Talk:Ganges/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Sunderbans meaning

It's commonly, though erroneously, believed that the Sunderbans mean Beautiful Forest. Actually, the name means 'Forest of the Sundari Trees', the Sundari being a local type of tree. The word Sundari means beautiful (fem.). Gokul 07:51, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)

Ganges Watershed

The Ganges is a watershed. It is more or less circular. It is isn't really belt-shaped. There are hundreds of rivers involved. McDogm--64.12.116.6 13:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC) I don't know how to explain this. McDogm--172.141.51.243 06:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

To do: The Ganges River In South Asian Popular Culture, Proportion Of Private and Public Sector Investment In The Basin as percentages, List of Important Associated bodies of water including tributaries, major industrial settlements, expand gentrification and Major Towns and Cites/List of Provinces.--McDogm 17:05, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Ganges And Yarlung Zangbo

The Ganges meets the Tibet River near Dhaka. It is known as the Brahmaputra. Tibet's civilization extends north to the Mongol, who are Tibetan Buddhists. It is a double river system. As the Ganges dominates South Asian thought, this double body of water could be said to extend from the Indian Ocean to Lake Baikal and farther north. Given the Mongol dominination of everything from Hokkaido to Hungary, this page is much bigger than a geography page. McDogm--64.12.116.6 13:49, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Reverting to complete version

There was a lot of material lost over the last two and a half weeks, so I reverted to the version before that. If there was any material lost in that time, please help add it back. ~~Shiri — Talk~~ 21:55, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Map

Is it possible to have a map here showing the source and distributaries of the Ganges river? Right now the article focuses more on the religious issues (which it definitely should discuss, given its importance) than geographic information. A map would show the start of the Ganges and its location in South Asia, and that would enhance the article a lot. Thanks. --Ragib 05:58, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ganga Statistics

The source of the new values are: http://www.himalmag.com/2003/september/review_2.htm for Ganga's statistics.--Raghu 09:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Myth vs. Geography

I think we should fork the page into a "Ganga (goddess)" and a "Ganges River" page. Right now, if anyone comes to this page, she'd see a big confusion over whether this article is about a river or religion. I do appreciate the significance of Ganga in religion, but this article, with the title "Ganges River", should deal with a physical river.

So here is my proposal.

  • Create an article on Ganga, the goddess, move all mythological/religious stuff from here to there, have a disambig note at the top pointing to the River page
  • Add a disambig note at the top of the river page saying to learn about mythology/religious significance, go to the Goddess page
  • Have both items listed in Ganga the main disambig page.

Thanks. --Ragib 16:07, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

you need to put more information


What you say is correct, its better we do this --vineeth 16:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


This article is gradually moving away from the physical river, to the religious significance. This IS the river page, which may contain its significance as a section, but the whole article shouldn't be devoted to it. I suggest creating a page like Ganges River in Hinduism and summarizing it in one paragraph for this page, with links to the article. Thanks. --Ragib 20:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


Ok, I forked off the Hinduism related section to a separate article (which it should, because of the significance of the Goddess Ganga), to The Ganga in Hinduism. The section in this article should summarize that page, and link to it. Thanks. --Ragib 18:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Renaming to Ganga River

I propose renaming this article to Ganga River. The word "Ganges" was used by British colonial historians and is archaic. Do give your comments on this.Babub 09:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the term "Ganges" is widely used in English, and should be used in the English wikipedia (not that I like it, but that's the norm). --Ragib 18:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Is Ganges still used? It's an old name, a bit like Cawnpore. deeptrivia (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, leading Indian newspapers use "Ganges" to this day. For example, The Statesman ([1] August 4 issue "Ganges erosion"). Same goes for newspapers of Bangladesh. --Ragib 16:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Pollution economically advantageous?

"The Ganga remains an economically important waterway and polluting it remains economically advantageous"

Uh.. no. It is just easier and for the individuals on the short-term it is advantegeous, but it's important to specify this. --A Sunshade Lust 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation

I hope it's OK that I put a disamb link in. Since Ganges already redirects here, it means the other meanings of Ganges are a bit hidden if there's no other reference to them. I hope this is the right policy to apply here but I am sure that if it is not you'll explain what is! :) 138.37.199.206 16:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of naming rivers using rivers, districts using the word districts, and other clarifying language that helps us (non Indians) through all these names. We want to understand but it is difficult with the inconsistency in term use. Mattisse(talk) 01:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC).
I think this is how it should be for Indians and non-Indians alike. Hangovers like Nile will no doubt be changed soon. Mukerjee (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Lead Title should be Ganga

I know this request comes up every few months. However, the name Ganges is being steadily overtaken by Ganga in English usage. A (English only) search on google reveals 2.79 mn references to Ganga and 2.67 mn to Ganges. Last time it was discussed, User:Ragib had felt that "the term "Ganges" is widely used in English, and should be used in the English wikipedia." He had cited a newspaper. However, it seems current content such as newspapers are using Ganga at an even higher rate - Google news shows 535 hits for Ganga and 265 for Ganges. Users past 30 (including myself) may have grown up with Ganges, but the next generation is already increasingly using Ganga in English. The old order needs to yield. I move we change the lead title, and keep Ganges as a link. Mukerjee (Talk) 13:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Then propose the move at WP:RM. -- SigPig \SEND - OVER 19:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Has this been done? The article itself is quite inconsistent, sometimes 'Ganga' is used, and sometimes 'Ganges'. Wiki-uk 15:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Move to Ganges

The article should be called Ganges, not Ganges River.--WoodElf 06:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Geology

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.159.162 (talk) 01:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ganga, the Hindu Goddess

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


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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.159.200 (talk) 07:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

River Ganges?

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

I've mostly been taught using the form River Ganges, and this seems to be prevalent in Commonwealth English. Wikipedia:WikiProject Rivers#Naming seems to hold this true. See also a Times of India article where they use River Ganga. Many seem to have the opinion that Ganges should be the river title name. I suppose that would be more neutral. =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, ok, I guess the style is prevalent in India. It's quite interesting that "Padma River" or "Meghna River" is more commonly used in Bangladeshi English language books/news papers. Perhaps the style has evolved differently in Bangladesh. So, River Ganges is fine, I guess. I agree with the term Ganges. --Ragib 09:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
"Ganga" might have more google hits, but that is also partly due to other meanings of the term, e.g., Darren Ganga, etc. I would not recommend using google test for this. Encarta and Britannica both use Ganges. deeptrivia (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

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

We normally only have disambiguations when there's something to disambiguate. Like the Orinoco, "Ganges" can only mean the river in most contexts, so there is no reason to call it "river". Likewise, most language articles are "X language", but not Latin or Esperanto. —kwami (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I guess since I've always called it "gangA nadee" (ganga river) in my native tongue, I figured the word linkage held constant through English as well.- ellusion - (talk) 07:21, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with "the River Ganges"; besides being completely unambiguous, it sounds rather formal, and to my ear quite pleasant. I'd support a move to that title if people wanted it, but there's no pressing need to move it. — kwami (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

References

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

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

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

External links

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

Bathing, etc.

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

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

Renamed section on ecology

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

The section is not solely on pollution. It also deals with other environmental issues. --Ragib 05:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that one little sentence hidden there about the "glaciers melting" bit, huh? Heh, in any case, looks like you flunked both General Science and English in pre-school. Go look up "ecology" in a dictionary, kid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.225.2.107 (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
If global warming or some other cause did cause the Ganges to go dry, would its water still be regarded as holy when it began flowing again? 70.15.116.59 (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Uttarakhand workgroup Addition

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

Source of Ganga

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

Religious significance section

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

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

Ganges River vs Ganges river

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

Galleries

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

Biology

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

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

Ganges needs to be redirected to Ganga

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

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

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

Place-names certainly can and do differ by language (for example, Russia and China are रूस and चीन in Hindi; the country known natively as Nippon, is more commonly known as Japan; Deutschland is called Germany; München is Munich in English etc. Comparing the issue with modern personal names is not really useful or relevant. As for the discussion about this article name, see the discussion above: Ganga vs Ganges. Abecedare (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
As another example, let's consider the name of the poet Rabindranath Tagore. His last name is pronounced "Thakur" in Bengali, yet the commonly used English language spelling is Tagore. If you met Tagore and asked him about his name in English, he'd have replied Tagore whereas if you asked his name in Bengali, you'd have got "Thakur" as a reply. Hope this helps. --Ragib (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change

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

Photo Gallery

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

Why is Ganga called Ganges here?

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

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

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

Dawn uses Ganga[7] so does Bangladesh and Nepal[8] It is considered pejorative to call Inuits as Eskimos, or the Sami as Lapps, why use a derogatory mis-pronunciation for one of India's icons? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
This is starting to sound paranoid. There is nothing derogatory about the name "Ganges", any more than Jesus or Moses, both of which have the same Greek suffix. Quite the opposite: it's "Ganga" that sounds funny, being as it is a common word for marijuana. — kwami (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Pejorative? Don't be ridiculous. While the names for ethnicities are often pejorative in origin, you're talking about the name for a river. Ganges may be a historic mispronunciation but it's a million miles away from being pejorative. And there are debates as long as my arm above all with the same upshot: In International English, that river is called Ganges, whatever people in Indian English might call it. End of. Akerbeltz (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there's a nontrivial WP:ENGVAR question here. If Ganga is really the name used in Indian English, then per the "strong national ties" clause, perhaps we should use it. One question, maybe, is whether India counts as an "English-speaking nation" for these purposes — as I understand it, an awful lot of Indians speak English, but very few natively; mostly, they learn it in school. But I could be wrong about that.
The other question is whether Ganges is actually wrong in Indian English. If it's a reasonably frequent usage, then we might still use it per "opportunities for commonality". --Trovatore (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I've asked at ENGVAR, and was told that it clearly should be "Ganges". (That was part of a larger question over whether we should follow national rather than international English, but I never could get a straight answer to the larger question.)
No, the Indian govt uses both "Ganga" and "Ganges", often together to explain what "Ganga" means, since evidently they don't expect non-Indians to understand it. That was part of the reasoning given for "Ganges" at ENGVAR. — kwami (talk) 19:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Do not forget it is also a deity, many Hindu houses have Ganga inside a small sealed container which is cracked open when a person is dying to give him his last sip of water along with a holy basil leaf. Please editors do not hurt the religious sentiments of Hindus by using archaic colonial spellings, when Chinese proper nouns have their own pinyin spellings and when we no longer write Kanpur as Cawnpore. Ganges is a mis-pronunciation because imperialists didn't care a damn. 21st century has different standards. Ganges is a pejorative, derogatory word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
:-), Kwami Ganga is pronunced gun - ga (Gun as in a gun = firearm and ga as in radio ga ga), it is not pronumced gan ja, of course ganja is cannabis, but you wont find that in a dictionary, it is an Indian word. Gan as in GANdhi and ja as in JAcket.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
They are pronounced the same, both "gahng-guh". Capitalization makes no difference. Ganja is a different word, as I've already shown you.
It also has nothing to do with British colonialism. It's a Greek pronunciation, as in Alexander in India. — kwami (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:ENGVAR deals with minor differences of spelling/usage/grammas as best as I can tell. Things like standadize/standardise etc. Ganga doesn't clear one simple hurdle - it's not English. It's a Hindi/Urdu word used by some speakers of Indian English when speaking English. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Incorrect, Ganga is what the river is referred to in English officially and popularly in the Indian sub-continent. See links above provided for (1)general google search (2)Search of Pakistani Dawn web-site (3)Nepal and Bangladesh related article. (4)Do you use J as in jam for ganga (ganja) or G as in gun. Just curiousYogesh Khandke (talk) 18:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ganga (Ganges) is pronounced /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/. Ganga (marijuana) is also pronounced /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/. They're perfect homonyms. "Floating down the Ganga" sounds like you're high on pot. — kwami (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ganga (the river) and Ganja (marijuana) are pronounced completely differently, the former uses g as in green, the latter uses j as in James. I'm not sure where you got the /ˈɡɑːŋɡə/ for Ganja. I can only state this for Bengali and Hindi ... but I assume other South Asian languages also use the j-sound. --Ragib (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not talking about "ganja", which is of course pronounced /ˈɡɑːndʒə/, but "ganga". "Ganga" is a Rastafarian term. It's not as common as "ganja", but is much much more common than "Ganga" for the river. — kwami (talk) 19:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

(1)Sorry I cannot read phonetic. (2)Why the digression? Why one rule for China pinyin (except China itself), and another for Indian English? I had asked a specific question? Why does Canton redirect to Guangzhou? But Ganga to Ganges? Please do not bring Ireland here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Why not bring in Ireland, when you bring in China? We've answered your questions, but you're not listening.
We don't use pinyin for Indian names because India does not use pinyin. There are various transliterations that are used. They aren't common in normal texts because they require diacritics which are not widely supported. Canton has changed to Guangzhou for the same reason that Bombay has changed to Mumbai: both are commonly used in English internationally. Both are in my dictionary. Ganga is not. It's very very simple: we go by common usage. Ganga is not common usage outside the Subcontinent. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Ganga may be official in India or even widely used. The problem is outside India, no one knows the word. That's why Ganges is still the "commonly used English name" for that river. One day, maybe that will change, who knows. But right now, it isn't.
Note that not all Pinyin names made it into common English usage either. Tibet is still Tibet, not Xizang and Hong Kong is not Xiangang either. So don't get too hung up about the status of Pinyin and Beijing, the ultimate question is, if you walk down to a travel agent in Glasgow, Cardiff or San Francisco and ask for a cruise down the "Ganga", do people understand you? Right now, the answer is no. Make sense now? Akerbeltz (talk) 20:01, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
(1)Dont confuse issues, the analogy is Pune x Poona and not Mumbai x Bombay. Which spelling best describes the sound. (2)India does not have pinyin but it has a generally standard way of spelling Indian words. (3)Tibet is not Chinese, it is Tibetian (4)Its government in exile lives in India. Probably Ganges is the commonly used English English name for the river and not the most commonly used English name. Do a google search. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm beginning to loose patience with this. Youre either dense, or have some agenda and don't WANT to understand. On that basis, I'm tuning out of this. Good luck trying to convince a majority of editors that you're right... Akerbeltz (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Kwami says that people in Cardiff and Timbakto don't know what Ganga but people in Bangkok, Colombo, Karachi, Dhaka Djkarta, Singapur and Yangoon will know that is a lot of humanity. This is an Indian English article and should use an Indian English name which is both official and widely popular in India and the Indian sub-continent, and in Indo-China and South East Asia with languages using Sanskrit as Hindu/Buddhist legacy. Just as Chinese proper nouns are spelt using the pinyin system Indian names should follow the Indian method of Romanisation just as used in Pune(Poona), Kanpur(Kanpur) Dhaka(Dacca) and many others. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is Ganga called Ganges here? (section break)

Tim Tye in Malaysia knows Ganga is the River Ganga.[9] Yogesh Khandke(talk) 18:56, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, you cannot change usage by decree. And no, articles on India no more use Indian English as articles on Singapore use Singlish. All those countries you list are, sorry, not countries in which English is the native language of the majority and for now, it's on the whole native speakers who decide this issue. You wouldn't like it either if a bunch of Hindi learners in London decided on what proper Hindi grammar and usage is either.
And the page you quote is a travel writer (which counts as a subject expert, not a normal punter) who states that it is also called. What you fail to see is that the article name is Ganges river. So please stop wasting everybody's time. Akerbeltz (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2010 (UTC) There is no argument that in English English the word is spelt Ganges, we are referring to Indian English here for spelling just as pinyin is considered for China. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Please read I wrote Tim knows Ganga is Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Edwin Dwianto et al from Djkarta use Ganga[10]Yogesh Khandke (talk)
Helena A. van Bemmel in Dvārapālas in Indonesia: temple guardians and acculturation refers to the river as Ganga. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
In Guiyang, China a rainwater project is called Akash Ganga (Ganga is also a generic word for river, there are countless Thisganga and Thatganga on the Indian sub-continent and Indo-sphere.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The search result for Asian Development bank's site gave 451 results for Ganga, not one of them was about ganja or other recreational drugs or any thing else.[11]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The above well sourced statements were to counter the argument The problem is outside India, no one knows the word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
An American woman looking to vacation in the U.S. island state of Hawaii asks her travel agent: "Would it be cheaper to fly to California and then take the train to Hawaii?" Why should India suffer pejorative, derogatory and repulsive exonyms because Americans are bad at geography?[12] See the irony, even this joke had a chance of falling flat, it had to be clearly mentioned that Hawaii was an island.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Insults do nothing to gain sympathy for your case. Pfly (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yogesh, you need to calm down because you're beginning to come across as someone with some self-imposed mission to Hindicize every word in the English language that even vaguely relates to India. Which is not how things work here. Akerbeltz (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Even the India govt uses "Ganges",[13] often interchangeably with Ganga, sometimes switching back and forth between the two within a single paragraph! We already note that Ganga is the local/national form of the name, as we should. — kwami (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

All the links provided are wp:rs for usage of the word, Asian Development Bank, Dawn of Karachi, site from Bangladesh, sites from Penang and Djkarta, a Western lady writing on dwarapals in Indonesia, the site form Nepal and from China, google as a search engine all reliable sources, editor Kwami please check the usage, English is not an English or American or Australian or Canadian or NZ language it is widely used the world over, in Asia which is over 2000 million humans the word Ganga would be related to the river, I have given reliable sources, Ganga is also a generic word for any river, there are countless such examples all over India, the Indian sub-continent and all over Asia. A palace is named Tirtaganga in Indonesia.[14] Which in Balinese means the holy water of the Ganga. My argument is based on knowledge and hard facts based on a wide range of sources.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

The argument is not what the river is called in England or America but what the river is called in English in India, and whether it would cause a great deal of confusion. My sources prove that the word would be easily understood in Asia which is where a large number of English users having varioius degrees of proficiency, which is a major chunk of humanity. Please understand the issue. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
You cannot have one rule for China based spellings which are based on pinyin which is how the Chinese would spell (write in English; using the Roman script) Chinese words and another for Indian English. This argument is about style of spelling and comes under wp:engvarYogesh Khandke (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
I've quite lost track of what you are proposing. Is it you want the page name changed to Ganga and the lead text to say something like "The River Ganga, known as Ganges outside the Indian subcontinent, is a ...." ? Pfly (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
That Ganga is the most appropriate spelling. You can give other spellings too for example Ganges which is the spelling used in English English and American English.

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

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

Ganga not Ganges the correct spelling

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

Yes, of course. Who ever said otherwise? And it's not a different "spelling", it's a different form of the name, like Mumbai vs. Bombay. like As I said, provide a RS that Ganga is the most common form of the name internationally. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No it is not like Mumbai x Bombay, it is like Pune x Poona. The world's largest English and Roman script news paper uses it and many others. Am I required to find a source that says "Ganga is the most common form of the name internationally" may I editor Kwami request you to do so for the spelling Ganges? Wouldn't the many instances that I have given above work? 471 results on the

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

If you editor can read between the lines about the statement that the world's largest English paper is published from Mumbai, you would understand one point of this editor quite easily. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Anyways that is just one point of my argument another is wp:engvar and the English spellings for Chinese names based on pinyin. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ganga not Ganges the correct spelling

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

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

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

As I explained, the tag was removed after several days when there was no discussion by the proposer.
You have not proved some of the points above (such as Ganga being internationally understood), and others (such as pinyin) are irrelevant.
[I've explained several times how pinyin is irrelevant; the fact that you are still bringing it suggests that you don't consider what other people have to say.] :I have brought this very question up on the naming discussion boards: should we go with regional English (Ganga) or international English (Ganges)? The response was that it should so obviously be at Ganges that it was hardly worth discussing, much to my annoyance. I would prefer more clear-cut coverage in the MOS.
Counter-argument: "Ganga" is not part of the vocabulary of English in English-speaking countries distant from India, whereas "Ganges" is used within India, including by the Indian government. The argument for "Ganges" is the same as the argument for "India" or "China". Since we're an international encyclopedia, we should go with the international rather than regional form.
— kwami (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat my replies to your points

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

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

Yes, you've repeated yourself several times. Repeating incorrect statements does not make them correct. That's why there's no discussion here: there's nothing new to discuss. — kwami (talk) 19:37, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
My earlier edit starts with "I will repeat my replies to your points...", the points have been clearly stated, with proof from good sources, I have stated facts with supporting proofs, please prove otherwise, point by point or admit that the facts are well facts and then the proposed move can be done. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
You're being ridiculous. I've already responded your "proofs" (you may wish to look up what that word means), and am not going to repeat myself just because you do. Discussion over, until you provide something to discuss, or someone else joins in. — kwami (talk) 05:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
In the dialect I am using proof has the meaning provided in this article Proof. I hope that my usage has not been out of place. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I only know the term as what that article calls 'formal proof'. For you, 'proof' only means 'argument'? I accept that you've provided arguments. — kwami (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
A definitin of proof is sufficient evidence or argument for the truth of a proposition, that it is sufficient is my opinion, if others agree, it will be our opinion. I only know perhaps does not constitute the boundaries of human knowledge. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Indian English

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

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

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

This is a misunderstanding of the tag; these tags are intended to mark spellings and phrasings which distinguish one brand of English from another, like color/colour. But these words indicate that India is the subject of the article, and nothing about dialect; ghat is the word for a ghat anywhere in the English-speaking world, whenever Americans or Australians or Trinidadese have occasion to write about India. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps the examples are not exact, but this tag means to convey that Indian spellings and diction and meanings will be used, we will write petrol and not gas here, and will know what corruption means, or what a flat is, or what a strike is, and that a restaurant is called a hotel, snacks are metaphhorically called tiffin, and that picnic is an excursion. That is what the tag stands for. Indian English is a dialect in its own right, with millions of users. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Indian English is the dialect in which the words largest circulating English newspaper is written. It is not some kind of minority use, on the other hand it predominates other dialects in the above instance. Many articles concerning India carry the tag, this article concerns India, the tag makes perfect sense. Please discuss before taking it offYogesh Khandke (talk) 05:51, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The worlds largest circulating English newspaper which uses both names: Ganges and Ganga. Flamarande (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Got it. But even by that definition, this template/tag will help an American contributor understand that he or she needs to use 'colour' instead of 'color' when they edit this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
It does use Ganges I agree, move the article to Ganga and then write that Ganga is the Indian Romanisation, and Ganges is the traditional UK/US way of writing it. With the region specifier on India, Ganga gave ten times more ghits than Ganges. As I said there is no rule that Ganga be used, it is used by choice, an overwhelming choice. And the term is clearly understood across the world. For those who don't there can be a prominently place explanation and a redirect Ganges to Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
The word is clearly not understood across the world, as evidenced by the people coming here who have never heard it before. It's a regional term, not a universal one. Ganges, on the other hand, is used even by the Indian govt, and so is universal. Your refusal to understand that is starting to appear dishonest. — kwami (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see the discussion above, it is not one man ranting but even stevens. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I like to be honest so here it goes: we saw and keep on seeing this trend here and there in the English wiki (it's nothing new). The English wiki is supposed to be written for the majority/average of English-speakers, many of which are not native English-speakers at all, having learnt American or British English at school. The logical names are therefore those used in American and/or British English. Die-hard "patriots" want to impose 'their names' upon the English wiki (which the average user all but ignores) at the expense of the most common names. Their weapons of choice are political correctness, npov and "fairness". I will even go further: they want nothing less than to virtually 'balkanize' the English wikipedia along national/cultural lines. All of you are free to agree with them or not: just vote according to your conscience. Flamarande (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Withdraw the proposal for the moment?

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

You proposed it, you can withdraw it. Having multiple threads on one topic can be considered disruptive, so it may be a good idea. However, an admin can still come here and close it as 'no consensus', in which case continuing to push your POV, even in a different thread, could also be considered disruptive. — kwami (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I would leave it as it is, Yogesh: this discussion here on this page is properly about whether or not to move the article (and present consensus is leaning against the move). The RfC discussion at Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Ganga really addresses a different question: whether Ganga/Ganges is a good example to give at Wikipedia:Article_titles#National_varieties_of_English. Given that there is 1/3 support for moving to Ganga here on this page, the guideline shouldn't perhaps use Ganges as an example of when definitely not to move to a local English variant. So we could try and find a more clear-cut example to mention in the guideline, where the two English terms in local use are more evenly matched, and one of them really does not occur outside the country. This would allow the move to Ganga at some future time, if and when community consensus changes. JN466 02:02, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
That example of Ganga vs. Ganges was only posted a couple of months ago,[15] and until or if we get definitive consensus on the article's name, it does not appear to be an appropriate example. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
We've long had consensus on this name. The proposal has been made before, only to be rejected. I think it was included in the guideline specifically because it keeps coming up. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
You see, the long pole in the Ganges tent, looks like the inaccurate, baseless and incorrect comment on wp:commonname, that Ganga - Ganges is divided locally, kick it and that brings the tent down. On the other hand, as long as it is there the move would not materialise. You see it is a clear guideline. (Which I learnt after the propose). A clear guideline should not be violated. This discussion needs to be taken there. Please suggest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
(1) it is divided locally, as we've demonstrated numerous times. (2) even without that, it would still be local usage which is unintelligible to the rest of the English-speaking world. Your jingoistic attitude that India = the world is ridiculous. — kwami (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Kwami, I have likewise demonstrated that Western media outlets like CNN, BBC, and UK national papers have begun to use the term Ganga. To say that Indian editors are jingoistic for wanting their national river to be known by its national name in Wikipedia bespeaks an unconscious bias. Indian editors on this page are asking for nothing more than what US or UK editors are taking for granted: that articles on a key feature of their country's geography be based on the official name said feature has in their country. For foreigners to dictate to them that the name used in Wikipedia should be the one predominantly used by them is inequitable. The redirect argument works both ways: US, UK, Australian, etc. schoolkids who enter "Ganges" in the search field will be redirected here, to Ganga, and in the first line of that article it will say, "The Ganga, or Ganges, is ..." And in the process these schoolkids will have learnt something about the world. Indian schoolkids on the other hand who enter "Ganga" and are redirected to "Ganges" will only learn one thing: that Wikipedia treats them as second-class citizens, who don't even have the right to call their national, and holy, river by its proper name in Wikipedia. I don't think that's what we mean when we say we want to bring free education to the kids of the world. --JN466 12:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayen466, your assumption that Indian school kids will think that wikipedia treats them as second-class citizens if they see Ganges instead of Ganga on the article title is incorrect. Ganges is a recognized English version of Ganga in India and, except perhaps for a few right wing hindi zealots, the same people who believe that all civilization originated in India, no one is offended by the term. In fact, Ganges is used quite freely in Indian scholarly publications (this list from JSTOR has 179 articles from the Economic and Political Weekly, an Indian journal published in Mumbai, that use Ganges in the article). There may be good reasons to use Ganga over Ganges, but your rationale about Ganges being offensive to Indians is not one of them. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Furthermore the Times of India, published in India and the most widely read English-language newspaper in the world, uses Ganga and Ganges. You just have to go to its site and type 'Ganges' in the search-field and hit enter. The rationale that the use of Ganges is somehow offensive to Indians seems to be mistaken (or is someone going to defend that that newspaper wants to offend its Indian readers and make them feel like second-class citizens?). Flamarande (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Well, you both have a point there. --JN466 06:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Political and Economic Weekly is not for school children.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayen466, you've demonstrate that Western media has begun to use the term Ganga (but the use is still occasional). However Ganges is (still) the most common name as far as the majority of the English-speaking world is concerned. Kwami never wrote that all Indian editors are jingoistic. He clearly wrote and meant that Yogesh Khandke holds a jingoistic attitude (I can only agree). So please do not twist Kwami words along your own POV. What you and Yogesh Khandke are always avoiding is the simple fact that the overwhelming majority of non-native English speakers (from Europe, Latin America, Africa and I dare say from the rest of Asia (minus the Indian subcontinent) are learning either British or American but not Indian English. Furthermore the name Ganga is virtually unknown outside of the Indian subcontinent. In other words: it is unknown to the majority of the English-speaking world. Stuff this PC bullshit and this pitiful whinnying about how Wikipedia treats Indian schoolchildren as second-class citizens. I swear to you all: Wikipedia (and the whole world) is becoming more and more a hostage of political PC-lawyers every day. The use of the name 'Ganga' can (and should) easily be explained in the lead of the article itself. There is no logical reason to use 'Ganga' instead of 'Ganges' which is the common name for this subject. Flamarande (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
It was the same editor too who, one day prior, added the example to the NCGN guideline which he then cited in that edit summary: [16]. This seems to go back to this discussion. --JN466 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I started my English education in 1972, my geography books always called the river Ganga, as they do now. I would consider corruption of names and continued use even after correction very offensive. Ganges is an exonym, just as Eskimo, Lapp, Gypsy, Coolie, Negro, Kaffar are. English has decided to grow up and allow users to call themselves as they would. Indians by an overwhelming majority prefer to call the river Ganga in English and not in Gujarati or Tamil. The continuing refusal to do so is derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist. One reason has been given that wikipedia would follow, US/ UK, Britannica, is Wikipedia designed to be the eternal follower? The UN acknowleges that it is necessary to give Giving priority to domestic name forms, endonyms, means that both the need for unambiguity and respect for the cultural-historical values embodied in names are respected., which is clear and unambiguous enough move Ganges to Ganga.[17]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Comparing Ganges to Lapp, Gypsy, Coolie, Negro, Kaffar and arguing that "English has decided to grow up and allow users to call themselves as they would" is unwise. Your argument that: "The continuing refusal to do so is derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist" was proven wrong already (read above) and is simply pitiful. Then you decide to use the UN, a political organization, in this debate? Sir, I believe that you are over-reacting in face of the opinion of your fellow users, who simply don't agree with you in this matter. If I were you, Sir, I would take a very deep breath and cool down. Flamarande (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

There should be no discussion about this

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

Please it is easy to get excited. But the best approach is to stick to the rules and to the point. And to ensure that every contribution can be backed up by wp:rs, even on talk pages. It is better to ignore insults and snide remarks, and refrain from passing them. Sorry for unsolicited advice, I know it is easy to get exasperated. I request you to strike out the angry comments please. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Hm. If you want to ditch Western Imperialism, how about dropping English as an official language? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 13:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
बिल्कुल सही. हम ब्रिटिश साम्राज्य बिना कहाँ होगा? (by your request, Seb.)It's... MR BERTY! talk/stalk 14:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Ganga versus Ganges and the confusions it may cause

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

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

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

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

Incorrect logic. (1)The point is not about international establishment in all the languages that use the Roman script, the point is whether it is appropriate to use the Romanisation in an Indian English article. Hypothetically if lots of Indians start using Spanish, and prefer to use the Romanisation Ganga, then that would reflect on the Spanish Romanisation too. (2)Gônga is not a romanisation it is pronunciation help, using phonetic script. See all the results for Gônga [18] (3)A person acquainted with Indian English is unlikely to associate Ganga(Ganga) with ganja. Plus one decides by context, bed has many meanings bed of roses, bed in brick laying, bed to sleep on, bed as a metaphor for copulation and so on, there would be no catastrophe, there is always the context to confirm the meaning. (4)See the result for "Ganga drug", they generate the comment Showing results for ganja drug. Search instead for ganga drug, also searching for "Ganga drug" again gives a mixed bag, and not just ganja or Cannabis,[19] obviously a small minority associates Ganga with ganja in that Ganga is a slang for ganja[20], however their number can only be measured in ppm, the use of a word as slang cannot confuse its meaning, perhaps the spelling Ganga for ganja could also be related to the fact that Ganga is an Indian river and ganja an Indian product, and the etymology of the spelling has been influenced by the river apart from the obvious confusion with the G sound, Kwami referred to Rastafarian origins of Ganga as the basis for bringing the slang to English. However the Wikipedia article on Rastafarian movement uses the spelling Ganja, there is no confusion.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I must admit that the spelling ganga for ganja was new to me prior to this conversation, so speaking for myself, it is not something that would have confused me. But I grant you that there may be others for whom it may be an issue. Also please note #Google_books above. --JN466 06:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Continuing on confusion, the word Indian is confusing, half the time it means native Americans[21] the other half the times it means Indians from India. That must be very confusing to Americans.[22] Does John Hill suggest changing the name to Bharat? That is how the country is described in English in the Indian constitution India, that is Bharat, shall be a Union of States[23]. No confusion great combination.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
That is a whole separate issue; I suppose you've seen Native American name controversy? But I can say that Americans are rarely confused about what people are being referred to when the word "Indian" is used. Context makes it rapidly clear, and the contexts in which people talk about "American Indians" or "Asian Indians" are almost always very different and obvious. Just saying. Pfly (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
(1)No, I haven't seen Native American name controversy, Wikipedia is not my one-dish meal, and USA is not on the moon. An American of English-German parentage is married to my first cousin, another lives in, Calgary Canada, two of my cousins lived in Washington, my college room mate is in NJ, VP with Citibank, and our ex-driver's son is in NY, works in a lamination factory, and my college junior is a professor teaching Remote sensing, his web-site has a photo of him with Hillary, he was in Colorado and is now in NY, the son of my one of my Rotary colleagues is a medical doctor in Texas, another has her daughter in Chicago doing nursing, my family doctor has emigrated to the US, and his two daughters and their husbands are doctors, one lives in Wisconsin another in Georgia, my friend is married to a person doing post-doc research in San Jose, California, a school class mate's daughter is learning flying in Florida, all my co-students who specialised in Computers have spent some time in the US,... a very long and boring list, a telephone call to the US from India costs less than Rs. 0.75 per minute, in the plan I had. I hope you have got the point. I do not want to argue about the above, I just wish you ask yourself whether you have sincerely believe what you have written. (2)You state that the context is important and there would be no confusion. Exactly what I wish to convey.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not sure I have gotten the point. I was just responding to "...must be very confusing to Americans" with admittedly anecdotal opinion. I did not mean to suggest anything at all about your use of Wikipedia or your relatives & acquaintances. Re, (2), I'm not sure if we are agreeing or disagreeing! No matter though--this is all quite tangential to the Ganges/Ganga River. Pfly (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Dear Yogesh: I certainly don't want to get in a slanging match with you but I cannot understand the first point you made above under the heading Incorrect logic. that this article is an "Indian English" article. This is an article on the English version of the Wikipedia which means it should (I contend) use "standard English" as far as possible. For such reasons (other than in exceptional circumstances) I would not use "roo" for "kangaroo", much less the "original" form of "gangarru", as this would likely be confusing to many, if not most, readers. Nor would I nromally use the slang term "Trini" for "Trinidadian" as it is unlikely to be recognised by most non-West Indians or cricket fans.

I am happy to drop the Ganga/ganja confusion as it really doen't lead anywhere and seems to be just inflaming the discussion.

No, of course I do not advocate using Bharat for India because of the most unfortunate common use of "Indians" for many of the native peoples of the Americas. Firstly, "India" is used (as far as I am aware) ONLY for the country. Secondly the word "Indian" should, I believe, be generally understood to refer to people from India or of Indian descent, unless the context makes it clear that the people referred to are natives of the Americas. If this is not clear from the context, I believe it should be clearly specified. This is certainly an area where English has developed an extremely confusing and unfortunate situation. As a child growing up in Trinidad we often had to specify that we were talking about "East Indian West Indians"! Such is language - never a perfect vehicle, but certainly an essential tool which needs to be used as clearly and responsibly as possible. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

(1)I am glad that you have stated that it is easy to know what a word means from its context. Little scope for confusion. (2)East Indian, West Indian etc like Ganges are exonyms. As you have shared from your experience, troublesome to put it most mildly. (3)Ganga is very much mainstream as the name of the river, it got more ghits than Ganges, won the Google fight with Ganges. (4)Ganga is also the endonym. Which the United Nations guides should be used when refering to a place. (5)This article carries the Indian English template. It means the language will have an Indian flavour. That is wikipedia policy too. There is no such thing as standard English, except perhaps Newspeak. (6) Ganga is how it is refered to in English in India it is not an Indian language word it is an Indian English word. (7)It is not slang. It is the official and popular name of the river. (8)I am also happy that we agree about Ganja (9)There are too many threads running. Will you please relocate this one. May I? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Another reply in favour of retaining Ganges River

Dear Yogesh: Firstly, please do not put words in my mouth. I never “stated that it is easy to know what a word means from its context”, as you claim. What I did say is that, if the meaning of a name such as “Indian” is not clear from the context, I believe it should be clearly specified.

Also, there is such a thing as “Standard English” - please check out the WP article on it. Finally, while the article is indeed listed as using “Indian English”, the article in the WP on this subject says nothing about the use of proper names.

Now, I would like to make a few further points here which may not gain your acceptance – but I would like them listed here so that at least other readers can consider them.

1. Languages are constantly changing and this is usually an “organic” process. Most attempts to “police” language usage fail, as many linguists have noted.

2. I feel confident to say that if you mentioned the “Ganges River” to a representative sample of English-speaking Indians, almost all of them would recognise immediately what river you meant. On the other hand, if you took a representative sample of English speakers from the U.K., the U.S.A., Canada, N.Z., Australia, South Africa, etc., and mentioned the “River Ganga” to them, a vast majority would probably have no idea of what you were talking about.

3. You still have not answered my point about why the Hindi name for the river should be preferred over, say, the Bengali name. What is the reason for you favouring the Hindi name?

4. Take another well-known and even stranger name in English for a geographic feature, “Mount Everest.” Do you think it should be listed in the WP as Nepali “Sagarmāthā” or Tibetan “Chomolungma”? Or, perhaps, we should accept the Chinese take-over of Tibet and use the Pinyin version, “Qomolangma”? Please tell me who you think should decide this – and on what grounds?

5. This is a Wikipedia article aimed at English-speaking people everywhere – what advantage is to be gained by confusing most of them – especially when forms of the name from Indian languages, such as Ganga can be easily discussed at the beginning of the article and appropriate redirects added so that anyone searching for the name “Ganga” will be led immediately to the article?

6. Finally, the two largest and most widely-accepted dictionaries of the English language (the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Webster’s Third International Dictionary) both spell the name of the river, “Ganges”. I submit that unless and until the form “Ganga” becomes well-known enough to replace “Ganges” in such dictionaries we should stick with the better-known and more widely-accepted form in English – that is the “Ganges River”. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 15:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we're spending way too much time on this. This is a POV push by one editor, and we're apparently not going to convince him with logic. He has submitted a move request, which has obviously failed to achieve consensus. When the request is closed, the point will be moot. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
That is not an accurate characterisation of the discussion. The matter has regularly come up on this talk page for years, and even before the submission of the google news and google books evidence above, which slightly favours Ganga per WP:COMMONNAME, the move proposal attracted support from a number of well-known, long-time editors (such as Ucucha, Guy, SlimVirgin) who are entirely unsuspected of harbouring Indian nationalist sentiments. Let's at least acknowledge, as User:Pfly did above, that this is a real quandary. There are also important wider issues at stake here.
To answer John's points, I do not see that Western users unfamiliar with the term Ganga would be in any way inconvenienced or confused. A redirect would take them here, and the first line of the article will make the matter clear and, in fact, add significantly to their education. Besides, as I have shown, school kids -- in England at least -- today learn about the name Ganga. Mount Everest is not a relevant comparison, as Nepali English-language sources like nepalnews.com presently have a clear preference for Everest, and Tibet is not an English-speaking country. The reason why the Indian English name should be preferred "over, say, the Bengali name" is that the Ganga, for most of its course, flows through India. Pfly gave a similar example above, about the Kootenay River/Kootenai River, where the Canadian version is preferred, as the river only has a small part of its course in the States (where it is spelled with a final "i"). In addition, according to WP:TIES, "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the English of that nation". There can hardly be an example of an article that has stronger ties to a nation than the Ganga has to India. It is the national river, a Holy River to Hindus, and plays a major and millennia-old role in the country's religious life, besides being of ongoing current-affairs interest in the country. Overall, I believe these latter concerns outweigh considerations based purely on Western sources. JN466 04:24, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Here a British GCSE-level geography schoolbook referring to the "River Ganga": [24]. Even British kids are growing up with the term. --JN466 11:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit of a leap from finding 3 GCSE textbooks containing the name to "British kids are growing up with the term". (Presumably you noticed that the same search for Ganges gives 191 hits.) Kanguole 12:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I did, and made that clear above. However, note that there are not 190 GCSE textbooks with Ganges in google books. There are about 20. The last six pages of search hits in the google books listing are all German-language books. You always have to click through the listing to see what is actually there; and the estimate at the top of the first page of search hits is generally not a reliable indicator of how many relevant books there actually are. Cheers, --JN466 13:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
So if I counted correctly what you both wrote above we end up with 20 GCSE textbooks containing 'Ganges' versus 3 GCSE textbooks containing the name 'Ganga'? Flamarande (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. It refutes the assertion that no one in the West knows the term "Ganga", and the point that Ganges is more common than Ganga in the West has always been conceded. --JN466 23:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
The problem is that 'Ganges' is not only more known in 'the West'. The overwhelming majority of non-native English speakers (from Europe, Latin America, Africa and probably from the rest of Asia (minus the Indian subcontinent) are learning either British or American but not Indian English. I'm betting that the Chinese are probably learning American English (or British English). Be honest: when did you learn of the name 'Ganga'? Flamarande (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2010 (UTC) PS: These debates are becoming ridiculous. None of us is going to be convince the other side. Let's just wait for the closing of the move-request.
Reply to JohnHill and Kwami (A) JohnHill(1)Taken, and agreed. (2)You have to give evidence. I have given evidence that disproves your statement. (3) & (4)Kwami, this is why I have to repeat, repeat and keep repeating, and you accuse of being a ranting crusader, editor John Hill, Ganga is not the Hindi name of the river it is the name used in English by Indians and internationally when writing in English.[25] (5)An article is to be titled by the proper, local English name of the feature, which is why the move is proposed here. (6)Do you suggest that Wikipedia be the eternal follower, do you know that dictionaries are considered tertiary sources and not really first class.[26] B Kwami(1)Kwami what ever your view, you know that Ganga x Ganges is not analogus to the three names for Mt. Everest, Sagarmatha which should be related to sagar = sea / matha = head, Chomolungma whatever it means, and Everest which is to honour a surveyor, whatever a person's bias, edits should be based on the three tenents of Wikipedia wp:OR, wp:V and wp:NPOV, I'm sorry the moot call is a little premature, and remember wp:NOTDEMOCRACY, arguments like JohnHill's (2)(3)(4) have been refuted, please come up with arguments that stick or join in supporting the move.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • "Refuted" my as*. Nr 2 is a simple fact and you know it. Number 5 and 6 are also interesting points. Flamarande (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
  • All right (2) is wp:OR, unless proved by wp:V, (3)Ganga is not a Hindi name, it is the English name of the river. (4)Ganga/ Ganges are different Romanisations or forms of the Sanskrit Ganga, Ganga an Indian English Romanisation, whereas Ganges arrived as Kwami says to English after taking other ports of call. it is not like Everest x Cholo... x Sagarmatha.(5) is another bit of speculation (6) is that a policy, follow the leader? Give evidence that it is and that it overrules wp:Engvar, wp:TIES and the rest.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 22:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Further evidence against editor Kwami's remarks. It is neither POV pushing, nor by one editor.[27].Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

General comment

as a general assessment of talk page, i see the consensus is seems to be towards Ganges. Yogesh is waging a losing fight and losing all his credibility along with. For the record, born and brought up in India, I have never known Ganga to be Ganges until late in life. I see equally valid arguments on both sides of the issue. Like some have suggested, just waiting out for a few years is not going to change anything as Ganges is always known as Ganga in India and my parents wouldnt recognize what Ganges is if you told them. In other words, I just find it interesting that wikipedia has an article on one of the most popular and sacred rivers of India which an overwhelming majority of Indians wouldnt recognize if mentioned to. Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. --CarTick (talk) 14:54, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(1)Numbers do not make the case weak. All the points raised have been countered. (2)I don't know how a person can loose his credibility if a move does not materialise. (3)The debate isn't dead, and the allusion to making a dead horse move, would be insulting to other editors too, esp. those who have spent hours finding evidence and presenting in a proper format. (4)Unless someone can come up with a new reason for not moving, the move should take place, though I don't know the nuts and bolts. (5)Note Flam. before my words fell on the floor, we have an editor who finds Ganges unrecognisable. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I just find it daft that the Wikimedia Foundation is about to open an office in India and we can't even see our way clear to using Indian English on an article like this. --JN466 16:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
“The community in India should lead and Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will follow them.” Mr. Wales, Ibid. Though that is not evident here. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) I think the point is that some of the people making the Ganga article are partly arguing that calling it Ganges is derogatory or insensitive to Indians (that seems to me to be the thrust of the Jayen466 argument anyway [28],[29], [30] - note the 'alien quasi-colonialist comment and the remark about 'Indian wikipedians'). That is patently not correct since Indians use both terms without any negative connotations being attached to Ganges. Hotels in Varanasi have Ganges in their name. Google gets more hits for "Ganges Delta" (1300 or so) when the region is restricted to India than "Ganga Delta" (about 350). Since Ganges is the more recognized term worldwide, and since Ganges is an acceptable term, though not I agree that it is not the primary one, in India, it would seem that Ganges is the better option for an encyclopedia that is not region dependent. --RegentsPark (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please read above. The arguments is not derogatoryness but Local over global, can we use Negro just because United Negro College Fund exists. IIT Powai calls itself IIT Bombay, should we change Mumbai to Bombay for that. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

From general to specific comments

I agree with CarTick's comments. Here are some specific comments about this debate based on information on this talk page and userboxes:

Geographical locations of editors who voted in the Ganga v. Ganges debate
Position Location Number
Against Ganga (23) India 0
West 13
Unknown 10
Support Ganga (13) India 6
West 2
Unknown 5
Neutral (1) Unknown 1
Total votes (36) 36

I've assumed the definition of West as those who live in North America, EU and Australia. Of the two people from the West who voted in favor of Ganga, one is an Indian living in the UK.

This is a clear POV victory (assuming Yogesh will concede) for those from the West. This is nothing new and it is in fact a well known problem not too different from the experience I had at the FAR/C at British Empire. I came to the same conclusion there. As pointed out by CarTick, this debate may have run its course. Once Yogesh accepts that this debate/vote should now be closed, I will go ahead and initiate the next logical steps by taking it to the project setup to counter the bias to seek a solution to the problem. Zuggernaut (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I looked around but was unable to find anything about withdrawing a move-request. Is that even possible (I guess one could ask an administrator)? However the debate lasted for so long and got the votes of so many users that it is probably better to wait for the final decision. The process was started, ran for a long time already, we may as well wait for the final results. Afterwards you can freely appeal to whoever instances you wish to. No comments about your POV-suggestion. Flamarande (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
If it is closed with the decision to remain "Ganges", I would recommend to those wishing to propose the move again in the future to write a short summary of the main points raised in this long discussion. Like that comparisons such as Vienna/Wein are not a valid reason to oppose. Pfly (talk) 20:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
A summary is a good idea to avoid repetition of the same arguments again but I think it's better to have it in the form of a FAQ template at the top of the talk page. We should say in the FAQ that this issue has been discussed and the name remains Ganges due to a 2:1 vote. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Zuggernaut, I do not like the idea of looking at people's background, and assuming bias. If I have done so before, or if it came across that I was insinuating bias, I have retracted my statements. It does not and should not work that way. For example most work here has been done by Jayen, who is not an ethnic Indian. I would like to keep the discussion to the points that have been said, in favour and against the move. And then weigh the issue, to check in whose favour the move proposal goes Ganga or Ganges. On the other-hand we could engage all those who have opposed the move, for them to give the wikireason why the move should not happen, we need somebody uninvolved to do so, Pfly, you have been neutral, right from the beginning, will you arbitrate. This is how I propose. First you have to make a statement (1)If the move prospers can prove this then the move happens if not then it doesn't. (2)Both the parties should agree to the above statement which defines the rules of the game. (3)Then the game can start. (4)Your decision will then be binding, on both the parties. Any takers? I will leave a message on Kwami's page, for him to take a look. As a summary I draw attention of editors here to wp:NOTDEMOCRACY Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I've just provided the numbers in a summary, tabular form. I didn't mean anything personal about anyone. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it extremely distasteful to snoop into the national origin of wikipedians and make allegations of bias based on that. --Ragib (talk) 04:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Ragib, please do not call names, looking at infoboxes cannot be construed as snooping. Please participate in the debate on based on wikirules. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Yogesh? It appears to have nothing to do with this discussion. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm simply presenting the data in a matter-of-fact manner, there's nothing grave about - it is well documented in the FAQ for the NPOV policy. It's unfortunate that you find it distasteful. Zuggernaut (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello editors

The example making an exception for Ganga on wp:COMMONNAME, is no longer there.[31] Editors above who have based their opinion on wp:COMMONNAME are requested to put in their views a fresh. Of-course, one has to wait for the stability of the particular edit on wp:COMMONNAME regarding Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

It is back[32]. We should wait for the matter to settle down.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
And it's gone again[33]. --SpArC (talk) 14:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's hope

Let's hope we don't have a movement starting here to revise WP and revert all anglicised palce names names. Let's hope most editors will keep cool, avoid nationalist, ethnic or linguistic bias and retain the usual, standard version of placeneames in English. If not, WP will become a real mess.

Imagine - we will have Wein or Wean for Vienna, España for Spain, Puerto España for Port of Spain; Roma for Rome, Sverige for Sweden; Moskva for Moscow; Magyar Köztársaság for Hungary; Rhein, Rijn, or Rhin for Rhine; Suomi for Finland; Norge or Noreg for Norway; Elláda for Greece; Éire for Ireland; Bundesrepublik Deutschland for Germany . . . . And so on, and on, and on. Who will be authorised to make these changes and what will be the rules they will have to follow to make such decisions?

I think we would find people reverting to old standards such as the Britannica wherever possible. Or maybe we could have a Standard English version of the WP? Let's hope reason will prevail. Sincerely, John Hill (talk) 02:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for taking the trouble to post that (and your comments above) because it would be easy to allow the vocal enthusiasts here to have their way due to a desire to cooperate, or apathy, or political correctness. As you have carefully explained, the suggestion to rename the Ganges article is without merit. We reached a consensus on that point some time ago, and we will never reach unanimity. Johnuniq (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Bad examples cannot force a consensus: For the umteenth time, Ganga x Ganges are English usages which is what this discussion about. Ganga is the Indian English usage, and also the international trend, Ganges is the old usage, like Peking, or Dacca. BDR x FRG and the many examples are irrelevent. Germans call their country Federal Republic of Germany in Germany, and Austrians their city Vienna and not Wein. Wrong arguments cannot force consensus. Ganga is a mainstream use, the mulitplicity of evidence is clinching. The United Nations has a decades old guideline, that is for endonyms. Move this article to GangaYogesh Khandke (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Though John Hill is moving in the right direction from the earlier on of Everest. I request John Hill to base his views on facts supported by evidence. See all the google results, google fights, the google trends, please discuss based on statistic and not on annecdotal evidence which will lead no where.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Please John Hill and Johnuniq discuss based on section (22), (22.1) to (22.5) above, or other relevant examples you prefer, please see reply to Quigley, where he struck his oppose to neutral.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
After some point, repetition and strident objections become disruptive. We understand that you will never be convinced, and indeed no one needs to be convinced. All that needs to happen is for a few years to pass when we shall see whether common English usage has trended towards "Ganges" or "Ganga". One trivial sign I have just noticed is that my browser's spell checker thinks "Ganges" is correct, but it does not recognize "Ganga". Johnuniq (talk) 06:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, let's just wait for the closing of the move-request. Anyone new is free to vote according to his conscience, of course. Flamarande (talk) 11:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Good you call the browser spell check program trivial. Google spell check does not recognise exonym. Don't vote according to conscience, base it on verifiable facts. You do not have to wait for years, see Google trends, it weighs in favour of Ganga. The charge of disruptive cuts both ways. Johnuniq look at the google trends link, what do you have to say about that?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Link for google trends, which weighs in favour of Ganga, will you support the move now Johnuniq?[34]Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This has been a surprisingly interesting page move discussion, but as others have pointed out, it's pretty clear that consensus has not been achieved at this point. Perhaps (probably?) a future proposal will meet with more success.Pfly (talk

  • Reply to Tjflo[35] [36][37] (1) International x Local weighs in favour of Ganges, that is without doubt. (2) Link to Indian English dictionary Cosmos Dictionary of Indian English [38] (3)[39] Indian authors are not hanged if they use it, but the overwhelming trend in India is to use Ganga as evidenced even from your links and comments above.
  • Reply to Plfy (1)[40], you assumed that all I know about the issue was based on the article you gave internal link to, please read my reply in that context, no my comment that Indian is a most confusing word in the USA is not based on the said article. Wikipedia is not the sole source of information for me. I hope I am clearer now, on second thoughts you write about my self-confessed anecdotal information, which makes what you are saying a little confusing. You are right our discussion was tangential to this move, but not the Indian remark. John Bull wrote about confusion, I reassert the word Indian is much more confusing, very difficult to know what one is talking about, some times even from the context, but people here love exonyms, so that issue all hush hush, I hope Indian goes in the same direction as Negro. (2)Isn't is a little premature to use past tense regarding the move->[41] I just added that we agree that the context is a good guide for the meaning of a particular word, if you disagree I will strike it off.
Actually I didn't know if you had seen that article and thought you might find it interesting. That was all. Also, I meant my comments were anecdotal, not yours. And, yes, the use of the word Indian for Native Americans is unfortunate, and okay, yes, even confusing. I doubt it will go away though, at least in the US. Finally, I'm sorry I used the past tense. Pfly (talk) 10:48, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • My mistake for not assuming good faith, regarding the article. Glad you agree with the confusion part, perhaps Indians from India could call themselves Bharatiya to avoid confusion, I know it is wishful thinking. Give the move proposal another look, if you can and wish, checking the facts for why and why-not.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 11:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply to Flamarande (1)You consider my views unwise and my argument pitiful[42], you have the right to have an opinion, the points is about facts, which are on the side of the move. (2)The United Nations represents us the citizens of the countries that constitute it, a representative body for all humanity. see the preamble, which begins, "WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS..."[43], it refers to dignity, social progress, in article 1.3 it states the purpose as "To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; ..."[44], United Nations prefers endonyms Wikipedia too does, a UN giudeline is a very pertinent evidence to be quoted in support of the move from Ganges to Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Placing foreign names on our cities, towns and continents, is equal to subjecting our identity to the will of our invaders and to that of their heirs." Takir Mamani. That is the point Flamarande. (Thanks for the link to the page, Pfly.)Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So stop speaking English. Problem solved. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I don't, I speak Marathi.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I meant India in general. Abandon English. Ditch it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 12:19, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
First, my nick is Flamarande and not Flamerande. Second, when someone replies to a post he should do so below the post in question (so that others can better understand the details). Third, you wrote: "The continuing refusal to [move this article to Ganga] is derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist" (emphasize mine). That is pitiful argumentation of your part and it may suggest that those who are/voted against the move suffer from such flaws. Fourth, you didn't commit a innocent mistake: You picked the names Eskimo, Lapp, Gypsy, Coolie, Negro, Kaffar on purpose to suggest this association. Fifth AFAIK the name 'Ganges' has no derogatory meaning at all despite of what you wrote. Sixth, if you care to look a bit above you will find that the Times of India, published in India and the most widely read English-language newspaper in the world, uses Ganga and Ganges. Are you seriously going to to argue that newspaper uses the name 'Ganges' because it harbours derogatory, offensive, insensitive and racist feelings against the people of India? Therefore your argumentation that the continued use of the name 'Ganges' is due of such feelings and is simply wrong (and it was proven so already above). Seventh The UNO isn't the world government and it isn't elected by the people, through the people and for the people (I actually like the UN a lot but I don't lower myself in using its guidelines to defend my POV). The UNO is a political organization, being largely a neutral meeting ground, and as such it has to give equal voice to serious democracies and oppressive dictatorships as it is tries to be a neutral bargain ground. You merely trying to misuse the prestige of the UNO to defend and to shield your POV. Flamarande (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC) PS: As far as your foreign name-post is concerned: You do realize that you are using the foreign language of your former colonial power?

The standards of this debate are lowering (with pitiful insinuations of racism and insensitivity) and no one can argue when the other side is merely preaching. I will not continue to participate in it. Let's just wait for the closing of the move-request. Flamarande (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Strawmen

Making out that moving Ganges to Ganga would be the same as moving Vienna to Wien, or Finland to Suomi, is a strawman argument, and I would respectfully request that editors stop making it, because it degrades the quality of the debate. No one is advocating such moves; I certainly am not.

The difference between Ganga and Wien, or Suomi, is that Ganga is an established English usage. As I have shown above, modern English writings about this river are more frequently titled "... Ganga ..." than "... Ganges ...". Could we please discuss that, and how it bears on this discussion. Thanks. --JN466 13:35, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Reply to Flamarande[45] (Numbers in parenthesis, are points as numbered by Flamarande.)(1) I am sorry for the misspelling, I have corrected it. My point is proved by your reaction. You are so sensitive about proper representation of a username, but you deny the same for a river. I wish you would explain that. (2) I had left a link, to make clear what I was referring to. (3) (4)and (5) My mistake, it looks bad, it reads Flamarande is opposing the move, so he is racist. Which is allusive. it has been struck out, and apologies. How do I present this, when we went to school, and our books had pictures of an igloo, a house of ice, built by Eskimos, we too used the word, we did not mean it to be a slur, today it is considered pejorative in Canada and Greenland. I wish to convey that Ganges carries the same connotations. A few years ago we had a Finnish GSE team, visit our club, all white Europeans, I introduced Finland to our club, and mentioned the Sami people and their language. Later one of them came over and said he was pleased that I did not use the word Lapp. I hope what I mean to say is conveyed, that the usage is painful is an understatement, quite a few editors apart from me who have contributed to this page find it racist, derogatory usw, please check the archives. (6)I pass that, someone should write to the ToI, refer to this discussion, share links of statistics and get them answer the question. (7)Gosh! UN is a very good source, a very reliable source, which is there to be quoted, as evidence, to prove a point. Why do you make it look like I am dragging it into a dung-heap. However the move is not proposed on the basis of the fact that Ganges is derogatory, but on the fact that Wikipedia prefers endonymsYogesh Khandke (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You link to WP:ENGVAR which does not mention endonyms; ENGVAR concerns things like how to handle ize/ise or airplane/aeroplane. The guideline concerning article titles is WP:COMMONNAME which is essentially Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources. This includes usage in the sources used as references for the article. Scanning the refs/links in Ganges does not support the suggestion to rename as Ganga. It is not the role of Wikipedia to promote a particular name, we simply need to wait until the general English-speaking world adopts a different name. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Please see the summary of google books and google scholar results above. Ganga occurs more often in titles of English-language sources than Ganges. --JN466 05:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
As far as cited sources are concerned (there are only 17), they seem to be pretty evenly split (see analysis below). --JN466 18:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
  • This is true. The Wien analogy would only hold if we proposed moving it to गंगा नदी. I don't think that's on the table. This is more like Pune rather than Poona, Beijing rather than Peking or Kolkata rather than Calcutta. The only argument against is "not yet". It is beyond question that current informed and scholarly usage is Ganga, common usage is already catching up. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

FAQ template

I've added a FAQ template at the top of the page and populated it with two items. Please continue adding the summary of the move discussion to that template in a FAQ format. Having as many direct links to the discussion we just had will help avoiding getting in to the same arguments over and over again in the near or medium-term future. Zuggernaut (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

I'll say this one more time, and then will probably leave it:

  • Ganga is the more common title in scholarly publications (see #Google scholar above).
  • It is the more common title in contemporary books (see #Google books above).
  • It is the more commonly used term in recent news coverage, by a factor of 3:2 ([46], [47].

By all means, retain the article name Ganges on the basis of WP:VNE, but let's please note that the WP:COMMONNAME argument, "Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources", is not the argument to invoke here in favour of Ganges.

WP:COMMONNAME just says, "English-language reliable sources". It does not say, "Western reliable sources". Cheers, --JN466 21:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The first result is dubious (the very first hit is an acronym for something else, formed from the Hindi name of the river); the second is not a majority for JN's prefered name - although a caution that titles may prefer exoticism seems in order. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I found the google books results were in favour of Ganga when I discounted pre-1950 books, which seemed sensible, as we're reflecting contemporary usage. --JN466 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to analyze your given results very cautiously. I'm unable to do this "here" (I'm at work and this comp is quite limited). Give me more or less a day to check your results. Flamarande (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
No problem, thanks; I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes, just in case I got it wrong. Note though that quite a few of the google scholar matches with "Ganges" in the title are papers about the Ganges river dolphin, rather than papers about the river. "Ganges river dolphin" or "Ganges dolphin" is that animal's common name, and if we do a thorough count, we should discount those papers; no one is arguing that the article on the dolphin should be renamed. --JN466 22:52, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Ok first of all I went to Google.com (not Google.uk or Google.pt) and changed my settings to 'English' and to 'not filter my search results' (saving my preferences at the end).
Then I went to Google Scholar beta and made a couple of searches:
  • search with the name: Ganga (only articles, not including patents) received "48,900. (0.07 sec)" [48].
  • search with the name: Ganges (only articles, not including patents) received "160,000. (0.17 sec)" [49] note: several results refer to an academic called Ganges.
  • search with the names: Ganga river (only articles, not including patents) received "30,900. (0.10 sec)" [50]
  • search with the names: Ganges river (only articles, not including patents) received "45,900. (0.12 sec)" [51]
Went to Google Books and made a couple of searches:
  • search with the name: Ganga (return pages written in English, between 1950 and 2011) received 186,000 results (0.24 seconds) [52]
  • search with the name: Ganges (return pages written in English, between 1950 and 2011) received 375,000 results (0.33 seconds) [53]
  • search with the name: Ganga river (return pages written in English, between 1950 and 2011) received 106,000 results (0.24 seconds) [54]
  • search with the name: Ganges river (return pages written in English, between 1950 and 2011) received 214,000 results (0.23 seconds) [55]
Went to Google News and made a couple of searches (restricting them to 2010 only)
  • search with the name: Ganga received 8,520 results (0.24 seconds) [56]
  • search with the name: Ganges received 3,320 results (0.09 seconds) [57]
  • search with the name: Ganga river received 693 results (0.21 seconds) [58]
  • search with the name: Ganges river received 509 results (0.20 seconds) [59]
I may have done a couple of mistakes somewhere (I'm presently very tired) but as far as I can judge this matter: 'Ganges' and/or 'Ganges river' wins over 'Ganga' and/or 'Ganga river' in Scholar and Books while losing in News (but the factor isn't 3:2). I certainly concede that all these results are subjective and that I'm not infallible. I hereby rest my case. Flamarande (talk) 03:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, the thing is that you are going by first-page search estimates ("1 - 10 of about 160,000"), and as you noticed and pointed out over on SpikeToronto's talk page, these are algorithm-based and not count-based, and they can vary by more than a factor of 10 from one search to the next. Google do not search 160,000 publications just in order to show you the first ten, and Google staff quite freely admit that they have never worked hard to make these estimates precise. There is more on this, and why this is so, in the references given at Wikipedia:Google#References (notably here: "The basic problem with the Google hit count reported in search results, particularly for phrases and searches using "AND" or "OR" operators, is that it is an estimate. It's not actually a count of anything, at all. It's the result of a calculation based solely upon the words that the query comprises, as Kevin Marks notes. Google explicitly states that it's an estimate, although it is coy about what that estimate is actually based upon. To quote one un-named Google employee, "these are all estimates, and we just haven't tried that hard to make the estimates precise".".)
The searches I ran –
  • Focused on books and scholarly publications with Ganges or Ganga in the title: because this is the equivalent of what this discussion is about. We are not about to change "Ganges" to "Ganga" in all of the 1500+ articles in which the word Ganges occurs, we are looking at the title of this article.
  • Yielded not a phantom algorithm-generated number, but a list and final count (on the last page of search results) of individually verifiable, clickable, viewable lists of actual publications, in google books, google scholar, and google news. By those counts Ganga is slightly ahead of Ganges. --JN466 08:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
One problem with Google is that no Google search ever returns more than 1,000 results. So if there are more than 1,000 matches, the search is capped, and the final total is never updated from the estimate to an actual count. But there is another way we can get a Google Scholar list that is small enough to be countable: we can limit ourselves to 2010 publications, rather than limiting the search to publications that have Ganges or Ganga in the title.
  • Here is a google scholar search for 2010 publications containing ganga AND river, claiming "about 2,150" results.
  • Here is a google scholar search for 2010 publications containing ganges AND river, claiming "about 1,800" results.
  • Now, we can't actually check or verify all of these publications in those claimed totals, because any Google search is capped at 1,000 results. So to get smaller totals, with verifiable results lists, we have to be tricky and use search splitting. The way to do this for Ganges AND river is that we search for 2010 publications using several mutually exclusive search options. It's basically a logic tree. We search for publications that contain –
  1. "ganges" AND "river" and DO NOT contain "Brahmaputra" and DO NOT contain "plain"
  2. "ganges" AND "river" and DO NOT contain "Brahmaputra" but DO contain "plain": That gives
  3. "ganges" AND "river" and DO contain "Brahmaputra" but DO NOT contain "plain": That gives
  4. "ganges" AND "river" and DO contain "Brahmaputra" and DO contain "plain": That gives results.
The results for "ganges" are:
  1. 862 hits
  2. 684 hits
  3. 398 hits
  4. 617 hits
These hits are fully verifiable and countable. You can click through the entire listing, page by page, and verify that each publication exists. So the total verifiable number of 2010 publications in Google Scholar that contain "ganges" and "river" is 862 + 684 + 398 + 617 = 2561.
Now we do the same for 2010 publications that contain "ganga" AND "river".
The results for "ganga" are:
  1. 983 hits
  2. 844 hits
  3. 476 hits
  4. 734 hits
As can be seen, every one of these totals is greater than the equivalent total for "ganges". So the total verifiable number of 2010 publications in Google Scholar that contain "ganga" and "river" is 983 + 844 + 476 + 734 = 3037, which is over 400 more than we have for "ganges" and "river". This is for simple occurrences of "ganges" or "ganga" anywhere in the publications, not just the title, and it includes any 2010 papers on the Ganges river dolphin, which is always thus referred to. --JN466 10:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
One more comment: Please let's remember that there are innumerable articles where Indian users of Wikipedia find article names that do not correspond to Indian English usage. Indians don't say railroad car, they say bogie [60]. Indians don't say warehouse, they say godown [61]. Please let's give them this article, on their national and holy river, in their own language. Thank you. --JN466 10:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Jayen466, there have been many good reasons stated to move the article to Ganga. But, this last statement of yours is not amongst them. I know you mean well, and I know you've meant well throughout this discussion so I've avoided (directly) mentioning this, but your presuming to speak for all Indians is a bit presumptuous and 'give them' this or that is a tad on the patronizing side. Just saying! (To be honest, I find this whole us and them thread that runs through this discussion rather distasteful. I can see where editors like zuggernaut with his/her divisive tables are coming from, but, for the rest, where did you get this idea that Indians are a monolithic entity simmering with anti-colonial discontent and easily slighted by this term or that? Ganges is aterm freely used in India, even on the names of hotels in the holy city Varanasi, so what's all this about giving 'them' 'their' holy river name?)--RegentsPark (talk) 15:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
RegentsPark, hotels are generally reluctant to change their names, because they are known by these names to their customers, and changing them involves the very real risk of losing business. For the same reason, Chinese restaurants still sell Peking Duck, rather than Beijing Duck. I appreciate that you see where I'm coming from, and I understand what you are saying about being patronising. On the other hand, it is easy for a Westerner to make a snap reaction, "That's not what we call it", without going a bit more deeply into the matter, and actually looking at the situation in reliable sources. So I think it is not inappropriate to remind editors to look at the wider picture. Cheers, --JN466 19:49, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Jayen, a facinating study. One problem I've found (not sure if I'm doing something wrong) on the second list of hits for Ganga many of the article returned seem to use Ganges throughout. Indeed the seach snippet shows many examples of Ganges in bold when the search term is Ganga. Outofsinc (talk) 11:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A fascinating study, but apparently deeply flawed, largely because Google search algorithm is proprietary. For example, on the first page of results for ganga river -brahmaputra -plain [62], one was for this book The Old and Middle English By Thomas Kington Oliphant. Searching within the text of that book reveals hits for "ganges" but nothing for "ganga". This indicates one cannot draw definitive conclusions based on Google results. The exact same happened with this book The Types of Genesis By Andrew Jukes. older ≠ wiser 13:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Basically, on the last page or two you get false positives; you get those for the equivalent ganges searches as well. The last search page for Ganges without Brahmaputra and plain has basically German and Norwegian sources. Note that I linked to the last page of each search because that is where you get the updated, actual count, rather than an estimate. If you want to do it properly, we have to check through the search results manually. I am up for it, but it will take a while. :) If you look at the first pages of the search, things look better. [63] --JN466 19:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the point being is that it is dangerous to draw conclusions from raw Google counts. Just looking a a few on the first page of results for ganga river -brahmaputra -plain (I didn't realize when I posted above that your links were to the last page), there are some where the primary use in the article is Ganges and Ganga is only mentioned as part of work in bibliography. I don't think it is possible to draw any definitive conclusion either way about usage with the current results. older ≠ wiser 21:04, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I presented a similar analysis above, on the use of Ganga or Ganges in the titles of google scholar publications. Ganga outweighed Ganges there, as well. Please review. These are not raw Google counts, they are verifiable publications. --JN466 21:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are the Google Scholar publications from this year:
  • 27 with Ganges in the title, and river in the text.
  • 38 with Ganga in the title, and river in the text.
These are manageable numbers; it's possible to review them and eliminate false positives. --JN466 21:56, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
In recent news reporting (October to November 2010), Ganga seems to occur more commonly in English-language sources than Ganges. --JN466 12:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Outofsinc, you're right and are not doing anything wrong; and I can't account for it, except that the last pages of these searches generally include some flaky results, and that that is the case here both for Ganges and Ganga. I almost wish I hadn't linked to the last page of each search. :) I don't think it changes the overall picture though, and can only refer you to these results: [64] vs. [65], and [66] vs. [67], which don't suffer from the same amount of noise in the data, but still confirm the result of the searches above. --JN466 12:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Is it possible that Google Scholar is including "Ganges" as a synonym when one searches for "Ganga"? Kanguole 13:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
No, I don't think it is anything as clever as that, from checking through the material. But sometimes Google does fudge things. This search listing from above for Ganges for example also shows German words like "gänge", "Gange", and "Gänge" as search hits in bold. That is how some German sources creep in, especially on this, the last page of the listing. This earlier page for Ganges includes a hit for "Yong-gangE-mail address", and another for the word "Gange". But by and large, these false hits are not typical for either of these searches.
I've checked through every one of these vs. these, and every single one of the 38 recent publications listed for Ganga does have Ganga in the title, and every on of the 27 hits for Ganges has Ganges in the title. --JN466 18:07, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Indeed it treats "Ganges" as the plural of "Gange", but that doesn't explain Outofsinc's observation. Kanguole 20:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
You're right; these look like faulty assumptions of a plural. SpikeToronto mentioned on his user page that placing quotation marks around single words prevents Google from registering (assumed) grammatical inflections. I've had another look at these searches, and placing quotation marks around "Ganges" and "Ganga" does make a difference, reducing the Ganga counts more than it does the Ganges counts: [68] vs. [69], [70] vs. [71], [72] vs. [73], [74] vs. [75]. These revised figures put Ganges ahead of Ganga, by about 2:1, though it should be noted that these are incidental mentions of the river in all manner of publications (plus some noise). Publications about the river do more commonly have Ganga in the title, as described above. But okay, this was well spotted, and it does make a difference. --JN466 20:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I've double-checked; the use of the intitle parameter does not suffer from the same problem -- it does not require quotation marks to give accurate results. So the earlier search for Ganga vs. Ganges in article titles does remain valid; these 900+ publications really do all have Ganga, not Ganges, in the title, compared to the 700+ that have Ganges in the title. --JN466 21:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
(you forgot that your searches were made with Ganga or Ganges + river) I checked and it seems that we can narrow it down to 869 [76] for 'Ganga river' and 747 for 'Ganges river' [77].
I also made searches only with 'Ganga' or 'Ganges'. About 1810 hits for Ganga [78] versus about 1430 hits for Ganges [79]. You have to concede that these margins are quite small. Flamarande (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't always get the same numbers; right now it is 962 for intitle:ganga river and 760 for intitle:ganges river. The margins are indeed quite small. The same applies to recent English-language reports in google news, where Ganga is ahead, but not by much.
The reason I included river in the searches was to cut down on non-English hits. We have to bear in mind that both Ganges and Ganga exist as words in other languages than English; for example, Ganges is also an inflectional form of Gang = "course" in German; Ganga means "bargain" in Spanish, etc., and there are indeed publications that have those words in the title. In addition, the river is only known as Ganges in a number of other languages, including German and Dutch for example – so a search for Ganges alone will also include all sources on the Ganges written in those languages, which are outside of our scope here. --JN466 10:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ganges/Archive_1&oldid=1088849539"