Talk:Ganges/Archive 6

I changed the statement above to a more neutral and precise one, for example the word "repeated" is open ended, the move debates are listed. I request that my version is reinstated.[1] Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed renaming this article to Ganges River for consistency with other rivers at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers §��Rivers of India naming. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:13, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The article especially the pollution section is overtly outdated with references even more than 10 yrs old included as citation. FGS, do we have to explain every damn edit here in the talk page. I'm outta here. WorLD8115 (TalK) 15:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To be "outta here" or not is your prerogative, but the references (I'm assuming you mean "overly") are not outdated, the average citation in the section being from 2010 or 2011. Also, in your recent edit "lifeline" needs an article. I'm restoring it. (Contrast "it is a lifeline to" with "it is lifeline to" Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:39, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ganges name is not used commonly anywhere in India. Even Official documents by the Govt. bear Ganga as the name. Dont know what is the problem in renaming/move.

http://india.gov.in/ http://wrmin.nic.in/index3.asp?subsublinkid=818&langid=1&sslid=327 http://uponline.up.nic.in/upsociety.aspx http://upgov.nic.in/upstateglance.aspx

I can provide hundreds of such references, links, articles which support my argument. Principal article name should be Ganga or River Ganga or Ganga River acc. to Wiki terminology with a redirect page of Ganges.WorLD8115 (TalK) 06:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

And what about non-Indian English sources? Have you read Talk:Ganges/Archive_5#Requested_move_.282011.29? If you have new arguments please open a formal move discussion. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey, if you don't mind people making fun of you for celebrating the "Marijuana River"!

But seriously, WP:RECOGNIZABLE. — kwami (talk) 07:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It is one of the most popular articles, last month statistics alone have ranked it 9830 in traffic and deserves to have a better title. Here are a few non-Indian English sources-link1, link2. I would not want to open a new move discussion considering the sub-standard comments like "Marijuana River" by editors here. WorLD8115 (TalK) 13:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It has the best title, as determined by current consensus. And a move request is the only way an article title is going to happen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:02, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Making Indian, Singaporean, Hong Kong English and even instruction sheet "Engrish" coequal with the language of educated native speakers is a recipe for disaster. Chide all you want, but educated native English speakers should have the final say. Then if I attempt to contribute to Hindi or Nepali Wikipedia, the shoe is on the other foot. LADave (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@LADave: It has little to do with educated native speakers. The reason why we have the name "Ganges" is that "Ganges" is what is preferred by reliable tertiary sources (encyclopedias, dictionaries) in the English language. When those sources start calling it, "Ganga," whether educated native speakers do or not, we'll change. It hasn't happened yet.

@World8115: Please don't provide hundreds of references. Those of us who have worked on the article, have brought it to its current level of completion, whether popular or not, are aware that it is called "Ganga" in India. It has been called "Ganga" in the English-language press in India for some 60 years now, but the common internationally recognized tertiary-source name remains "Ganges." Besides, the Ganges is a transboundary river, it is not India's alone to name. In Bangladesh different distributaries are called by different names, none of which is Ganga. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions

@ F&F: The main distributary of Ganga in Bangladesh is Padma which also is a local name in Bangladesh. I am not aware of what the encyclopedia refers Padma as. Ganga is predominantly an Indian River as majority of its length is in India. WorLD8115 (TalK) 06:11, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your reply. Could you clarify? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

All reliable tertiary sources from across the world (so long as they are in the English language) should be examined in order to find out the predominant name of the river. Not just the countries within which the river happens to flow which is irrelevant. The majority of English-language sources still refer to the river as Ganges which you will see if you look through the archives.

As mentioned earlier, changing Ganges to Ganga will set a precedent that will result in name changes for a huge number of articles outside of the Anglosphere. Japan will change to Nippon, Germany to Deutschland, Spain to España, etc. And so many cities, regions, other geographical features and even biographies will have to change to a foreign sounding name which in the end will appease the nationalists but reduce readability and increase confusion among the users of Wikipedia. Let's not forget the geographical features situated in disputed regions of the world where two or more nations claim a particular area. If the non-Anglicised name disappears there will be constant bickering on the talk pages about which "local" language the article's name should be in. Gizza ^(t)(c) 11:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

@DaGizza, I'm unable to understand the second part of your argument of changing Japan to Nippon, Germany to Deutschland etc., I think these are the names in local language of the region and not in English. Whereas Ganga is used by the Indian English media, states and Govt. establishments, official documents (English) etc., And I don't understand why you are talking about disputed territories here. Cheers.

@ F&F: I replied to your argument of trans-boundary river as the main distributary of Ganga in Bangladesh is Padma and has its own article. This article is for the river system of Ganga.WorLD8115 (TalK) 07:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing called "predominantly an Indian river." Either it lies completely within the borders of India or it doesn't, in which case, it is a transboundary river. The Ganges, in its international and geographical definition includes the Ganges Delta (and all the distributories). You may wish to pursue the question of whether an independent article is needed for Padma at Talk:Padma, but the "Ganges" is the international and geographical name of the river, the name by three to one in all reliable tertiary sources (encyclopedias and dictionaries). There is little chance that Wikipedia will change an international name on the basis of what English-language newspapers call it in the country which contains the greater length of a river's course. Britannica, for example is very clear: 'Although officially as well as popularly called the Ganga in Hindi and in other Indian languages, internationally it is known by its conventional name, the Ganges. ... For most of its course the Ganges flows through Indian territory, although its large delta in the Bengal area, which it shares with the Brahmaputra River, lies mostly in Bangladesh." As is Webster's, "Ganges River (geographical name), Hindi Ganga, River, northern India and Bangladesh." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 17:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, when the shoe is on the other foot (apropos @LADave:), all the India-centric-editors who periodically troop through here demanding a name change are strangely reticent about defending their principle: Thus the 2,880 km-long Brahmaputra river, flows some 1,600 km in China, where all the English-language newspapers call it the Yarlung Zangbo, another 900 km through India, where it is called Brahmaputra, and a final 350 km through Bangladesh, where it is called Jamuna, before it meets the Ganges. I have yet to see an India-POV editor request a page move from from the international and geographical name Brahmaputra to Yarlung Zangbo. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you are bringing the trans-boundary point again, I will provide few articles reference (link1, link2) where the word "Ganga" is given preference over "Ganges" or the latter is never used. These articles are from a prominent Bangladeshi newspaper in ENGLISH (Dont know why it is so difficult to understand this). The sources you provide maybe used in Wiki but you can see that every source of yours considers Ganga as a name in Hindi language. While this is most certainly true it fails to realize that Ganga is also used for referring the river in English. The logic is flawed right there. Sad to see editor such as yourself branding all Indian editors in a particular category. The name of Brahmaputra, largely a trans-boundary river also should be debated and the appropriate title to be retained as the article head. Proper naming has to be followed throughout and not only for a particular article. I did not know that Wikipedia articles are based on a "handful encyclopedias and dictionaries". I will not argue further about this and the discussion is closed from my side. Thanks for your inputs, Have a nice day. WorLD8115 (TalK) 19:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

@World8115: We do understand that "Ganga" is used in English-language newspapers and other publications in India. All previous page moves have made that argument. I apologize for losing my patience a little, but you have to understand that people such as I have seen this page move many times before. I have scratched my intemperate words, and I apologize again. As for Bangladesh, here are the statistics in the domain name .bd for both "Ganges" (13,200 returns and Ganga 7,000 returns. But, as I said before somewhere, even what it is called in Bangladesh is not important. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Encyclopedias have certain conventions, some going back hundreds of years. Wikipedia article titles policy says: "Although official, scientific, birth, original, or trademarked names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used." As for encyclopedia and dictionaries, as of today, some 63,000 use "Ganges", whereas approximately 18,000 use "Ganga," and many of those refer to the goddess Ganga rather than the river. I hope you appreciate this. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I agree that encyclopedia and dictionaries mention it as Ganges and thus the article is named so. Still it is not the appropriate or popular usage as Google yields 3.2 million results for Ganges and 12.8 million for Ganga. Even if you accommodate half the results related to the Goddess there is an astounding difference. To confirm English language usage of Ganga in India, .in domain Google yields 7.63 million for Ganga compared to 0.42 million for Ganges. As the discussion is not only related to India but overall, in the .com domain Ganga yields 42.8 million compared to 9 million for Ganges. Again a vast difference. But as you said, wiki follows naming conventions based on encyclopedic content and not on general and popular usage in the media even though Ganga is the common name in the reliable sources, the page cannot be moved. Thanks for your patience. Have a nice day :) WorLD8115 (TalK) 03:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Doing a google search for "Ganga" (or "Ganges") and citing the number of hits Google reports doesn't really mean anything. For one, Google's estimated hits are often wildly inaccurate. Second, many of the hits are not about the river. Out of curiosity I looked at the first few pages of hits Google gave for "Ganga". I found 3 pages that were actually about the river, 2 about the Goddess, 3 religious, 6 music, 9 hotels/resorts/retreats, 5 school/studies/yoga study, 2 hospitals, 7 other companies (eg, a skateboard company), 4 personal (twitter, linkedin, etc), 2 about the word as slang (ie, marijuana), 2 festivals, and 4 not English. In other words, about 94% of the Google hits were not about the river. Pfly (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your point that Google search is not valid here but I only brought that up as the previous comment was based on the Google results in Ban domain. However, your argument is not entirely valid as you did not share the results of Ganges in Google most of which are also irrelevant or about hotels etc.WorLD8115 (TalK) 19:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Pfly is right. There is an easy way to remove inaccurate Google returns by doing a binary search. If you search for ("ganges river" OR "river ganges" -hotel -restaurant -goddess), i.e. exclude those links which mention "hotel," "restaurant," or "goddess," you get 3,750,000 Google links. However, a similar search for ("ganga river" OR "river ganga" -hotel -restaurant -goddess) yields 1,050,000 Google links. That seems to mirror the three to one preference for "Ganges" in the tertiary sources as well. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

To the objection that "river" is not used always used in references to the river, one can add "the Ganges" or "the Ganga" to the search. So a Google binary search for ("ganges river" OR "river ganges" OR "the ganges" -hotel -restaurant -goddess) yields 6,000,000 Google links, whereas the corresponding binary search ("ganga river" OR "river ganga" OR "the ganga" -hotel -restaurant -goddess) yields 1,740,000 Google links. It shows that simple (non-binary) Google searches in fact produce spurious results for "Ganga," far more often than they do for "Ganges." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:25, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The same approach applied to the domain name .bd for Bangadesh (i.e. a Google search for: "ganges river" OR "river ganges" OR "the ganges" -hotel -restaurant -goddess site:.bd) yields 5,330 returns for "ganges", and 554 returns for "ganga". It is only in the domain name .in (India) that there are more search returns for "ganga." Thus the Google search for: ("ganges river" OR "river ganges" OR "the ganges" -hotel -restaurant -goddess site:.in) returns 68,500 links, whereas the same for "ganga" returns 76,700 links. Thus even in the domain name .in (India), the preference for "ganga" is not significantly greater. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

After all this talk why this page has not been moved to Ganga, what is the problem? Prymshbmg (talk) 06:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Prymshbmg: Because there's no consensus to move it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

See [2], [3] and following sections for the most exhaustive prior discussions, Google analyses, comment from Sue Gardner (who was in favour of the move) etc. Some of these should perhaps be revisited to see if there has been any significant change in sources over the past three years. But I'm afraid it's all largely down to Wikipedia demographics, in the end. Andreas JN466 17:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

==Article Size== @Abecedare : I had already quoted / cited the same policy which defines "Readable-prose size: the amount of viewable text in the main sections of the article, not including tables, lists, or footer sections". I can't find your version specifically. Also [4] was well explained in edit summaries and conforms to Irrelevant cruft. MonaPisser (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Abecedare's point was that whatever tool you're using is not excluding these items. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

::My tool was restricted to the main sections of the article and excluded tables, lists, and the footer section. Can I get a similar breakdown from your tool to analyze where the problem is ?MonaPisser (talk)

I gave you a link to the tool Wikipedia editors use. I have no idea what you used. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I regret that my browser does not support that tool. I used "wordcount.net" MonaPisser (talk) 23:33, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"The Ganges (/ˈɡændʒiːz/ GAN-jeez), also Ganga (Hindi: गंगा; Bengali: গঙ্গা ; Sanskrit: गङ्गा) (Hindustani pronunciation: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] GUNG-ga), is a trans-boundary river of Asia which flows through India and Bangladesh."
Ganga does not include the portion of the river flowing through Bangladesh. The opening lead is misleading and legally incorrect under the extant water sharing treaty and its articles. MonaPisser (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose the lede text also Ganga (Hindi: गंगा; Bengali: গঙ্গা ; Sanskrit: गङ्गा) (Hindustani pronunciation: [ˈɡəŋɡaː] GUNG-ga), along with all unclear/vague article usage of 'Ganga', requires urgent removal from this article, in view of the settled/agreed treaty position between the riparian nations which predates this encyclopedia's article.MonaPisser (talk) 08:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The article makes it clear Ganga is an alternate name for Ganges and local treaties can name geographical features whatever they want - Wikipedia is not bound to follow them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Who has a dispute with my edits ? Its clearly explained. "Ganges" is the name for the pre-Independence river. Now it is "Ganga" in India and "Padma" in BD. There is a clear need for 2 articles to reflect the divided river. These are SPIN-OFF FORKS. The Spin-off-fork is NOT a "Move". Moving "Ganges" to "Ganga" is a recipe for disaster. The Spin-off-fork is also NOT a RENAME.

• Also NOT a WP:POVFORK, "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

How is all the Hindu symbolism relevant to Bangladesh after 1947 when all the Hindus have left from there. MonaPisser (talk) 18:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It's the same river with the same history. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:01, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. Rivers (and their politics) change course over time. MonaPisser (talk) 20:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Rivers are inanimate - they don't have politics. And are you suggesting the river stopped flowing in India or Bangladesh? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the land dividing India and Bangladesh is any less golden on either side of the artificial border the bloody British socially engineered ? Neither side has forgotten 1905, the engineered famines, or the Butcher of Amritsar and their ilk. MonaPisser (talk) 20:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

That comment is a pretty good indication that you're incapable of approaching the subject with neutrality, and that by definition, any contribution you make on the subject is likely to be pushing a point of view. I'd suggest sticking to topics where you don't have such a strong opinion. Ironholds (talk) 16:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

:::::::My riposte has to be read in the context of the ludicrous proposition that a network of rivers have history and stop flowing simply because territorial boundaries dividing a linguistic people were established (by departing colonialists) under the historic circumstances I specified, unconnected to these rivers. MonaPisser (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The size of this article is excessive, the article is unreadable and policy requires it to be split.MonaPisser (talk) 06:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong again. Prose size (text only): 51 kB (8487 words) "readable prose size". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

:Details (human readable on page prose) mechanically calculated by an online public 3rd party software.

14934 Words

92651 Characters

77612 Characters (no spaces)

Sentences 842

Paragraphs 417

Avg. Sentence (words) 18

Avg. Sentence (chars) 111 MonaPisser (talk) 18:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. We use tools designed specifically for Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You appear confused. Policies are independent of tools. The tool you cite is .js based and has this banner Code that you insert on this page could contain malicious content capable of compromising your account. Other shortcomings and assumptions in the tool are also clearly documented, resulting in a lesser count. I reiterate Details (human readable "on page" prose) mechanically calculated. MonaPisser (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

And you appear to excel in giving transparent excuses as to why you should be allowed to create a POV-fork. There are enough eyes on this article to prevent that from happening. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Two points:

• The difference in word counts is because for determining "readable prose size" references, images, tables, ToC, external links etc are excluded. And by that measure the word count provided by NeilN is the relevant one, and per wikipedia guidelines this article is not ripe for splitting.
• Even if, arguendo, the article were too big, the way to shorten it would be to create specialized articles on Ganges' course, hydrology, ecology etc (just as we have a sub-article on its religious significance), and condensing their coverage in the main article. Duplicating this article under the title Ganga while idiosyncratically removing some sub-sections (as MonaPisser attempted here), is simply disruptive and a non-starter.

Abecedare (talk) 20:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree and thank you for detailing the objections. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@MonaPisser. It may have been the "bloody British" who socially engineered the borders, however post independence, it is India and Bangladesh who have maintained it, hypocrisy much! Pre-independence or not the Ganges is still the name of the river, with the Hindi name appropriately mentioned in the article too. I suggest you actually start making sense rather than accuse others of appearing confused - furthermore, I agree with Ironholds that you are most likely incapable of keeping a neutral point of view.Antiochus the Great (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no Ganges in Hinduism. This article Ganges in Hinduism is fabricated "original research" with spurious sources, and no authentic 'Hindu' sources which use "Ganges" ?MonaPisser (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Neil-N: "transparent excuse" is oxymoronic. You probably mean the same nostalgic eyes who read such outdated 'historical' artefacts

• Cautley, Proby Thomas (1864). Ganges canal. A disquisition on the heads of the Ganges of Jumna canals, North-western Provinces. London, Printed for Private circulation.

• Fraser, James Baillie (1820). Journal of a tour through part of the snowy range of the Himala Mountains, and to the sources of the rivers Jumna and Ganges. Rodwell and Martin, London.
• Hamilton, Francis (1822). An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges and its branches. A. Constable and company, Edinburgh.
  

which spam limited internet bandwidths of poor 3rd world (oops South/LDC) netizens with 'Raj' irrelevancies, and ignore the current nomenclatures used for multi-national trans-boundary rivers. MonaPisser (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The agreed name between the 2 riparian states is neither Ganga nor Ganges, but "Ganga/Ganges" [5] and elsewhere. Neither of these are English words ('Ganges' has Greek roots). 'Ganga' refers to the Indian section/s (in all major Indian languages including English) and 'Ganges' to the Bangladesh section/s (in English) whereas Bangladeshis predominantly use 'Padma' in Bengali.MonaPisser (talk) 21:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Recent technical literature eg. Trans-boundary River Basins in South Asia:Options for Conflict Resolution (2011) predominantly uses 'Ganga'.MonaPisser (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So all this boils down to an end run around against previous move discussions. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I was not a participant in those discussions, and I disagree, on principle, with partisan arguments.MonaPisser (talk) 08:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Which doesn't entitle you to ignore the outcomes of the previous discussions. Start (yet another) move request if you must. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:57, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I (drew a line through) the edits by MonaPisser, who has been blocked for using multiple accounts.[6] Socks can have their edits reverted or on talk pages, if they've had a response, struck through. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes there was one, and it was reverted by User:Johnuniq. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

A new article has been published online at FT Magazine about the Ganges River. The title of the article, "The Ganges: holy, deadly river," was written by Victor Mallet on February 13th, 2015. The article describes the extreme and dangerous pollution that has affected the river, including things like industrial and human waste. This article might have some information in it that could be beneficial to this Wikipedia article, particularly in the "Pollution" section. The FT article talks heavily upon industrial waste as well as human waste polluting the river. The article can be found at this link: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/dadfae24-b23e-11e4-b380-00144feab7de.html#slide7 Cheers, Comatmebro ^{~Come at me~} 21:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Ganges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111008223133/http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/anu228556756739.pdf to http://mowr.gov.in/writereaddata/linkimages/anu228556756739.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100123192540/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1eE4Xw3njaW1MKpJRYOch4hOdLQ to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5g1eE4Xw3njaW1MKpJRYOch4hOdLQ

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ganges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131016111431/http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1343&catid=55&subcatid=354 to http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1343&catid=55&subcatid=354

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a probable case of vandalism. The text in the history subsection has been deleted after the reference to Megasthenes as the commentary ships straight onto the year 1809 A.D. which means that the details of events in the intervening two millennia have gone missing. Koustav Halder (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Update I checked the older versions of this page straight upto 15 September 2011 and have found that the history section was incomplete even back then. Probably not be a case of vandalism then. Koustav Halder (talk) 10:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Koustav Halder

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ganges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110504075319/http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252000/prakash.pdf to http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/aug252000/prakash.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newindianexpress.com/lifestyle/2016/sep/24/It%E2%80%99s-scientifically-validated-now-Ganga-water-is-%E2%80%98holy%E2%80%99-1524518--1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Whether or not it is mentioned in the vedas or the ramayana doesn't detract from the sacred nature of the river to Hindus. Rather than fretting about the mention (or lack of), I think it best to not say anything either way, unless a source is forthcoming that connects the sacred nature of the river to a specific mention. --regentspark (comment) 16:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Digha Sonpur JP Setu.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

A map was likely inserted by a Chinese agent. It shows Lhasa in China. Lhasa is in Tibet. The map labeled "A 1908 map showing the course of the Ganges and its tributaries." is sufficient to show the drainage as does the image labeled "Ganges from Space". The Chinese image labeled "Map of the combined drainage basins of the Ganges (yellow), Brahmaputra (violet) and Meghna (green)" is superfluous, does not add to the reader's knowledge, other than to propagate Chinese propagana trying to justify their invasion, occupation, and continued genocide of Tibet. At least replace it with a map showing the region north of the Himalayan range as the Tibetan Plateau. There is no compelling reason to infest this valuable reference with political propaganda. Delete/Replace the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfeil (talk • contribs) 23:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I made that map and am definitely not a Chinese agent nor intended it as Chinese propaganda. The national boundaries come from the Natural Earth GIS dataset. While I'm sympathetic to Tibet it is highly unusual to see it shown as an independent nation in contemporary maps (plus I don't know of any high-quality GIS data that has Tibet as a separate nation). Anyway, if I was really a Chinese agent I must be a bad one, seeing as I didn't show Arunachal Pradesh and Doklam as part of China/Tibet. All that said it possibly could be useful to add the names like "Tibetan Plateau" and other mountain ranges from which the various rivers flow. I thought the map was already dangerously cluttered with text, but perhaps additional text could be added without becoming too dense, maybe. Pfly (talk) 00:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

The name "Ganges" is the Hellenic (Ancient Greek) version of the word Ganga

It is a corruption of the actual name of the river which is "Ganga".

Hence I propose that this Wiki article should be named "Ganga" and "Ganges" should redirect to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pskale (talk • contribs) 15:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

The process for this is at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting a single page move. Please bear in mind the issue of WP:CommonName. Toddy1 (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree and support thIs request. KShukal (talk) 13:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Ganges is very rarely used by anyone in India including English media. It is mostly used by the western news outlets. Almost entire country calls the river Ganga. Why does Wikipedia use "Ganges"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raghu487 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 12 March 2021 (UTC) This article once again proves inconsistent rules enforced on Wikipedia. Even the weird logic of "Google hits" used in case of Prayagraj proves that Ganga is most commonly used compared to Ganges. Even if the west continues to use Ganges, it isn't applicable to the people who live in the country the river is relevant to. The name isn't even political like in the case of other changes. Everyone in India calls it Ganga irrespective of religion, political affiliation or the language. User:Rreagan007 mentioned the name can not be changed until most reliable English sources switched their usage. "Most reliable English sources" doesn't have to be western. NDTV, Times of India, CNA, The new Indian Express, Hindustan Times, The Weather Channel etc., almost every Indian English media uses Ganga over Ganges. Ganges is no longer relevant for the majority of the English speakers the river matters the most to. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]} The name has to be updated accordingly.

The Ganges is a trans-boundary river, not India's alone. It is internationally known. In the scholarly sources, especially the best-known ones published by academic publishers, it is called Ganges, not Ganga. Please read the archives of this page; this topic has appeared dozens of times. Please read the last but one template above (beginning, " This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below. Repeated requests to move to Ganga have been rejected. Please read the following before making another.") Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Ganga is a trans boundary river that travels through just India and Bangladesh. Ganges isn't a exonym, its a corrupt version Ganga used by the Europeans. It is known as Padma in Bangladesh (even in English). Neither country's English media refer to the river as "Ganges". Ganga is the most common English name of the two or in any language. Even some international publishers refer to it as Ganga. Use of Ganges over Ganga is forcing the name that is neither popular nor accurate. And frankly Wikipedia's rules for names are wildly inconsistent. If a handful of news papers that rarely use this river in their vocabulary continuous to use "Ganges" then people in Indian subcontinent where the entire river flows have to accept it? All the sources I have cited earlier are reputed English news outlets, not from local language. Western/ international media alone can not be dictating the names in countries they have nothing to do with. English is an official language in India. Significant number of people use English to communicate daily. so the English name that's been used in India should be considered. This is absurd to just consider international sources and completely ignore Indian sources. Even the official govt sources in India call it Ganga.^[6] This is an extract from PBS "The Ganga River, known as the Ganges under British rule, is one of the most revered waterways in the world" ^[7] So, its clear some sources in the west too use "Ganga" over "Ganges". Few more references from international journals and other sources ^{[8] [9] [10]} (Raghu487 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2021 (UTC))

Good discussion and point-counterpoints. Since the last (and only) RM seems to have taken place in 2011, and came to no consensus, maybe it's time to reconsider the name. Ganga seems like an odd name to the western ear but only because it hasn't been used very often (but neither is Ganges, unless in a Gandhi film and even there I'm not sure what name is used). As long as a redirect exists changing the name to Ganga seems to make sense. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

• user:Raghu487 and user:Randy Kryn I'm creating a separate subsection because I need to present the evidence in context for future use). This is a controversial article. There have been five unsuccessful page moves since 2011: the one you mention, Randy Kryn, in 2011 (the result was not "no consensus," but "no consensus to move," which is the same as a failed move: there were five supports, but 10 opposes for the move), one in 2012, another in 2013, a fourth in 2015 (Talk:Ganges/Archive_6#Requested_move) and the last in October 2020 closed by admin Bishonen. (see below)

  As for Wikipedia policy, please read WP:SCHOLARSHIP. It states: "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available ..."

  What are the scholarly publishers? According to Wikipedia's page Rankings of academic publishers (especially SENSE (Socio-economic and Natural Sciences of the Environment) rankings listed therein), they are the University Presses; MIT Press (which Google does not search under "university"); Academic Press; Springer; Routledge; Macmillan; Elsevier; Wiley; Sages; Blackwell; and Pergamon.

• A search in Google Books among these scholarly publishers for the words "river" and "ganges" but excluding "ganga" yields 44,700 book returns for the period 2000 to 2021 (Click on "Tools" to see the numbers); Note: we need to add "river" in order to disambiguate, as "ganga" is also a popular name, e.g. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital in both India and Pakistan. Note also the instances of both "ganges" and "ganga" occurring support both names (which we cannot use in a page title; we already have both names in the lead sentence)

  among the same scholarly publishers, a similar search for "river" and "ganga" but excluding "ganges" gives 17,900 book links.

  That means for the period 2000 to 2021 (note the emphasis on "current scholarly publications") "ganges" but not "ganga" is preferred to "ganga" but not "ganges" by the ratio of 5 to 2 (2.5 to 1).

• Among journal published by these same scholarly publishers during the same period (21st century), there are 31,300 returns in Google Scholar for "river" and "Ganges" but not "Ganga";

  among the same scholarly publishers, there are 16,900 journal returns in Google scholar.

  That means for the period 2000 to 2021, "ganges" but not "ganga" is preferred to "ganga" but not "ganges" by the ratio of 7 to 4 (1.74 to 1) in journals published by the top-ranking academic publishers.

• There is also the matter of due weight. The Wikipedia policy states in WP:TERTIARY:

  Tertiary sources are publications such as encyclopedias and other compendia that summarize primary and secondary sources. Wikipedia is considered to be a tertiary source.^[a] Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources.

  Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other.

  A search for tertiary sources published by the same publishers for the period 2000 to 2021, i.e. those with titles "encyclopedia" or "encyclopaedia" or "companion" or "review" or "survey" produces 1,110 returns (Click on "Tools" to see the numbers); a similar search for "river" and "ganga" but not "ganges" yields 305 tertiary sources (again, click on "Tools" to see the numbers)

  That means among 21st-century tertiary sources published by scholarly publishers, "river" and "ganges" but excluding "ganga" is preferred to "river" and "ganga" but excluding "ganges" by the ratio of 7 to 2 (3.6 to 1)

• Finally on a personal note, I should add that I have been working on this article for a very long time. I have drawn the headwaters of the river: File:HeadwatersGanges1.jpg painstakingly by hand; I have added the map of the course of the river, File:GangesValley&Plain.jpg, and I have written the lead of this article; the section: Ganges#Religious_and_cultural_significance (the longest section; where I have personally taken some pictures) and the section on canals (in which I have drawn the map of the canal, File:GangesCanal2.jpg, also by hand and annotated it). All this, of course, does not give me any heft in a page move discussion but it does point to my having a familiarity with the topic. I don't have that kind of time available anymore, but I keep an eye on the literature. I have witnessed very likely half a dozen if not more such page move discussions over the years. If I thought there was any change taking place in the names being applied to the river in scholarly sources, I would have made a note on the talk page myself. But as you will have seen, among (a) books published by the leading academic publishers (b) journals published by the leading academic publishers, and (c) tertiary sources (encyclopedia, companions, reviews and surveys) published by these same publishers "ganges" is preferred to "ganga" by ratios of 5 to 2; 7 to 4; and 7 to 2 respectively in the 21st century (It is more lopsided if you extend the range to be closer to the British years in India, i.e. to 1947 and before). I have no doubt there are plenty newspaper reports and media stories in which "ganga" is preferred to "ganges," but scholarly sources are where the rubber hits the road on WP. Best regards and thanks for your posts. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:47, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I assume good faith, but many of the arguments I am reading from posters defending the use of the term "Ganges" seem to fall flat. For example, India has formalized that the city of "Mumbai" be called "Mumbai" and not Bombay. (This point has been brought up before). The Wikipedia page reflects this change, even if in Pop culture for the west, Bombay is still the predominant term, which it is. I am simply flummoxed as to why the official name on this site is Ganges? It has been codified by the Indian government to be said as Ganga. What more is needed? The name is what it is. If a person says their name is "X", but many people know this person by name "Y", there seemingly is not a clear demarcation of which name should be used to indicate the subjectivity of the person in question, at least philosophically. But Wikipedia should weigh both of these carefully. In this case it seems that there is enough codification and justification to use the word "Ganga". In other cases, the popular term is best used, such as "Magic Johnson", but the key distinction between that example and this one is that Magic Johnson is not disputing the fact that he happily goes by "Magic" and not his real name Earvin.

Does the popularity of usage change the fact that something is inherently false? While you have certainly backed up your claims by scholarly article usage, I would find it incredibly hard to believe that if, for example, CNN/BBC/NY Times/etc all used "Ganga" every single time they wrote an article, BUT ever scholarly article used "Ganges", Wikipedia would still use "Ganges" as the official term. Maybe in terms of medical terminology, this would make sense, like the word "Heart Attack", but again, it does not make sense here. Thelovingllama (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me why "Ganga" is being called "Gan jeez" here? Why is actual name being distorted? LearnIndology (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

see above: "A river by any other name: Ganga/Ganges and the postcolonial politics of knowledge on Wikipedia" https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293709 AugusteBlanqui (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

That article was published in March 2017. Its Google Scholar citation index i.e. the number of times it has been cited by other scholarly articles is 3. Contrast that with Future changes in hydro-climatic extremes in the Upper Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra River basins, published in December 2017, has been cited by 62 times. It uses only "Ganges," not "Ganga." Please also see the 2021 Uttarakhand flood, and note in its context the article, Hazard from Himalayan glacier lake outburst floods," published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, in December 2019, and cited by 29 scholarly articles. It uses only Ganges, not Ganga. In other words, not all sources are equal in deciding weight. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

It's useless to compare citation counts for articles in different disciplines.AugusteBlanqui (talk) 18:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

An editor has been WP:EDITWARRING about the name of the river in the lead sentence. The Ganges is called Ganga in India and Padma in Bangladesh; it is a transboundary river. Please note:

• Salman, Salman M. A.; Uprety, Kishor (2002), Conflict and Cooperation on South Asia's International Rivers: A Legal Perspective, London, The Hague, New York: Kluwer Law International, p. 129,   (p. 129) The Ganges Basin, known in India as the Ganga and in Bangladesh as the Padma, is an international river to which India, Bangladesh, Nepal and China are the riparian states.
• Swain, Ashok (2004), Managing Water Conflict: Asia, Africa, and the Middle East, Routledge, p. 54,  The Ganges is an international river which flows through the territories of India and Bangladesh. In the Indian side, the Ganges is called the Ganga. ... India's Ganga then becomes Padma for a Bangladeshi.
• Islam, S. Nazrul (2020), Rivers and Sustainable Development: Alternative Approaches and Their Implications, New York: Oxford University Press, p. 126,  Notes 4: The dry Ganges river in Bangladesh (locally known as the Padma River) ... evokes strong sentiment among the people of Bangladesh.
• Hussain, Md Manjurul; Bari, Sheikh Hefzul; Mahmud, Ishtiak; Siddiquee, Mohammad Istiyak Hossain (2021), "Application of different artificial neural network for streamflow forecasting", in Sharma, Priyanka; Machiwal, Deepesh (eds.), Advances in Streamflow Forcasting: From Traditional to Modern Approaches, Elsevier, p. 159, The Ganges, also known as the Ganga (in India) and the Padma (in Bangladesh), is one of the largest river systems in the world.
• Wirsing, Robert G.; Jasparro, Daniel C.; Stoll, Christopher (2013), "Water Insecurity in Himalayan Asia", International Conflict over Water Resources in Himalayan Asia, Springer, p. 7, Table 1.1 Major Rivers of the Greater Himalayas-Tibetan Plateau Region ... River: Ganges (Ganga, Padma) Length (km): 2,510 Length (miles): 1,560 Countries in basin: India, Nepal, Bangladesh
• India: Factfile (PDF), Permanent Committee on Geographical Names for British Official Use (PCGN), p. 11, PCGN recommended name=Ganges; Local Names: Padma (Bangladesh), Ganga (India); Feature type: River
• "Subject headings: G" (PDF), US Library of Congress Subject Headings, thirty-fourth edition (LCSH 34) (PDF), 2012, p. 23, Ganges River (India and Bangladesh); UF (use for) Gangā River (India and Bangladesh); BT (broader term) Rivers—Bangladesh, Rivers—India; NT (narrower term) Padma River (Bangladesh)

and please revert to the version in place. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• • Padma is considered a seprate river just like Hoogly river. Just like Arvand Rud is considered seprate river than Euphrates and Tigris despite being same water body. Bunch of irrelevant articles and publications are not going to change the fact and adding Padma to lead name (which already has it's own wiki page) is just going to cause more confusion and chaos. JayB91 (talk) 19:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Please read main stem (which some people call main stream or trunk) and distributary. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

The thing is Ganges "becomes" Padma after Farakka is common knowledge and is rightfully said in lead section but it "becomes" not is alternate name. The section from Farakka to Bay of Bengal is called Padma and from Devprayag to Farakka is called Ganges or Ganga. It is NOT alternate name as said in lead sentence but it becomes so "It enters Bangladesh, its name changing to Padma" should be written as "it becomes". And first line should not be written as if Padma and Ganges are same. No one not even government of India or Bangladesh calls Rudraprayag to Farakka section "Padma" of vice versa; thanks for the tributary link but it is pointless in this case as everyone consider Ganges to be streamed after Farakka in Padma and Hoogly rivers. This is like creating a controversy when there is none; river systems are complex and lack easy categorization, Padma already has its own page no need to mash that and Ganges up and create confusions.JayB91 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Again, it is not "tributary," but "distributary." It is not Rudraprayag, the confluence of Mandakini and the Alaknanda, but Devprayag, the confluence of the Bhagirathi and the Alaknanda. At the other end, the Padma is the main stem. (See Rahman M.M. et al. (2020) Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna Delta, Bangladesh and India: A Transnational Mega-Delta In: Nicholls R., Adger W., Hutton C., Hanson S. (eds) Deltas in the Anthropocene. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham., which says, "The Ganges River drains the Himalayas and a significant portion of Northern India for approximately 2500 km before entering the Bengal basin and dividing into two distributaries. The main stem of the Ganges continues flowing southwards where it meets the Brahmaputra River. The other stem flows through West Bengal in India as the Bhagirathi-Hoogly River.") The Padma was the historical main stem in this region of variable physiography, when barely 250 years ago, it flowed almost all the way to the Bay of Bengal. It met the Brahmaputra pretty much near its end and the combined estuary thereafter was called the Meghna (see Figure 2.3 in the above reference). The Ganga today might stop at Farakka, but the Ganges continues on as the Padma. The Britannica article on the Ganges says, " West Bengal is the last Indian state that the Ganges enters, and, after it flows into Bangladesh, the Mahananda River joins it from the north. In West Bengal in India, as well as in Bangladesh, the Ganges is locally called the Padma." The Wikipedia article on the Padma is written by amateurs; it most likely refers to the segment after the Ganges (as the Padma) joins the Brahmaputra (as the Jumna) which is still called the Padma. The reason why that section is still called the Padma is that 250 years ago, the Brahmaputra did not meet the Ganges/Padma except at its very end (in what was then East Bengal). It was the Brahmaputra (Jumna) that shifted course, joining the Padma higher up and began to follow its course. You couldn't very well change the name of the river it had joined. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:33, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, of course, river systems are complex. Many names are simply conventional. The source stream in hydrology is the Alaknanda, as it is longer than Bhagirathi. The length of Ton-Yamuna exceeds that of Alaknanda-Ganges at their confluence at Allahabad, so why is the river not called Yamuna? The bulk of the flow of the Ganges comes from rivers entering from Nepal (one of which the Kosi rises in Tibet), so if it is flow we are concerned about we should say, "the Ganges rise in Nepal ...) and so forth. There are anomalies aplenty. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to Hooghly, it is no longer a real distributary of the Ganges, although it is a part of the delta system; it rises in Giria in Murshidabad district and its only direct connection with the Ganges is via a feeder canal taking off the right bank of the Ganges at Farakka. Some 450 years ago, it is claimed, the Bhagirathy-Hooghly was indeed a right bank distributary of the Ganges, but that connection was lost by the time the British arrived and began to make more rigorous observations. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:01, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

re: 21 November 2021 Fowler&fowler revert: "Sorry, but this is unreliable and undue. You may take it to the talk page per WP:BRD and garner consensus for the case that a book published in 1852 with title "Missionary information for young persons" is a reliable source for linking the river with infanticide".

Too often, historic elements are dismissed, rather than expanded on, here on this platform. Art, I might add, is known to reflect life. I would, rather, make a case for the specific point of fact that was so easily dismissed, even subverted, as unreliable, by the deletion.

ie:

"Infanticide is practiced as extensively and as legally in England as it is on the banks of the Ganges" –Benjamin Disreali, Prime Minister.

Disraeli in Outline by Frederick Carroll Brewster, page 251. https://books.google.ca/books?id=RJINAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA251

"In the 19th century, the British observed that on the island of Sagar at the mouth of the Ganges river, the lower castes hurled children into the sea to be devoured by sharks in fulfillment of their vows, and adults voluntarily jumped for the same purpose."

https://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/article/a-cross-cultural-historical-case-against-planned-self-willed-death-and-assisted-suicide/

"In 1802 Carey’s colleague William Ward studied infanticide on the river island of Saugor. Many women made vows to the Holy Ganges River “that if blessed with two children, one would be presented to the River.” As many as 100 children, he estimated (though probably more), were being sacrificed every year."

https://www.christianitytoday.com/history/issues/issue-36/ministry-in-killing-fields.html

Lest they be overlooked, and thus forgotten, Sunny Clark (talk) 19:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sunny Clark: Please find modern academic sources for the claim. I wouldn't give much credence to sources from the early 19th century. If this practice did exist, then, surely, there will be recent papers that say it did. --RegentsPark (comment) 21:49, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you refer to the singular source contemporary to the practice, being a much-published, even famous, quote from the former Prime Minister of England, Benjamin Disraeli, as lacking "credence"? Did you also overlook the "modern, academic source" from McGill University that followed that authoritative one, and the modern reportage that followed that? Thus, I provided an array, a more than adequate response. Please avail yourself. [Adding:] also overlooked: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganges&diff=1056165563&oldid=1056164839 (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sunny Clark: Apologies, I missed seeing your post. I don't think we can take comments made by Disraeli as actual fact. And the McGill law journal article is about assisted suicide and infanticide in the context of law (presumably the experience of the writer) in the Ganges is a passing mention (the British observed that on the island of Sagar at the mouth of the Ganges river, the lower castes hurled children into the sea to be devoured by sharks in fulfillment of their vows). I would hardly call the author an expert on Indian history. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: Should you truly wish to see more academic sources, simply scroll down. Should you merely be playing dismissive, proprietary tag-team with @Fowler&fowler: then do continue to ignore records, as they choose to. Many other academic sources are available for the looking, which you both either avoid or outright deny. Quite telling. Sunny Clark (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sunny Clark: You're "victim playing here". Note that asking me to "scroll down" to see your sources is not a meaningful strategy because it is both hard to find them in the discussion and, when one does, they generally appear to be not exactly stellar. Present your sources in an organized fashion and I will be happy to examine them. I randomly picked one that I assume is yours (this one), and it did look promising. However, on investigation, it contains nothing at all about infanticide in the Ganges so I'm a bit confused as to why you've listed it. It would help if you would list your sources along with the textual extracts that support the connection between the Ganges and infanticide rather than asking others to scroll around and hunt through sources trying to figure out what conclusions you drew from them. But, please don't play the victim. It is not helpful. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Please don't play. You're out of line, as well as facts. Chosen ignorance is an agenda, as is tag-teaming. Sunny Clark (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just not understanding the clear and immediate tendency to erase or push history away when it's unpleasant, leaving an incomplete narrative. Sadly but truly, infanticide has been an integral aspect of the history of the Ganges that, apparently, those that care for it here, do not care for. I elected to only touch on it, as I had, pre-revert. Those interested, would have been able to pursue further from there. Had I wished to write an essay about it, I would have. Quashing information is a disservice to history. Sunny Clark (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Infanticide has always been practiced by only specific caste groups in Indian society. The untouchables, the shudras, and the indigenous people who together constitute 50% of Indian society, have never practiced infanticide. You may examine their gender ratios in the Census of British India from 1871 to 1941. The people of southern India have typically never practiced infanticide, and it has little to do with the Ganges not flowing there, for those in eastern India where the Ganges does flow, and copiously, have also typically not practiced infanticide. Those higher caste groups in the western and middle Gangetic plain (but not typically Brahmins) that have historically practiced infanticide, i.e. the killing of female newborns, have not demonstrated enough of a record of respecting females to bother with making the journey to the Ganges waterfront. Nearby watercourses (canals and small rivers), abandoned wells, or the local woods have served their purpose just as well. I don't know what context elicited Disraeli's observation, but perhaps there were instances of infanticide during some of the large-scale famines in British India in the late 19th-century which were widely advertised back in Britain. The Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870 was enacted during Gladstone's term (though the Christian evangelists did actively lobby for it and might have supported Disraeli). I say all this as someone who had created that page ten years ago and had even added a picture that purported to show a notion similar to Disraeli's. But the truth is more complex. A more accurate statement is in the first paragraph of Women in India and in the citations therein, for example Tim Dyson's A Population History of India, Oxford, 2018. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It's curious that you've added no such mention to the Ganges page, (where that proprietary sense is clear), being an aspect of its history, as related to humans. I would have hoped that the image might have sparked that, rather than merely being flicked off as "unreliable and undue", as was decreed by yourself, though, by your own words here, that is clearly not the case for this "complex" history. Hence, this discussion.

Further, I'd seen that photo you'd added, and considered it no different than the one I added — shall we delete yours now, being merely a "purported depiction? I chose one that specifically referenced the Ganges. Disraeli's observation was widely published, context is readily available. Regarding: "more accurate statement is in the first paragraph of Women in India" — Why you deleted https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ganges&diff=1056165563&oldid=1056164839, a 1981 reference, rather than add, say, "northern", for greater accuracy, appears as lacking a WP:NPOV. There was no conflicting statement. Neither Women in India nor Female foeticide in India mention drownings, nor the Ganges. Perhaps now is the time to include related scholarship, previously overlooked, and lend some credence to those "best regards". Sunny Clark (talk) 17:50, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Infanticide has very little to do with the Ganges river. To be sure, the river purifies in the Hindu tradition. People are cremated on its banks; ashes are immersed in it. Varanasi, or Banaras, on its banks, is the Great Holy Cremation Ground of Hinduism. But female infanticide is not sanctioned by Hinduism. No Hindu priest will preside over a drowning. They never have. And, without the priest, tossing an infant in the Ganges is meaningless for the act is not forgiven in the tradition. That is why those who practice it go to the nearest abandoned well, forest, or canal.

Wikipedia, moreover, is beholden only to scholarly sources. Modern scholarly opinion does not mention infanticide in conjunction with the Ganges. Please search the following for "infanticide." They constitute good scholarly (for reliability) and tertiary (for due weight) sources:

• Parry, Jonathan P. (2000) [1994], Death in Banaras, Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures, Cambridge University Press, p. 1
• San Chirico, Kerry P. C., "Banaras", in Juergensmeyer, Mark; Roof, Wade Clark (eds.), Encyclopedia of Global Religion, Volume 1, pp. 114–116 ​
• Sen, Sudipta (2019), Ganges: The Many Pasts of an Indian River, Yale University Press
• Eck, Diana L. (1982), Banaras: The City of Light, Alfred A. Knopf
• Lodrick, Deryck O.; Ahmad, Nafis (7 May 2021), "Ganges River", Encyclopedia Britannica, retrieved 17 December 2021

In my searches, I was unable to find any mention of "infanticide." Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I beg to differ with your commentary, having provided a scholarly source from McGill Law Journal, from the start of this discussion. So, clearly, scholarly sources do exist. Sourcing was never the issue here. Please search "hurled children into the sea" in the source initially provided:

"In the 19th century, the British observed that on the island of Sagar at the mouth of the Ganges river, the lower castes hurled children into the sea to be devoured by sharks in fulfillment of their vows, and adults voluntarily jumped for the same purpose." -McGill

"hurled children into the sea" indicates infanticide. Further, regarding your opinion: "Infanticide has very little to do with the Ganges river" — history reflects otherwise, as it was once a well-worn vessel for it.

Also, why is the photo you added to Female Infanticide Prevention Act, 1870 "purporting" infanticide at the Ganges so much more worthy than the one you deleted from this article? Both are by an artist associated with William Carey, as it happens. There appears a double-standard. You had chosen to add the one that was inscribed "Infanticide in the Ganges" to another article. Sunny Clark (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your addition (left):

 

Your deletion (right):

 

This is as far as I go in engaging you now. Please read up on Wikipedia policy, Indian history, the history of the Ganges river, and female infanticide. When you have, you may post again, and I'll reconsider engaging you. Assuming good faith—a cardinal Wikipedia principle—does not mean that I am required to engage someone even when their proposed edits become highly undue or fringe. I'm a busy person. My time is valuable. I would rather expend it on editors who have something valuable to offer to Wikipedia. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

That is my sentiment exactly. It is my time laid to waste by your unfounded reverts, apparent double standard, and engagement.2604:3D08:9B7F:EB80:50C8:6671:E542:F098 (talk) 03:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Sunny Clark (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler: To aptly borrow your phrase, Fowler... 'Wikipedia, moreover, is beholden only to scholarly sources. Modern scholarly opinion does mention infanticide in conjunction with the Ganges. Please search the following for "infanticide"' + Ganges. "They constitute good scholarly (for reliability) and tertiary (for due weight) sources" which you claim to have been "unable to find". Might have just taken a nudge. Do not engage me with high-handedness. Engage historical fact. You could start with the handy links below, and don't revert others so readily (and headily), which is not in good faith—a cardinal [or, did you mean selective?] Wikipedia principle? That said, it is evident in the light of your own edit— https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Female_Infanticide_Prevention_Act,_1870&diff=next&oldid=449307519 —no different: that's your double standard. (Well, one difference: mine had had a scholarly source added within the caption.) To quote you once again, Fowler, "This is as far as I go in engaging you now. Please read up on Wikipedia policy, Indian history, the history of the Ganges river, and female infanticide." Please do, Fowler, selective sources (listed above) notwithstanding. This integral element to the history of the Ganges is not for you to decree invalid. You'd also added: "When you have, you may post again, and I'll reconsider engaging..." belying an inappropriate, proprietary stance, among other things. Do try to engage with that cardinal rule in practice, as well as with the facts: Sunny Clark (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia Britannica: A Dictionary of Arts, Sciences ..., Volume 14

Violence and Abuse in Society: Understanding a Global Crisis, Volume 4

The Emergence of the Female Criminal in India: Infanticide and Survival under the Raj

History of Modern India, 1707 A. D. to 2000 A. D

...Denial of the True..."

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).