Wikipedia:Featured article removal candidates/Goa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Goa

Article is still a featured article.

The History section is too long. It is almost the same length, if not longer, than the main article History of Goa. There are two different reference sections - is it necessary? Given this quality, I find it dubious that it can be featured on the main page.

Edit: Numerous NPOV added right when article was featured on main page. Unless these concerns on neutrality, accurateness, stability and referencing can be addressed, I maintain my remove vote. -Travisyoung 01:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

To put it in a more concise manner, I reiterate the concerns stated not only by me, but by several people in the talk page:

1. Not comprehensive. Does not mean it has to be exhaustive, but clearly some points have been omitted. See discussion below, and discussion in talk page for numerous examples.
2. Not accurate. The whole history section has little, if any, references. how can they be verified? Are facts supported by specifics?
3. Clearly the article has controversial issues, as seen in the talk page. These issues need to be addressed seriously and not single-handedly edited out.

I strongly feel that the article should go back to peer review, and the concerns of Lucio, Pedro, Federick be satisfied. After all, if it is to be featured on the Main Page again, we want readers to have an accurate picture of Goa. -Travisyoung 10:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I do not see how either objection corresponds to Featured Article criteria. 119 01:12, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Kaldari has reverted to a much shorter version at the same time I put up this objection [1]. I withdraw my objection. After reading Frederick's point-by-point arguments in Talk:Goa, I am no longer convinced this article is NPOV. -Travisyoung 01:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. information is to be given. This strange beaviour on the size of an article, is an illness of En wikipedia. I dont know how you consider great article those without information. -Pedro 02:33, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "information is to be given". However, given the excessively long edit you Lucio has placed, it would have been more appropriate in the main article, History of Goa. -Travisyoung 09:07, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

me???? -Pedro 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This article contains too many factual errors, obvious non-NPOV biases, and is clearly makes a case to minimise the negative impacts of Portuguese colonialism, while labelling the current rule as "Indian" colonialism. This point of view not only has few, if any, takers in Goa, among its diaspora or anywhere in the globe, but seems to be written by fringe elements, whose politics and prejudices are amply clear from their personal website postings. As a long-time supporter of Wikipedia, I am embarassed that such an extreme and un-substantiated point of view can not just make it to the Wikipedia, but actually get featured on the home-page. A number of the arguments verge on inter-religious hate speech. This needs to be countered and cross-checked, regardless of which set of fanatical viewpoints are behind it. -- Frederick Noronha, Freelance Journalist, Goa.

Easy to say, but back it up with reliable sources and we have something. The article's talk page is now more the place for that kind of detailed discussion. Take it point by point and specify where the article is incorrect in your view and what sources support your stance. - Taxman 22:11, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Frederick is right, Taxman. A lot of clear bias has crept in after its sucessful nomination to the FA status. I've cleaned up most of the text.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 05:50, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. POV matter has to be cleaned up first.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 08:21, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

If POV material exists, then why is the article of FA status? -Travisyoung 09:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I cannot speak with certainty on this particular instance, but after an article becomes an FA, it is perfectly possible for anyone to add POV material. All that is then needed is for someone to remove it. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Comments brought up by Frederick deals with material which were present during the FAC process, not entirely the edits that were added by PedroLucio.-Travisyoung 09:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Me??? Did I edit that article??? -Pedro 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

One or two minor factual inaccuracies were there at the time of FA, but most of the addition of heavily biased matter was added by User:Lucio Mas. It is incorrect to brand the article as a POV at the time of submission. I have tempered the POV matter on the page based on Frederick's comments. Most of the text -- history sections that he as dealt with have been removed before I NPOVd the article. There are a one or two points which I disagree with Frederick, but they relate to factual accuracy clarifications which can be easily sorted out (such as tourism stats etc.). I've removed all the biased text added by Lucio.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 05:47, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

very interesting: removing POV by adding another POV. Without factual info, without accuracy (not only in tourism but in names and ethnicity - with gross POV, and only people that know nothing believe in it). He is clearly talking about his example. It is not the first time that some ppl are trying to hide independentist movments in Goa and European diaspora (I had the same discussion the past yr, when people were removing external links to independentist moviments and they were successful). Today, again. And that, is surely POV. Oh "coloniasnim"... oh the devil... give me a break! -Pedro 18:57, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

why this was removed? recently there was even a diplomatic problem because a famous Portuguese-Goan politician/parlamentarian/former Portuguese ambassor in Portugal issued this problem (I only knew that he was goan because of this). There are many Indians using Goan passports to acquire Portuguese nationality, everybody knows that because Indians are in appearance different from Goans. And, as a result, he was forbitten to enter in India because of this.
Many facts that he wrote are completly correct and were removed:
Despite the recognition by Revolutionary Portugal since 1974 of the Indian annexation of Goa as legitimate, Portuguese law creates an anomalous situation where Goans are recognized as being entitled to Portuguese citizenship and passports. Following the Occupation, many Goans, largely from the civil service, migrated to Portugal; this was aggravated by the deliberate policy of India to prefer Indian civil servants and the Hindi and Marathi languages, foreign to native Goans, for government employment, a practise that is still rigourously followed. More recently, many Goans, even though Indian citizens, have begun to apply out of nostalgia for Portuguese passports, but have been shocked by the response of India, which deems those Goans who accept Portuguese passports as being foreigners in their own country. This is explained by the fact that Indian law does not allow for dual citizenship with other countries. At the same time, Portugal has come under increasing pressure from the UK and other European states to not admit Goans, since cases have occurred of Indians possessing forged Goan documents to gain Portuguese citizenship in order to seek economic opportunities in the European Union.
BTW this wasnt in the history section.-Pedro 21:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

The text you quoted is not encyclopedic to be reproduced verbatim. Much of the text represents a biased viewpoint on the Indian government. Is the information really necessary to be added? Pedro please cite some websites on any independence movements in Goa (not Lucio's blog) to substanciate claims of an overt/covert movement.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 08:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. but someone needs to tidy up. Filiocht | Blarneyman 09:17, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

The issues listed on the talk page require much more effort and time than just tidying up. It clearly shows the neeed for further discussion. Perhaps removing it from FA list and listing it on peer review would help, so that Lucio, Pedro, Frederick and Nichalp can discuss these further (since they are the main contributors to this discussion. -Travisyoung 04:14, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

The bone of contention appears to be the interpretation of the history section. The section at the moment needs discussion to sort out issues but that does not necessarily entail that the rest of the article is a POV.  =Nichalp (talk • contribs)= 08:12, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is not biased information it is true, and there maybe old news in the net. I'll see if i find something. BTW Velha Goa and Goa Velha means the same, but in the preferable old way is Goa Velha. Portuguese is not English. I just remembered that a significant part of this info is in [2] a link from the article itself. -Pedro 11:36, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Article needs a little clean up, otherwise it is in a good shape. If people really want to force their POV on an article, I would suggest that they talk and share references which support their POV first.--IMpbt 22:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Some more extensive searches show that, Window on Goa: A History and Guide by Maurice Hall supports the original sections on the history of Goa (a few pages are available to public through amazon's look inside feature).

• Keep. It seems like one or two people want to push their wishful thinking into the article without providing any credible evidence or references. -- Sundar (talk · contributions) 04:35, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

One or two people? My friend you can hide info from dumbs that know nothing. I have my own opinion and I investigate if I want to know something. I dont like to use google (I use it for something that i clearly dont know or I dont have info), the article itself has a clear proof in the link section. it seems it is like lucio says: hindu version. But, I admit, the article is very good, and it got better, more info on culture was added. I see no reason for it to lose the FA status. But it is an endangered culture, and many are trying to erase has much has they can. -Pedro 11:42, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• The efforts to delete the non-NPOV slant needs to be appreciated. Will try to key in some more comments via my noisy and slow dial-up in Goa! I agree with Pedro that all facts of history need to be maintained, and no aspect should be glossed over. What I don't agree with is the suggestion that bigotry, bias and somewhat-camouflaged hate speech can masquerade as "facts". For anyone who understands the South Asian reality (I will eschew the word 'Indian' for now, to avoid falling into the "Goa is not India" debate) it becomes clear that the interpretation and twist sought to be given is one that divides people on the lines of religion. Goa's Portuguese past (for 451 years in some areas) is a reality; and with every passing year after the departure of the Portuguese, it's probably going to be easier to get to terms with our former rulers. Nothing needs to be hidden. But let us, please, not degenerate into a "Catholic" and a "Hindu" version of Goa's history. fredericknoronha Frederick Noronha