Talk:Freida Pinto

bollywood
says shes the highest payed actress in bollywood i wouldn't called her a bollywood star just coz shes indian shes has yet to do a bollywood film and most bollywood films are hindu or hindu style shes not so i changed it to "in india" also hollywood is bigger with multi million film productions so clearly she'll earn more money working in places like amercia than actresses in india. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.199.25 (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh? You don't need to be a Hindu to be in a Bollywood or other Indian movie. Genelia D'Souza is a Catholic as well, Shahrukh Khan is a Muslim and [Bobby Deol]] is a Sikh. They're all Bollywood superstars. But you're right; Freida has never appeared in a Hindi-language film so she's not a "Bollywood star." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.89.14.114 (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Born on February 30th?
If she is e="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.26.128 (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to be born on February 30th? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.105.30.45 (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

pinto?? that sounds latin, being catholic, she's probably portugueses

216.164.63.182 (talk) 20:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, she looks Portuguese to you? She's an ethnic Konkani from India. She has a Portuguese name like most Roman Catholics in India, who were converted by Portuguese missionaries. All the info is right here on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Freida Pinto sounds Jewish. Pinto is a popular Sephardic name. I'll bet her family roots are Jews from Iraq who came to Mumbai for business like many Iraqi Jews in the last couple of hundred years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.100.182.242 (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why rumors are part of her bio. If you can't find a public declaration by either party that they are dating should it really be included? I thought this website was about facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebMachiavelli (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

By the way I removed the rumors in the personal life section. Since the one about her and co-star seem to be refuted by the references it seems especially ridiculous to keep in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebMachiavelli (talk • contribs) 16:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are right. No rumours should be allowed. Only facts. When Freida Pinto doesn't want her engagement details to be revealed anywhere, then we have no right to reveal it here. Kensplanet TC 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As Kensplanet says, only facts should be allowed. And he/she also says "When Freida doesn't want her engagement details to be revealed anywhere, we have no right to reveal it here." Which implies there was an engagement and *factual* details about it have been recovered. If a subject's approval dictates whether or not important facts about his/her life can be logged in Wikipedia, that would make us delete half the details of criminals and politicians, not to mention other celebrities ;). To maintain intellectual integrity, a brief mention with a reference newspaper article should be sufficient and necessary to cover the break up of the engagement. I have therefore added a couple of sentences to the same effect with a reference to an article in the Hindustan Times.83.77.121.17 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) geo

I'm unsure if the story about her rumoured engagement needs to be in there based on scoops by newspapers which seem to have quotes and photographs provided by "friends".

Shehas a portuguese name! Study the Portuguese Discoveries and you will find out that Goa (an Indian City) was taken by Portugal and there are a lot of building with the Portuguese flag. Check the "Capela de Santa Catarina" (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/S%C3%A9_de_Santa_Catarina.jpg/180px-S%C3%A9_de_Santa_Catarina.jpg), http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ficheiro:India_Goa_Portuguese_Villa.jpg in this picture you can see the portuguese architects and Portugal constructed more than 10 huge castels in Goa. It very likely that she own portuguese roots. Even chinese celebrities own portuguese roots! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.193.66.206 (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * She is a Mangalorean Catholic, who mostly are of Pancha Gauda Saraswat Brahmin lineage. It is a common misconception that we have Portuguese blood in our veins, and even many ignorant Konkani Catholics erroeously believe themselves to be of Iberian stock. Joyson Prabhu  Holla at me!   11:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Slumdog
I think the article talks too much about Slumdog. The film has its own article. -- Beardo (talk) 22:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I very much disagree. It's her only film role, there's very little material period, and the information that is about Slumdog is entirely about her role in the film and a mere two sentences noting the awards the film received. --JayHenry (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Corrected to her real website: http://www.freidapinto.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.124.113.165 (talk) 07:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Removed the following text. Completely irrelevant in a brief about an actor. Rather reflects a certain bent of mind of the contributor. There was more in the referenced interview, and this was a minor point, the contributor seemingly intends to focus on.
 * In a free wheeling interview to ANI, Freida revealed that she wouldn't mind doing sex scenes for Hollywood directors.

Comments on sex scenes (see above) and dating a co-star continue to be added. This is entirely biased speculation and irrelevant to a biographical article. Please edit.

Her brother works for CNN and he is called Pedro Pinto???
That's not true! Pedro Pinto (sports anchor for CNN International) is NOT her brother.

Goa and Pinto
If the surname Pinto is of Portuguese origin, then the name Freida is of English origin. Why don't you even mention that Kensplanet (talk) 05:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The surname Pinto doesn't indicate Portuguese ancestry in many countries. Her name is Freida, which is an English name. That doesn't mean she is of English ancestry. Kensplanet (talk) 06:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Mangalorean Catholics have Goan origins; Pinto is a name of Portuguese origin (just check the articles). I can't understand why you removed this information (I can see only bad reasons). I had written a week ago that Freida Pinto had a probable Portuguese ancestry, given her last name. Then I read what you (Kensplanet) wrote on Portuguese names used by Konkani Catholics and corrected it. But there is no reason to remove true information on a person's ethnical origins and family name (proper names are irrelevant except when they are very unusual or eccentric). If you are to answer me, please write it here, and not on my talk page. Thank you. Velho (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * And there's no reason to add speculation in an article that's supposed to be about facts. Pinto has "a probably Portuguese ancestry given her last name"? And what about the Muslims in India (and other parts of Asia) with Arabic names? Do they have Arabic ancestry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If Freida Pinto has Portuguese ancestry, then prove it. Get a Reliable source from the Web. We do not work on probabilities and assumptions. Please read the rules of WP:BLP. Having a Portuguese surname doesn't indicate Portuguese ancestry. Even in countries like Brazil, it doesn't indicate nowadays. It may indicate even Italian ancestry. Then forget about India. Kensplanet (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That way, even my name is "John", ofcourse only in the English language. The variant of my name differs in my native language. Does that mean my ancestors are from England. What logic is this? Kensplanet (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

1. You are (intentionally?) misreading this part of the article. 2. There is no speculation in the article, only two facts: a) Mangalorean Catholics stem from Mangalore and, before that, Goa. b) "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. Please check these articles! 3. Those are plain true assertions with relevant information that cannot be deleted. 4. The article does not claim that FP has Portuguese ancestors. 5. I am sure that you are acting with good faith, but deleting this information is an ethnic informational cleansing, which is bad in itself and is also a PoV. Velho (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Your "facts" are a violation of our original research policy WP:OR particularly WP:SYN and will not stay in the article without valid sourcing connecting them to the topic of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence is misleading and that's what fuels speculation. To be quite honest, it seems that you're insisting on keeping it there because of nationalism. You argue that Pinto being a Portuguese surname is a fact; we're not saying it isn't. You claim that it's relevant info; I definitely don't agree. Actor Naveen Andrews' surname is of English origin, but that fact is not included on his Wiki page. The same applies to other pages of Asians from families who were converted to Catholicism or Islam. Lastly, I'm not sure how we're promoting "ethnic informational cleansing" when article readers can easily click on "Mangalorean Catholic" or "Goa" and find all the info right here on this site.


 * By the way, I never deleted the sentence. I came here first to comment on it after I read the awkward article. 24.184.166.238 (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Neal

There's no original research (please read the articles on Mangalorean Catholics and Pinto, I just used them) and that's certainly not the reason why I'm being reverted. Please try to answer my arguments here on the talk page. You're deleting information. I'll soon file a request for mediation, anyway.Velho (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * goferit. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, 24.184.166.238, now you're addressing the real issues. I will not discuss "nationalism", since it works both ways. The only real question is exactly the one you mention, that is, whether the origin of the name is or is not relevant. I think we have a good sign that it is just by reading the previous sections of this talk page. People do wonder about Freida's name. They wouldn't, if the name were "Andrews". Then, it seems quite appropriate to say the minimum about that name and to have a link to its page. You also said that "The sentence is misleading and that's what fuels speculation." I can't see how can this be misleading: "The name 'Pinto' is of Portuguese origin, but that does not imply that Freida Pinto has Portuguese ancestors." Anyway, I will fully agree to any change of the sentence that keeps the same information and makes it less misleading to your eyes. Lastly, you have argued only about the sentence on the name. People have been deleting also the two words linking to Goa. Nobody has given a reason for that deletion. Velho (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * How does nationalism apply to my responses? I have not touched the article at all. On the other hand, you were the one who had initially edited the page writing that Freida had Portuguese ancestry without any source or knowledge about the topic, no? If that's not fueled by a nationalistic agenda, I don't know what is. This


 * Anyway... you claim that no one would be wondering about Freida's surname if it were Andrews like Naveen's, but I beg to differ. The origin of Naveen's surname is questioned regularly on Naveen's IMDb page. If Freida had the same surname, she would be receiving the same amount of attention (if not more) as she is now, and definitely more attention than Naveen gets for it because she's significantly more popular than him. So again, why isn't there a similar line on his page or on the pages of other converted Asians with European and Middle Eastern surnames? As for your line edit to make it less misleading, it's been reverted and for good reaso, since it was so awkward sounding in the article. Lastly, why would I argue about the deletion of the Goa link? I'm the one doing it nor do I think that should it be removed if Freida's family is actually from Goa.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.166.238 (talk) 23:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If the origin of the name / her ancestry is indeed such a public concern, then someone in a reliable source will cover the topic and we can make our entry based on that. Until such time as a reliable source covers the linkage or not of the name to a particular ancestral origin that F. Pinto may or may not have, it does not belong in the article as our policies clearly dictate: WP:V, WP:IINFO, WP:OR, WP:RS etc. I see no policies within either of your arguments that support either of your positions. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I consulted this topic just to know if the name Pinto of this actress is originally a Portuguese name. I just found a mention in this discussion. For an Indian guy, a Portuguese name is something that, maybe, brings some bad historical memories about colonial times. For a Portuguese speaking guy (like me, a Brazilian who is proud of his partial Portuguese origins) to discover the name Pinto used by an INDIAN actress makes him more proud of his culture. Using the name Pinto doesn' t mean that this actress has Portuguese ancestry, but surely means that the someday in the past the Portuguese people influenced the culture of a small part of India. Thus, after centuries, Pinto is not only a Portuguese name, but also an Indian name. I think  that many people in Brazil, Portugal, Angola and other Portuguese-speaking countries are consulting this article looking for some explanation about the name Pinto used by an INDIAN actress. A link to Goa culture and related topics will enlarge their knowledge and make them realize that Portuguese-speaking people and Indians are not so distant in the World.201.13.100.177 (talk) 09:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the last comment. I am French, with Portuguese ancestry, and my name is Pinto. I was wondering why an Indian woman has the same name as me, and I am sure I am not the only one. I was shocked to see that some people deleted the information about the past of Mangalore and the Portuguese influence. If you read the page of Freida Pinto in other languages such as French, Italian, it is clearly written that maybe she has portuguese ancestry! So please stop being nationalist and leave this interesting information! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.206.194.105 (talk) 12:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing nationalistic about my removal. The content is not supported by our policies because no reliable sources have written about where Freida Pinto got her last name. Period. Until a reliable source makes that analysis, and not a wikipedia editor connecting the dots, it will not go into the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Having a surname Pinto does not indicate Portugese ancestry. Many Christian converts (and Muslim converts as well) adopted non-Indian surnames when they changed their religion, even though ethnically they were fully Indian. It's just a historical reality that has nothing to do with "nationalism". Whoever is writing this wikipedia page obviously does not know India very well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah1985 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

An enduring debate
This (83.206.194.105) is not me! Velho (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC) And this (83.206.194.108) isn't me either. Velho (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Now the article says "...however she is not of Portuguese ancestry.". This is not only unsourced, it is unsourceable (and absurd: genealogical places go over one million if you go back 500 years: 220). Velho (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

a —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah1985 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation
I have accepted and opened the mediation case for the subject concerning the wording surrounding the name "Pinto" and the circumstances surrounding it. While I am going through the past history of the subject, I would appreciate if everyone connected to the dispute gives their opinion on what should be in the article (or should not be as the case may be), providing diffs where necessary. Thank you. Trusilver 16:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether the phrase linking Mangalorean Catholics to Goa and the sentence about "Pinto" being a Portuguese name should stay or be removed. It has been argued that this is a "nationalistic issue", since the Portuguese guy here (me) thinks that this information is relevant and some Indian guys think that it isn't. Please check the previous section. Thank you.Velho (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you want the input here or on the mediation page? My position is it (all discussion of name origins and whether or not the name origin reflects nationality) is irrelevent and unsourced original research WP:SYN and needs to be removed. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My position concerning RedPen's argument is that there is no original research and especially there is no "synthesis of published material". The phrase "...of Mangalorean and Goan origins." is just a reference to what is said in Mangalorean Catholics. The sentence "The name 'Pinto' is of Portuguese origin." is just reproducing part of what is said on the corresponding article. True, this sentence comes just after that phrase, but juxtaposition is by no means a "synthesis".
 * Regarding relevance, please note that the origin of the name "Pinto" had already been discussed on this talk page. That sufficiently shows that there are people interested on the subject. Moreover, surnames usually give some information on a family's origins. The simple fact that an Indian has a European-sounding surname deserves an explanation, especially, in the English Wikipedia, when that name is not an obviously English name.
 * And a further argument on "nationalisms". Ethnicity-related subjects have always created a significant amount of disagreement in Wikipedia. The best way to fight these disagreements and to avoid harsh discussions is to give all consensually true information. That prevents speculation and doesn't leave anyone with some kind of reason for resentment. That's an important reason to keep the sentence on the surname "Pinto" and to explain that it does not imply or suggest that Freida Pinto has Portuguese ancestors. That's the whole truth. Velho (talk) 18:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you read the wikipedia definition of "original research" before you claim that there is none in the language that I believe should be removed. It does not appear to me that you have. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * RedPen, please spell out your argument. And please be charitable to me. I've been an editor in Wikipedia for some years now, I've read the page on original research more than once. Anyway, I insist, please clarify and complete your argument.
 * I also think that you might agree that this discussion is not on whether there is some "original research". That's surely not the main issue that brought about the discussion. Velho (talk) 19:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is "original research" in wikipedia because a wikipedia editor is making an analysis that is not verifiable as being published in reliable source. And until there is a source that discusses the "portugese" or other origin of the family name "Pinto" and how it relates or not to a person from India, until you have a resource that is discussing such nationalistic origins in reference to the topic of this article it is a violation of WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Now I get it. You are claiming that it is not verifiable that "Pinto", in Freida Pinto's name, is a Portuguese name. But: (1) That's what is said on the article on Pinto. Perhaps you should discuss it there. (2) If you think that the problem is the lack of a source, the way to handle it is adding the tag "", and not removing the information. (3) Here's a source for the origin of "Pinto": José Pedro Machado, Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa, 1981 (article on "Pinto". You have some information about this dictionary and its author in the Portuguese, the Spanish and the Galician Wikipedias. Or just google it. I hope that's enough. Velho (talk) 19:36, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 2) It is the burden of the person who wishes to include the information to provide reliable sources. 3) You are still making connections that have not been made by sources WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom  19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You misread me. The source is not Wikipedia, but Machado's Dicionário Onomástico Etimológico da Língua Portuguesa. I linked to three Wikipedias just to give you some easy access information on the dictionary. Velho (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case, an attempt to use a reference published in 1981 will be WP:SYN because there is no way that it is discussing the topic of this article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  20:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * RedPen, I'm starting to have doubts on your good faith. The source asserts that "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. The sentence to be included is ""Pinto" is a Portuguese name." Tell me about WP:SYN.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

First, just to keep things clear, lets leave all discussion here on this talk page rather than moving it over to the mediation page. The reason for this is simple, it keeps things as easy as they can be and provide a greater ease of understanding for anyone walking into this conflict unawares. Second, the entire dispute really appears to fall under a single issue, with all of the policies and guidelines that surround it. The question is: Is it relevant and necessary to include the information surrounding the origins of Pinto as well as that of Mangalorean Catholics in the context that is laid down in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. As it stands, there must be extraordinary reasons to include peripheral information into an article that is not directly related to the subject. Does the exclusion of this information in any way damage the reader's comprehension of the article? Does the exclusion of this information change the context of the article? If the answer to this is no, then the information is not appropriate to the article. Keep in mind also that it is not general practice to include the etymology of a subject's name in their article. My question is this: The addition of the disputed information requires a very compelling reason to add it that goes beyond simple trivia. Does such a compelling reason exist? And if so, can it be properly sources to fall within the verifiability policies? Trusilver 19:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * My first argument for relevance is that an average English reader will want to know why an Indian person has a European name. That was shown on this very talk page when the subject came up before my intervention. The proper way to give that information is to have a link to the articles on Goa and on "Pinto". So, these two words should be included. My second argument is that this is an ethnicity-related discussion. Discussions of this kind are in some sense "delicate" and should be settled by not removing true information. Velho (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A third argument for relevance: please google "freida pinto surname" (without the quotes). You will get "about 17,700 results". Please read a few lines on those pages (the ones where "surname" is not there for some other reason. People want to know where "Pinto" comes from. Velho (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Another possibly reliable source: Interview with Shri Udar Pinto. Velho (talk) 19:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems definitely reliable: Goanet. Velho (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Same information on an article in a peer-reviewed academic journal. I guess we cannot go more reliable than this: Social Anthropology, vol. 2/2, pp. 115-132, 2007 (subscription required). Velho (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) your claim "an average English reader will want to know why an Indian person has a European name" is unsourced POV.
 * That's for sure. But unsourced POVs are allowed and in fact necessary in talk pages.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) message boards are clearly not WP:RS, is a self published item and not a reliable source. Social Anthropology would be a reliable source, but unless it is actually discussing the origin of "Freida Pinto" it is WP:SYN.
 * Quite a claim! :-) Social Anthropology asserts that "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. The sentence to be included is ""Pinto" is a Portuguese name." I'm appalled that you think that this is WP:SYN.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) google searches are not treated within wikipedia as any measure of anything-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * They're not only commonly used in talk pages, they surely make a point on relevance. Please note that this article is on Freida Pinto, and not on the relevance of its mentioning the origin of Freida Pinto's last name. The question of relevance is a metadiscussion about what the article should contain. In this metadiscussion, every good argument is acceptable, whether sourced or not.Velho (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Just one point to note as I'm reading through this: The above statement is incorrect. Every good argument is not acceptable, sourced or not. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is WP:V. We do not include information in articles that does not have a proper source. We do not use sourced material in a way that is inconsistent with its original intent or in a way that is not directly correlating to the article's subject (see WP:SYNTH). If you will notice, it is not a policy of Wikipedia to put an etymology of each subject's name, whether it is common, uncommon or any shade of gray in between. Instead of running off on tangential information in articles not related to the subject itself, we simply Wikilink the tangent. in this case it would be Pinto (disambiguation). Velho, I think you misunderstood what I said earlier. In order for this information to exist in an article, there has to be a very exceptional reason for it to stay besides just trivia. What I mean by that is that there must have been some sourced instance that the subject's last name became a matter of debate in a way that directly pertains to the etymology of Pinto. Is there any instance of this that you are aware of? Trusilver  01:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Trusilver, one of the core policies is to use only sourced material, as you said, in articles (that's why I presented sources on the origin of the name Pinto), but that surely does not apply to discussions on talk pages, at least not to those regarding whether some information is or is not relevant for a Wikipedia article. There are no sources on what is relevant or not for a Wikipedia article. All the sources I provided are very clear sustaining that "The name Pinto is of Portuguese origin." That's the sentence I think should be included in the article. A second issue is relevance: I provided a few separate arguments on that. Velho (talk) 02:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way: Pinto (disambiguation) redirects to Pinto.Velho (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * One more thing, Trusilver: You said "...there must have been some sourced instance that the subject's last name became a matter of debate in a way that directly pertains to the etymology of Pinto." I think you could agree that articles do not include only debated information. That is surely not the criterion for relevance. Let me state again my argument concerning relevance: (1) It is relevant what people may want to know. (2) A fair ammount of people wants to know the origin of Freida Pinto's surname. (3) Therefore, this information is relevant. I'm fully aware that (2) is not a sourced piece of information, but I don't want to include (2) in the article. (2) is only metainformation, which can be checked using Google and this very talk page (see the first section above), as I suggested before, and which is relevant only for the question of relevance. For the question of relevance, sources don't count, only Wikipedia's policies and common sense count. Velho (talk) 02:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's policies are unsourced too.Velho (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia policies are not articles. The policies reflect the consesnsus of the editing community.
 * No matter what " what people may want to know", we only publish what others have already published about the topic. -- The Red Pen of Doom  14:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, others have already published that ""Pinto" is a Portuguese name." Please check this section for the sources. Wikipedia policies and talk pages are not articles. Velho (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A fourth argument for relevance. The sequence " ...of Mangalorean and Goan origins. 'Pinto' is a name of Portuguese origin. " is as relevant and related to Freida Pinto herself as the immediately preceding sequence " ..., a Christian community in Mumbai... ".Velho (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have a reliable source that is discussing the topic of the origin of her family name - in relation to Freida Pinto and not Pinto in general, please provide the source and we can figure out how and what information may be incorporated into the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom
 * The point that Red Pen of Doom makes is a valid one, Velho. It is not our job to make the determination of "What people want to read about." It is our job to generate encyclopedic content on the subject within the parameters given to us by Wikipedia policy. Ignoring WP:V isn't something we do just because we feel like it. A good example of the difference between a notable mention of the etymology behind someone's name would be Barack Obama. There is significant media attention given to his name in multiple sources (and even then, I must note, there is nothing about controversy concerning his name anywhere in his article) and thus there would be a compelling argument to explore the significance of his name. In situations where there is no sourcable evidence of issues surrounding the subject's name, there is simply no reason to put off-topic information in the article... This is something you might want to take up on a Manual of Style talk page rather than on a specific article because this is general practice. Trusilver  16:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Trusilver, I can't help having the idea that you did not read what I wrote. I am absolutely not ignoring WP:V. The sentence to be included in the article is ""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin." That statement is fully sourced (please just check the sources above). A different question concerns relevance. I gave four arguments for relevance and you did not consider any one of them. Could you please answer this paragraph making a distinction between the two points?Velho (talk) 17:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Bring us the source please. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Again? This is the source for the sentence ""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin".Velho (talk) 17:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, the source does not discuss the topic of this article and as such it is a violation of our WP:SYN policy - applying 3 party analysis to content other than directly analysed by the original source. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The sentence to be included (""Pinto" is a name of Portuguese origin.") is a direct concern of this source. Therefore, our WP:SYN policy is not violated.Velho (talk) 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Find a source that makes the connection with respect to the topic of our article Freida Pinto and not Pinto in general and it can go in. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of relevance to the article, not of verifiability. Relevance follows WP policies and common sense, not V. WP:V states that content should be verifiable, it gives no indirizzo on which content should be included in which articles. Can you make a distinction between V and Relevance, RedPen?Velho (talk) 18:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it is becoming obvious to me that this dispute is over drastically different views as to what is relevant to the article. Wikipedia policies and past practice dictate pretty well what is appropriate for an article and what is not. However, I feel that this debate has reached an impasse and needs some other views as to how to move forward. I propose that I start an RFC for this article in the hopes that we can get a clearer idea of community consensus concerning this dispute. Do I have an agreement from both of you that the community decision given by an RFC will reflect the appropriate course of action and act accordingly? Trusilver 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, I was going to request one but held off because the mediation was requested. -- The Red Pen of Doom  21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea too, but I would like to make a concession before you go on with that. As the article stands now (after RedPen's latest changes), I do agree that it would be inappropriate to include the sentence " "Pinto" is a Portuguese name. " It wouldn't fit the rest of the article. It wouldn't be reasonable. Everything I said before concerned a status quo (just changed by RedPen) where some more information was present (e.g., the sentence on Magalorean Catholics and their being a community in Mumbai). I think (1) it was not a good idea (and actually also not very fair) to make these latest changes, I think (2) the article is worse now, and (3) I am sure that the changes will be more or less reverted within a few days or weeks (as soon as RedPen relaxes a bit). I will not make it happen, I'm just predicting it. So, if it is ok for you, I would just leave it this way for some time and we would ask for a RFC when the article becomes larger and more informative than it is now.
 * I must also say that I'm a bit disappointed that Trusilver never addressed my arguments, even after a brief summary I copied to his User talkpage (that's the paragraph starting with "Trusilver, I can't help..."). But I will not waste our time arguing over that.
 * What do you say? Velho (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * First off, I didn't address your arguments because I'm not a party to this dispute. My job here is to clarify and elaborate on existing policies and guidelines in a way that hopefully clarifies the dispute, and if that's not possible then to find different avenues for resolution. All I do is tell you what policies, previous consensus and common practice dictate. I don't argue with you over your interpretations of what I tell you. You need to make your case to the other disputing parties, not to me.
 * Second, Velho, could you please clarify your position. As it stands now, it seems that you are suggesting that we remove your language from the article rather than get an RFC. Could you please state your position on the preferred language for the article before we move to RfC, I don't want there to be any vagueries. Trusilver  22:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I didn't get this one: "...suggesting that we remove your language from ...". Remove my "language"? :-o What are you talking about?!
 * "Remove your language" = "Remove the disputed text which you wish to be inserted into the article". Trusilver  02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 2. A few hours ago, RedPen removed several sentences from the article, including the one I was defending. My suggestion is a little more than a suggestion: I hereby take the solemn obligation (if it seems right to you) of not trying to reinsert the disputed sentence or any related information for a few weeks. I will also stop arguing about this subject. I will be back with my arguments and the issue about wikilinks to Goa and Pinto when the article becomes larger and more informative than it is now. Then we'll go for a RfC, if necessary.
 * Do you think this is ok? See you! Velho (talk) 01:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then it seems that we have reached at least a temporary agreement in the dispute. Red Pen, do you find the resolution to be acceptable? Trusilver  02:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Currently the article does not appear to be making any claims about nationality or ethnic sources of surnames which are not appropriately supported by reliable sources about the topic at hand, and so I am satisfied to let the article grow from its current form and revisit if necessary in the future. Thank you for your help in clarifying positions in this discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Consensus, although temporary, is a great thing.Velho (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, good luck with the article. I really suggest an RfC should this issue come up again as community consensus would be a great help in this instance. Trusilver  02:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Latest deletions in Biography
I agree that the deletions just made by RedPen are very coherent with what he has been defending on this talk page. But in fact the section lost relevant true informations. It is quite poorer now. In my view, RedPen has just presented a reductio ad absurdum of his arguments. I suggest that these deletions are reverted and that the tag "" is inserted wherever necessary. Velho (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:BURDEN - if you want it back in the article, get a source that discusses the topic of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  17:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Applying your criteria to the generality of Wikipedia articles would erase most of the information. No policy can be applied without reasonableness and common sense (see Use common sense).Velho (talk) 17:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, a lot of material in Wikipedia does need to be cleaned up. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That does not impair the need for WP-common sense.Velho (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Could we provide some information on the claim that it is her performance in Slumdog Millionaire that she is "best known for"? This phrase clearly looks as WP:SYN. Velho (talk) 19:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have restored the following sentences

''(Goregaon), and Frederick Pinto, a senior branch manager at the Bank of Baroda. Her family hails from the Mangalorean Catholic community, a Christian community in Mumbai''


 * These sentences are sourced by REF1. Please read the article properly. The fact that she is a Mangalorean can easily be verified from the interview.

'''Q: Although born and brought up in Mumbai, are you proud to call yourself a Mangalorean? '''

A: Yeah, I’m proud myself to be an Indian first and a Mangalorean ‘cause my parents are from Mangalore. My dad is from Neerude and my mom is from Derabail. I had been there few times and I love Mangalore. Kensplanet (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Kensplanet! That's relevant! Velho (talk) 04:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC) One question: isn't it redundant to say "Catholic... Christian"? Velho (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's redundant considering that she is an Indian actress and India is basically a Hindu-majority country. Christians comprise just 2-3% of the population. There may be many Indian Hindus who may not know what is Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist, Calvinistic Methodists etc...but definitely all know what is Christianity. If I just mention Shaivism, I don't think it's encyclopedic unless and until I mention something like Hindu alongwith it. It all depends on how popular the word Catholic is. Kensplanet (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I thought there should be some justification like that. I agree that the sentence stays as it is, even if we should think about how Wikipedia users understand the word "Catholic", more than about how fellow citizens of the portrayed person do it. Velho (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Deleting sections
I've noticed that the entire "Personal Life" section under this article seems to have been intentionally deleted twice now with no apparent explanation or valid reason. Whether you agree with it or not, the deletion of entire sections, especially when they are cited or linked to references, is construed as vandalism (see Wikipedia_vandalism). If you feel that content is not accurate or would like to make significant changes to an article, please discuss here first. Thank you. aNubiSIII ( T /  C ) 07:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am deleting the line which says her current rate is $70,000/hr which is not in any references and quite frankly sounds completely bogus.--Punkrocker27ka (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The "personal life" section contains: information about her relationship and break up which is already covered in the Biography section and a non-encyclopedic gossip tidbit about a crush on an actor. The removal of the section does zero harm to the encyclopeia and actually improves the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Audrey Magazine - a reliable source?
We have a citation that is quoted in Audrey Magazine. While we can verify that Audrey published the quote, the question remains: is Audrey a reliable source? It appears perilously close to being a gossip mag does not appear in news.google searches. I had never heard of the magazine and do not know if it has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. What is the general perception? -- The Red Pen of Doom  11:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But this is not at all a research or a citation by Audrey Magazine. This is Freida Pinto's own words. Interview by Freida can be considered reliable. Sometimes even the most unreliable blogs that support a book source canbe considered reliable. Because it is not the research of the Blog we are interested in, but the research of the book. Kensplanet TC 12:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We are interested in only a few sentences by Freida Pinto. We are absolutely not interested in the rest of the article. What's not typical is her name. "I am completely pure Indian," Pinto insists. "But I come from a Catholic family, which is why we have more English sounding names. My mum loved the name Freida, so she named me Freida. And my surname is Pinto. I really don't know which part of me is Portuguese because I'm pure Indian, but ages ago when the Portuguese came to India, there were a lot of conversions that took place, so my forefathers' forefathers' forefathers were probably Portuguese and Pinto is brought down from those generations."  Interview by Freida can be considered reliable. So, the publisher doesn't really matter here. Kensplanet TC 12:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You appear not to understand our reliable source guideline at all. Most blogs can NEVER be used as sources - if a blog quotes a reliable source, we verify that it is in the reliable source and cite the reliable source. Just because something says it is an interview with the subject of the article does not mean that we can include it, the SOURCE of the interview is important. Stuff that appears only in non-reliable sources should not be used in articles, especially those about living people.

What evidence do we have that Audrey meets Wikipedia's guideline of "having a reputation for fact checking and accuracy"? If the community consensus is that, "Yes, Audrey has a reputation at least as accurate as People" I am fine with using that as a source. If the consensus is "Audrey is no more accurate than Weekly World News / National Enquirer / gossip / scandal rags" than any material sourced to Audrey needs to be removed. We need to be able to trust that the source is accurately portraying what happened in the interview. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have requested community input at --  The Red Pen of Doom  18:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Kensplanet. As can be seen from this segment on NPR,  (the highly reliable National Public Radio) or this article in media life magazine (by the highly respected media writer Jeff Bercovici), the magazine is in the same category as titles like Essence (magazine) and Latina (magazine) -- a clear step above scandal rags.  We are evaluating the question -- is it possible that this magazine fabricated an interview with Freida Pinto or ran distorted misquotes?  No.  There's no reason to believe that magazines in this category run fabricated interviews with identifiable celebrities.  A direct quote from Freida Pinto in a magazine like Audrey is acceptable. --JayHenry (talk) 04:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The NPR appearance would tend to lean towards a publication that is not gossip/scandal based. I am not sure that a reference in a publication that appears to be geared towards selling advertising in magazines is necessarily anything that proves Audrey is a magazine that is high quality content- people advertise in the National Enquirer. Are there any other opinions out there?-- The Red Pen of Doom  00:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with JayHenry. The main question here is not about reliability about the magazine. It is about whether Audrey has fabricated the Interview. If Audrey has not fabricated it, then the interview has to be considered reliable irrespective of whether Audrey is hosting the interview and the magazine's research may be unreliable. Kensplanet TC 05:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is nothing unreliable about Audrey, but the new edit about her origin is still misleading. "But her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto"? Sorry, but most (if not all) Catholics/Christians in India have Portuguese/western names and the vast majority do NOT have Portuguese/western ancestry. Freida states in the article that she "might" have a Portuguese forefather, which sounds like wishful thinking on her part like many Punjabis like to claim "Persian" ancestry. 24.184.166.238 (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Kaul
 * We report what reliable sources print, and if Audrey is a reliable source, we report that Pinto told them: that her name is because her "forefathers' forefathers' forefathers were probably Portuguese ".
 * If you have a clearer interpretation of the information in the source; or a more reliable third party expert speaking about Frieda Pintos ethnicity, we can correct the article's content. Otherwise, the content in the article appears to fairly report what our source says. -- The Red Pen of Doom  03:03, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The content does not fairly report what the source says because it makes it seem as Catholic = mixed. A better edit would be to have actual full quote or at least the key parts:


 * In an interview with Audrey magazine, Pinto stated that she is "completely pure Indian," but that she comes "from a Catholic family, which is why [her family has] more English sounding names." She further states "I really don’t know which part of me is Portuguese because I’m pure Indian, but ages ago when the Portuguese came to India, there were a lot of conversions that took place, so my forefathers’ forefathers’ forefathers were probably Portuguese and Pinto is brought down from those generations." 24.184.166.238 (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Kaul
 * I do not understand what you mean by "makes it seem as Catholic = mixed." I believe that the current content adequately summarizes her statements and that reporting and requoting every detail as in your proposed version gives the topic WP:UNDUE weight in the article.-- The Red Pen of Doom  16:30, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The Good finally found its way! :-) (This is a reference to a previous discussion on this talk page on "the same" subject.) Velho (talk) 01:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Nationality vandalism
A vandal (or vandals) using the IPs 71.85.149.136 and 70.58.24.159 repeatedly changed her nationality and place of birth to Mexican and Juarez or Mexico City. We need to keep an eye on that. Enviroboy TalkCs 23:39, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

A Mangalorean Catholic
I think that Freida Pinto is a Mangalorean Catholic. There are sites stating that info in the Internet. But it isn't necessary to bring here one single site of those because her Mangalorean ancestry is a matter of fact, and her (and her parents) name is typically and exclusively from Mangalorean Catholic origin. She is also of Catholic heritage as the article says. So her Mangalorean Catholic background should be mentioned in the article. Jomifica (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Theres lots of things on the web. What we need is stuff from reliable sources. -- The Red Pen of Doom  02:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We have a reliable site stating this:

REF1. Please read the article properly. The fact that she is a Mangalorean can easily be verified from the interview.

'''Q: Although born and brought up in Mumbai, are you proud to call yourself a Mangalorean? '''

A: Yeah, I’m proud myself to be an Indian first and a Mangalorean ‘cause my parents are from Mangalore. My dad is from Neerude and my mom is from Derabail. I had been there few times and I love Mangalore.


 * If she is a Roman Catholic and a Mangalorean, she has to be a Mangalorean Catholic. There is no doubt about that. I also think that the community should be mentioned somewhere in the article. In all Biography article, some details about the community, faith are always mentioned. Why not here Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 10:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it seems logical, doesn't it? I agree 100%. Jomifica (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "It seems logical" is not enough. She identifies as Catholic in the article and it is your analysis that makes the link that she is a particular type of Catholic. You need a source. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She is not a particular type of Catholic but a particular type of Mangalorean: a Mangalorean Catholic. Jomifica (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Saying that someone is a Catholic and their family is from Mangalore is a completely different thing than proclaiming specifically that they are a Mangalorean Catholic. If that distiction didnt matter, I doubt that you would care that it wasnt specifically called out in the article. People have been trying to make that claim here for several months and have yet to find a source to support it. You can have another couple weeks with the {fact} tag while you search for a source, but without a source, it is coming out of the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  12:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Red Pen. Tomorrow, We won't be surprised if you say that "Catholic need not mean Roman Catholic, but it can be some other type of Catholic, who are not in communion with Rome." No source specifically mentions that she is a Roman Catholic. For some things, it's better to use our common sense Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 13:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason, why the Mangalorean Catholic term is not so popular in the media or the world, is because the population of the community doesn't cross even 1 million. Maybe stuck at about 0.7 million. This is not like other ethnicities like English people, French people etc..those are very popular. Yes, I agree with you that "saying that someone is a Catholic and their family is from Mangalore is a completely different thing than proclaiming specifically that they are a Mangalorean Catholic". Not all Catholics from Mangalore are Mangalorean Catholics. What's the solution then. Kensplanet <b style="color:black;">T</b><b style="color:green;">C</b> 13:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sourced text and NPOV details are being persistently removed by user The Red Pen of Doom. This seems intolerable. Contention:

''Her family hails from the Mangalorean Catholic community. In an interview, Pinto stated that she is "completely pure Indian", but her family is Catholic and some of her ancestors were probably of Portuguese background, which explains the origin of her surname Pinto. However, even if the name Pinto is indeed of Portuguese origin, that does not imply that Freida Pinto has Portuguese ancestors (see Goan Catholics, Mangalorean Catholics, and Portuguese India). Under Portuguese rule, the people got these surnames when they were baptized and the surnames were those of the different clerics who officiated at their initiation. '' Jomifica (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Where to start where to start? We will start here: Anytime you see a "However" in an article, it is time to become wary. Number two, the Rego site is a blog, not a reliable source. Number three, even if, the opinion piece was sourced to its original copyright owner The Times of India, the article itself contains ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the topcic of the article here - Freida Pinto. Including the content here is a violation of our WP:COATRACK policy and our WP:SYN policy.
 * Moving to the Masala citation, Masala appears to be the equivilent of a "gossip mag" and not a source known for accuracy and fact checking for being a reliable source. However, if appearances are wrong, this piece clearly identifies the topic of this article as being a Mangalorean Catholic. This or a similar statement from an undeniably reliable source would be the type of content needed to add such a claim to the article. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute
The debate about her Catholic origins seems to have died down (no relevant comment in over a month) so I have removed the "Neutrality Diputed" tag. If someone objects to this, please give your reasons here and then re-attach the tag at the header of the article. Manning (talk) 05:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

2nd Picture...
The second picture of Freida should be replaced or removed. How much of the face of the person to her left behind her does the eye pick up subliminally when looking at Freida? Mine picked up quite a lot and it was all negative. If a person wanted to covertly hurt someone, this 'hidden (not so much) persuader' might add mitigation to a reviewers comments after his research? Lessen a fan's ardor? Really. It's a bad picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.53.0.196 (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Indian cinema?
The article was incorrectly assessed under WP:INCINE. She has not done any project for Indian cinema. Acting as an Indian in foreign projects should not be considered as a part of Indian cinema. She is just born and brought up here. Her film career is not based in India. I have taken out the incorrect assessment. - <span style="font:italic bold 11px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt  <small style="font-size:85%;">( Talk ) 04:50, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a news floating around that she is all set to make her Bollywood debut through NH 10. So there are chances that this page might come under the scope of WP:ICTF then. &mdash; Vensatry <sub style="color:indigo;">(Ping me)  17:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would make her eligible for INCINE only then, not now probably. - <span style="font:italic bold 11px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt  <small style="font-size:85%;">( Talk ) 00:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Btw, doing only one film for Indian cinema and working frequently for foreign films still does not make her eligible for INCINE with the same logic applied to Amitabh Bachchan doing The Great Gatsby and Naseeruddin Shah doing The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen are ineligible for Hollywood portal. - <span style="font:italic bold 11px Georgia, serif"> Vivvt  <small style="font-size:85%;">( Talk ) 11:35, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

"Acclimatization" is not the right word
From the Trishna section: An acclimatization of Thomas Hardy's novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles, the film first premiered... "Acclimatization" is not the right word. I assume that what's meant is "an adaptation". "Acclimatization" has a limited meaning, and it does not mean "adaptation". Another possibility would be "an updating". Omc (talk) 08:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Vensatry <sub style="color:indigo;">(Ping me)  18:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Predominantly American
, here's what I got. Might be silly but a step further to clear the matter.

Thanks. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Girl Rising and Unity are documentaries and she merely lent her voice in those. Coming to features, only three are non-American/non-British. Doesn't it look clear? &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 19:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice you added British already. --124.107.75.38 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Convinced? &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 19:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is incorrect
Pinto was born on 18 October 1984 in Bombay (now Mumbai),[1] into a family from the Mangalorean Catholic community that originates in the former Portuguese colony of Goa. The sentence in bold seems to be incorrect. Xavier449 (talk) 20:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you feel so? &mdash; Vensatry (Talk) 14:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not the OP, but not all Mangalorean Catholics are descendants of Goan Catholic immigrants. There were several local converts to Catholicism in the Mangalore region itself (e.g. Padval community, Anglo-Indian Protestants, etc.), who also received Portuguese names at the time of Baptism because of their conversion by Portuguese and Goan priests. They also ended up speaking Konkani as their first language because the local Catholic schools were operated by Goan Catholic missionaries.