Talk:Ganges

"[E]ighty per cent of all illnesses"

The line "eighty per cent of all illnesses in India and one-third of deaths can be attributed to water-borne diseases" lists Dr. Puttick as a source, in a book published by a self-help/New Age oriented publisher, which is cited throughout the article. The only book Puttick lists having published is on personality types, not disease in India. This looks like a citation of convenience, not research.

To be 'POV correct', this statement is ambiguous. To be more honest, it strikes me as close to alarmist. Cardiorespirtory diseases are leading causes of death, with "diarrhoeal diseases" lagging behind those, even when children's deaths are included. See, for example, WHO statistics for 2002 deaths, where "diarrhoeal diseases" and "severe infection" are among leading causes of death in children.

As far as "illness" without death, this is a murky enough category that as a layman I do not know how anyone would go about finding statistical information. Does illness mean "hospitalization"? "Reports by doctors"? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.238.147 (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ganga?

I am an Indian who has been living in Japan for 12 years, and when I hear that the Ganga river being called Ganges, it sounds funny to me. The name for this river should be Ganga because this river flows in India and not in England. Ganga should be the english spelling and pronunciation, not Ganges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadWrites (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Though I personally find it quite amusing and wonder why native English speakers would like to keep on referring as 'The Ganges', here is some more on the topic: here, here, etc. You can find perhaps more in the archives. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 17:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder why Indians keep referring to the Thames as the टेम्स. That should be a ज़ at the end: ठैम्ज़. Please use the proper English when speaking Hindi. And पैरिस! Come on, there's no स in "Paris": it should be पाग़ी. And बीजिंग is completely wrong too: Please move the Hindi Wikipedia article to पेय्चीङ. It's not in India, so it shouldn't have an Indian name.

BTW, in English Ganga is pronounced गांग, not गंगा. It means 'marijuana'. Great tourist advert! 'Come to India and do drugs'. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

'Come to India and do drugs' - not too good from someone who has worked on IPA. Ganga is not गांग its गन्ग, I expected better from your side, not just plain incorrect twist. Anyways, considering you have worked on IPA, should not this be put here as Gangā and could you wonder why it is not so already, when the facility for this particular ā is available? Much like, how India could be Indiā too! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The letter 'a' with a line over it, ā, is usually considered a "long a", pronounced like the 'ay' in "day", at least in North America. See ā. If I didn't already know how it was pronounced and saw the spelling "Gangā", I would guess it was pronounced something like "Gang-gay". Even knowing how it is pronounced I still see it as "Gang-guh". Pfly (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure if IPA does not have any letter for a, as in India, though I do find it strange how 'long-a' is 'a-y' but thanks for telling; which I thought is as per [Sanskrit phonology vowels]. Though I would still like to know the proper IPA letter for a as in India, that is what I meant when I said "Gangā"(as per IAST Sanskrit Phonology, which also means that the notations of ā in IPA and IAST are not all standardised, is it?). If there is no 'a as in India', then I think IPA may be missing that much at the least. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 20:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Both the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster use a schwa for the -a in India. OED: Brit. /ˈɪndɪə/ , U.S. /ˈɪndiə/. Merriam-Webster: \ˈin-dē-ə\. Neither uses a strict IPA system, but I would guess in IPA it would be also be a schwa. According to Pronunciation respelling for English, it might be rendered IN-dee-uh or IN-dee-ə. As for "ā" in IPA, I don't know. It isn't part of the common chart of basic vowels (International Phonetic Alphabet#Vowels). I can't find an "ā" at all on the International Phonetic Alphabet page. Pfly (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I just searched the OED for "Ganga", wondering if it was there. I was automatically redirected to the OED's entry "ganja", also spelled, it says, ganjah, gunja, and ganga; A preparation of Indian hemp ( Cannabis sativa, variety indica), strongly intoxicating and narcotic. Pfly (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for that link to International Alphabet of Sanskrit Transliteration. That is quite useful. Looks like I had several misunderstandings about how to pronounce vowels in this system. Pfly (talk) 22:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Humour, you don't seem to understand that Engish and Hindi are different languages. They have different words. Where they share words, they have different pronunciations. Ganga is pronounced गंगा *in Hindi*. Not in English. In English it is pronounced as if it were spelled गांग. Really, if you don't even know how the word 'India' is pronounced, what are you doing here instructing us on correct English usage? — kwami (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(od)Gimme a break, it is spelt Ganga and pronounced more or less Gun as in the firearm and ga as in gone, ignorance aint bliss Pfly and Kwamikagami. And stop being abrasive and rude, esp to a newcomer. An admin should know Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers 117.195.65.163 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a citation for your claim. AFAIK it's false.

My dictionaries (OED, MWC, RH) don't include "Ganga". But I found one online site that (in Google search preview, but not on the actual site that I could see) had a pronunciation almost like the one you gave: they rhymed Ganga with cowabunga, as in Gunga Din. If you can find a RS, we could make a note that in English Ganga is pronounced like Gunga rather than like ganga. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So I understand that 'Ganga' should be read as per IAST and 'The Ganges' should be read as per IPA. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Replying to the original post... "Ganges" may sound strange to you, and probably to many (if not most) Indians... but to the rest of the English speaking world "Ganges" sounds normal, and it is "Ganga" that sounds strange. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Its not about what easy to pronounce, its about name, which never changes in any language, whether its English/Marathi/Hindi/Portuguese etc, If my name is Kuwar then its Kuwar not kumar, kuwaaar, kunwar, I deal with few foreigner client often, some times they call me kumar instead of kuwar so is that right? another e.g. If I call user Blueboar as Blueboor because I find it easy to pronounce, is that still right? Even if English speaking world want to pronounce Ganga as Ganges its fine, but spelling should be Ganga not Ganges. KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Tell me how that works out when you move India to Bhārat, its true name. Then we'll move this article to Padma, its true name. — kwami (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Great advice kwami, Plz start discussion(not here) I m with you on this for Bharat. KuwarOnline ^Talk 07:30, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Unforunately, unlike you, KuwarOnline, the Ganges has never exactly spoken to her preference between "Ganges" and "Ganga." The last time I was in her upper reaches, all I heard her say was, "gurgle," "splish," and "spash." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonology is completely different for IAST and IPA. People who speak as per IPA do not understand pronunciations of IAST. The page name indicates IPA phonetics. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the phonology is exactly the same regardless of how it's transcribed. You're not making sense. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Phonology is different. Pfly noted above that 'As for "ā" in IPA, I don't know. It isn't part of the common chart of basic vowels (International Phonetic Alphabet#Vowels). I can't find an "ā" at all on the International Phonetic Alphabet page.' ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

That's because it's IAST. — kwami (talk) 10:33, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

See folks, there is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, being done, the Article titles page has, Ganges not Ganga, as an example, now we would have hordes with battle cry Ganges not Ganga. Thisthat, becuase you are new to the show, I would request you to check the archives, there have been hundreds of edits, but the last move proposal had heads counted, there is clear substance in the Ganga move proposal, what it lacked was numbers, unless that happens it is a waste of time. One can wake a person who is asleep, but not one who is feienting sleep. A similar table was made here, for putting arguments and counter arguments, just like a similar arrangement on Mahatma move proposal. The anti-move argument lacks any substance. Even Sue Gardner considered it so.[1]. Please check the talk:Praha hlavní nádraží move proposal which was decided in favour of the Czech version. It is always emic and against etic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Yogesh for sharing Sue Gardner's [2] view on this discussion at least there are few people who really think clearly, not biased about it. Atleast few users/admins can learn from her, whom to give importance and when. Here is her view on this topic "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". Hope this will clear others mind and at least think about it what Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation says and believe why wiki is here and what they are doing here. KuwarOnline ^Talk 11:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

What a shame. Complete paragraph quoted:

'She likes to tell the story of the Ganges/Ganga argument playing out now on English Wikipedia. In India, the official name for the country's second-largest river is the Ganga. The British have long called it the Ganges, a term that bears the stench of colonization for many Indians. Since 2007, there has been a spirited back-and-forth between editors about whether a search for the river should redirect to Ganga or Ganges. "There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And 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." ("That's too much democracy," groans Phil Bronstein, former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and otherwise a fan of Wikipedia, despite the fact that his own biographical entry is inaccurate. "Why don't they simply say, 'This is what it's called in India.' Why do you have to try and cut that baby in half?")'

— Wikipedia director Sue Gardner

.

Kudos to the explicitly mentioned 'two Indian guys who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view', doing so well for having to deal with "there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side".

I wonder who all are in this rebuffing group.

"if they're not there, the system doesn't work"! That's something to ponder! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

The one thing Sue did not mention (probably because she didn't think about it)... We have to consider Bangladesh. Our "two Indian guys" may be correct from an Indian POV... but they are not correct according to the Bangladeshi POV. (in Bangladesh the river isn't called either "Ganges" or "Ganga"). Why should we consider India's name for the river more "correct" than Bangladesh's name for the river? Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar: the river Ganga distributes in India. Beyond that it is called Padma for the Bangladeshi distributary and Bhagirathi/Hoogly for the Indian, this was there in the lead, but our friend Fowler removed it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the sources are on the "Ganges" side. That's established English. "Ganga" is not. We write in English. If you want Hindi, edit WP-hi. — kwami (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Sue Gardner claims the "tiny number of Indians who care a lot" "are correct". Correct about what? That in India "the official name ... is the Ganga"? She assumes we don't realize that Ganga is the official name for the river in India, and that's why we're wrong and the caring minority "is correct"?

It is understandable for an outsider like Gardner to not know that that is an irrelevant fact to deciding titles in Wikipedia, as she is almost certainly unaware that in deciding titles in Wikipedia we prefer the name that is most commonly used in reliable English sources over official names. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle If that the case then why not change the name of Mumbai article to Bombay, Where most westerns/english speaking people refer Bombay instead of official name Mumbai. Its always about official name not about what who refers. About Sue Gardner, She is not deciding or forcing you guys to change the name to Ganga, She is just pointing out loopholes/errors/mistakes happening in wiki, I think you guys should read properly what she is trying to say. Due to minority of Indian users and due to more number US/European users, even wrong thinks preferred over correct things, so that she is encouraging Indian/other country to join wikipedia so that correct thing can be supported and considered here. Other wise this system(wikipedia) wont work. Here is the exact wording - "That's why everybody has to be [on Wikipedia], because if they're not there, the system doesn't work." I cant believe that I am explaining this to English guys here. I was really hoping to get explanation for English speaking users, now I have to explain this plain English to English users. What a shame, really KuwarOnline ^Talk 06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even sure it's the official name. Indian govt sources use both. — kwami (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Its common use is well presented in earlier discussions I think. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Some comments and questions: A few months ago I did a bunch of research about the Ganges/Ganga in order to improve this page. In the process I noticed a number of Indian rivers whose names and spellings seem to have changed since independence. Wikipedia pages about Indian rivers seem to usually use the newer spellings: Yamuna over Jumna, Ghaghara over Gogra, Kaveri over Cauvery, Kameng over Bhareli, etc. I wonder to what degree these changes reflect an affirmation of Indian spellings/pronunciations over older British ones, and if so whether "Ganga" would have as easily replaced "Ganges" if the river were not as famous as it is. I noted that "Ganga" is used in a some English sources--especially technical books and papers focusing on hydrology (admittedly a limited field).

As far as I can tell, the respelling of Indian rivers has not been done through official government decree, unlike the renaming of Indian cities and states. And for some rivers there seems to be several different common spellings in use (not counting trans-boundary rivers whose names change at national borders), like Gomti, Gumti, Gomati; Teesta, Tista; Tamsa, Tons; Son, Sone; etc. It would be useful to know more about how and why the names of Indian rivers have changed, and how Ganges/Ganga fits, or doesn't fit into the renaming/respelling context. For example, is Ganges/Ganga more like Tamsa/Tons or more like Kaveri/Cauvery?

For a while I wondered whether Ganga would be more appropriate given the renaming of major cities like Mumbai/Bombay; Kolkata/Calcutta; Chennai/Madras; Kanpur/Cawnpore; Kozhikode/Calicut. Then I found the page Renaming of cities in India, which points out that "every renaming of a city in India has to be approved by the central government". This isn't the case with river renaming/respelling, is it? The central government uses both Ganges and Ganga, so I'm guessing not. Furthermore, "the degree to which these name changes have caught on in popular English use varies. For example, Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai have caught on, whereas Bengaluru (Bangalore) and Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum) have not." (quote from "renaming" page linked above). I see Wikipedia uses Thiruvananthapuram but not Bengaluru (Bangalore). Given that, I wonder whether other cities are still more commonly known in English by the old names. I'd never have guessed that Calicut is now Kozhikode. Here in the foreign nation of the US, Mumbai is commonly used. Kolkata and Chennai don't come up as often, but I think they are fairly common (although I always forget what the new name of Madras is and have to look it up). Kozhikode though...

Anyway, I've said here a number of times that I'm "neutral" on the Ganges/Ganga question. Part of the reason is because I can't judge whether, or how well the renaming Ganges/Ganga fits into the pattern of other renamings of rivers, like Jumna/Yamuna and Kaveri/Cauvery, and cities, like Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, and Calicut/Kozhikode. The whole situation seems rather chaotic and ad hoc, even within India, and especially with regard to river names, no? Pfly (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It does not seem chaotic or ad hoc to me. Each case should be treated like any other Wikipedia article title - evaluated independently and decided solely on whether the old or new name is more commonly used currently in reliable English sources. It is that simple. Everything else is irrelevant, unless the topic has no name, or the most commonly used one can't be determined, or there is a disambiguation issues. None of those considerations apply here. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason that assumptions are made in the name of people, as if that would make their views in favor of selective editors only. What Wikipedia director Sue Gardner has said clearly is what matters. Not unsubstantiated assumptions on how and what etc. by editors here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thisthat: let it be clear, Gardner's statements matter only so long as/ and wherever they reflect facts, and not because Sue stated them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The only facts Gardner's comments "reflect" are that she's pushing Wikimedia expansion into India, and that throwing Wikipedia's core pillars and policies to the wolves seems to be the cost of doing business in that country. Quigley (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Who, do you think, are the "wolves"?-MangoWong (talk) 07:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"wolves" perhaps are uncivilized heathens/pagans, is it Quigley? Can't be sure until clarified though. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:26, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it may be more in context to mention that there may be some people who are supposed to be children of the she-wolf. But they are all thought to be highly civilized now.-MangoWong (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The only ones passing unsubstantiated value judgments here are the ones making random assumptions, and using words like "Wikipedia's core pillars and policies" to make it look like these personal value judgements matter. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well constructed paragraph,Thisthat2011. Says it vey well.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Rather than bicker, can anyone answer any of my questions? Whether or not they are germane, I would like to know. Pfly (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I cannot comment on the other rivers; but Yamuna is reasonably common (probably most common) in current archaeological literature. Then again (unlike the Ganges), English speakers have not been speaking of it under an English name for centuries, and both forms (actually all three forms, with Jamuna) can be found before Independence, so it's not much of a change. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Ganges -> Ganga

The Indian website (in English) refers to the river as Ganga.

http://india.gov.in/knowindia/rivers.php

And this is what it's called in India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.92.74.157 (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Pfly, see last time we had a table after hundreds of edits. The logic is all pro-move to Ganga, but the move didn't happen because heads were counted. In the mean while, this page is continuously hit by editors wondering why the river is called Ganges. If I see more of those I'm going to propose another move, one day or the other. I'm waiting, I'll wait.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see the matter, and IMO it should be moved to "Ganga". — Bill william compton^Talk 19:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Do not feed the deluded troll Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I guess a move like this does need more votes for the Ganga side, who are not too obviously actually extremely rightwing Hindu nationalist fascist propagandist people. By the way, I am not sure how your propaganda at Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Requested_move did not invite any censor like tendentiousness, propaganda, and so on. I mean 'the title "Mahatma" is also an essential part of the official iconography of Gandhi constructed by India's government' takes the cake. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

On adding pictures

We have enough pictures in the article. We use to have even more and resorted to removing most to the Commons gallery. Please discuss here any picture you might want to add. JDP90 (talk · contribs) has added a unremarkable picture of the Hooghly distributary of the Ganges to the page. There is nothing in it that identifies it as the Hooghly. It is another featureless muddy river; it could be the Amazon, the Mississippi, the Meghna ... I am therefore reverting the addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

Ganges → Ganga — Ganga is the correct name. 203.132.209.101 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Discussion

Any additional comments: