This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hinduism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hinduism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Who has a dispute with my edits ? Its clearly explained. "Ganges" is the name for the pre-Independence river. Now it is "Ganga" in India and "Padma" in BD. There is a clear need for 2 articles to reflect the divided river. These are SPIN-OFF FORKS. The Spin-off-fork is NOT a "Move". Moving "Ganges" to "Ganga" is a recipe for disaster. The Spin-off-fork is also NOT a RENAME.
Also NOT a WP:POVFORK, "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
How is all the Hindu symbolism relevant to Bangladesh after 1947 when all the Hindus have left from there. MonaPisser (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
It's the same river with the same history. --NeilNtalk to me 19:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Not at all. Rivers (and their politics) change course over time. MonaPisser (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Rivers are inanimate - they don't have politics. And are you suggesting the river stopped flowing in India or Bangladesh? --NeilNtalk to me 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying that the land dividing India and Bangladesh is any less golden on either side of the artificial border the bloody British socially engineered ? Neither side has forgotten 1905, the engineered famines, or the Butcher of Amritsar and their ilk. MonaPisser (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
That comment is a pretty good indication that you're incapable of approaching the subject with neutrality, and that by definition, any contribution you make on the subject is likely to be pushing a point of view. I'd suggest sticking to topics where you don't have such a strong opinion. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My riposte has to be read in the context of the ludicrous proposition that a network of rivers have history and stop flowing simply because territorial boundaries dividing a linguistic people were established (by departing colonialists) under the historic circumstances I specified, unconnected to these rivers. MonaPisser (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘The size of this article is excessive, the article is unreadable and policy requires it to be split.MonaPisser (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
Wrong again. Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8487 words) "readable prose size". --NeilNtalk to me 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
:Details (human readable on page prose) mechanically calculated by an online public 3rd party software.
Irrelevant. We use tools designed specifically for Wikipedia. --NeilNtalk to me 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
You appear confused. Policies are independent of tools. The tool you cite is .js based and has this banner Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account. Other shortcomings and assumptions in the tool are also clearly documented, resulting in a lesser count. I reiterate Details (human readable "on page" prose) mechanically calculated. MonaPisser (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
And you appear to excel in giving transparent excuses as to why you should be allowed to create a POV-fork. There are enough eyes on this article to prevent that from happening. --NeilNtalk to me 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The difference in word counts is because for determining "readable prose size" references, images, tables, ToC, external links etc are excluded. And by that measure the word count provided by NeilN is the relevant one, and per wikipedia guidelines this article is not ripe for splitting.
Even if, arguendo, the article were too big, the way to shorten it would be to create specialized articles on Ganges' course, hydrology, ecology etc (just as we have a sub-article on its religious significance), and condensing their coverage in the main article. Duplicating this article under the title Ganga while idiosyncratically removing some sub-sections (as MonaPisser attempted here), is simply disruptive and a non-starter.
Completely agree and thank you for detailing the objections. --NeilNtalk to me 20:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@MonaPisser. It may have been the "bloody British" who socially engineered the borders, however post independence, it is India and Bangladesh who have maintained it, hypocrisy much! Pre-independence or not the Ganges is still the name of the river, with the Hindi name appropriately mentioned in the article too. I suggest you actually start making sense rather than accuse others of appearing confused - furthermore, I agree with Ironholds that you are most likely incapable of keeping a neutral point of view.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
There is no Ganges in Hinduism. This article Ganges in Hinduism is fabricated "original research" with spurious sources, and no authentic 'Hindu' sources which use "Ganges" ?MonaPisser (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
@Neil-N: "transparent excuse" is oxymoronic. You probably mean the same nostalgic eyes who read such outdated 'historical' artefacts
Cautley, Proby Thomas (1864). Ganges canal. A disquisition on the heads of the Ganges of Jumna canals, North-western Provinces. London, Printed for Private circulation.
Fraser, James Baillie (1820). Journal of a tour through part of the snowy range of the Himala Mountains, and to the sources of the rivers Jumna and Ganges. Rodwell and Martin, London.
Hamilton, Francis (1822). An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges and its branches. A. Constable and company, Edinburgh.
which spam limited internet bandwidths of poor 3rd world (oops South/LDC) netizens with 'Raj' irrelevancies, and ignore the current nomenclatures used for multi-national trans-boundary rivers. MonaPisser (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
The agreed name between the 2 riparian states is neither Ganga nor Ganges, but "Ganga/Ganges"  and elsewhere. Neither of these are English words ('Ganges' has Greek roots). 'Ganga' refers to the Indian section/s (in all major Indian languages including English) and 'Ganges' to the Bangladesh section/s (in English) whereas Bangladeshis predominantly use 'Padma' in Bengali.MonaPisser (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
"The Ganges (/ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez), also Ganga (Hindi: गंगा; Bengali: গঙ্গা ; Sanskrit: गङ्गा) (Hindustani pronunciation: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] GUNG-ga), is a trans-boundary river of Asia which flows through India and Bangladesh." Ganga does not include the portion of the river flowing through Bangladesh. The opening lead is misleading and legally incorrect under the extant water sharing treaty and its articles. MonaPisser (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I propose the lede text also Ganga (Hindi: गंगा; Bengali: গঙ্গা ; Sanskrit: गङ्गा) (Hindustani pronunciation: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] GUNG-ga), along with all unclear/vague article usage of 'Ganga', requires urgent removal from this article, in view of the settled/agreed treaty position between the riparian nations which predates this encyclopedia's article.MonaPisser (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Oppose. The article makes it clear Ganga is an alternate name for Ganges and local treaties can name geographical features whatever they want - Wikipedia is not bound to follow them. --NeilNtalk to me 08:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I (drew a line through) the edits by MonaPisser, who has been blocked for using multiple accounts. Socks can have their edits reverted or on talk pages, if they've had a response, struck through. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
A new article has been published online at FT Magazine about the Ganges River. The title of the article, "The Ganges: holy, deadly river," was written by Victor Mallet on February 13th, 2015. The article describes the extreme and dangerous pollution that has affected the river, including things like industrial and human waste. This article might have some information in it that could be beneficial to this Wikipedia article, particularly in the "Pollution" section. The FT article talks heavily upon industrial waste as well as human waste polluting the river. The article can be found at this link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dadfae24-b23e-11e4-b380-00144feab7de.html#slide7 Cheers, Comatmebro~Come at me~ 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Ganges → Ganga –I am an American who grew up only knowing the name "Ganges" for this river. I nevertheless consider this article to be in severe violation of the underlying principles of our article naming policy, and request it to be moved to Ganga.
The title of an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (as in Australian Defence Force, United States Secretary of Defense).
Inexplicably, the very next sentence directly contradicts this:
Very rarely, a form that represents only minority local usage is chosen because of its greater intelligibility to English-speaking readers worldwide (e.g. Ganges rather than "Ganga").
This sentence only exists in the article title policy to attempt to justify the river's current title. I have participated in hundreds and hundreds of move requests, and have never once seen any reference or other example of the sentence. It is a transparent assertion that India's variety of English is irrelevant because Brits and other English speakers do not speak that way. It should never have been allowed and should now be overturned.
I provide as a reference Google Ngrams.  You can play around with varying search terms if you like, but you're going to find basically what I found--combining all books written in any variety of English, "Ganges" is used somewhere between 1.5 times and 2.5 times as often as "Ganga" to refer to this river. So clearly, globally speaking, WP:COMMONNAME surely seems to favor "Ganges". Granted. But we don't use justWP:COMMONNAME; we take special consideration of the variety of English relevant to the article.
Because respecting national varieties of English matters significantly more than a strict summary of common usage. Again, respecting national varieties of English matters significantly more than a strict summary of common usage. And don't be deceived: "Ganga" is the common name in India for the river. (Quick check: which country does the Ganga flow through? Oh, right. India. Not Canada, Australia, the U.S., the UK, New Zealand, Ireland, Jamaica, etc. Okay, just checking.) The Indian Express lists 246 results for "Ganges", and 2,544 results for "Ganga". The Hindustan Timesalsoseems to prefer "Ganga". (Most other Indian newspapers I checked gave faulty results, misclassifying "Ganges" as the plural of "gang". See , where every result I see has to deal in one way or another with gangs, not the river!)
This river is known in English as the Ganga to the people who live near it--who own it in every possible way that a people can own a river. I plead with you to let them name the river as they like, and to let us at the English Wikipedia follow that name as a way not only of respecting them, but following our own policies at WP:NATIONALTIES. Regardless, I thank you for your consideration. RedSlash 19:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY ("Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English...Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles"). "Ganga" is largely unrecognisable outside of South Asia while "Ganges" is recognisable both within and outside of the region and has vastly greater usage over the sweep of time and space. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of worldwide scope and readership and titles should reflect that. — AjaxSmack 01:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Dude, did you even read what I wrote? Find me even one instance other than this specific page where that is followed for the title of an article. Find me even one other article where the local English name is summarily tossed aside by Wikipedians. RedSlash 19:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose and speedy close per COMMONNAME and the several move requests that have already been rejected. — kwami (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Or maybe move to Padma per usage in Bangladesh, where the mouth of the river lies. — kwami (talk) 02:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Support Ganga is certainly 5 times more popular and commonly used, compared to Ganges. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I find the analysis of NeilN to be somewhat correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Looks like there's been about a dozen or more page move requests in the archives here (I think it's been brought up at Wikipedia talk:MOS as well) and none of them getting anywhere near a consensus for a change. Many repeats of same or similar arguments. --RacerX11Talk to meStalk me 03:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose This again? Respecting national varieties of English does not matter significantly more than a strict summary of common usage. Just the opposite, as we are a worldwide encyclopedia. --NeilNtalk to me 03:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per Neil, WP:UCN;; if you are an American, wouldn't you think ganga meant marijuana? -- 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
If accepted, there is a long WP:Parallel histories under name Ganga, which would therefore have to be moved aside to somewhere first, which is safer than letting it sit deleted under the new history moved across from name Ganges. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose – We call this river the Ganges in English. I don't want to get into nitty-gritty details here about who's language this is, but I think we all know that the amount of people with English as a first language who live beside the river is small. Many of them speak English as a second-language, but not as a first language. For that reason, there are many more loanwords from the native languages of area in the English of the people that live beside it. That's not a justification, really, for defying the overwhelming preference for "Ganges" amongst people who are native speakers of English. I think the nominator forgot one important part of our policies and guidelines on varieties of English, and that's WP:COMMONALITY (not to be confused with WP:COMMONNAME). WP:COMMONALITY states "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English)". "Ganges" is universally understood to mean this river in all varieties of English, including Indian. "Ganga", on the other hand, is not likely to be understood by many English speakers outside of India. It is much more widely distributed, used in all English-speaking countries. For this reason, "Ganges" must remain. RGloucester — ☎ 19:05, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Today, I learned that a 2:1 or 3:2 ratio is "overwhelming". Seriously? Did you read the sources? The whole point of the nomination is to show that there is absolutely not an overwhelming preference for "Ganges", as anyone would learn if they read the nomination and examined the sources for themselves. There is a modest and noticeable preference for "Ganges", which is nowhere strong enough (I say) to throw aside the fact that Indian English should be followed in an article about a river in India. RedSlash 19:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose OP's reasoning is faulty. As OP shows, within India, in other words in the variety of English used in India, Ganges is a perfectly acceptable (cf., the many hotels in Varanasi, for example, use Ganges in their name ). Since both Ganges as well as Ganga are acceptable in the variety of English used in India and since Ganges is overwhelmingly preferred outside India, the article should remain at Ganges. --regentspark (comment) 20:17, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Support: In the absence of an overwhelming common name, I feel that we should definitely defer to national varieties. English, for better or worse, still remains an official language of India, and Indian English is clearly a recognised concept. Sceptre(talk) 13:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. The overwhelming common name in English is Ganges. Since most Indians will actually refer to it as "Mother Ganga" and not just "Ganga", should we move it to that title? No, we should keep it at the name that is overwhelmingly understood by everyone, including Indians. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.