Talk:Goa/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Early comments

India finally liberated Goa from 450 years of Portuguese Rule on 19th December 1961 - this doesn't sound particularly NPOV, but as I know nothing of the history, how did this happen? Did India invade and take the place over? Can someone who knows what happened please rewrite this sentence? RickK 05:38, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

India did invade and take the place over. But 'Liberation of Goa' is the standard phraseology used in India. Which Goa is part of now. Not particularly neutral, but it is probably truer in this context than the expression 'liberation of Iraq' (say), which is one that I've heard regularly lately.

But a few other things;

1. the title 'Goa of India'; why not just 'Goa' which is its name?

2. the history is essentially the history of the Portuguese in Goa, little else. It has been settled for at least two millenia before that. The quote and in 1835 Goa was only inhabited by a few priests, monks and nuns. refers to the Portuguese population only, and the local people seem to have been quite forgotten. As have the Konkani Brahmins who were expelled / dispossessed by the Portuguese.

Imc 17:23, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

From a Portuguese point of view: There are today liberation groups moving around Goa. They say like East Timor became independent from Indonesia. They should become from India. The Indian rule over Goa is not recognized by Portugal till this day. Much like what happened to East Timor. Most Goans are a mixture of Portuguese with Indians. The situation was not analogous to the rest of India (under the British rule). Portuguese legacy and language is not respected today in Goa. Some Goans fleed to Portugal. And they were not only from Portuguese origin. This is a bad written story. That's why the liberation groups of Goa are incresing.

Many Goans speak Portuguese but they dont do it in public.

Goa is not the same as the rest of India. Do you know what 500 years are? Pedro 15:01, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, India invaded. A treaty was signed with the portuguese, and they were allowed to go back. I've been living in Goa all my life. The number of people speaking Portuguese as their primary language is around 2% (max). And yeah, they do not use it in public. A lot more know Portuguese because they were forced to study portuguese before 1961. My dad even remembers the Portuguese National Anthem! I have not heard of any groups fighting for liberation of Goa from India. We know what 450 years are. We don't want them again. Dream on, Pedro ;-) --Desai 05:37, Jun 15, 2004 (UTC)

Read Desai, your real India! Xenophobic India. They dont do it because of this: [1] read more:

Possibly you dont heard because the subject is not allowed in public. I've got an indian friend says that she doesnt like to go to Goa, because people keep looking at her, because she spoak there in Portuguese. She said that was very wierd environment in there. Dream on? Calm down. But the rest, they do not want??? I dont believe. It must be really strange to be catholic in a poor and different country like India, with a different culture, I'm not suprized that they could want breakup. Oblied to speak Portuguese, dream on. Portuguese people were never interrested to people speak their language. Many goans fleed to Portugal or elsewhere. Why's that? tell me? Democracy in India? yeah yeah. Just like the democracy of Zimbabwe! Why the number of speakers decreesed so rapidly? With so many mixed people, I'm not stupid, pal! They all fleed? -Pedro 21:22, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • Dream on, if you think Portugal wants Goa back. Dream on! Most people even dont know what Goa is. Pedro 11:33, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)

LOL, Xenophobic? Goa is one of the premier foreign tourist destinations. Everyone is welcomed here. The incident mentioned above is an isolated incident. The Goa "freedom" movement you mention was started in 1963... it's over 40 years now. Nuff said. You are pathetic to compare democracy of India with Zimbabwe. It just gives a clear notion what you're mindset is. It is useless to argue with you and this is my last reply to you. I wonder how Wikipedia tolerates people who try to instigate communal disruptions. --Desai 18:56, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

Currently updating the page. User:Nichalp 19:19, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Lucio

Lucio, nobody is going to allow you to erase all of the information in Goa and replace it with something totally different. If you have a problem with something in the article, I suggest you go to Talk:Goa and explain it. —Stormie 06:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

p.s. It could also be worthwhile to expand the "History" section of Goa - it's treatment of India's takeover of the region is woefully brief. —Stormie 06:24, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Stormie - Thanks for the message, and for "reverting" the Goa page to the Indianist version. I am a Goan. As a Goan, I expect that any account of Goa should be the truth. It was my intention to move the "Indianist" page on Goa to a page under the name "Goa Pradesh", for that is the formal name by which India calls Occupied Goa. However, my life far from revolves around Wikipedia or any other site. It is my ambition to one day be able to fight India with military force, and in the meantime, I only seek to motivate people. I will leave My attempts to correct the Goa page as it stands, since I believe that I have done my duty to the truth. I am not obliged to force anyone to believe anything. -Lucio Mas.

Bharat or india invaded Goa, Daman and Diu on the 18th of December 1961. This is a clear fact. The indians lacked Foreign Exchange their economy was in tatters. Today Goa lies neo colonized. Foreign Exchange obtained from mines, tourism and remittances from the gulf goan emigrants has been plundered. Goans are not a free people. Goa has been surrounded by the indian army on all sides. The best example is the occupation of the civilian airport in Dabolim, Vasco da Gama. On the day of the invasion many Goans (Catholics) were pushed out of their jobs. This included my father who was medic and forced to work as an admin in the now occupied bharat hospital. It is commonly said that democracy is flourishing in Goa. Democracy which was forced down the throats of the Goans has created a neo political class consisting of goons and bandits just like the rest of bharat. Today one must confess that many Goans are a part of this group. Crime and corruption is a part of the Goan life since 61. Goan heritage has been eroded since the forced introduction of english (poor quality) in the lives of Goans. Most Goan youth are unemployed. Recently Goans were duped in millions of rupees by scruplous indian theives who lured Goans into false investments. Bandits commonly called dacoits prey on defenseless Goans. Sorrowing lies my land! - B. Colaco

Ptolemy

I'm removing the sentence "Ptolemy, the Greek explorer referred to Goa as "Gouba" in around 200" as it is dubious. The article on Ptomely has him dying in 165! Perhaps it's a reference to a different Ptolemy - if so, which one? jguk 20:53, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

That's strange. I've referenced it from the Manorama Book listed as my references. I'll try and verify.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:13, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

POV

this article is POV! It tries to deminish or hide the Portuguese heritage and language. Second language?? yeah!!!! Hides the History and the independentist moviments. etc... etc... The problem of so many Goans moved to Portugal and elsewhere must be issued, why they moved? It must also issue why some Indians hate the Portuguese heritage on the place... etc... etc... -Pedro 15:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Would you kindly mention what you find a POV on this page? You were quick to put up a neutrality dispute to the page but I can't figure out your reasons for the dispute.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:22, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
I second Nichalp here. PedroPVZ, if I understand you correctly, you feel that the History section should be longer. Perhaps what you're searching for may be present in History of Goa. Would you state more clearly what you find POV in this article? -- Brhaspati\talk/contribs 18:40, 2005 Apr 19 (UTC)

"Finally, Portuguese is still spoken as a second language in some areas, especially among some of the state's senior citizens." -- Few, yes... second language?! I dont think so, at least from what I've heard. It is not explained why the language was removed so fast in Goa and why when someone talks Portuguese everyone looks at the person, making him/her embaraced. Did something like in East Timor occured? "prohibition"? And the article doesnt talk about Goans (mixed Portuguese and Indians) - people are the main product of Portuguese colonisation (by the article it seems that Goa is an exception!) And, there seems to be many independentists, the article pretends they dont exist or revert when one tries to edit. When I search the net about the Portuguese language in Goa, what I most find are Goans abroad and at home talking about independence. But the article is much better than it was some time ago. It doesnt say what happened during the Euro 2004, it just says, people like to watch it... hugs. -Pedro 19:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  1. About Portuguese being a second language, yes its true. Its not a POV. Konkani is the language spoken on the streets and English is fast catching up due to tourism.
  2. What you've said about people being embarassed speaking Portuguese is a POV. I don't know if you've been to Goa, but many are proud to speak Portuguese in their homes. Trust me on this.
  3. There are no active violent/non-violent movements for Goan independence. Its not necessary to add matter on people's wishful thinking.
  4. If you have information on the demographics on mixed race, please add it to the page. Many people of mixed race migrated to Portugal. That could be added, but by its absence alone does not make it a POV.
  5. The Euro is in the sports section. I dont think something should happen. :)  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:44, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Goans in Portugal dont form an "autonomous" community, they live among the Portuguese, because they are seen as Portuguese. But there are Indians that say they are from Goa, but they arent, people easily see that (they are different and they are illegal immigrants, but some have Goan "nationality"). I dont have info on demographics, that is what I want to know... :| I just say some doccumentaries about Portuguese heritage in the East about them. I'm sure there is Portuguese-Indians out there and there must be a lot of people (500 yrs is a lot of time to mix with Indians!) - mixing races is a Portuguese hobbie. About the language, second language means that is not the native language of that people, what I dont believe. I believe that outside they use English, to communicate with more people. So, the language lost ground because those people emigrated? There are also many people from other countries in here (tourists and inmigrants), but that's not a reason for us changing the language.

Yes, people looking is POV, but there must be a reason... there's always a reason. Because, has I read, Indians don't like a lot of Colonialism, well thats normal (of you see it by repression), but in the cultural and ethnic level, people dont watch it has colonialism. So the situation was different from East Timor or similar? The Indonesians prohibited the language there. In fact, Portugal only start applying for the independence of East Timor when it showed on TV, Timorese people praying in Portuguese and repressed by the Indonesians, that shocked a lot of people, and the reason why the Port. government had to do something. India is not exactly a dictatorial regime, but today's democracies are not exactly democracies. Some English media showed that during the Euro many Goans celebrated the Portuguese team, saying that in the article could be see as Anti-Indian by some anti-Colonianist sectors?! Couldnt it be? It would be interresting to show how they live, their culture, food (mixed mediterranean-indian?! links to sites about that) and what regions in Goa they life? Do they study Portuguese at school? (porbably not) That's useful for travellers interested in culture. The article "says" there is carnival there, what kind of Carnival? there are many kinds of Celebration... the most traditional, and the most wild (like Rio's). What saint does Catholic Goans celebrate, if they do? etc. etc. These are my ideas, and why I see the article has a somewhat "strange" and distant. -Pedro 23:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You should have discussed any shortcomings in the article on the talk page before going and putting a POV sign on a featured article. You claim a lot of things, but you have hardly provided any evidence or reference for what you state. Unless you can provide some solid evidence or reference for your POV claims these things cannot be put into the article. I am removing the NPOV tag. You are free to add claims and edit the article and the other goa linked article if you can provide refernces to what you are talking about. vague claims wihtout substantiation cannot be accomodated in the article. kaal 07:28, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Your last paragraph has more insightful comments that can be added to the page. I'd also like to reply on some of the queries you raised.
  1. Goans in Portugal dont form an "autonomous" community – this is not a page on the emigrant community.
    • Second language refers to the fact that the language is not the primary spoken language. Konkani is the chief language and the official language.
    • English has gained mass acceptance all over India, Goa is no exception.
    • Marathi is spoken by many of the citizens, many who stay in the rural north.
    • Portuguese is taught in high schools as an optional subject. Its by no means supressed by the Indian government (hence not mentioned). A language thrives if there is a demand for it. English is in demand as it is seen as a global language. French and Spanish is popular because it is spoken by many countries. German, Japanese and now Chinese is popular because of business links. Portuguese language is dying a slow death because of the lack of demand. I don't mean any disrespect, but why would any one study a language that is spoken in not more than four countries in the world?
  3. Some English media showed that during the Euro many Goans celebrated the Portuguese team, saying that in the article could be see as Anti-Indian by some anti-Colonianist sectors? Each country has its fair share of idiots and fundamentalists who try and say as stupid things as possible. Their sayings are not credible and are usually the subject of ridicule by the Indian media.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 07:45, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nichalp, I'm talking to you not just mentioning POVs, just talking... But there should be a specific mention to Goans, the specific Portuguese-Indian community and culture in Goa. And there's virtually no mention.

About the extent of Portuguese language you are wrong. About Spanish: you watch to many American movies. French is loosing popularity, even in countries where it was popular (like Portugal). Portuguese is not loosing. Well, it doesnt have the popularity of French. English is a simple language, that's why it is popular. But it is not a prestigious language, like French is (it can be in India, but not here). French, and Portuguese are complex. Spanish has a big advantage it has very simple phonology. So I'm not surprized it is gaining popularity in some countries, namely the US. I think, it is a positive thing, because both languages are very close, If you speak Portuguese or Spanish going to the other language is a step. Portuguese is much more spoken than French. And it is not only spoken in 4 countries(thought there are only 4 main countries), most of them poor, but that is being fixed. See the article of the Portuguese language if you want. But that's not the problem. The problem is: in the article is states that it is a secondary language when it is the primary language of some people, and English or that Indian language is their secundary language. if the popularity is important why they speak that languages that nobody ever heard of? Marati I think; or kun... something? -Pedro 12:48, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've included the following:
  • A sentence on the mixed Portuguese-Indian population.
  • Text on Goa's emigrant population
Already included are:
  • Goa's patron saint
What I can add after research:
  • Exact nature of the Goa carnival
  • 'Food of Goa' links.
What I cannot add:
  • Portuguese is a common language spoken on Goa's streets. It would be a lie to say that. If you are living in Lisbon, I can give you some references that you might want to verify.
I hope you are now satisfied?  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:22, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Yes! I know they use the language at home, not in the streets. There are occasionally reports about that. Thanks for the link in culture. -Pedro 20:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Major Changes

I have made major changes in the historical account of Goa, correcting it to remove Indian mythology and replace it with the facts. However, in the process, I recognize that the page needs to be reformatted or that it needs to be re-organized in a better manner. Regards. Lucio Mas 15:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Your new history section was way way way too long. The history section should be limited to a summary of a few paragraphs. The main History of Goa article is the place to elaborate the full history. Kaldari 01:02, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Much of this isn't history, I'm sorry to say. It's bias and bigotry. India has paid a heavy price for religion-inspired bias. It should be countered, whichever source it comes from. -FN (Frederick Noronha, Freelance Journalist, Goa, India)

Unfortunately, a whole lot of earlier references and information included in these pages have been deleted, so as to bring in a particular POV that tries to make light of Portuguese colonialism.

Resultantly, the text is littered with errors. As someone who always appreciates the Wikipedia philosophy, it is unfortunate to see this page being abused in such a manner, specially when it is being featured on Wikipedia's main page.

Some illustrations:

  • Margao the largest town

As pointed out earlier, Margao isn't the largest town, neither on grounds of size nor population.

  • Goa is visited by thousands of foreign and domestic tourists each year

Thousands? This is an understatement. The official figure is 2 million plus (though this is somewhat questionable, given that there is no accurate system in place for counting the number of tourists who land in Goa by any means other than air -- e.g. train, road, bus or the irregular boat services).

  • Goa fell under the Islamic rule for the first time in 1312

I still question the use of the term "Islamic rule" when the equivalents are not used for other religions. For instance, we don't call the Portuguese in Goa or the British period in India as "Christian rule", and the use of the "Hindu rule" term has been questioned for its obviously-loaded bias.

  • made Goa Velha their auxiliary capital

Wrong. Goa Velha is place maybe 10 kms from Velha Goa. The former capital is Velha Goa (Old Goa) not Goa Velha. Incidentally, Goa Velha was also a former capital, but in another century and under different rulers.

  • followed by an arrival in what is now known as Old Goa

What is the source for the information that Vasco da Gama arrived in Old Goa before it was conquered by the Portuguese? I'm not sure this information is correct, but could be mistaken on this.

  • The Portuguese arrived with the intention of setting up a colony and wresting control of the spice trade from other European powers.

Where's the question of the Portuguese "wresting control of the spice trade from other European powers" when they (the Portuguese) were the first European power to arrive in India? If you're referring to the overland trade in spices, then this reference is confusing.

  • Later, in 1510, Portuguese admiral Afonso de Albuquerque defeated the ruling Bijapur kings on behalf of a Hindu king, Timayya

This is a distortion of history with a political perspective. Do you really believe any European admiral would sail five thousand kilometres to take part in battle "on behalf of" a local ruler? While Timayya's role in egging on the Portuguese to attack and conquer Goa is well documented, the claim of Timayya being a "king" is questionable. Likewise, saying that he undertook the battle "on behalf of" Timayya is a POV and clear attempt to minimise the role played by the economic motives that fuelled colonialism in the 'sixteenth century and thereafter (and at other periods of time too). Likewise, using the word "Hindu" to describe Timayya is an attempt to inject religious bias into the narration of history. His religion, as we have seen at all points of history, isn't particularly relevant to his actions -- it may have been used by some as a justification or explanation. But is this relevant?

  • By mid-16th century the area under occupation had expanded to most of Goa's the area under occupation had expanded to most of Goa's present day state limits.

As pointed out earlier, this is incorrect. It was only in the late eighteenth century that the large areas that make up present-day Goa was annexed to the Portuguese-ruled state.

  • With the imposition of the Inquisition (1560–1812), many of the local residents were forcibly converted to by missionaries.

This is a questionable proposition. While the Inquuisition in Goa is a historical fact, replete with stories of brutality justified by religion, the conversions and the Inquisition might not be linked in any way. It also needs to be underlined that the Inquisition was brought in to avoid neo-converts from straying from the line of orthodoxy. It seems plausible that a number of locals, including probably some of my ancestors, just saw opportunity in changing their religion, or were 'convinced' by what seemed to be a superior ideology. While the use of force is not being denied, to link it to the conversion of "many... local residents" is clearly ahistorical.

  • With the arrival of the other European powers in India in the 16th century, most Portuguese possessions were appropriated by the British and the Dutch.

It probably warrants mention that "most Portuguese possessions" were actually very few and very tiny enclaves scattered along the Indian coast.Bombay (Mumbai) was build into what it became after the Portuguese handed it over as dowry. Maybe Cochin and Sri Lanka could be mentioned -- just to give an idea of the scale of Portuguese colonialism in India, and set things in context. The word "possessions" also suggests a POV, suggesting rightful ownership. In view of what some of the writers have attempted to portray through this page, this trend needs to be noted.

  • These married men soon became a privileged caste, Goa acquired a large population Eurasian population

This suggests that a "large" Eurasian population came about due to inter-marriage. That isn't the case. Goa's population has always been overwhelmingly South Asian, even though the Westernised (Lusitanised) names brought on with conversions give a different impression.

  • In 1883 the capital was moved to Panjim from Goa Velha.

Wrong! Both on year and name. Goa Velha again, when it should be Velha Goa (or Old Goa). Panjim/Panaji/Ponnje/Pangim (as know by various names) has been the capital of Goa since 1843. It celebrated it's 150th anniversary not long back. See links at http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=Panjim+capital+since&meta=

  • relinquish their control of its exclave

Calling Goa a Portuguese "enclave" is a clear POV about failing to recognise colonialism by the Portuguese.

  • On 1987-05-30, the Union territory was split, and Goa was redesignated as India's twenty-fifth state.

The emphasis here is on the Union territory being "split". This is a non-issue if not a red herring! Consequent to statehood (whose benefits are dubious, but that's another point) the overland territories of Daman and Diu were delinked from Goa for administrative reasons. This was never an issue here.

  • 1955 invasion of Goa

It fails my comprehension to understand how a non-violent protest can be termed as an "invasion". By the same yardstick, would you be writing that M. K. Gandhi "invaded" the domain of British colonialism?

  • coastal country

The Konkan cannot be labelled a "country".

  • Goa's main rivers are the Mandovi (called "Mandvi" by the Indians), the Zuari, the Terecol (called "Terekhol" by the Indians)

This is a cheap linguistic trick to sneak in a rather bigoted POV. By dismissing some terms as being used "by the Indians" (again, a clear POV and pejorative use of a descriptor, to suggest that Goans are not Indians) the writer at the same time brings in a few Portuguese names which are no longer in use. While it is fair to list the Portuguese usage of names, to resort to such cheap trickery is uncalled for. For the record, the Mandovi is still the way the river is referred to. The description of the "Terecol" and "Terekhol by the Indians" is a figment of imagination. Needless to say, in a region which sees the use of multiple languages (such as Konkani for spoken communication, English or Marathi for written communication and newspapers, Hindi with tourists, etc) there exist multiple spellings for even the same place. In some places, the Portuguese spellings grossly distorted the locally-used names (e.g. Chorao and Chodan, Guaxim and Gavas, Kalapur and Santa Cruz); but this is not the place to settle scores!

  • The regions of Goa, called "Conselhos" ("talukas" according to the Indians), are organized into two groupings, called the Velhas Conquistas, or Old Conquests, abbreviated VC, and the Novas Conquistas,

This is a description that goes back to the pre-1961 era and is no longer in vague. In order to justify his Lusostalgia, or justification of Portuguese colonialism, the writer dismisses the currently-used terms as being "according to the Indians". This is not just ahistoric but clearly a POV which replaces history with bias.

  • The three inner Conselhos of Ilhas da Goa ("Tiswaddi", according to the Indians), Bardez and Salsette form the Velhas Conquistas, and support the bulk of the population. The Novas Conquistas, he three inner Conselhos of Ilhas da Goa ("Tiswaddi", according to the Indians), Bardez and Salsette form the Velhas Conquistas, and support the bulk of the population. The Novas Conquistas, covering a larger territorial extent, are mainly forested and support a smaller population.

To anyone who understands the context, the writer is trying to delegtimise a section of the population, whose viewpoint doesn't agree with his bias. There are also issues of religious differences being couched in what seems to be very neutral perspectives.

  • seeing day temperatures of over 39°C (99°F)

Please confirm the source of this figure, which seems an exaggeration

  • The ecology of Goa was protected by the traditional system of village communities, called Communidades, which set aside a large portion of village land as reserve and common land, aside from forest lands. Under the occupation, the communidade lands have been seized and given up for setting up homesteads, largely for the Indian civil servants imported into Goa.

Inaccurate, with clear bias showing. The "village communities" (called Comunidades by the Portuguese, and earlier Gaunkari) didn't protect Goa's ecology; what did was plain and simple under-development, the lack of roads and infrastructure, and heavy outmigration by Goans lacking jobs and avenues to fulfil their ambition. Comunidades have been romanticised, but are fraught with certain problematic aspects -- they were caste defined, excluded significant segments of the sub-altern groups of the village, and gave all womenfolk a clearly inferior position in their functioning. The writer slips in the word "occupation" -- is this NPOV? -- to describe the post-1961 rule. The fact that comunidade land has gone "largely for the Indian civil servants imported into Goa" is a mythical allegation; the loot of comunidade lands has been undertaken by local politicians, and the building lobby. But then, this wouldn't justify the political perspective that the (anonymous? pseudonymous?) writer seeks to make in the guise of supporting a volunteer-built encyclopaedia.

  • Indian occupation has been something of an ecological disaster

NPOV, again? Why Goa has many environmental problems (part of which have been elaborated upon in my writings), to blame "Indian occupation" is surely way off target.

  • Tourism is Goa's primary industry

What is the source for this statement? The tourism lobby makes such claims often (probably to justify continuing sops to them), but the money supposedly earned doesn't show up to justify its "primary industry" status. To my knowledge, Goa lacks sufficiently detailed statistics that could clearlly delineate which sector brings in exactly how much, both in terms of formal and informal earnings. In any case, would the word "industry" be relevant here?

  • Portugal following the 1911 Revolution

The Republican Revolution in Portugal happened in 1910

  • present, much of its provisions, such as a compulsory civil marriage before a religious marriage, is flouted.

This doesn't seem to be an accurate allegation.

  • The ruling government consists of the party or coalition he ruling government consists of the party or coalition garnering the most seats in the state elections.

The ruling party or coalition needs to command a simple majority in the assembly (not the largest seats in the state election).

  • "Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party", representing largely Marathi speaking Hindus who desire to submerge Goa into Maharashtra.

This is an extremely bigoted statement, distasteful to a significant segment of Goa's population, and derogatory to a religious group. The Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party wanted to merge (not "submerge", a loaded term, revealing the writer's bias) Goa into Maharashtra in the 'sixites. The party has since given up this platform. Its policy is to support Marathi, but the claim that its supporters are "largely Marathi speaking" is not borne out by fact. Goan Hindus do use Marathi for their literary, religious and (sometimes) educational purposes, just as Catholics here use English commonly now and earlier looked to Portuguese. Both communities speak Konkani. The support for Marathi has more to do with reasons of caste differences and ideological concerns, rather than what language the people speak.

  • In many parts of India, the names Goanese is also sometimes used instead of Goan; but this form is regarded by self-respecting Goans as an insult; it was devised by the Protestant English in Bombay as a deprecatory way of referring to the Catholic Goans.

The writer keeps seeing religious and sectarian bogeys. The term "Goanese" is more of a misunderstanding. To bring in Protestants and Catholics into such a debate is indicative of the writer's religous biases.

  • annexation, occupation

These terms are not acceptable in any debate, though the writer has been working hard to create myths using the Internet to justify his own bias about history.

At this point, I have to give up on the corrections, because there are so many outrageous POV and a great many instances of hate-speech (couched as fact) against people belonging to other religions... FN (Frederick Noronha, freelance journalist, Goa)

FN's Comments

I returned to this page after awhile, and was saddened to see the deliberate distortions and POV that have crept in, making nonsense of much of the content. Such unhistorical distortions, whereever they come from, are something that everyone who believes in the power of Wikipedia should feel unhappy about.

Some examples by way of illustrations:

  • Margao is the largest town

It isn't. In population terms, Vasco da Gama is.

  • Goa was ruled by Portugal for almost 451 years

It would be more accurate to say that "parts of Goa were ruled by Portugal for upto 451 years..." Kindly note, the entire region was not ruled for this period, since the Portuguese conquests were done in stages.

  • when it was forcibly taken over by the Indian Indian government, after Portugal rebuffed India's demands to exclavescede its

A highly loaded statement. This presumes that Portugual had a right to hold on, quite naturally, to a region which is thousands of kilometres away from its shores, and that the demands for decolonisation were just non-existant in this period.

  • Goa fell under the Islamic rule for the first time in 1312

Use of language suggests a POV, assuming it was incorrect or unnatural to "fall under" a certain group of rulers on grounds of their religion!

  • From Anjediva, he orchestrated a Goan August 1510, he could withdraw to the island of Anjediva. From Anjediva, he orchestrated a Goan guerilla war against Bijapur

Makes it seem as if colonialism was a local "guerilla war" in disguise!

  • By agreement between the Goans and the attacked Goa and drove away the forces of Bijapur. By agreement between the Goans and the Portuguese, the Muslim population was exterminated.

This is a POV and seems to be based on assumptions. What is the historical background for such an "agreement"? It is generally accepted that the 'rivers of blood' of Muslims was brought on more by Portuguese bias against the "Moors" who had been ruling their homeland till not many years earlier.

  • limits. the area under occupation had expanded to most of Goa's present day state 16th century the area under occupation had expanded to most of Goa's present day state

This would be incorrect, as large parts of Goa were annexed as late as in the 'eighteenth century.

  • Manguesim

Inaccurately spelt name for Mangueshi. It is doubtful whether one village could be described as the destination for this entire migration.

  • northern country

county???

  • Goa acquired a large Eurasian population.

Is there historical data to back this claim?

  • Goa Velha.the capital was moved to Panjim from 1883 the capital was moved to Panjim from In

Goa Velha or Velha Goa? These are two different places...

  • relinquish their control of its exclaves

Using the term "enclaves" would suggest these regions were *not* colonies. A ahhistorical perspective in the context of the decolonisation movements of the 20th century, and popular feeling of that time.

  • although the Goans fought more valiantly and longer in Daman

It was the Portuguese who were doing the fighting (for entirely understandable reasons).

  • and the rest remained solidly loyal.applying for it in the proper manner. Only a miniscule minority of Goans applied for Indian citizenship the proper manner. Only a miniscule minority of Goans applied for Indian citizenship

Solidly loyal, to whom? The bulk of the population didn't have Portuguese cizenships either.

  • applying for Indian citizenship, became Indian citizens and that Goans, until then recognized as validly Portuguese citizens, automatically, and without ortuguese citizens, automatically, and without

This seems to be an incomplete recording of fact. There was a provision for those wanting to opt for Portuguese citizenship to also do so.

  • Though most States - principally Communist and "Non-Aligned" - recognised the annexation, Portugal

The use of the term "Non Aligned" in inverted quoted indicates the writer's bias. Is there an attempt to build up a Red bogey here? Fact is that the majority of the nations of the world was not for continuation of Portuguese colonialism in Goa.

  • India claims that Goa is, and always was, a part of itself. However, Goa was never a part of a formal, united India at any time, and it was taken in 1510, more than four centuries before the founding of the modern State of India, from the Muslims, who were recognized by the Goans as persecutors, and with the active solicitation of the Goan people.

This is a twisted argument. India, in the sense of the political state as we know it, came into being in 1947. The Portuguese refused to give up their colonies in Goa. Obviously, Goa couldn't be part of this political entity till the military action of 1961. So the cause is being used as a justification for the effect?

  • In 1954, Nehru and other Indian politicians instigated mobs to invade Goa in a "peaceful" invasion, as "Gandhian satyagrahis"

What is the source for the "Nehru instigation" bit? Is it verifiable?

  • In 1954, Nehru and other Indian politicians instigated mobs to invade Goa in a "peaceful" invasion, as "Gandhian satyagrahis", in order to terrorize Portugal into handing it over; this was designed as a repeat of the seizure of the French exclave of Chandernagore.

This is what Wikipedia's page itself says about "Chandanagore": "India became independent of Britain in 1947, and in June 1948 the French Government held a plebescite which found that 97% of Chandannagar's residents wished to become part of India. In May 1950, the French allowed the Indian government to assume de facto control over Chandannagar, officially ceding the city to India on 2 February 1952. On 2 October 1955 Chandannagar was integrated into West Bengal state."

  • Goan patriots pointedly ask why no "Gandhian satyagrahis" were ever sent, before or after India's aggressions against Goa, against Pakistan and Bangladesh, or Sri Lanka, Myanmar and the Maldives, territories which were torn out of India in 1947 and 1937 respectively, in order to procure their "re-unifications" to India!

Who are "Goan patriots"? When have they "pointedly ask(ed)"? This seems to be more in keeping with the writer/s obsession, which stemps from the angst generated by cyberdiscussions in the 1990s and this decade.

  • the Communist leader of the Carnation Revolution in Portugal, Mario Soares

The writer's bias is clearly showing here. Mario Soares was a Socialist party leader...

  • Yashwantrao Chavan, a Marathi

Marathi is a language. The right description for someone from Maharashtra state would be Maharashtrian. Anyway, the writer seems to be raking up an issue (regional identity) when it doesn't seem to be particularly relevant.

  • Chavan-Soares Treaty

Is this the official name of the treaty, or the writer's description? The Pe Chico Monteiro case is the flagship argument of those putting forward a point of view which is out of touch with both reality and history. Use of such words in the writing "forced down Goan throats, or to leave Goa, as demanded by India. He was kidnapped by the citizenship, forced down Goan throats, or to leave Goa, as demanded by India. He was kidnapped by the occupation and put on "trial"" hardly allow for a NPOV. Is "kidnapped" the right word to describe the actions iof a sovereign state, even if contested by a few?

  • 1955 invasion of Goa (info)

The word "invasion" is definitely not NPOV. This is being used to describe the action of satyagrahis (campaigners using non-violence to protest Portuguese colonial rule). --FN

Lúcio, regarding the person that wrote bellow (in what he wrote has factual), bot not his excessive doubts. He is wright on Mário Soares. The guy is a Socialist, and a eurocentric and euro-federalist. That's why he wanted the provinces/colonies to go away, it was in the way to his aim, the EEC (now EU). He is being critized recently for his rush that lead to serious problems in Africa (today fortunatly most problems are being corrected). There's not only the Goan problem, but also the Cabinda one.
It is quit obvious that Goa gained a large Eurasian population, it is a common feature in Portuguese colonization everywhere (i think the best thing of the Portuguese Empire was that). There are countries largely mixed-raced, like Brazil or Cape Verde. Even macau had a large Mixed-raced comunity, but there's a lot of inmigrants there, so today there are more Chinese. But is a peaceful place, with a correct descolonization. unfortunally, the only former colony with a successful and peaceful transition, plus it is the most developed former Portuguese colony. With no rupture, quit the contrary, the Chinese have a special care in perpetuating the colonial aspects of the city.
I agree with you: Goans are very different from Indians. it has a different history and culture. I think Goa should be independent (Indians, forgive me) along with the other enclaves, I think... it would be good for its people, maintnaince of its culture and the development of it, but thats my opinion. It is very similar to the case of East Timor, but India is a democracy, and what occured in Indonesia will hardly occur in India. Meanwhile the article needs to be neutral. It must not use "!", of explain this and that, it just need to say what happened. It needs a distant explanation of things. Abraço. -Pedro 22:35, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
Pedro, - I would be impressed that the Great Grandfather of Goan Quislings - this "FN" or Frederico Noronha - has weighted in with his profound wisdom; his profound wisdom, however, is now seeming more, to use the most charitable description, like the snivelling of some snotty brat, than that of an intelligent man. Just two examples - Manguesim is the Portuguese and Goan name, Mangeshi in the Marathi form. Since I do not see that Goa is part of Maharashtra or India, I do not see why I should use the Marathi form. Again, I have clearly said "such as Manguesim" - and it is only a moron who will then retort that "It is doubtful whether one village could be described as the destination for this entire migration." To such nonsense, I can only recommend medical attention, before the ailment becomes irreversible.
There are objections to things that I have not put in, like, "Margao is the largest town" or "Goa fell under the Islamic rule for the first time in 1312", and since Herr Quisling has not addressed himself to me, I do not see the need to reply to him.
As for "By agreement between the Goans and the Portuguese, the Muslim population was exterminated", I will say only two words, and leave things at that: Konkanna Akhyana, and those who are Goans ought to know what that means. If they don't, let them research it - it will be enlightening!
Lastly, I believe that the Talk pages are badly organized. I think that posts should be cascaded down automatically in chronological order.
Regards,
Lucio Mas 14:15, 6 May 2005 (UTC) [I believe calling a spade a spade is a virtue, not a vice.]

Nehru, Chandernagore, etc.

Did Nehru "instigate" Indians against Goa? FN would like us to believe not, but the facts say otherwise. Turning to the Wikipedia page on Nehru we read: Though Nehru professed distaste for armed force, during his administration the Home Minister Sardar Patel used India's army to secure, for instance, Hyderabad in September 1948; later Portuguese-colonized Goa in December 1961 was incorporated into India through a bloodless military takeover. This is an altered version; the one I saw a few months ago explicitly "credited" Vallabh Patel for India's 1961 actions. However, it is a fact that Valabh Patel died in 1950, eleven years before "he" committed the crimes against Goa in 1961!

As for Chandernagore, I will admit that the Wikipedia article does not say anything about Indian mobs overrunning the place. However, I had read it years ago, at a time I had not started my habit of collecting sources, so that I cannot offer positive proof. The internet pages on Chandernagore that I have seen, run by Indians, do not mention these mobs. So, did they not happen? It would seem to be so - unless one pays attention to curious things and uses one's brains. For one thing, France was ruling not merely Chandernagore, but also Pondicherry, Yanam, Mahe de Labordonnais and Karaikal; yet they declared only Chandernagore a Free City in 1947, handed it over to the locals, and then ceded it to India after a plebiscite. Is there any logical reason why they did this only in Chandernagore, and not in the other four territories? France handed over the remaining four only later, in 1954, which is a full four years after. Why? The questions are all interesting, and, for now, there are no answers.

Regards

Lucio Mas 15:11, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Temperature in Goa

"The heat index is a measure of the contribution high humidity makes, in combination with abnormally high temperatures, to reduce the body's ability to cool itself. For example, the index shows that an air temperature of 100deg Farenheit with a relative humidity of 50% has the same effect on the human body as a temperature of 120degrees." (Quoting Page 171, The World Almanac and Book of Facts, 2005). Goa's summertime temperatures in the early or mid-30s (deg C) might seem better than it actually is, without mention of the high humidity in the region. Perhaps something could be done to co-relate the temperatures with the humidity levels.

Bom Jesus

Bom Dia means 'Hello' in Portuguese, so not only does Bom Jesus mean 'Good Jesus', it also means 'Hello Jesus!' --McDogm 00:34, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

no it doesnt. "Bom dia" means "Good morning", people just prefer to say "bom dia" (good morning), "boa tarde" (good afternoon) and "boa noite" (good evening) than "olá" (hello). "Bom Jesus" is a religious place in Braga. And it only means "Good Jesus".Believe me on this one ;). -Pedro 01:12, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
I think Bom Jesu (not Jesus) would be a more accurate spelling, isn't it Pedro? FN

FN, maybe to people in Goa (maybe they speak that way). The word is Jesus (pt:Jesus, Port. lang. wikipedia article), and only Jesus (written Portuguese), which translates to Jesus in English (aka the same), but pronunced differently obviously. The name is probably took from Braga (who can see a picture of Bom Jesus of Braga in that article), the religious "capital" of Portugal. -Pedro 21:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

At the site of the Bascilica the ASI (Archeological Society of India) board states that the moument is the "Basilica of Bom Jesus". So Bom Jesu would be incorrect in the English wikipedia.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 06:05, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

The jury seems to be out on this. If you check http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=Basilica+of+Bom+Jesu+Old+Goa&meta= you'll find a mix of both terms being used, Bom Jesus and Bom Jesu. Somehow the latter seems more used in Goa, though I might be wrong ;-) Also the Catholic parishes network http://www.catholicparishes.net/IN/GOA/BomJesu/ seems to prefer "Bom Jesu", and I guess this might have official sanction locally.
On another issue, I'm absolutely certain that you're wrong in calling Francis Xavier the "patron saint of Goa". This is a widely-held (but incorrect) perception via the Net. I can't locate the Archdiocese of Goa site; but this has been clarified that Jose Vaz, a Goan in line for sainthood, is the patron saint of Goa. Francis Xavier has long been held in respect, and is the 'Goencho Saib' (Lord of Goa) to the Catholic devout. But he's not the official patron saint.--fredericknoronha 14:17, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
In many cases the Google search is inappropriate to deem as correct. I'd go in what the official name of the basicilica is rather than Bom Jesu.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 19:39, May 18, 2005 (UTC)
  • If is in line for sainthood how can he be the patron saint? he can't. The patron saint is not someone from the city, my cities patron saint is Saint Peter (the 1st pope and one of the 12 followers of Jesus), which is also the patron saint of Malacca, and he never been in here, he was probably chosen because he is related with the sea, and the festivity was probably held to an old roman god, maybe neptune I dont know (nobody know why and when it started). I dont see "bom Jesu" as the official name. We are dialing with the catholic church not any church. They wouldnt change the name, that name is possibly due to ignorance or local pronunciation. -Pedro 14:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Brazil - the country that helds more Portuguese heritage, most cities celebrates the 3 main saints in one single day, because the settlers were from different cities with different traditions. It appears that in some cities they do 3 festivals in the proper date of each saint. That is too much party in one single month - June. So many cities, dont have a proper saint, but several. -Pedro 14:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

What's this obsession with "by the Indians"?

The writer of this article has used this phrase in the article so many times that it's ridiculous. If the writer had written an article about New York city, it would go something like this.

New Amsterdam is the largest city in America. It was founded by the Dutch before the Americans invaded it. Today, New Amsterdam is called New York (by the Americans). It is divided into 5 provinces called boroughs (by the Americans). Because New Amsterdam is a very vertical city, it has lots of lifts, called elevators (by the Americans). The northernmost part of New Amsterdam is called Haarlem (called "Harlem" by the Americans). The city's tallest building is 200m tall (called feet by the Americans). The center of the city is called Manhattan. Outsiders are sometimes begrdgingly permitted in if traffic lets up. Because American parties like the Republican Party insist upon holding conventions in the city, New Amsterdamers are made to feel like outsiders within their own city. The Dutch dialect of New Amsterdamese (people take great offense if this is called New Amsterdamian because this term was invented by Zoroastrians from the Orian Nebula) is widely spoken in the city. Since the Americans forced the Dutch out, people have been forced to speak English instead. NA has a church called St. Paterique's (called St Patricks by the Americans). The city's biggest celebration is called the Macy's Parade, but Macy's is an artifical creation by the Americans and did not exist when the Dutch ruled New Amsterdam.

Seriously though, this article needs HEAVY editing and a lot more NPOVing. This article is subtly biased against India and also downplays the negative effects of Portugese rule in Goa, not to mention promoting artificial diffrences between Goans and Indians. It also tries to define things too much along religious & racial lines, many of which aren't even true. I have been to Goa before, and the comment about there being large numbers of Eurasians isn't true. Or at the very least, they are so well integrated with other Indians there that no apparent diffrences between the racial makeup of Goa and the rest of India were visible to even an Indian like me. 69.224.223.47 13:27, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Thought I dont agree with your observations and comparisons. I really loved your comment! It cheered up my day. LOL. It is nice to read people like you. hugs -Pedro 13:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
I liked the parody (without having any opinion on the article), and have copied it to BJAODN.-gadfium 22:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Goa is under the illegal occupation of India just as a large part of Europe was under Nazi occupation, and before that, under French Revolutionary and Napoleonic occupation. There is no comparision between Dutch New Amsterdam and English New York, and it is dishonest to pretend to one. If there is a comparision, it must be to New York as it was under the natives and from whom the various European nationalities seized it.
I cannot see how Saddam Hussain's occupation of Kuwait is wrong and illegal, while India's occupation of Goa is "moral" and "lawful"; and I had even provided detailed reasons to prove why I believe as I do. Lucio Mas 14:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
On what basis is Goa under "illegal occupation" of Indians? This is not a forum to vent your opinions. If you claim that it is an illegal occupation then please cite some proofs and references as to why it is an "illegal" occupation. Goa was never independent to even claim that it is an occupation. Before the Portuguese arrived Goa was a part of south Indian kingdoms. How is the current setup illegal? Natives of Goa are linguistically, ethnically and culturally related to the neighbouring states.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 15:18, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • East Timorese are fairly linguistically, ethnically and culturally related to the people to the other side of the island - they never had independence. And its independence wasnt saw has natural by many Indonesians. Today, we all know what happened. Portuguese are ethnically, linguistically and culturally and HISTORICALLY related with the Spanish (damm both even entered at the same time in the EU). Yet, it is an independent country for almost 1000 years (with 60 yrs of union in between). Within Spain, they are all related, but there are independentists in the Vasque country (these have a different language- pretty odd one I might say), Galicia, Catalunya, Extremadura...
Finnaly, I think the article is very good, nice maps and pics!!! and the user with an IP was really funny. We should keep a neutral POV, but hiding things (if they have a base) is not a good thing. As it happened with Goans and non-Goans comming to Portugal & EU. --Pedro 15:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
Tee hee hee... thanks pedro and gadfium. I was trying to make it obvious how ridiculous the original article sounded with "(by the Indians)" inserted every other sentence. Goa is an Indian state so obviously whatever the regions, the rivers or the festivals of Goa are called are called that by the Indians. Mexicans, Samoans or Congolese have no need to invent names for Goa because they don't live there. And as for you disagreeing with my observations, it's sad but it's ok :-(. I was merely stating what I believed was true - I have no means of proving it though, or I would have made the appropriate edits on the article page. And sorry about having only the IP there - I didn't realize I wasn't signed in until after I hit the submit button.
And Lucio Mas, you seem to have missed the point of my parody on multiple levels. The reason I chose New York was not because I approve of the US taking it over from the Dutch (or the Dutch from the natives) but because I wanted to point out the following - a contemporary article on NY would not spend most of its words talking about how NY was under the Dutch. By now, that is just a detail of history. Whether the actions of the various parties involved were morally or legally acceptable isn't relevant here. What is relevant is what NY is like today. Similarly, what talukas or whatever were called under the Portuguese is irrelevant to Goa today. It would go OK in an article about the Portuguese occupation in Goa, but not in a general article on Goa itself.
The second point is precisely about what you are trying to push so energetically - while India may have used the military option to bring Goa under its control in 1961, Goans are no less Indians than are the Maharashtrians or Kannadigas that surround them. Infact if you read the history of Goa on this very page, you will notice that not only did "Indians" (however you define them) control Goa long before anybody who REALLY invaded Goa, but also Goa was never a separate country of its own. So on what basis can Goa claim being not Indian? True, there is a diffrence between the culture, language and what not of Goa and the rest of India, but much greater diversity can be found within the rest of India itself. And if Goans aren't Indians, than nobody is. Indeed, no such thing called India even existed until only 60 years ago. But by the same measure even Egypt didn't exist as a country till 1922. Does this mean that the Egyptians are illegally occupying Cairo?
For countries with ancient roots, a metric other than most-recent-political-affiliation should be applied to determine their identity, because otherwise Goa would be Portugese, Afganistan would be Russian, Vietnam would be French and New York would be Dutch. Qwertyca 16:21, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

POV

The entire article has been changed to a POV state. A lot of cleaning up is required. I have made significant changes to the text as suggested by FN. To Lucio: Wikipedia is not a forum to vent your personal viewpoints. Please contribute to the encyclopedia in the neutral point of view.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:31, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some cleanups. Would like some more editors to check for factual inaccuracies.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 18:41, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Just a few, quick suggestions on the opening para itself. While Panaji is the official name of Goa, it might be relevant to note that the state-capital is called, in typical Goan style, by different names used by speakers of different languages. It is commonly referred to as Ponn'je in the local language Konkani, as Panjim by speakers of English, and earlier used to be Pangim in the Portuguese language. For Vasco, it might be better to use the full name, which also underlines the historic link and is it's current name: Vasco da Gama. The term Vasco is acceptable in common usage, but isn't either accurate or informative (about the region's history).
To say the Portuguese "colonised it (Goa) forcibly" is not just the use of redundant words (was colonialism ever voluntary?) but might also suggest an attempt to make a political point in the context of ultra-nationalism. Everyone understands what colonialism means, I guess.
Another gripe with "persecuting Hindus". History says the first inhabitants to be slaughtered, not just persecuted, were the Muslim inhabitants of Goa (called Moors by the Portuguese). So, are we just glossing over history, or is this an attempt to pander to what is 'politically right' in a situation where the Hindu far right has been ruling India and re-writing history textbooks? Wider religious intolerance by the Portuguese started around the 1540s or later. Its heat was felt not just by the local Hindu populations, but also, at different points of history, by Jews, neo-converts, and people who were not like the rulers.
"Internationally renowned for its beaches".... This is not inaccurate or out of place, but it probably plays down the fact that, despite being a small place, across history (pre-Portuguese times, and in the Portuguese times, and later) Goa has played a significant role in global history, probably far beyond its geographic size -- as a prominent pre-Portuguese trading port, entreport, a centre where East encountered West, the nodal point for "evangelising" the East, the entry-point of Western music into Asia, the site which saw a number of exotic plants brought in by the Portuguese, and more.--FN
FN was also very "neutral" in his opinions.-Pedro 20:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Nichalp, but no thanks: I don't need your hypocritical patronizations. It is of course "NPOV" when I debunk Indian imperialism and colonialism in Goa, but it is not when Indian imperialists and colonialists in Goa (and in Bombay and the rest of the Concan, for that matter) misuse the Internet to push their criminal pretensions that Goa is a part of India. However, I will not contest the point here on Wikipedia; this was a learning experience, and it has helped me to realize my duty even more clearly. I will do what I need to do, God willing. Lucio Mas 14:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
My "hypocritical patronizations"?? What do you imply by that? I'm asking you to respect the neutral point of view, which you fail to understand. I'm sorry, but your one-man-show regarding "patriotism" does not have the mass appeal and support as much as you claim. You could have been a good editor here, but your views are horribly coloured with hardly any basis for support. By definition: a colony is a territory under the immediate political control of a geographically-distant state. Since Goa and the 'rest of India' are coterminous, Goa cannot be labelled as a colony. If your assumptions that Goa was under illegal occupations had some truth, then Goa would have been in a situation that Kashmir or Nagaland is currently in. Best of luck in your endeavours, but I repeat, this is not a personal blog to add viewpoints without serious proof.  =Nichalp (talk · contribs)= 15:31, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Hey nichalp, thanks for cleaning up the article - it looks MUCH better now than before. The video was a nice find too. Portugese steal territory from Indians and when Indians protest peacefully about it and are murdered in cold blood by aforementioned Portuguese somehow it is the Indian's fault for "invading" the stolen land? Wow. BTW, East Timor was an independent country - albeit for only 9 days and not recognised internationally. In any case, the Indian army didn't proceed to murder 250,000 Goans after invading it. Economically, Goa is the 4rd richest state in India after Punjab, Haryana and Delhi so it's not like it is neglected on that count either. Qwertyca 17:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • If India didnt existed how can you say it was stolen? The reverse can be said. Just in the 1960s the world was completely anti-colonialist. I've read about the reasons while reading the problem with the Portuguese-Goan diplomat, and they said their feared that it would become an US base if they didnt invade. Hmm?! A democracy invading other countries territory? Why the US wanted a base in India? And, East Timor was to be an Independent country. Surely Goa would also be after the Portuguese regime changed. No people dead, how about the obvious cultural overlap? maybe that's why some people dont like the regime. Again that doesnt matter, what matters to me is the information given by Lúcio that was removed in demographics that prooves to be true, if you have a problem with historic colonization them you should find psychiatriatical advice. Peaceful revolution? yeah, right... but dedicated to remove all the colonial heritage, changing names, and reduce the importance of mixed people. It does seem to me that India has a serious problem w/ colonial heritage, and that is very strange, and the reasons must also be issued.--Pedro 11:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm late in the thread. Having read the above discussions, it is clear to me that Lucio wants to add his wishful thinking to the article. I've never heard anything about anybody in Goa not wanting to be a part of Goa. People of Goa and Pondicherry are as much Indians as the rest of India. The only difference is that the rest of India was under the British and these were under the Portugeese and French respectively. These people however have an added exposure to the cultural heritage of their respective former rulers. See this for the voting percentage in the 1977 elections to the Goan assembly. I would guess that it is well above the national average. I'm no bigot, but having lived here, I would say that India is a really vibrant democracy thanks to the ample freedom of the press and judiciary. -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 04:08, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't Lucio Mas banned last year? He gave us a tough time reverting stuff back and forth for a few days.--Desai 19:08, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

If we want to use ancient roots than we have to go back as far as the Aryan invasion of the indian sub-continent. Than it is time for the original Dravidians to begin the push? B. Colaco

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 August 2019

Gross State Domestic Product (in millions of Rupees)[1] Editor134212 (talk) 11:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. The request must be of the form "please change X to Y". --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation". Archived from the original on 13 April 2006. Retrieved 7 September 2006. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 September 2019

Rupeshsarkar (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

thumb thumb|Old Portuguese House thumb|Aerial photo of Candolim Beach [[ thumb thumb [[ thumb [[ thumb|Activities at Colva Beach ]] ]]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2019

 Goa - the present day name of this small state on the Western coast of India was given by Portuguese who invaded Goa in the year 1510 AD. The name of a town which is known as Old Goa today was earlier known as Goy. After commencement of Portuguese Inquisition in 1536, Portuguese Jews who fled to Portuguese Goa settled in the town with native non-Jews whom they called Goy (meaning non-jews). The name Goy is derived from Hebrew/(Yiddish) language. Yiddish is a German language spoken mainly by Jews in eastern and Central Europe. 157.33.124.79 (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 December 2019

Goa is also famous for Carnival. It is the most famous festival in the state and has been celebrated since the 18th century as a precursor to the abstinence of Lent. The 'Carnaval' is exclusive and unique to Goa, and was introduced by the Portuguese who ruled over Goa for over five hundred years. JacintaCarolina (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Carnival is not mentioned in the Culture of Goa article; what's here should be the highlights of that article. Further, you have not provided any reliable sources —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect location

Goa is not on the southwestern coast of India. It is in Western India; see page ii of ‘Native Officialdom in Western India’ by Abhijit Siredesai.

Please refer to the Western India Wikipedia page for internal wiki consistency regarding this. In addition, there is no mention of Goa in the South India page and therefore the description of it being on the southwestern coast, especially without a reliable citation, is inaccurate and requires a correction. Goingoan (talk) 19:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

It's the southernmost state in Western India, so I don't think southwest coast is inaccurate in a general geographic description. —C.Fred (talk) 20:01, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
No reliable published or peer reviewed documents describe it as being located in southwestern India. For example, Odisha is the southernmost state in Eastern India, but is not labelled as being in southeastern India. I have reverted the edit to reflect the original source. Goingoan (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
"No reliable published or peer reviewed documents describe it as being located in southwestern India." Ah yes, arguing from the negative. How could anyone disprove you? They'd have to read every reliable source and peer-reviewed document... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
@C.Fred and Cyphoidbomb: The descriptor "southwestern coast" was as per the consensus at WP:INB, according to which we agreed to follow geographical definitions for Indian states and UTs as written in Britannica, instead of government definitions since government definitions change depending on the organization. Goingoan has been disruptively going against that consensus since then. See diff, diff and now today. Also note that "southwestern coast" described geographically is not the same as southern India. The Andhra Pradesh article also uses similar geographical identifier, and its northern areas are far above Goa latitude-wise. Restoring. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 08:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

The Britannica entry for this does not cite a reliable source for southwestern. Furthermore, the Britannica entry is more a less a copy of an old Wikipedia article for Goa (even the image for a house from Goa is originally from Wikipedia).

I suggest the removal of this circular reference. Goingoan (talk) 16:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Infobox replacement

The {{Infobox settlement}} used on this page is going to be replaced with {{Infobox Indian state or territory}} as per the Proposal and Consensus of RFC. Any questions/suggestions? Discuss Here.

You can also contribute by replacing Infobox settlement with Infobox Indian state or territory on other pages , or by improving this one. Tojoroy20 (talk) 07:55, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Replaced — Tojoroy20 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Goa/Archive_1&oldid=1183556128"