to see a comprehensive sourcing basis for that as an article title rather than a historical analysis (which is, by definition, OR). Talking about the existence or not of various historical entities, treaties, the right of rule, the goodness of this ruler or that etc. is all to the good, but what we need is sources, what academia says, what is commonly thought to be the correct term, etc. The article seems to have developed well beyond the act of invasion and so, unless the three article proposal above gets enough traction, I'd say that invasion is too limiting a title and annexation or Incorporation of Goa into India would be a better bet. Annexation seems to get enough source traction, and I'm not sure I understand why it remains unacceptable.--RegentsPark (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Local rulers? How far is New Delhi from Goa? Incorporation, you must be kidding, would "forceful incorporation" or "forced liberation" be acceptable for a little historical revision of Indian history?Goali (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

What type of argument is that. How far is Islamabad from Lisbon must be far more interesting question.Bcs09 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The point, which you seem to be missing, is that, if historical revision of Indian history or Portuguese history or the history of Goa is necessary, then we should let historians deal with it. Attempting to rewrite history on the fly is not productive. --RegentsPark (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

To those who discuss this issue seriously (other than Goali), I would like to make another valid point. Chinese reunification The reunification of Macau with China is specified in the article. This happened during the democratic rule in Portugal and hence no military action was required. Earlier Portugal had transferred the administrative rights to China. Since India's case came earlier, and due to the circumstances like firing on the passenger ships, shooting dead Ahimsa (non-violence) preaching protesters etc, it became evident that the Colonial govt in Portugal was not ready for the peaceful handover of the territory to India. Hence the military intervention. But the later govt was more correctly thinking and acted in a mature way while transferring Macau to China. So taking into consideration both the actions and both the territory being reunited with their respective nations, it becomes necessary to rename the article as either Liberation of Goa or as Reunification of Goa with India. Thanking you all (Other than Goali);).Bcs09 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my questioning Bsc, but according to your reasoning can you explain the following: Why is it then that in 1961 the People's Republic of China didn't invade colonial Macau, Indonesia didn't invade colonial East Timor, Senegal didn't invade colonial Guinea-Bissau, Marroco didn't invade colonial Ceuta or Mellila or Spain invade colonial Gibraltar? Goali (talk) 17:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Just having a will to liberate is not sufficient enough. And all these happens depending on the situation. If the Chinese did not liberate Macau in 1961, it because the Chinese communist party must have certain constraints that they were not able to overcome or other advantage or disadvantage. It can be best answered by the 1961 Communist leadership of China. Whether Spain will liberate Gibraltar or not can be best answered by the Spanish PM and his government.Bcs09 (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A few important points on China & Macau:

* First, China existed. The succession of states is clear. No part of China since the formation of the Qing empire (with the exception Outer Mongolia) has ever claimed to be independent under a different sovereign (not even Tibet; it fell into the administration of the Lamas after the 1911 collapse into chaos, but they continued to consistently recognize Chinese suzerainity). The reunification of China is a proper term since it refers to reunification of territories of 1911 (Mongolia excepted) which have never been alienated, have never recognized another sovereign power, other than the Chinese state.

* Second, just for the record, China is not defined ethnically or religiously. It explicitly includes five different major 'nations' - Han, Manchu, Mongol, Tibetan and Uyghur. It is defined jurisdictionally as the sovereign domains of the Chinese state, the state as it existed in the form of the Qing Empire in 1911 and has continued de jure thereafter until now (again, Mongolia excepted).

* Third, Macau was not Portuguese sovereign territory. It was a territorial lease from the Chinese state. That was the treaty and that status did not change in any further treaties. It was Chinese sovereign territory under Portuguese administration. [Note: there is a 1887 treaty is sometimes characterized as formally transferring Portuguese sovereignty; but that's not true. The 1887 treaty ratified Portuguese administration in perpetuity and simply removed remaining Chinese administration and allowed de facto extension of Portuguese jurisdiction, as the only courts in operation; but that treaty also has articles explicitly recognizing China as sovereign and forbidding Portugal from alienating the territory.) i.e. Macau is and always was sovereign territory of China, in a way that Goa was not.

* Fourth, Macau did suffer from satyagrahas - that is, Chinese Red Guards marching on and trying to invade Macau in the late 1960s. Unlike in India, the Chinese government put these freelancers in order. ;)

* Fifth, as it happens, Portugal did offer to return Macau to China, not only in 1974, but already in the 1960s. Chinese government wouldn't take it. They'd rather have it remain under Portuguese administration (useful foreign trade port.) :)

Just to be clear as to what 'reunification' means here. - Walrasiad (talk) 15:30, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Those who term the incident as the 'Liberation of Goa' see the armed invasion as the first step towards giving Goans self-governance, democracy and political freedom. India definitely wasn't looking to enslave or subjugate Goa when it invaded.

The Liberation of Goa (as a short master article) will be composed of three sections (each of them with a more detailed main article):

1. Goa Liberation Movement describing political and partisan resistance to Portuguese rule in Goa

a. 1510 to 1900 including the cuncolim revolt, the pinto revolt, the rane uprising, etc

b. 1900 to 1960 comprising local political resistance, the satyagraha movement and the armed partisan movements, as well as efforts by the Indian government and events influencing public opinion on the issue in India.

2. Fall of Portuguese India describing the military action that led to the ouster of the Portuguese with seperate articles if required for the battles at Goa, Daman and Diu. The article will describe in detail events immediately before and leading to hostilities, troop dispositions, and the international reaction including at the UN following the action... in addition to the battles.

3. Indian Assimilation of Goa (1961 onwards) describing

a. Political and administrative changes in Goa (introduction of democracy, the autonomous state referendum, conversion of the Portuguese governance to an Indian one etc)

b. Social, economic and cultural changes in Goa after liberation

Tigerassault (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

* Goa Liberation Movement has implications of indigenous Goan movements. That does deserve an article (and there is such an article). But you propose to include stuff in it that cannot be classified as indigenous, e.g. Indian satyagraha of 1955, relations between Portuguese and Indian governments. Moreover, the indigeneity of the term 'Goa liberation movement' would have to include discussion of secessionist movements that seek to 'liberate' Goa from Indian rule. So a certain awkwardness is implied if you want to use that title to merely make it a backdrop to Operation Vijay.

* 'Fall of Portuguese India' I've already objected to simply to its customary military usage in the context of a wider war. There was no wider war.

* 'Indian assimilation of Goa' is a terrible title. Assimilation has heavy connotations of the obliteration of native culture and imposition of a foreign culture. Surely that's not what you mean to say? (Even more unfortunate, 'assimilation' was the very overwrought euphemism used by Portuguese colonial authorities to justify some pretty hideous supremacist policies. Surely you do not want to associate the Indian government with that, do you?)

- Walrasiad (talk) 15:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Names of the 3 articles

• Goa Liberation Movement: What-Liberation movement; Where-Goa; When-1510 to 1961(not required unless there was another liberation movement in Goa of note).......Why should 'Goa Liberation Movement' connote only a local resistance? Why cannot there be a liberation movement based in Bombay, or a liberation movement undertaken by the Indian government at the UN?

• We can name this as 'Efforts Towards Liberation of Goa' Where-Goa; What-Efforts Towards Liberation; When-1510 to 1961 (not required). The title may be a bit long, but it needs all the words. Liberation Movement is far better.

• Liberation may be POV, but it is the most common name by which this could be described (we are describing not the invasion, but the events preceeding it from the 16th century to the 1950s).... unless we call it 'Efforts Towards Handover of Goa to India'.... thats OK with me except that its too long. If you have an alternative, please share it. 'Efforts towards Annexation of

• Fall of Portuguese India: Why should a 'fall' occur as a part of a larger conflict? The Fall of Troy was the whole battle and was not part of any larger war. but lets name it 'Invasion of Portuguese India (1961)' Where-Portuguese India (shorter than Goa, Daman and Diu.... Diu is where the worst battle occured) ; What-(Military/Armed) Invasion; When-1961 (required to distinguish from 18th century Maratha invasion)

• Indian Assimilation of Goa: Lets name it 'Integration of Goa' Where-Goa; What-Integration (into india is understood); When-1961 onwards (not required)Tigerassault (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Indian assimilation, and India’s invasion of Goa 49 years ago, here’s an interesting fact: The comparative human development index, which in a general sense reveals the opportunity India provided Goans with and a comparison with Portugal:

United Nations Human Development Report for 2009:

India 134th - Portugal 34th

This means that in 180 nations India is ranked below the half line (poor developing country), and exactly 100 positions lower than Portugal (who by the way has been steadily climbing since 1961) considering basic standard of living indicators such as life expectancy, literacy, education and the well being of children and women.

So much for the opportunity India offered Goans by "liberating" their territories two and a half generations ago…Goali (talk) 10:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

UK ranks much higher in HDI. Do you suggest that we Indians were morons so that we fought for and obtained independence from her majesty? Pls stop ur POV pushing. Shovon (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Good heavens, no. 1940s indicators like literacy in the British territories were lower than in the Princely States. And when you remember that the Princely States were largely ruled by nincompoops, this speaks volumes about the 'benefits' of colonialism. Walrasiad (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Why speak of 2009? In the 50s, Portugal was a modern industrialised nation, while Goa (that integral part of metropolitan Portugal) comprised mostly low-output paddy fields. Meanwhile most of the Portugal's African 'provinces' were largely jungles, as was Timor. Its not like you gain much from being some rich European power's province/colony. Tigerassault (talk) 06:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Shovon, POV on you! Spare us. Once again you’re confusing Britain’s colonialism with Portugal’s. The relation between Indians and the UK has nothing to do with Portugal’s relation to Goans; for example, the UK doesn’t provide automatic citizenship to Indians, Portugal does so to Goans (even now).

As for HDI, Goans were hired as clerks and at administrative levels by the British empire and her enterprises throughout the Indian basin, (India, East India, Kenya, Tanzania, etc.) because in general they had a higher level of education than other East Asians, which says something about Portugal’s education in Goa as compared to Britain’s in the rest of India and her neighbouring colonies.

The reason India “liberated” Goa wasn’t because Indians wanted to liberate Goans at all, or because Indians are a bunch of idiots as you claim, it was simply because the Indian rulers found easy prey to feed their power politics, and the nationalist ambitions of this new nation state/empire. Had Portugal armed Goa as it had Angola, Mozambique or Guinea-Bissau during that same year, the Indian rulers would have certainly reconsidered using their brutal methods.Goali (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If we nicely agree to everything you say, will you please stop disrupting the article title discussion? Please Goali? Tigerassault (talk) 11:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

If this goes on much longer this is going to be a candidate for WP:LAME. Honestly guys, get some perspective on things. It's a title. Just a title. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A title means everything, since the title is supposed to describe the article it contains. For example as a political scientist and historian the current title at a glance makes me think that this article concerns the political integration of Goa into india when in fact the majority of its subject matter describes the war between portugal and india during 1961. Titles mean everything, wars have literally been fought over titles and names (though more often than naught titles of people and not of objects).XavierGreen (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@tigerassault:

• 'Goa Liberation Movement' - that sounds like the name of an organization (and a secessionist organization to boot), not an event. There nothing wrong with Goese movements based in Bombay (in fact all of the movements were based in Bombay). But it has the implication of being GOAN (i.e. indigenous, or at least organizations of Goan exiles, emigrants & diaspora). Not Indian and certainly not the Indian government (which isn't a 'movement'; it's a government).
• Actually, I hoped the background was to be narrowly limited to the crisis from 1950 to 1961 - that is from when the Republic of India first made its request, and subsequent diplomatic tangles and sequence of events leading up to 1961. Prior to that, there was no conception of uniting Goa with 'India' for the simple fact that India did not exist. The exceptions are the movements of Braganza Cunha and the 1946 assembly, which indeed placed Goa in the context of the formation of the Indian Union, and need to be mentioned in detail. But Goan revolts prior to that aren't really relevant since their goal was different (autonomy, secession, civil rights, local empowerment, land reform etc.) and would derail the article into a detailed survey of Portuguese colonial rule in Goa (which deserves its own article). The intention is to keep the background article narrowly focused on the political & diplomatic steps directly relevant to 1961. So things like UN resolutions and NAM conferences are in; but discussions about some distant 18th C. events are out. As for its name, I hadn't given it much thought. I'd be happy to call it something like 'Goa Crisis (1950-1961)' or 'Prelude to Goa Conflict (1950-1961)' or 'Indian-Portuguese Relations (1947-1961)' or something boring like that.
• On Troy: well, the 'Fall of Troy' was just one episode in the nine-year long 'Trojan War'. I'm happy enough with 'Invasion of Portuguese India'. Although keep in mind that back then 'Goa' was frequent enough shorthand to informally refer to the entire complex of Portuguese India (Goa, Damman, Diu, etc.), so it wouldn't be outlandish to just call it 'Invasion of Goa'.
• Integration is certainly better than Assimilation, but it is still implies 'cultural' questions. 'Annexation' leaves it purely political. On first instinct, I'd prefer the latter, but 'Integration' could do, especially if someone wishes to add a discussion of longer-term cultural & social questions, rather than merely political & administrative steps.

- Walrasiad (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here's a very recent post from a Goan blog regarding the Invasion vs. Liberation issue: http://nizgoenkar.blogspot.com/2010/08/goan-liberation-were-goans-truly.html Goali (talk) 09:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@Walrasiad: OK, lets call it India-Portugal Relations (1950-1961). it will obviously describe mostly the spat over Goa, but if there are other aspects or dimensions to this issue, then we'll include it too. this article will end with a short description of the actual invasion with a link to the main article. Excellent. This 2nd article will be the 'Invasion of Goa' and will describe only the military operations with a brief 'background'. The 3rd article will be the 'Integration of Goa' since it can and should address intertwined cultural and social issues. I mean, how do you replace Portuguese with English without significantly altering the local culture? Done. Any objections from anyone should be noted now.

@Goali: Please stop disrupting the title discussion with your attempts at igniting nationalistic fervour. That blog is based on too many inaccuracies and appears to be an amateurish attempt at whipping up communal passions against hindus in Goa. Tigerassault (talk) 13:15, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Tigerassault, I think its the other way around: Human Rights Watch report for 2010: http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/asia/india.html.Goali (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Goali, you're running propaganda here with your articles and propaganda blogs. You better not.Bcs09 (talk) 03:13, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch isn't propaganda, its a human rights observatory and it mentions Goa in that article, presenting a reality very different to that presented by the Indian nationalists who are participating in this discussion.Goali (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Putting Human rights ahead of the name of an organization never makes it a non-propaganda organization. Look at their articles. Always spewing venom. So better keep such dirty stuff out of discussion.Bcs09 (talk) 15:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Some more inconspicuous sources regarding human rights and post "liberation" Goa:

http://lilliandcosta.wordpress.com/2007/02/13/women-in-post-%E2%80%931961-goa-problems-and-challenges/

http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/publications/police/goa_police_complaints_authority.pdf Goali (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Why are you trying to run propaganda? The first one is a propaganda source. The second one is an organization that looks into human rights violation from the 2006-07 period just like how human rights groups work in Portugal. It has nothing to do with 1961. Nowadays even giving a small punch on the shoulder of a criminal can be counted as Human rights violation wherein the ones like the criminals or terrorist or the rapists all go home free to conduct more crime whereas the innocent ordinary men and women suffer without any human rights. This is happening all over the world. There is a time to delink human rights (real one) and terrorists/criminal rights (which today is considered as human rights). But the real aristocracies need to be investigated and punished. We never hear of any human rights violation of Indian prisoners taken away and shot dead by the Portuguese. They can be seen smiling while being taken away. Poor souls. Let's stick to the topic of changing the heading of the article and keep all other things aside.Bcs09 (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Human rights abuses by Indian Army

I keep coming across stray comments - most of them by people virulently opposed to Goa's handover to India - about instances of rape by Indian soldiers and of looting of shops and homes. Only comments used as arguments.

At the time of the invasion there were scores of foreign journalists in Goa, and after scouring the press, I am still to find any mention of human rights abuses by the Indians. At least not like the first hand accounts of satyagrahas being shot. Please let me know where I can find reliable sources to confirm that rape and loot did occur. If this is a historical fact, then it is extremely important that this shold be included in the article. Thanks. Tigerassault (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Man these are propaganda by the likes of Goali. He will keep doing it. The truth is here.

[3] and here [4]. Can see even small children greeting the soldiers. The likes of Goali will keep doing it. Let them. why bother about such stupidity. Some more pics here [5]Bcs09 (talk) 03:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is a video of some pictures of the period of 1961 related to the conflict.[6] Bcs09 (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Human rights. Here it is. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFCSkswqU_c Bcs09 (talk) 05:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The Human Rights issues regarding the entire Goa incident should be included within the three sections mentioned by Tigerassault in the previous section, so as to include issues such as violations by the PT authorities, IN during the invasion (if registered), and the post-1961 situation as per above sources (Human rights Watch, , if consensual.Goali (talk) 13:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Aha, you're still more concerned about running your propaganda when the videos show Indian Satyagraha protesters being shot dead by Portuguese military. Well done. Good going. Keep it up.Bcs09 (talk) 01:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Goa Inquisition, the Portuguese human rights violation.Bcs09 (talk) 13:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Goali, the 3 links you provided weren't helpful. The blog by Ms. Costa talks about women's rights post 1980. The other document is about the Goa Police Complaints Authority set up in 2007. No reference at all to the 1961 conflict. The Human rights Watch report discusses atrocities by Islamic terrorists, Hindu fundamentalist organisations and the state forces. There is again no reference to Goa 1961. If you want to make a point that all is not kosher in Kashmir, then its OK, but its not very useful in this article about Goa. Do you by any chance have even something published in the Portuguese newspaper talking about rape and loot in Goa? Tigerassault (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping discussion on-topic

Please be careful about avoiding personal attacks when discussing contentious subjects. It's always a mistake to turn the focus of discussion away from the actual article itself to the editors contributing to it. Comments like these are unhelpful because they personalise the content dispute by making assumptions about the motives of editors. Instead, please discuss content and suggestions for content on the merits of that content alone, bearing in mind our sourcing, verifiability and neutrality policies.

If there are doubts about the reliability of a source (such as Human Rights Watch), the reliable sources noticeboard may be able to help out. For further dispute resolution measures, see WP:DR. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see the Admins to take note of the situation. Your work is really appreciated. Hope that blog links are removed by the neutral admins. And thanks for reminding that all links can be provided (may be except blogs). Seeking clarification on the blog part.Bcs09 (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Eyeserene, Goali is a troll. Even the though the article is about the Goa conflict (1961) he is trying to disrupt discussions by introducing links which discusses Kashmir in 2008 in an anti Indian manner - the intention being to incite Indian users here. Thanks to his efforts, he has successfully derailed the article title discussion as well as discussions about splitting the article into smaller parts. He is clearly attempting WP:DISRUPTPOINTTigerassault (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this article might be divided into three sections (as proposed by Walrasiad on Oct. 1st, with a section revision advanced by Tigerassauslt On Oct. 7th) the results of the annexation of Goa into India should also address the issues of the Goan population, especially because the native population wasn’t consulted on their new political status but had to live with it.

That was the idea behind those inputs and the sources (Goan blogs, Human Rights Watch, etc. all considered anti-Indian according to some of the more emotive participants in this discussion). What I believe these sources identify are the new problems brought upon Goans by the Indian administration (corruption, religious conflict, worsening of women’s and children’s rights, imposition of a new language, etc.). Call it liberation or assimilation, things changed after Goa was invaded and just because many of the changes were negative, the issues on the territory shouldn't be concealed or down-played, but instead be included in the third section regarding post-1961 Goa, including all facts. This way we can have a broader and richer background regarding the historical facts of the Goa incident and why they really happened.Goali (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There can be an article like History of Goa since liberation something like History of Bombay in Independent India. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Goali, go to Goa and add a section (or expand the section about current problems) to include all the blogs and human rights violations there. The editors at that page will welcome you, since its a very done thing in India to complain about the system. However, you might be hard pressed to find sources that link all the problems in Goa to a seccessionist sentiment. All the best.Tigerassault (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Remembering the Fall of Portuguese India in 1961"

Reference 30, used six times, mentions solely "Remembering the Fall of Portuguese India in 1961." No book, website or other publication is mentioned. What is to be done? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference is to a book in Portuguese reviewed here. On reading the review, it is worth noting two things. First, it appears that the text in the article is based on a reading of this review rather than of the book itself. Second, the source is primary. However, the material in the article that the book is used is not contentious and, at least in one case, the primary nature of the source is highlighted. So, I suggest replacing the current reference with the goabooks review and leaving it at that.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Keeping discussion on-topic

Please be careful about avoiding personal attacks when discussing contentious subjects. It's always a mistake to turn the focus of discussion away from the actual article itself to the editors contributing to it. Comments like these are unhelpful because they personalise the content dispute by making assumptions about the motives of editors. Instead, please discuss content and suggestions for content on the merits of that content alone, bearing in mind our sourcing, verifiability and neutrality policies.

If there are doubts about the reliability of a source (such as Human Rights Watch), the reliable sources noticeboard may be able to help out. For further dispute resolution measures, see WP:DR. Thanks, EyeSerene^talk 07:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Good to see the Admins to take note of the situation. Your work is really appreciated. Hope that blog links are removed by the neutral admins. And thanks for reminding that all links can be provided (may be except blogs). Seeking clarification on the blog part.Bcs09 (talk) 13:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Eyeserene, Goali is a troll. Even the though the article is about the Goa conflict (1961) he is trying to disrupt discussions by introducing links which discusses Kashmir in 2008 in an anti Indian manner - the intention being to incite Indian users here. Thanks to his efforts, he has successfully derailed the article title discussion as well as discussions about splitting the article into smaller parts. He is clearly attempting WP:DISRUPTPOINTTigerassault (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this article might be divided into three sections (as proposed by Walrasiad on Oct. 1st, with a section revision advanced by Tigerassauslt On Oct. 7th) the results of the annexation of Goa into India should also address the issues of the Goan population, especially because the native population wasn’t consulted on their new political status but had to live with it.

That was the idea behind those inputs and the sources (Goan blogs, Human Rights Watch, etc. all considered anti-Indian according to some of the more emotive participants in this discussion). What I believe these sources identify are the new problems brought upon Goans by the Indian administration (corruption, religious conflict, worsening of women’s and children’s rights, imposition of a new language, etc.). Call it liberation or assimilation, things changed after Goa was invaded and just because many of the changes were negative, the issues on the territory shouldn't be concealed or down-played, but instead be included in the third section regarding post-1961 Goa, including all facts. This way we can have a broader and richer background regarding the historical facts of the Goa incident and why they really happened.Goali (talk) 09:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

There can be an article like History of Goa since liberation something like History of Bombay in Independent India. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Goali, go to Goa and add a section (or expand the section about current problems) to include all the blogs and human rights violations there. The editors at that page will welcome you, since its a very done thing in India to complain about the system. However, you might be hard pressed to find sources that link all the problems in Goa to a seccessionist sentiment. All the best.Tigerassault (talk) 12:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

"Remembering the Fall of Portuguese India in 1961"

Reference 30, used six times, mentions solely "Remembering the Fall of Portuguese India in 1961." No book, website or other publication is mentioned. What is to be done? Totnesmartin (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference is to a book in Portuguese reviewed here. On reading the review, it is worth noting two things. First, it appears that the text in the article is based on a reading of this review rather than of the book itself. Second, the source is primary. However, the material in the article that the book is used is not contentious and, at least in one case, the primary nature of the source is highlighted. So, I suggest replacing the current reference with the goabooks review and leaving it at that.--RegentsPark (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Totnesmartin (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverting Move

I've reversed the move to Conflict in Goa (1961). There is a discussion on the title ongoing on the talk page and, as far as I can see, neither is it the case that the discussion has been resolved this way or that, nor do I see any discussion at all on Conflict in Goa (1961) as an alternative title, let alone as being an appropriate title. I suggest that this alternative title be discussed on this page or that the proposer formally requests a move. Regards. --RegentsPark (talk) 19:40, 5 November 2010 (UTC)