This is an archive of past discussions about Ganges. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This went much faster than I expected. But I've been staring at it way too long and can no longer see straight. I'll have to come back later to look with fresh eyes, but I thought I'd post it here too (obviously, it's not meant to be very legible at 400 pixels wide; click for larger view; full size is 1,405 pixels wide). Any mistakes? Is it too busy? The text is rather dense in places, especially Bangladesh. Too dense? Anything important missing? Non-important things better cut? "Myanmar" or "Burma"? Etc etc. There are a number of things I wanted to include, but left off due to lack of space. I'm not sure whether the text can or should be smaller, trading ease of reading for clutter reduction. I'm not sure about many other things—colors, shading, borders, spellings, and more, but I can't think clearly anymore. Will return later. Pfly (talk) 08:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. You're probably right about the Yamuna. I had its line about equally thick as the Ganges, but reduced it, for several half-baked reasons. I'll thicken it back up. Pfly (talk) 08:36, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
great. surprise, i wasnt expecting that soon. looks busy, but, it is a busy area. i cant find any faults as it is. i am assuming we can always fix it if anyone spots any error in the future. --CarTick (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I made a few small tweaks, trying to improve the legibility in busy areas (mostly a bit of masking out linework under lettering). Also added "Tsangpo" in parentheses after "Yarlung Zangbo", because the spelling "Tsangpo" seems very common. I wanted to add alternate spellings for other rivers, especially "Ganga", but felt it would just make things more busy and possibly confusing. There was plenty of room in Tibet for "Tsangpo". I've added it to the page, in the Hydrology section. Please feel free to edit however seems best—change the caption, the image size (the 380 pixel thumbnail is perhaps too big), move elsewhere on page, etc. I might go try to improve some of the pages on other rivers in this GBM basin, many of which are in desperate need of work. Some don't even have pages. For example, there's a Lower Subansiri Dam page but no Subansiri River page, as far as I can tell. Pfly (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it's not a picture of the Indo-Gangetic Plain(s). The NASA caption for the picture says, "Pollution over Bangladesh and Eastern India" or words to that effect. Why is it not the Indo-Gangetic Plain? For, one the Indo part is missing, i.e. there is no alluvial plain of the Indus and its tributaries. It is not even the Ganges Plain; well, it has more than that. It has the parts of Tibet and the Himalayas and more confusingly, it has the Chota Nagpur plateau, which is really a part of peninsular India and is not alluvial. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
(uninded) I just found out that the lower Son has an extremely wide bed, 3 miles wide in many places; but except in the monsoon season, when it fills up, the bed is a dry one, with a straggling (read fordable) stream running through it. In other words, what we are seeing in the satellite picture is the river bed, which becomes very wide once it leaves the central Indian plateau and enters the Gangetic plain. Fowler&fowler«Talk»06:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion
This image, allegedly of Hardwar, has been added by Redtigerxyz. How do we know it is Hardwar? How do we know it is the Ganges? There are scores of other sacred rivers in India where evening Aartis are conducted.
Editor Redtigerxyz is making quick edits without any real explanation in the edit summary. He removed the headwaters map on the grounds that it is unreadable. When I challenged that, he has replaced it again with a tired old Devprayag image, which has been moved to the Commons Gallery. Can he please explain what he is doing. He's also twice added an image, which is from Flikr and is a staged picture of upper-class out-of-towners with priests hamming it up for the camera. I've been told this by Hardwar residents. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
PS, Besides it is unencyclopedic. How do we know it is Hardwar? Why couldn't it be Rishekesh? Or even another river altogether? It reminds me of an oft-used Bengal tiger image from a zoo, which is in fact an image of a Siberian tiger! Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) About the "headwaters map", you can't read the map on this page or on the image description page. You have to click on it again and see it in full size then only can you read the image, else it appears just as black lines with unreadable captions.
About the arati image, Please see the flickr description tags for location. "is a staged picture of upper-class out-of-towners with priests hamming it up for the camera. I've been told this by Hardwar residents."[original research?] The arati event wants happens every evening in the same devotional fervour. Anyone who has seen the arati can attest to it. --RedtigerxyzTalk16:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are the one engaging in original research. The Flikr site merely says Ganga Kinaaray, which I'm told, means "by Ganga's edge." It says nothing about Hardwar, much less the particular location or the Aarti. Besides, why should we take the Flikr photographer's word for it? There is nothing in the picture that identifies it with either Hardwar or the Ganges. An encyclopedia can't have anonymous pictures. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:28, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The Tags section of the Flickr page says "Haridwar" clearly. "Besides, why should we take the Flikr photographer's word for it?" The same reason why we are accepting the word of the flickr photographer of File:Burning ghats of Manikarnika, Varanasi.jpg? Why can't this be a cremation ghat some other place? "An encyclopedia can't have anonymous pictures." So pictures by me and you and almost whole of wikipedia should be deleted as they are pictures by anons hiding under an user name, same as the flick users. --RedtigerxyzTalk17:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm happy to remove the Varanasi Ghat image. It it a little anonymous, but not as anonymous as the Hardwar image. It is certainly not staged, with the priests desperately trying to look at the camera. Fowler&fowler«Talk»19:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I find the headwaters map useful. It doesn't make a good thumbnail image, but the caption explains what it is quite well. I wouldn't have been able to understand the headwaters (or rewrite the "course" section to explain it more clearly) without that map. Also, I thought about adding one of the photos of Devprayag from the Commons, but none seemed to me a great photo. This one is in shadow. Another at the Commons is well lit, but "washed out" colors. Pfly (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I have now replaced the old Varanasi cremation ghat image and the Hardwar image from Flikr with two images from the British Library. Both images are not only not anonymous, but also much more relevant to the accompanying text. Fowler&fowler«Talk»01:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You can't. With the exception of the Hardwar evening image, they are all copyrighted images. The Hardwar image is fine, but I believe the 1885 Varanasi image I have added is more encyclopedic and more relevant to the text as it actually shows people bathing and it also shows the steps of a Varanasi ghat, which are mentioned in the story. Thanks for trying, but I believe we are OK now. Fowler&fowler«Talk»08:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The topic is about "purifying", not bathing at Ghats. I have also provided links to explain this. I don'tthink that "bathing in Ganga at a ghat" would exhaustively the topic of discussion but the picture of Kumbh Mela ritual at 'Haridwar' is very apt - therefore explained by the reference material in the link above.
I'm afraid you haven't read the text. Bathing is purifying. How else are you going to purify if not bathe? Besides the text describes a ghat in Varanasi. There are no Kumbh Melas there. I think we are OK with that subsection. Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There is already a Har-Ki-Pauri picture in the section. This one is very similar. Besides the immersion of ashes is only obliquely mentioned. We have no way of knowing it is reliable. The text in the subsection is about a ghat in Varanasi, not Hardwar. The photograph I have added is impeccably sourced. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
This is not an article about Gandhi. How does that picture help a reader who doesn't already know about Indian culture? Again, the text talks about dying in Varanasi, how does a picture of Gandhi's ashes being immersed in Allahabad help the reader? Besides, the picture is of such poor quality that how is anyone to make out what is happening in the picture? The picture I have there in the redemption part shows an uninformed reader how Hindu cremations on the banks of the Ganges in Varanasi actually take place or rather took place a century ago. There's no hype in it, just the plain facts. Thisthat2011, I am showing great patience with you, but you keep going on without regard to what anyone is saying. To your credit you did remove both the pictures in the history section, yours as well as Yogesh Khandke's (there goes the theory that you might be a sock of Yogesh Khandke. :)), and that's the only reason why I'm still engaging you. Please show some respect for other editors work, editors who have spent a long time building content on Wikipedia. You should be learning at this stage rather than waging POV wars that you are ill-equipped to wage. Please figure out, for example, how to not write long, long, url's on this page. They are ugly to read, the cause eye-strain to the reader. You are unable to write clearly in English or understand what other readers are saying. This has already been pointed out to you by others, for example, on Talk:India. This is the time to improve your Wiki-skills and not keeping on repeating yourself aggressively. If you don't stop, you will likely face editing restrictions, and then you will become bitter and perhaps even leave Wikipedia, blaming everyone but yourself, when the fault will lie entirely with you. Fowler&fowler«Talk»23:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I put a link to a picture and do not understand how I got this long reply from your side. The caption of the current picture can be unchanged for picture suggested from my side, which also indicates that offering ashes to Ganga is a good option available, not just offering dead body. How is this POV war? The picture is more relevant than century old ritual too. Yogesh Khandke the other guy left just because people are not ready to understand that Bharat is another name of the country, for those are their last comments visible, which is not a surprise considering how admins are not aware of it what people in India talk everyday and absent in English literature. Anyways, I would suggest that you do have immense talent, clarity and work to show all this, better to improvise by being unattached, it will help you the most amongst everyone..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..05:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
It's true that many many readers will have no clue about the role of the Ganges/Ganga in Indian culture, won't know what a ghat is, will not have heard of Varanasi, etc. Linking to pages about these things helps of course, but it would be nice if images made a hint of sense for uninformed readers skimming the page (for example, File:Evening Aarti at Har-ki-Pauri, Haridwar.jpg doesn't make sense by itself, to me). Also, okay, I just looked at ghat, which seems to say it involves stairs, yet there are no stairs in this old photo, File:HinduCremationVaranasi1903.jpg. I'm guessing stairs are not an absolute requirement for a place to be called ghat, but my uncertainty serves as an example of how little many readers will know about this topic. Since the Ganges is one of the world's most important rivers, the page should be written with the assumption that readers will know very little about it. Just something to keep in mind, thanks. Pfly (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
The cremation picture in the Redemption of the Dead section has no steps, but then neither the text in that section nor the accompanying photo caption mentions "ghat." It simply says cremation on/along the banks of the river. It is the next section that mentions ghat and the accompanying picture there of the women and children bathing and collecting water does have steps. Pfly, if you have the time, could you critique the text from the point of view of an uninformed reader (and I obviously don't mean that you are uninformed, but simply that I might not be as objective—having just written the text—in imagining the uninformed reader as you.) Fowler&fowler«Talk»02:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Sure, when I get the chance. I haven't read it closely yet, my comment above was largely a reaction to the discussion here on the talk page. And it's true, as regard to Indian culture and religion, I think I am woefully uninformed (although I've learned a lot in the last month or so). Also, so a ghat does require steps? My post was a little confused. In part I was trying to say that the cremation photo was more meaningful by itself to someone like me than was the "Evening Aarti at Har-ki-Pauri" photo. Pfly (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Here is a gallery of pictures I have just uploaded to Wikipedia. All are depictions of the goddess Ganga in sculpture, the earliest dating to 6th century CE, the latest to 16th century CE. Please advise if any are appropriate for the article. The current picture at the top of the Religious significance section has very little information. I'm afraid it won't pass muster at GAC or FAC.
PS The sculptures, all shown in photographs (or sketches) made by British or Indian photographers (or artists) working in the 19th century, are spectacular. It is hard to believe that many have survived some fifteen centuries. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Photograph titled, "Portion of a lion capital and a statue of Ganga, from Beshnagar, Bhopal State," Date of sculptures: Gupta Period, 5th or 6th century CE. Photographer: Beglar, Joseph David. Date of photograph: 1875. The sculpture on the right shows the goddess Ganga (Ganges) on her mount, the Makara, a mythical crocodile or aquatic creature.
In this 1871 photograph, in the right panel, Shiva (four-handed in the middle) is shown assisting Ganga (on the left) in her descent to (or arrival on) earth from heaven. On the right are shown Parvati, Shiva's consort and in the top right, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, the three major male deities of Hinduism, watch. Sculpture is from 6th century CE.
The damaged photograph taken in 1868 shows the goddess Ganga (Ganges) carved in the doorway. The goddess is on her mount, Makara, the mythical underwater monster. The sculpture is from the Vijayanagara period, mid-16th century.
Pencil (on paper) sketch titled "Ellora: Tandava from Dumar Lena (left), Nilkanth (centre), Figure from Cave XXIV," made in 1877 by surveyor: Burgess, James (1832-1916). The sketch shows (center and right) two statues of the goddess Ganga at the Ellora Caves site. In both, Ganga is on her mount, the Makara, a mythical aquatic monster. The left statue was damaged at the time the sketch was made.
Photograph of the goddess Ganga (shown on the far panel, left wall) with left hand resting on a child's head from the Rameshwar Temple in Ellora, India. Date of Sculpture, 6th century
Photograph titled "Rameshwar cave [Ellora]" taken after the excavation was complete and the entire length of the goddess Ganga was revealed showing her standing on the aquatic monster Makara.
Photograph titled "Façade of the Shrine of the River Goddesses, Kailasanatha rock-cut temple, Ellora" showing from left to right the river goddesses, Sarasvati, Ganga, and Yamuna. Date of sculptures: mid-8th to 9th century CE
Photograph titled, "Shrine of the River Goddesses - north side of Kailas Court Kailasanatha Cave Temple, Cave XVI, Ellora." It shows from left to right: Saraswati, Ganga, and Yamuna. Date of sculpture: mid-8th to 9th century CE.
Photograph titled, "Close view of carved figure of Ganga at base of pillar of gopura of the Narasimha Temple, Ahobilam," photographer unknown, but taken for the Archaeological Survey of India. Date of photograph 1875. Date of sculpture: mid-16th century. Ganga is standing on Makara an aquatic monster.
Photograph titled, "Close view of figure of Ganga at base of pillar of the gopura of the Jalakanteshvara Temple, Vellore 2724," Sculpture in Vijayanagara Style dates to the 16th century. Taken for the Archaeological Survey of India by an unknown photographer. Date of photograph: 1875
Photograph titled, "Statue of Ganga, Jagannatha Temple, Puri," of the river goddess Ganga riding on the aquatic monster Makara. Date of sculpture: 12th century CE. Photographer: Poorno Chondro Mukherji. Date of photograph: 1895.
The sculpture, from the early 5th century CE, shows Vishnu as Varaha, his boar incarnation, rescuing Bhudevi (or the goddess Earth). In the side of the panel are shown the river goddesses, Ganga riding the Makara crocodile or monster and Yamuna riding a turtle. Photograph taken in 1875.
PS My own view is that if a gallery like the one above is OK in the article (I've seen them in FAs), then we could have a one-row gallery which includes four pictures: numbers 1, 5, 8, and 10 (from top left and proceeding by row from left to right). Alternatively, 10 could e replaced by 2 (if the "descent" is important to depict). Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Updated Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Religious and cultural significance section
Latest comment: 13 years ago20 comments3 people in discussion
In starting to read this section more carefully now, the text makes me wonder what the religious impact of the partition of Bangladesh/East Pakistan meant for Hindus. "Losing" the mouths of the Ganges must have been a blow, in terms of religion, mustn't it? I wonder if something should be said about the partition of the river in the history section. Pfly (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Another question, reading the sentence, In late May or early June every year, Hindus celebrate the avatarana or descent of the Ganges from heaven to earth. I searched for a page about avatarana and ended up at avatar. Would it be proper/useful to link to that, or no? Pfly (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yet another question (maybe I should make a new section for this): The avatarana is an old theme in Hinduism with a number of different versions of the story. In the Vedic version, Indra, the Lord of Svarga (Heaven) slays the celestial serpent, Vritra, releasing the celestial liquid, the soma, or the nectar of the gods which then plunges to the earth and waters it with sustenance. Is this saying that in Vedic mythology the Ganges is soma? Pfly (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
One more question for now, then sleep. She is then led by the waiting Bhagiratha down into the plains at Haridwar [...] and eventually to Ganga Sagar, where she meets the ocean, [...]. I see that "Ganga Sagar" is piped to Ganges Delta, but I can't help but wonder whether there is a connection with Sagar Island? Pfly (talk) 04:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't know about the Bangladesh/East Pakistan loss. The Ganga Sagar is on the Hooghly branch of the Ganges Delta and that is still in India. I don't think there were too many Hindu pilgrimage sites in East Pakistan. The region had been overwhelmingly Muslim for many centuries. Having said that, I should also say that I'm not an expert on this topic. The river waters issues was an important issue at the time of the partition, but it was mostly about the Punjab rivers (ie. Indus and its tributaries) which first passed through India but most of whose courses lay in Pakistan. Much later on, Farraka did become an issue.
Q2: I asked someone and they said that "Avatarana" is pronounced 'uhvuh-tuhruhn (the last a is silent); "avatar" in contrast (as we know) is pronounced 'ahvuh-tahr. The word, "avatarana," according to them, means "landing or touchdown" ie "descent" They're not sure it is related to avatar.
Q3: Well, I gather from Eck's paper that the Vedic version involves descent of sacred celestial waters to the earth, but there is no mention of the Ganges there. So the "avatarana," meaning "descent," is an old theme, but not necessarily the "avatarana of the Ganges." Perhaps the subsection title should be: Avatarana, or descent, of the Ganges.
Fwiw, I've always pronounced "avatar" æ-va-tar, or a-vah-tar, with the æ or a like "pat". But for me the term has always meant something more secular/philosophical than religious. It's commonly used in the US for a digital picture of one's online self. Anyway, really to bed now! Pfly (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Avatar is pronounced as "a-va-taa-ra", like how Bharat should be written in English as "Bhaarata" - a single a as a in "spiral" and aa as a in "India".
This makes me wonder, is "Ganga" considered Sanskrit? Isn't it pronounced "gunga"? In my head, I still can't help sounding it out like "ganga". Pfly (talk) 05:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it is as in Gunga Din. the last a as in "ah" It is true, as Thisthat2011 says, that there is a half "uh" sound at the end of consonants in Sanskrit, but it is common these days in Hindi to not pronounce them. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ganga should be pronounced as "Ga-n-gaa" - Ga as ga in "regal", n as n in India (not na as "renal") and gaa as ga in "Lady Gaga". If you speak Ganga as "Gangaa" and not as "the Ganjee"(which means vests for men in some languages), people would not be repelled by this lost meaning in translation - I would suggest..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म..05:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I was just going to say I pronounce the a in spiral like 'uh'. But this is getting off topic. Interesting though. Pfly (talk) 05:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my instinct is to pronounce Ganga "GAN-guh". Sigh. Ok, really really to bed now. Pfly (talk) 05:33, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh I understand. It's just that my instinct hasn't caught up with my understanding yet. More tomorrow. Pfly (talk) 06:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I finished reading through the section and it read well to me. No further questions. It did strike me as slightly odd that the Ganges/Ganga can be considered "pure" while at the same time being obviously polluted. But I understand the difference between sacred and mundane "purity", and sentences like "What the Ganges removes, however, is not necessarily physical dirt, but symbolic dirt; it wipes away the sins of the bather, not just of the present, but of a lifetime" make that point clear. It seems that there are strains of Hinduism that might accord the river true purity and the ability to cure disease and other worldly ills. But if so that is hardly something unique to Hinduism, and nothing to be surprised about (there are Christian sects in which baptism is seen in a similar way). Anyway, the whole section reads very well; is not confusing for the "uninformed"--even inspires one to learn more about the topic. Well done. Pfly (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If I succeeded it is due in no small measure to Diana Eck, who is a superb writer. In contrast, in the geology bit, I haven't been able to find anything comparable (plus the field of foreland basin geology is still quite new and riven with lack of consensus), so I'm still floundering. Yes, the Jordan River, where John baptized Jesus, has similar sacred status. Sorry, I removed the bit you had added mainly because I couldn't fit it in with Eck's subdivisions. But, maybe now, that the section is more complete, I'll look for some comparative religions references. Yes, there is the gulf between symbolic and real purity. There is a book in the references section: Alley, Kelly D. (2002). On the Banks of the Ganga: When Wastewater Meets a Sacred River. University of Michigan press. ISBN0-472-06808-3., which specifically addresses this issue. I think it is available for preview on Google. She also written a paper, available for free download, which I will soon add to the references. Thanks again for critically reading the section. Fowler&fowler«Talk»05:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You're very welcome. No worries about the bit I added--it was just something I came across and added, no biggie either way. I'll see if I can find anything useful wrt geology, thought probably not anytime soon. Pfly (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
POV pushing in history section.
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion
I believe both current pictures in the history section are not very relevant. They are both rather fanciful representations of things associated with the Ganges by artists who had never set foot in India. The etching uploaded by Thisthat2011 is just as unrealistic. Turner had never been to India. I have at least 8 representations of Ganga the goddess from classical Indian sculpture that I will add to this page soon. I'd like to hear other editors views on whether, how, and where to include them. The current ones, though, I believe are not the best, both the Italian baroque and the British landscape art. Fowler&fowler«Talk»09:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
That's of course a famous sculpture, but it is not unambiguously about the "Descent of the Ganges." 50% of the experts think it is about Arjun's Penance (and has nothing to do with Ganga) and the other 50% think it is about the Descent of the Ganga and has nothing to do with Arjun. See, for example, Two interpretations. I have much better pictures of the Mahabalipuram sculpture, but I didn't upload it for this very reason. So, it's not a good idea to have a picture about which even the experts are disagreed. They don't belong to the history section anyway. Fowler&fowler«Talk»15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid, Arjuna's penance has nothing to do either with the Ganges or the goddess Ganga. That's the reason why it is not an apt illustration. Only 50% of the experts believe it is about Ganga in any form or context. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Descent of Ganga
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, for the Avatara/descent part, perhaps this image is much better [| Gomukh] or [| Gomukh, source of Ganga], from the article Gomukh is much better and more apt.
The festival "Ganga Dassehra" celebrates the Avatarana of descent, of the Ganges. That is the main point in the first paragraph there! Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Pfly on both points: that the Gangotri glacier picture is the better one and that it could go in the course section. Also, since you have the new basin map, you could remove the old 1908 map if you'[d like. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Suggesting this pic for Avatarana section : Ganga Avataran episode- Shiva with Goddess Ganga (Ganges) in his matted locks. ..calling all the animals and the whole of nature to respond to him.
-- space for the pic otherwise it would break into the next section --
Latest comment: 13 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion
A depiction of the goddess Ganga astride her mount, Makara, an aquatic monster.Chromolithograph, "Indian woman floating lamps on the Ganges," by William Simpson, 1867.
I would like to swap the picture of Ganga riding her mount, Makara, which has no information about itself, or its provenance, with a painting of an Indian woman floating a lamp on the Ganges, which I believe is more relevant to the text in the subsection Embodiment of sacredness, which specifically mentions floating lamps on the Ganges. It might be more instructive for the uninformed. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
PS I have no idea where this goddess painting is from, or how old it is. The mount is non-traditional. The word Makara means a crocodile like monster, and all depictions in the sculptures above are crocodile like, so I don't know where this dolphin-like mount has come from. It says it's from the French wikipedia, but that's not enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Don't agree. The other painting does not even look like Ganga because she is wearing a gown(looks like a European/Arab on Ganga river bank!!) and in India people wear Sari. The current picture is very apt. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201107:19, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You can agree or disagree only after you have read the text correctly. The woman is not the goddess Ganga, but an Indian woman. She is wearing a Lehenga/Ghagara and choli, which is a perfectly legitimate Indian attire. Again wide off the mark. I suggest you not rely on experience to edit Wikipedia on the fly. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Let this be a warning, Thisthat2011, you are opposing me here in a knee-jerk fashion, often not even reading the text, often writing garbage such as the woman being un-Indian because she is not wearing a sari. Please be aware that the evidence of your tendentious editing is mounting. It is now bordering on the disruptive across a number of Wikipedia pages, If you don't hold your horses, you'll likely face editing restrictions. Think about this long and hard now; otherwise, you will by default when you are no longer able to edit. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
As it is, the current picture - very symbolic - looks more apt than the lady offering lamps - which is very normal and not exhaustively symbolic as per me.
I am not opposing you, I am saying what it appears to look. Please don't take it personally. As I said, the features of the woman look more like European/Arab woman, and I have seen much more pics in Saris, and I am discussing the issue here, not editing. I am not editing the page at all, if you noticed - which is hardly about editing restrictions - but discussing significance of symbolism here - which according to you are disruptive and worth giving warnings as usual. It may be a good option to ban for you or other admins - who even don't know that Bharata is another name of India - a fact as clear as daylight in India. For me, what I am doing is not a choice as such but good work, and anyways banning edits etc. is a choice of admins, so I have nothing more to say on that. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201109:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that William Simpson—an artist who had a slightly caricature-like style, who spent a number of years in India, and who was capable of paintings such as
Thanks for pointing that out, indeed my knowledge about Mr. William Simpson is not too good at all. The point I am making here is that the first image is more apt, and has much more symbolism.
As about your comments on 'holding my horses', this attitude is indeed novel. In India various views from different angles is part of diversity, and usually people are not hostile at all about it. This is part of the culture, and can not be learnt in the schools. I guess in U.K., if someone pushes his own understanding over natives, a lot of reactions would be expected too. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201110:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
May I suggest that, in the image above of Ganga on her mount, the "Makara" is rather dolphin-like (albeit with legs) rather than crocodile-like due to the fact that Ganges River Dolphins were common in the river until fairly recently (I was fortunate enough to see several up close at Varanasi in 1973). Sadly, I gather they are facing extinction now. Cheers, John Hill (talk) 10:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
John Hill: I do understand that (and I envy you your first hand experience of the river dolphins). In fact, as you will note here, I had inserted "Ganges river dolphin" in the caption accompanying the picture. At that time, however, I wasn't aware of other depictions of her mounts. But then, as I examined the British library collection, see the 12 pictures upstairs, I realized that the usual mount, a Makara is more crocodile like. Crocodiles too are found in the Ganges, as areGharials, which have long narrow snouts. My problem is that I can't figure out where this painting has come from and I'm beginning to suspect that it might be the work of a French wikipedian, user:Nataraja, who seems to be some kind of graphic artist as well. The French Wikipedia article on the goddess Gangâ, which has been edited by user:Nataraja, however, doesn't have this Ganga picture! If it is the work of another Wikipedian, then it doesn't really qualify as a traditional depiction of a goddess which an encyclopedia is obligated to present first, before the novel modern ones. Any help in figuring this out will be greatly appreciated. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I really don't know how to reply to all this. I have had a quick check around and have not been able to discover much that is new. The origin of this unusual image is not given - just that it was uploaded by User:Nataraja. If the image was originally created by him, it would seem it has no place in Wikipedia. He claims to have left the Wikipedia in 2006 but has left a note on his page that one can leave a message for him. Perhaps you could try this first. If he doesn't answer I would think the image should be removed from the three or so articles it is on at the moment. Would you be willing to leave him a message? I am really hectic at the moment as I am getting ready to a 2 month trip which I leave on next week Saturday. Certainly feel free to contact me again but I may only have sporadic internet contact as I will travelling much of the time in remote areas of Xinjiang. So, don't worry if you don't hear back from me right away - I will reply as soon as I can. Cheers and best wishes, John Hill (talk) 02:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. No worries, I'll figure this out. The image has already been removed by the user (Redtigerxyz) who had placed it in the English Wikipedia Ganges page. My envy of your travels only increases, as I imagine Khotan, Kashgar, and the Taklamakan Desert! Happy travels! Fowler&fowler«Talk»03:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I had added the image to Ganga in Hinduism when no other suitable image existed and never returned back to the issue, but when questions on authenticity are raised, I would agree that the image is absurd. No other Makara image looks like the one in Ganga.jpg and it should be replaced by another image. --RedtigerxyzTalk16:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, there are at least four or five classical sculptures (some going back to the 5th century CE; see the 12 pictures from the British Library upstairs), plus the Kalighat image you have added. We need to decide which would be the most appropriate image for an encyclopedia article on the Ganges. My own view is that if only one image is going to be added, then the Gupta period sculpture from Beshnagar, File:GangaBeshnagarBhopalState.jpg is the best one. If a single row gallery of four images are allowed, then the Beshnagar picture, the Elephanta image, the Ellora Ganga image, and the Kalighat image would be best. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Dolphin pic
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
The image File:Ganga_dolphin2.JPG seems like a picture of a toy model. I have left a message on the uploader's talk page, but until s/he clarifies, I am taking the liberty of replacing it with another image from the South Asian River Dolphin page. I am also removing the bit about the national aquatic animal of India, since the mammal, now called South Asian river dolphin on Wikipedia, is as much an aquatic mammal of Bangladesh and its rivers. Also, removing the bit about purity and the river dolphin. A government of India web site, examples of whose unreliability I have offered before, is not considered reliable for marine biology. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Also the authenticity of the new picture is not presented at all. The original pic on the other hand looks much more like the pic in this [| document] or [|here] and [| here].
Declaring it as the National Aquatic Animal of India has nothing to do on whether it is in Bangladesh too - makes no sense. The Govt. of India website is indeed reliable - and a judgment should be avoided without verifying facts - and its contents can be checked [| wwf website] - "The species is found exclusively in freshwater habitat.".
One more time: Wikipedia doesn't care that how the dolphin looks to you. If it's a toy model passing for the Real McCoy, then something is wrong. Whether the dolphin is the national aquatic animal of India (which India only bothered with declaring in 2009) or not is not such a notable fact that it should appear in the first sentence, especially when there are likely more Ganges river dolphins in Bangladesh now than India. You can add it as the last sentence in the South Asian river dolphin page if you'd like, it doesn't belong to the Ganges page, because the Ganges itself does not belong to India. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, it does not matter when was it declared National Aquatic Animal - there is no connection. Ganga also belongs to India - I think is more correct to say. Anyways its not the same as South Asia River Dolphin which is true as daylight. About the fish being in Bangladesh, lets get some sources before claiming more dolphins in Bangladesh than India and not be speculative. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201113:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Anyways, I don't want to debate much on this topic, when the dolphin itself if an endangered species. I would insist keeping the original pic for better identification, and not be bothered about a lot of hairsplitting on this section while the number of the social mammal goes down with time. I would also want the mention of National Aquatic Animal line because I think it encourages and gives reasons to people for preserving the dolphins somehow and means something to a lot of people who may be a little more careful. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201113:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
OK. If you think mentioning the National Aquatic Animal bit will encourage people in India to preserve the dolphin more, then please go ahead and mention it, but not in the very first sentence. Fowler&fowler«Talk»14:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
This page is being actively and collectively worked on to improve it. Discussions have been going on for over a month. In spite of some bickering, we have managed to keep making progress. I now find, however, that user:Regtigerxyz and user:Wiki-uk are making drive-by edits without any regard to the progress that has been made. So, images that by consensus were moved to the commons gallery are being moved back. user:Redtigerxyz is making copy-edits, ostensibly to correct text, where he is introducing errors, and so forth ... Neither of these editors have much of a record of editing this page in the last year or two, so I'm not sure what their game plan is. Please discuss your significant edits here first. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:10, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Why should only images added by Fowler&fowler do not need discussion, while images added by other editors do need discussion before insertion? [1] proves the edit record. Not every edit done needs a discussion. Please let know your game plan and if it has WP:AGF in it. May the owners of this article happily edit this article. I am done editing. --RedtigerxyzTalk17:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not the only one adding pictures, and if you see the section Talk:Ganges#Pictures_of_depictions_of_the_goddess_Ganga above, you'll see that I'm discussing the pictures I am collecting. But what is the point of randomly adding pictures, when the same pictures (including many that I had uploaded) were moved by consensus to the commons gallery just a few weeks ago? We are trying to improve the page, and that involves discussion. We discuss and then make a decision. Then you come through and make some quick edits, change some pictures, and blow out. We who are discussing things are left mystified. It seems like you don't want to be a part of the consensus-driven discussion here, which by its very nature is slow. Fowler&fowler«Talk»17:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago39 comments4 people in discussion
The pictures in the [| Religious_and_cultural_significance ] look completely mismatched with Hindu belief systems not significantly reflected, and I have not even started on the content. As a Hindu, I think this section has got nowhere and sources that are mentioned from my side are ignored. As a Hindu, this section doesn't look good at all. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201107:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
You are an editor on Wikipedia just like the rest of us. Wikipedia works by producing reliable secondary sources for our text, not some bogus claim on a belief system by a alleged hereditary right. You don't know, anything more, and likely a lot less about Hinduism, as manifested in your edits on Wikipedia than I do. So, stop asserting this special status. OK? Enough is enough. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
So you see it is not bogus, it is mentioned in Secondary source. Hereditary rights are not alleged, there rights are part of the culture - just as hereditary rights of British on Britain are not "alleged hereditary rights". Your understanding of Hindu symbolism is appealing, as per me, as just discussed above as in redemption section - but that is my opinion, and I am sure you know a lot more than me. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201109:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Please get an English composition book and learn how to write. I will not get a headache by attempting to read the unintelligible sentences you write. End of discussion. I have shown you enough courtesy, all to no avail. Others have made the same observations on other pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I explained how a pic of Gandhis ashes offered to Ganga, along with referenced information in the links, is more apt for this section. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201110:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
And I have explained to you that the Gandhi picture is blurry, it doesn't show any details, no one can figure out how the ashes are being dropped into the water and from which boat, and finally it is not in Varanasi, but rather in Allahabad. The text is about dying in Varanasi and being cremated there along the banks of the Ganges. The current picture shows preparation for such a cremation, in which the body is first wet with Ganges water, then placed atop the pyre, and then covered with more wood. This is much better for an uninformed Wikipedian in understanding the accompanying text than a blurry Gandhi picture. Please don't keep repeating yourself without offering any new argument or evidence. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
In the interest of space I collapsed your link to just a link, not the full photo. I hope you don't mind (at least use a thumbnail if you want to show it?). For what it is worth, only File:BathingGhatBanares1885.jpg strikes me as showing "bathing" per se. File:Clothing by the river.jpg looks like people doing laundry, and File:Ganga Dashara, at Haridwar.jpg looks like a celebration with a few people wading into the water a bit. Also, tangentially, someone should archive a good portion of this talk page soon! Pfly (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
(Oh, it looks like MiszraBot will archive the page automatically for threads with no replies after a month. I'm a little surprised some of these threads are less than a month old. A lot of activity here recently!) Pfly (talk) 03:58, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Also, as long as I'm posting about pictures, I find File:IndianWomanFloatingLampsGanges.jpg very appealing and, unlike any of others, peaceful and serene. I can't speak to its appropriateness, but thought to comment on its pleasantness as a picture. Pfly (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Apropos, Pfly's post above, there are other things interesting about the File:BathingGhatBanares1885.jpg picture. It shows women and children, and only them. It shows widows in white, and is a reminder of a time when Hindu widows were dispatched to Varanasi to live the rest of their lives in communes. It is from a time when there was no running water in Varanasi and people went to the river to bathe, to do their laundry, to collect water for use in the house during the day, and to pray to the river (and to other gods). Women and children had segregated ghats in those days. Women bathed with their saris on. All these things are displayed in the picture. One determines the relevance of a picture by whether it is appropriate to the accompanying text and by what information it supplies to an average (uninformed) reader, and by these measures, it is a very relevant picture. My one complaint (mainly to myself) is that the caption I added is not very informative. That I will soon remedy.
As for the File:IndianWomanFloatingLampsGanges.jpg, I agree with Pfly that the picture is peaceful and serene. It shows, not the big busy scene of a Hardwar or a Varanasi, but the everyday dusk scene of a village that happens to be situated on the banks of the Ganges. (It reminds me of a sentence from the Bible: "Her ways are ways of pleasantness and all her paths are peace.") The text specifically mentions floating lamps down the Ganges. Also, on a page, whose history has been marked by a lot of bickering, about a river that has had its share of bad news, a peaceful image reminiscent of a better time is all the more relevant. Fowler&fowler«Talk»04:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Frankly the 'serene' picture is completely out of place anywhere on this page, and as mentioned has more relevance for you in what the Bible says, which is again out of place here. It is just that the mentality is completely different from what you expect for it. Hinduism is also about vibrant celebrating wise lifestyle.
About widows bathing in river Ganga, one could make another section somewhere and put the picture there is one has to - where it is completely relevant. At this 'purification' section it is not really relevant and misplaced and looks like it is present for some other symbolism.
By the way, is the pic mentioned clearly okay for "Ganges#Redemption_of_the_Dead" section, now that its authenticity is presented? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201112:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Wait, are you saying there is nothing serene about the Ganga? It is all contention and crowds? Pfly (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think you are missing the whole Hindu symbolism here. If you want to write about Serenity in Ganga, please make a section and write it there. Don't put the serenity picture where it doesn't belong. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201105:49, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just trying to understand. I can see that the Hindu relationship to the river is not necessary about serenity, but "floating lamps" is part of it, and is mentioned in the text. The serenity of the picture is mentioned only in that is could play a balancing role in the other photos, none of which are remotely peaceful in tone. But again, I am out of my element and will let others decide. Pfly (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
As I said, you could make a section and put the pic in it. The symbolism and lifestyle is much more than Serenity, and I would be contributing about it later too, if probable. There is not hostility as such in other sections and 'balancing' it as per your understanding, or for that matter - understanding of the Bible if at all - is out of place - the mentality as I said, is different that what is expected - and one should be fine with the diversity for these are two completely different religions. I would like to remind that this section is about Religious_and_cultural_significance. You are missing the whole point there, and I wouldn't like to repeat this. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201106:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I am just clarifying a point here. What looks perfect for one, may look completely different in India and therefore is misplaced. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201106:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand it may not look at all different in India and only your conceit that you have a privileged inside view of it is misplaced. Fowler&fowler«Talk»12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this is what exactly we are looking for Idol of Ganga (River Ganges in female form). ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201107:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It is a small temple of Goddess Ganga, as per Hinduism. I think this much is clear in the caption itself. How is this comment relevant? ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201108:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
And the photo has a cynical caption, "There are shops and then there are godmen!" That's what an encyclopedia needs. As for phony Hindu priests, even ones who bargain mid-stream with bereaved relatives in attempting to bump up the price of the ashes immersion ceremony, they inhabit the entire length of the Ganges, with the exception of some headwaters in Garhwal. How do I know? I've seen it all. Thisthat2011 you can keep rummaging through flikr and keep upturning one picture every hour. It won't get you anywhere. You haven't come up with any substantive reasons why the current pictures are irrelevant, other than your unsubstantiated claim to more knowledge of Hinduism than that of other people. Fowler&fowler«Talk»11:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The picture represents the Goddess well, and one doesn't have to pay money here but just make sure if its presented well. However, this picture is much better than the 'serenity' concept with lamps and justified on some irrelevant verse in the Bible or otherwise in the Hindu cultural significance section. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201112:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
PS That is because I'm trying to create a compromise and move ahead. I've created a subsection, "The goddess Ganga in Indian iconography". If your kiosk image can be cropped then it can be included in that section as an example of something modern. The Indian woman floating lamps is in a different section. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I started to crop it, but the resulting image is only 300x400 pixels or so. There's not a lot of clear detail and the colors are washed out. In short, it's not worth cropping. Pfly (talk) 20:02, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
PPS. Wikipedia is not a democracy. You have to come up with some relevant reasons, and you have not. You keep repeating that you are privy to some special insight into Indian culture and Hinduism, and that, unfortunately, doesn't cut it. The Indian woman floating a lamp is appropriate for the text, since the text mentions that fact. Fowler&fowler«Talk»18:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
No consensus here, I understand. Lets not pretend that people don't contribute when all contributions are ignored with excuses of no consensus. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201105:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
The pics that were apt per section according to me were put at relevant section by me. Though these have been reverted by user User:Fowler&fowler. Please explain. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201106:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid, you have to provide reasons why the pictures originally in place are not apt. Otherwise, each of us can keep producing alternative images for every Wikipedia article ever written and hold up the encyclopedia from ever moving forward. As a new user, who cannot express himself at a rudimentary level in English, you have been urged many times to develop small disregarded articles and develop your skills rather than engage in ideological edit wars in high-trafficked articles for you are ill-prepared. You risk losing your editing privileges or leaving Wikipedia a bitter disgruntled editor. Fowler&fowler«Talk»07:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Here are the reasons
1) pic 1 - File:Panoramic_view_of_har_ki_pauri.jpg - worshiping of Ganga in the morning, the picture also includes bathing, paying homage (includes 'serenity' part too), etc. in the morning.
2) pic 2 - Descent of GangaThe picture has Shiva and Ganga at the time of descent of Ganga, as per the section.
4) pic 4 - Ganga Dashara - Devotees bathing as per purifying section.
No not your pictures, but the ones that are already in place (that you would like replaced). You need to state why you think they are not appropriate. You have't thus far. (PS. You seem to consistently have English reading comprehension issues as well. How long do you expect productive editors to keep wasting their valuable time on you, when you don't have the common courtesy to read what they write?) Fowler&fowler«Talk»08:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
(1) Embodiment of sacredness part: The current pic does not show "a dip in the actual river", and "pay homage to their ancestors" - as mentioned in the section itself. The picture I suggested File:Panoramic_view_of_har_ki_pauri.jpg includes much better actual representation offering prayers and lamps too, taking holy dip, temples on the ghat, etc. is therefore substantial and the early morning makes it all too serene too.
(2) Avatarana or Descent of the Ganges part: The curent pic does not represent the themes of the section i.e. descent of Ganga from Shankara's hairlocks and the other myth thereof just the festival (which form the first paragraph of the section somehow while the themes are relegated at the back, and the most widely known theme - Ganga flowing from hairlocks of Shiva - is put at the very end thus making the section festival specific more theme specific). The suggested File:Gokarnatha_Temple_Mangalore.jpg - is direct representation of the most widely known theme of the section.
(3) Redemption of the Dead part: The current pic, mentions "Who dies in the waters of the Ganges obtains heaven" and preparations for cremations - but does not include points mentioned in the section itself like - ceremonies for the deceased, or that salvation can be achieved by immersing the ashes in the Ganges. The suggested pic from my side File:Pilgrims_sitting_at_the_ghats,_Har_ki_Pauri,_Haridwar.jpg includes all these as well, along with the belief that ashes need to be immersed to reach the World of Ancestors etc.
(4) The purifying Ganges part: The pic present does not included "Moving water as thought to both absorb impurities and take them away" or "The swiftly moving Ganga, especially in its upper reaches, where a bather has to grasp a anchored chain in order to not be carried away, is especially purifying" which are so well presented by File:Ganga_Dashara,_at_Haridwar.jpg, along with usual holy dip. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201110:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There is also a shark ...
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I've begun a bare bones, "under construction" section on what I would call "natural history" but might better be called "Ecology and environment"—that is, flora and fauna in the river and throughout the basin. I split it off from the "Pollution" section for now, but it can always be reincorporated. I only just began, adding a short and simple intro. I'll try poking at it for a while. Feel free to join in. Pfly (talk) 03:42, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'll take off the "underconstruction" tag, as I'm about done for now. I'll keep trying to improve the section over the next week or two. As I said before, feel free to edit—I'm sure if nothing else I made some typos. Pfly (talk) 05:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Can we remove the overall POV/neutrality tag yet? I know there are issues remaining, but perhaps they can be tagged in sections or sentences instead of the whole article? Pfly (talk) 07:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The line "eighty per cent of all illnesses in India and one-third of deaths can be attributed to water-borne diseases" lists Dr. Puttick as a source, in a book published by a self-help/New Age oriented publisher, which is cited throughout the article. The only book Puttick lists having published is on personality types, not disease in India. This looks like a citation of convenience, not research.
To be 'POV correct', this statement is ambiguous. To be more honest, it strikes me as close to alarmist. Cardiorespirtory diseases are leading causes of death, with "diarrhoeal diseases" lagging behind those, even when children's deaths are included. See, for example, WHO statistics for 2002 deaths, where "diarrhoeal diseases" and "severe infection" are among leading causes of death in children.
As far as "illness" without death, this is a murky enough category that as a layman I do not know how anyone would go about finding statistical information. Does illness mean "hospitalization"? "Reports by doctors"? etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.238.147 (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Ganga?
Latest comment: 13 years ago44 comments13 people in discussion
I am an Indian who has been living in Japan for 12 years, and when I hear that the Ganga river being called Ganges, it sounds funny to me. The name for this river should be Ganga because this river flows in India and not in England. Ganga should be the english spelling and pronunciation, not Ganges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MadWrites (talk • contribs) 12:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Though I personally find it quite amusing and wonder why native English speakers would like to keep on referring as 'The Ganges', here is some more on the topic: here, here, etc. You can find perhaps more in the archives. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201117:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why Indians keep referring to the Thames as the टेम्स. That should be a ज़ at the end: ठैम्ज़. Please use the proper English when speaking Hindi. And पैरिस! Come on, there's no स in "Paris": it should be पाग़ी. And बीजिंग is completely wrong too: Please move the Hindi Wikipedia article to पेय्चीङ. It's not in India, so it shouldn't have an Indian name.
BTW, in English Ganga is pronounced गांग, not गंगा. It means 'marijuana'. Great tourist advert! 'Come to India and do drugs'. — kwami (talk) 19:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
'Come to India and do drugs' - not too good from someone who has worked on IPA. Ganga is not गांग its गन्ग, I expected better from your side, not just plain incorrect twist. Anyways, considering you have worked on IPA, should not this be put here as Gangā and could you wonder why it is not so already, when the facility for this particular ā is available? Much like, how India could be Indiā too! ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201120:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
The letter 'a' with a line over it, ā, is usually considered a "long a", pronounced like the 'ay' in "day", at least in North America. See ā. If I didn't already know how it was pronounced and saw the spelling "Gangā", I would guess it was pronounced something like "Gang-gay". Even knowing how it is pronounced I still see it as "Gang-guh". Pfly (talk) 20:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure if IPA does not have any letter for a, as in India, though I do find it strange how 'long-a' is 'a-y' but thanks for telling; which I thought is as per [Sanskrit phonology vowels]. Though I would still like to know the proper IPA letter for a as in India, that is what I meant when I said "Gangā"(as per IAST Sanskrit Phonology, which also means that the notations of ā in IPA and IAST are not all standardised, is it?). If there is no 'a as in India', then I think IPA may be missing that much at the least. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201120:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Heh, I just searched the OED for "Ganga", wondering if it was there. I was automatically redirected to the OED's entry "ganja", also spelled, it says, ganjah, gunja, and ganga; A preparation of Indian hemp ( Cannabis sativa, variety indica), strongly intoxicating and narcotic.Pfly (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Humour, you don't seem to understand that Engish and Hindi are different languages. They have different words. Where they share words, they have different pronunciations. Ganga is pronounced गंगा *in Hindi*. Not in English. In English it is pronounced as if it were spelled गांग. Really, if you don't even know how the word 'India' is pronounced, what are you doing here instructing us on correct English usage? — kwami (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Please provide a citation for your claim. AFAIK it's false.
My dictionaries (OED, MWC, RH) don't include "Ganga". But I found one online site that (in Google search preview, but not on the actual site that I could see) had a pronunciation almost like the one you gave: they rhymed Ganga with cowabunga, as in Gunga Din. If you can find a RS, we could make a note that in English Ganga is pronounced like Gunga rather than like ganga. — kwami (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
So I understand that 'Ganga' should be read as per IAST and 'The Ganges' should be read as per IPA. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201110:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Replying to the original post... "Ganges" may sound strange to you, and probably to many (if not most) Indians... but to the rest of the English speaking world "Ganges" sounds normal, and it is "Ganga" that sounds strange. Blueboar (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Its not about what easy to pronounce, its about name, which never changes in any language, whether its English/Marathi/Hindi/Portuguese etc, If my name is Kuwar then its Kuwar not kumar, kuwaaar, kunwar, I deal with few foreigner client often, some times they call me kumar instead of kuwar so is that right? another e.g. If I call user Blueboar as Blueboor because I find it easy to pronounce, is that still right? Even if English speaking world want to pronounce Ganga as Ganges its fine, but spelling should be Ganga not Ganges. KuwarOnlineTalk06:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Unforunately, unlike you, KuwarOnline, the Ganges has never exactly spoken to her preference between "Ganges" and "Ganga." The last time I was in her upper reaches, all I heard her say was, "gurgle," "splish," and "spash." Fowler&fowler«Talk»10:56, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Phonology is completely different for IAST and IPA. People who speak as per IPA do not understand pronunciations of IAST. The page name indicates IPA phonetics. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201107:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
No, the phonology is exactly the same regardless of how it's transcribed. You're not making sense. — kwami (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
See folks, there is WP:FORUMSHOPPING, being done, the Article titles page has, Ganges not Ganga, as an example, now we would have hordes with battle cry Ganges not Ganga. Thisthat, becuase you are new to the show, I would request you to check the archives, there have been hundreds of edits, but the last move proposal had heads counted, there is clear substance in the Ganga move proposal, what it lacked was numbers, unless that happens it is a waste of time. One can wake a person who is asleep, but not one who is feienting sleep. A similar table was made here, for putting arguments and counter arguments, just like a similar arrangement on Mahatma move proposal. The anti-move argument lacks any substance. Even Sue Gardner considered it so.[2]. Please check the talk:Praha hlavní nádraží move proposal which was decided in favour of the Czech version. It is always emic and against etic. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Yogesh for sharing Sue Gardner's [3] view on this discussion at least there are few people who really think clearly, not biased about it. Atleast few users/admins can learn from her, whom to give importance and when. Here is her view on this topic "It's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side". Hope this will clear others mind and at least think about it what Executive Director of Wikimedia Foundation says and believe why wiki is here and what they are doing here. KuwarOnlineTalk11:34, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
What a shame. Complete paragraph quoted:
'She likes to tell the story of the Ganges/Ganga argument playing out now on English Wikipedia. In India, the official name for the country's second-largest river is the Ganga. The British have long called it the Ganges, a term that bears the stench of colonization for many Indians. Since 2007, there has been a spirited back-and-forth between editors about whether a search for the river should redirect to Ganga or Ganges. "There are two Indian guys arguing one side, and then there's a bunch of casual editors from the United States and Europe arguing the other," says Gardner. "And it's interesting because there's this tiny number of Indians who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view, and then there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side. That's why everybody has to be [on Wikipedia], because if they're not there, the system doesn't work." ("That's too much democracy," groans Phil Bronstein, former editor of the San Francisco Chronicle and otherwise a fan of Wikipedia, despite the fact that his own biographical entry is inaccurate. "Why don't they simply say, 'This is what it's called in India.' Why do you have to try and cut that baby in half?")'
— Wikipedia director Sue Gardner
.
Kudos to the explicitly mentioned 'two Indian guys who care a lot and are correct and have all kinds of citations and evidence to support their view', doing so well for having to deal with "there's this group who just are rebuffing them because the numbers are on their side".
The one thing Sue did not mention (probably because she didn't think about it)... We have to consider Bangladesh. Our "two Indian guys" may be correct from an Indian POV... but they are not correct according to the Bangladeshi POV. (in Bangladesh the river isn't called either "Ganges" or "Ganga"). Why should we consider India's name for the river more "correct" than Bangladesh's name for the river? Blueboar (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Blueboar: the river Ganga distributes in India. Beyond that it is called Padma for the Bangladeshi distributary and Bhagirathi/Hoogly for the Indian, this was there in the lead, but our friend Fowler removed it.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the sources are on the "Ganges" side. That's established English. "Ganga" is not. We write in English. If you want Hindi, edit WP-hi. — kwami (talk) 02:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Sue Gardner claims the "tiny number of Indians who care a lot" "are correct". Correct about what? That in India "the official name ... is the Ganga"? She assumes we don't realize that Ganga is the official name for the river in India, and that's why we're wrong and the caring minority "is correct"?
It is understandable for an outsider like Gardner to not know that that is an irrelevant fact to deciding titles in Wikipedia, as she is almost certainly unaware that in deciding titles in Wikipedia we prefer the name that is most commonly used in reliable English sources over official names. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Born2cycle If that the case then why not change the name of Mumbai article to Bombay, Where most westerns/english speaking people refer Bombay instead of official name Mumbai. Its always about official name not about what who refers. About Sue Gardner, She is not deciding or forcing you guys to change the name to Ganga, She is just pointing out loopholes/errors/mistakes happening in wiki, I think you guys should read properly what she is trying to say. Due to minority of Indian users and due to more number US/European users, even wrong thinks preferred over correct things, so that she is encouraging Indian/other country to join wikipedia so that correct thing can be supported and considered here. Other wise this system(wikipedia) wont work. Here is the exact wording - "That's why everybody has to be [on Wikipedia], because if they're not there, the system doesn't work." I cant believe that I am explaining this to English guys here. I was really hoping to get explanation for English speaking users, now I have to explain this plain English to English users. What a shame, really KuwarOnlineTalk06:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Some comments and questions: A few months ago I did a bunch of research about the Ganges/Ganga in order to improve this page. In the process I noticed a number of Indian rivers whose names and spellings seem to have changed since independence. Wikipedia pages about Indian rivers seem to usually use the newer spellings: Yamuna over Jumna, Ghaghara over Gogra, Kaveri over Cauvery, Kameng over Bhareli, etc. I wonder to what degree these changes reflect an affirmation of Indian spellings/pronunciations over older British ones, and if so whether "Ganga" would have as easily replaced "Ganges" if the river were not as famous as it is. I noted that "Ganga" is used in a some English sources--especially technical books and papers focusing on hydrology (admittedly a limited field).
As far as I can tell, the respelling of Indian rivers has not been done through official government decree, unlike the renaming of Indian cities and states. And for some rivers there seems to be several different common spellings in use (not counting trans-boundary rivers whose names change at national borders), like Gomti, Gumti, Gomati; Teesta, Tista; Tamsa, Tons; Son, Sone; etc. It would be useful to know more about how and why the names of Indian rivers have changed, and how Ganges/Ganga fits, or doesn't fit into the renaming/respelling context. For example, is Ganges/Ganga more like Tamsa/Tons or more like Kaveri/Cauvery?
For a while I wondered whether Ganga would be more appropriate given the renaming of major cities like Mumbai/Bombay; Kolkata/Calcutta; Chennai/Madras; Kanpur/Cawnpore; Kozhikode/Calicut. Then I found the page Renaming of cities in India, which points out that "every renaming of a city in India has to be approved by the central government". This isn't the case with river renaming/respelling, is it? The central government uses both Ganges and Ganga, so I'm guessing not. Furthermore, "the degree to which these name changes have caught on in popular English use varies. For example, Chennai, Kolkata and Mumbai have caught on, whereas Bengaluru (Bangalore) and Thiruvananthapuram (Trivandrum) have not." (quote from "renaming" page linked above). I see Wikipedia uses Thiruvananthapuram but not Bengaluru (Bangalore). Given that, I wonder whether other cities are still more commonly known in English by the old names. I'd never have guessed that Calicut is now Kozhikode. Here in the foreign nation of the US, Mumbai is commonly used. Kolkata and Chennai don't come up as often, but I think they are fairly common (although I always forget what the new name of Madras is and have to look it up). Kozhikode though...
Anyway, I've said here a number of times that I'm "neutral" on the Ganges/Ganga question. Part of the reason is because I can't judge whether, or how well the renaming Ganges/Ganga fits into the pattern of other renamings of rivers, like Jumna/Yamuna and Kaveri/Cauvery, and cities, like Bombay/Mumbai, Calcutta/Kolkata, and Calicut/Kozhikode. The whole situation seems rather chaotic and ad hoc, even within India, and especially with regard to river names, no? Pfly (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
It does not seem chaotic or ad hoc to me. Each case should be treated like any other Wikipedia article title - evaluated independently and decided solely on whether the old or new name is more commonly used currently in reliable English sources. It is that simple. Everything else is irrelevant, unless the topic has no name, or the most commonly used one can't be determined, or there is a disambiguation issues. None of those considerations apply here. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
There is no reason that assumptions are made in the name of people, as if that would make their views in favor of selective editors only.
What Wikipedia director Sue Gardner has said clearly is what matters. Not unsubstantiated assumptions on how and what etc. by editors here. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201106:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thisthat: let it be clear, Gardner's statements matter only so long as/ and wherever they reflect facts, and not because Sue stated them.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 06:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The only facts Gardner's comments "reflect" are that she's pushing Wikimedia expansion into India, and that throwing Wikipedia's core pillars and policies to the wolves seems to be the cost of doing business in that country. Quigley (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it may be more in context to mention that there may be some people who are supposed to be children of the she-wolf. But they are all thought to be highly civilized now.-MangoWong (talk) 08:38, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
The only ones passing unsubstantiated value judgments here are the ones making random assumptions, and using words like "Wikipedia's core pillars and policies" to make it look like these personal value judgements matter. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201107:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Rather than bicker, can anyone answer any of my questions? Whether or not they are germane, I would like to know. Pfly (talk) 08:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I cannot comment on the other rivers; but Yamuna is reasonably common (probably most common) in current archaeological literature. Then again (unlike the Ganges), English speakers have not been speaking of it under an English name for centuries, and both forms (actually all three forms, with Jamuna) can be found before Independence, so it's not much of a change. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson02:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Ganges -> Ganga
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments9 people in discussion
The Indian website (in English) refers to the river as Ganga.
Pfly, see last time we had a table after hundreds of edits. The logic is all pro-move to Ganga, but the move didn't happen because heads were counted. In the mean while, this page is continuously hit by editors wondering why the river is called Ganges. If I see more of those I'm going to propose another move, one day or the other. I'm waiting, I'll wait.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I guess a move like this does need more votes for the Ganga side, who are not too obviously actually extremely rightwing Hindu nationalist fascist propagandist people. By the way, I am not sure how your propaganda at Talk:Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi#Requested_move did not invite any censor like tendentiousness, propaganda, and so on. I mean 'the title "Mahatma" is also an essential part of the official iconography of Gandhi constructed by India's government' takes the cake. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat201119:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Isnt Ganga a Proper Noun? I means its the name of the river. Right? Since when have we started anglisizing proper nouns or even naming them after the commonly called words? There might be some foreigner whose tounge wasnt as able as it should have been & hence he kept calling it by wrong names. Is this the reason to keep continuing the mistake?
Ganges is the name of the river in English, therefore it is a 'proper noun' as well so your proper noun argument is not valid. (It is also apparently has an older written recorded usage than does Ganga, so the anglicization argument is faulty as well. One could easily argue that Ganga is a Hindi-ization of Ganges.) Either way, we name articles by whatever they are commonly known as in the English language (see WP:COMMONNAME, which could very well be different from what an entity is known as in other languages. Since you ask, I'd say that if Arnold Shivajinagar is the overwhelming common name of the person in Marathi, and if the Marathi Wikipedia follows the same WP:COMMONNAME policy that we do, then, subject to BLP and reliable sourcing requirements, the article could be at Arnold Shivajinagar.--regentspark (comment) 09:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok! As the Proper Noun is translated into English & has been used that way since ages, we retain the English word. (The translation or misnomerization shouldnt have been done in the first place. But when the then indian people didnt know english & didnt understand what these foreigners are exactly calling Ganga, i guess they didnt object. Plus they also didnt know the translation rules.) Anyways! As we give names which are Common in English, i thought of something. I dont know if that is possible. But you all are better experienced & hence probably would be able to answer. Can we find out how many people look for Ganga on Wikipedia & how many look for Ganges? I dont know if such facility exists, but i think this can be a way to find what exactly is common than relying on some age-old scripture of 18th Century & calling them as common. Also; when i translate गंगा in Google Translator, it shows Ganga instead of Ganges. Probably google guys dont know whats common yet. On the other hand when you translate English "London" into French, it shows "Londres". So thats common! And that Shivajinagar was a joke. But will try & find out "reliable" sources. The joke would be much more funnier when practical! :) -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I know you were kidding. Just thought I'd take it the extra step! Anyway, the point is that Ganges is not really a mistaken transliteration of Ganga but is a recognized name with a long and illustrious (and better documented) history of its own. In this sort of case, the key argument should be built around WP:COMMONNAME. It is unfortunate that the various move discussions get hijacked by nationalist editors because the common name argument to switch to Ganga is quite a reasonable one. If we can produce a few reliable sources (newspapers that use Ganga) from outside India (doesn't have to be the west - singapore, Trinidad, Fiji, Indonesia, etc. in some combination would do just fine), and show that the use of Ganga is not limited to India, then I for one would be willing to support a name change. --regentspark (comment) 15:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
By this argument, Jesus should be moved to Yeshua and Moses to Moshe. Like these, Ganges is just the Greek form of the name, probably from the Alexandrian Empire. Anyway, we just had another move attempt, below, and it failed. — kwami (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I actually don't see a problem if title of the page on Jesus were to be called Yeshua and that of Moses were called Moshe. An article that is NPOV ascribes primacy to local names, rather than indulge in subtle forms of cultural hegemony by trying to impose some form of "well known" names. The name Ganges is very very alien to India and I can bet that the number of English-speaking people that know this river by name Ganga is more than the number of people who know this river by the name Ganges. The biggest problem I see with Wikipedia is this strong cartel of god-knows-what-ists that go overboard in labeling anyone who argues for primacy of local notions (in an Indian context) as right-wing whatever whatever.. -- Fgpilot (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
On adding pictures
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We have enough pictures in the article. We use to have even more and resorted to removing most to the Commons gallery. Please discuss here any picture you might want to add. JDP90 (talk·contribs) has added a unremarkable picture of the Hooghly distributary of the Ganges to the page. There is nothing in it that identifies it as the Hooghly. It is another featureless muddy river; it could be the Amazon, the Mississippi, the Meghna ... I am therefore reverting the addition. Fowler&fowler«Talk»16:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Requested move (2011)
Latest comment: 13 years ago25 comments18 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Not any small kid I know; English-speakers have said "Ganges" since John Mandeville's time. This is why we value commonality, or names used throughout the English-speaking world. SeptentrionalisPMAnderson19:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose - Ganges is the most common name for the subject as far as the English language is concerned. Like it or not, the majority of the people of India doesn't speak English and the majority of the English-speaking world doesn't speak Indian English. It would be great to mention that "Ganga redirects here". Flamarande (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:COMMONALITY("Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English...Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles"). "Ganga" is largely unrecognisable outside of South Asia while "Ganges" is recognisable both within and outside of the region and has vastly greater usage over the sweep of time and space. — AjaxSmack01:26, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Support per WP:ENGVAR and [4]. Note this Google insights for "Ganges" vs "Ganga" in India which shows a strong variance in the use. I'm a little uneasy at what seems to be a double standard in discussions whereby usage in Indian English for things in India isn't accorded the same respect as usage in other versions of English for things in those countries. Compare some name issues in other countries - we have Uluru not "Ayers Rock" for one of Australia's most famous landmarks and Mount Taranaki not "Mount Egmont" for the volcano in New Zealand, in both cases because of the usage in those countries. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
Another comment: Both Uluru and Ayers Rock are official names according to the Australian government ([5]). Another related case (in my mind) is the Queen Charlotte Islands of Canada, which have officially been renamed Haida Gwaii. It took a while, but our Wikipedia page has recently been renamed Haida Gwaii. Still, I can think of a number of differences between the Ganga/Ganges case and Maori, indigenous Australian, and Canadian First Nation place names. As far as I know, the Indian government hasn't made an official declaration of the river's name (which by itself wouldn't settle the issue, but would at least lend some support to the renaming proposal). As usual, I abstain from either supporting or opposing here. Pfly (talk) 04:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Support. "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation," according to WP:ENGVAR. "Ganga" is the usage of Press Trust of India, The Hindu, The Telegraph (Calcutta), and The Times of India. The Times is India's top daily. Their site has 30,700 examples of "Ganga", only 2,910 of "Ganges". This is yet another name change of the same type as Bombay to Mumbai, Madras to Chennai, and Calcutta to Kolkata. "Ganga" already outstrips "Ganges" as a search term, according to Google Trends. In a few years, the US and British media will be using it as well. Kauffner (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if ENGVAR applies here. Both terms are acceptable in Indian English and, while Ganga dominates in news articles, Ganges is used in academic and other reliable sources in India (cf. [6], particularly the comparative usage of Ganga (1) and Ganges (many) in the list of references). ENGVAR would apply only if Ganges was not an acceptable term in Indian English.--rgpk (comment) 18:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I wish to quote Kauffner: "In a few years, the US and British media will be using it as well." Fine by me, then let us wait a few years. I have no problem with 'Mumbai' due the extensive international news coverage of the 2008 Mumbai attacks in which the majority of English news channels used 'Mumbai'. The same has not happened with the name 'Ganges'. Until then... Flamarande (talk) 22:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, this name change is not like Bombay/Mumbai, Madras/Chennai, and Calcutta/Kolkata. City and state name changes were done by careful and thorough government decree. And, as I mentioned in a now archived thread, even those city and state name changes have not all taken hold. For example, Bangalore is officially Bengaluru, yet Bangalore continues to be the more commonly used name. Pfly (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Oppose The common name is Ganges in those countries where English is the primary language. None of the support comments have provided sources that suggest otherwise. Wikipedia can follow common usage after it shifts to "Ganga". Johnuniq (talk) 02:04, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Support - Ganga is the most common name for the river in India and as a reader when I read the article referring to it as Ganges in several places it makes my stomach churn. User:manipande— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.32.44 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 18 September 2011
Discussion
Any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
does the Ganges reach the ocean?
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
According to our Padma River article, the Ganges ends where the Hooghly River (or nowadays Canal) splits off (or perhaps the Hooghly is the Ganges), and the main channel after that point is the Padma. However, this article says that the Ganges reaches the ocean in Bangladesh. Either the Ganges ends at Farakka, or it continues into Bang; if the latter, then Padma is just a local name for the Ganges and the Padma article should be merged into this one. Same for Jamuna River (Bangladesh) and Brahmaputra. — kwami (talk) 02:33, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
In the research I did a couple months ago, sources seems about equally divided between describing the Ganges as ending at Farakka or the Bay of Bengal. Certainly the river named Ganges (or Ganga) ends at Farakka. But obviously the river does continue on to empty into the Bay of Bengal via numerous distributaries. The Padma is currently the largest distributary and most sources that describe the Ganges as flowing to the Bay of Bengal consider the Padma (and lower Meghna) as being continuations of the main stem Ganges. Other sources describes it via the Hooghly. Still others consider all distributaries as part of the Ganges system. The whole set is known as the "Mouths of the Ganges" after all. Although the Brahmaputra is larger, so shouldn't they be called the "Mouths of the Brahmaputra"? Maybe, strictly hydrologically speaking, but historically, the Ganges has been far more important. Also, the main channels of the Ganges and Brahmaputra used to reach the Bay of Bengal separately. Historically, the Padma was not always the main distributary. A few centuries ago the Hooghly was the main channel, and many others were before that. The main channel has shifted many many times over the eons. When it shifts, it typically takes over a formerly minor but named channel. It is natural that the old channel's name continues to be used. The same thing happened with the Brahmaputra, as you point out, which changed its lower course to the Jamuna a couple centuries ago. The former main channel is now a very small stream, but still called "Brahmaputra". Anyway, I think your question has no simple answer. The Ganges Delta region is too complex, both hydrologically and historically, for a simple this-or-that answer. In writing up and editing the "Course" and "Hydrology" sections here, I tried to make it clear that the complexity of the delta makes it tricky to describe the Ganges below Farakka. Whether the Padma page should be merged with the Ganges, and/or the Jamuna with the Brahmaputra, I don't know. Maybe? Due to the shifting main stems, both the Padma and Jamuna have historical differences from the Ganges and Brahmaputra. This region has been inhabited since time immemorial, and the rivers named and considered sacred for many millennia. That, and the complicated history of constantly shifting channels, makes the question of which channel is really the Ganges or Brahmaputra tricky. Another point that occurs to me is that the Brahmaputra (Jamuna) joins the Padma before the Padma joins the Meghna, but no one ever seems to call the Ganges a tributary of the Brahmaputra (or vice versa). If "Padma" was simply a different name for the Ganges, then the Ganges should be considered a tributary of the Brahmaputra, but I can't recall ever seeing such a claim. Anyway, I can't think of another example of such a complicated delta system, with multiple large rivers splitting and joining in such a complex everchanging network. Pfly (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. I think as long as that's clear from our articles, it doesn't really matter which way we go. But IMO it should be clear from the outset. — kwami (talk) 05:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I think the status quo (i.e., separate articles for Padma and Ganges) is fine. As Pfly puts it above, the whole scenario is quite complex. The geography of Bengal has changed dramatically over the last two centuries. Especially during two major earthquakes in the 18th and 19th centuries, the main flow of both Ganges and Brahmaputra has shifted. The water from Ganges actually goes through a whole network of rivers into the Bay of Bengal. Just take a look at the map of the Southern Bangladesh and Southern West Bengal. The whole region near the Sundarbans is criss-crossed by rivers. Which one is Ganges and which one isn't -- that's a difficult question to answer. So, better keep the status quo. Just mention in the Ganges article that the water flows into the Bay through a number of channels, including Padma and Hooghly etc. --Ragib (talk) 17:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree it should be clear, and a lot of pages about the rivers of the Ganges Delta are in poor shape. This page is pretty good, and the Brahmaputra River is not terrible. The Padma River page could be better. Most of the rest (and there are many!) could use a lot of work. Pfly (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The present topography of the river system is clearly dominated by the Brahmaputra-Jamuna course. It's volume exceeds that of Ganges-Padma (i.e. Upper Padma) by about 70%. From a hydrological point of view the Ganga-Padma definitely ends at the confluence with this main stem. The Padma (sensu strictu) as the combined flow of both rivers until the Upper Meghna joins from the left side causing the next change of name (to Lower Meghna) should be considered as part of the Brahmaputra-Jamuna-Padma-Meghna course. It's role as a part of the ancient Ganges-course that met the Bay of Bengal separate from the Brahmaputra is now abandoned for more than 230 years. Therefore a separate article about Padma is much more appropriate than embedding in the Ganges text. -- WWasser (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
This river mentioned in Steve Jobs biography
Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This river is mentioned in the Steve Jobs biography by Walter Isaacson. The name used in that book is... Ganges. Just confirming that, in terms of the conflict and the name commonly used in English, we seem to have this right. Good job everybody! --Born2cycle (talk) 00:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Does not mean anything. If Steve Jobs had mentioned Mumbai, he would have likely called it Bombay. But Mumbai is the official name, as is Ganga -- even in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.12.19.99 (talk) 10:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Title of the article and related disambiguation pages
Latest comment: 12 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Questions: Why does Ganga redirect to a disambiguation page? Having this page moved to Ganges was wrong enough i guess. Now when one, that one being almost all Indian subcontinent people, searches Ganga, he lands on a useless disambiguation page. And why are there two separate disambiguation pages for Ganga (disambiguation) and Ganges (disambiguation)? Why does Gunga, which when used is always used to represent this river, redirect to the disambiguation page Ganga? -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 11:03, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Who said anything about converting this wikipedia into anything non-English? I guess you all pro-Ganges editors are assuming this to be some sort of move discussion, which i would like to clear that it is not. I will hence rephrase my questions into suggestions. "Ganga" should redirect to "Ganges". "Ganga (disambiguation)" and "Ganges (disambiguation)" should be only one page, the name of which will be another debate but "Ganges (disambiguation)" being a much sensible one to maintain uniformity. "Gunga" should redirect to "Ganges". -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi Animesh, if there are multiple meaning to same words, such as Ganga, the notable meanings in wikipedia are mentioned in the disambiguate page where one can find all such information.
About the name Ganga, there were discussions on it already, many times. You can find the discussions and votes/links to votes on talk page archives linked above.इति इतिUAनेति नेति Humour Thisthat2011 18:38, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned above i am not asking for move of this page. I probably should always start every discussion on this page with this line. The reason for having this article at Ganges was that it is the most common name. But Ganga primarily refers to this river. Hence Ganga should also redirect here. The current page of Ganga says that Gunga is a different spelling of same river. Hence Gunga should also redirect here. Disambiguation pages are just navigation pages. Hence there is not point in having present article Ganga and Ganges (disambiguation) as two separate pages. Ganga (disambiguation) can redirect to Ganges (disambiguation). -§§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Animesh has a legitimate point: the river is by far the most common use of Ganga. How many have even heard of the Ganga dynasties? The goddess of course is a personification of the river, and people with that name are named after the goddess/river. And we do have millions of people who when searching for the river are likely to enter Ganga and expect to get here. I suppose some people may be looking for marijuana, but that's what we have hat-notes for: "Ganga" redirects here. For other uses of the word, see Ganga (disambiguation). See WP:DAB.
Actually, it looks like this is my fault for moving it in the first place. I figure I should probably revert myself, unless there is a cogent objection to moving the dab page to "Ganga (disambiguation)", and rd'ing "Ganga" here? — kwami (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Because while "Ganga" may be synonymous with "Ganges" in the case of the river, they are not interchangeable in the case of the marijuana, music, cricketer, dynasties, etc. Shrigley (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No, disambiguation pages help readers locate ambiguously titled articles. In cases where the differently spelled variants are ambiguous, then they may be grouped together on the same disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser12:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it'll be confusing to see "Daren Ganga" on a page titled "Ganges (disambiguation)" or to see "Ganges township" on a page titled "Ganga (disambiguation). Doesn't seem sensible to me to mix them up. --regentspark (comment) 13:25, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Check Crime (disambiguation). It has enteries of "Crime" as well as "Criminal". Both being different words can and could have different pages. But as they are connected to same word they are included on a single page. I dint check all, but few articles listed on "Ganges disamiguation" do credit the origin of their name "Ganges" to the river. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
An image caption should only end with a full-stop if it forms a complete sentence.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Can the reviewer or other fellow users offer a more explicit description of what has to be done and in a brief way by suitable examples if possible. Thanks VIVEK RAI : Friend? 16:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Examples, huh? Why need 'em, just search for 'em. Okay here are 'em.
And about the captions, see – "Bhagirathi River at Gangotri." should be changed to "Bhagirathi River originates at Gangotri." if you want to make it a complete sentence or just remove the full stop from the current caption.
Not all of the following opinions need not satisfy the GA criteria.
1) Please specify the language in which the river is called Ganges or has been referred to Ganges. (Lead Section-First line)
2) "It has also been important historically: many former" should be "It has also been important historically with many former".
3) "The Ganges basin thus formed". Don't use the word thus in the sentence. Omit it.
4) Where actually is Ramganga. Please mention the state or the city through which it flows or about the whereabouts of the location where it merges with Ganga.(Section- Course 4th paragraph)
5) "The headwaters of the Alakananda are formed by snowmelt from such peaks as Nanda Devi, Trisul, and Kamet." The usage of the words such as signify that there are more peaks other than those mentioned. Please provide the names of other peaks as well.
6) The coordinates of the confluence of the two rivers could be provided at the top of the article as well.
7) Please act upon citations needed tags.
8) Please remove unwanted blue links from the text used to describe the images. Many of the Blue links have already been referred to previously in the article.(Examples:The Ganges, Bhagiratha, Varanasi,Shiva etc.)
9) In many places, the images have not been described properly, or could be more meaningful.(The birth of Ganges)
10) You should also mention in the article the water sharing agreements between India and Bangladesh.
11) Please provide references and citations for all the metrics used in the infobox.
12) The river has been referred to as 'Ganges'. It should be attached with the prefix 'The' in those situations.
I will provide further inputs soon, on this very page.
Regards, theTigerKing 14:55, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Photograph titled, "Portion of a lion capital and a statue of Ganga, from Beshnagar, Bhopal State," Date of sculptures: Gupta Period, 5th or 6th century CE. Photographer: Beglar, Joseph David. Date of photograph: 1875. The sculpture on the right shows the goddess Ganga (Ganges) on her mount, the Makara, a mythical crocodile or aquatic creature.
In this 1871 photograph, in the right panel, Shiva (four-handed in the middle) is shown assisting Ganga (on the left) in her descent to (or arrival on) earth from heaven. On the right are shown Parvati, Shiva's consort and in the top right, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, the three major male deities of Hinduism, watch. Sculpture is from 6th century CE.
The damaged photograph taken in 1868 shows the goddess Ganga (Ganges) carved in the doorway. The goddess is on her mount, Makara, the mythical underwater monster. The sculpture is from the Vijayanagara period, mid-16th century.
Pencil (on paper) sketch titled "Ellora: Tandava from Dumar Lena (left), Nilkanth (centre), Figure from Cave XXIV," made in 1877 by surveyor: Burgess, James (1832-1916). The sketch shows (center and right) two statues of the goddess Ganga at the Ellora Caves site. In both, Ganga is on her mount, the Makara, a mythical aquatic monster. The left statue was damaged at the time the sketch was made.
Photograph of the goddess Ganga (shown on the far panel, left wall) with left hand resting on a child's head from the Rameshwar Temple in Ellora, India. Date of Sculpture, 6th century![Photograph titled "Rameshwar cave [Ellora]" taken after the excavation was complete and the entire length of the goddess Ganga was revealed showing her standing on the aquatic monster Makara.](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8e/GangaOnMakara.jpg/130px-GangaOnMakara.jpg)
Photograph titled "Rameshwar cave [Ellora]" taken after the excavation was complete and the entire length of the goddess Ganga was revealed showing her standing on the aquatic monster Makara.
Photograph titled "Façade of the Shrine of the River Goddesses, Kailasanatha rock-cut temple, Ellora" showing from left to right the river goddesses, Sarasvati, Ganga, and Yamuna. Date of sculptures: mid-8th to 9th century CE
Photograph titled, "Shrine of the River Goddesses - north side of Kailas Court Kailasanatha Cave Temple, Cave XVI, Ellora." It shows from left to right: Saraswati, Ganga, and Yamuna. Date of sculpture: mid-8th to 9th century CE.
![Photograph titled "Rameshwar cave [Ellora]" taken after the excavation was complete and the entire length of the goddess Ganga was revealed showing her standing on the aquatic monster Makara.](/wiki/File:GangaOnMakara.jpg)
Photograph titled, "Close view of carved figure of Ganga at base of pillar of gopura of the Narasimha Temple, Ahobilam," photographer unknown, but taken for the Archaeological Survey of India. Date of photograph 1875. Date of sculpture: mid-16th century. Ganga is standing on Makara an aquatic monster.
Photograph titled, "Close view of figure of Ganga at base of pillar of the gopura of the Jalakanteshvara Temple, Vellore 2724," Sculpture in Vijayanagara Style dates to the 16th century. Taken for the Archaeological Survey of India by an unknown photographer. Date of photograph: 1875
Photograph titled, "Statue of Ganga, Jagannatha Temple, Puri," of the river goddess Ganga riding on the aquatic monster Makara. Date of sculpture: 12th century CE. Photographer: Poorno Chondro Mukherji. Date of photograph: 1895.
The sculpture, from the early 5th century CE, shows Vishnu as Varaha, his boar incarnation, rescuing Bhudevi (or the goddess Earth). In the side of the panel are shown the river goddesses, Ganga riding the Makara crocodile or monster and Yamuna riding a turtle. Photograph taken in 1875.
b (citations to reliable sources): 
c (OR): 
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_1880s.jpg){kind=link}
