Talk:Ganges

What is the import of the previous move?

The discussions have been archieved. What implications does that have? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The reviewer rejected the move, as there was no consensus for it. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

As a user who has been following this debate for a long time, looks like reviewer has rejected the move but there has been no consensus for retaining the original name either. There is a strong sense of dis-satisfaction about the way review was handled. Can this thread be re-opened and reviewed again by possibly a group of reviewers at wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.3.29 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was rejected as 'no consensus', as I just said. By "strong sense of dissatisfaction", do you mean you personally disagree? There have been no expressions of dissatisfaction. What do you think reopening the discussion would accomplish, other than taking up a lot of time that we could spend doing something useful? It's clear that the generic English name is "Ganges", and unless there's agreement on a general guideline that local usage should override international usage on WP, I don't see how any other decision would be reached. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The administrator who closed the move proposal was asked a few questions[1][2], three of them he has answered, his answers are (1)A move rejection cannot be appealed. (2)Another move can be proposed. (3)For a move proposal to prevail, in the closing administrator's opinion there has to be a clear direction in the form of numbers or argument. Here it is evident that the numbers are not there but the argument is. However I do not intend to put another move proposal until the reasons for the present rejection are on the board. Questions regarding the reasons for rejection were not answered. I have put a talkback message on the said administrator's page, he has put a busy tag on his userpage, so he may not respond immediately. The unanswered questions are here for everyone's benefit.

• What is the criteria for acting on a move proposal?
• Have you gone through the debate in detail and dealt on the various issues pro move and pro keep?

The closing adminstrator is requested to use this space so that everyone concerned would be able to follow the discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

At User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XIX#Ganges to Ganga move proposal., it was well explained that "Generally a move proposal needs overwhelming support in argument or numbers to be successful". Reopening the issue a month after the previous extensive discussion would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The delay is not my fault, Deacon was away, please see the contribution history of Deacon, he was not around for a long time, 27 days[3]. The pity is people don't read, I wrote above that 3 questions were answered, (3) is what you have written about. There have been about a thousand edits regarding the move proposal. The closing administrator writes move denied as arguments inadequate, should he not demonstrate how? That is what I request him to do. A detailed statement is solicited.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If and when this discussion is reopened, the fact that Ganga is a goddess in the Hindu religion should be brought up in support of renaming the article to Ganga. The previous discussion was a very lengthy one and I did not follow it in full so please disregard if it was already brought up. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

• We should revisit the question in a few weeks' time. The failed move proposal suffered from a lack of documentation of RS usage. Most people commented off the cuff before any source research had been done. Any new proposal filed should include an updated version of the documentation of RS usage present in the talk page archive. --JN466 11:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Jayen glad you are back. I opine that the proposal should be revisited only after the reasons for the closing of the move proposal are on the table. Then each reason can be examined and argued for. That would save a lot of bother. I have been writing to Deacon who was the closing administrator, he is however yet to come up with the reasons behind his closing the move proposal beyond the short "no consensus", please see his talk page. What are the avenues to get the reasons on the table? This is the first step that needs to be taken in my opinion, before going further.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

---

As someone who has written the first part of the Ganges article, and added most of the pictures, let me suggest that you will be wasting your own and everyone else's time by revisiting this oft tried page move. Tertiary sources, i.e. other encyclopedias, (our best guide) are near unanimous in calling the river by its international name "Ganges." Britannica, for example, says

• Ganges River, Hindi Ganga, great river of the plains of northern India. Although officially as well as popularly called the Ganga in Hindi and in other Indian languages, internationally it is known by its conventional name, the Ganges. ...

Indeed many major rivers have local and national names (sometimes many national names), but these, although acknowledged, are quite apart from the rivers' international names. Here's Britannica again:

• Yangtze River, Chinese (Pinyin) Chang Jiang or (Wade-Giles romanization) Ch’ang Chiang , River, China. ...
• Mekong River, Cambodian Mékôngk, Laotian Mènam Khong, Thai Mae Nam Khong, Vietnamese Sông Tiên Giang, Chinese (Pinyin) Lancang Jiang or (Wade-Giles) Lan-ts’ang Chiang, Longest river of Southeast Asia. ...
• Brahmaputra River, Bengali Jamuna, Assamese Dihang, Tibetan Tsangpo, Chinese (Pinyin) Yarlung Zangbo Jiang, or (Wade-Giles romanization) Ya-lu-tsang-pu Chiang, River, Central and South Asia. ...
• Nile River, Arabic Baḥr al-Nīl or Nahr al-Nīl, River, eastern and northeastern Africa. ...

Indian English is simply not spoken as a first language by enough people in India for it to acquire the features of a dialect. It remains preeminently a second or even third language there. It is enough to acknowledge parenthetically that in Hindi and other major North Indian languages, and officially by the government, the river is called Ganga. This indeed the Wikipedia Ganges page does. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

There is a Dictionary of Indian English. There has been an exhaustive discussion on this and other aspects of the proposal. The above editor is requested to study the archives of this page. That is why I had requested the closing editor to qualify his decision by a list of statements, so that the discussion could go forward and not in circles. Kwami as an administrator how do you suggest we proceed from here, without wasting time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it has been exhaustive, and the consensus is obvious, that we use widespread terms in preference to local terms. Sometimes when you make a proposal, others disagree, and you are unable to convince them. IMO, the way to proceed without wasting time is to drop it. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion as an editor who opposes this move, I asked you in your capacity as an administrator and one having better knowledge of the system, I have a problem with this closure, there have been many arguments either way, the closing administrator didn't deliberate on the various points raised, what does the proposer of the move do? Without going back to square one. All of us have said all or most of what has can be said, interestingly Kwami, I too have an International atlas, the Readers Digest Great World Atlas, second edition, first revision 1969, on its page no 68,69, which is the map of India, the river is called Ganga, and its mouth the Mouth of Ganga, (with Ganges used parenthetically), Mumbai is Bombay, and we find Madras and Calcutta there, and Dacca too, as I had mentioned to Flam. earlier, Ganga is no Johnny come lately, it is not local, nor it is fringe, it is an established English word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was sound advice from an administrator. Drop it. There is a point when your endeavors could be seen as disruptive or tendentious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I already see Yogesh as tendentious: He doesn't like the closing admin's decision, therefore the closing admin did not properly review the discussion. He asked for my advice but didn't like the advice I had to give, therefore I was acting in bad faith. This is why people find you tiresome, Yogesh: You suggest that anyone who disagrees with you either doesn't understand the evidence (even when they obviously do), is biased, or is acting in bad faith; your strategy is apparently to keep harping away at this until you get your way, and to slander anyone who won't let you have your way. I'm not planning on saying much more about this, because it already is a huge waste of time. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Hold your guns folks. Seb please see the contribution history of this talk page since the move proposal[4], I have 212 edits, Jayen a move supporter has 154, Zuggernaut 19 comes across as a move supporter, Pfly neutral has 22, the tendentious allegation doesn't stick, as I am not a lone ranger. Kwami, I asked you how an editor can proceed after this stage, I wanted procedure from you. I am ducking all the personal bouncers you have bowled to me. Please how would an editor proceed from here? The closing of a proposal should be preceded by elaboration, which has not been done here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:Tendentious editing is an essay (neither a policy nor a guideline) that talks about Edit warring, Disruptive editing, What Wikipedia is not, Gaming the system / Abuse of process, Wikilawyering, Disruption to make a point, "I didn't hear that". In all my interaction, I have not seen Yogesh violate any of those. Given the large gap in the outcome of the vote though (2:1 if I remember right), I do think a different approach and strategy would be required. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

You asked my as an editor how I would handle it, and I told you: I'd drop it. It's not a matter of fact that's wrong, merely one of opinion, and you have the consensus of Wikipedia against you: we don't use local terms that most people won't understand when there's a universal term available that everyone understands. It's a simple matter of accessibility. Now, if you want to go ahead and propose that we change how we name articles in general, or keep batting at this one in the hope of eventually prevailing, that's up to you. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking about procedure Kwami, I am not debating the issue with you at the moment, I want to go ahead on this move proposal (You must have been in a similar situation or been a key player in your long innings here), what procedure should be followed in this situation, we have had the proposal closed, without an elaborate justification, the long hours of debate deserves a justification from the closing administrator, as proposer against whom the verdict has gone, I seek your help in terms of procedure on how to proceed, we are not debating the subject, I seek your help in understanding Wikipedia's system, I have knocked at the closing administrator's door, but he isn't opening it. I hope you understand what my queries are.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't debating content either. You asked my advice, I gave you my advice. If you want to proceed despite my advice, fine: WP:dispute resolution and WP:requested moves should tell you what you need to know. You could try getting the closing admin sanctioned, but that would be dismissed as frivolous, as he acted properly. You could file another move request, but it's unlikely to go differently than the previous several requests. You could file for arbitration, though that would probably be denied because it's intended for editors of an article who can't agree on content, and in this case it's not clear who the contending parties would even be. There might be other avenues to pursue, but you can read the help pages as easily as I can. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• (od)Thanks I want you involved in the procedure as I wish we do not go into this as adversaries but as ones who wish to settle an issue amicably. Are you sure that you too as an administrator would have closed a proposal without making elaborate statements esp. in such a large debate.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) "Let's work this out together," you say in your edit summary Yogesh Khandke. There's nothing to work out. The ball game is over. Time to take it on the chin and move on. Again, you are wasting your own and everyone else's time. Perhaps, as someone, who hasn't made a single edit to the Ganges article, you'd like to go read something and contribute and build the encyclopedia, instead of wasting time in ideological battles that you are unprepared to wage. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

PS. And, who, btw, has written your Dictionary of Indian English? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

(1)The let us work it out was for Kwami, nevertheless F&F if you wish, you are welcome to help, if you have the expertise in the matter, this is related with Wikipedia procedure without prejudice to the subject. (2)I came here because an article I had started had Ganga edited to Ganges, the article itself is not my field of interest at the moment. (3)F&F please go through the above discussion you will get your answer there, regarding the dictionary. (4)Moreover it is not kosher to allege motives. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you find the Dictionary of Indian English reference for me? I'm claiming there's nothing called Indian English that is syntactically different from Standard British English. There are some expressions used by Indians when they speak English, but most are either older expressions of British English or (for example, verb endings) are considered ungrammatical by the more fluent Indian speakers themselves. I challenge you to find me a Grammar of Indian English. I'm asking you to find me the dictionary because I figure I already know what it is. Not a dictionary of Indian English at all. So, once more: who has compiled this dictionary of Indian English? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Indian English is a well recognized variety of English. Of course, it's not actually a single variety. It diverges (they diverge) in pronunciation, accent, and prosody, influenced by Indian languages, to some extent in grammar (though that might be considered interference and dispreferred?), and in vocabulary. There are tons of Urdu and for all I know Bengali and Tamil words in Indian English which are not known outside the Subcontinent, or are much more colloquial within India. Canadian English has a dictionary, as does Australian, and I'm sure several other countries. Though it would be interesting to see how well defined prescriptive Indian English is. — kwami (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

It is? Most grammars of Standard English don't recognize it as a national variety of English (such as Canadian, Australian, or even Jamaican English), only as a variety of second language spoken by native speakers of other languages (such as Nigerian English). I believe there are simply not enough first language English speakers in India for English to develop as a proper dialect. Simply not enough opportunities for most people to use English in the give and take of daily life consistently over time. There's no grammar of Indian English; no dictionary of Indian English. That's why I'm challenging Yogesh Khandke to find me that fabled compiler. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

PS Don't get me wrong. I'm not scoffing anyone or anything. As someone who has contributed a lot to South Asia related articles, I've yet a find a significant point of divergence between Indian English and Standard British English. I've yet to find any peculiar expressions of Indian English (such as tiffin, out-of-station, etc) being used in any Wikipedia articles. What then is the point of the injunction on the talk page: this article is being written in Indian English? No one is going to use expressions of Urdu and Hindi (that might be popular in the variety of English or Hinglish spoken on the Indian street) in such articles. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Native or not, there's definitely a (southern) Nigerian variety of English! I often have to speak to Nigerians in French or I can't understand them.

I thought Indian newspapers frequently included Undu terms that are not part of British. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

:) As for Indian newspapers, you are probably right. I'm sure there are some Urdu terms that are used, not so much in the hard news, but likely by the columnists. The problem for me is that those terms are unlikely to be used in Wikipedia articles; in fact, their use would cause confusion. So what then is the meaning of the sentence: this article uses Indian English? That one sentence is then used to justify "Ganga." My response is: Where else does this article use Indian English (i.e. one that diverges from standard British English)? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, of course. It doesn't. I've removed the template. {{Indian English}} is found on only 50 talk pages, but it's been around for almost three years. It would probably be more profitable for you to take the discussion there. There's been no discussion of it on the template talk page, though there might have been elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

FYI, the tag was added here and discussed here and here. --rgpk (comment) 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) That list of "Indian English" words listed by Zuggernaut is hilarious. He seems to be implying that any word from any Indian vernacular that has ever appeared in Romanized spelling in any English language publication is a word of Indian English. Thus the title of a Hindi language movie that is discussed in Indian English language newspapers necessarily becomes a word of Indian English. As for the dictionary of Indian English Mr. Khandke was brandishing, (I found the diff for it) it is, as I suspected, the good old Hobson-Jobson, retitled Cosmo Dictionary of Indian English by some unscrupulous Indian publisher, now that the copyright has expired after over a hundred years. Hobson-Jobson, btw, has neither "Ganges" nor "Ganga!" The grammar, he is talking about, Wren and Martin, is a standard grammar of British English written for Indian students. Its been around for some seventy years. It is very prescriptive and would disallow anything even bordering on "Indian English." Mr. Khandke is clearly shooting in the dark. There were 24 opposes to the page move and 11 supports. Why is the Wikipedia community bending over backwards in humoring someone who is clearly a disruptive presence? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

• Cosmos is a dictionary, one finds such entries in an encyclopaedia.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

F&F you are right most of the times, but I cannot agree with your conclusion, the very things that have mentioned make it a dialect, (1)The grammar and spellings are static, for example you spell encyclopaedia as encyclopedia I won't, to some a picnic is eating outdoors, to me it is an excursion, there are many such words, and I am not referring to those that have crept into the language from Indian languages, corruption is another, the way I use the word proof - Kwami can vouch for that. Perhaps as you mentioned it is the English whose rules are frozen since Victorian or Edwardian times, I am glad you have read the discussion, your opinion on the Cosmo is just that your opinion. We are discussing Indian English as a dialect and not a creole like Nigerian English as Kwami has mentioned above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey so I started reading this talk page after reading an article in the Fast Company magazine ("Wikipedia's Librarian to the World": http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/154/librarian-to-the-world.html) that referenced this debate. I will quote from the article in reference to this page: "It's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side. That's why everybody has to be [on Wikipedia], because if they're not there, the system doesn't work" (executive director Sue Gardner). I will also quote from the tag on the Talk page of this article: "This article uses Indian English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in British, American or other dialects of English." There really should be no argument here. When the executive director of the company that runs this site, and the article's own tag support the side that says the article should be titled "Ganga," we should all acquiesce to renaming the article as such. I know that such a motion has just been rejected, but that doesn't mean it can't be re-proposed. A lot of people are saying we should just move on, but the decision of one ill-informed editor should not be the deciding factor in this argument. I'm not technically savvy enough to send a move proposal, but I advocate that someone do so. -Ankit (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2011

Yes, it has been rejected many, many times. The tertiary sources (other encyclopedias) are unanimous in calling it by its international name, "Ganges." As long as that doesn't change, there's little chance of the name changing no matter what whosie whatsie says. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Ankit: I am the editor who proposed the latest move, It was wound up by an administrator who did not bother to elaborate on the issue after hundreds of edit containing arguments had been made. I am glad to read Sue's quote. It is a pity that the issue is held ransom by those for whom their opinion, has more weight than wp:RS, which are not unanimous (sic) as alleged by Fowler&fowler. I am comfortable to bide my time, as Wikipedia is about the future and the future is on my side, as for the move proposal, how about taking up the issue with the closing administrator, or studying the arguments in support and opposition, it would be such a waste of time, if we were all to start at square one.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User Yogesh Khandke and Sue Gardener are entirely right - the administrator has refused to summarise the arguments, and is using the results of the strawpoll rather than evidence presented. That editor is acting as gatekeeper and exercising considerable power over the Wikipedia community. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mostlyharmless: As long as other encyclopedias prefer "Ganges" to "Ganga" by more than three to one, there's little chance of the Wikipedia page name changing. The English Wikipedia's page naming policy gives maximum weight to the examples of other encyclopedias and reference works. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Pollution

As is typical with Wikipedia, I wish people who edit articles would read them in their entirely before posting. Contradictory ideas abound...

"The Ganges River has been considered one of the dirtiest rivers in the world", and "the Ganges collects large amounts of human pollutants such as Schistosoma mansoni and faecal coliforms. Drinking and bathing in its waters therefore carries a high risk of infection"; "Along the 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) stretch of terraced bathing ghats in the holy city of Varanasi, the water of the Ganges is a "brown soup of excrement and industrial effluents." Yet the next line reads,

"The Ganges River's long-held reputation as a purifying river appears to have a basis in science. First of all, the river carries bacteriophages that vanquish bacteria and more. "

Would they vanquish the above brown soup of excrement? 76.10.147.14 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

The article may not be clear as it is currently written but both of these ideas belong here.

From an objective standpoint the Ganges is very dirty, but there are religious teachings which also say that the river is clean. Various Indian scientists who insert religion into their research make claims that the river is actually not dirty, and sometimes they publish research saying this.

Whether anything about the river would "vanquish the above brown soup of excrement" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is a place for summarizing the sources, and the sources say that the river is filthy and that the river is not filthy. If you want to review either this article or Pollution of the Ganges with me I would be happy to look over the sources with you and help qualify the statements. Blue Rasberry 14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Discharge

The Ganges is not the largest river on the Indian subcontinent by discharge. Here's Britannica: "The Ganges-Brahmaputra system has the third greatest average discharge of the world’s rivers, at roughly 1,086,500 cubic feet (30,770 cubic metres) per second; approximately 390,000 cubic feet (11,000 cubic metres) per second is supplied by the Ganges alone." This means that 30,700 - 11,000 = 19,700 cubic meters/sec is supplied by the Brahmaputra. The Ganges is therefore the second largest (Indus discharges 6,600 cubic meters/sec). It is actually a small river. It gets most of its discharge from other rivers, for example from the Yamunua, which is the longer one when the two meet at Allahabad. Had geographical (and not religious or cultural) convention been followed, the river from that point on would have been known as the Yamuna. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:30, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That still isn't "small"!

At the Yamuna-Ganges doab, which percentage of water is supplied by the Yamuna? IMO that's a better measure of which is the main course. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I exaggerated a little! Part of the problem is that so much water is taken away by the canals (Western Jumna Canal, Eastern Jumna Canal, Upper Ganges Canal, Lower Ganges Canal), that it is hard to know which river truly has more volume. But the Jumna is longer at the confluence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

According to The Ganga: water use in the Indian subcontinent, p. 27, the discharge of the Ganges at Allahabad, before the Yamuna confluence, is 59 billion cubic meters per year, or 1,870 m³/s (66,000 cu ft/s), while the Yamuna's discharge at the confluence is 93 billion cubic meters per year, or 2,947 m³/s (104,100 cu ft/s) (these converted numbers should probably be rounded off more). It seems the Yamuna is approximately a third larger, by discharge. Lots more info in that book, could be a useful source here. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we should give the length of the course called the Ganges (plus after it meets the Brahmaputra, if that's how it's normally done), then give the length through the Jamna as the "main course". — kwami (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Or main stem? Makes sense. I've seen the length of the Ganges described as "from its source in the Himalayas", which implies it includes something beyond the name "Ganges". But I'm not sure how it is normally done. For large and famous rivers like this one, it might be good to explicitly define lengths in terms of the river's name, its name and including other named tributaries/distributaries, and longer lengths including tributaries that join along the named river (something like as in Mississippi River#Geography, perhaps). Pfly (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The dialect tag

(1)Kwami had removed the dialect tag, I placed it Fowler removed it, his argument is that placing the tag when a move proposal is on is invalid. (2)I do not see the relation, in the discussions above Fowler has stated that there is no such dialect as Indian English. (3)What is the removers' position? (a)That such a dialect does not exist. That this article should not use this dialect. (b)That this article isn't using this dialect. The stand is not clear. (4)Pl see the history of this page there have been many move proposals. From here[5] it seems that one prevailed too, also see the history of this page[6], there have been a series of such move proposals. (5)Please discuss before removing the tag.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Since I observe 1RR, I won't edit war as you apparently are doing. You've already reverted twice. Please be warned that you are bordering on being a disruptive presence here. Others have already observed this in the discussion above. As for your poorly written argument, I can't check whether your usage of "picnic" is correct, since there is nor WP:RS dictionary of Indian English. The Cosmo dictionary, as I've already observed, is a facsimile reprint of Hobson-Jobson, and doesn't have "picnic," much less your divergent usage of it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fowler(1) Would you consider a school notice regarding a picnic to Mumbai as proof? How do I send it to you? (2)I apologise for my lack of adequate English skills and the resulting discomfort it causes to you, please bear with me. (3)You have mentioned that the necessary condition for being considered as a dialect is that it should be a first language, can you prove this definition of dialect.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Fowler I am sorry I should have provided evidence for my statement here it is, search results for picnic[7].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

One of the accepted meanings of picnic is, "an excursion or outing with food usually provided by members of the group and eaten in the open" (Webster's). Where does your evidence show it is just an outing without food? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Please see Picnic, In contemporary usage, a picnic can be defined simply as a pleasure excursion at which a meal is eaten outdoors (al fresco or en plein air), ideally taking place in a beautiful landscape such as a park, beside a lake or with an interesting view and possibly at a public event such as before an open air theatre performance, and usually in summer., from what I understand picnic as in above, is an excursion with an outdoor meal, the outdoor meal is the focus, on the other hand see the usage from the links I have provided, here picnic means just an excursion.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you haven't examined your own links! Your 1-day picnic link says, "The students were picked up from the schools, in semi luxury buses in route they are treated to a royal breakfast, and arrive at the Park or Resort right at the time of opening. They enjoy the rides and are given lunch which consists of excellence Gourmet food." Your fifth link, Picnic spots around Mumbai says in 4. Elephanta Caves: "Do be sure to choose your picnic spot wisely though or else be prepared to go into battle for your lunch against the gangs of unruly monkeys!" I also took the liberty of calling someone in India and they asked three people on their "domestic staff," none of whom can speak English. All knew the English word "picnic" and all said it involved eating. One said, "it means to go on a trip and make a party." When he was asked, "Do they serve food in the party?" He said "Of course." Here, by the way, are 16 Indian newspapers, from the last two weeks that use picnic to mean something involving food. See the links here. The most interesting one quote is: "It could have been a real picnic for us but since food was not allowed inside the stadium, we just enjoyed the match, ...!" No one is saying that there aren't words and expressions that are favored by speakers of English in the subcontinent, (especially in spoken English), but the list of such expressions that might be used in a written encyclopedia is a short one. More pertinently, where does the Ganges article use these expressions? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The dialect nature also manifests itself in the use of nouns, jungle (a word of Indian origin now in the OED), an Indian would tend to use the word, a non-Indian would use forest or woods, or the vegetables Lady's finger or brinjal.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

"Jungle" and "woods" have nothing to do with the nationality of the speaker. A tropical forested area, especially in India, is called a jungle. No one, be they Indian or non-Indian, says they saw a "tiger in the Indian woods", but they do talk about a "tiger in the Indian jungle"; conversely, no one says, the went for a "hike in Sherwood jungle" (but they do say, "hike in Sherwood forest". Lady's-fingers is a name used for many vegetables and fruit, including okra. The OED has at least four examples for okra. Brinjal, originally Portuguese, it is widely used in Africa as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

• Tiger tiger burning bright, in the forest of the night... No one? Blake?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blake doesn't say "Indian forests of the night." It's "forests" btw. There's no comma either. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Another aspect of Indian English is how it Romanises Indian sounds, there is a established system of Romanisation, the above template indicates that this article uses the Indian English method of Romanising Indian words and so spells - Patliputra, Kannauj, Kara, Allahabad, Murshidabad, Baharampur and Kolkata as they have been and not as they had been.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The British had already begun to romanize in that manner in the second half of the 19th century. See for example, the article by James Sykes Gamble in the 1855 Proceedings of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, where it says, "The History of Shaykh Madar, an Indian saint of great repute, who died in 849 and is buried at Makanpur (not far from Kannauj), ..." All the spellings: Patliputra, Kannauj, Kara, Allahabad, Murshidabad, Baharampur, were already in place long before the British left India. The Kolkata spelling has nothing to do with romanization in Indian English, it is just a political stunt by regional Indian politicians. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(Note: I've removed the tag for the time being. Based on the discussion above, there seems to be reasonable doubt about the meaningfulness of the tag. Of course, the tag can be reinserted if this changes. --rgpk (comment) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

While my preference is {{American English}}, I have added back the tag for the following reasons:

1. The discussion rgpk refers to above is more relevant to Indian English and not this article. It could be taken to one of two places:
   1. The talk page of the article on Indian English
   2. The template talk page of {{Indian English}}
2. The tag has been there for several months and cannot just be removed at whim
3. Several FA and GA level articles carry this tag

Zuggernaut (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Since the Ganges flows through Bangladesh as well, I will be soon adding a "Bangladeshi English" tag to it. I have already added the "Pakistani English" tag to Talk:Ghee, since ghee is as much a part of Pakistani culture as it is of Indian. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. At some point we will need to address whether it is WP:DUE for this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Folwer has attempted to demonstrate above that Indian English as a dialect does not exist, then he goes ahead and adds Pakistani English tag to Ghee, where Indian English tag was. I request Fowler to look as wp:point.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)Fowler, I appreciate your inputs to Wikipedia and Ganges, (and the effort it takes) I have seen a photo uploaded by you of a feature in my neighbourhood, the Bor Ghat Incline (See I spell Ghat, the British spelling was Ghaut), we are not adversaries but partners on this project. I am thinking of sending a contemporary photo to you as a memento. Please try to understand that another perspective may exist, btw the Kashmiri forests which are not tropical are also called jungles[8], jungle is not scientific nomenclature, see its etymology the Sanskrit word it is derived from means dry forest, I never alleged that you removed the IE tag form ghee, I hope the picnic muddle is sorted out. Blake was quoted from memory, school was a long time ago, sorry for the errors. (PS) Cosmo has an Indian editor, Kurien, additionally how does publishing a work after the copyright has expired make a publisher unscrupulous?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"The History of Shaykh Madar, the contemporary Romanisation would be Shiekh, please see the historical versions of this article, the earlier Romanisations were different from the present one, I changed them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Fowler above comments that since the Ganga also flows in Bangladesh the BE tag should be inserted, I support him in it, Ganga is called Padma in Bangladesh, kindly in the same vein move this article to Padma.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a poor joke/proposal, Yogesh Khandke. Too bad that this is not the Bengali wiki but the English one. IMHO this article should use the common English name for the subject (i.e.: Ganges). Flamarande (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back Fl. well since we have had the ball going between us, I have nothing new to add, I am waiting for Kwami to break the ice some way or the other.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

OK! Why should a little typing get between friends, but look before you leap, see Padma River.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The proper historical and official name of the river is Ganga

The official name of this Indian river is "Ganga". The Indian government's official designation is 'Ganga'. Infact this river has been called Ganga for thousands of years in the past and present. Please change GangES into Ganga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Both are used on the main Indian government website: see [9]. Mr. Credible (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As Mr. Credible has pointed out, Ganges is one of the many names of Ganges. But the name 'Ganga' is the most accepted version within the Indian Government and the general public. Even within the source Mr. Credible has pointed out, 'Ganga' is extensively used to refer to the actual river. The word Ganga comes from the sacred Hindu text of Rig Veda. The word Ganges is the anglicised version of the word Ganga. Please change the word Ganges to Ganga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you please provide some WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable sources for these assertions? Thanks, Mr. Credible (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, see Talk:Ganges/Archive 2, where this exact issue was debated at great length. Also Talk:Ganges/Archive 1. It's an old, much-discussed, and yet-to-be-resolved issue. Wholesale changing on the name is not likely to get anywhere at the present. Pfly (talk) 19:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of the sources referenced in the article use 'Ganges' over 'Ganga'. 2 use 'a' and 8 use 'es'. Noom _talk ^stalk 19:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

These are some of the government websites that refer to the Ganges as Ganga. http://www.allahabad.nic.in/ >> This website belongs to the Uttarpradesh state government. Ganga runs through the state of Uttarpradesh. http://india.gov.in/knowindia/national_river.php >> Website of the Indian government. http://www.ibaradio.org/India/ganga/radio/radio2/sd3.htm >> This is a well known and widely accepted public campaign started by the public to clean up the Ganga.

Besides all of these sources, I have given you a genuine verbal reason why Ganges should be changed to Ganga just above. So far, no justification or evidence has been provided as to why we shouldn't keep the name Ganges. Please change GangES into Ganga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Evidence and justification has been provided above and in the archived discussion: please, let's try to work to come to a WP:Consensus about this.

The first site you link to above does indeed mention only "Ganga". The second uses both, but the link provided above reads "The Ganga or Ganges is the longest river of India". The third site you link to uses both spellings: [10]. Mr. Credible (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The second webpage uses the word 'Ganges' once and the word Ganga 4 times. It says "The Ganga or Ganges is the longest river of India". Clearly this one use of the word Ganges is to allow westerners who aren't familiar with the word Ganga to come to terms with it. After this single time, the government continues to call the river 'Ganga'.

The third website I presented uses the word 'Ganges' 4 times not just in the webpage but the whole website whereas the word 'Ganga' is used 59 times. Again this shows 'Ganga' is the accepted version. Hence all three websites support the use of the word 'Ganga'. So far after all these discussions, nobody has provided a justification as to why we should keep the word Ganges. Since we cannot agree on this matter, the democratic way forward would be to call the page something else such as 'Ganga/Ganges' or something similar until we find a solution to this issue, just like what the Wikipedia commmunity has done on several occasions such as the 'Sino-Vietnamese War' page and the 'Indian Rebellion of 1857'. This way it is much fairer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What was your user ID prior to today? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. You write that So far after all these discussions, nobody has provided a justification as to why we should keep the word Ganges, but in fact there has been much justification provided: what remains is for editors with different points of view to come to a consensus. Mr. Credible (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Template:Editor-NoteIn my opinion it's ridiculously trivial. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, but note that Special:Contributions/Heloworld321 has done nothing so far but change the spelling in many places, in several articles. Mr. Credible (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I recommend changing them back to the consensus version [which I see has already been done], and if he reverts again, report him for edit-warring even if he hasn't hit the 3RR mark yet. 3RR is not an entitlement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say Wikipedia is a democracy. I am saying this page is not controlled by anyone in particular. The general public can make changes. Yet again I do not see any justification on this page as to why we should keep the word Ganges despite and editor saying that there is much justification. I ask the Wikipedia community to call this page something other than Ganges or Ganga such as Ganga/Ganges until the community can agree on a word. This is the fair way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC) Also I do not understand why Mr. Credible is trying to name me as some kind of vandalising rebel trying to ruin this page. Mr. Credible keeps keeps reverting edits without any justification whatsoever. Is that allowed? Aggression will not be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Nor will editing against consensus be permitted. (Nor will socking, if that's what you are.) Keep at it and you'll be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

And don't add stuff to the archive. Keep it on the active talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

NOBODY SO FAR HAS JUSTIFIED THE USE OF GANGES IN THIS PAGE. Please please explain why you would like to keep the word Ganges. Otherwise I would like to change it to Ganga. Revert wars without proper justification will be considered vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Baseball Buggs doesnt seem to understand the concept of a consensus. This is a consensus: "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all. Discussion should aim towards building a consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions." Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F We have not agreed on anything that is agreeable to all so far. Hence a consensus has NOT been reached. I am not reverting a consensus. I am reverting vandalisms by Mr.Credible. He should be reported.