Talk:Goa Opinion Poll Day

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

More information Associated task forces: ...
Close

Fact tags

I've added a bunch of fact tags. I have tried to add only the most necessary tags. Here are some examples with explanations:

  • Some people in Goa considered Konkani to be a dialect of Marathi and hence by reason, considered all Goans to be of Marathi ethnicity - We need a citation for this because we need to know who the "some people" are who make this argument.
  • The MGP and politicians in Maharashtra were elated at the victory and touted it as a mandate that the majority of Goans were in favour of merger - Expressions of emotion such as this ("elated") and interpretations of events ("touted it as a mandate") usually need citations. Most of the tags I added fall into this "interpretation of events" category.
  • The Christians of Goa formed a major portion of the Goan population (29% by today's numbers) and had considerable influence were fearful that the merger would reduce their political influence to nothing in the merged entity. - Any statistics need a citation.

I hope this helps! You might also look at WP:When to cite. Awadewit (talk) 03:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I have cited all except two. Some of the citations may not match as they were sourced from some defunct websites, so I have taken the one which is nearest. For the two which I cannot find any refs I dont mind removing them , they are not critical. I have not removed them yet.
A bit of explanation for the first line mentioned above. I have written it as "some people" for a specific reason. I know it can be considered a weasel word, but it is really difficult to exactly describe who those "some" were. For instance almost all Marathis from Mahrashtra still beleive that Konkani is a dialect of Marathi. But among Goans(and neighouring areas) you cannot lable people as Konkanis or Marathis based on their preferences. For example: some people call themselves Konkanis but beleve that Konkani is a dialect of Marthi. Others call themselves Marathis even though they speak Konkani at home. SOme of the aggressive Konkani protagonists beleive that everyone in Goa is a Konkani regardless of what they say their mother tongue is. People who speak the Malwani dialect (of Konkani)(in the neighbouring Malwan area of Maharashtra) tend to avoid the controversy by saying that they speak "Malvani" instead of saying that they speak Konkani. --Deepak D'Souza 11:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your hard work on this! What do you mean when you say "Some of the citations may not match as they were sourced from some defunct websites, so I have taken the one which is nearest"? Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
What I meant was that the statemtent says something and the source may differ slightly. For instance take this diff . The source says that Again Dr. Jack and his legislators met Indira Gandhi and submitted a memorandum that such a monumental decision affecting the future of the State could not be left to legislators alone, but should be put before the people to decide. The reference says Fortunately, we had leaders who convinced New Delhi that local Assembly results did not reflect the Goan mind on Merger and that the issue be decided by a separate referendum. Leaders like Purshottam Kakodkar, who enjoyed a personal equation with the Nehru household, and the redoubtable Dr. Jack de Sequeira, who led an equally steely Opposition in the Goa Assembly, i.e. the ref does not say that the UGP legislators met Indira Gandhi. The problem happened because the site from which I picked this statement (drjackdesequeira.com, which has a detailed history of the events related to the referendum) is now defunct. So I had to chose another reference that came close to the actual statment.
Another example is this: the statement saya that the campaigning was vigorous, whereas the source says that campaig began in earnest. Overall, the sources match the statement in meaning if not word-for-word. I hope that isn't a major issue? In paces where I could not find any reference that conveyed the same meaning as the statement I have not put up any refs.
I see. Ok. Awadewit (talk) 01:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Map needed

A map on this page will be helpful. The map should display the states of Gujarat, Maharashtra, Goa, Daman and Diu. I don't know how to edit SVG images. Any volunteers? --Deepak D'Souza 11:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Goa Opinion Poll. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Referendum Suggestion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Consensus Against name change has remained unchanged for three weeks. (non-admin closure) Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

So, the article title state calls the subject 'Goa Opinion Poll' while the lead clearly states that it was in fact a plebiscite or referendum and as opposed to an opinion poll the results were binding to the Government of India. Shouldn't the article be reworded to reflect that? --HarshAJ (Talk)(Contribs) 07:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

  • No, keep the same article title. Per WP:COMMONNAME Article titles are given popular or common names, not the technically correct name. Both the common name and the technically correct name can be stated and explained in the article. CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • May be re-titled as "Goa referendum" or "Goa referendum (1967)" to reflect the article more precisely. Better a RM is started, try {{subst:requested move}}. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 05:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • No, per both the official and common name (see WP:COMMONNAME) While referendum may be a more fitting title, it is referred to as the "Goa Opinion Poll" in many of the sources. And, for good reason, as that was apparently its actual name given in the authorizing Act of Parliament, see below. It's possible Parliament didn't want it to have the same weight as something called a "referendum," or maybe it sounded cooler, or who knows? From the act:
"Goa, Deman and Diu (Opinion Poll)... An opinion poll shall be taken for the purpose of ascertaining— (a) the wishes of the electors of Goa as to whether Goa should merge in the State of Maharashtra or should continue to be Union territory"
So, since that's what they called it at the time, I don't think we need to rename it, even if we would call it something else now. Chris vLS (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Should be renamed Goa status referendum, 1967 in line with the relevant naming convention, WP:NC-GAL#Election and referendums. See the other articles in Category:1967 referendums. Number 57 19:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Should remain as is, since it's both the common and the official name. It's okay for titles be "technically incorrect" in some sense; we just clarify in the lead section. And, yes, this should have been done as an RM, not an RfC, but we needn't be process pundits. The nature of the discussion is likely to be identical.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI