Talk:Ganges

[| Religious_and_cultural_significance ] section pictures

The pictures in the [| Religious_and_cultural_significance ] look completely mismatched with Hindu belief systems not significantly reflected, and I have not even started on the content. As a Hindu, I think this section has got nowhere and sources that are mentioned from my side are ignored. As a Hindu, this section doesn't look good at all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You are an editor on Wikipedia just like the rest of us. Wikipedia works by producing reliable secondary sources for our text, not some bogus claim on a belief system by a alleged hereditary right. You don't know, anything more, and likely a lot less about Hinduism, as manifested in your edits on Wikipedia than I do. So, stop asserting this special status. OK? Enough is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Lets say for example, this secondary source is perhaps good enough? I have already mentioned it earlier and got ignored as usual. 1. - [goddesses: visions of the divine feminine in the Hindu religious tradition ]; 2 - [| Children of Hindu Civilization from | this book]]]; 3 - [| Ganga Basin signoicance]. That coupled with pic mentioned File:Consigning_Gandhi's_ashes_to_the_Ganges.jpg is much more symbolic that the current pic in "redemption" section. The symbolism is right in front.

So you see it is not bogus, it is mentioned in Secondary source. Hereditary rights are not alleged, there rights are part of the culture - just as hereditary rights of British on Britain are not "alleged hereditary rights". Your understanding of Hindu symbolism is appealing, as per me, as just discussed above as in redemption section - but that is my opinion, and I am sure you know a lot more than me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 09:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Please get an English composition book and learn how to write. I will not get a headache by attempting to read the unintelligible sentences you write. End of discussion. I have shown you enough courtesy, all to no avail. Others have made the same observations on other pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I explained how a pic of Gandhis ashes offered to Ganga, along with referenced information in the links, is more apt for this section. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

And I have explained to you that the Gandhi picture is blurry, it doesn't show any details, no one can figure out how the ashes are being dropped into the water and from which boat, and finally it is not in Varanasi, but rather in Allahabad. The text is about dying in Varanasi and being cremated there along the banks of the Ganges. The current picture shows preparation for such a cremation, in which the body is first wet with Ganges water, then placed atop the pyre, and then covered with more wood. This is much better for an uninformed Wikipedian in understanding the accompanying text than a blurry Gandhi picture. Please don't keep repeating yourself without offering any new argument or evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Why do we need a brownish photo File:BathingGhatBanares1885.jpg when the same scene happens on the Ganga every day and there are already 2 colour photos of people bathing in the Ganga File:Ganga Dashara, at Haridwar.jpg and File:Clothing by the river.jpg? --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 17:12, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of space I collapsed your link to just a link, not the full photo. I hope you don't mind (at least use a thumbnail if you want to show it?). For what it is worth, only File:BathingGhatBanares1885.jpg strikes me as showing "bathing" per se. File:Clothing by the river.jpg looks like people doing laundry, and File:Ganga Dashara, at Haridwar.jpg looks like a celebration with a few people wading into the water a bit. Also, tangentially, someone should archive a good portion of this talk page soon! Pfly (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

(Oh, it looks like MiszraBot will archive the page automatically for threads with no replies after a month. I'm a little surprised some of these threads are less than a month old. A lot of activity here recently!) Pfly (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, as long as I'm posting about pictures, I find File:IndianWomanFloatingLampsGanges.jpg very appealing and, unlike any of others, peaceful and serene. I can't speak to its appropriateness, but thought to comment on its pleasantness as a picture. Pfly (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Apropos, Pfly's post above, there are other things interesting about the File:BathingGhatBanares1885.jpg picture. It shows women and children, and only them. It shows widows in white, and is a reminder of a time when Hindu widows were dispatched to Varanasi to live the rest of their lives in communes. It is from a time when there was no running water in Varanasi and people went to the river to bathe, to do their laundry, to collect water for use in the house during the day, and to pray to the river (and to other gods). Women and children had segregated ghats in those days. Women bathed with their saris on. All these things are displayed in the picture. One determines the relevance of a picture by whether it is appropriate to the accompanying text and by what information it supplies to an average (uninformed) reader, and by these measures, it is a very relevant picture. My one complaint (mainly to myself) is that the caption I added is not very informative. That I will soon remedy.

As for the File:IndianWomanFloatingLampsGanges.jpg, I agree with Pfly that the picture is peaceful and serene. It shows, not the big busy scene of a Hardwar or a Varanasi, but the everyday dusk scene of a village that happens to be situated on the banks of the Ganges. (It reminds me of a sentence from the Bible: "Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace.") The text specifically mentions floating lamps down the Ganges. Also, on a page, whose history has been marked by a lot of bickering, about a river that has had its share of bad news, a peaceful image reminiscent of a better time is all the more relevant. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Frankly the 'serene' picture is completely out of place anywhere on this page, and as mentioned has more relevance for you in what the Bible says, which is again out of place here. It is just that the mentality is completely different from what you expect for it. Hinduism is also about vibrant celebrating wise lifestyle.

About widows bathing in river Ganga, one could make another section somewhere and put the picture there is one has to - where it is completely relevant. At this 'purification' section it is not really relevant and misplaced and looks like it is present for some other symbolism.

By the way, some more links on 'authenticity' of Asthi Pravaha Ghat. 1-[| zeenews]. 2-[| another article from zeenews]. 3-[| pictures on Asthi Pravaha Ghat, different parts]. 4-[| still better picture]. The reason why File:Pilgrims_sitting_at_the_ghats,_Har_ki_Pauri,_Haridwar.jpg is more relevant(Ganges#Redemption_of_the_Dead) is because it also clear and shows ceremonies going about the Asthi Pravaha Ghat (and not people bathing). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

By the way, is the pic mentioned clearly okay for "Ganges#Redemption_of_the_Dead" section, now that its authenticity is presented? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying there is nothing serene about the Ganga? It is all contention and crowds? Pfly (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you are missing the whole Hindu symbolism here. If you want to write about Serenity in Ganga, please make a section and write it there. Don't put the serenity picture where it doesn't belong. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to understand. I can see that the Hindu relationship to the river is not necessary about serenity, but "floating lamps" is part of it, and is mentioned in the text. The serenity of the picture is mentioned only in that is could play a balancing role in the other photos, none of which are remotely peaceful in tone. But again, I am out of my element and will let others decide. Pfly (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you could make a section and put the pic in it. The symbolism and lifestyle is much more than Serenity, and I would be contributing about it later too, if probable. There is not hostility as such in other sections and 'balancing' it as per your understanding, or for that matter - understanding of the Bible if at all - is out of place - the mentality as I said, is different that what is expected - and one should be fine with the diversity for these are two completely different religions. I would like to remind that this section is about Religious_and_cultural_significance. You are missing the whole point there, and I wouldn't like to repeat this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I said nothing about the Bible myself, and am not a Christian. Good night. Pfly (talk) 06:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I am just clarifying a point here. What looks perfect for one, may look completely different in India and therefore is misplaced. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand it may not look at all different in India and only your conceit that you have a privileged inside view of it is misplaced. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is what exactly we are looking for

Idol of Ganga (River Ganges in female form)

. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

A person sitting in some kind of booth? Pfly (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

:) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is a small temple of Goddess Ganga, as per Hinduism. I think this much is clear in the caption itself. How is this comment relevant? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 08:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

And the photo has a cynical caption, "There are shops and then there are godmen!" That's what an encyclopedia needs. As for phony Hindu priests, even ones who bargain mid-stream with bereaved relatives in attempting to bump up the price of the ashes immersion ceremony, they inhabit the entire length of the Ganges, with the exception of some headwaters in Garhwal. How do I know? I've seen it all. Thisthat2011 you can keep rummaging through flikr and keep upturning one picture every hour. It won't get you anywhere. You haven't come up with any substantive reasons why the current pictures are irrelevant, other than your unsubstantiated claim to more knowledge of Hinduism than that of other people. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The picture represents the Goddess well, and one doesn't have to pay money here but just make sure if its presented well. However, this picture is much better than the 'serenity' concept with lamps and justified on some irrelevant verse in the Bible or otherwise in the Hindu cultural significance section. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 12:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Anyways, I am sure you are not going to read through the links presented here but still some information about Ganga that can be mentioned in relevant sections. 1. - [goddesses: visions of the divine feminine in the Hindu religious tradition ]; 2 - [| Children of Hindu Civilization from | this book]]]; 3 - [| Ganga Basin signoicance]. Perhaps it will incorporate some diversity in sources with only British I mean, United Kingdom, origins. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 13:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the serenity image is put on the page in spite of no consensus? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 18:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Can someone crop this picture, i.e. crop out the man and just keep the idol on the Makara? Thanks. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

PS That is because I'm trying to create a compromise and move ahead. I've created a subsection, "The goddess Ganga in Indian iconography". If your kiosk image can be cropped then it can be included in that section as an example of something modern. The Indian woman floating lamps is in a different section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I started to crop it, but the resulting image is only 300x400 pixels or so. There's not a lot of clear detail and the colors are washed out. In short, it's not worth cropping. Pfly (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

OK. No probs. Thanks for trying. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

PPS. Wikipedia is not a democracy. You have to come up with some relevant reasons, and you have not. You keep repeating that you are privy to some special insight into Indian culture and Hinduism, and that, unfortunately, doesn't cut it. The Indian woman floating a lamp is appropriate for the text, since the text mentions that fact. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are some good images for "Embodiment of sacredness" section : 1-File:Babasteve-ganges_water.jpg. 2-File:Evening_aarti_with_incense_at_Ganga_ghat,_Varanasi.jpg. 3-File:Ganga_aarti_at_Varanasi.jpg. 4-File:Evening_Aarti_at_Har-ki-Pauri,_Haridwar.jpg. 5-[| another]

Here is a good picture for Avatarana section File:Gokarnatha_Temple_Mangalore.jpg

Here is another suggested for "Redemption_of_the_Dead" 1-File:Pilgrims_sitting_at_the_ghats,_Har_ki_Pauri,_Haridwar.jpg. 2-[| another].

Here another bunch of good pics for "The purifying Ganges" part 1-File:Main_bathing_Ghat,_Hurdwar_(Haridwar),_1880s.jpg. 2-[| another]. 3-File:Panoramic_view_of_har_ki_pauri.jpg. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No consensus here, I understand. Lets not pretend that people don't contribute when all contributions are ignored with excuses of no consensus. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 05:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The pics that were apt per section according to me were put at relevant section by me. Though these have been reverted by user User:Fowler&fowler. Please explain. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 06:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid, you have to provide reasons why the pictures originally in place are not apt. Otherwise, each of us can keep producing alternative images for every Wikipedia article ever written and hold up the encyclopedia from ever moving forward. As a new user, who cannot express himself at a rudimentary level in English, you have been urged many times to develop small disregarded articles and develop your skills rather than engage in ideological edit wars in high-trafficked articles for you are ill-prepared. You risk losing your editing privileges or leaving Wikipedia a bitter disgruntled editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 07:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Here are the reasons

1) pic 1 - File:Panoramic_view_of_har_ki_pauri.jpg - worshiping of Ganga in the morning, the picture also includes bathing, paying homage (includes 'serenity' part too), etc. in the morning.

2) pic 2 - Descent of GangaThe picture has Shiva and Ganga at the time of descent of Ganga, as per the section.

3) pic 3 - Ashes of the cremated need waters of Ganga to reach the world of Ancestors[1] - clarity about how ashes are offered to Ganga and explanation for afterlife as per Hinduism with reference.

4) pic 4 - Ganga Dashara - Devotees bathing as per purifying section.

No not your pictures, but the ones that are already in place (that you would like replaced). You need to state why you think they are not appropriate. You have't thus far. (PS. You seem to consistently have English reading comprehension issues as well. How long do you expect productive editors to keep wasting their valuable time on you, when you don't have the common courtesy to read what they write?) Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

(1) Embodiment of sacredness part: The current pic does not show "a dip in the actual river", and "pay homage to their ancestors" - as mentioned in the section itself. The picture I suggested File:Panoramic_view_of_har_ki_pauri.jpg includes much better actual representation offering prayers and lamps too, taking holy dip, temples on the ghat, etc. is therefore substantial and the early morning makes it all too serene too.

(2) Avatarana or Descent of the Ganges part: The curent pic does not represent the themes of the section i.e. descent of Ganga from Shankara's hairlocks and the other myth thereof just the festival (which form the first paragraph of the section somehow while the themes are relegated at the back, and the most widely known theme - Ganga flowing from hairlocks of Shiva - is put at the very end thus making the section festival specific more theme specific). The suggested File:Gokarnatha_Temple_Mangalore.jpg - is direct representation of the most widely known theme of the section.

(3) Redemption of the Dead part: The current pic, mentions "Who dies in the waters of the Ganges obtains heaven" and preparations for cremations - but does not include points mentioned in the section itself like - ceremonies for the deceased, or that salvation can be achieved by immersing the ashes in the Ganges. The suggested pic from my side File:Pilgrims_sitting_at_the_ghats,_Har_ki_Pauri,_Haridwar.jpg includes all these as well, along with the belief that ashes need to be immersed to reach the World of Ancestors etc.

(4) The purifying Ganges part: The pic present does not included "Moving water as thought to both absorb impurities and take them away" or "The swiftly moving Ganga, especially in its upper reaches, where a bather has to grasp a anchored chain in order to not be carried away, is especially purifying" which are so well presented by File:Ganga_Dashara,_at_Haridwar.jpg, along with usual holy dip. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 10:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

There is also a shark ...

..., the Ganges shark, which is even more endangered, than the dolphin. Also the gharial, which is found in the Son and Chambal rivers (right bank tribs), the Mugger crocodile, which is everywhere, and the Saltwater crocodile, which might be around in some brackish waters. Plenty of charismatic and not so charismatic megafauna. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Natural history/ecology section

I've begun a bare bones, "under construction" section on what I would call "natural history" but might better be called "Ecology and environment"—that is, flora and fauna in the river and throughout the basin. I split it off from the "Pollution" section for now, but it can always be reincorporated. I only just began, adding a short and simple intro. I'll try poking at it for a while. Feel free to join in. Pfly (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll take off the "underconstruction" tag, as I'm about done for now. I'll keep trying to improve the section over the next week or two. As I said before, feel free to edit—I'm sure if nothing else I made some typos. Pfly (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Great work, Pfly and nice pictures. Look forward to more from you in that section. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

POV overall neutrality

Can we remove the overall POV/neutrality tag yet? I know there are issues remaining, but perhaps they can be tagged in sections or sentences instead of the whole article? Pfly (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure, please remove the tag. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Pfly (talk) 08:17, 9 May 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)

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)