Talk:Ganges/Archive 3

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

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

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

Would they vanquish the above brown soup of excrement? 76.10.147.14 (talk) 13:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The article may not be clear as it is currently written but both of these ideas belong here.
 * From an objective standpoint the Ganges is very dirty, but there are religious teachings which also say that the river is clean. Various Indian scientists who insert religion into their research make claims that the river is actually not dirty, and sometimes they publish research saying this.
 * Whether anything about the river would "vanquish the above brown soup of excrement" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is a place for summarizing the sources, and the sources say that the river is filthy and that the river is not filthy. If you want to review either this article or Pollution of the Ganges with me I would be happy to look over the sources with you and help qualify the statements.  Blue Rasberry  14:47, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

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


 * That still isn't "small"!
 * At the Yamuna-Ganges doab, which percentage of water is supplied by the Yamuna? IMO that's a better measure of which is the main course. — kwami (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I exaggerated a little! Part of the problem is that so much water is taken away by the canals (Western Jumna Canal, Eastern Jumna Canal, Upper Ganges Canal, Lower Ganges Canal), that it is hard to know which river truly has more volume.  But the Jumna is longer at the confluence.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * According to The Ganga: water use in the Indian subcontinent, p. 27, the discharge of the Ganges at Allahabad, before the Yamuna confluence, is 59 billion cubic meters per year, or 1870 m3/s, while the Yamuna's discharge at the confluence is 93 billion cubic meters per year, or 2947 m3/s (these converted numbers should probably be rounded off more). It seems the Yamuna is approximately a third larger, by discharge. Lots more info in that book, could be a useful source here. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

IMO, we should give the length of the course called the Ganges (plus after it meets the Brahmaputra, if that's how it's normally done), then give the length through the Jamna as the "main course". — kwami (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Or main stem? Makes sense. I've seen the length of the Ganges described as "from its source in the Himalayas", which implies it includes something beyond the name "Ganges". But I'm not sure how it is normally done. For large and famous rivers like this one, it might be good to explicitly define lengths in terms of the river's name, its name and including other named tributaries/distributaries, and longer lengths including tributaries that join along the named river (something like as in Mississippi River, perhaps). Pfly (talk) 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What is the import of the previous move?
The discussions have been archieved. What implications does that have? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:06, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The reviewer rejected the move, as there was no consensus for it. — kwami (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Yes, it was rejected as 'no consensus', as I just said. By "strong sense of dissatisfaction", do you mean you personally disagree? There have been no expressions of dissatisfaction. What do you think reopening the discussion would accomplish, other than taking up a lot of time that we could spend doing something useful? It's clear that the generic English name is "Ganges", and unless there's agreement on a general guideline that local usage should override international usage on WP, I don't see how any other decision would be reached. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The administrator who closed the move proposal was asked a few questions, three of them he has answered, his answers are (1)A move rejection cannot be appealed. (2)Another move can be proposed. (3)For a move proposal to prevail, in the closing administrator's opinion there has to be a clear direction in the form of numbers or argument. Here it is evident that the numbers are not there but the argument is. However I do not intend to put another move proposal until the reasons for the present rejection are on the board. Questions regarding the reasons for rejection were not answered. I have put a talkback message on the said administrator's page, he has put a busy tag on his userpage, so he may not respond immediately. The unanswered questions are here for everyone's benefit.

The closing adminstrator is requested to use this space so that everyone concerned would be able to follow the discussion. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the criteria for acting on a move proposal?
 * Have you gone through the debate in detail and dealt on the various issues pro move and pro keep?
 * At User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/Archive XIX, it was well explained that "Generally a move proposal needs overwhelming support in argument or numbers to be successful". Reopening the issue a month after the previous extensive discussion would not be helpful to the encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The delay is not my fault, Deacon was away, please see the contribution history of Deacon, he was not around for a long time, 27 days. The pity is people don't read, I wrote above that 3 questions were answered, (3) is what you have written about. There have been about a thousand edits regarding the move proposal. The closing administrator writes move denied as arguments inadequate, should he not demonstrate how? That is what I request him to do. A detailed statement is solicited.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If and when this discussion is reopened, the fact that Ganga is a goddess in the Hindu religion should be brought up in support of renaming the article to Ganga. The previous discussion was a very lengthy one and I did not follow it in full so please disregard if it was already brought up. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * We should revisit the question in a few weeks' time. The failed move proposal suffered from a lack of documentation of RS usage. Most people commented off the cuff before any source research had been done. Any new proposal filed should include an updated version of the documentation of RS usage present in the talk page archive. -- JN 466  11:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen glad you are back. I opine that the proposal should be revisited only after the reasons for the closing of the move proposal are on the table. Then each reason can be examined and argued for. That would save a lot of bother. I have been writing to Deacon who was the closing administrator, he is however yet to come up with the reasons behind his closing the move proposal beyond the short "no consensus", please see his talk page. What are the avenues to get the reasons on the table? This is the first step that needs to be taken in my opinion, before going further.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * As someone who has written the first part of the Ganges article, and added most of the pictures, let me suggest that you will be wasting your own and everyone else's time by revisiting this oft tried page move. Tertiary sources, i.e. other encyclopedias, (our best guide) are near unanimous in calling the river by its international name "Ganges."    Britannica, for example, says
 * Ganges River, Hindi Ganga, great river of the plains of northern India. Although officially as well as popularly called the Ganga in Hindi and in other Indian languages, internationally it is known by its conventional name, the Ganges. ...
 * Indeed many major rivers have local and national names (sometimes many national names), but these, although acknowledged, are quite apart from the rivers' international names. Here's Britannica again:
 * Yangtze River, Chinese (Pinyin) Chang Jiang or (Wade-Giles romanization) Ch’ang Chiang, River, China. ...
 * Mekong River, Cambodian Mékôngk, Laotian Mènam Khong, Thai Mae Nam Khong, Vietnamese Sông Tiên Giang, Chinese (Pinyin) Lancang Jiang or (Wade-Giles) Lan-ts’ang Chiang, Longest river of Southeast Asia. ...
 * Brahmaputra River, Bengali Jamuna, Assamese Dihang, Tibetan Tsangpo, Chinese (Pinyin) Yarlung Zangbo Jiang, or (Wade-Giles romanization) Ya-lu-tsang-pu Chiang, River, Central and South Asia. ...
 * Nile River, Arabic Baḥr al-Nīl or Nahr al-Nīl, River, eastern and northeastern Africa. ...

Indian English is simply not spoken as a first language by enough people in India for it to acquire the features of a dialect. It remains preeminently a second or even third language there. It is enough to acknowledge parenthetically that in Hindi and other major North Indian languages, and officially by the government, the river is called Ganga. This indeed the Wikipedia Ganges page does. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  03:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a Dictionary of Indian English. There has been an exhaustive discussion on this and other aspects of the proposal. The above editor is requested to study the archives of this page. That is why I had requested the closing editor to qualify his decision by a list of statements, so that the discussion could go forward and not in circles. Kwami as an administrator how do you suggest we proceed from here, without wasting time. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has been exhaustive, and the consensus is obvious, that we use widespread terms in preference to local terms. Sometimes when you make a proposal, others disagree, and you are unable to convince them. IMO, the way to proceed without wasting time is to drop it. — kwami (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion as an editor who opposes this move, I asked you in your capacity as an administrator and one having better knowledge of the system, I have a problem with this closure, there have been many arguments either way, the closing administrator didn't deliberate on the various points raised, what does the proposer of the move do? Without going back to square one. All of us have said all or most of what has can be said, interestingly Kwami, I too have an International atlas, the Readers Digest Great World Atlas, second edition, first revision 1969, on its page no 68,69, which is the map of India, the river is called Ganga, and its mouth the Mouth of Ganga, (with Ganges used parenthetically), Mumbai is Bombay, and we find Madras and Calcutta there, and Dacca too, as I had mentioned to Flam. earlier, Ganga is no Johnny come lately, it is not local, nor it is fringe, it is an established English word. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was sound advice from an administrator. Drop it. There is a point when your endeavors could be seen as disruptive or tendentious. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I already see Yogesh as tendentious: He doesn't like the closing admin's decision, therefore the closing admin did not properly review the discussion. He asked for my advice but didn't like the advice I had to give, therefore I was acting in bad faith. This is why people find you tiresome, Yogesh: You suggest that anyone who disagrees with you either doesn't understand the evidence (even when they obviously do), is biased, or is acting in bad faith; your strategy is apparently to keep harping away at this until you get your way, and to slander anyone who won't let you have your way. I'm not planning on saying much more about this, because it already is a huge waste of time. — kwami (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hold your guns folks. Seb please see the contribution history of this talk page since the move proposal, I have 212 edits, Jayen a move supporter has 154, Zuggernaut 19 comes across as a move supporter, Pfly neutral has 22, the tendentious allegation doesn't stick, as I am not a lone ranger. Kwami, I asked you how an editor can proceed after this stage, I wanted procedure from you. I am ducking all the personal bouncers you have bowled to me. Please how would an editor proceed from here? The closing of a proposal should be preceded by elaboration, which has not been done here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:Tendentious editing is an essay (neither a policy nor a guideline) that talks about Edit warring, Disruptive editing, What Wikipedia is not, Gaming the system / Abuse of process, Wikilawyering, Disruption to make a point, "I didn't hear that". In all my interaction, I have not seen Yogesh violate any of those. Given the large gap in the outcome of the vote though (2:1 if I remember right), I do think a different approach and strategy would be required. Zuggernaut (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked my as an editor how I would handle it, and I told you: I'd drop it. It's not a matter of fact that's wrong, merely one of opinion, and you have the consensus of Wikipedia against you: we don't use local terms that most people won't understand when there's a universal term available that everyone understands. It's a simple matter of accessibility. Now, if you want to go ahead and propose that we change how we name articles in general, or keep batting at this one in the hope of eventually prevailing, that's up to you. — kwami (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am asking about procedure Kwami, I am not debating the issue with you at the moment, I want to go ahead on this move proposal (You must have been in a similar situation or been a key player in your long innings here), what procedure should be followed in this situation, we have had the proposal closed, without an elaborate justification, the long hours of debate deserves a justification from the closing administrator, as proposer against whom the verdict has gone, I seek your help in terms of procedure on how to proceed, we are not debating the subject, I seek your help in understanding Wikipedia's system, I have knocked at the closing administrator's door, but he isn't opening it. I hope you understand what my queries are.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:59, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't debating content either. You asked my advice, I gave you my advice. If you want to proceed despite my advice, fine: WP:dispute resolution and WP:requested moves should tell you what you need to know. You could try getting the closing admin sanctioned, but that would be dismissed as frivolous, as he acted properly. You could file another move request, but it's unlikely to go differently than the previous several requests. You could file for arbitration, though that would probably be denied because it's intended for editors of an article who can't agree on content, and in this case it's not clear who the contending parties would even be. There might be other avenues to pursue, but you can read the help pages as easily as I can. — kwami (talk) 11:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) "Let's work this out together," you say in your edit summary Yogesh Khandke. There's nothing to work out. The ball game is over. Time to take it on the chin and move on. Again, you are wasting your own and everyone else's time. Perhaps, as someone, who hasn't made a single edit to the Ganges article, you'd like to go read something and contribute and build the encyclopedia, instead of wasting time in ideological battles that you are unprepared to wage. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (od)Thanks I want you involved in the procedure as I wish we do not go into this as adversaries but as ones who wish to settle an issue amicably. Are you sure that you too as an administrator would have closed a proposal without making elaborate statements esp. in such a large debate.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:16, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS. And, who, btw, has written your Dictionary of Indian English?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  16:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)The let us work it out was for Kwami, nevertheless F&F if you wish, you are welcome to help, if you have the expertise in the matter, this is related with Wikipedia procedure without prejudice to the subject. (2)I came here because an article I had started had Ganga edited to Ganges, the article itself is not my field of interest at the moment. (3)F&F please go through the above discussion you will get your answer there, regarding the dictionary. (4)Moreover it is not kosher to allege motives. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't you find the Dictionary of Indian English reference for me? I'm claiming there's nothing called Indian English that is syntactically different from Standard British English. There are some expressions used by Indians when they speak English, but most are either older expressions of British English or (for example, verb endings) are considered ungrammatical by the more fluent Indian speakers themselves.  I challenge you to find me a Grammar of Indian English.  I'm asking you to find me the dictionary because I figure I already know what it is.  Not a dictionary of Indian English at all.  So, once more: who has compiled this dictionary of Indian English?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indian English is a well recognized variety of English. Of course, it's not actually a single variety. It diverges (they diverge) in pronunciation, accent, and prosody, influenced by Indian languages, to some extent in grammar (though that might be considered interference and dispreferred?), and in vocabulary. There are tons of Urdu and for all I know Bengali and Tamil words in Indian English which are not known outside the Subcontinent, or are much more colloquial within India. Canadian English has a dictionary, as does Australian, and I'm sure several other countries. Though it would be interesting to see how well defined prescriptive Indian English is. — kwami (talk) 11:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is? Most grammars of Standard English don't recognize it as a national variety of English (such as Canadian, Australian, or even Jamaican English), only as a variety of second language spoken by native speakers of other languages (such as Nigerian English).  I believe there are simply not enough first language English speakers in India for English to develop as a proper dialect.  Simply not enough opportunities for most people to use English in the give and take of daily life consistently over time.   There's no grammar of Indian English; no dictionary of Indian English.  That's why I'm challenging Yogesh Khandke to find me that fabled compiler.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * PS Don't get me wrong. I'm not scoffing anyone or anything.  As someone who has contributed a lot to South Asia related articles, I've yet a find a significant point of divergence between Indian English and Standard British English.  I've yet to find any peculiar expressions of Indian English (such as tiffin, out-of-station, etc) being used in any Wikipedia articles.   What then is the point of the injunction on the talk page: this article is being written in Indian English?  No one is going to use expressions of Urdu and Hindi (that might be popular in the variety of English or Hinglish spoken on the Indian street) in such articles.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Native or not, there's definitely a (southern) Nigerian variety of English! I often have to speak to Nigerians in French or I can't understand them.
 * I thought Indian newspapers frequently included Undu terms that are not part of British. — kwami (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * :) As for Indian newspapers, you are probably right.  I'm sure there are some Urdu terms that are used, not so much in the hard news, but likely by the columnists.  The problem for me is that those terms are unlikely to be used in Wikipedia articles; in fact, their use would cause confusion.  So what then is the meaning of the sentence: this article uses Indian English?  That one sentence is then used to justify "Ganga."  My response is:  Where else does this article use Indian English (i.e. one that diverges from standard British English)?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  12:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. It doesn't. I've removed the template. Indian English is found on only 50 talk pages, but it's been around for almost three years. It would probably be more profitable for you to take the discussion there. There's been no discussion of it on the template talk page, though there might have been elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 13:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * FYI, the tag was added here and discussed here and here. --rgpk (comment) 14:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) That list of "Indian English" words listed by Zuggernaut is hilarious. He seems to be implying that any word from any Indian vernacular that has ever appeared in Romanized spelling in any English language publication is a word of Indian English. Thus the title of a Hindi language movie that is discussed in Indian English language newspapers necessarily becomes a word of Indian English. As for the dictionary of Indian English Mr. Khandke was brandishing, (I found the diff for it) it is, as I suspected, the good old Hobson-Jobson, retitled Cosmo Dictionary of Indian English by some unscrupulous Indian publisher, now that the copyright has expired after over a hundred years. Hobson-Jobson, btw, has neither "Ganges" nor "Ganga!" The grammar, he is talking about, Wren and Martin, is a standard grammar of British English written for Indian students. Its been around for some seventy years. It is very prescriptive and would disallow anything even bordering on "Indian English." Mr. Khandke is clearly shooting in the dark. There were 24 opposes to the page move and 11 supports. Why is the Wikipedia community bending over backwards in humoring someone who is clearly a disruptive presence? Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  15:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Cosmos is a dictionary, one finds such entries in an encyclopaedia.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * F&F you are right most of the times, but I cannot agree with your conclusion, the very things that have mentioned make it a dialect, (1)The grammar and spellings are static, for example you spell encyclopaedia as encyclopedia I won't, to some a picnic is eating outdoors, to me it is an excursion, there are many such words, and I am not referring to those that have crept into the language from Indian languages, corruption is another, the way I use the word proof - Kwami can vouch for that. Perhaps as you mentioned it is the English whose rules are frozen since Victorian or Edwardian times, I am glad you have read the discussion, your opinion on the Cosmo is just that your opinion. We are discussing Indian English as a dialect and not a creole like Nigerian English as Kwami has mentioned above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey so I started reading this talk page after reading an article in the Fast Company magazine ("Wikipedia's Librarian to the World": http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/154/librarian-to-the-world.html) that referenced this debate. I will quote from the article in reference to this page: "It's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side. That's why everybody has to be [on Wikipedia], because if they're not there, the system doesn't work" (executive director Sue Gardner). I will also quote from the tag on the Talk page of this article: "This article uses Indian English dialect and spelling. Some terms that are used in it differ from or are not used in British, American or other dialects of English." There really should be no argument here. When the executive director of the company that runs this site, and the article's own tag support the side that says the article should be titled "Ganga," we should all acquiesce to renaming the article as such. I know that such a motion has just been rejected, but that doesn't mean it can't be re-proposed. A lot of people are saying we should just move on, but the decision of one ill-informed editor should not be the deciding factor in this argument. I'm not technically savvy enough to send a move proposal, but I advocate that someone do so. -Ankit (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2011
 * Yes, it has been rejected many, many times. The tertiary sources (other encyclopedias) are unanimous in calling it by its international name, "Ganges."  As long as that doesn't change, there's little chance of the name changing no matter what whosie whatsie says.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply to Ankit: I am the editor who proposed the latest move, It was wound up by an administrator who did not bother to elaborate on the issue after hundreds of edit containing arguments had been made. I am glad to read Sue's quote. It is a pity that the issue is held ransom by those for whom their opinion, has more weight than wp:RS, which are not unanimous (sic) as alleged by Fowler&fowler. I am comfortable to bide my time, as Wikipedia is about the future and the future is on my side, as for the move proposal, how about taking up the issue with the closing administrator, or studying the arguments in support and opposition, it would be such a waste of time, if we were all to start at square one.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * User Yogesh Khandke and Sue Gardener are entirely right - the administrator has refused to summarise the arguments, and is using the results of the strawpoll rather than evidence presented. That editor is acting as gatekeeper and exercising considerable power over the Wikipedia community. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Mostlyharmless: As long as other encyclopedias prefer |++intitle:encyclopaedia&tbs=,cdr:1&num=10 "Ganges" to |++intitle:encyclopaedia&tbs=,cdr:1&num=10 "Ganga" by more than three to one, there's little chance of the Wikipedia page name changing.  The English Wikipedia's page naming policy gives maximum weight to the examples of other encyclopedias and reference works.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  10:21, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

The dialect tag
(1)Kwami had removed the dialect tag, I placed it Fowler removed it, his argument is that placing the tag when a move proposal is on is invalid. (2)I do not see the relation, in the discussions above Fowler has stated that there is no such dialect as Indian English. (3)What is the removers' position? (a)That such a dialect does not exist. That this article should not use this dialect. (b)That this article isn't using this dialect. The stand is not clear. (4)Pl see the history of this page there have been many move proposals. From here it seems that one prevailed too, also see the history of this page, there have been a series of such move proposals. (5)Please discuss before removing the tag.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I observe 1RR, I won't edit war as you apparently are doing. You've already reverted twice.  Please be warned that you are bordering on being a disruptive presence here.  Others have already observed this in the discussion above.  As for your poorly written argument, I can't check whether your usage of "picnic" is correct, since there is nor WP:RS dictionary of Indian English.  The Cosmo dictionary, as I've already observed, is a facsimile reprint of Hobson-Jobson, and doesn't have "picnic," much less your divergent usage of it.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler(1) Would you consider a school notice regarding a picnic to Mumbai as proof? How do I send it to you? (2)I apologise for my lack of adequate English skills and the resulting discomfort it causes to you, please bear with me. (3)You have mentioned that the necessary condition for being considered as a dialect is that it should be a first language, can you prove this definition of dialect.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler I am sorry I should have provided evidence for my statement here it is, search results for picnic.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the accepted meanings of picnic is, "an excursion or outing with food usually provided by members of the group and eaten in the open" (Webster's). Where does your evidence show it is just an outing without food?  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Picnic, In contemporary usage, a picnic can be defined simply as a pleasure excursion at which a meal is eaten outdoors (al fresco or en plein air), ideally taking place in a beautiful landscape such as a park, beside a lake or with an interesting view and possibly at a public event such as before an open air theatre performance, and usually in summer., from what I understand picnic as in above, is an excursion with an outdoor meal, the outdoor meal is the focus, on the other hand see the usage from the links I have provided, here picnic means just an excursion.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you haven't examined your own links! Your 1-day picnic link says, "The students were picked up from the schools, in semi luxury buses in route they are treated to a royal breakfast, and arrive at the Park or Resort right at the time of opening. They enjoy the rides and are given lunch which consists of excellence Gourmet food."  Your fifth link, Picnic spots around Mumbai says in 4. Elephanta Caves: "Do be sure to choose your picnic spot wisely though or else be prepared to go into battle for your lunch against the gangs of unruly monkeys!"  I also took the liberty of calling someone in India and they asked three people on their "domestic staff," none of whom can speak English.  All knew the English word "picnic" and all said it involved eating.  One said, "it means to go on a trip and make a party."  When he was asked, "Do they serve food in the party?" He said "Of course."  Here, by the way, are 16 Indian newspapers, from the last two weeks that use picnic to mean something involving food.  See the links here.   The most interesting one quote is: "It could have been a real picnic for us but since food was not allowed inside the stadium, we just enjoyed the match, ...!"  No one is saying that there aren't words and expressions that are favored by speakers of English in the subcontinent, (especially in spoken English), but the list of such expressions that might be used in a written encyclopedia is a short one.  More pertinently, where does the Ganges article use these expressions?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The dialect nature also manifests itself in the use of nouns, jungle (a word of Indian origin now in the OED), an Indian would tend to use the word, a non-Indian would use forest or woods, or the vegetables Lady's finger or brinjal.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Jungle" and "woods" have nothing to do with the nationality of the speaker. A tropical forested area, especially in India, is called a jungle.  No one, be they Indian or non-Indian, says they saw a "tiger in the Indian woods", but they do talk about a "tiger in the Indian jungle"; conversely, no one says, the went for a "hike in Sherwood jungle" (but they do say, "hike in Sherwood forest".  Lady's-fingers is a name used for many vegetables and fruit, including okra.  The OED has at least four examples for okra.  Brinjal, originally Portuguese, it is widely used in Africa as well.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Tiger tiger burning bright, in the forest of the night... No one? Blake?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Blake doesn't say "Indian forests of the night." It's "forests" btw.  There's no comma either.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Another aspect of Indian English is how it Romanises Indian sounds, there is a established system of Romanisation, the above template indicates that this article uses the Indian English method of Romanising Indian words and so spells - Patliputra, Kannauj, Kara, Allahabad, Murshidabad, Baharampur and Kolkata as they have been and not as they had been.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The British had already begun to romanize in that manner in the second half of the 19th century. See for example, the article by James Sykes Gamble in the 1855 Proceedings of the Royal Asiatic Society of Bengal, where it says, "The History of Shaykh Madar, an Indian saint of great repute, who died in 849 and is buried at Makanpur (not far from Kannauj), ..."  All the spellings: Patliputra, Kannauj, Kara, Allahabad, Murshidabad, Baharampur, were already in place long before the British left India.  The Kolkata spelling has nothing to do with romanization in Indian English, it is just a political stunt by regional Indian politicians.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  14:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

(Note: I've removed the tag for the time being. Based on the discussion above, there seems to be reasonable doubt about the meaningfulness of the tag. Of course, the tag can be reinserted if this changes. --rgpk (comment) 23:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC))
 * While my preference is American English, I have added back the tag for the following reasons:
 * The discussion rgpk refers to above is more relevant to Indian English and not this article. It could be taken to one of two places:
 * The talk page of the article on Indian English
 * The template talk page of Indian English
 * The tag has been there for several months and cannot just be removed at whim
 * Several FA and GA level articles carry this tag
 * Zuggernaut (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the Ganges flows through Bangladesh as well, I will be soon adding a "Bangladeshi English" tag to it.    I have already added the "Pakistani English" tag to Talk:Ghee, since ghee is as much a part of Pakistani culture as it is of Indian.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. At some point we will need to address whether it is WP:DUE for this article. Zuggernaut (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Folwer has attempted to demonstrate above that Indian English as a dialect does not exist, then he goes ahead and adds Pakistani English tag to Ghee, where Indian English tag was. I request Fowler to look as wp:point.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit Conflict)Fowler, I appreciate your inputs to Wikipedia and Ganges, (and the effort it takes) I have seen a photo uploaded by you of a feature in my neighbourhood, the Bor Ghat Incline (See I spell Ghat, the British spelling was Ghaut), we are not adversaries but partners on this project. I am thinking of sending a contemporary photo to you as a memento. Please try to understand that another perspective may exist, btw the Kashmiri forests which are not tropical are also called jungles, jungle is not scientific nomenclature, see its etymology the Sanskrit word it is derived from means dry forest, I never alleged that you removed the IE tag form ghee, I hope the picnic muddle is sorted out. Blake was quoted from memory, school was a long time ago, sorry for the errors. (PS) Cosmo has an Indian editor, Kurien, additionally how does publishing a work after the copyright has expired make a publisher unscrupulous?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 *  "The History of Shaykh Madar, the contemporary Romanisation would be Shiekh, please see the historical versions of this article, the earlier Romanisations were different from the present one, I changed them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 07:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler above comments that since the Ganga also flows in Bangladesh the BE tag should be inserted, I support him in it, Ganga is called Padma in Bangladesh, kindly in the same vein move this article to Padma.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a poor joke/proposal, Yogesh Khandke. Too bad that this is not the Bengali wiki but the English one. IMHO this article should use the common English name for the subject (i.e.: Ganges). Flamarande (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Fl. well since we have had the ball going between us, I have nothing new to add, I am waiting for Kwami to break the ice some way or the other.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK! Why should a little typing get between friends, but look before you leap, see Padma River.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The proper historical and official name of the river is Ganga
The official name of this Indian river is "Ganga". The Indian government's official designation is 'Ganga'. Infact this river has been called Ganga for thousands of years in the past and present. Please change GangES into Ganga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Both are used on the main Indian government website: see . Mr. Credible (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Ganga is by far more common on Indian government websites: . Official titles such as Ganga Action Plan, Ganga Flood Control etc. use Ganga. On the other hand, Ganga is also found in Western sources, both academic and other types, so the argument of mixed usage swings both ways, as usage in the West is also mixed:    For the change from Ganges to Ganga over the past 10 years, see this Western textbook:  which likens it to the change from Bombay to Mumbai. -- JN  466  03:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

As Mr. Credible has pointed out, Ganges is one of the many names of Ganges. But the name 'Ganga' is the most accepted version within the Indian Government and the general public. Even within the source Mr. Credible has pointed out, 'Ganga' is extensively used to refer to the actual river. The word Ganga comes from the sacred Hindu text of Rig Veda. The word Ganges is the anglicised version of the word Ganga. Please change the word Ganges to Ganga — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide some WP:Verifiable, WP:Reliable sources for these assertions? Thanks, Mr. Credible (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


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


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

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

Besides all of these sources, I have given you a genuine verbal reason why Ganges should be changed to Ganga just above. So far, no justification or evidence has been provided as to why we shouldn't keep the name Ganges. Please change GangES into Ganga. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidence and justification has been provided above and in the archived discussion: please, let's try to work to come to a WP:Consensus about this.
 * The first site you link to above does indeed mention only "Ganga". The second uses both, but the link provided above reads "The Ganga or Ganges is the longest river of India". The third site you link to uses both spellings: . Mr. Credible (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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

The third website I presented uses the word 'Ganges' 4 times not just in the webpage but the whole website whereas the word 'Ganga' is used 59 times. Again this shows 'Ganga' is the accepted version. Hence all three websites support the use of the word 'Ganga'. So far after all these discussions, nobody has provided a justification as to why we should keep the word Ganges. Since we cannot agree on this matter, the democratic way forward would be to call the page something else such as 'Ganga/Ganges' or something similar until we find a solution to this issue, just like what the Wikipedia commmunity has done on several occasions such as the 'Sino-Vietnamese War' page and the 'Indian Rebellion of 1857'. This way it is much fairer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What was your user ID prior to today? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:57, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that Wikipedia is not a democracy. You write that So far after all these discussions, nobody has provided a justification as to why we should keep the word Ganges, but in fact there has been much justification provided: what remains is for editors with different points of view to come to a consensus. Mr. Credible (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion it's ridiculously trivial. --43?9enter ☭msg☭contribs 19:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but note that Special:Contributions/Heloworld321 has done nothing so far but change the spelling in many places, in several articles. Mr. Credible (talk) 20:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I recommend changing them back to the consensus version [which I see has already been done], and if he reverts again, report him for edit-warring even if he hasn't hit the 3RR mark yet. 3RR is not an entitlement. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say Wikipedia is a democracy. I am saying this page is not controlled by anyone in particular. The general public can make changes. Yet again I do not see any justification on this page as to why we should keep the word Ganges despite and editor saying that there is much justification. I ask the Wikipedia community to call this page something other than Ganges or Ganga such as Ganga/Ganges until the community can agree on a word. This is the fair way forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You've proposed changing the name of the article to "Ganga/Ganges", but please have a read of Article titles and Naming conventions (geographic names). The article needs to have just one title. Since it can be spelled "Ganges", "Ganga" or "Gônga", I can't think of a compromise solution, but would be glad to hear editors' ideas. Mr. Credible (talk) 21:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the predominant name in English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:09, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I can't answer that. A Google search for "Ganga" (not exactly a scientific test) yields a lot of hits for both the river and for other uses (see Ganga (disambiguation)), so that test is fairly useless here. I'm tempted to flag the discussion for expert opinion over at a relevant Wikiproject, but as far as I can tell it's a matter of opinion in any spelling other than Hindi when spelled in Roman script (see Devanagari transliteration), so we'd probably just get lots more opinion endorsing both spellings. Is that of value here? Will we get a better answer to the question than in the lengthy archived discussion? Mr. Credible (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Also I do not understand why Mr. Credible is trying to name me as some kind of vandalising rebel trying to ruin this page. Mr. Credible keeps keeps reverting edits without any justification whatsoever. Is that allowed? Aggression will not be permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Nor will editing against consensus be permitted. (Nor will socking, if that's what you are.) Keep at it and you'll be blocked. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And don't add stuff to the archive. Keep it on the active talk page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Mr Baseball Buggs doesnt seem to understand the concept of a consensus. This is a consensus: "Consensus is the community resolution when opposing parties set aside their differences and agree on a statement that is agreeable to all. Discussion should aim towards building a consensus. Consensus is a group discussion where everyone's opinions are heard and understood, and a solution is created that respects those opinions." Evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F We have not agreed on anything that is agreeable to all so far. Hence a consensus has NOT been reached. I am not reverting a consensus. I am reverting vandalisms by Mr.Credible. He should be reported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What user ID(s) did you previously edit under? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I have not edited anything under any user id before this. This is my first account on Wikipedia. I see that we are yet to reach a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.135.104 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for tipping us off about your IP. (How's the weather in London?) And consensus does NOT mean unanymous. This issue has been settled for awhile here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Heloworld321 / 86.161.135.104, Hi there, and welcome to Wikipedia.

The name we use should be the most common name used in the English-speaking world which - whether right or wrong - is Ganges (if you look in English books, newspapers, etc).

Wikipedia simply presents the facts as they are in reliable sources. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." - that is part of one of the most important Wikipedia policies, WP:V.

This specific issue - the name of this page - has been discussed in the past, and as far as I can see, there is no policy-based reason for the change at this time.

In future - maybe.

For example, Uluru was known in English as "Ayers Rock" for 130 years, before the name was finally changed. But the name change was not decided by Wikipedia - we merely reflect the name that others use. If considerable reliable sources in English (such as newspapers, books, etc.) start to prefer the term 'Ganga', then we'll change it.

Please do not try to enforce your opinion. Please discuss it here, with respect for the other editors, and - if they are mostly disagreeing with your opinion - please respect consensus.

Thanks for your consideration.  Chzz  ► 22:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has remarked that we should keep Ganges because that is the name used by English media. First of all, the name we should use on wikipedia is the official name of the river. The name on wikipedia should not be based on popularity. Infact, popular terminology should be addressed as a redirect on to the page or listed as 'more popularly known as "Ganges"'. None of the western countries have an official name for Ganga. In truth, no country has officially acknowledged the river's name as GANGES. Only Anglo-Saxon and western european MEDIA refer to the river as Ganges. So if alot of people in the western media suddenly start saying that Adolf Hitler was an admirable hero, the rest of the world should accept it? Wikipedia is about facts not about what the majority of Anglo-saxon media says or the majority of any media for that matter. Only solid facts should be included in wikipedia. No western government has officially acknowledged an official name for the river. However the Indian governmet has officially aknowledged an official name for the river which runs through India and it is Ganga. It is the national river of India. In fact, the term Ganga is used in many eastern european countries as well as many Asian countries. For the sake of popularity, South Asia alone which is about 1.7 billion people (well over a fifth of the world's population) refer to the river as Ganga.

Secondly, EVEN IF we are to include in wikipedia the most popular English name, it should be Ganga. For example: http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=ganga

The google website mentioned above lists '916' articles from various English newspapers all of which refer to the river as Ganga. If you search 'Ganges' on that same google news page, it comes out with about 368 articles from various English newspapers which refer to the river as Ganges.

Even if you use the normal web search on google, you get 31,400,000 results that refer to the river as Ganga and about 7,920,000 results that refer to the river as Ganges.(IN ENGLISH) Evidence: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=737&q=ganga&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=737&q=ganga&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

Clearly, by a very very big margin, English media prefer to refer to the river as Ganga over Ganges.

However I have to say that google is not a tool which can be used to measure the popularit of terminologies. It is not what Google is designed for. In fact, the vast majority of the west has access to internet whereas only a smaller percentage of people have acces to internet in Asia, especially India and Bangladesh. Therefore, coming to conclusions based on what google comes out with or even the internet is not a reliable way. It would only be a way of saying roughly which term is more popular in western europe and north america. Therefore please stop using google and the internet as an excuse to keep the word 'Ganges'. However, even with small numbers of internet penetration in Asian countries, the majority of the internet clearly prefer the term Ganga. Heloworld321 (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ganga x Ganges
Fellow editors, it is a pity that good faith isn't assumed and an IP is accused of being a sock, just because his argument is not liked. The argument against Ganga has no substance, each point against has clearly been shown as unfounded. (1)The divided local use point has also been shown as false, please read the archives of this page. (2)Ganga isn't a Hindi or Bhojpuri name, it is just the prefered Romanisation, prefered in India, used in Asia, and prefered the world over since the last few years. Sources for the above claim have been provided, and can be found in the archives. It was necessary that the closing administrator who closed the argument, should have elaborated why he closed against the move, he would have made life a little easy for all the editors around here
 * Reply to Mr. Credible's statement: "...A Google search for "Ganga" (not exactly a scientific test) yields a lot of hits for both the river and for other uses (see Ganga (disambiguation)),...": I tend to disagree with this, all this names are derived from the name of the river, it demonstrates how a particular sound is Romanised, and written in English, every instance of Ganga, founds adds weight to the argument.
 * Reply to Chzz's statement:: "The name we use should be the most common name used in the English-speaking world which - whether right or wtong - is Ganges (if you look in English books, newspapers, etc)...": Please see the archives the above statement and what follows is false, Ganga is more common than Ganges, globally, in publications that are less than ten years old, there is a clear trend, which is a decade old that prefers Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * How does the London Times spell it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I pass that. Globally there is a preference for Ganga world wide, not unanimity. The necessary links have been provided pl check reference.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We wouldn't view the Hindustan Times spelling of Thames as authoritative for our spelling of Thames. India is dropping its ties to its colonial past, a process that the wider world views with sympathy, as it is their good right. It's part of the macropolitical process over the past half century and more that led to the emancipation of former slaves in the US, and former British colonies regaining their independence. We shouldn't stand in the way of such a process, or attempt to check its progress. -- JN 466  03:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Globally means India and about 200 other countries.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with Jayen, his statistics have evidenced that Ganga is the more common name globally, he makes it sound like an affirmative action program, he has to provide evidence for the same, perhaps Ganga is more commonly used now as India has a larger global presence now, it is an emerging economy and would be the second largest by 2050, with US trailing behind. Just a conjecture. Just as ''A language is a dialect with a navy".Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the "global" wikipedia, it is the "English" wikipedia. What name is the most common among countries where English is the first language? And that, obviously, excludes India. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Globally in English. This is English Wikipedia refered to globally, not just in first language English countries. It is a global English Wikipedia, the Ganga article is written in its Indian English dialect.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Where does it say that? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Are you asking whether it is an Global English Wikipedia, or whether the article is written in Indian English dialect, if it is the later a template above declares so.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Baseball Bugs, this line of argument just isn't sound. English is an official language in India; it's the language of its national press and its higher education system. Indian English is a reality just like Philippine English (only even more so). We cannot say that Wikipedia should only be written in British English, any more than we can say it should only be written in US or Australian English. You know that, too, I'm sure. -- JN 466  05:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A technical point. Hindi is the official language of India. English is a 'secondary official language' which means that the Central (federal) government uses it as a second language. Indian states have their own official languages and English may or may not be one of those languages and many states do not use English for their official work. (Language issues are less than easy to understand in India!) Finally, an official language is essentially a language that the state uses to conduct its business and does not mean that the language is commonly used, taught or even understood. (Try using the 'official' Hindi in Tamil Nadu for example!) There certainly are good reasons to use Ganga over Ganges, but 'English is the official language of India' is not one of them. --rgpk (comment) 16:30, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I can see no evidence from the links cited here, nor in the archived discussions, that the spelling Ganga is clearly preferred worldwide, but much evidence that both spellings are in concurrent use in English by the Indian government, in Asian books and in the Asian press, while Ganges is more widely used in their Western counterparts. As editor Chzz wrote above, Wikipedia merely reflects the spelling that others use. If considerable reliable sources in English (such as newspapers, books, etc.) globally and consistently prefer one spelling, and another falls into disuse, then we should change it. Political or moral arguments for one spelling or another should be set aside in favor of a neutral and quantitative view of the widest usage. Mr. Credible (talk) 06:04, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen466: But in the Philippine English language media they don't call the Ganges "Ganga;" neither do they do so in Kenya, Tanzania, Malaysia, Indonesia, nor even among India's neighbors such as Pakistan and China, let alone in the US, Britain, Ireland, South Africa, Canada, Australia, New Zealand or Jamaica. In India and India alone is the Ganges called "Ganga" by a preponderance of the media.  The other encyclopedias (including the ones published in India) prefer "Ganges" to "Ganga" by three to one overall and two to one (among those published in the last 30 years).  There are less than 200,000 native speakers of English in India (a nation of 1 billion and 200 million citizens).  There are are approximately 110 million second and third language English speakers in India.  There is no dictionary of Indian English; no grammar of Indian English.  To be sure there are colloquial expressions favored by Indian speakers of English, but I have yet to see a learned discourse on the difference between standard written Indian English and standard written British English.  There is none, lexically or syntactically.  The bogus issue of "Indian English" is being used by some persistent POV pushers to sneak in "Ganga."  Can they point to anywhere else in the Ganges article where specifically "Indian English" has been used?  In global or international English, the Ganges is not called "Ganga."  It is called "Ganges."  End of story.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:23, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * And by the way, Yogesh Khandke and Jayen466, have you managed to find a couple of seconds during your deep ideological ruminations on the semantics of Indian English usage to actually contribute to the Ganges page, to go to a library and find something to add, let alone to go to the actual river, to its Himalayan headwaters, to take pictures? Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  06:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlike Mumbai, Kolkata or Chennai, the name Ganges is not India's (i.e. of its government, media or partisan politicians) alone to change at a whim. The Ganges is an international river.  It passes through Bangladesh as well, where its discharge is actually much greater, and where it is not called "Ganga," but either "Ganges" to refer to the section of the river in India, or "Padma" or "Meghna" to refer to the two sections in Bangladesh.  Why should the article be written in "Indian English," and not "Bangladeshi English," which favors "Padma" or "Meghna" over "Ganges," and all three over "Ganga?"   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  11:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe Yogesh overstates the case for Ganga. Ganga does predominate in present-day international scholarly discourse (see below), and in English-language news articles worldwide is about level with Ganges. As for why Indian English, the Ganga is India's national river, has its greatest cultural significance in India (which will drive traffic here), and most of its course lies in India. In rivers straddling several countries, we usually go with the country where most of the river is located. -- JN 466  15:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Google Scholar
Too many false positives. For one, many authors are using "Ganga Plain" for the "Gangetic Plain." That will need to be factored in. Just for that the false positives are 110: intitle:"ganga" -"ganga plain" -"ganga plains" river (331), whereas intitle:"ganges" -"ganges plain" -"ganges plains" river (321)! Besides, why should we be searching for "Ganga/Ganges" in the title and river in the text? I claim that the choice alone favors "Ganga." Why not search for "Ganges river" and "Ganga river" anywhere in the text. That way there are no false positives. In that search, as I show below, even for the last 10 years, "Ganges" outdoes "Ganga" by more than 100%. Regards, Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  00:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar hits 2000–2011 with "Ganga" in the title, and river in the text: 454
 * Google Scholar hits 2000–2011 with "Ganges" in the title, and river in the text: 337 -- JN 466  14:57, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I hadn't seen your comment yet. You raise an interesting point about Gangetic plain vs. Ganga plain. I looked into it; looking for Ganges OR Gangetic in the title yields about 520 results. However, 100 of the articles that have Gangetic in the title refer to Ganga in the text: . So the assumption that authors using Gangetic all use Ganges, rather than Ganga, is not borne out. (Only 6 publications have both Ganga and Gangetic in the title, so of these 100 only those six are included in the above figure of 454.) -- JN 466  02:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Tertiary sources, major English language media outlets, International organizations, encyclopedias, and secondary sources
Yes, I'm aware of these secondary sources (most are articles by Indian authors, with many at Indian institutions). For naming purposes, tertiary sources are more important than secondary ones and Wikipedia guidelines say so. The Naming_conventions_(use_English) says, "The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language, as you would find it in reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works) ...." Earlier versions of the guideline were even more explicit, they simply said "other encyclopedias and reference works," and not in parentheses. The more general WP:Article titles page says, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, ..." I rest my case. Fowler&amp;fowler «Talk»  16:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Searches (since there are notable people named Darren Ganga and Jean-Claude Ganga, their first names have to be excluded in the Ganga search.):
 * Quality Encyclopedias:
 * Encyclopedias prefer |++intitle:encyclopaedia&tbs=,cdr:1&num=10 "Ganges" to |++intitle:encyclopaedia&tbs=,cdr:1&num=10 "Ganga" by more than three to one in searches that are not time delimited.
 * Encyclopedias prefer "Ganges" to "Ganga" by 2 to 1 among those published during the last 10 years: |++intitle:encyclopaedia&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%202001,cd_max:Dec%2031_2%202011&num=10 "Ganges" (6,290 results), |++intitle:encyclopaedia&tbs=,cdr:1,cd_min:Jan%201_2%202001,cd_max:Dec%2031_2%202011&num=10 "Ganga" (3,260) results.
 * Major-English language media outlets (for the period 1981 to 2011):
 * New York Times: "Ganges" (310), "Ganga" (41) and many "Ganga"s are not the river.
 * Guardian: "Ganges" (86), "Ganga" (19); again most "Ganga"s are not the river.
 * The Independent: "Ganges" (175), "Ganga" (50); again most "Ganga"s are not the river.
 * Washington Post "Ganges" (207), "Ganga" (37), most "Ganga"s not the river
 * Sydney Morning Herald "Ganges" (102), "Ganga" (23), many "Ganga"s are not the river
 * Toronto Star: "Ganges" (186), "Ganga" (36), many not the river
 * Dawn (Pakistan): "Ganges" (38), "Ganga" (33), but only two "Ganga"s refer to the river!.
 * Malaysia Star, "Ganges" (58), "Ganga" (20), with many "Ganga"s not referring to the river.
 * AsiaOne (Indonesia), "Ganges" (25), "Ganga" (12), most not the river
 * Banglasesh News Outlets: "Ganges" (150), "Ganga" (21), many "Ganga"s are not the river
 * BBC: "Ganges" (524), "Ganga" (325), but most "Ganga"s references are not to any river, let alone the Ganges
 * Indian newspapers, and only Indian newspapers prefer "Ganga," but the Ganges is a trans-border river. It is not India's alone.  The length of course doesn't determine a river's name; otherwise the English name of the Brahmaputra would be the Yarlung Tsangpo.
 * International Organizations:
 * United Nations: "Ganges" (325), "Ganga" (265), but most "Ganga"s references are not to the River Ganges!
 * World Bank: "Ganges" (1,370), "Ganga" (480); have to remove "Mahaweli Ganga" in Sri Lanka; and "Aakash Ganga" (another river)
 * Food and Agriculture Organization. "Ganges" (2,870), "Ganga" (641)
 * All books published in the last 30 years:
 * "Ganges river" (27,000), "Ganga river" (8,870) ("river" is needed as "Ganga" is a common proper name.
 * All books published in the last 10 years:
 * "Ganges river" (13,800), "Ganga river" (3,500)
 * Google Scholar:
 * "Ganges river" (7,170), "Ganga river" (2,980). It is not correct to search for "Ganges" or "Ganga" alone, as "Ganga" especially turns up in all kinds of non-river contexts.
 * Among articles published in the last 30 years: "Ganges river" (5,790), "Ganga river" (2,380).
 * Among articles published in the last 10 years: "Ganges river" (3,920), "Ganga river" (1,500). Adding the river reduces the numbers in both searches, but it removes ambiguities.  It is the river after all that we are talking about, not the Gangetic Plain, not the Ganges Dolphin etc etc.


 * 30 years is too long a period to go by. If we did so, Mumbai would still be called Bombay in Wikipedia for another 15 years. The fact that many academics writing about the Ganga are Indian is neither here nor there either, frankly; they lead international English-language scholarship on this river, and their writings appear in international journals put out by Western publishers such as Elsevier, Springer and so on. The 454 scholarly journal articles etc. published since the turn of the century that have Ganga in the title do include more false positives than the equivalent search for Ganges, but not 120 of them. Have a look through the listing. -- JN 466  16:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * For one, many authors are using "Ganga Plain" for the "Gangetic Plain." That will need to be factored in.  Just for that the false positives are 110: intitle:"ganga" -"ganga plain" -"ganga plains" river (331), whereas intitle:"ganges" -"ganges plain" -"ganges plains" river (321)!   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  19:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "30 years is too long a period to go by." According to which Wikipedia policy? I don't know the details of the Mumbai name change, but there other encyclopedias, international organizations, and media outlets, have all changed the name as well; they haven't for the "Ganges," only hydrology articles have.   In any case, I've limited the Google Scholar search to the last 10 years, with no change in the result.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Somebody has remarked that we should keep Ganges because that is the name used by English media. First of all, the name we should use on wikipedia is the official name of the river. The name on wikipedia should not be based on popularity. Infact, popular terminology should be addressed as a redirect on to the page or listed as 'more popularly known as "Ganges"'. None of the western countries have an official name for Ganga. In truth, no country has officially acknowledged the river's name as GANGES. Only Anglo-Saxon and western european MEDIA refer to the river as Ganges. So if alot of people in the western media suddenly start saying that Adolf Hitler was an admirable hero, the rest of the world should accept it? Wikipedia is about facts not about what the majority of Anglo-saxon media says or the majority of any media for that matter. Only solid facts should be included in wikipedia. No western government has officially acknowledged an official name for the river. However the Indian governmet has officially aknowledged an official name for the river which runs through India and it is Ganga. It is the national river of India. In fact, the term Ganga is used in many eastern european countries as well as many Asian countries. For the sake of popularity South Asia alone which is about 1.7 billion people (well over a fifth of the world's population) refer to the river as Ganga.

Dawn (a major pakistani newspaper) > Ganga(96) and Ganges(39) http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ganga+source%3A%22Dawn%22&btnG=Search+Archives&num=10&hl=en&scoring=a http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ganges+source%3A%22Dawn%22&btnG=Search+Archives&num=10&hl=en&scoring=a

Sri Lankan news outlets > Ganga(45) and Ganges(12) http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ganges+source%3A%22Lanka%22+&btnG=Search+Archives&num=10&hl=en&scoring=a http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ganga+source%3A%22Lanka%22+&btnG=Search+Archives&num=10&hl=en&scoring=a

Nepalese news outlets > Ganga(1) and Ganges (0) http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ganga+source%3A%22nepal%22+&btnG=Search+Archives&num=10&hl=en&scoring=a http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=ganga+source%3A%22Dawn%22&btnG=Search+Archives&num=10&hl=en&scoring=a

Secondly, EVEN IF we are to include in wikipedia the most popular English name, it should be Ganga. For example: http://news.google.co.uk/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=uk&hl=en&q=ganga

The google website mentioned above lists '916' articles from various English newspapers all of which refer to the river as Ganga. If you search 'Ganges' on that same google news page, it comes out with about 368 articles from various English newspapers which refer to the river as Ganges.

Even if you use the normal web search on google, you get 31,400,000 results that refer to the river as Ganga and about 7,920,000 results that refer to the river as Ganges.(IN ENGLISH) Evidence: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=737&q=ganga&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=737&q=ganga&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

Clearly, by a very very big margin, English media prefer to refer to the river as Ganga over Ganges.

However I have to say that google is not a tool which can be used to measure the popularit of terminologies. It is not what Google is designed for. In fact, the vast majority of the west has access to internet whereas onlya smaller percentage of people have acces to internet in Asia, especially India and Bangladesh. Therefore, coming to conclusions based on what google comes out with or even the internet is not a reliable way. It would only be a way of saying roughly which term is more popular in western europe and north america. Therefore please stop using google and the internet as an excuse to keep the word 'Ganges'. However, even with small numbers of internet penetration in Asian countries, the majority of the internet clearly prefer the term Ganga.

The river in question do not run through the whole of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal Bhutan). This river only runs through India and Bangladesh although the river doesn't actually enter Bangladesh in the full sense since Ganga breaks up into many smaller distributaries called in various names. The majority of the river length is in India. This is an Indo-Bangladesh River. This is not an international river, certainly not western. Therefore, western terminology certainly has less value and significance over Asian ENGLISH terminology for this Indo-Bangladesh river. Heloworld321 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just quickly, those sorts of searches don't work. "Ganga" can refer to much more than the river, and while "Ganges" generally refers to the river, it can also be used to refer to things named in relation to the river, and this will invalidate the results. For example, after we ignore Wikipedia, in the first ten hits of your two Google searches we get only four hits which unquestionably refer to Ganges as the river, and only one which unquestionably refers to Ganga as a river.
 * Research like this is tricky, and would required individual examination of the articles and a solid methodology and selection criteria. Quick and dirty comparisons through Google are not going to give reliable data. There is a case to be made for change, but I don't see it being made on raw numbers, as they're impossible to give accurately, and there are other viable approaches. - Bilby (talk) 23:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreeing with Bilby on this one. Ganges and Ganga seem to be used by the Indian government with Ganges being more common in other sources. Because of this, I would oppose a move. Noom  talk stalk 23:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is true that there are many more alternative meanings of Ganga than there are of Ganges. There is a cricketer called Darren Ganga, who crops up a lot in news items, there are sundry people who have Ganga in their names, etc. Hence I always searched for news items that contained both Ganga/Ganges and the word "river". Even then there are false positives that have to be weeded out. The above Google Scholar search however is pretty sound; I had a look through the search hit pages, and Ganga does predominate in international scholarly discourse on the river. -- JN 466  23:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen: You didn't respond to my reply above. Your Google scholar search too has many false positives.  For one, many authors are using "Ganga Plain" for the "Gangetic Plain."  That will need to be factored in.  Just for that the false positives are 110: in other words, the 454 to 33* lead for Ganga vs. Ganges changes to intitle:"ganga" -"ganga plain" -"ganga plains" river (331), whereas intitle:"ganges" -"ganges plain" -"ganges plains" river (321)!  Besides, why should we be searching for "Ganga/Ganges" in the title and river in the text?  I claim that the choice alone favors "Ganga."  Why not search for "Ganges river" and "Ganga river" anywhere in the text.  That way there are no false positives.  In that search, as I've shown above, even for the last 10 years, "Ganges" outdoes "Ganga" by more than 100%.  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  00:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why a reference to the "Ganga plain" should be a false positive. The Ganga plain is the Ganga's flood plain. The search for Ganga or Ganges in the title was to capture writing that is about the Ganga river, as this article is. I understand that you may take a different view, but random passing references are to my mind of less interest. Regards. -- JN 466  01:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a false positive because the authors who use "Ganges" use the "Gangetic Plain," not "Ganges Plain") In other words, you would have to search for both "Ganges" and "Gangetic" to come up with an equivalent search.  And then, "Ganga" would be left behind.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen: Examine this search: intitle "gangetic" 2000-2010. There are 185 returns.  It has references not just to "Gangetic plain(s)," but also to "Gangetic delta," "Gangetic river Dolphin."  The "Ganga" search already includes "Ganga plain," "Ganga delta," "Ganga river dolphin."  You will agree, that a majority of the 185 "Gangetics" in the title will need to be added to the "Ganges" search results.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I follow your line of thinking, but 100 of the sources with Gangetic in the title refer to Ganga in the text (see my response above), which weakens your argument. -- JN 466  02:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just as an aside, references to "Ganga river dolphin" are almost non-existent in Google Scholar (just 6, vs. over 400 for "Ganges river dolphin)." This zoological name is one case where Ganges is unquestionably the right term. -- JN 466  02:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Jayen: Well, you do have a point about the 100 returns that have "Ganga" in title "Gangetic." However, my main point is still that your search is a biased one for the purposes of an encyclopedia.  An encylopedia is not a specialist publication.  It needs to have the most widely used name.  Clearly, in Google scholar, the most widely used name, no matter how you cut the pie is "Ganges river" not "Ganga river."  If I were formulating rules for prospective authors for a journal in hydrology, I might do your kind of search.  Besides, Wikipedia policy, clearly mentions, "In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies and scientific journals, ...  As I've already shown, most of these prefer "Ganges."  It is true that a raw count of Google News will show thousands of Indian publications (and their mirror sites) in India, but really how many of the Indian newspapers would be considered major English Language media outlets?  (Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, The Statesman, The (Calcutta) Telegraph, Indian Express, and maybe one or two more. Except for these all major media outlets around the world (even in Pakistan and Bangladesh) use "Ganges."  This will be my last post here.  But I sincerely believe "Ganga river" does not have Wikipedia-policy-based evidence in its support right now and it likely won't for the next few years.  When it does, I will be happy to support a change to "Ganga river."  Regards,  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll likewise bow out of this discussion for now and will leave this to other editors, but not before acknowledging that counting mere in-text mentions, rather than title mentions, Ganges outranks Ganga over the past ten years in Google Scholar: 11,000 for Ganga, 15,000 for Ganges. One might add that Bombay still outranks Mumbai over the same time period: 95,000 for Bombay, vs. 62,000 for Mumbai, and we still name our article Mumbai. However, the Ganges/Ganga situation is tighter than the Mumbai case, because Mumbai has been widely embraced by media worldwide, whereas Ganga has not, at least not to the same extent. The strongest argument in favour of Ganga remains WP:TIES, but the case is admittedly weaker than for Mumbai. Regards. -- JN 466  03:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually Ganges also refers to many other things than the river. If you just search 'ganges' on google many things come up including ganges restaurants, museums, tv programs, animals among others. Very few of them actually refer to the river ganges. But if you search Ganga on google web search, a large majority of them refers to the river Ganga. But yes there are many occasions where Ganges and Ganga fail to refer to the river. If we are to be very accurate, we would have to go through all these thousands of search results and look at what each of them refer to. Unfortunately since many of us cant do that, we would have to assume in good faith that all the search counts from both Ganges and Ganga are relevant. http://www.google.co.uk/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=ganga&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=b0dc1443d535784d http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ganges#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=ganges&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&fp=b0dc1443d535784d

Also, have a look on other links provide on this page too. I agree that google is not the ultimate tool to decide popularity of a terminology.I have to say that google is not a tool which can be used to measure the popularit of terminologies. It is not what Google is designed for. The vast majority of the west has access to internet whereas only a smaller percentage of people have acces to internet in Asia, especially India and Bangladesh. Therefore, coming to conclusions based on what google comes out with or even the internet is not a reliable way. It would only be a way of saying roughly which term is more popular in western europe and north america. But if we are to change the name of this article based on google searches, the name 'Ganga' clearly is the best suitor. Hence I say we change it to Ganga.

Another thing I would like to point out is that many many sources outside the Indian government use the word Ganga to refer to the river. Only western media refer to it as Ganges. Heloworld321 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Further Evidence: If you search the terms 'ganga RIVER' and 'ganges RIVER', you will see that there are 5,420,000 results for 'Ganga river' and 628,000 for 'Ganges river'. http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=737&q=ganga+river&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=737&q=ganges+river&aq=f&aqi=g-c1g1g-c1g1g-c2g1g-c1g1g-c1&aql=&oq= Clearly, the word Ganga is more popular when referring to the river. Frankly many google sources has already been used to prove Ganga is more popular than Ganges. I think we should move onto other reasons why we should/shouldn't keep the word Ganges on this article. Heloworld321 (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You stated above:
 * If we are to be very accurate, we would have to go through all these thousands of search results and look at what each of them refer to. Unfortunately since many of us cant do that, we would have to assume in good faith that all the search counts from both Ganges and Ganga are relevant.
 * I guess my core point is the you have it backwards, in that when the search is that messed up, with so many different terms, the search as a whole is invalidated. JN466's search methodology was stronger, but when I've been through it before I've found many instances where "Ganga" refers to the Goddess explicitly, and the mention of "river" is incidental, or where an author's name was Ganga and they were discussing a different river. This doesn't mean that JN466 is incorrect, as I think the decision to combine both words and limit the scope was wise, but that the results need to be taken (even in that case) under caution.
 * Looking at the first ten hits on each of your two modified Google searches: discounting hits to Wikipedia or mirrors, under "Ganges + river" we get seven hits to pages with "Ganges river" in the title. Using "Ganga + river", and the same approach, we get only two hits with the title exclusively referring to Ganga river, 2 hits that mention both Ganges and Ganga in the title, and five hits that mention exclusively "Ganges" in the title. Again, the situation is complex enough that raw Google counts don't help. - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If raw Google counts don't help perhaps we should turn to encyclopedias instead:
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (and last but certainly not least) Flamarande (talk) 08:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC) There are probably many more.


 * (In case no one has ever mentioned earlier) The RÁMÁYAN of VÁLMÍKI (Translated into English Verse by  Ralph T. H. Griffith, M.A.  Principal of the Benares College  London: Trübner & Co.  Benares: E. J. Lazarus and Co.  1870-1874) mentions Gangá at numerous places, perhaps more than Ganges. Notable is the mention of "Bhagírath's daughter is Gangá or the Ganges.".Just adding my 2 cents if this debate is not yet settled. असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 20:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)

Ritual purity
It is explicitly mentioned that the Hindu faith considers the waters to be pure as a matter of belief it isn't a scientific statement and can't questioned just as one can't question how a virgin could give birth or dead person come to life, or how a person pointed his stick or wand or something I am not sure about and the waters parted or that the earth was created in one day with one gender coming out of the navel or some other part of the anatomy of the other, I am not sure I never took theology lessons. Ganga's purity is a belief, is a matter of faith, it is not science, and should not be juxtaposed against a scientific fact, unless you want to insult the faith of people, a billion Hindus in this case. Editing out the extremely offensive text.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead
The lead has flip-flopped a couple of times now between two versions, that of Fowler&Fowler, and that of Yogesh Khandke. Yogesh's version is a little longer, and describes the river's course, as well as its distributaries and their names in greater detail. I haven't as of now a clear preference for either version; could editors involved please explain the merits and demerits of either version? -- JN 466  16:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My version is similar to the leads of Nile river, Indus river, Amazon river, Yangtze river and a few others. They mention the course in a general fashion, orienting the new reader to the basic geography, but not inundating them with excessive details.  What Yogesh Khandke version is about I can't be sure.  I suspect his lead is an elaborate attempt to claim the river for India.  It mentions "national river," even though that designation is a recent one (2008) by the government of the day to undo at a stroke not only independent India's long and relentless abuse of the river, but also its futile attempts to save the river in which millions of dollars have been swindled by corrupt officials.  Notice that YK's lead mentions nowhere that the river flows through Bangladesh! This is startling and in stark contrast to the Concise Britannica's one sentence lead: "Ganges River (Hindi Ganga): River, northern India and Bangladesh."  YK's lead goes into tortuous detail about which distributary is called what, all to show, I suspect, that the actual river doesn't flow through Bangladesh, only the distributaries do.  Again contrast this with what Britannica says (although not in its lead): "In West Bengal in India, as well as in Bangladesh, the Ganges is locally called the Padma."  Consequently, in YK's line of reasoning, since the river doesn't really flow through Bangladesh, it is really India's to call whatever it wants.     Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  17:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler we are here to quote sources, my edit The Ganga the 2,510 km (1,560 mi) river rises in the western Himalayas in the Indian state of Uttarakhand, it flows in the hills and plains in the states of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh and Bihar for about 2,075 km, and then branches into two distributaries in the district of Murshidabad, in the state of West Bengal, the Bhagirathi and Padma. The Padma is the main channel and flows through Bangladesh, where it meets the Meghna, a distributary of the Brahmaputra, taking its name thereafter, is from a scholarly source, and can be checked for misrepresentation. We are a bigger Encyclopaedia than Britannica, we are the future of how humans interact with knowledge. Are we Britannica underlings? My edit makes the situation clear that the river distributes in the state of West Bengal.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Improvement of the article
Fowler has tagged the article for improving the article. He is requested to discuss specifics so that the same would be done.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Google News
Here is a better (better, not perfect) Google News comparison. Sources are from the past year:


 * about 700 results for Ganga + river
 * about 400 results for Ganges + river

Results for the past month are almost exactly level:

Editors have rightly pointed out that Ganga occurs in many other contexts not relating to the river. Asking that "river" should occur as well in any search result mitigates that problem.

Another issue is that Google News indexing of Indian news sources is not as reliable as it is for Western sources. I have time and again come across Indian news articles in major papers like the Indian Express which simply failed to come up in Google News searches, even though they are online. As Ganga predominates in South Asian news sources, it's a reasonable assumption that Google News results are slightly skewed in favour of Ganges. -- JN 466  00:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is an example: This is the Indian Express article, this is the Google News archives search result for a phrase in that article. Google News just doesn't find it, while Google Web does. The Indian Express is a major Indian newspaper. There are more than a thousand hits for Ganga + river on the Indian Express website alone:. -- JN 466  00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to say I agree with this, that both Ganga and Ganges occur in many other contexts not relating to the river. It is a good indicator that google can't be used for these kind of purposes. Google is skewed towards western media too. This is one of the reasons why I say we cant depend on internet popularity when deciding whether to change the name of the article or not. We should just call this river by its official formal name which is Ganga and list the most popular name as a redirect onto the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heloworld321 (talk • contribs) 01:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Following a link to this page and reading this debate, I agree. Just because a name is the most popular name doesn't make it the right name.  If the right name is Ganga, then the title of the article should reflect it.  Heck, if it's a river, even use Ganga River.  Let's get the name right and redirect the rest.  (Heloworld, I have indented your comment above.)  CycloneGU (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * That is incorrect. It doesn't matter what is "right" - Wikipedia does not make such decisions. For what it is worth, I happen to agree that it should be referred to (in English-speaking countries) as "Ganga". However, my opinion is irrelevent. Fact is, it is not. It matters what is verifiable. It is a fact, as far as I can ascetain, that the majority of the English-speaking world calls it "Ganges" not "Ganga". The various arguments and statistical claims put forth on this page are unconvincing.  Chzz  ► 02:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comment
Sue Gardner commented on this issue the other day on her user talk page. Of course she is just another editor when it comes to content questions, but she had done some research and made some good points, which are worth reading: --- On the substance of the issue: the enWP guideline on naming conventions for geographic names calls for articles to be titled using widely-accepted English names that are in current usage. Personally, I think that Ganga fits that definition: it's used by multiple governmental and academic sources (examples here here here here and here), and it's also used in this American college geography textbook, this Indian geography textbook, the textbook used by Indians in preparation for the Indian civil service exam, and this environmental education textbook used by Indian polytechnic students. Ganga is also used in the Indian version of the Encyclopedia Britannica, as well as in this book from National Geographic. But honestly, although I do personally believe the name of the article should be Ganga, I am not actually trying to make that argument here. (And I am aware of the counter-arguments: that "Ganges" is also used inside India, that "Ganga" isn't very widely-understood outside Asia, and so forth.) --- I agree with that. -- JN 466  00:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What do either her random comments or your agreement with them bring to the table? As RegentsPark has pointed out on her talk page, her approach goes counter to Wikipedia policy and philosophy. Besides her reasoning is full of holes.  Why pick the Indian version of Britannica (whatever that is)?  It can be used for the Indian version of Wikipedia whenever that is ready.  Why not the main Britannica?  The Concise Britannica, for example, says: "Ganges River, Hindi Ganga, River, northern India and Bangladesh."  The main Britannica says: "Ganges River, Hindi Ganga, great river of the plains of northern India. Although officially as well as popularly called the Ganga in Hindi and in other Indian languages, internationally it is known by its conventional name, the Ganges."  She has to her credit acknowledged her lack of expertise in this matter.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  01:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To my understanding, en:WP is the Indian version of Wikipedia as much as it is the US, British or Australian or Philippine English version, because English is the primary language of education, government and the courts in India. By opening an office in India, the Foundation seeks to attract Indian editors to en:WP as much as to the smaller Indian regional-language Wikipedias. In addition, the Foundation's mission of providing free access to knowledge is particularly important in developing countries like India. -- JN 466  02:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If en:WP is the Indian version of Wikipedia, then the main Britannica is the Indian version of Britannica. My point is that her Britannica argument is phony.  Britannica, the major traditional encyclopedia, is clearly for "Ganges."  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  03:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

A main issue here is that Asia, the largest continent by area and population, refers to the river as Ganga. In fact it is the formal and official name of this river. It is only the Anglo-Saxon communities that refer to the river as Ganges. It would be wrong to say Ganges is the internationally accepted name of this river. Also, why should we copy Britannica? It is widely accepted that Britannica was created by the British to promote British culture and ideology to the rest of the world. We should call this page on Wikipedia what we think is appropriate to call it, not what Britannica says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.135.104 (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Just thought you might like to know - Britannica has been published in the U.S.A. since 1901 and is now owned by a Swiss billionaire. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

So I have to say I agree with Sue Gardner here. Heloworld321 (talk) 01:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Make no mistake, the argument for Ganga is not based on Sue's views on the issue, it is however heartening to note that another editor favours Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, just another editor whose views you went canvassing to ArbCom about not too long ago.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember that Sue - another editor who supports Ganga, which I am happy about, was ever canvassed by me, at Arbcom or elsewhere.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

National symbol how a FA treats them.
The Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is a bird of prey found in North America. It is the national bird and symbol of the United States of America.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 14:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ganges is not an animal. The Asiatic lion page mentions in its lead that the animal is misidentified as India's national animal; the Tiger page mentions that the tiger is the national animal of several Asian countries, including India's.  As for rivers, the Indus river, which is much more a river of Pakistan than the Ganges is of India, has nothing in its Wikipedia page about being a national river; the Nile, identified more with Egypt than the Ganges is with India, says nothing about its nationality, neither does the Amazon page about Brazil, nor the Yangtze page about China.  The Ganges is a trans-border international river.    Will the government of India be next designating the Himalayas India's national mountains? Or the Indian ocean, India's national ocean?  Pakistan, India's national enemy?  Kashmir, India's national hostage? The poor, India's national amnesia?   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well the page informs that the Asiatic Lion, isn't the national animal the tiger is, if other countries declare Ganga to be their national river this page would inform the readers so. The Ganga has been explicitly declared India's national river and symbol. Please do not abuse an editor's well sourced edits.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it is not well-sourced. It is insignificant and undue.  A preponderance of sources do not talk about it being "India's national river," and those that do, do not give it the level of prominence indicated by an article's lead sentence.  As I've already indicated the designation "national river," goes back to only 2008.  It should be seen as a political gimmick by the government of the day to quickly mask independent India's longstanding abuse of the river which now extends all the way up to the source of the river, as more and more Indians have to wherewithal to travel, to litter, to defecate and urinate right into the river, higher and higher up its valley.  I know, I've seen it.  Unacceptable levels of fecal coliform bacteria exist in Gangotri itself and high up the Alaknanda valley.    Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  02:53, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well sourced means sourced from a reliable source. The source is reliable. The above edit is no more than wp:OR, for instance please find a reliable source that says that the naming of Ganga as the national river is a political gimmick by the government of the day to quickly mask independent India's longstanding abuse of the river which now extends all the way up to the source of the river, as more and more Indians have to wherewithal to travel, to litter, to defecate and urinate right into the river, higher and higher up its valley., I know and I've seen it is wp:OR, please understand that this is not a forum or blog for the dissemination of an editor's view. This place is being mis-used.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That India declared the Ganges to be India's national river is a notable piece of information that unquestionably belongs in the article. -- JN  466  13:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Fowler
(1)Could you kindly list your objections and freeze it. You say Indian English isn't a dialect and then you add Pakistani English as a dialect, do you mean that Indian English isn't a dialect but Pakistani English is or are you just indulging in point? (2)The worlds most sold English language newspaper and the worlds largest circulated English language newspaper is an Indian news paper, not Guardian etc., it prefers Ganga, for links check archieves. (2)Ganga is understood across Asia, in Africa and as Jayen has evidenced predominates in scholarly works globally. (3)The river doesnt not run through India and Bangladesh. It distributes in Murshidabad district of West Bengal which is in India, its distributaries are Bhagirathi and Padma., at Pukur takes the branching away of its first distributary, the River Bhagirathi, the Padma is another distributary of the Ganga, which joins Meghna a distributary of the Brahmaputra and takes its name, Padma isn't the same as Ganga, the Ganga just as the Hoogly isn't the same as Ganga.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Padma isn't just another name for the Ganga, it is the name of its distributary.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:18, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Fowler mean to say that Wikipedia should wag its tail after the other encyclopaedias and the like? I doubt. Wikipedia should reflect reliable sources, tertiary sources are not first class wp:RS.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should reflect the sources that the rules say it should reflect - not your opinion of what sources it should reflect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:32, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Common names still dictates "Ganges". Maybe it won't be so in 25 or 50 years, but it is now. You can call it "Ralph" locally if you want to, but it's still "Ganges" in common usage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is your opinion, which isn't notable.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Every bit as notable as yours. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Bugs my opinion has zero value here, I am not opining, I have merely mentioned facts which have been supported by citations, please check archives too. Thanks.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then keep your trap shut about what you think "my opinion" is. The facts support that the people who speak English natively (which excludes India) call it "Ganges". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:24, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * (1)Talk page is not a forum for sharing opinion, which is what I meant, [2] I am not opining. [3] Wikipedia English encyclopaedia isnt just about native speakers of English, [4] it is about Global English and not about dialects of native speakers.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Inserted more numbers in your text for reference: (1) Sure. (2) Yes you are. (3) Who says so? (4) Define "Global English". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the most common name, and in scholarly publishing that is Ganga today. In present-day English-language news sources globally, it was close to 50:50 last time I looked. Per WP:ENGVAR and WP:TIES, we should privilege Indian usage, which for me pushes it over the edge. We should move to Ganga. -- JN 466  17:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is it called in countries whose primary language is English? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called the 'Ganges' in the United States, United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and Australia. These countries use the English language as their primary language (I'm guessing that that means main/native). Please take a look in the article English speaking world and Anglosphere. Flamarande (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it's "Ganges". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:36, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Use of Ganges is not ubiquitous in Western sources. -- JN 466  23:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Primarily "Ganges". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What is the policy basis for the "What's it called in countries where English is the primary language" criterion? -- JN 466  23:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Countries that just happen to use English as a second language don't get to dictate to the natively English-speaking countries as to what things are to be called in English... and certainly they don't get to dictate to wikipedia. The one user keeps arguing about "global" English. Well, in "global" English, it's still "Ganges". Once the London Times starts consistently calling it "Ganga", then you'll have something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So basically you are unable to point to any policy or guideline that would support your argument, right? -- JN 466  00:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure. "Common names", as has been stated on this talk page about two hundred times. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME says, "Generally, article titles are based on what reliable English-language sources call the subject of the article." So it refers to "reliable English-language sources", not "reliable sources from countries where English is the primary language". Do you wish to contend that the Times of India, the Hindustan Times, or the Indian Express are not "reliable English language sources"? We can take that question to the RS/N noticeboard, if you wish. -- JN 466  01:06, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: many online dictionary/definition services prefer or only list 'Ganges'.      Noom  talk stalk 00:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler
Fowler&fowler has clearly tapped with the evidence in his reference to major English language media outlets etc... because if you click his link you will see that he searched for 'ganga-darren-jean-claude' and listed the result count of that particular search as the result count for 'ganga'. Obviously, using all the extra nonsense reduces the result count of the 'Ganga' search. But when he searched using the term 'ganges', he did not include 'darren-jean-claude' (all the nonsense). He/she is clearly biased and not neutral. He/she cannot be trusted to provide proper evidence. I have used the same website he/she used and have listed the real search counts of some of them below (everybody is welcome to verify it). I have only listed the references for which Ganga has a higher search count out of all of fowler&fowler's references. The rest of the references that I have not listed below from his/her list has a lower 'Ganga' search count compared to 'Ganges'(although Ganga search count is still higher than what is listed there). I cant be bothered to list all of his references.


 * 1) Malaysia Star > Ganga(153) and Ganges(61)
 * 2) Dawn (Pakistan) > Ganga(96) and Ganges(39)
 * 3) World Bank > Ganga(2670) ang Ganges(1440)

In addition I have added some more references of my own below:
 * 1) Sri Lankan news outlets > Ganga(45) and Ganges(12)
 * 2) Nepalese news outlets > Ganga(1) and Ganges (0)

Clearly Asian countries, not just India, use the term Ganga more often than Ganges. Ganges is only popular with western media. Heloworld321 (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Vietnamese news outlets > Ganga(7) and Ganges(1)
 * Many of those news links, Helloworld, are about Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and Sir Ganga Ram. Pfly (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fowler is just trying to remove the name bias from his searches - as you (heloworld321) should be doing as well. You can't seriously be suggesting that the article should be at Ganga because "Daren Ganga", the cricketer, gets 93,600 hits. --rgpk (comment) 20:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * RegentPark's explanation seems to be on the dot, you helo haven't given Fowler's offending diff, so this is a hypothesis, Fowler has typed Ganga minus Darren minus what ever, which is what keeps the nonsense out of the search result such as for keeping Daren Ganga out as RegentPark points out. However he hasn't deleted similar unnecessary terms from Ganges, which would have kept animals hotels out as you point out, so it seems you are right too, without the diff it is a hypothesis.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If you just search 'ganges' on google web search many things come up including ganges restaurants, museums, tv programs, animals among others. Very few of them actually refer to the river. But if you search Ganga on google web search, a large majority of them refers to the river Ganga. But yes there are many occasions where Ganges and Ganga fail to refer to the river. If we are to be very accurate, we would have to go through all these thousands of search results and look at what each of them refer to. Unfortunately since many of us cant do that, we would have to assume in good faith that all the search counts from both Ganges and Ganga are relevant.
 * Search result for 'Ganga RIVER'(5,430,000) and search result for 'Ganges RIVER'(628,000)
 * Also, have a look on other links provide on this page too.
 * I agree that google is not the ultimate tool to decide popularity of a terminology. It is not what Google is designed for. The vast majority of the west has access to internet whereas only a smaller percentage of people have acces to internet in Asia, especially India and Bangladesh. Therefore, coming to conclusions based on what google comes out with or even the internet is not a reliable way. It would only be a way of saying roughly which term is more popular in western europe and north america. But if we are to change the name of this article based on google searches, the name 'Ganga' is clearly by far the most popular. It is the best suitor. Hence I say we change it to Ganga.
 * Heloworld321 (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Another important point raised by Heloworld is that internet use is less in Asia/ Africa than in UK/US/Aus/NZ/Can, so results for Ganga should be factored higher.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Helloworld321, you're mistaken in your reading - Google is not just "not the ultimate tool" but it is an entirely inadequate tool. And YK, you're mistaken there - China currently has the most internet users, and India is third. The main point: you're both guessing on the figures. I don't know if we should use Ganges or Ganga, but it is clear to me that a convincing argument will not rely on bad Google results for either side. The more time you spend trying to argue for raw Google searches, the less time you spend offering an argument that works - the problem with the debate so far is that no one has been able to offer a truly convincing argument, so reiterating poor ones doesn't progress the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 23:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Helloworld321 (and others) - you are 'campaigning' in the wrong place.

I agree that it should be referred to as "Ganga" and not "Ganges" (by the English-speaking world). However, it is not - as clearly demonstrated by the above work of Fowler&fowler (thanks for doing that, by the way).

The statistical claims you are making are simply not convincing.

I appreciate you want it to change - but, you are demanding change from the wrong people. The ones you need to address are the likes of CNN, BBC, Times Newspaper, and all those other media outlets.

Wikipedia is not in the business of starting any trends at all; we merely reflect the verifiable facts. It is abundently clear that (yes, wrongly) the majority of the English-speaking world calls it "Ganges" and not "Ganga".

Merely repeating your firm desire for "what is right" will not affect the actual facts.  Chzz  ► 03:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Section break

 * Chzz: This page is written in the Indian English dialect, which writes the name as Ganga, there is no campaign etc., there are title naming conventions, this article should follow it too. Jayen has demonstrated that there is a propensity for the use of Ganga world wide, Wikipedia should reflect it. Times is smaller than the Times of India, the largest circulating English broadsheet in the world, that is the status of English, non-native use of English has grown, which is why Ganga used oftener when the river is refered to in English as pointed out by Jayen and others above.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Bacteria
The article currently says,

''"Along the 4 miles (6.4 kilometres) in Varanasi, the water is a "brown soup of excrement and industrial effluents."[2] The water there contains 60,000 faecal coliform bacteria per 100 ml, 120 times the official limit of 500 faecal coliforms/100ml which is not considered safe for bathing.[2] Drinking and bathing in its waters therefore carries a high risk of infection."

The source says,

''"By official standards, water containing more than 500 faecal coliform bacteria per 100 millilitres is considered unsafe for bathing. As it passes Mr Mishra’s temple, at the upstream end of Varanasi’s 6.5km (4 mile) stretch of terraced riverbank, or ghats, the Ganges contains 60,000 bacteria per 100ml. Downstream of the ghats, where 60,000 devotees perform daily ablutions in the river and 32 streams of raw sewage empty into it, the figure rises to 1.5m. Two cremation grounds along the ghats, which dispose, wholly or partly, of 30,000 corpses a year, do not help. "

Our summary has a few potential problems. First, the source says that the concentration of bacteria is much higher after the ghats (1.5m), rather than constant along this stretch. Secondly, the source does not explicitly identify its 60,000 bacteria as fecal coliforms; it probably means those, but I would like us to look for a more authoritative source, just to be sure no wires have been crossed. If the journalist fouled up, then our "120 times the legal limit" is OR and wrong. Lastly, if the 1.5m does refer to faecal coliforms, then at the downstream end we're not at 120 times the legal limit, but much more. Comments and sources welcome. -- JN 466  16:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reply to this later, once I've examined the details.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  18:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless, I think the 'brown soup of excrement" phrase should go. At best, that is a personal expression of the writer of the Economist article and can scarcely be considered encyclopedic. --rgpk (comment) 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Regents Park makes a valid point here. -- JN 466  16:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The abstract of this paper speaks of up to 100,000,000 coliform bacteria per 100 ml in Varanasi. That's three orders of magnitude greater than the Economist. The same claim is made in this article in the International Journal of Microbiology. -- JN 466  16:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

delta

 * 1) The Ganges delta is defined (Rob 1989) as the area, limited in the west by the Hugli and the east by the Lower Meghna, with its apex at the Bhagirathi off-take in India - an area of 60 500 km2. The Brahmaputra adds, at a minimum, the area of alluvions (2000 km2) between the Dhaleswari and the Ganges south of the Madhupur terrace, while the Meghna adds only its own channel bed (500 km2) from the confluence of the Kushiara and the Surma to the confluence with the Ganges. The total area of the GBM delta, shown in Figure 2, can therefore be considered as 63 000 km2. quoted from one of the citations i added. An accurate and universally accepted definition of Ganges and GBM delta could be useful to the readers. it is hard to make an accurate sense out of this, not having a good map that has all these rivers mentioned in the quote. --CarTick (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This reference says the delta is 1.5 million sq.km. --CarTick (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

haridwar dam
i am looking for a reference for this. i found this 2010 book. looks like it was copied from wikipedia. i am sure someone else can find a better reference. --CarTick (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There's no dam in Hardwar. There are the headworks of the Ganges Canal (now the Upper Ganges Canal) a mile downstream of Hardwar in Mayapur.  There is no dam across the Ganges itself there, but only across a side stream of the Ganges from which the canal takes off.  I have pictures of this regulator bridge (which I believe is the proper term), which I will upload and post later when I'm more predisposed to editing this page.  There is a dam (or more properly) a weir or barrage across the Ganges at Narora in Bulandshahar District just before the Lower Ganges Canal takes off.  I have pictures of the lower Ganges canal as well, which too I will upload later.  All in all, if you include the Mayapur regulator bridge, there should be at least three dams across the Ganges proper (in addition to the Tehri Dam, a serious dam across the Bhagirathi river in Tehri Garhwal and other dams across other headstreams of the Ganges, such as that across the Dhauliganga near Tapovan).   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I have already posted two distant views of the Mayapur Regulator in Company rule in india.  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * that confirms my theory about the book except that the wikipedia article calls it a barrage and the book calls it a dam. the section is still incomplete as i still could not find an authoritative source for the exact number of dams and barrages that stand across the river. i suppose it is not too many and am surprised by that. could it be because after the Ganges enters the plateau, the landscape remains flat (does it?) for the rest of its journey? i have never travelled in that part of India. besides, we should not confuse the readers with barrages and regulator bridges made across side streams and canals with dams and barrages constructed across the main river. --CarTick (talk) 23:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup, it is flatter than flat for the rest of its course (unlike the peninsular rivers).  Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about barrages, let alone barrages on the Ganges, but seeing this on the page, "There are two major barrages on the Ganges.[dubious – discuss]" Well, we do have two pages that say they are about barrages on the Ganges: Farakka Barrage and Ganges Barrage... Pfly (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see... The Ganges Barrage is not complete--more of a bridge than a dam at this point, I guess? Pfly (talk) 00:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Cawnpore
This is an unnecessary British romanisation, it is redundant and needs to be removed. Please see earlier edit.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The place was called Cawnpore by the British in 1854, after the construction of the Ganga canal. page 16, the picture is pre-British, no need to use British romanisation in an IE article, absolutely no need now.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * More inaccuracies. Both the term "Cawnpore" and the British presence there is much older than the Ganges Canal.  The British acquired the Ceded and Conquered Provinces, of which Cawnpore was a part, in 1802.  The name and spelling is even older.  Here are 500 odd references to pre-1802 Cawnpore.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  23:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * My statement is based on a source that says "The scattered and different villages which had a population of only a few thousand was now a complete city called Cawnpore by the British." Emphasis in the original text. page 16. On the other hand Fowler has shared lists, dispatches etc., that show a earlier instance of Cawnpore, which is quoting from primary sources, which isn't the perfect thing, if wants to disprove the above assertion he needs to share a source that says, the place was called Cawnpore by the British in so and so year etc., that is how sources are to be used on Wikipedia. If he does so then it is two sources disagreeing with each other, if more sources say Cawnpore is old, and they are of a stature equal to the one that says that Cawnpore is post-1854, that statement would prevail. Any way as I wrote that is secondary, the primary issue is that a British spelling should not be used, in a IE article, except if there is a quotation or the like, this is not my whim, etc., but this is what the IE tag informs. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Even more inaccuracies. Your source, a book on Informal Sector Workers, which has an obligatory/gratuitous chapter on "History," says in this chapter, "The Cavalry Lines were situated on the Ganga river.  The Company Bagh was founded in 1847 and the construction of Ganga Canal was started in 1854.  The escattered and different villages, which had a population of only a few thousand was now a complete city called "Cawnpore" by the British."  The text has both historical and grammatical errors.  The Ganges Canal was opened (ie. the construction was finished) in 1854, the construction began in 1846 (and for some lines even earlier).  It says that the "scattered and different villages" (in contrast to "scattered and identical villages") were now a complete city, which the British called "Cawnpore."  Nowhere does it say that the British weren't calling it Cawnpore ten, twenty, thirty, forty or even fifty years earlier.   Fowler&amp;fowler  «Talk»  07:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Villages were now a complete city which the British called "Cawnpore", now and not before, any ways this is an IE article and no British spellings, where they differ from Indian spellings, please, I have repeatedly said this before, and am not saying this now. Thanks for going through the source though, others don't even bother to do that. I don't say you are not right, I just say that your method isn't right, just as a primary sources the Constitution of India, cannot be used as a source, for the India, that is Bharat inclusion. You have to be a little patient with the rules.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2011 (UTC)