Talk:Ganges

Geology

It would be great if someone could add geological information about the ganges. From what caused her formation and when it happened. Did the course of the ganges change if so when and how etc.

Ganga, the Hindu Goddess

"The river, held sacred by Hindus, is worshipped as the personified form of the goddess Ganga after whom the river is named."

This sentence is ridiculous. First off, it is the river that is personified, not the goddess. The goddess is the personification of the river, and not vice versa. And the river is not named after the goddess. Rather the goddess is named after the river. There was always a river before the vedic hindus came along and made it a goddess!!!

Ganga vs Ganges

Opinions sought. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ganga

• Ganga is the correct name. Ganges is a colonial British corruption of Ganga. While Ganges may be used, it is becoming antiquated especially among Indian speakers of English. A search for 'Oxus' on Wikipedia redirects to Amu Darya, even though Oxus was the name used for centuries in the Western world. Therefore, the article should be under Ganga, with Ganges ridirecing to Ganga.

• The name Ganga is prevalent among anglophones too, and as noted below, a google search indicates that it is more widely used than 'ganges'. The argument that more Indian pages using the name 'Ganga' overwhelms the non-Indian pages proves nothing. India has a large population that uses English as a first language (And if we're counting everybody who speaks english, first language or not, this number is likely to surpass even the population of the US) and is, therefore, correctly labeled a (partly) anglophone country. Why should Indian English be relegated to a status below that of American or British English? Spanish spoken in South America is still Spanish.

• As for other arguments, Germans do not speak English, nor do they refer to their country as Deutschland when speaking in English, whereas many if not most Indians do, in fact, use the name Ganga in English.

• Most Japanese (who do not speak English) use Wikipedia in their own language and therefore use the term Nippon, although the name Japan is almost always used in English, even in Japanese governmental bulletins issued in English. Indians who primarily use English as their first language (and I believe most users of WIkipedia fall in this category) may refer to the river as Ganga or Ganges, so 'Ganga' isn't the name of the river ONLY in Indian languages.

• Yes, why compromise on actual and original name which is quite prevalent as well, Ganges can always redirect to Ganga. --Vjdchauhan 09:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

• Its got more ghits and it is the correct name for the river.Bakaman 23:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer Ganga as per the reasons given by the above two users .--Shyamsunder 13:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• "Ganges" should redirect to "Ganga" and not the other way around. The title of the article should be "Ganga." There is no reason to pollute Wikipedia with the arrogant stupidity of 19th-century British imperialism. It was not their prerogative to rename the river. Nor is there any linguistic reason why native English speakers cannot pronounce "Ganga." After all, it is part of the name of Kipling's famous poem "Gunga Din." The word "Ganges," however long ago it was invented, is a simple error. Wikipedia should work to eliminate ignorance, not exalt it.--Dieresis (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand why is it so difficult to name the article Ganga, instead of Ganges. It is an 'Indian' river. It is being called Ganga from ancient times. Its a no brainer really. All that is achieved by naming it 'Ganges' is that most Indians are going to get irritated about it. Its but natural. --Sidace (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ganga not Ganges, Its a name of river, Name never changes in any language. So its not rocket science to understand whether its should be Ganga or Ganges. Its just simple name from ancient times. KuwarOnline ^Talk 14:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• The Indian Ministry of waters and Central Water Comission refers to the river as 'Ganga'. There is also a 'Ganga Flood Control Commission (GFCC)' a subordinate office of the Ministry of waters. --SpArC (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Bombay redirects to Mumbai as Calcutta redirects to Kolkata; therefore we should follow that lead and have Ganges redirect to Ganga. Plus reasons above, especially the Indian government's name for it. It's as clear as day. Elizium23 (talk) 04:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganges

• As a person whose ethnic origin is Indian but who lives in a English-speaking country, I believe Ganges it still by far the notable name. Ganga may have entered Indian English, but it is still essentially the name of the river only in the Indian languages. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:13, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, the article should be moved to "Ganges". Ganges river, Ganga river should redirect there. In fact, at present Ganga is a dab page that enumerates all Ganga stuffs. IMO, Ganga should also redirect to Ganges, with an otheruses template for Ganga added in Ganges. Ganga and Ganges both primarily mean the river to the worldwide audience. Thereafter comes the meanings such as the goddess, or the dynasty etc. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• I opt for Ganges. The river is referred to by that name. I assume the official Indian govt name is also Ganges, right? --Ragib 09:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously not. The official Indian govt name is Ganga. This article should be called Ganga, and Ganges must redirect to Ganga. But hey, this website is mainly by (and for) English-speaking white (bespectacled) male Caucasians, that may be more comfortable with "Ganges" (and were probably taught that in their school) anyway, so let's stick to Ganges for all I care. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)

• Please don't add such racist comments about the demographics of Wikipedia readers. --Ragib 05:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hah, that's only honest, not racist :-) It can't be *my* fault if the truth (about Wikipedia's demographics) didn't please *you* much, can it? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

• I also opt for Ganges. This is an English-language encyclopedia. As an English speaker of South Asian origin, I can say I've only heard "Ganges" (in English). Similarly, I would opt for calling the "Germany" article "Germany" on en-wiki, not "Deutschland", and the "Japan" article "Japan", not "Nippon". --SameerKhan 08:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Objectively, Google has 557,000 results for "ganges river" and 236,000 results for "ganga river". Thus, since I believe the primary term used should reflect what people most often encounter or use to find it, I vote Ganges. —CodeHydro 14:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

See this http://www.google.com/trends?q=ganga%2C+ganges. Shows Ganga is more popularly searched for than Ganges. --SpArC (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

• I partially agree with DaGizza. Although the word "Ganga" is used both as English and Hindi word for the river, but other English speaking countries predominantly use "Ganges" for the river. However, a googlefight between the two confuses me as "Ganga" gets 1.5 times ghits as compared to "Ganges". — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• may be this googlefight result is because of (a) Most Websites in India usually call it Ganga, and number of Indian websites mentioning Ganga outnumbers foreign/Indian websites using Ganges. (b) The other Gangas are also included in the fight. In fact, this googlefight of Ganga river vs Ganges river gives opposite result!--Dwaipayan (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• I'm neutral =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Question Does anybody else think inviting Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers members would be a good idea? We should therefore get more people from all around the globe who are interested in rivers to comment on this. Ah... I have also found the official river naming policy here in case anybody wants to see. Gizza^{Chat ©} 11:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC
• India has more English speakers than the United States. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a website that reinforces stereotypes. The people of India, where this river runs though, call it Ganga. Even the English media in India call it so. It is its English name. But it seems that here in Wikipedia, its only "English" if people in the United States call it "Ganga" rather than "Ganges." I support Ganga because its what the Indian people call it in English. The difference with Germany is that the government says that their country's English name is Germany. In India, however, the official name is still Ganga for English. I would consider this a bias to English speakers living in India.

• [ellusion begin] While I fully agree with Shyamsundar that it should be indeed named Ganga, I do not think that it can be done due to the more notable name. Yes, it was erroneously named Ganges in lieu of Ganga (or my preference gangA/gangaa), but that error must first be corrected before Wikipedia can change the name. Wikipedia after all is an encyclopedia that strives a neutral position, naming article based on the most notable name.

• I would also like to point out that the current naming of Ganges does not necessarily serve to foster or remove ignorance, it is merely a representation of current naming conventions. However, this does lead one to believe that were the page renamed to Ganga, that obviously people would be initially stumped when they get redirected to "Ganga" while searching for "Ganges". However, it is not that difficult to visualize the thought process that could occur. Namely "oh, so that's what it's called!" or on the flip-side "oh... maybe they got the page title wrong" Of course, a short blurb on the naming variants at the beginning would easily alleviate any doubts. I believe this type of name change would actually help educate the community on the proper name. As a side benefit, nobody would be harmed by the name change as it seems the main group of people negatively affected by the current name are Indians and I doubt any non-Indian would have issues finding the article either way.

• My personal stance is that the correct name (Ganga) should be used, however I actively promote correct naming and pronunciation in all walks of life, in every language possible. I am not Vietnamese, but I refuse to pronounce "Nguyen" as "Win" considering that I now know how the right way sounds, albeit I cannot make it sound perfect. I encourage everybody to learn as much as possible, and actively promote the correct way as well as repair erroneous ways of the past. I suggest changing the current mindset of people from Ganges to Ganga. Now whether wikipedia should reflect current understanding (Ganges), or encourage proper understanding (Ganga) is a question for debate. [ellusion end]- ellusion - (talk) 18:10, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been an extensive discussion on this here. So, until a consensus is reached, I urge LordSuryaofshorpshire not to change every mention of Ganges to Ganga. --Ragib (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I urge User:LordSuryaofShropshire to stop changing the river name spelling without reaching a consensus here. This topic has been discussed a lot here, and no consensus favoring the spelling Ganga has been reached. --Ragib (talk) 20:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For how many decades we want to wait to reach a consensus here?? its more than been 3 years. What I can see that its already reached consensus to rename it to Ganga. KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus. Though Ganga does have a majority vote, consensus requires solidarity or near if not 100% agreement. As per WP:NOCONSENSUS, the [[status quo, or current name of Granges shall continue. —CodeHydro 14:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, consensus is not a vote, but a debate. "Ganga" may be the name in Indian English, but "Ganges" is global, as well as being traditional. When maps, documentaries, and geography and history books in the rest of the world start using "Ganga", then we will too. As long as it's a provincial name, we should not. — kwami (talk) 19:14, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

• You cannot use a 'foreign' colonial name for a river or town or whatever. See Alappuzha for instance. The name Allepey is the colonial/English name given to the city but Alappuzha is the actual name which has a meaning to it in Malayalam. Be accurate and original. 'Ganges' should redirect to 'Ganga'. Ganga is the name of the river. --SpArC (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we must move India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh as well, since all of those are foreign names. — kwami (talk) 07:37, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Sir, Those are official names for those countries. Indian constitution refers to the country as India. If it were to change the name to Bharat, then would the article not change the name accordingly? Despite India being more commonly used. See Chennai for instance. It's colonial name was Madras. Similarly, the ministry of waters/central water commission refers to the river as 'Ganga' . There is also a 'Ganga Flood Control Commission (GFCC)' a subordinate office of the Ministry of waters. --SpArC (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

If India officially changed its name to Bharat, we would not follow suit unless the majority of the English-speaking world did so first. China is not known by that name in China, but we use that term because that's how it's known in English. I see that Hindi Wikipedia calls it चीन, meaning that they also violate this supposed rule that we should use local names.

Then why were Chennai, Mumbai and Kochi changed from Madras, Bombay and Cochin? I'm sure you'll agree that Bombay is better known name in the majority of the 'English-speaking world' than Mumbai. --SpArC (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to ask at those articles. Perhaps some of them should be moved back. — kwami (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely you must be joking. How can you achieve consensus when you have irrational people like this?--SpArC (talk) 05:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The Ganges is a fairly unusual case of a major river with a single name along its entire length. (Note that "Ganges" is just "Ganga" with the Greek grammatical ending -s, much like "Moses" from Moishe and "Jesus" from Yeshua.) But what about the Brahmaputra? That river is called Yarlung, Yalu, Dihang, and Jamuna. We have it under Brahmaputra because that is the conventional name in English. Or the Indus, which is known variously as Sindhu, Sênggê, etc. Similar cases are the Nile, Yangtze, Amazon, Niger, Mekong, and Congo. Following local names doesn't work in general, because there are often multiple local names. We follow WP:Common instead. — kwami (talk) 09:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

'Ganga' is not a local name, Sir. Why would the Indian ministry of rivers call it 'Ganga' in their English website? --SpArC (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course it's the local name. What other local name is there? — kwami (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant 'Ganga' isn't just a local name. It's the name that's been used even in English websites of the Indian government.--SpArC (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

River Ganges?

Why was the article moved? I see the explanation provided in edit summary as "Commonwealth naming", but if I recall correctly, I never saw much of "river x" when describing Bangladeshi rivers. In fact, "Ganges River" seem to be more popular than "River ganges". So, I'm curious, what's the more prevalent form in use in India? At least in Bangladesh, the other form is vastly more popular. Thanks. --Ragib 08:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've mostly been taught using the form River Ganges, and this seems to be prevalent in Commonwealth English. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming seems to hold this true. See also a Times of India article where they use River Ganga. Many seem to have the opinion that Ganges should be the river title name. I suppose that would be more neutral. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok, I guess the style is prevalent in India. It's quite interesting that "Padma River" or "Meghna River" is more commonly used in Bangladeshi English language books/news papers. Perhaps the style has evolved differently in Bangladesh. So, River Ganges is fine, I guess. I agree with the term Ganges. --Ragib 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

"Ganga" might have more google hits, but that is also partly due to other meanings of the term, e.g., Darren Ganga, etc. I would not recommend using google test for this. Encarta and Britannica both use Ganges. deeptrivia (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I actually was confused about seeing just "Ganges" and not "Ganges River" or "River Ganges". It was my understanding that rivers must have the name "River" in some way or form. Even the Rio Grande is called "Rio" (river). It just seems odd to call it "Ganges" as technically the "River" aspect should be in there as well. Whether Ganges River or River Ganges, I think that it should be in there somewhere.- ellusion - (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

We normally only have disambiguations when there's something to disambiguate. Like the Orinoco, "Ganges" can only mean the river in most contexts, so there is no reason to call it "river". Likewise, most language articles are "X language", but not Latin or Esperanto. —kwami (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I guess since I've always called it "gangA nadee" (ganga river) in my native tongue, I figured the word linkage held constant through English as well.- ellusion - (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with "the River Ganges"; besides being completely unambiguous, it sounds rather formal, and to my ear quite pleasant. I'd support a move to that title if people wanted it, but there's no pressing need to move it. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

References

Just storing these here so that I can easily access them:

• http://www.ndtv.com/template/template.asp?id=98853&template=ardhkumbh&callid=1&frmsrch=1&txtsrch=ganga
• http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN8120817575&id=0obUy_W9NREC&pg=RA3-PA34&lpg=RA3-PA34&dq=ganga+OR+Ganges&ie=ISO-8859-1&sig=qqQYb2Xda7vV2isU6XAtQBbTBUY
• http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Ganges
• http://www.sacredland.org/world_sites_pages/Ganges.html
• http://www.cnn.com/EARTH/9805/17/ganges.pollution.ap/

=Nichalp «Talk»= 17:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

A few more:

• [http:// www.unescap.org /enrd/water_mineral/disaster/flood management in ganga.doc] from [1], or as html in [2]
• http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/faculty/hodgson/Courses/so191/SouthAsReadings/GangesDecline.html
• http://www.hinduonnet.com/2004/02/08/stories/2004020800911100.htm
• http://www.cs.albany.edu/~amit/ganges.html
• http://www.kamat.com/indica/rivers/ganga.htm
• http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/resourcesquality/wpccasestudy1.pdf

--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

Nichalp, these links fulfill points 3 and 4 in What_should_be_linked. They provide either academic or visual content directly related to Ganga. --Jan

• Sacred Ganga
• Bibliography on Water Resources and International Law.
• Toxin-Phage Bacteriocide as an Antibiotic Therapy
• Friends of Ganges
• Gomukh to Ganga Sagar, Virtual Tour with all Details
• Ganga Arati Video Quicktime streaming video of worship of the Ganges in Hardwar (15 minutes)
• Mother Ganga: A journey along the sacred Ganges River a movie (a free trailer download) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.2.214 (talk) 22:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Bathing, etc.

Do people still bathe, drink, perform rituals in, and otherwise venerate this river? Considering all the pollution, it seems like a dangerous idea, and a poor choice for purification. Brutannica 02:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they do, of course. Most educated people with half a brain would know (and realize, sigh) that science and faith don't always gel so well together, do they? :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk • contribs)

Renamed section on ecology

That section mentioned absolutely nothing about the ecology of the Ganga in any case, and only discussed issues related to pollution. So renaming it as such. If someone wants to write about the ecology (as in flora and fauna, there's enough of biological species typical to or only found in the Gangetic region), then they're welcome to do so. The articles on the Sundarbans, Ganges_River_Dolphin, etc etc could be used and linked to, if you want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.200.95.130 (talk) 05:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The section is not solely on pollution. It also deals with other environmental issues. --Ragib 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that one little sentence hidden there about the "glaciers melting" bit, huh? Heh, in any case, looks like you flunked both General Science and English in pre-school. Go look up "ecology" in a dictionary, kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If global warming or some other cause did cause the Ganges to go dry, would its water still be regarded as holy when it began flowing again? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Uttarakhand workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Uttarakhand or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 13:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Source of Ganga

I am here by accident. Could somebody from India verify the height of the source of Ganga? Is it really more than 7500 above sea level? The Gangotri Glacier doesn't extend that high (see Wikipedia) and I doubt if liquid water can flow that high. Pomimo (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Religious significance section

This section has again become too large. I had forked it into a separate article Ganges in Hinduism, some time ago. However, seems that a lot of new content have been introduced to *this* article rather than that one. As a result, this article focuses more on the religious aspects than the river itself. --Ragib (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should be pruned and room made for a geology section that shows the connection between the Ganges and the Gangetic plain. In other words, the Himalayan rivers (Indus, Gandaki, Ganges) predate the creation of the Himalayas as a consequence of the subduction of the Indian plate under the Eurasian plate. The trough that was formed as a result of the subduction, was gradually filled up by the silt (from the rising Himalayas) deposited by these rivers. That is why all the Himalayan river valleys are so deep. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Ganges River vs Ganges river

Please be consistent with the capitalization of "river" after Ganges. It is inconsistent throughout the article. Please decide on if it should be capitalized or not. :) Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.250.232.91 (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC) u r matha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.55.101 (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Galleries

I have now organized the images (added some more) in three galleries that follow in their sequence the sequence of towns and cities along the river. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Biology

I'm sure the degradation of the Ganges through human impact is a jaw dropping spectacle, but is it such an ecological deadzone that no one can provide information on its endemic species and general flora/fauna? Surely its not completely devoid of life.. yet? Being a river of great cultural and historical significance (past?/present), im surprised wiki science hasnt weighed in on the biological dimensions of the system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas84 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article clearly needs work. As for the fauna, off the top of my head, there is the mahseer (the "Indian salmon") of its Himalayan waters, and, of course, the Ganges river dolphin. There is also the gharial, the beautiful narrow snouted fresh water crocodile, which, according to the recent Romulus Whitaker documentary I watched, can reach up to 16 ft in length. Among the smaller species, there is Vibrio Cholerae, which is endemic to the Ganges delta, and the causative agent of Cholera and of the great Cholera pandemics of history, all of which began somewhere along the Ganges. That itself has a fascinating biology; it lives in a dormant state on the backs and intestines of plankton in the Ganges estuary. Every so often, however, for reasons still not clear, it comes alive and quits its plankton host. If the Sundarbans delta ecoregion is considered part of the Ganges, then a wider range of species opens up, including the Bengal Tiger. If flood plains of a river can be included as well, then other land mammals will show up. Will look for academic sources later in the day; have to run now. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ganges needs to be redirected to Ganga

I have redirected Ganges to Ganga which is the true name of the river. However, this edit is being reverted by somebody else? Why is this happening? I have clearly mentioned the reason for my edits, however they seem to be reverted without reason. Viddhu (talk) 05:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You need to get a consensus on this. The name of the river is *Ganges* in the *English language*, and hence the title reflects the commonly used English language spelling. Ganga is definitely the name of the river in Indian languages. But in English, the language of *this wikipedia*, the most commonly used spelling is the Ganges. We have discussed this before. Without getting a consensus, please refrain from unilaterally moving the article to your preferred title. --Ragib (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how the *English language* confers names to river. A name is a name, it is not dependent on language. When you meet someone do you ask him/her "What is your name in English?", "What about your name in French?"; "Oh, you have an Australian name too!" This is ridiculous.Viddhu (talk) 08:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Place-names certainly can and do differ by language (for example, Russia and China are रूस and चीन in Hindi; the country known natively as Nippon, is more commonly known as Japan; Deutschland is called Germany; München is Munich in English etc. Comparing the issue with modern personal names is not really useful or relevant. As for the discussion about this article name, see the discussion above: Ganga vs Ganges. Abecedare (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As another example, let's consider the name of the poet Rabindranath Tagore. His last name is pronounced "Thakur" in Bengali, yet the commonly used English language spelling is Tagore. If you met Tagore and asked him about his name in English, he'd have replied Tagore whereas if you asked his name in Bengali, you'd have got "Thakur" as a reply. Hope this helps. --Ragib (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change

Can someone (not me) add an expert contribution on the role of glaciers in feeding the Ganges and other rivers in the region? As a layman, I find it puzzling that glaciers are claimed to have a major role. Over an annual cycle, with glaciers in a steady state, the flow of water from a glaciated region must be approximately equal to annual precipitation (minus some loss by evaporation). Part of that precipitation accumulates as snow and ice during the winter, and an equivalent amount of water is released by melting in the summer. Part of the meltwater comes from recent snowfall, and part from melting at the base and advancing front of the glacier, but in steady state the total melted must balance the snowfall received. If the glacier is growing, the melting is less than the snowfall, while if it is shrinking, the melting is greater, but unless climate change is very rapid these net effects must be marginal in comparison to the seasonal turnover. It is not obvious that global warming would make any significant difference to the annual flow of water (unless of course total precipitation changes). It is not even obvious that there would be any major change to the seasonal pattern of flow. Even if all permanent glaciers were to disappear, snow might still accumulate in the winter and melt in the spring or summer, as it does (for example) in the Scottish Highlands. If someone has made a serious analysis of the effect of climate change on water supplies (as distinct from scare-mongering), could this be described and referenced? If no serious analysis has been made, this should also be stated.86.179.195.139 (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC) this river is nasty and nobody gives a crap and sombody tell the people to stop bateing in that's just nasty —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.164.241 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC) never mind just jokeing it is a good river and you should visit it and tell me how old it is —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.108.164.241 (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Photo Gallery

I have moved quite a large number of photos from other sections to the Photo Gallery as they did not seem particularly appropriate to the sections they were in. I have also moved the Phot Gallery to near the end of the article, which seems more appropriate. However, the Photo Gallery is now swollen with too many photos but I don't know how best to cull them to keep a good representative collection without overloading the page. Would some other brave soul please undertake this difficult task? Many thanks, John Hill (talk) 11:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is Ganga called Ganges here?

1. Ganges is the exonym of the river. The Indian spelling for the River Ganga is Ganga in English too.
2. See this link [3], Times of India, Hindustan Times and others use the appellation Ganga, only BBC and Australians use the archaic Ganges. Using Ganges is like using Cawnpore for Kanpur! The Bangladeshis call their capital Dhaka, the British persist in using Dacca, same story for Canton and Guanzhou.
3. A large proportion of English speakers are from the Indian sub-continent, they all know what Ganga means.
4. The river's Indian name is not only Ganga, but also that is what it is called in English too in India and the subcontinent, by hundereds of millions of English users.
5. There is a clear understanding in Wikipedia that the subject should govern the style of spelling of the article, this is an Indian subject and so should use Indian spellings including for proper nouns. I have provided proof that Indian publications like Times of India, Hindustan Times, the government, others use Ganga, for hundreds of millions of Indians Ganga leaves no scope for any ambiguity?
6. Many times Britishers pronounced Gandhi Ghandi, should that spelling be used. There are many instances for that spelling too. [4] Germany is called Germany by the Germans in English, India is called India by Indians in English, the river is called Ganga by Indians in English. #See this search result for river Ganga. [5]
7. See the article Xuanzang, see the many Romanisations, when I went to school (1970s) we used the spelling Hiuen Tsiang, my daughter’s text book uses the spelling Yuan Chwang, would you go on editing all other variations? Ghandi is just an example how, names are difficult to pronounce, and so they are changed to what is comfortable to that language.
8. Aparently there is a convention of using pinyn for Chinese names. Why use exonyms for an Indian river which has an Indian English name.
9. If pinyin is considered standard for Chinese articles, why isn't Indian English standard for Indian articles. There is a certain standard/ convention/ practice of Romanisation of Indian names by Indians. Why the double standards?
10. Look at Beijing which is a pinyin spelling. Romanisation and what spellings are used for sounds such as Poona x Pune, Cawnpore x Kanpur, Jubblepore x Jabalpur, you don't use Jubblepore neither should we use Ganges at least in an Indian article, on an Indian subject.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed at least twice above, as well as at WP:MOS.

"Ganga" is not in the 100-page geographic appendix to my dictionary, not even as an alt under "Ganges". Few English speakers outside of India have ever heard of the name, whereas "Ganges" is internationally recognized. — kwami (talk) 17:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dawn uses Ganga[6] so does Bangladesh and Nepal[7] It is considered pejorative to call Inuits as Eskimos, or the Sami as Lapps, why use a derogatory mis-pronunciation for one of India's icons? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This is starting to sound paranoid. There is nothing derogatory about the name "Ganges", any more than Jesus or Moses, both of which have the same Greek suffix. Quite the opposite: it's "Ganga" that sounds funny, being as it is a common word for marijuana. — kwami (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Pejorative? Don't be ridiculous. While the names for ethnicities are often pejorative in origin, you're talking about the name for a river. Ganges may be a historic mispronunciation but it's a million miles away from being pejorative. And there are debates as long as my arm above all with the same upshot: In International English, that river is called Ganges, whatever people in Indian English might call it. End of. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there's a nontrivial WP:ENGVAR question here. If Ganga is really the name used in Indian English, then per the "strong national ties" clause, perhaps we should use it. One question, maybe, is whether India counts as an "English-speaking nation" for these purposes — as I understand it, an awful lot of Indians speak English, but very few natively; mostly, they learn it in school. But I could be wrong about that.

The other question is whether Ganges is actually wrong in Indian English. If it's a reasonably frequent usage, then we might still use it per "opportunities for commonality". --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked at ENGVAR, and was told that it clearly should be "Ganges". (That was part of a larger question over whether we should follow national rather than international English, but I never could get a straight answer to the larger question.)

No, the Indian govt uses both "Ganga" and "Ganges", often together to explain what "Ganga" means, since evidently they don't expect non-Indians to understand it. That was part of the reasoning given for "Ganges" at ENGVAR. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Do not forget it is also a deity, many Hindu houses have Ganga inside a small sealed container which is cracked open when a person is dying to give him his last sip of water along with a holy basil leaf. Please editors do not hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus by using archaic colonial spellings, when Chinese proper nouns have their own pinyin spellings and when we no longer write Kanpur as Cawnpore. Ganges is a mis-pronunciation because imperialists didn't care a damn. 21st century has different standards. Ganges is a pejorative, derogatory word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

:-), Kwami Ganga is pronunced gun - ga (Gun as in a gun = firearm and ga as in radio ga ga), it is not pronumced gan ja, of course ganja is cannabis, but you wont find that in a dictionary, it is an Indian word. Gan as in GANdhi and ja as in JAcket.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

They are pronounced the same, both "gahng-guh". Capitalization makes no difference. Ganja is a different word, as I've already shown you.

It also has nothing to do with British colonialism. It's a Greek pronunciation, as in Alexander in India. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR deals with minor differences of spelling/usage/grammas as best as I can tell. Things like standadize/standardise etc. Ganga doesn't clear one simple hurdle - it's not English. It's a Hindi/Urdu word used by some speakers of Indian English when speaking English. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect, Ganga is what the river is referred to in English officially and popularly in the Indian sub-continent. See links above provided for (1)general google search (2)Search of Pakistani Dawn web-site (3)Nepal and Bangladesh related article. (4)Do you use J as in jam for ganga (ganja) or G as in gun. Just curiousYogesh Khandke (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga (Ganges) is pronounced /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/. Ganga (marijuana) is also pronounced /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/. They're perfect homonyms. "Floating down the Ganga" sounds like you're high on pot. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga (the river) and Ganja (marijuana) are pronounced completely differently, the former uses g as in green, the latter uses j as in James. I'm not sure where you got the /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/ for Ganja. I can only state this for Bengali and Hindi ... but I assume other South Asian languages also use the j-sound. --Ragib (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "ganja", which is of course pronounced /ˈɡɑːndʒə/, but "ganga". "Ganga" is a Rastafarian term. It's not as common as "ganja", but is much much more common than "Ganga" for the river. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Even if the Indian Parliament passed a resoulution saying that Ganga was the only name you're ever allowed to use in Print, then it still would not mean that people outside India have got the faintest idea what you're talking about, get it? Scotland could pass a law tomorrow that says that only Dùn Èideann, Cathair Cheann Tulaich and Comar nan Allt are official. That would still not make them commonly used in English and you'd be hard pressed to find people who can identify them as Edinburgh, Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld. In Ireland, Irish is the only official state language and technically, the Irish place names are official, yet the Wiki page points to Dublin because that's what English speakers call the place. Not Dubhlinn nor Baile Átha Cliath, nice as that might be. Akerbeltz (talk) 19:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)Sorry I cannot read phonetic. (2)Why the digression? Why one rule for China pinyin (except China itself), and another for Indian English? I had asked a specific question? Why does Canton redirect to Guangzhou? But Ganga to Ganges? Please do not bring Ireland here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Why not bring in Ireland, when you bring in China? We've answered your questions, but you're not listening.

We don't use pinyin for Indian names because India does not use pinyin. There are various transliterations that are used. They aren't common in normal texts because they require diacritics which are not widely supported. Canton has changed to Guangzhou for the same reason that Bombay has changed to Mumbai: both are commonly used in English internationally. Both are in my dictionary. Ganga is not. It's very very simple: we go by common usage. Ganga is not common usage outside the Subcontinent. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga may be official in India or even widely used. The problem is outside India, no one knows the word. That's why Ganges is still the "commonly used English name" for that river. One day, maybe that will change, who knows. But right now, it isn't.

Note that not all Pinyin names made it into common English usage either. Tibet is still Tibet, not Xizang and Hong Kong is not Xiangang either. So don't get too hung up about the status of Pinyin and Beijing, the ultimate question is, if you walk down to a travel agent in Glasgow, Cardiff or San Francisco and ask for a cruise down the "Ganga", do people understand you? Right now, the answer is no. Make sense now? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

(1)Dont confuse issues, the analogy is Pune x Poona and not Mumbai x Bombay. Which spelling best describes the sound. (2)India does not have pinyin but it has a generally standard way of spelling Indian words. (3)Tibet is not Chinese, it is Tibetian (4)Its government in exile lives in India. Probably Ganges is the commonly used English English name for the river and not the most commonly used English name. Do a google search. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm beginning to loose patience with this. Youre either dense, or have some agenda and don't WANT to understand. On that basis, I'm tuning out of this. Good luck trying to convince a majority of editors that you're right... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Kwami says that people in Cardiff and Timbakto don't know what Ganga but people in Bangkok, Colombo, Karachi, Dhaka Djkarta, Singapur and Yangoon will know that is a lot of humanity. This is an Indian English article and should use an Indian English name which is both official and widely popular in India and the Indian sub-continent, and in Indo-China and South East Asia with languages using Sanskrit as Hindu/Buddhist legacy. Just as Chinese proper nouns are spelt using the pinyin system Indian names should follow the Indian method of Romanisation just as used in Pune(Poona), Kanpur(Kanpur) Dhaka(Dacca) and many others. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Ganga called Ganges here? (section break)

Tim Tye in Malaysia knows Ganga is the River Ganga.[8] Yogesh Khandke(talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, you cannot change usage by decree. And no, articles on India no more use Indian English as articles on Singapore use Singlish. All those countries you list are, sorry, not countries in which English is the native language of the majority and for now, it's on the whole native speakers who decide this issue. You wouldn't like it either if a bunch of Hindi learners in London decided on what proper Hindi grammar and usage is either.

And the page you quote is a travel writer (which counts as a subject expert, not a normal punter) who states that it is also called. What you fail to see is that the article name is Ganges river. So please stop wasting everybody's time. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC) There is no argument that in English English the word is spelt Ganges, we are referring to Indian English here for spelling just as pinyin is considered for China. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please read I wrote Tim knows Ganga is Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Dwianto et al from Djkarta use Ganga[9]Yogesh Khandke (talk)

Helena A. van Bemmel in Dvārapālas in Indonesia: temple guardians and acculturation refers to the river as Ganga. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

In Guiyang, China a rainwater project is called Akash Ganga (Ganga is also a generic word for river, there are countless Thisganga and Thatganga on the Indian sub-continent and Indo-sphere.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The search result for Asian Development bank's site gave 451 results for Ganga, not one of them was about ganja or other recreational drugs or any thing else.[10]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The above well sourced statements were to counter the argument The problem is outside India, no one knows the word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

An American woman looking to vacation in the U.S. island state of Hawaii asks her travel agent: "Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?" Why should India suffer pejorative, derogatory and repulsive exonyms because Americans are bad at geography?[11] See the irony, even this joke had a chance of falling flat, it had to be clearly mentioned that Hawaii was an island.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Insults do nothing to gain sympathy for your case. Pfly (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh, you need to calm down because you're beginning to come across as someone with some self-imposed mission to Hindicize every word in the English language that even vaguely relates to India. Which is not how things work here. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Yogesh, read WP:RS. That's how we work here. RS's can be as simple as the dictionary. My dictionary has only "Ganges". My large DK atlas, published in Germany, has only "Ganges". That's the international form, so that's the form we use here.

Even the India govt uses "Ganges",[12] often interchangeably with Ganga, sometimes switching back and forth between the two within a single paragraph! We already note that Ganga is the local/national form of the name, as we should. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Please be to the point. (1)The American example is given because Kwami was worried that travel agents in America won't know what a "ride down the Ganga meant", I did not make that joke/ anecdote up. (2)Ganga is an official standard and popular Indian English spelling of the sound of the name of the river and should be used here just as Chinese spellings are based on pinyin and just as Pune is no longer spelt as Poona, and my home town Khopoli is no longer spelt as Campoli.(3)Ganga is known and used widely in India, the Indian sub-continent, by European writers writing about India and by official bodies in Asia.(4)Different editors here have raised objections I have simply provided proofs that their objections are not factual.(4) There is no argument about the fact that Ganges is how the sound is spelt in English English, the argument is about which version to use. I have given many examples to substantiate my argument which is based on reliable sources from a broad spectrum. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

We are to the point. It's you who refuses to understand. Unless you have something substantial to say, unless you have some actual WP:RS evidence, I'm done here. Repeat yourself all you like. — kwami (talk) 03:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

All the links provided are wp:rs for usage of the word, Asian Development Bank, Dawn of Karachi, site from Bangladesh, sites from Penang and Djkarta, a Western lady writing on dwarapals in Indonesia, the site form Nepal and from China, google as a search engine all reliable sources, editor Kwami please check the usage, English is not an English or American or Australian or Canadian or NZ language it is widely used the world over, in Asia which is over 2000 million humans the word Ganga would be related to the river, I have given reliable sources, Ganga is also a generic word for any river, there are countless such examples all over India, the Indian sub-continent and all over Asia. A palace is named Tirtaganga in Indonesia.[13] Which in Balinese means the holy water of the Ganga. My argument is based on knowledge and hard facts based on a wide range of sources.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

One of my standard resources on geographic names is the, admittedly US-based Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary (1997). For what it is worth here's what it says on Ganges and Ganga: Merriam-Webster's Geographical Dictionary, p. 412, Ganges \ 'gan-gēz\ or Sanskrit and Hind. Ganga \'gəŋ-gə\. Sacred river of N and NE Indian subcontinent, [...]. A search for "ganga" turns up three other entries: 1) Mahaweli [...] Chief river (ganga) of Sri Lanka [...]; 2) Kelani [...] River (ganga) W Sri Lanka [...]; 3) Wainganga or Wain River [...] River (ganga) [...] cen. India [...]. Pfly (talk) 04:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not what the river is called in England or America but what the river is called in English in India, and whether it would cause a great deal of confusion. My sources prove that the word would be easily understood in Asia which is where a large number of English users having varioius degrees of proficiency, which is a major chunk of humanity. Please understand the issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

You cannot have one rule for China based spellings which are based on pinyin which is how the Chinese would spell (write in English; using the Roman script) Chinese words and another for Indian English. This argument is about style of spelling and comes under wp:engvarYogesh Khandke (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I've quite lost track of what you are proposing. Is it you want the page name changed to Ganga and the lead text to say something like "The River Ganga, known as Ganges outside the Indian subcontinent, is a ...." ? Pfly (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

That Ganga is the most appropriate spelling. You can give other spellings too for example Ganges which is the spelling used in English English and American English.

“ The River Ganga, also spelt Ganges ”

and then put the {{Indian English}} tag here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, personally I don't have a big problem with this. I think way too much time on Wikipedia is spent bickering over page names. That said, for now I abstain from one side or the other here. Pfly (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga not Ganges the correct spelling

The Times of India the worlds largest selling English newspager and also the largest selling paper written in the Roman script uses the spelling Ganga for the word. That editor Kwami is a reliable source . Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Who ever said otherwise? And it's not a different "spelling", it's a different form of the name, like Mumbai vs. Bombay. like As I said, provide a RS that Ganga is the most common form of the name internationally. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not like Mumbai x Bombay, it is like Pune x Poona. The world's largest English and Roman script news paper uses it and many others. Am I required to find a source that says "Ganga is the most common form of the name internationally" may I editor Kwami request you to do so for the spelling Ganges? Wouldn't the many instances that I have given above work? 471 results on the

Asia Development Bank site. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

If you editor can read between the lines about the statement that the world's largest English paper is published from Mumbai, you would understand one point of this editor quite easily. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyways that is just one point of my argument another is wp:engvar and the English spellings for Chinese names based on pinyin. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga not Ganges the correct spelling

The text of the move template reads "It has been proposed that Ganges be renamed and moved to Ganga. Please discuss it at Talk:Ganges.", wonder why it was taken off without discussion. This editor has proved that

1. The word Ganga is internationally understood. White-Christian authors writing in English (The ultimate test of scholarship?) also use the word, Web links given above.
2. The word Ganga is commonly used internationally. ADB site search gives 471 results for Ganga. Web links given above.
3. From Indonesia to China the word Ganga is used. Web links given above.
4. Ganga is how the sound is spelt in Indian English which means English of the Indian sub-continent.
5. Wikipedia uses pinyin spellings for Chinese names, why follow a different rule and use archaic non Indian spellings for Indian names? Do you use Ghandi for Gandhi or Dacca for Dhaka or Cawnpore for Kanpur or Campoli for Khopoli? Are there different rules for China because they have a bigger nuclear arsenal, and a stronger hand in culling dissidents and erasing occupied cultures? Or is it because of the billions of USDs Apple, Google and others have invested there?
6. The world's largest circulating English and Roman script newspaper uses the spelling Ganga.

Ergo please move this article to Ganga. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

As I explained, the tag was removed after several days when there was no discussion by the proposer.

You have not proved some of the points above (such as Ganga being internationally understood), and others (such as pinyin) are irrelevant.

[I've explained several times how pinyin is irrelevant; the fact that you are still bringing it suggests that you don't consider what other people have to say.] :I have brought this very question up on the naming discussion boards: should we go with regional English (Ganga) or international English (Ganges)? The response was that it should so obviously be at Ganges that it was hardly worth discussing, much to my annoyance. I would prefer more clear-cut coverage in the MOS.

Counter-argument: "Ganga" is not part of the vocabulary of English in English-speaking countries distant from India, whereas "Ganges" is used within India, including by the Indian government. The argument for "Ganges" is the same as the argument for "India" or "China". Since we're an international encyclopedia, we should go with the international rather than regional form.

— kwami (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat my replies to your points

1. Several examples are given as proof that Ganga is internationally used and understood, see links above.
2. Pinyin is the way English spellings are used to spell Chinese words as they would prefer to spell them, the same should be also used for Indian names, proper nouns, it is not irrelevant, it is one of the supporting arguments, though not the only one.
3. I have no argument that Ganges is used in English and American English, but they are not standard English, they are merely dialects of English, . Perhaps Ganges could be used when an article uses the English English or the American English dialect, that too perhaps. But in this article Ganga should be the spelling.
4. Ganges is a minority use and not international, limited to a fast shrinking English dialect (in relation to Indian and other English dialects - see the largest circulating English paper is written in the Indian English dialect), it is not regional it is very much international. The facts are there in all the weblinks referenced.
5. Earlier editor Kwami had written that Ganga (as in ganja cannabis) was pronounced gun - guy, I saw a Hollywood movie, it is clearly pronounced gun - ja (ja as in jam). There is no confusion.
6. I have not understood the reference to naming discussion boardsYogesh Khandke (talk) 09:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
7. India is how the name is spelt by Indians, the country is called India and not Indoi.

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you've repeated yourself several times. Repeating incorrect statements does not make them correct. That's why there's no discussion here: there's nothing new to discuss. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

My earlier edit starts with "I will repeat my replies to your points...", the points have been clearly stated, with proof from good sources, I have stated facts with supporting proofs, please prove otherwise, point by point or admit that the facts are well facts and then the proposed move can be done. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

You're being ridiculous. I've already responded your "proofs" (you may wish to look up what that word means), and am not going to repeat myself just because you do. Discussion over, until you provide something to discuss, or someone else joins in. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

In the dialect I am using proof has the meaning provided in this article Proof. I hope that my usage has not been out of place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I only know the term as what that article calls 'formal proof'. For you, 'proof' only means 'argument'? I accept that you've provided arguments. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

A definitin of proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition, that it is sufficient is my opinion, if others agree, it will be our opinion. I only know perhaps does not constitute the boundaries of human knowledge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Move Ganges to Ganga

Ganges → Ganga — Fixing unlisted move request (see below), not expressing an opinion myself. —SpacemanSpiff 08:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC) The proposer provides the following arguments. ("proof" for all the following statements have been given above)

1. Ganga is the spelling used in Indian English it is not a Hindi or Bengali word but a standard Indian English word.
2. Ganga is the spelling used and understood in Asia.
3. Together 1 and 2 make about 3 billion people with varying degrees of proficiency over English.
4. The subject of this article is Indian and so Indian English should be the dialect used.
5. Wikipedia uses pinyin to spell Chinese names and following a precedent should use Indian English spellings for Indian words.

This is what other editors have on the issue which comes across as pro-move.

1. "Actually, there's a nontrivial WP:ENGVAR question here. If Ganga is really the name used in Indian English, then per the "strong national ties" clause, perhaps we should use it. One question, maybe, is whether India counts as an "English-speaking nation" for these purposes — as I understand it, an awful lot of Indians speak English, but very few natively; mostly, they learn it in school. But I could be wrong about that. The other question is whether Ganges is actually wrong in Indian English. If it's a reasonably frequent usage, then we might still use it per "opportunities for commonality". --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)" It has been proved that Ganga is how the word is spelt in English, QED for Trovatore's query.
2. "Ganga (the river) and Ganja (marijuana) are pronounced completely differently, the former uses g as in green, the latter uses j as in James. I'm not sure where you got the /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/ for Ganja. I can only state this for Bengali and Hindi ... but I assume other South Asian languages also use the j-sound. --Ragib (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)"
3. This editor has given his consent for the move, "Ok, personally I don't have a big problem with this. I think way too much time on Wikipedia is spent bickering over page names. That said, for now I abstain from one side or the other here. Pfly (talk) 04:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)"

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my words. I did not say I consented. I said I abstained. Pfly (talk) 03:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That is why I have written "come across". The editor wrote, I do not have a big problem with this, he won't oppose the move, that is good enough, he is on the side of those who wish to move, unless of-course he has changed his mind. A few more views which look like pro-move.

No. Not opposing does not equal approving. It is not "good enough". I am not on your side. Pfly (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Like Pfly, I also request you not to misrepresent my comment. The comment you quote above is neither pro nor anti move ... rather it is merely a statement on the pronunciation of a different word. I'm striking out the comment above since you blatantly misrepresented it here. --Ragib (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

1. "For how many decades we want to wait to reach a consensus here?? its more than been 3 years. What I can see that its already reached consensus to rename it to Ganga. KuwarOnline Talk 15:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)"
2. "You cannot use a 'foreign' colonial name for a river or town or whatever. See Alappuzha for instance. The name Allepey is the colonial/English name given to the city but Alappuzha is the actual name which has a meaning to it in Malayalam. Be accurate and original. 'Ganges' should redirect to 'Ganga'. Ganga is the name of the river. --SpArC (talk) 07:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)"

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose: (1) The Indian govt uses both "Ganga" and "Ganges" it its publications, often in the same paragraph. (2) The term "Ganga" is local, being virtually unknown outside south Asia and countries culturally influenced by India. It is not listed in US or UK geographic dictionaries that I can find, whereas "Ganges" is. (3) "Ganges" is not a "colonial" form, unless by "colonial" you mean Alexander. (4) Once again, what the hell does pinyin have to do with anything? We're not talking about spelling, we're talking about form, like Bombay/Mumbai. If "Ganges" is good enough for the Indian govt, and is the internationally recognized form, then of course it's what we should use in an international encyclopedia. We use pinyin because the US, UK, and other anglophone govts follow the Chinese govt in using pinyin for transliteration. If the India govt has a preference for romanization, which you have not shown, it has nothing to do with whether we use "Ganges" or "Ganga". (5) I suppose we should change "colonial" Indus River to unassimilated Sindhu as well? — kwami (talk) 05:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Argument against opposition(1)What does it prove? That two spellings are used. The argument is which to use here. Many links above clearly and unambiguously demonstrate that Ganga is the predominant preferred spelling. (2)The statement Ganga is not unknown outside South Asia is false and has been demonstrated as such; is China South Asia? Is Indonesia South Asia? Is Africa South Asia[[14]]?(3)Does editor Kwami intend to suggest that the spelling Ganges written in the Roman script was decided by the Greek alphabet using Alexander? (4)Is wikipedia an international encyclopaedia or an Anglophone encyclopaedia that is the crux of the argument? Will Wikipedia follow US, UK governments in its spelling conventions, please editor Kwami prove that Wikipedia follows US/UK spelling rules for non US/UK names. Editor kwami is wrong, it is not about form it is about spelling, is not about Bombay x Mumbai it is about Cawnpore x Kanpur. (5)Ganga is what the river is spelt in Indian English, Indus is how the river is spelt in Indian English, wrong analogy given by editor Kwami. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support to the extreme extent The arguments against it are ridiculous/utterly hypocritical. Why does the wiki page for Persia redirect to Iran? Or how about this - Which of these names are known/recognized better? Bombay or Mumbai? Obviously Bombay! Why is the wiki page named Mumbai? And Bombay made to redirect? Same goes with Madras and Chennai, the latter being the correct name. I can list more examples. You don't name an article as one just because it's more well known or recognized that way. You have to use the right name and redirect all the other names it is known by. This is an encyclopedia. Please see these discussions for the name changes for the cities above

• Mumbai vs Bombay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_policy_poll#Bombay.2FMumbai
• Chennai vs Madras http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chennai/Archive_3#City_Name
• Iran vs Persia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iran#Persia
• Kolkatta vs Calcutta http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kolkata/archive2

--SpArC (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Opinion solicited by Yogesh Khandke --JaGa^talk 19:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If the point is to be encyclopedic, then perhaps we should follow the lead of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which has their article under "Ganges River", with the explanation, Although officially as well as popularly called the Ganga, both in Hindi and in other Indian languages, internationally it is known by its Anglicized name, the Ganges. — kwami (talk) 09:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

When they say 'other Indian languages' do they also include English? Because English is an official language of India as well. That's an ambiguous statement. So, no. Copying another encyclopedia wouldn't help here kwami. --SpArC (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't pretend you can't read. You know full well what they're saying. And it does help: international sources use "Ganges", not Ganga. The only question is whether we follow international usage, or local/regional usage. — kwami (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The quoted statement is ambiguous. Why do you call this issue international vs local? English is not international to India. And in Indian websites which are in English, it is referred to as Ganga. In your own terms 'Internationally' the word Bombay is clearly more popular. Why is Mumbai the name of the wikipedia article? Please see the links I've posted above for your reference and research. I'm done repeating myself here. I've made my points. I wish you a good day, Sir. --SpArC (talk) 10:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support per nom --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 11:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move It should be Ganga, 1.2 billion(may be more) people in India knows as Ganga so it would be better to move to Ganga than Ganges. I agree with User:SpArC comments. KuwarOnline ^Talk 11:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. User:Yogesh Khandke has taken up fully half of this talk page with persistent and repetitive comments about the name of this article. It's becoming disruptive. If there was a clear consensus for this, he or she would not have needed to start so many separate discussions. Powers ^T 13:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments I really didnt got why you opposed? from above comments what I understood is you opposed due to Yogesh started another discussion? please be clear why you want to oppose with proper comments. thanks KuwarOnline ^Talk 15:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Editor Powers this editor had to repeat because arguments fell on deaf ears. The opposing editor has failed to counter arguments based on facts supported by evidence. Editors supporting the move, the move is not based on the logic Bombay --> Mumbai, but Dacca --> Dhaka, or Cawnpore --> Kanpur, which spelling should be used. Obviously the Indian spelling. Encyclopaedia Britanica has not dropped from heaven, there is no need that Wikipedia follow Britica, on the other hand we can make Wikipedia so good that Britinaca goes out of business. More over I found one mistake there check the entry for Mahabaleshwar, its location is wrong.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:21, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It is my perception that this is a personal crusade of one editor, whose main method of arguing his case has been to repeatedly assert that the page must be moved. That's not very convincing. Powers ^T 15:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

That if you may allow me, is a baseless allegation, there have been many editors as have been quoted above, who have argued for the move, I have provided my arguments, please prove them false, or quote rules or conventions just as Johnchapple has below. Please stick to the point.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The last five discussion sections on this page all begin with a statement from you. I see other people agreeing with you, but no one else who is remotely as adamant about this change as you are. Remember, in the grand scheme of things, this is not an important issue, and nothing bad will happen if your preferred change doesn't happen. Powers ^T 16:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

And the article's text will remain just as desperately in need of improvement. If a quarter of the effort spent on name change arguments was spent on improving the text we might have a semi-decent page instead of the mess it is. Pfly (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This name change will affect many articles that refer to Ganga as a river, just as one article that I have started does, and where suddenly the name changed from Ganga to Ganges. Which brought me here in the first place. It is a generic change. I am not alone can be seen from comments above and below. If the issue is so unimportant and benign, why not move and then move on? Moreover it is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of what is standard to wikipedia, the move fits into the standards of Wikipedia as I interprete them Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Jonchapple (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Argument against refering to wp:commonname

I am quoting commonname here:

National varieties of English Further information: Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English: All national varieties of English spelling are acceptable in article titles; Wikipedia does not prefer any national variety over any other. An article title on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the variety of English appropriate for that nation (for example Australian Defence Force). American spellings should not be respelled to British standards, and vice versa; for example, both color and colour are acceptable and both spellings are found in article titles (such as color gel and colour state). But when local usage is itself divided, we do not necessarily follow the majority or plurality of local English usage against the consensus of the rest of the English-speaking world: Ganges, not Ganga. Occasionally, a less common term is selected as an article title because it is appropriate to all national varieties, for example Fixed-wing aircraft. So the nomenclature for Ganga is mentioned as a specific exception to the rule. What is this based on? The reason given is that local usage is divided. This is simply baseless. There is no proof. I can provide evidence to the contrary, government of India website uses Ganges 20 times[15], and Ganga 1100 times[16]. For advanced search with the region specifier on India there were 2,180,000 results for Ganga[17] and 233,000 for Ganges,[18] less than 10%, that is no division. Another mistake is that Ganga is not local to India but is understood in Asia and elsewhere as shown above. So wp:commonname is wrong here on two counts and should not be refered here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 16 November 2010 (UTC)See

Just a quick comment re the above: those statistics are misleading, and shouldn't be given any weight in this discussion. Ganga is also a name given to people and companies, and thus the number of Google hits on "Ganga" don't necessarily equate to the number of hits referring to the river. For example, when I click the above, out of the first ten hits on the worldwide search for Ganga, only four of the first ten hits relate to the river, and all four also use the name "Ganges" in the articles. Google hits really don't work as a meaningful measure. - Bilby (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Being a common name in India does not make it a common name. As an American, I've never heard it called the Ganga and wouldn't have recognized it. I'm guessing that's true in most Western English-speaking cultures. The question is, then, would your average English-speaking Indian recognize the Ganges as referring to this river? If so (which I'm guessing is true), we should keep Ganges as the international common name. We don't want to give this very important article a name only reasonably recognizable to one continent. --JaGa^talk 19:06, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Is Mumbai well known in Western English-speaking cultures? Or is it Bombay? Obviously, everyone in India and the entire world recognize Bombay better than Mumbai. Then why does Bombay redirect to Mumbai? --SpArC (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Our present placement of Mumbai is based on the observation that Mumbai is now better known in the world at large than Bombay - and that its appearances in the world news show this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. A decade or so ago, Bombay was the better known name by far. But more recently, use of the name Mumbai has become common in international media. Perhaps in the next decade or so, the same will be true for Ganga. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we follow the trends in the media and popular culture, not try to create new trends. --JaGa^talk 01:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

And therefore we wait and see. Perhaps Mumbai will elect a different municipal government and change back. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:10, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Imc (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strongest possible oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, ie the English common name. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

English is also a language in India or are you referring only to the English spoken in the west? Please change Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkatta to the "English" common names as well then. If you oppose this, you should oppose that as well. Be fair.--SpArC (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support (or, if you wish, ultra-strongest possible hypersupport to offset some of the ridiculousness above) per WP:TIES. We use British English for British topics; Canadian English for Canadian topics; American English for American topics; Indian topics should get the same courtesy. Ucucha 21:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:JaGa's comments above. Although WP:ENGVAR is a strong argument here, 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. — AjaxSmack 02:24, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How about Mumbai as against Bombay? Which is better known? --SpArC (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:ENGVAR has several sections; one of them recommends that opportunities for commonality, for using words understood in all English-speaking countries, should be taken when available. I should add that colonial here is a meaningless term of abuse; English=speakers were using Ganges (as here, from The Wounds of Civil War) before they owned a foot of land in India - following Pliny the Elder and Claudius Ptolemy. This effort to be more Indian than Nehru (see the moving quotation in the article itself) should be rejected. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
• Arguments against opposition to move:

1. wp:commonname uses premises that are invalid as pointed out above
2. JaGa: The argument is not what Americans call the river, but what it is called in India in English, what the Indian English spelling is, and whether it is fringe? The spelling Ganga is used in Indian English, and is clearly understood in Asia, Africa and even in white-English nations as demonstrated above. Every one may not know it. For them it would be knowledge, one thing that an encyclopaedia provides.
3. Anderson: Nehru wrote eighty years ago, we are referring to contemporary use, his quotation cannot be taken as a contemporary. Also the same quotation has the spelling Ganga used, see the African link above, so perhaps it is not accurate.
4. Indians have a way for Romanisation just as the Chinese have. The Chinese system has been accepted on wikipedia. There have to be sound reasons why India should be treated by a different yardstick. Examples: Cawnpore x Kanpur, Poona x Pune, Jubblepore x Jabalpur. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

AjaxSmack's assertion that Ganga is unrecognisable outside South Asia (a name for the Indian sub-continent) is untrue and baseless as demonstrated by various links above, Ganga is used and recognised in China, Indonesia, Malaysia, has been used by white scholars, and in Africa too. All arguments against move are based on baseless assumptions so far wheras those for the move have solid proofs as demonstrated above, please go through the many links provided as proof. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

1. Oppose Ganges is the English name of the river (Ganges delta, Ganges dolphin, etc.). --RegentsPark (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to above opposition: The Ganges is the name in the English English dialect and not universal as per evidence given above.

1. Oppose Common name in US, British and International english, also used in Indian english, so we should use the opportunity to commonise. Outofsinc (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support the move to Ganga. Both Ganga and Ganges are recognized in Indian English by the Indian government but Ganga has been the traditional name going back to ancient times, much before the arrival of the English language. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

  Opinion solicited by Yogesh Khandke 15:07 November 17 Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:02, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  I got here from Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Ganges_-.3E_Ganga and I would have participated in this discussion regardless of the talk message as I'm watching this page. User:Yogesh Khandke should however limit posting to relevant projects instead of selectively soliciting participation. Zuggernaut (talk) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I saw at WP:COMMONNAME the suggestion of checking "geographic name servers", so I checked some entries at the US federal GeoNames Search. I realize this is hardly an international authority, rather a set of standards for spelling "foreign names" within the US federal government. So although it hasn't gotten me to decide to either support or oppose, I found the results interesting. I'd link directly via {{GEOnet2}}, but the template isn't working right for me at the moment. To verify you'd have to search for the terms via the search link above. The term "approved" means approved for use by the US federal government, sometimes with a qualifier for the nation for which the usage is approved; "short" means an approved shortened form; "conventional" means "in widespread usage" but not necessarily approved; "variant" names are recognized but not "officially approved", etc--it's a fairly intuitive system. Anyway, here's the results of Ganges, Ganga, and other terms mentioned in this thread:

• Ganges River (Conventional). Ganges (Short). Ganga (Approved - India). Ganges River (Approved - Bangladesh).
• Ganges Delta (Approved - India); Ganges Delta (Approved - Bangladesh); Ganges, Delta of the (Variant); Ganges-Brahmaputra Delta (Variant); Gangetic delta (Variant).
• Ganges, Mouths of the (Conventional); Ganga, Mouths of the (Approved - India); Ganges, Mouths of the (Approved - Bangladesh).
• Mumbai (Approved); Bombay (Conventional).
• Kolkata (Approved); Calcutta (Conventional).
• Chennai (Approved); Madras (Conventional).

I'm posting this merely as another bit of data, not to weigh in on one side or the other. I found it curious how "Ganga" is approved for India but not Bangladesh, and that even for India "Ganges Delta" is approved, with no mention of "Ganga Delta". Also there seems to be no issue with the city names mentioned above--Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai, all "approved", with Bombay, Calcutta, and Madras described as "conventional". It would be interesting to see if truly international organizations, like the UN or Red Cross, have similar naming standards. Pfly (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

GeoNet must be used with care. In particular, "Approved" forms belong to an "approved" systematic transliteration, whether the forms themselves are common or not; thus, Moskva is Approved; Moscow is Conventional. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, I misunderstood the terms. I do wonder though, is the term "Ganga Delta" used in India? What about the Gangetic Plain, Ganges Fan, Gangetic basin, and other similar terms? Pfly (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment A remark here neatly sums up my position and the arguments for move Wikipedia_talk:Article_titles#.E8.99.9E.E6.B5.B7.27s_comments In Wikipedia, we should have a global view, rather than a western viewpoint. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:11, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Yes we should see global view not only western viewpoint, as I said earlier Ganga is known by larger population (at least 1.2 billion or more) so if we talking about majority then this is good example to consider. KuwarOnline ^Talk
• <banned>
• Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME. Flamarande (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
  • <banned>
    • Comment Please do not invoke WP:COMMONNAME, common name makes a special exception for Ganga wrongly assuming that Ganga is a divided issue locally, which has been proved as false. Those who quote WP:COMMONNAME should not be counted here, or they should be prepared to discuss and examin the reason why WP:COMMONNAME makes a special exception for Ganga. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Answer to the comment above. Even those who don't agree with you should nevertheless be allowed to speak their honest opinion in all matters and vote according to their conscience ("should not be counted here"). IMVHO Commonname is more than a simple question of numbers. It's also a matter of use by international English-speaking media like TV channels like CNN, BBC News, Sky, Euronews, etc. These international channels overwhelmingly use the name 'Ganges' and don't use 'Ganga' at all. The same happens with English-written books and encyclopaedias, etc. IMHO 'Ganga' is not an English name at all, but seems to be a transliterated name, probably coming from Urdu and all but all but unknown outside of India. Flamarande (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support, raname article title from Ganges to Ganga. I this goes through we should attempt for all Historical/Mytological figures as well e.g. Rama to Ram, Ravana to Raavan, Bheema to Bheem, Arjuna to Arjun, Ashoka to Ashok etc. Vjdchauhan (talk).

  Opinion solicited by Yogesh Khandke --JaGa^talk 05:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

  • This editor has hit the nail on the head. It is about spellings. If I am off track or if I am breaking any wikirules please forgive me. Even though India does not have a committee for Romanisation like China and people sometimes use alternate ways of writing Indian names, there is a clear consensus regarding how Ganga is spelt. Is it India's fault that it is democratic and does not put those who break spelling rules to death like other despotic governments who have made rules for Romanisation? I have been using English for 38 years and live in India. Ganges fits into Indian English as well as a person in a top hat would in India. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - English common name - Ganges. Off2riorob (talk) 14:32, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Ganga is not used across the English speaking world (in contrast to Mumbai and Beijing), and it is not Wikipedia's job to promote it. Kanguole 14:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Common name in the English-speaking world (possibly with the exception of India, but for everybody else it's still the Ganges). Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment How would the advocates of this move react if it did pass, and we had to add a hatnote saying,

This article is about the river generally known in English as the 'Ganges'. For the drug, see Cannabis.

— kwami (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If Ganga is truly a popular search term for cannabis, then in all honesty, why should anybody mind? From my limited experience with "for the <name_here> see <link_here>" have been with pages that have one overwhelming disambiguation, such as LSD-25. But again, I have limited experience. - ellusion - (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: It could be Ganga also spelt Ganges, Ganga is pronounced gunja, and is a minority issue, the disambiguation page could take care of it. English speaking world is not synomyous with US/ UK please see several links above. Wikipedia is not promoting its use, it is an India interest article using the Indian English dialect, and Indian spellings, such as colour, Ganga. Please see links above, it is used in Africa, and other parts of Asia. A substantial use. Asian Development Bank uses it 471 times. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You keep calling it a "spelling" difference, despite being corrected several times. Is this willful ignorance? Honour / honor is a spelling difference. Ganges / Ganga are two different, though related, names. — kwami (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

It is like Poona x Pune. I would request you to back your assertion with a wp:rs before accusing me of ignorance. It is how to spell a non-native sound. Please do not call names. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Seb az86556. It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 15:55, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't understand why this article is not called River Ganges, as it is a river —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Berty (talk • contribs) 17:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Because English is divided between the forms represented by River Thames and Mississippi River; since this is (unlike either of them; see Thames (disambiguation)) the overwhelmingly most obvious meaning of Ganges anywhere in the world, we don't need to disambiguate and don't need to choose between them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose A quick google news search shows Ganges to be more popular. Ganges and Ganga get similar amounts of hits, however Ganga also seems to be a family name as several of the first page news results are about people with that name. This doesn't seem to occur with Ganges, so it would seem Ganges is a more popular name.--Crossmr (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. It is common practice to have generally accepted Anglicised names for many well-known places (such as Rome for Roma, Paris is pronounced as it looks - not as the French say, "Paree", etc., etc. This process happens in many other langauages as well - for example, Spanish speakers say "Londres for London", the French give Angleterre instead of England, and so on. There are thousands of such examplesw. Ganges is certainly bny far the most common name for the river in English. To try to change it at this point would only be unnecessarily confusing. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Ganges" is the most common name internationally, and the most common name among native speakers of English. That is the name we should use. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:43, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I have to repeat because others repeat the same incorrect (imo) logic. And suddenly the red flag for being tendentious is raised. Unfair. One cannot clap with one hand. It is not like Roma X Rome, do the Italians spell Rome as Roma in English, or is Cologne spelt Koln in English by the Germans, Indians Romanise the Ganga as Ganga in English, For advanced search with the region specifier on India there were 2,180,000 results for Ganga[19] and 233,000 for Ganges,[20] less than 10%. (Although an editor says that even 10% is a division, can we have a discussion on that) Another editor says that some ghits are because of words like Ganga ram hospital, or Ganga das as a name, that does not make the argument any worse on the other hand it supports the arguments, it is an example of the Indian system for Romanisation of the Sanskrit Ganga, their names are derived from the river, like those of the Bombay Duck, which is derived from Bombay which is now fading into history, but Bombay Duck will always, as also Ganges River Dolphin, that cannot be considered a division.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There is no argument about the fact that the use is divided globally, that should not sway the opinion, what is important is whether it is suffitiently common in India - it is, is it recognised globally the answer is it is. Lots of references given above. Hundreds millions of English users Romanise the name as Ganga, in scores of countries. Lots of references given above. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support per Ucucha, above. India has a greater English-speaking population than Britain, and just like we use British English spellings and usage in articles on Britain, we should use Indian English spellings in articles on India. Ganga is vastly more common than Ganges in Indian English. [21][22] We are a worldwide and neutral encyclopedia. --JN466 06:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The article Indian English clearly states that "Fewer than a quarter of a million people speak English as their first language" (the article might be mistaken?). That is certainly more that the whole population of the UK but less than the population of the USA. Furthermore both the British and American English-speakers use the name Ganges ('Ganga' is all but unknown outside of India). Please don't forget that while Indian English is also taught as a secondary language (in India itself besides other countries) American and British English are taught (as a secondary language) to a wider extent (e.g.: Germans will learn British or American English; Brazilians will learn British or American English, Chinese will learn British or American English, etc). A worlwide and accurate encyclopedia should use the common spelling: Ganges. Flamarande (talk) 08:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I think you forgot to read that values were 9 years back. In 2001, 90 million people speak English as there secondary language, India is second largest English speaking country in world It says that India has 223 million people who speak English as secondary and 8.77 million as third language. It also says that "Had the English user number been included, then the total number would be well over 750 million". If we consider English user then it has 750 million far more than US + British population. KuwarOnline ^Talk 09:21, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to include number of users (secondary, third, fourth, etc language) I propose that we include Europe (where American or British English is taught at school - not in all countries). The same goes for Australia, South America, Africa, etc. You have to realize that in the overwheling majority of countries where English is taught as a secondary (or third, fourth, etc) language it is British English or American English but not Indian English. Flamarande (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the Times of India is the most widely read English-language newspaper in the world. English is an official language of India, a country of well over a billion people, in which dozens of languages are spoken, and in which English is widely used as a lingua franca. --JN466 11:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the newspaper which often uses the names 'Ganges' and 'Ganga' (showing yet again that both names are widely used in India)? Just go to its site [23] and type 'Ganges' in the search-field and hit enter. CNN and BBC World are the most widely watched international TV channels of the world and they use the name 'Ganges' (but don't use the name 'Ganga' at all). We can on and on with this line of argument if you wish. Flamarande (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument is not whether Indian English is the largest dialect in the world, the issue is whether Ganga is how the word is written in this language, it is as proved above. And whether it sufficiently common, it has been proved it is. Another is whether it is internationally understood, the answer is it is across Asia, and even in Africa, UK/US scholars too use it, the US government acknowledges its use. For references to above please see links aboveYogesh Khandke (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It is true that the ToI uses Ganges as well as Ganga, though the latter predominates. It is not true that CNN and BBC don't use the name Ganga at all. CNN examples: [24][25][26][27]. BBC examples: [28][29][30][31][32]. If we can make the change from Bombay to Mumbai, we should take the plunge (pun intended) with the Ganga too. There is no use fighting the inevitable. Given that according to Alexa, Wikipedia even today receives 50% more site traffic from India than it does from the UK, for example, it feels appropriate that Indian visitors to the site should see their country described in their version of English. --JN466 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm truly surprised by the evidence that CNN and BBC used the name 'Ganga'. However this use is surely extremely rare (and I challenge you to prove the contrary). The statement about Alexa is IMHO a pitiful red herring: Wikipedia receives more site traffic from India (where 'Ganges' and 'Ganga' are used) than the UK (where 'Ganga' is virtually unknown) but way less than the USA (where 'Ganga' is virtually unknown). Let's not forget Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the other countries of the Commonwealth and the rest of the world (where British English and American English are more popular and that's a fact). And don't compare this with Mumbai/Bombay (or Peking/Beijing or whatever). Such changes might and undoubtedly will happen again and again. But Mumbai and Beijing had to wait a couple of decades and the name 'Ganga' is not there (yet?). Ganga might become the most common name for this river as far as the whole English-speaking world is concerned (in the future). When that day comes the name of this article will change, but not before and if we have to wait a couple of of decades waiting then so be it. We do not fight the inevitable, but we will patiently wait until it happens. Flamarande (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Here a statement from the World Bank, referring to the "Ganga (Ganges) River", reported in the UK Independent: [33] Here an interesting article by a Western writer on the quality and national importance of India's English-language newspapers, referring to the "Ganga Plains": [34] [35][36][37] Here an example from the UK Telegraph, referring to the "Ganges – or Ganga". UK Guardian: [38][39]. I wouldn't call it extremely rare. --JN466 01:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In our version of English. That is what is proposed here short and sweet. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Common name in English is Ganges. There are many, many cases in English where we have a different name for a geographic region than the "real" name used by the locals. For example, we call it Germany instead of Deutschland, we call it Greece instead of the Hellenic Republic, and we call it the Ganges instead of the Ganga. It may be ignorant, but it's English common usage and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I respect your opinion, but the reasoning seems faulty, because there is no local variety of English anywhere in the world where "Deutschland" is the English word for "Germany" in the local variety of English. In India, on the other hand, Ganga is the normal English name of the river. --JN466 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Comment (I've already !voted above) I'm not sure what the big deal is. Within India, both terms are used and understood. Several hotels in Varanasi, for example, use 'Ganges' in their name (The Taj Ganges, Ganges View Hotel) with little confusion and no angry mobs on their doorsteps. So, concerns about Indian visitors to wikipedia being flummoxed, or concerns about offending Indians, or concerns that the 'Indian view' is not being reflected, or concerns that a 'western view' is being thrust upon Indians, by using the term 'Ganges' seem a tad over-rated. --RegentsPark (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Neutral - Ganges is used in Indian English as well as being the common international name. The assertion that Ganga is used in other Asian countries besides India must be substantiated. Do you say that because it is the name in Bengali and other Indian languages? That is irrelevant if it is the name is not used when writing in English in those countries. Quigley (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Substantiated: Dawn of Pakistan search for Ganga = 728 results[40], Nepal[41], Malaysia[42], Indonesia[43], Asian Development Bank site search gives 446 result[44], Bangladesh[45], Sri Lanka and south Asia(this site also informs that this region covers an area of approximately 42,916,000 km2, same as that of the continental United States but with four times the population, it is already one of the most densely settled regions of the world.)[46], China[47], Philippines[48], Republic of South Africa[49], Africa[50], International[51]
• Support: I can not seem to find the reason why Mumbai is in use instead of Bombay (or the other examples given up above), but if the reasons for name changing those is the same as for Ganga vs. Ganges, then by all means I support the change. Also, the change I do not think would necessarily add confusion to the mix, and if anything may help alleviate some. There is much confusion that results from pronouncing it "gun-gaa" while seeing it spelt Ganges. - ellusion - (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose This issue is like the wars at WP:MOS where some editors want to educate readers by using kibibyte instead of kilobyte when describing amounts of computer memory, or by using cm³ instead of cc in articles describing motorcycle engines. All these are good ideas, and they will happen just as soon as reliable sources in the English speaking world lead the way and adopt that terminology. It is not Wikipedia's role to tell people the correct title is Ganga and not Ganges. Johnuniq (talk) 07:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose with some reluctance. I'm generally supportive of using local names where reasonable, but I don't really think this is one of those cases. The name "Ganga" is not well-recognised outside the Indian subcontinent. I acknowledge that WP:ENGVAR might be taken as support for this move, but in honesty, I think WP:COMMONNAME needs to trump ENGVAR here. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:28, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I am glad you used the term Indian subcontinent.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I would like to make a small comment on the use of the "Indian" card here. Ganges is not limited to India only, rather it is a transborder river that flows through Bangladesh as well. In Bangladesh, "Ganges" is overwhelmingly used to refer to the river in English language media as well as in Government websites [52]. In fact, the joint river commission (between India and Bangladesh govt) website exclusively uses the name "Ganges" [53]. --Ragib (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually for its length in Bangladesh it is called Padma, so the India card is valid[54], also please see that Britannica uses both the spellings Ganga/Ganges[55], and this treaty uses the terms Ganga/Ganges[56].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Kwami Encyclopaedia Britannica uses both the names.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Britannica uses 'Ganges' as the English name and 'Ganga' as the Hindi name. (Quote: Ganges River, Hindi Ganga, [57] --RegentsPark (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• It is easier to be prejudiced than to read and be informed. Of course quote (57) has been seen, Kwami has quoted that earlier. The above comment referred to quotes (55), which reads Padma River, main channel of the greater Ganges (Ganga) River in Bangladesh. For some 90 miles (145 km) the Ganges River forms the western boundary between India and Bangladesh before it enters Bangladesh at the northern edge of the Kushtia district as the upper segment of the Padma River.,Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. But Britannica uses Ganges as the primary English spelling and, explicitly, states that Ganga is the Hindi name of the river. I'm just saying the Britannica example does not support your point.--RegentsPark (talk) 18:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We all knew what Britannica said, we now know that it too refers to the river as Ganga, so Britannica is divided over the use and so ambivalent, both here and there. Not something that can be used to block the move with. Kwami??Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want me to repeat myself, again? You haven't said anything of substance. We all know Ganga is another form of the name; that's why we include it in the article! The EB uses 'Ganges' primarily. It files the article under 'Ganges'. They are not divided or ambivalent. You twist everything to support your POV. That isn't research, it's propaganda. No-one else is buying it. So, do you have anything of substance to say? Do you have anything new to say? Or are you merely going to repeat the same bullshit over and over and over and over and over until everyone else gets tired of your nonsense and drops out of your non-discussion, and then claim that you have "consensus" to dictate the English language? — kwami (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• (1)We know that there are two forms of the name. (2)We know that Britannica uses the name Ganges primararily, and also uses Ganga in English and not Bhojpuri or Rajasthani, so it acknowleges another Romanisation of the word (3) Count the oppose votes they are based on logic Paree, Wien or Mount Everest, which has been countered or wp:Commonname which has seen edits and reverts, or some who fear Balkanisation of the language, nothing to the point against the move. Any way wikipedia is not a democracy, we should look at the argument for and against, there are strong reason all over the place for move, one only has to look. I have seen Zuggernaut making great tables, a table would look great here.(6) Is there a policy that Wikipedia follow Britannica, Where ever that Britannica went Wikipedia was sure to go? I have not seen it anywhere. On the other hand encyclopaedias are not considered first class sources, see wp:rsYogesh Khandke (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I think we really should leave the days of colonialism behind us, don't you? This is not a Gdanzig dispute, the name used in India is Ganga. It is far form being the only change to commonly used Indian names - Mumbai, Pune, Kolkata and so on are all now at their locally-correct names, and rightly so. A redirect will fix anybody looking in the wrong place and we can actually show the world that we care more about knowledge and education than about enforcing a WASP perspective on the world. Oh, and I'm one of the old colonial oppressors (a Brit), if that makes any difference. I have also conducted a comprehensive linguistic analysis that supports the move. Guy (Help!) 17:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If India wants to leave the days of colonialism behind, they should drop the English language altogether. Anyway, "Ganges" is not a colonial, or even originally an English, name: it's Greek. India has fully incorporated their Greek imperial heritage. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• If I had said something like that I would have been called a troll. Greek - Yavans? Empire?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Support. As English is one of India's official languages, the usual practice per MoS would be to use Indian English spelling. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

We're not talking about spelling, so your argument is irrelevant. — kwami (talk) 22:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• But it is about Romanisation and the above reads he supports the Indian Romanisation of the name.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I m kind of agree with SlimVirgin, if we change the spelling to Ganga and other people want to read it as Ganges I dont think anybody will have problem. Its upto them how to read it as Ganga or Ganges. KuwarOnline ^Talk 10:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Why do so many Indians use the word Ganges when talking to non-Indians? Because they want to be sure we understand exactly to which river they are referring. Ganges is the most common usage in the global English-speaking world. Oh, and also oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. — SpikeToronto 07:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, primarily due to WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps in the future the common name will change, as Bombay changed to Mumbai, but as this hasn't happened yet I think we're just making it harder on our readers to change it to the lesser used name. That doesn't mean that "Ganga" shouldn't be mentioned very prominently early in the article as a local name, of course. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC).

FWIW, I've searched google news for the past month for "Ganga + river" and for "Ganges + river", and you get more hits for Ganga. So how does WP:COMMONNAME here work in favour of Ganges? Of course, you may say, "But those are mostly Indian sources ...", but are we now discriminating against Indian sources on the Indian national river? On what basis? And per WP:TIES, we should be using Ganga. --JN466 11:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

FWIW I've made a Google-search with the words 'Ganges river' and got "About 3,290,000 results (0.07 seconds)". Then I made a search with the words 'Ganga river' and got "About 959,000 results (0.24 seconds)". So how does WP:COMMONNAME here work in favour of Ganga? Of course, you may say, "But those are mostly non-Indian sources ...", but are we now discriminating against non-Indian sources on this international river (which also enters Bangladesh)? On what basis? Per WP:Commonname, we are using Ganges. Flamarande (talk) 13:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, when I click on your links, I get 538,000 for Ganges river and 7,510,000 for Ganga river. Perhaps we need to refine our searches a little. --JN466 13:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Weird, when I click upon them I get the my written results (I changed the language settings from Portuguese to English but nothing more). Perhaps the google returns to the original settings. Flamarande (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, you can't trust google counts as far as you can throw'em. You used Portuguese google; here are the UK google results: 813,000 for ganges river, 962,000 for ganga river. It's not for nothing that our guidelines warn against using raw google counts. At least with google news you can see what you have, and you can narrow it down to recent sources reflecting present-day usage. (And just in case you're wondering, I am German living in the UK.) --JN466 13:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, you started to use the Google-counts. I honestly made searches in the international Google-site (which I copied) and got the written results. The UK results which you presented are as twisted as the Portuguese results (as matter of fact when I click upon your links I get the 3,290,000 for Ganges river and 959,000 for Ganga river - perhaps your setting are in German?). Tell me Jayen, what name (Ganges or Ganga) is taught in the English classes in the German school system? Did you learn American, British or Indian English? Flamarande (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The problem with a Google search that uses Ganga, is that the results include the ubiquitous slang word for marijuana, ganga. Google.com is the international search engine for Google, not Google.co.uk or Google.pt. When one goes to Google.com, and searches Ganges + river, one gets 811,000 results. (See here.) When one goes to Google.com, and searches Ganga + river, one gets 448,000 results. (See here.) Jayen, one cannot initiate an argument based on Google counts, and then, when it is shown that the results are diametrically oppopsite to what one had interpreted, dismiss that methodology. One cannot have it both ways. — SpikeToronto 19:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Spike, I presented an argument based on google news here. This is different from an argument based on google web hits, because you can actually view and count the hits, and limit them to current publications. FWIW, when I click on your google.com links, the numbers I get are again completely different: 3.4m for ganges river, 967,000 for ganga river. These numbers mean nothing, just like the 538,000 for Ganges river and 7,510,000 for Ganga river I got above clicking on Flamarande's links, and google.com is not any better or "more international" here than any country version of google web. --JN466 00:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I learnt British English, and that was standard in the school system then. Basically you have to balance two interests here: the principle of least surprise for non-Indians, and that Indians should feel as at home here as any other group of English-speakers. A key part of the latter is having articles that are closely tied to your home country reflect your language and spelling. (As someone who speaks Portuguese and German, you'll appreciate this situation isn't unique to English.) American editors wouldn't stand for it, for example, if we insisted on spellings like United States Department of Defence or Centre (basketball), arguing that this is the spelling that middle-aged Europeans would have learnt in school, and that defence and centre are the dominant spellings across the English-speaking world (which they are). That is fine. Basketball is bigger in the States than in any other country. Now, the Ganga is bigger in India than in any other country. It's the national river, and I think it's churlish to insist on putting what English students in Germany or Serbia would have learnt in school 15 or 35 years ago. To those students, the Ganga was and is just one of many rivers in the world they will probably never see. And if they have a moment's cognitive dissonance because they get to Ganga when they type in Ganges, it's no big deal; they'll learn something about India in the process. Just like the people looking for Bombay or Peking learn something. And I know that school kids in Britain today do learn the name Ganga; this is a BBC page that helps kids prepare for their GCSE exam. --JN466 15:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You have learnt British English as AFAIK that was the standard then, now and for the next centuries. It isn't the (British and American) English students in Germany or Serbia (and the whole world minus the Indian subcontinent) would have learnt in school 15 or 35 years ago. Ganges is the common name today. I do not challenge that Ganga is taught, I challenge that Ganga is to current common name now. Wikipedia doesn't (or shouldn't) use the names that "will be the most common in ten or twenty years in the future". Wikipedia uses (or should use) the common name used today, and that means using 'Ganges'. You again compare this with Bombay/Mumbai and Peking/Beijing. However you know that these names are already the common name not because the English wiki uses them, but because the English-speaking media uses them all the time already, and that doesn't happen with 'Ganga'. Flamarande (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that when you say "the English-speaking media", you unconsciously seem to be restricting that to Western media. In terms of sheer frequency of occurrence in recent English-language news reports available in google news, Ganga outweighs Ganges. --JN466 00:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Guilty as charged. I watch CNN, BBC World, Sky and Euronews (I tend not to watch English-speaking Al Jazera). I also watch English-speaking AXN, MOV, Fox, Fox life, etc. I'm truly sorry but my cable provider simply doesn't has a Indian English speaking channel. The problem is that I'm far from being the only one. How many international Indian English-speaking channels do you know? How many Indian English-speaking channels do you truly believe are available in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Australia and I dare say Asia (minus the Indian subcontinent)? Now compare that with the international importance of CNN and BBC World (which are even available in China). Flamarande (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, on the other hand, who do you think mostly comes to view this article? The Ganges is of peripheral interest to the average CNN viewer, but is of profound interest to the average Indian. It is the same with the articles on, say, the Mississippi River, the Thames, or the Des Moines River. --JN466 06:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that all government projects and institutions related to the river have "Ganga" in their names: the National Ganga River Basin Authority, the Ganga River Pollution Control Project, the Ganga Expressway Project, etc. I could not imagine any similar case involving a US or UK river, where we would give preference to foreign sources in how to name our article. --JN466 11:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Google web counts vs Google news results

Please note that google web counts ("About 1,600,000 results") are a useless metric. These numbers can be out by several orders of magnitude, and as we've seen above, different editors may get wildly different results even for the same search string. Some of the technical reasons for this are described here: [58][59], used as references in WP:GOOGLE. The situation is slightly better in google news, because if you search over a smaller timeframe, like a week, month or year, you get a manageable number of hits that can be manually verified, allowing you to weed out false positives and make sure the sources actually exist. Google news is far from perfect for frequency analyses (it misses some news sources), but it is less useless than google web count estimates. --JN466 02:24, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Google books

Google books lists 82 books with Ganga in the title and river in the text, vs. 88 books with Ganges in the title and river in the text. (River in the text is just to exclude non-English books.) That's pretty even. If we analyse the publication dates, 11 of the books with Ganges in the title are from the 19th century (and there are a good few pre-1950s as well). All of those with Ganga in the title are from the second half of the 20th or the 21st century, so viewd from the perspective of WP:COMMONNAME, Ganga doesn't look bad. --JN466 06:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Indian English

I'm adding back the {{Indian English}} tag removed by User:RegentsPark because the following words from Indian English are already used in the article.

ghats
maha smashanam
Kumbh Mela
mahima
jyotirlingams
gangajal
devatas
Shivalingam
abhishek
prayashchit
triveni sangam

Zuggernaut (talk) 16:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the tag; these tags are intended to mark spellings and phrasings which distinguish one brand of English from another, like color/colour. But these words indicate that India is the subject of the article, and nothing about dialect; ghat is the word for a ghat anywhere in the English-speaking world, whenever Americans or Australians or Trinidadese have occasion to write about India. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the examples are not exact, but this tag means to convey that Indian spellings and diction and meanings will be used, we will write petrol and not gas here, and will know what corruption means, or what a flat is, or what a strike is, and that a restaurant is called a hotel, snacks are metaphhorically called tiffin, and that picnic is an excursion. That is what the tag stands for. Indian English is a dialect in its own right, with millions of users. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Indian English is the dialect in which the words largest circulating English newspaper is written. It is not some kind of minority use, on the other hand it predominates other dialects in the above instance. Many articles concerning India carry the tag, this article concerns India, the tag makes perfect sense. Please discuss before taking it offYogesh Khandke (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The worlds largest circulating English newspaper which uses both names: Ganges and Ganga. Flamarande (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Got it. But even by that definition, this template/tag will help an American contributor understand that he or she needs to use 'colour' instead of 'color' when they edit this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

It does use Ganges I agree, move the article to Ganga and then write that Ganga is the Indian Romanisation, and Ganges is the traditional UK/US way of writing it. With the region specifier on India, Ganga gave ten times more ghits than Ganges. As I said there is no rule that Ganga be used, it is used by choice, an overwhelming choice. And the term is clearly understood across the world. For those who don't there can be a prominently place explanation and a redirect Ganges to Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The word is clearly not understood across the world, as evidenced by the people coming here who have never heard it before. It's a regional term, not a universal one. Ganges, on the other hand, is used even by the Indian govt, and so is universal. Your refusal to understand that is starting to appear dishonest. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above, it is not one man ranting but even stevens. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I like to be honest so here it goes: we saw and keep on seeing this trend here and there in the English wiki (it's nothing new). The English wiki is supposed to be written for the majority/average of English-speakers, many of which are not native English-speakers at all, having learnt American or British English at school. The logical names are therefore those used in American and/or British English. Die-hard "patriots" want to impose 'their names' upon the English wiki (which the average user all but ignores) at the expense of the most common names. Their weapons of choice are political correctness, npov and "fairness". I will even go further: they want nothing less than to virtually 'balkanize' the English wikipedia along national/cultural lines. All of you are free to agree with them or not: just vote according to your conscience. Flamarande (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw the proposal for the moment?

We have three threads running, that discuss the proper naming convention for Ganga, it makes it a little tedious. Since I was the original proposer, I wonder whether it would make sense to withdraw the proposal here and discuss it out at one place wp:COMMONNAME, with the condition that what passes through there would be accepted here. I wish to take permission of those who opposed and those who supported the move.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You proposed it, you can withdraw it. Having multiple threads on one topic can be considered disruptive, so it may be a good idea. However, an admin can still come here and close it as 'no consensus', in which case continuing to push your POV, even in a different thread, could also be considered disruptive. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I would leave it as it is, Yogesh: this discussion here on this page is properly about whether or not to move the article (and present consensus is leaning against the move). The RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Ganga really addresses a different question: whether Ganga/Ganges is a good example to give at Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English. Given that there is 1/3 support for moving to Ganga here on this page, the guideline shouldn't perhaps use Ganges as an example of when definitely not to move to a local English variant. So we could try and find a more clear-cut example to mention in the guideline, where the two English terms in local use are more evenly matched, and one of them really does not occur outside the country. This would allow the move to Ganga at some future time, if and when community consensus changes. JN466 02:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That example of Ganga vs. Ganges was only posted a couple of months ago,[60] and until or if we get definitive consensus on the article's name, it does not appear to be an appropriate example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

We've long had consensus on this name. The proposal has been made before, only to be rejected. I think it was included in the guideline specifically because it keeps coming up. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You see, the long pole in the Ganges tent, looks like the inaccurate, baseless and incorrect comment on wp:commonname, that Ganga - Ganges is divided locally, kick it and that brings the tent down. On the other hand, as long as it is there the move would not materialise. You see it is a clear guideline. (Which I learnt after the propose). A clear guideline should not be violated. This discussion needs to be taken there. Please suggest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

(1) it is divided locally, as we've demonstrated numerous times. (2) even without that, it would still be local usage which is unintelligible to the rest of the English-speaking world. Your jingoistic attitude that India = the world is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Kwami, I have likewise demonstrated that Western media outlets like CNN, BBC, and UK national papers have begun to use the term Ganga. To say that Indian editors are jingoistic for wanting their national river to be known by its national name in Wikipedia bespeaks an unconscious bias. Indian editors on this page are asking for nothing more than what US or UK editors are taking for granted: that articles on a key feature of their country's geography be based on the official name said feature has in their country. For foreigners to dictate to them that the name used in Wikipedia should be the one predominantly used by them is inequitable. The redirect argument works both ways: US, UK, Australian, etc. schoolkids who enter "Ganges" in the search field will be redirected here, to Ganga, and in the first line of that article it will say, "The Ganga, or Ganges, is ..." And in the process these schoolkids will have learnt something about the world. Indian schoolkids on the other hand who enter "Ganga" and are redirected to "Ganges" will only learn one thing: that Wikipedia treats them as second-class citizens, who don't even have the right to call their national, and holy, river by its proper name in Wikipedia. I don't think that's what we mean when we say we want to bring free education to the kids of the world. --JN466 12:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466, your assumption that Indian school kids will think that wikipedia treats them as second-class citizens if they see Ganges instead of Ganga on the article title is incorrect. Ganges is a recognized English version of Ganga in India and, except perhaps for a few right wing hindi zealots, the same people who believe that all civilization originated in India, no one is offended by the term. In fact, Ganges is used quite freely in Indian scholarly publications (this list from JSTOR has 179 articles from the Economic and Political Weekly, an Indian journal published in Mumbai, that use Ganges in the article). There may be good reasons to use Ganga over Ganges, but your rationale about Ganges being offensive to Indians is not one of them. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore the Times of India, published in India and the most widely read English-language newspaper in the world, uses Ganga and Ganges. You just have to go to its site and type 'Ganges' in the search-field and hit enter. The rationale that the use of Ganges is somehow offensive to Indians seems to be mistaken (or is someone going to defend that that newspaper wants to offend its Indian readers and make them feel like second-class citizens?). Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayen466, you've demonstrate that Western media has begun to use the term Ganga (but the use is still occasional). However Ganges is (still) the most common name as far as the majority of the English-speaking world is concerned. Kwami never wrote that all Indian editors are jingoistic. He clearly wrote and meant that Yogesh Khandke holds a jingoistic attitude (I can only agree). So please do not twist Kwami words along your own POV. What you and Yogesh Khandke are always avoiding is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of non-native English speakers (from Europe, Latin America, Africa and I dare say from the rest of Asia (minus the Indian subcontinent) are learning either British or American but not Indian English. Furthermore the name Ganga is virtually unknown outside of the Indian subcontinent. In other words: it is unknown to the majority of the English-speaking world. Stuff this PC bullshit and this pitiful whinnying about how Wikipedia treats Indian schoolchildren as second-class citizens. I swear to you all: Wikipedia (and the whole world) is becoming more and more a hostage of political PC-lawyers every day. The use of the name 'Ganga' can (and should) easily be explained in the lead of the article itself. There is no logical reason to use 'Ganga' instead of 'Ganges' which is the common name for this subject. Flamarande (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It was the same editor too who, one day prior, added the example to the NCGN guideline which he then cited in that edit summary: [61]. This seems to go back to this discussion. --JN466 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be no discussion about this

http://india.gov.in/knowindia/rivers.php No offense intended --SpArC (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Please it is easy to get excited. But the best approach is to stick to the rules and to the point. And to ensure that every contribution can be backed up by wp:rs, even on talk pages. It is better to ignore insults and snide remarks, and refrain from passing them. Sorry for unsolicited advice, I know it is easy to get exasperated. I request you to strike out the angry comments please.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hm. If you want to ditch Western Imperialism, how about dropping English as an official language? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

बिल्कुल सही. हम ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य बिना कहाँ होगा? (by your request, Seb.)It's... MR BERTY! ^talk/_stalk 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello editors

The example making an exception for Ganga on wp:COMMONNAME, is no longer there.[62] Editors above who have based their opinion on wp:COMMONNAME are requested to put in their views a fresh. Of-course, one has to wait for the stability of the particular edit on wp:COMMONNAME regarding Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is back[63]. We should wait for the matter to settle down.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganga versus Ganges and the confusions it may cause

As I mentioned earlier, many placenames have been anglicised and are generally accepted in English - eg. Rome for Roma, Athens for Athena, and so on (and this same process also happens in the reverse many other languages - eg. Londres for London in Spanish). While we are at it - why can't we insist that the French change their use of Anglais for English, and the Spanish change Inglés to the "proper" name for this language?

This sort of naturally-occuring process does not usually seem to cause much angst as far as I am aware. However, in this case it appears that some people feel very strongly that Ganga should be accepted in English in place of the well-established and well-recognised name in English (and other languages), Ganges. If so, the process should then be carried over into other languages as well, eg. Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Danish, Swedish German and Latin - to name a few, where it is written Ganges; Italian and French where it is written Gange, etc. So, one can see that to establish Ganga internationally will be a massive (and probably, impossible, job). And what about the poor Bengalis (who, after all, are probably even more dependent on the river than anyone else}, who write it (in romanised form) as Gônga?

There are at least two additional reasons for not using Ganga: first, most English speakers seeing the word "Ganga" would immediately associate it with the drug cannabis (and pronounce in "ganja"}. Secondly, and more importantly, if Ganga did become established it would mean that English speakers (and those of numerous other languages) would have to be aware of both usages or they would not recognise references to the river in earlier writings.

No, I think this whole arguement is a case of misguided and futile nationalism and should be abandoned immediately before things become even more confusing. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)