Talk:Ganges/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

images

they are beautiful but too many. i would say we keep a couple of most relevant. --CarTick (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree. At least the gallery should be moved to the end of the article, I've been thinking. A few of them are beautiful photos, worth keeping on the page. Most could be linked via a {{commons|Ganges River}} template, or perhaps {{commons|Category:Ganges River}}, if the commons template link works with categories. Actually I'm surprised there isn't already a {{commons}} link yet. Pfly (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
please someone feel free to do this. --CarTick (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I just did it. I thought about keeping one or two of the gallery photos, perhaps File:Bhagirathi River at Gangotri.JPG. But the only place where it seemed like there was room for another image was the "Pollution and ecology" section, and that photo doesn't make sense there. Anyone should feel free, of course, to add images back if they want. I did add a link to the commons. Apparently for categories the template to use is {{Commons category}}. Also, while I was at it, I removed the satellite image of the Ganges Delta (File:Gangesdelta klein.jpg), which although an attractive satellite image, looked rather odd and orphaned down there in the "See also" section. Perhaps if some text about the delta is added to the page one day (perhaps if I manage to finish my little section about delta tributaries/distributaries, in progress) the delta satellite image will be useful and illustrative. Pfly (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
thanks. --CarTick (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Unreliable source(s)

I have changed my mind about taking a longish leave of absence from this page, as I see the page deteriorating fast, and I believe something needs to be done. I believe Yogesh Khandke is citing content to unreliable sources. One such source is the website, allegedly official, (can we have a secondary source attesting that this website is official?) of the town of Haridwar, that has been referenced for the Nehru quote. This web page goes on to say:

It is likely that Ganga carried more water around the time of the Roman Empire, when Patna was the major port city of Pataliputra. Even in the eighteenth century the ships of the East India Company would come to call at the port city of Tehri, on the Bhagirathi, one of the main source river of Ganga. The upper and lower Ganga canal, which is actually the backbone of a network of canals, runs from Haridwar to Allahabad, but maintenance has not been very good and my personal experience is that it probably trickles out into a small river a little beyond Kanpur. .... Ward's Lake, located in the heart of Shillong, offers you a most pleasant beauty spot. The lake with gradually undulating grounds, hemmed in by lush greens, has a charming winding walk-a-way in the midst of rolling flowerbeds and fairyland lighting. The 100-year-old lake has a strikingly beautiful arched bridge. Boats of all sizes and shapes are available while the cafeteria provides you with refreshments. Other notable breathtaking beauty spots are Lady Hydari Park, St. Paul's Cathedral, Crinoline swimming pool, Botanical Gardens, Shillong Peak with a 180-degree view of the city.

Let us examine these paragraphs.

  • The town of Tehri has an altitude of over 1,500 meters (5,000 feet). The turbulent Bhagirathi river in Uttarakhand, which is challenging at the best of times for white water rafters, hurtles down its slopes at average current speeds of 1.475 meters per second, which is 53 kilometers per hour. While it might have been theoretically possible for schooners of the East India Company to sail up the steep Himalayan slopes at 53 km per hour, I would like to see a reliable source for this statement. (The Tehri page cites the same source for the same statement.)
  • The Upper and Lower Ganges Canal don't run from Hardwar to Allahabad, rather the Upper Ganges Canal splits below Aligarh and one branch joins the Ganges mainstem at Kanpur, the other joins the Yamuna river at Etawah. (The web site apparently offers its personal experiences as well.)
  • The last paragraph has nothing to do with the Ganges! It is a cut and paste from the (also allegedly official web site for the city of Shillong, almost a thousand miles away)! Could it be that both "official" web sites have been outsourced to the same company in Bengaluru, and the overworked site manager has slipped up.

If the content of this web site is riddled with so many errors, why should we trust it for the Nehru quote? Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:15, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It does appear to be run by National Informatics Centre, from all I can tell. Whether this makes it reliable or not is another question. For what it's worth though, I've found the "official" websites of local governments in the US (cities, counties, etc) to frequently be of questionable reliability. Too often they restate old, inaccurate tales and, much too often they show a kind of local boosterism, skewing things to make themselves attractive--a great place to visit, etc. The first example that comes to mind is fairly mild: About Bellingham, says George Vancouver "first explored the area in 1792", when in fact Manuel Quimper explored Bellingham Bay the year before. There are other, better examples, but it is late and I'm going to bed. Pfly (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
One more post--another obvious error on that web page is: It [the Ganges River] is 1560 miles (2510 km) long and flows through China, India, Nepal and Bangladesh. Um........ Pfly (talk) 10:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
it is not a reliable source. Nehru's quote also doesnt add much value to the article anyway.--CarTick (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Bhagirathi and Alaknanda, which is larger?

Our pages on the Bhagirathi River and Alaknanda River, whose confluence marks the start of the Ganges proper, say the Bhagirathi is longer/larger (and thus, presumably, the true source of the Ganges). I just came across this book, which says the Bhagirathi is the "lesser" headstream, the Alaknanda the "larger": Rivers of the world: a social, geographical, and environmental sourcebook, p. 88. Is this right? The publisher is ABC-CLIO. Reliable source? Our pages on the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda are not very well sourced. Actually, checking just now I see the Alaknanda page refers to Encyclopedia Britannica, which apparently agrees that the Alaknanda is the larger. Pfly (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, checking more, yes, Britannica says, on its Ganges page even, that the Alaknanda is longer. I'll add this info. I was wanting to edit the headwaters text anyway, to try to make it read more clearly. Will try to add something about the Yamuna being larger at its confluence with the Ganges too. Pfly (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, Pfly, the Alaknanda is the longer river, when the two meet at Devprayag, and consequently the true geographical source stream of the Ganges, although we would need a reliable source if we are to actually say that. There is a scientific study by the Indian Environmental Research Committee, which calls the Bhagirathi the main tributary of the Alaknanda. Moreover, the length of the Ganges is computed using the Alaknanda as the source stream. The Bhagirathi is the source stream of Hindu mythology, and is consequently gets obligatory mention in one form or another, including in this scientific study. The text states, "The Ganga originates at Gomukh (i.e. as Bhagirathi) at a height of 7010 meters above mean sea level, traverses a length of 250 km on the Himalayan ranges before entering the plains. Emerging as Alaknanda from an ice glacier beyond the Manas Pass, 8 km away from the pilgrimage site, Badrinath, the Ganga courses its way to the Bay of Bengal covering a distance of ca. 1525 km ..." The source is moreover inaccurate about the height of Gomukh, which is more like 12,000 feet, ie. 4,000 meters. I have many more sources, which I will add soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:01, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Here is a Rivers of the World source, which identifies the Bhagirathi as the lesser headstream. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 10:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

removal of sourced material, 4 cents per person per year allocated to the Ganga Action Plan

At various times sourced material introduced by me, was removed from this article, many a times for flimsy reasons. My justification in removing Fowler's holy dirty river type edits is that Holy isn't science, it is faith, no need to juxtapose it against scientific arguments, just as we cannot ask how a virgin gave birth, or dead man came to life, in the same way don't be bothered about the anamoly that a dirty is it considered holy? I am deleting it. If it is brought back I will seek dispute resolution. Let us have separate sections. Don't we have books on a shelf, one that says that man descended from apes, another the world's highest selling book that says that god created man. We don't have the two facts following each other in an article here, we don't put a citated statement, after god created man, that says that man descended from apes. Do you get my point Fowler and Snoweded?Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Why create a new section. As to your argument I am sorry I can't see any connection with with arguments about the descent of man. Neither do I see any reason to separate religious and scientific comments if they are contextually appropriate --Snowded TALK 16:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Fowler's edit summary reads: Religious and cultural significance: adding a second quote more relevant for hinduism today that nehru's idealistic quote of long ago, this is Fowler's edit summary, and then he adds the excreta quote[1]. Fowler needs to understand the concept of Dilution as a means of waste treatment and disposal, but with 40 crores living off the Ganga,dilution doesn't work, and a measely half paisa per person per day spent on the river is too little to contain pollution by other means. Poor India with a per capita productivity of 1/64 that of the US cannot afford effective pollution control measures.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Then get a source which says that, please stop providing your opinion --Snowded TALK 20:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
SnowdedMy point is clearly illustrated above, how do you think it is opinionated? What do you consider is my opinion here, why have you deleted a little math, in the article, there was no opinion there, just a calculation. My point is that Fowler ignores this and gets hold of statements that hold hindu religion and traditions responsible for the state of the Ganga, that is synthesis. The way he is presenting it. It is a prejudical treatment of the subject. wp:UNDUE.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I haven't deleted the maths I have fact tagged it. Its a calculation clearly designed to make a political point so you need to get a reference. Fowler is doing that, you are not. --Snowded TALK 20:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not at my best, had a long day it is 2.00 am here. Of course you are right, you have tagged, I do not have a source. What political point have I made, I merely am doing a calculation, based on the figures available, 15 years of the plan, 226 million USD were spent, 400 million depend on the river, so per person per year it is 226 million USD /(400 million persons x15 years) = 0.037 USD per person per year, all figures from the well sourced text compiled by Fowler.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:38, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Statistics can be used for many purposes. Maybe we should show the investment as a proportion of expenditure on the environment. What we choose to do with statistics is political, so its synthesis. You need to delete it until you get a source. --Snowded TALK 21:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler, Cartic, Pfly, Snowded et al please look at this version of the pollution sub-section I propose, all the links be maintained if Fowler wishes to keep them, however Fowler I wish you (and Cartic), to look at the 4 cents per person per year figure, was it religious tradition and Indian culture really Fowler and Cartic?

Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see at all how the page suggests that "hindu religion and traditions responsible for the [polluted] state of the Ganga". There is a mild suggestion that religion played a role in the failure of the Ganga Action Plan, but that is very different from saying religion is why the river is polluted. The page says nothing like that. Pfly (talk) 20:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The lower Ganges-Brahmaputra-Padma-etc

The lower Ganges, after merging with the Brahmaputra River and forking into that maze of distributaries, is amazingly complicated and rather confusing. Given some of the talk here recently I wondered whether this aspect of the Ganges could be better explained. The sources I've read (which are far from exhaustive--I'm no expert) seem to sometimes say the Ganges continues all the way to the Bay of Bengal, mainly as the Padma River distributary--and sometimes seem to say that the Ganges merges with the Brahmaputra then splits into numerous streams, of which the Padma is the largest but none of which should be called Ganges or Brahmaputra. Obviously it is an issue of names--all the streams eventually empty into the sea one way or another, under one name or another. Britannica, for example, says the Ganges empties into the Bay of Bengal but also says things like (emphasis mine) "...its large delta in the Bengal area, which it shares with the Brahmaputra River..." and "In central Bangladesh it is joined by the Brahmaputra and Meghna rivers. Their combined waters (called the Padma River) empty into the Bay of Bengal...", and uses the term "Ganges-Brahmaputra system", etc etc [2]. So is the Brahmaputra a tributary of the Ganges? It doesn't seem to be described as such as far as I've read--rather the Ganges and Brahmaputra "merge" or "combine". I suspect there is no definitive answer to this question--that from one perspective the Ganges becomes the Padma and empties into the sea, and the Brahmaputra is a tributary of this "Ganges-Padma River", while form another perspective the joining of the Ganges and Brahmaputra forms the Padma River, and neither the Ganges nor Brahmaputra are tributaries of one another.

But I don't really know. I wonder if this could be clarified. It seems a bit odd to me that the Brahmaputra isn't even mentioned on this page until near the end of the "Course" section. And there are other complexities besides the Brahmaputra, made obvious by reading and trying to make sense of pages like Ganges Delta and Ganges Basin. The Ganges Basin page starts off saying "The Ganges basin is a part of the composite Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin." Does this mean the Ganges Basin ends at the confluence(s) with the Brahmaputra and Meghna? If the Ganges flows all the way to the sea, as Britannica says, shouldn't it's basin/watershed include the Brahmaputra? Do these questions even have definitive answers? Can this article address them a bit more clearly in any case? The infobox, for example, does not list the Brahmaputra or Meghna as tributaries. Does this mean the 2,510 km length does or doesn't include the Padma? Anyway, it's all rather confusing to me. Pfly (talk) 22:36, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding to my earlier post here: Here are some quotes from Wikipedia pages about the rivers of the lower Ganges system that confuse me. First, my understanding is that the Ganges's name changes to Padma somewhere near or along the India-Bangladesh border (which follows the river for some distance); and the Brahmaputra's name changes to Jamuna at or near the Bangladesh border; the Jamuna joins the Padma, then the Padma joins the Meghna River, after which the main channel is called "Meghna", to the sea. Okay, so:

From the Ganges River page:

  • "After entering Bangladesh, the main branch of the Ganges is known as the Padma..." The India-Bangladesh border follows the river for at least 50 km, where exactly does the name change?
  • "After entering Bangladesh, the main branch of the Ganges is known as the Padma until it is joined by the Jamuna River, the largest distributary of the Brahmaputra." But doesn't the Padma keep its name after the Jamuna joins, all the way to the Meghna confluence?
  • "Further downstream, the Ganges is fed by the Meghna River, the second largest distributary of the Brahmaputra, and takes on the Meghna's name..." Is it correct to call the Meghna a distributary of the Brahmaputra? See next item.

From the Meghna River page:

  • "The Meghna is a distributary of the great river Brahmaputra. The Meghna is formed inside Bangladesh by the joining of the Surma and Kushiyara rivers..." Doesn't it sound strange to say the Meghna is a distributary ("A distributary...is a stream that branches off...from a main stream channel") of the Brahmaputra yet in the next sentence say the Meghna is formed by the Surma and Kushiyara confluence, well upstream from where the Brahmaputra joins?

From the Brahmaputra River page:

  • "In Bangladesh the [Brahmaputra] merges with the Ganges and splits into two: the Padma and Meghna River." The Brahmaputra joins the Ganges and then splits into the Padma and Meghna?? That doesn't sound right at all, and contradicts the next quote.
  • "In Bangladesh, the Brahmaputra splits into two branches: the much larger branch continues due south as the Jamuna ... and flows into the Lower Ganges, locally called Padma..., while the older branch [is called] the lower Brahmaputra...and flows into the Meghna." So the Brahmaputra splits into two distributaries, the Jamuna and another called, apparently, (lower) Brahmaputra? Is "lower" in its actual name or is it just a descriptive term? Also, the Brahmaputra's smaller distributary keeps the name Brahmaputra? And then that joins the Meghna? So the Meghna is a distributary of the Brahmaputra only after the Brahmaputra joins?
  • "[the Brahmaputra River] flows...through Bangladesh as the Jamuna..." Um, except the distributary called Brahmaputra? Does the Jamuna name begin at the Bangladesh border, or at the point where the river splits into its two main distributaries?

From the Teesta River page:

  • "[The Teesta River joins] the Brahmaputra as a tributary in Bangladesh." So the Jamuna name begins after the border? Does the Teesta join before the main forking of the Brahmaputra?

Finally, from the Ganges Delta page:

  • "The Ganges Delta arises from the confluence of the following rivers: Padma,...Jamuna,...Meghna." Three rivers and one confluence? That's not right. Also does the delta really "arise" from the confluence(s)?
  • "The delta...stretches from the Hooghly River on the west to the Meghna River on the east." The Hooghly is far to the west of the Padma-Jamuna-Meghna confluence(s), yet the delta arises from that confluence? Which is it?


There's much more confusion on many pages about the rivers of this region, but I'll stop here. It would be helpful to provide a clearer description of the lower Ganges-Brahmaputra-Padma-Meghna-etc system on this page at the very least. The Brahmaputra River is nearly as globally significant as the Ganges and ought to have a clearer description of its lower course(s). It would be nice if the Padma and Meghna pages didn't seem to contradict the Ganges and Brahmaputra pages. Pfly (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

My well sourced edit to the lead was addressing this confusion. I have added Brahmaputra's name to one of the pictures in the gallery, to partially address this issue. I will look at this page and bring that information to the lead, the national river bit though trivial, is what makes General Knowledge quizes, Q. What is the national river of India? Ans. Ganga. Putting it back after watching for a while. Like Maple leaf is the national symbol of Canada.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 03:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
A map of Bangladesh showing its manifold rivers.
(To Pfly): :Here is my understanding of the geography. I've added a map to clarify. Just before the Ganges enters Bangladesh, a minor channel (whose flow has been artificially increased by a barrage) veers off south. This channel is called the Hoogly or the Bhagirathi-Hoogly (this Bhagirathi is not to be confused with the Himalayan source stream Bhagirathi). Also, even before the Ganges enters Bangladesh, i.e. in West Bengal itself, it is called Padma. (This is not unusual for long rivers; the Amazon, has several different local names in its upper reaches). As "Padma," the Ganges enters Bangladesh. It then meets the Brahmaputra, which is locally called the Jumna (not to be confused with the main tributary of the Ganges, the Jumna, or Yamuna in its modern spelling), whose volume is much greater, a veritable ocean. The combined river from that point on is (still/especially) called the Padma. The Padma soon meets the Meghna and also begins to break up, the main estuary is called the Meghna as this limitless expanse of water flows towards the ocean. Most of the Ganges Delta lies in Bangladesh. The Brahmaputra is not a tributary of the Ganges. It is not only larger, but also likely longer when it meets the Ganges. I believe the system is called the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna system, or at least many sources call it that. It is the third largest in the world; the Ganges delta is the largest in the world. The sediment discharge of the system is also the largest in the world, with the Indus, I'm guessing, close behind. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
PS I should add, this level of detail does not belong to the lead; it will confuse the heck out of a new reader. No other river page has it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(To Yogesh Khandke): Best not to proceed with your bogus edits. You have become a disruptive presence here and are inching towards earning the same kind of topic ban that you recently tried to prevent unsuccessfully for your Wiki-compatriot, Zuggernaut. Again, that level of detail does not belong to the lead. The national river is a political gimmick from 2008. It is not like the Maple Leaf or the Bald Eagle, official symbols that goes back much longer. Other rives, besides, don't have a nationality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
  • A reliable source is quoted for the statement that the Ganga has been declared India's national river, first Fowler's problem was that it wasn't an animal, now it is not old enough, third he states that rivers do not have a nationality, what ever that means. The criteria for inclusion is wp:RS and wp:V minus wp:OR. I hope it is clear.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks F&f. WRT the lead, I agree about not including a lot of detail in the lead, but some mention of the Brahmaputra, the delta, and perhaps the Padma and Meghna might be helpful. Compare the Paraná River page, whose lead mentions the two principal tributaries, Paraguay River and Uruguay River, and the differently named mouth/estuary, Río de la Plata. If the Brahmaputra really is larger (in terms of discharge) and/or longer, it seems even more appropriate to at least mention the river in the lead!
I can't quickly tell if the Brahmaputra is larger or longer. The Brahmaputra page is not Wikipedia's best, and the Ganges page cites length and discharge for the whole Ganges-Padma-Meghna to the sea, I think. Oddly, the Brahmaputra page claims an average discharge of 19,300 m3/s (presumably at the Jamna-Padma confluence), yet the Ganges page cites only 12,015 m3/s for the "mouth" (presumably the Meghna estuary).
WRT sediment discharge, this page doesn't seem to say how much, or anything about it at all. I wonder how it compares to the Río de la Plata, whose page says "an estimated 57,000,000 cubic metres" of sediment discharge per year.
I'll look into these things and try to improve pages as time and energy are available. Pfly (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent)The Brahmaputra is not only much larger, it is also longer. Here are the details from Britannica. (From the Ganges page):

The Ganges-Brahmaputra system has the third greatest average discharge of the world’s rivers, at roughly 1,086,500 cubic feet (30,770 cubic metres) per second; approximately 390,000 cubic feet (11,000 cubic metres) per second is supplied by the Ganges alone. The rivers’ combined suspended sediment load of about 1.84 billion tons per year is the world’s highest.

From the Britannica Ganges page:

Despite its importance, its length of 1,560 miles (2,510 km) is relatively short compared with the other great rivers of Asia or of the world.

From the Britannica Brahmaputra page:

major river of Central and South Asia. It flows some 1,800 miles (2,900 km) from its source in the Himalayas to its confluence with the Ganges after which the mingled waters of the two rivers empty into the Bay of Bengal.

From the Britannica Brahmaputra page:

The Ganges-Brahmaputra system has the third greatest average discharge of the world’s rivers—roughly 1,086,500 cubic feet (30,770 cubic metres) per second; approximately 700,000 cubic feet (19,800 cubic metres) per second of the total is supplied by the Brahmaputra alone.

Thus the Brahmaputra's discharge is almost twice that of the Ganges. That is obvious from one look at the Brahmaputra; it is a veritable ocean. The Ganges, on the other hand, especially in its Himalayan reaches is a small river; it gains its volume by the addition of other rivers, at least one of which, the Yamuna is both longer and larger than the Ganges, at their confluence in Allahabad. It is cultural considerations alone (not ones of geographical conventions) that allow for the river from Allahabad onwards to be called the Ganges. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler what you are indulging in is wp:OR, which has no value here. Edits should carry wp:RS and should be cited. Simple.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you beat me to it, F&f. I was just researching these points. There's lots of sources out there. The one I began with is Pranab Kumar Parua (3 January 2010). The Ganga: water use in the Indian subcontinent. Springer. pp. 267–273. ISBN 9789048131020. Retrieved 18 April 2011. It cites figures more or less like yours, specifically (pardon my not superscripting "square" and "cubic"):

  • Total length of Ganges from longest source tributary to the sea via Padma-Meghna: 2,515 km (drainage basin of ~1,030,000 km2); via Bhagirathi-Hooghly, "to Sagar Island": 2,620 km (drainage area of ~1,070,000 km2).
  • Total length of Brahmaputra, source to sea (via Meghna): ~2,840 km ("longer than the Ganga up any of its courses").
  • Discharge of Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna into Bay of Bengal, average annual, 42,470 m3/s (almost the same as the Mississippi River) (mistake in source?).
  • Discharge of Ganges at Farakka, just before Bhagirathi River splits off, "about 0.4 trillion m3 [per year]" (approx. 12,500 m3/s).
  • Discharge of Brahmaputra at Bahadurabad (Dewanganj Upazila), just before Yamuna-"Old Bramaputra" split, average annual, ~19,200 m3/s ("nearly twice that of the Ganga"). Brahmaputra's drainage basin at Bahadurabad, ~536,600 km2; at "Ganga confluence", 581,000 km2.

So yes, it appears the Brahmaputra is larger than the Ganges in terms of length and discharge. This all seems like info that ought to be included on the page, perhaps in a section or subsection under "Course" named something like "Discharge", "Basin", or some such. I might not get to more research and page editing for a while yet--I found a bunch of other good looking sources I'd like to check as well, so just posting this info here for now. Curious though, if the Brahmaputra is larger, that so many sources describe the Ganges as if it is the primary river. I suppose it is in historical and cultural terms... Pfly (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oop, one last thing. There's a great diagram showing the connections and discharges of the lower Ganges, Brahmaputra, Padma, Meghna, etc etc, in schematic form; and a map of the GBM Basin (Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna), here (but note discharge is for "normal flood" not "average annual"). Pfly (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ganga - Meghna - Brahmaputra basin: Pfly your edit adds Bhutan and Tibet which are not in the cited source. Please arrange citation.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, tomorrow if I get the time. But did you see how the source was describing only part of the GBM basin? Ideally we'd find a better source that actually describes the whole basin and not just a part of it. Until then (tomorrow?), I added Bhutan and Tibet, which are clearly part of the Brahmaputra drainage basin. In fact, the link I posted just above here, "a map of the GBM Basin", shows this. Anyway, it was just a temporary fix. The source was not describing the whole basin and clearly said as much. But for now, good night! Pfly (talk) 08:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Plfy that is not how editing is done here, you dont think of something and find a source for it, you read something in a reliable source and then add it in the article. GN It is afternoon 18-4-2011 here.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Another problem that takes place by such edits is that inaccuracies are introduced, such as Bhutan and Tibet do not have high population densities.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 09:46, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Addressing this below. Pfly (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Khandke, please stop making bold and inaccurate edits. You are wasting precious time of other more meticulous editors. If you are going to be consistently sloppy, then please discuss your prospective edits on the talk page first. I have just reverted one your edits about discharge. You have clearly not understood the concept. The Ganges has half the discharge of the Brahmaputra when the two meet; it can't by itself be the world's seventh largest river by discharge in a list in which there is no Brahmaputra. Again, by being persistently pushy with inaccurate and sloppy edits you are wasting the time of productive editors and are verging on being disruptive. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

PS the average discharge of the Indus is 400,000 cubic feet per second; that of the Ganges is 300,000 cubic feet per second and of the Brahmaputra 700,000 cubic meters per second. The Ganges is the third largest river by discharge on the Indian subcontinent. You have not understood your source, Khandke. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler you are indulging in wp:OR and wp:Synthesis, on the other hand I am quoting a source faithfully, please quote a source faithfully for what ever you write, I would have no issue with it. I have provided page number, pl check for the statement.
We do need to be careful here, as the ranking of rivers by discharge depends on many variables, in particular the complex tributary/distributary and naming issues raised above. For what it's worth, here is a source naming the Ganga as the 13th largest river by mean annual discharge, with the Brahmaputra fourth. This might be one case where we should look to other tertiary sources, such as encyclopedias and world geography fact books, rather than secondary sources. Some source research is needed here. --JN466 16:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That sounds more like it. The average annual discharge of the Ganges alone is defined to be the discharge at Farakka, just before its first distributary veers off. This is 13,159 cubic meters per second. See for example, here. According to another source, the Ganges is the 10th largest in the world and the third largest on the subcontinent. (See the table.) I don't think reading the table would be considered OR. Btw, 440 cubic km per year = approx 13,952 cubic meters per second. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying to write up a good section about discharge and other hydrological issues like basin sizes, river lengths, etc, with clear info about exactly what is being measured and where. It's taking some time though--I want to use the best sources available, and many I've found seem less than perfect. I certainly won't be able to finish it today. Maybe in a week or so. In the meanwhile, I'd like to rewrite the paragraph in the lead about the Ganges-Meghna-Brahmaputra basin, which I edited yesterday but undid after Yogesh Khandke pointed out its problems. This time I'll make sure to source my additions! Also, a comment about the lead: Ideally, the lead serves as a general summary of information in the main body of the article (per WP:LEAD anyway). This page is obviously under active development right now, and some of the editors are not on the friendliest of terms. Edits to the lead are tempting to make but have much potential for triggering edit wars and dispute. I'd suggest first trying to develop the main body of the article, adding sections or subsections if needed, then rewriting the lead as a summary of the main body. In other words, while the article is under active development, don't worry about the lead too much. Try to concentrate on the main body and leave the lead for later, is my advice. Personally, I think the lead is not very good right now, but it makes sense to polish the main body first and then rewrite the lead. Finally, for ideas about possible ways to make a good page about a major river, take a look at Columbia River. As far as I know it is the only FA quality page about a major river (although the specifics differ a lot between the Columbia and the Ganges!). In particular, check out how the lead summarizes information from the main body. And, as WP:LEAD suggests, there's no footnotes in the lead (well okay, there's one footnote) because all the information is well sourced with footnotes in the main body. Pfly (talk) 19:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Great work so far Pfly, I agree that the lead is a summary of the article, and is a mini-article, it however should be well sourced see wp:lead, "...must be carefully sourced as appropriate..".Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
You're right, WP:LEAD doesn't suggest not footnoting the lead like I suggested above. I was thinking about, and misremembering this part: Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Pfly (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Good advice from Pfly. --JN466 20:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi Pfly, Yes, I remember Columbia river and you may remember me from its FAC. Unfortunately, the atmosphere here is anything but collegial. I'm afraid it has something to do with my presence. A little while ago I was editing the Talk:India page, and three editors (Yogesh Khandke, Zuggernaut, and CarTick) were constantly coming after me on that talk page. Then on April 7, after copy-editing all but two sections of the India page (in preparation for the then forthcoming FAR), I took a leave of absence from that page. Well, they soon disappeared from that page as well (Zuggernaut has been topic banned since). None of them is helping out the India page with its FAR. That page is the quietest it has been in years.
I made a post on this talk page on April 14, a talk page that had been quiet for a whole month before that. Wouldn't you know it, first Yogesh Khandke and then CarTick have turned up here as well. With no history of previously editing the Ganges page, Yogesh Khandke is now directly editing the lead and has turned a readable lead into a string of simple sentences that would be both a junior highschool teacher's worst nightmare and an India nationalist's dream cover-up job (since it weaves in China into the fold of India's endemic poverty). If you point that out to him, he likes to give you his fourth or it is fifth "formal" warning about incivility. Apparently Wikipedia cares about bogus civility more than building content. He is now footnoting every part of speech in every sentence in the lead. CarTick, to his credit, is being more productive, with his edits on the Ganges dams. I'm a busy person, besides I am now traveling. I will now be taking a leave of absence from both the Ganges and Talk:Ganges pages and will be editing some other Wikipedia page. If they come after me there, the lord alone help them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I initially thought i would not respond to this, but need to give my side of the story (being accused of stalking) as i believe a large number of editors are watching this page.

  1. Though Fowler has been a major contributor to this page, he had been absent while the "name change" debate was in its supreme peak. everyone involved in India related pages knows about this issue. I even made a comment on 14:54, 27 November 2010 when Fowler wasnt around. I have long before recommended people to give up on this Ganges vs. Ganga fight as i have always realised this not to be a winnable argument until someone comes up with a different and convincing argument (as Bilby implied somewhere above) and that doesnt seem to be happening as yet.
  2. I have been watching India page ever since i started my account and have been involved in debates over several types of POV pushings in its talk page during my time, pro-South Indian, pro-North Indian, pro-Tamil, pro-Kannada, pro-Dravidian, pro-Aryan and several others. Fowler was the most recent with the pro-English and pro-East India Company POV. that he nominated the India page for FAR and then left seems to be to make some kind of WP:POINT and can be considered disruptive.
  3. Then Fowler unsuccessfully attempted to change the title of List of Indian inventions and discoveries and i was involved in that debate too.

He got himself involved in all these disputes after starting editing after a long absence with this notice I am back, to take on more matadors on his page. Fowler has an unique and subtle pro-English POV pushing and he always gets the benefit of the doubt as he is a major contributor (admittedly good quality) in a large number of India related articles. --CarTick (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Pfly:an India nationalist's dream cover-up job (since it weaves in China into the fold of India's endemic poverty)., Fowler is holding me responsible for your addition of Tibet, wonder why?
Fowler: Your allegation of stalking is unfounded, making unfounded allegations is disruptive. (1)I made an edit 2011-04-06-19.05, (my last edit), which you undid with the edit summary as (Need stable version for FAR editors-Undid revision 422737007 by Yogesh Khandke (talk)), I asked on the talk page about it and received no reply, that was my last edit to India.[3], on the India talk page I had rounds of discussions over child marriage, with F&f and RP, the last few with RP, I found myself going nowhere and so backed off from it, last edit 2011-04-09-12.12, [4], I am the most prolific editor on this talk page, nothing to do with you. I have no experience of FAR, Zuggernaut's ban and the ArbCom case, Ganga, have taken all my time, I am not a superman, I work from a relatively slow connection, I do not have access to computers at work, so there is a limit to what can I edit (2)In the spirit of your statement on my talk page which came after your above edit I am ignoring the other taunts such as god help them. (3)The lead looked bad, I was lazy, I added citations, the citations need templates, all you have done about is criticise, you could have helped put them in templates, you criticised, but did nothing about the school teachers nightmare, Jayen copy edited in a fine demonstration of constructive editing, there is nothing bogus about civility, it brings about an atmosphere in which a great encyclopaedia can be built, it doesn't come in the way of content addition, on the other hand this work would come to a halt. (4) I don't remember anybody complaining about addition of citations, wonder why you do? Please go through wp:lead, it says that it should be well sourced, the lead is a summarised article.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler: I remember Columbia river and you may remember me from its FAC. Doh! Of course I remember, but hadn't thought about it. Huh. You were very helpful. You're comments triggered a whole bunch of improvements. A belated thanks! I feel a little silly now. Pfly (talk) 22:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Very welcome! I enjoyed reading that page. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
PS I will look in on this page as well in a few week's time. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
PPS I wasn't blaming you, Pfly, for Tibet, I was blaming Yoges Khandke either for removing text when it doesn't suit his nationalist POV (e.g. Cholera, pollution, defecation into the river, fecal coliform bacteria), or including other countries in the negatives, such as in this GBM edit, which you only corrected geographically. Indians defecate into the river from the source onwards. There are unacceptable levels of fecal coliform bacteria at Gangotri, which the tired river can't support. There are diseases (especially waterborne ones) along the entire Indian course of the river. The Bangladeshis don't revere the river (being mostly Muslims), and, consequently, and paradoxically, to their credit, they don't abuse it as much. My last post here, I am now taking it off my watchlist for the near future. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:29, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
it is a shame and quite appalling when one looks at the prize we pay for our modern life. oil companies injecting millions of gallons of carcinogen (chemicals that cause cancer) and power companies injecting radioactive chemicals (chemicals that cause cancer) into the sea. they say it all gets diluted, but i am not so sure about that. too bad for fish lovers who dont like the taste of farmed fish. guess the choice is diarrhea or cancer. :) --CarTick (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

(od)Don't take the bait Cartick, if you break rules, you may be banned or blocked, don't be provoked by Fowler, more over, your statement sounds like Indians can pollute, dont others pollute too?. RegentsPark I request you as administrator to stop abuse of this talk page by Fowler and his provocative statements. Fowler's comments read Hindus rever the river yet they abuse it, Muslims don't rever the river, yet they treat it well, and that it is a paradox and to their credit, does he have a source for that? This page isn't for Fowler to share his views on this subject. Talk pages aren't blogs or comment pages for people to discuss views, they are for how reliable sources should be represented on a page. (3)RegentsPark: Fowler made a statement, I accepted it, but he has continued abuse like before, please take this as a part of the process initiated by me on your page, compliance failure if you may allow me to call it. (4)Fowler points to an edit that I made[5], the edit is well sourced, the source is reliable, the purpose of the edit is to (a)mention the GMB, (b)define its geographical scope (c)to inform about the population figures (d)it also mentions an economic statistic. If any one had any issue about any of the above, found anything undue perhaps he could discuss and delete, allusive comments vitate the atmosphere on the talk page, and are a non-compliance of his statement to me in particular and make editing here difficult in general. (5)Fowler has to provide diffs that I have removed any well sourced statements or altered their meaning, not not make unfounded allegations, refers to Cholera, pollutionYogesh Khandke (talk)

Dude, chill. Whether or not Fowler's comments were snippy toward you (which they were) or accurate (which they probably weren't—Bangladeshis might treat the river better for any number of reasons, if they treat it better at all), your overreaction serves to reinforce the "nationalist POV" notion. Not every slight on your country, or your edits here, needs such a vehement rebuttal with calls for administrator intervention and strings of ad hominem attacks. Please, relax. Pfly (talk) 09:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
whatever Fowler says about the pollution of the Ganga appears accurate. but his intention was to inflict hurt and insults on Yogesh and other Indian editors. apparently, nobody who watches this page seems to care about all these. Facing with diminished world status, exerting control over the articles related to the "Jewel in the Crown" which they once terribly lost seems to be gratifying the imperial feelings of a few neo-colonialists that troll wikipedia these days. The fact Indian editors are editing Indian history articles and are being assertive is plain unacceptable to them. they have no good feelings for Pakistani or Bangladeshis and if Bangladeshi editors are similary assertive, they will diss them and praise the Nepalis instead. i would also request Yogesh not to overreact to every real and perceived slight. let us find references for the "history" and "economy" sections that are completely unsourced. --CarTick (talk) 12:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Pfly: see Cartic's statement above, it is another example of abuse of talk pages and abuse of editors, in the Fowler-Zuggernaut disagreement, only Zuggernaut's violations were considered, that he was provoked was neglected. Cartic has called him a neo-colonialist who trolls Wikipedia, that is as strong a statement as Brown saheb or whatever that got Zuggernaut canned, all that is written on Wikipedia is recorded, Fowler provokes, other editors retort, at least in one instance the retorter was severely punished, Fowler in the meanwhile continues to provoke other editors like he has provoked Cartic. Pfly my attacks are not ad hominem, I request you to substantiate it or withdraw this very serious allegation, the example of ad hominem is to oppose a person's views because of his standing, the example given is "Jack's views on economy are rubbish, isn't he jobless? Thank you for using the word and increasing my vocabulary, it in a nutshell describes the situation that I have faced on this page, my editing has been subject to ad hominem attacks, by Fowler and RegentsPark. If what I am trying to say isn't communicated to you, I think it is a waste of time to go any further on the issue, thanks for your kindness nevertheless., Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Ad hominem may not have been the right term to use, in which case I am sorry. Pfly (talk) 10:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Piazza Navona, a famous sculpture, Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi

Fowler (1)Here Asia is represented by Ganga, it is dated 1651, it is a significant bit of information regarding Ganga, esp. since, the size issue is dealt above in detail. It's not about size. (2)Justification for the image reinsert. The Piazza Navona is one of the most popular tourist attractions in Rome.[6]. This image would connect the sculpture with the river and would refresh the memory of the tourist or would result in a better informed tourist at the site. Image isn't undue, how is grotesque when it is baroque? What part do you wish to have translated? You wrote, translate, see talk, I searched with the string translate, didn't find anything. Sorry for the bother if you have already explained. Please provide diff.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Have all of it translated and please leave the inline note in place until such time as you do. The sculpture is grotesque even for Italian baroque, in my opinion, but no need to argue the point providing me wikilinks. There is no consensus to have this image here. Please move it to the commons gallery where all the other (more relevant, again in my opinion) images have gone. A tourist attraction, in Rome of all places, dating to 1651, is not reason enough to keep it, especially when images of Hardwar, Allahbad, Rishikesh, which have been historical destinations for millions of Indian pilgrims, dating back a couple of thousand years, have been removed. Please also remove the injunction to read the article in the Swedish encyclopedia, unless you want to have that translated as well. Best regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
(1)Your opinion about Italian sculpture is that your opinion. (2)please see relevant guidelines on use of foreign language sources, they have been followed, including how a foreign language article is to be linked in here, if you challange any fact, I will provide a translation. (3)The image is to reflect that Ganga has long been given importance, not just in India, but by other cultures such Europe and the Catholic Church. (4)Please see my user page.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on sections & general improvement/expansion

On the recent spree editing this page, it seems to me that most of the work has focused on pollution, the lead, and a few other bits and pieces. But there are some major topics that are absent or nearly absent ("stub"-like). Here's some thoughts about the page in large-scale terms, whole sections to add, expand, or reorganize. I'll try to do or at least start some of these (make a stubby "Geology" section, for example), but I may not get to it for a while, so I thought I'd post these thoughts here. They are just a few ideas about large-scale issues, in terms of sections and mostly in the form of questions I don't know the answers to.

Here's a list of the article's current sections/subsections, with comments. Following that is a short list of possible new sections to add:

  1. Course: Needs references, could be expanded a bit, copyedit for improved wording & flow.
  2. History: Doubtlessly could/should be significantly expanded; there must be tons of important historical events closely related to the river and/or its tributaries/basin; Empires? Religions? Spread of Hinduism, Buddhism? Islam? Demographic history, economic, trade routes, etc etc. European "penetration" (Portuguese? British, others?) Colonial era? Partition & "trans-boundary" result? Recent history?
  3. Religious and cultural significance: Not sure what to make of this section & subsections. It seems somewhat awkward as is.
    1. Hinduism
    2. Legend of Bhagirath
  4. Dams and barrages: Add more about irrigation? Shipping/navigation? Expand section or add additional subsections? Doesn't the Faraka Barrage have locks for ships, and is intended to improve the port of Kolkata? Historic use of river by ships? Wasn't there a thriving steamboat system during British era? What about now? Stats on freight transportation?
  5. Economy: Not sure... currently mentions agriculture & irrigation, fishing, leather production, tourism/pilgrimages, and recreation (rafting). What about industries besides leather? Isn't there a nuclear power plant on the river, using it for cooling? How about shipping/navigation (see below)?
  6. Pollution and ecology: Continue to improve and clean up.
    1. Water shortages: Expand, explain cause of shortages; perhaps move to "History" and/or "Economy", "Hydrology"?
    2. The effects of climate change on the river: Add info about concerns of sea level rise effects in lower basin, delta, Bangladesh in general; not sure this falls under either "pollution" or "ecology" really; make its own section?
    3. Ganges river dolphin: Much more could be said, not only about dolphin but flora/fauna and ecology in general. Currently, "Pollution and ecology" section is almost entirely about pollution; split into two and expand "Ecology"? Or make "Pollution" a subsection of a greatly expanded "Ecology and environment" section? What about fish? Forests? Swamps, mangroves, etc? Must be lots to say about the delta's ecology.

Additional section ideas:

  • Geology: Should definitely be added. Isn't the Gangetic Plain essentially a huge, deep mass of alluvial deposits, brought down from the Himalayas and filling what was once a shallow sea, between the Indian and Eurasian plates? A geology section could be fascinating. I know next to nothing about the topic.
  • Navigation or Shipping? Doesn't the Faraka Barrage have locks for ships, and is intended to improve the port of Kolkata? Historic use of river by ships? Wasn't there a thriving steamboat system during British era? What about now? Stats on freight transportation? What kind of boats can be used where? Barges mostly, or deeper draft? What about the Hooghly, Meghna, etc? Can ocean freighters enter? Do they? Isn't there a big plan for making a large, long navigation channel (dredging & other modifications)? How much has been done so far, or is being done? Aren't there plans for "inter-river" shipping canals? Any exist yet? Will they?
  • Hydrology (or some other title--"Hydrology" is the best I can think up right now): perhaps a subsection at the end of "Course" section, about main stem & key tributaries; length, source(s), mouth(s), distributaries, meandering vs. braided; channel migration, avulsions, etc etc etc. This is one topic I have some ideas about, and a bunch of rough notes. Sooner or later I should be able to get some of it into decent shape and add to the page.

Personally, I am woefully ignorant about most of these topics & questions (learning about India is daunting--there's so much and it seems so complicated; history, geography, culture, religions, politics, etc etc). I can ask questions and suggest outlines, but am largely at a loss beyond that, though I'll do what I can. Pfly (talk) 04:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

PS, Fowler, were you reading my mind?? It appears you added Geology and Hydrology stub sections before I posted this? I guess the page version I had open as I wrote was a few hours old... Weird! Pfly (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Elementary my dear Watson. I just asked my man Billy to run over to your home and peep through the window. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, why don't you work on the Hydrology section, since you know something about it. I'm happy to work on the Geology section. (What you say about the Indo-Gangetic plain is true, it has been formed by river borne sediment filling the trough created by the under-thrusting of the Eurasian plate by the Indian plate. The sediment is of course brought by the Indus, the Ganges and all their tributaries. Even today, you can easily find (by a little digging) perfectly rounded pebbles on hill tops in the Ganges valley.) I think pollution and ecology should be separate sections. I'm also happy to work on an irrigation section or subsection. I also know a little bit about colonial history of the river, but I likely won't get to it any time soon. I feel there are too many people champing at the bit to have a go at me, and it will be an easy target. For the same reason I won't touch the religion subsection any time soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:49, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, btw, for writing such a detailed outline. Great effort! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 06:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! ...I thought I saw a shady character in the yard earlier... I have a possible start for a hydrology section I think I'll add in a few minutes. It might be way overly heavy on numbers and references though. If it's too much, you or anyone else should feel free to take an axe to it. It's just a start, mainly on the meaning of length, basin size, and discharge, and largely the results of my having not understood most of the cites I found saying how long and large the river was, and how big its basin. I think I understand better now--maybe too much so. I'll certainly come back with a fresh eye tomorrow and perhaps take an axe to it, if others don't before me. I look forward to reading about geologic stuff. Where I live there are little perfectly rounded (or at least "well rounded") pebbles and cobbles everywhere, whether you dig or not. But they are the result of everything being covered with 1000+ feet of ice not long ago, in geologic time. Also, for some reason I had imagined the Gangetic Plain not being at risk of earthquakes, but thinking about the geology I suspect it is at risk, what with major plate subduction, under-thrusting or whatever it's called, going on right there, yes? Makes me wonder about the nuclear power plant, or plants, what with all the reexamination going on in the wake of Fukushima. Okay, anyway, let's see if I can post up some raw hydrology before bedtime. Good night. Pfly (talk) 08:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, if you know about subduction, then you can read the "geography" section of the India page I wrote a few years ago. The IG plain itself might be protected a little, considering it is a vast reservoir of sediment (and consequently of little interest to geologists, or so I've been told by one of them), but its fringes, be they the Himalayan foothills or the Rann of Kutch, do see earthquakes. See List of earthquakes in India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 08:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Religious and cultural significance

The article still has many deficiencies, as we all know. The section on the Ganga's religious and cultural significance strikes me as particularly weak; there is no religious or sociological scholarship in the sourcing, and the mention of George Harrison, while sourced, is pop culture trivia -- okay as a footnote if we had exhaustive material on the Ganga in mainstream Indian culture, but hopelessly undue as the article stands. That is one area where serious work is needed. I'd welcome any editor joining me in researching this aspect, using Indian and Western scholarly sources. JN466 13:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. As per your request on my talk, I would like to help to build this section. Currently, I am writing a summary of Ganges in Hinduism, but it would be unreferenced. Not much time to find references today, though references for this para may not be hard to find. --Redtigerxyz Talk 17:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Don't find references, remove and add sourced material. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
That's great, Redtigerxyz, thanks. Looking forward to fruitful collaboration. --JN466 19:32, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Reassessed as Start class

The article had a B-class assessment. I've taken it down to Start class, which seems to be a better reflection of the amount of work that still needs to be done. (See quality scale for an explanation of the assessment categories). --JN466 14:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Relentless POV pushing by India nationalists who haven't contributed anything yet

I have just left this post on Pfly's talk page.

Hi Pfly, You've misunderstood the sentence. It doesn't mean that there were no Indian canals before the British, but that in the early years of Company rule in India, the British had only improved the preexisting Indian canals. The Ganges Canal was the first new British cut in India, i.e. that had no Indian antecedents. As you will see in the Company rule in India#Canals section, I spend quite a bit of time on the East and West Jamuna Canals. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I've had it with Yogesh Khandke and CarTick, first they misinterpret the sentence, as I explain above in my post to Pfly (who is kindly trying to be a mediator). Then they add other more general misinterpretations of their own. Sorry Pfly, I understand you predicament, but this is not an article about irrigation in India, but one related to the Ganges. There is no reason to give a more general history of irrigation in India here. I'm sure there is already a page devoted to that. I am warning both Yogesh Khandke and CarTick, please don't be disruptive. You are making unnecessary ideological inferences that the introduced text doesn't support. Besides, as I've already said in the edit summary when I introduced the text, it is a copy and paste from the Company rule in India page; I will be amending it as and when I find time. It is sort of place holder for now. Again please don't be disruptive and imagine all kinds of sinister motives when there are none. Look how much time you have wasted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 01:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I did misunderstand the sentence. In fact, I had to think about the wording and your explanation above for a minute or two before I saw what you meant. Anyway, it was my misunderstanding it that got me to look up some info and edit the section today. But it would be better if you worked on it, definitely. That sentence was confusing though. Pfly (talk) 02:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The simple solution is to make sure we use a phrase that is less ambiguous, and move on. --JN466 02:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have added seven high quality references from peer-reviewed journals. please stop accusing me and other indian editors of nationalists. sooner or later, it will get u into trouble. --CarTick (talk) 02:36, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec)Oh, also, yes this page is about the Ganges River and shouldn't get into irrigation throughout India, but tributaries of the Ganges and the Ganges basin are to some degree within scope here. Especially, it seems to me, the Yamuna and the Doab region. Don't you think? Pfly (talk) 02:38, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
But do feel free to edit as you see fit, take out anything I added that isn't necessary or correct, etc. Thanks for undoing your wholesale revert, I only just saw that. But go ahead and do what you think best. I'll take out the Chola bit right now. Pfly (talk) 03:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, that's fine. Good work, Pfly. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding a second quote

I have just added a second quote on the pollution in the Ganges by Veer Bhadra Mishra, Chief Priest of the Sankat Mochan Hanuman Temple, Varanasi; former professor of hydraulic engineering and former head of the Civil Engineering Department at the Institute of Technology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi; and Time Magazine Hero of the Planet, 1999. I believe this quote is more relevant both to modern Hinduism and to the Ganges. It is impeccably sourced. Please do not remove it; it does not violate and Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:24, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

you are attempting to highlight the pollution of the article in every way you can. it is already covered in the article in great detail. Veer Bhadra Mishra is not the ultimate authority on the pollution of Ganga and as such his opinion is WP:Undue. having access to many more sources than a lot of other wikipedians, i hope you will spend equally enough time to work on the basin, delta, people who live in the banks of the river, economy, transport and others. --CarTick (talk) 13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is more relevant than a vacuuous Nehru quote. Mishra is certainly more of an authority on the Ganges than Nehru was. Yes, I will be working equally hard on the other aspects (the geology (the Ganges, btw, is older than the Himalayas), the basin, the historical cholera epidemics, and, yes, the pollution). I can't say there's much transport any more. But, there certainly was once upon a time. I have nineteenth century engravings of grain laden boats on the Ganges, that someday I will upload.. I don't know that I have more sources, but I've likely seen more of the river than most Wikipedians, and have likely removed more trash from its banks as well. I know the reality behind the myth. For those reasons I don't have patience with people like Yogesh Khandke, who relentlessly push the myth, and attempt to waste my limited time with bogus edits about "Cawnpore" knowing fully well they are being disingenuous. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler, you are using WP:Verifiability policy to defend a content i am removing using WP:Undue. In case you forgot, the first policy merely outlines the minimum requirement for a content to be in article. --CarTick (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
If there is an current authority with a different perspective to Mishra then we should look at that to ensure balance. However the absence of one does not justify calling the material WP:Undue, pollution is a major and significant problem in the Ganges and it should be treated accordingly --Snowded TALK 15:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
no one disputes that. the pollution section is already enormous in detail in comparison with rest of the article. now, adding a quote (which pretty much repeats the content of the section) gives further undue significance to this section and to this topic in relation to the rest of the contents. thus it is a violation of WP:NPOV. i have tagged tha article for now. --CarTick (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
How many different wikipedia policies are you going to list? They (and tags) are not magic tokens that win you arguments you know. Given the fact that it is the 5th most polluted in the world and a large amount of effort is going into attempting to deal with it a couple of paragraphs and a related quote are not at all excessive. Some of the other sections are too light, for example those on religion and history but that is not a reason to cut good content. Also we have an experienced editor who has tagged the section as undergoing revision - leave him to it for a bit and see what happens before wading in. --Snowded TALK 15:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am going to edit it out, see wp:Profanity, no profanity if editors are uncomfortable, no allusive profanity.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Quote from a reputable source is fine and its in quotes. There is nothing in the policy that says if an odd editor is uncomfortable they can delete it. Also its dubious if its really profane. The pair of you need to stop using misinterpreted wikipedia policies as an alternative to making your case properly --Snowded TALK 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

you havent convincingly answered my concern. If you and Fowler are very intested in this topic, may be, you both should improve Pollution of the Ganges article first (which is currently smaller than the "pollution section" here) and summarise the contents afterwards. --CarTick (talk) 16:04, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll have to explain what aspect of my answer doesn't convince you. The size of the entry is similar to other like entries on other articles where any serious subject gets a few paragraphs. Otherwise sorry, but you can't direct where people edit. Personally I think it better to get it right here --Snowded TALK 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(ec) and (od)For reply see section below. Adding that please do not make baseless allegations. wp:Profanity is about taste, let us check the consensus.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored and a quote from a reliable and respected source is not a matter of your taste --Snowded TALK 16:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
It is a matter of taste, Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available., so it is a matter of taste, so I added let have a consensus, Cartic has removed it before. Here a "typical Wikipedia reader" is defined by the cultural beliefs of the majority of the web site readers that are literate in an article's language. Clarifying this viewpoint may require a wide spectrum of input and discussion, as cultural views can differ widely. So in case of doubt err on the safer side and no profanity please, there are other ways to describe the situation.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
You are missing the point, namely that this is contained in a quotation from a respectable source. Its not an editor choosing to use a word where you arguments might apply. To say shit in that context is not offensive to any reasonable person, its not profane anyway as it does not take an deity name in vane. It is also using the literal meaning of the word, rather than using it as general expletive. --Snowded TALK 16:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia accepts that profanity is a matter of perception. In this case editor has deliberatly chosen a quote that illustrates an aomaly between the belief of Hindus in the holiness of Ganga, and the scientific fact that the waters higher level of contanimants (many score times higher if you like) than acceptable. It is a belief not a scientific fact, like Virgin birth, Resurrection etc.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I do not intend to hurt any body's feelings, esp. so since it is almost Easter Sunday, I wish to give an example that one has his faith, Hindus have their faith. Faith is not science. Please take the offensive edits off.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We are talking about human excrement in a river, the common language for that is "shit". You need to give an argument as to why the person quoted is not authoritative. We can't censor wikipedia on the basis of one editor's sensitivity. If this is a general issue for Hindus then you should be able to provide a citation condemning that statement. If you can there might be a case for removal. --Snowded TALK 18:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
We have a condemnation here[7], in another context.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Glenn Beck saying the river's name sounds like gangrene is a very very different context. Glenn Beck's whole shtick is saying offensive, outrageous, stupid things. As the page about him here puts it, he "employs incendiary rhetoric for ratings." Condemning him is exactly what he wants: attention. Pfly (talk) 20:43, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(od)The context may be different but the attitude is the same (IMO), one of the opposers on this page to the move, said Ganga reminded him of Ganja, the ga sound is fringe even in Rastafarian circles. So we do have our Becks here, and their shtick is to smear excreta over India's national symbols and religious and cultural traditions and apply scientific yardsticks to matters of faith. Thanks for the new word shtick, another after the ad hominem you used another time.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 20:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I certainly can't argue against the idea that Wikipedia has a great many editors who come with an agenda and employ incendiary rhetoric, that's for sure. Pfly (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
  • I too find that the pull quote is over the top; we should aspire to a more encyclopedic tone. --JN466 04:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Yogesh, you need a citation that condemns that statement or something like it. Overall it seems to be an intelligent comment and nothing like the rants of Beck. Nothing in the quotation matches your somewhat colourful rhetoric about smearing excreta over national symbols etc. --Snowded TALK 04:41, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
While I haven't found YK's arguments against Fowler's quote convincing (thus my post above), I must admit the addition of the quote felt a bit wp:pointy, especially in the context of YK's Nehru quote and the mild edit war over it. Pfly (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Pfly. --JN466 13:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
It is unnecessary and I've removed it. --rgpk (comment) 16:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) I'm afraid I don't see consensus for its removal and I've replaced the quote. I think it makes a very valid point, that today there is a major story about the Ganges. That story has nothing to do with its sacredness or its centrality in Hindu ritual, but it has to do with public health. The Ganges has been abused by humans, especially in the last few decades to the point that it is killing people. When the chief priest of a major Hindu temple in Varanasi is saying that (who to boot is a hydrology professor at the major university there), it means something. It is much more meaningful than a vacuous quote by Nehru. One thousand children die every day along the Ganges by ingesting the sacred water. If that hurts the feigned religious sentiments of some nationalist POV pushers on this page (and I obviously don't mean Regents Park), then that is not my problem. There is nothing in the quote that violates Wikipedia policy. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) One thousand children die every day along the Ganges by ingesting the sacred water. Sacred is not a scientific fact, I am repeating for the nth time, it is a belief like virgin birth or resurrection. Taking it off. Please don't abuse editors. Don't forget that you are fresh from an unequivocal apology, due to which further dispute resolution measures were not taken, please control your words. Administrator wser:RegentsPark please take note. This editor has a record of abuse of Hindu religion, in his edits on the talk page and edit summaries.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Fowler&fowler, to my mind the pull quote violates WP:UNDUE. We obviously need to be (and are) clear about the amount of untreated sewage that goes into the Ganga, and I wouldn't object to the quote being used in the body of a more substantial and rounded article, but at this point, as the article stands, the quote and its highlighting in a box are undue. --JN466 19:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

OK, Jayen, as you must have noticed, I've reverted my revert of RegentsPark in the interests of collegiality. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. --JN466 02:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

reference

During the early Vedic Age, the Indus and the Sarasvati River were the major rivers of the Indian subcontinent, not the Ganges. But the later three Vedas seem to give much more importance to the Ganges, as shown by its numerous references.[11][Need quotation to verify] I am glad someone noticed it. The sentence was already there and i just added the reference. the reference was quite close in meaning and i didnt bother to invest time in making it accurate. whoever added the "need quotation to verify" tag must have access to the reference i added. so, please feel free to modify the text. if not, i can provide the quotation only when i am at work next time. --CarTick (talk) 12:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The stabilizing of what were to be the Arya-lands and the mleccha-lands

took some time. In the .Rg Veda the geographical focus was the sapta-sindhu (the Indus valley and the Punjab) with Sarasvati as the sacred river, but within a few centuries drya-varta is located in the Gariga-Yamfna Doab

with the Ganges becoming the sacred river.

here is the quote. please feel free to cross check and modify the text as may be required. --CarTick (talk) 17:00, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The reference being The Image of the Barbarian in Early India? From JSTOR? If so, many people don't have access to JSTOR articles beyond the first page without having to pay. I don't, and the cost for the full article is $34 USD. However, it sounds like you're saying the quote above is from that article, right? I'll add the quote to the footnote reference. I think that's what the "need quotation to verify" tag is asking for. Pfly (talk) 06:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
i see. ok sure. yes, i just copied and pasted from the pdf file. didnt even type it. i have access to jstor and if you are ever in need of an article, you know whom to ask. just a disclaimer, i dont have access to all articles in jstor though. :) --CarTick (talk) 11:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

British Vs Hindus

This article lovingly informs the pains that the British took to good govern India, The first British canal in India—with no Indian antecedents—was the Ganges Canal built between 1842 and 1854..." It was the largest canal ever attempted in the world, five times greater in its length than all the main irrigation lines of Lombardy and Egypt put together, and longer by a third than even the largest USA navigation canal, the Pennsylvania Canal., and contrast what the Hindus have done to the river, their grandiose plans have proved failure, worth mentioning four times.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wonder why then 60 years after they were eased out, the word British is still an metaphor for evil, such as in the sentence, Hazare termed it a victory against kale angrez[8], Kale angrez is Hindi for Black English, ie. Black British.Yogesh Khandke (talk) 19:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
what does "no Indian antecedents" mean?
  1. ...by the time of Budha, canals and dams were common throughout the gangetic plain... In the same period Megasthanes wrote about distinct administrators annually inspecting sluices, which channelled water into various canals,
  2. canals by Cholas,
  3. There was tremendous agrarian expansion during the rule of the imperial Chola (900-1270) all over Tamil Nadu more particularly in Kaveri basin. Most of the distributory canals of the Kaveri, criss-crossing the deltaic region, belong to this period --CarTick (talk) 00:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
sorry. i pointed out Chola dynasty canals on Kaveri river to convey the message canals were in existences in India long before. the first reference where Megasthanes discussed about canals in Gangetic plain might be relevant to this article. yes pfly, your are correct, the sentence that there was no Indian antecedent appears wrong. --CarTick (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Just edited the Irrigation section, addressing some of these things. Pfly (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
there is a small mistake in your edit. i dont have the time to correct it. but i will get to it if others dont do it before. but, dont worry, it is not a big deal. --CarTick (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not too surprised, as I know very little about this topic. Pfly (talk) 00:57, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Is it to do with "The Chola Dynasty built large irrigation works on the Ganges using advanced engineering techniques"? That's one bit I'm unclear about, not having heard of "Chola" before today. The reference used cites 10 pages of a book. The exact page and quote is page 71, The Chola Kings of Bengal, who had conquered Thanjavur, were great irrigators who constructed large irrigation works on the Ganga and Damodar rivers... Pfly (talk) 01:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

yes, it is not your mistake now i understand. that is a little confusing to me. may be the author refers to palas because i cant imagine Cholas building canals across Ganges. I guess we should use the first reference which seems more accurate, where Megasthanes talks about canals in gangetic plain. --CarTick (talk) 01:21, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Palas, ah ha. Maybe. The book I found was frustrating about this, being so vague. I think there was more about it elsewhere in the book, but limited preview in Google Books closed off most pages. Anyway, feel free to take this out. Perhaps it would be better to find a less vague source... I'll look around later. Pfly (talk) 01:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
I have all the sources needed for this section. Please let me work on this for a little while. The Cholas got nowhere near the Ganges, let alone construct canals off it. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Fowler, you are over-reacting. the sentence was, if anything, confusing. that is why, before making any edits, i asked for clarification (please see my first post). I know Cholas never made any canals in Ganges and I have expressed that before (see my previous posts in this thread). I understand your explanation which you have given below (the first paragraph and not the nationalists accusation). but, the sentence is clearly confusing. so, please modify the sentence and clarify it. If you have references that talk about canals that existed before, pls include them. if not, Megasthanes's description of canals in the Gangetic plain is worth mentioning. --CarTick (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
The section on canal in deed looks like attempts to extol British works on canals on Ganga, while other references are completed in a line or two. Just pointing out the difference.Thisthat2011 (talk) 11:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

ganges canal

The largest irrigation canal constructed under British rule was the Ganges Canal, built between 1842 and 1854,[45] in the Doab region between the Ganges and Yamuna. Contemplated first by John Russell Colvin in 1836, it did not at first elicit much enthusiasm from its eventual architect Proby Thomas Cautley, who balked at idea of cutting a canal through extensive low-lying land in order to reach the drier upland destination. However, after the Agra famine of 1837–38, during which the East India Company's administration spent Rs. 2,300,000 on famine relief, the idea of a canal became more attractive to the Company's budget-conscious Court of Directors. In 1839, the Governor General of India, Lord Auckland, with the Court's assent, granted funds to Cautley for a full survey of the swath of land that underlay and fringed the projected course of the canal. The Court of Directors, moreover, considerably enlarged the scope of the projected canal, which, in consequence of the severity and geographical extent of the famine, they now deemed to be the entire Doab region.

The enthusiasm, however, proved to be short lived. Auckland's successor as Governor General, Lord Ellenborough, appeared less receptive to large-scale public works, and for the duration of his tenure, withheld major funds for the project. Only in 1844, when a new Governor-General, Lord Hardinge, was appointed, did official enthusiasm and funds return to the Ganges Canal project. Although the intervening impasse had seemingly affected Cautely's health and required him to return to Britain in 1845 for recuperation, his European sojourn gave him an opportunity to study contemporary hydraulic works in the United Kingdom and Italy. By the time of his return to India even more supportive men were at the helm, both in the North-Western Provinces, with James Thomason as Lt. Governor, and in British India with Lord Dalhousie as Governor-General. Canal construction, under Cautley's supervision, now went into full swing. A 350-mile (560 km) long canal, with another 300 miles (480 km) of branch lines, eventually stretched between the headworks in Haridwar, splitting into two branches below Aligarh, and its two confluences with the Yamuna Etawah and the Ganges in Kanpur. The Ganges Canal, which required a total capital outlay of £2.15 million, was officially opened in 1854 by Lord Dalhousie. According to historian Ian Stone:

It was the largest canal ever attempted in the world, five times greater in its length than all the main irrigation lines of Lombardy and Egypt put together, and longer by a third than even the largest USA navigation canal, the Pennsylvania Canal.

In case you are wondering, that is the description of Ganges canal. sounds like a proud father describing his son's kindergarten achievements. is it just me who thinks it is excessive? --CarTick (talk) 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I would not have put it this way, but I can see what you are getting at. The text is copied from Company_rule_in_India#Canals, by the way (as the edit summary also stated at the time). --JN466 04:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I am not the only one saying this. Here is the review of the first edition of Ian Stone's book published in 1984. The 2002 edition of the book is used to reference the above content. in fact, only the first sentence is referenced. the review was published in "The Journal of Asian Studies". Elizabeth Whitecombe writes,

Ian Stone considers that canal irrigation in British India has had a bad press and is at pains to redress the balance

clearly, he had an agenda and we could say that it was one of an "apologist". now with regards to his vacuous description of the ganges canal,

Stone begins with an historical outline of the construction of the U.P. canals. Following some interesting comments on the engineers up to the 1880s, the complex geomorphology of the Doab is dismissed in a little over one page; the construction of the Upper Ganges canal headworks and aqueducts, which,'though wondrous feats of engineering, are of marginal importance in the evaluation of the effects of irrigation, is given six pages.

Summarising the rest of her review, she questions a lot of the assertions made in the book. it can still be used as a reference for non-controversial claims, but only with extreme caution. --CarTick (talk) 23:47, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, Are you aware that one of the aims of Stone's book was to counter the early 70s neo-Marxist views of Elizabeth Whitcombe and Amiya Bagchi on the negative effects of canal irrigation, especially in the doab region of the United Provinces? Stone spends four or five pages in the introductory chapter (and many pages in later chapters) critiquing the thesis of Whitcombe's own book, Agrarian relations in Northern India(?) published in 1971. Will she then be the most objective of reviewers? I'm sure I can find other reviews by more neutral reviewers. Please hold on while I find them. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 04:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Review 1

Adams, John (1988), "Review of Peasants and Imperial Rule: Agriculture and Agrarian Society in the Bombay Presidency, 1850-1935. By Neil Charlesworth. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Pp. xix, 319. $49.50. and Canal Irrigation in British India: Perspectives on Technological Change in a Peasant Economy. By Ian Stone. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Pp. xiv, 374. $59.50", The Journal of Economic History, 48: 197–199

These two contributions to the Cambridge South Asian Studies series elevate the already high average standard set by their predecessors. They are model studies of economic history, mixing primary research and judicious historical and economic analysis to yield fresh assessments of conditions, trends, and outcomes. Tracking the Raj's paper trail, Charlesworth probes deeply and broadly into rural development in the Bombay Presidency after 1850; Stone assesses the canals of western Uttar Pradesh as public works and as sources of economic change in the last half of the nineteenth century and first part of the twentieth. Both will be scholarly benchmarks for decades. South Asian scholars and library collections must have these books. ... Stone's book has a more distinct focus than Charlesworth's but this in no way lessens its appeal. The refurbishing of old irrigation works and the construction of major new systems must rank among the most positive actions taken by the British during the course of their rule. Although the railway system and its effects, such as those on prices and cropping patterns, have been the objects of considerable research, the great irrigation canals have on the whole been ignored. This is surprising, because as Stone points out, water is part and parcel of village agriculture and its provision, and the terms on which it is available, must interject powerful potentials for change. Centering his attention on the Doab region of Uttar Pradesh, Stone challenges a prevalent revisionist view that the canals conveyed more ills than benefits: disease, waterlogging, salinity, extortionate water tolls and allied illegal extractions, worse cultivation practices, and a preference for commercial rather than food crops. Stone is able to rebut each of these charges, showing that, on balance, the canals were sources of prosperity for those they served. The benefits were, of course, not well distributed either from an equity or efficiency perspective. JOHN ADAMS, University of Maryland, College Park

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Review 2

Derbyshire, I. D. (1986), "Review of Canal Irrigation in British India: Perspectives on Technological Change in a Peasant Economy. By I. Stone. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, 1984", Modern Asian Studies, 20 (1): 205–208

During the 1960s and early 1970s the works of Bhatia and Whitcombe upheld the 'Nationalist' orthodoxy in viewing the late nineteenth century as a period of rising demographic pressure, holding fractionalization and declining per capita food availability as railways and canals encouraged an increasing shift towards cash crop production by hard-pressed cultivators in the clutches of vampire-like creditors. The great famines of 1876-80 and 1896-1900 were viewed as the baneful outcome of this inexorable agrarian crisis. ... It is against this historiographical background that Dr Stone's illuminating study of the introduction and effects of canal irrigation in West Uttar Pradesh appears. Dr Stone's work is a riposte to the popular earlier account of the late

nineteenth-century Public Works Revolution presented by Dr Elizabeth Whitcombe—a monograph which has exerted considerable influence over the interpretations of Indian economic historians. Whitcombe concluded that 'canals proved a costly experiment', whose disadvantages outweighed their advantages. Canals, it was contended, fostered waterlogging, malaria and the spread of infertile saline reh. Wells collapsed in a number of areas leaving cultivators dependent upon an external input to be purchased from corrupt petty officials. Plentiful water and the need to raise cash to pay rental, canal dues and to meet obligations to creditors meant that canals encouraged overcropping and a shift towards cash cropping to the detriment of grain supplies. Dr Whitcombe's account did well to uncover a number of the unforeseen ecological side effects of canal irrigation in the UP Doab and the social milieu of canal irrigation, but its overall judgement upon the cost-benefit of canal irrigation in late nineteenth-century North India has always appeared questionable. Dr Stone's detailed study of the costs and advantages of the new input from a 'peasant economy' and from an agronomist's perspective dispels many of the accumulated myths concerning the effects of canal irrigation upon crop production and rural welfare. ... Dr Stone finds that canal irrigation (particularly flow) possessed two great advantages over well irrigation—its low cost and the ease and speed of waterings. ... The benefits of canal irrigation far outweighed their ecological drawbacks, which were in any case reduced by drainage and remodelling schemes after 1880. ... This work provides an invaluable contribution to our understanding of the complex effects and manner in which a new technology was adopted by the

North Indian peasant economy, and the policies and operation of the Irrigation Department.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:18, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Review 3

Bradnock, Robert W. (1986), "Reviews: Ian Stone: Canal irrigation in British India: Prespectives on technological change in a peasant economy. (South Asian Studies, 29.) xiv, 374 pp. Cambridge University Press, 1984. £30.", Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 49: 603–604

As the Government in India today continues to emphasize the development of large scale

irrigation schemes, Ian Stone's re-assessment of the extension of canal irrigation under British rule in the late nineteenth century has both topical relevance as well as historical significance. Indeed, a comprehensive reassessment of the impact of the canal irrigation schemes is overdue, for it is now fourteen years since Elizabeth Whitcombe's influential work, Agrarian conditions in northern India, was published. The emphasis she placed on the apparently negative results of the canal irrigation schemes of late nineteenth century Uttar Pradesh has gone largely unexamined if not unchallenged. Given the importance of a development which, as Ian Stone points out, brought canal water to an extra 50,000 acres a year from 1860 to 1920, a comprehensive analysis of its development and effects is indeed welcome. That there should have been such a long delay in undertaking such research is perhaps not surprising. Successful analysis depends on a detailed appreciation not only of the political history of the period and of the specific context in which irrigation development took place ; it also demands a full appreciation of the geographical, economic, and social systems which provided the context of that development. It is a measure of his success that Ian Stone has come to terms with this complexity with an assured touch and a clarity of style that elucidates argument without resort to jargon, and with an ability to handle detail without prejudicing or obscuring the main thrust of his argument. It is an argument that with impressive weight of documentation runs directly counter to the main hypotheses suggested by Elizabeth Whitcombe's earlier work. Her view that, although there may have been some improvements in productivity, they were achieved at the cost of a damaged environment and an impoverished peasantry, is challenged by detailed empirical evidence drawn from an impressively wide range of sources. Although he takes Elizabeth Whitcombe's hypotheses as a starting point, Stone rapidly moves on to discuss the complex system which was developed from the early initiatives extending canal irrigation ... In Stone's words 'institutional control over the allocation of canal water thus meant that the input was "absorbed" into the local economic, social and political environment', a fact which had implications not only for the objective of famine control which was consistently a major second objective of canal irrigation, but also for the general impact of the canals on wider patterns of economic change. These two themes are the subject of the closing two chapters. It is in the last chapter that the major weaknesses of Elizabeth Whitcombe's hypotheses are most tellingly exposed, for through the latter part of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries western Uttar Pradesh experienced quite dramatic economic development. The spread of canal irrigation created labour shortages which in Stone's view led to the adoption of a chain of labour saving devices and which gave the highest possible returns to direct cultivation making use of family labour on relatively large holdings. A competitive marketing system was prevalent in which peasants were strong enough to exercise choice, the whole creating an environment in the canal districts which were the envy of the

unirrigated tracts. Ian Stone's book is a most valuable contribution to a theme of vital contemporary relevance. As such it deserves to be widely read.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Review 4

Dhawan, B. D. (1985), "IAN STONE, Canal Irrigation in British India: Perspectives on Technological Change in a Peasant Economy, Cambridge South Asian Studies, Cambridge, Cambridge University, Press, 1984, 374 pp., price not stated", Indian Economic Social History Review, 22: 474

The main thrust of this book is to question Whitcombe’s thesis that development of canal irrigation in northern India during the nineteenth century was no boon for the people. It is a valuable contribution to the

extremely limited literature on irrigated farming during the colonial rule. Ian Stone confines his investigation to the Doab region of western U.P. served by the eastern Yamuna, the Ganga and the Agra canals. This was not canal colony region. Here, unlike in the Punjab canal colonies, irrigation was not a must for farming. More significantly, private dugwell irrigation had already developed here considerably. .... the canal network was not oriented towards meeting the water needs of the semi-arid uplands of the Doab where well irrigation had failed to develop because of a deep water table. Instead, the canal network was deliberately oriented towards the better-endowed valley lands where the water table was high enough to permit extensive development of ’kutcha’ dugwell irrigation. Since the cost of canal irrigation was much less than that of well irrigation, canals could easily displace well irrigation. This displacement of one technology of irrigation by another was further accelerated by the crumbling of the unlined (’kutcha’) wells due to heavy seepage from canals and canal irrigated fields. This demise of indigenous, small-scale irrigation works in the wake of canal irrigation is reported by other scholars also. ... It is partly because of this substitution role of canal irrigation that Whitcombe disputes the developmental role of British investments in canal irrigation. Stone’s contribution lies in unearthing the developmental role of the canals in west U.P. Since the dugwell mode of irrigation required heavy use of both human and animal labour the advent of canal irrigation substantially released this productive resource for deployment elsewhere in farm production (including sugarcane processing which was mostly undertaken by farmers themselves), both through a change in a crop pattern in favour of more labour-using crops like sugarcane and through an increase in intensity of cropping. Though canal-irrigated farming was not as productive as groundwater-based farming, yet the agricultural output of the Doab expanded substantially because canal farming was far more productive than the rainfed or dry farming that was practised over four-fifths of the arable land of the Doab before the introduction of canal irrigation. Stone brings out an interesting feature of the rise of well irrigation due to canals. Since canal water was much less dependable than one’s own water source, the canal beneficiaries went in for conjunctive use of irrigation water in the later phase of canal irrigation. So, they undertook fresh investments in masonry wells that could withstand the added canal percolation. Funds for this purpose-masonry wells were more expensive than ’kutcha’ well came partly from farmers’ own added accumulation from canal-irrigated farming. These investments, which were accelerated in the wake of drought years when canal supplies were curtailed, not only improved the quality of irrigation and the level of farm output but also provided the much-needed drainage of groundwater that had come from canal seepage. ... The anti-famine or protective role of irrigation is by now well recognised. Some dissatisfaction still persists with regard to changes in the crop pattern in the wake of irrigation. Stone counters the widely-held impression that canal irrigation led to lesser production of foodgrain staples. If output of millets and coarse grains fell, the fall was more than made up by the added production of finer grains, especially of wheat. To the extent that (a) demand for coarse gains was secularly declining and the demand for finer

grains rising and (b) coarse grains could be easily substituted by finer grains in the dietary habits, one need have little cause for dissatisfaction.

Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:45, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

CarTick, I understand your concern, but you are doing this again: obsessively imagining bias in my edits, conceiving it in vague language, finding a source that is critical of my sources, not questioning that it could be misguided, and convincing yourself that you found proof that your imagined bias is correct. That's not a productive way to work with other people. You are wasting your own time and that of your collaborators. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I am posting the entire review of Whitcombe (i was worried it would be copy vio to do this). by the way, there was one more review i found in JSTOR, i couldnt have access to. she may not be entirely objective but that fact that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal make it worthy and let us not forget she makes very good points that the other reviewers failed to notice. sounds like someone that knows the topic very well. but in short, what it tells is that research is an ongoing process and there is never one point of view. apparently, both Whitecombe and Ian Stone had agendas. this is not surprising to me because i see that all the time in research. since Whitecombe's thesis seems to have been critically reviewed and someone had to write a book to refute her, her work also seems worthy enough for a mention if we are ever going to write the benefits and disadvantages of canals made by the British. that would be the most appropriate to satisfy the WP:NPOV. since this article doesnt seem to be discussing about these, as it seems to fall outside its scope, the point is irrelevant here anyway. but, my main point still remains that the vacuous description the canal building in this page is unnecessary and we need to trim it down. i have to go now and prepare for a talk i am giving today.--CarTick (talk) 11:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Ian Stone considers that canal irrigation in British India has had a bad press and

is at pains to redress the balance. Irrigation works are among the greatest monuments of British rule, and Stone deplores the lack of historical inquiry into so large and influential an enterprise. Since canal building reached its apogee in the nineteenth century in the western United Provinces, Stone's inquiry into the effect of canal irrigation on "a peasant economy" deals with this region. In the process, he takes up the "suggestion" made by the present reviewer "that the disadvantages of the canals actually outweighed the advantages." On the contrary, Stone argues, the canal was "a more appropriate technology" than traditional irrigation, given the priorities and the conditions-economic, institutional, and physical-of the Doab peasants, who willingly took to canal irrigation on sound rational principles. The comparative dynamism and vitality of the western U.P. in contrast to the east is primarily explained by "the canal."

Ian Stone considers that canal irrigation in British India has had a bad press and is at pains to redress the balance. Irrigation works are among the greatest monuments of British rule, and Stone deplores the lack of historical inquiry into so large and influential an enterprise. Since canal building reached its apogee in the nineteenth century in the western United Provinces, Stone's inquiry into the effect of canal irrigation on "a peasant economy" deals with this region. In the process, he takes up the "suggestion" made by the present reviewer "that the disadvantages of the canals actually outweighed the advantages." On the contrary, Stone argues, the canal was "a more appropriate technology" than traditional irrigation, given the priorities and the conditions-economic, institutional, and physical-of the Doab peasants, who willingly took to canal irrigation on sound rational principles. The comparative dynamism and vitality of the western U.P. in contrast to the east is primarily explained by "the canal." a more equitable distribution where such was in conflict with their own requirements. Chapter 7 tackles a vexed question: How useful was the canal as a protection against famine? The canal, as Stone says, boosted the production of wheat, and by the end of the nineteenth century the wheat growers of the Upper Doab so profited from scarcity trade that they openly prayed for its continuance. But the commercial context, the wheat trade itself, and its relation to canal irrigation are not analyzed. Again we are not informed about the condition of the less-fertile canal tracts "to the south" in times of scarcity. Finally, in chapter 8 Stone draws attention to the prosperity conspicuous in the canal tracts, "especially the Upper Doab" in comparison with other districts. It is clear that such prosperity as the east enjoyed in the early nineteenth century, when caught up in the mercantile operations of indigo, opium, and cotton of the East India Company, had withered by the time the Crown government took over in 1858. Thereafter, the great commercial stimuli, notably the wheat trade and, until the 1920s, sugarcane, tended to bypass the eastern districts. The western districts, their prospects enhanced, but not created by the vast irrigation schemes, were in the front line for these developments. That they were able to take advantage of them depended, as Stone agrees, as much on tenurial conditions as anything. It was, he concludes, peasant proprietorship, chiefly Jat peasant proprietorship, and secure occupancy tenancy, chiefly Jat occupancy tenancy-the creation of historical circumstance and the revenue laws-that made the benefits of innovation accessible. Where these or comparable conditions obtained, the "dynamism of the western UP" was evident. Stone himself has recognized the essential problem: How far down the Doab did prosperity extend? It is, as he says, difficult to say. The questions he raises as to the effect of the canals are pertinent, but they should be answered with reference to the entire

canal command.

It is your assumption that everyone has agendas. That is not how everyone works. Stone and Whitcombe may not have had agendas, as you state, only honest disagreements. (Btw, I have seen all the JSTOR reviews, but the better ones, like the four I've posted above are not available in their entirety on JSTOR.) That the description in the Canals section is vacuous is your perception, not necessarily everyone's. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:13, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
PS Inadvertently, and thankfully, you haven't posted the entire review. Please don't do it. It is a copy vio. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 12:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

well, you only told me that she was ideologically driven and i agree with Elizabeth that Ian Stone was agenda driven. In any case, Whitcomb sounds like an environmentalist, she seems interested in the negative effects of canals on traditional irrigation and on the increase of diseases like Malaria in the gangetic basin in British india. her work is sometimes characterised as

In the 1990s there has been a major shift of historians' focus to the depletion of fresh water resources and the historical emergence of policy debates over water allocation. This volume presents a fine, representative range of those projects. Elizabeth Whitcombe returns to her pathbreaking studies of waterlogging, salinity, and malaria in the vast British irrigation systems of the Ganges and Indus basins. The significance of her work is now better recognized than twenty years ago.

i am sure you will find some negative reviews as well. it isnt uncommon for books to be reviewed positively for some aspects and negatively for some other. her book reviews by George Blyn, Metcalf and another. i have access to Metcalf's review if anyone is interested.

now about the ganges canal, User:Jayen466 seems to be agreeing with me though he wasnt explicit and so does Elizabeth Whitcomb (in a way). you are all alone. please see how it reads

The enthusiasm, however, proved to be short lived. Auckland's successor as Governor General, Lord Ellenborough, appeared less receptive to large-scale public works, and for the duration of his tenure, withheld major funds for the project. Only in 1844, when a new Governor-General, Lord Hardinge, was appointed, did official enthusiasm and funds return to the Ganges Canal project. Although the intervening impasse had seemingly affected Cautely's health and required him to return to Britain in 1845 for recuperation

do you really think people care for such inane details like enthusiasm, health and recuperation? it sounds plain silly and unencyclopedic. truthfully, i dont care whether this triviality stays or not. --CarTick (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The text could, maybe even should be summarized a bit, perhaps with a link to Company_rule_in_India#Canals, where the text comes from. Likewise the text I've added could be shortened and summarized, if anyone think it is too long. But as I understand, Fowler&f intends to do more work on this section. I'd like to wait until he's finished. There's no hurry. Pfly (talk) 02:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
i apologise if that is the case. i didnt see an under construction tag like in some other sections. well, that doesnt mean anything. he also seemed to disagree about trimming it down in his previous post. in extension, i think these details are inane for that article as well. but, you are right, i will stay off this and give all of us some time. there is no hurry. --CarTick (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
CarTick, let me be blunt with you. I know a thing or two about the Ganges Canal, being one of the few individuals in the world who have actually seen every inch of the canal, and you likely don't. Even the engineers in the Irrigation Deptartment in the two state governments in India or the hydrology professors at IIT Roorkee have not. Please don't tax my patient with more sophomoric nonsense. I normally work with only graduate students, but even the undergraduates I occasionally work with over the summer, never go on and on and on as you do. RegentsPark has already made a plea, please let it go. You are taxing my patience. I have very limited time. I have to balance the various aspects of my life. I am traveling besides. I don't go after your edits, whatever it is you work on. To this day, I haven't the foggiest what you work on and have no interest. Everyone else seems to understand that I added the paragraph from Company rule in India as a place holder. Please don't hound me by never going away. Please go away. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 05:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
i listened to RP and did not want to personalise the issue and if you read carefully, i made an effort to express my opinion in a neutral way in my previous post. may be it was harsh, but my opinion was purely on the content. well, let me be blunt with you then. i am not going after your edits, in fact, this is how wikipedia works. i am not sure if you knew a thing or two about canals because you clearly didnt know Megasthanes's reference to canals in Maurya's time. if you find it diffcult to have your edits and judgements questioned by others, it may not be a place for you. if this is all the response you can give after being exposed of the "apologist" bias by using apologists books such as Ian Stone and dismissing other books that are critical of whatever you seem to care so much, i dont care. take some rest and come back later. a quote from an interesting article.

In our own time, several medical historians and defenders of

empire continue to regard a negative assessment of the British empire on the Non-West as subversive and irrelevant. They consistently downplay the role of the development practices that accompanied empire and which had a massively detrimental impact on the health and well-being of imperialized people. This

was particularly true in the case of India. (page 147)

--CarTick (talk) 11:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

(od) It does seem to me that the amount of detail in the para that CarTick quotes above is excessive and the para should be trimmed down. About the perennial "Brits were good/bad for India" argument, it should be obvious that we have no clue because we don't know what trajectory India would have taken without British presence. If I may make a little joke here, none of us would exist were it not for British rule in India so let's just leave it at that and present all sides of the good/bad argument that are generally recognized (in peer reviewed journals). Which means neither deriding arguments as "marxist" nor as "apologist" but accepting that all have valid points to make. A better question is whether this article, which is about the river, is a suitable place for fighting the British legacy battle. (Keep listening to me CarTick - always keep in mind that other people are reading the discussion and evaluating arguments as well!)--rgpk (comment) 13:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

diseases

words of wisdom. yes, lot of us wouldnt be speaking english, who would have cared about English wikipedia. given that all world events are linked and influence each other to some extent, we wouldnt even know if wikipedia would have been around. anyways, if you think about it that every word you utter is being analysed and evaluated by others, it is kind of scary. one of the important points lost in this legacy battle was in some of the references i cited, which is rather relevant to this article. the increase in the prevalence of malaria in the ganges canal area after it was built. since we spent quite a deal discussing about pollution of ganges, i thought i will point this out. it is a peer-reviewed publication.

British Development Policies and Malaria in India 1897-c. 1929 Author(s): Sheldon Watts Source: Past & Present, No. 165 (Nov., 1999), pp. 141-181 link --CarTick (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

apparently it is a controversial issue with two sides of argument, like everything. here is another article in Lancet --CarTick (talk) 14:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

quoted from sheldon Watts book. doesnt specifically mention ganges canal. so, we should be careful.

In their haste to bring canal-borne water

to as many cultivators as possible (users were charged fees), British engineers often failed to create a parallel system of drainage to rid fields of surplus water; consequently, water left over from irrigation flooded adjacent lands.3 Wherever such conditions were found, one of several types of Anopheles mosquitoes

might breed

--CarTick (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

quoted from Whitcombe's review of Ian Stone's book.

The discussion of malaria begs some further questions. Stone does not

refer to the seminal contribution of Colonel J. A. Sinton, "What Malaria Costs India," published in 1936 in the Records of the Malaria Survey of India, which might have guided him; nor does he offer any demographic analysis even of selected canal-tracts. Certainly, malaria caused widespread debilitation and its prevalence and incidence

were increased in the canal tracts of the western U.P.;

--CarTick (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

quoted from an article written by A. T. A. Learmonth. link . here

Cholera mortality, British India, I921-40. There is a high mortality in the

great endemic homes in the east coast deltas {except Godavari-Krishna), mainly with medium variability. This compares with high mortality and high variability-more epidemic conditions-in the Middle Ganges Plain and adjacent areas along the hillfoot. The areas of high mortality are linked by areas of medium mortality with medium to high variability, mainly within areas of sudden falling off to areas of low

mortality and low variability; (page 18)

. --CarTick (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Upon contemplating further, because 1) i dont have enough time 2) i am not entirely convinced that they belong here, i dont want to push this further unless someone thinks otherwise and/or comes up with more specific sources. nevertheless, i believe that these references may be suitable for other articles such as Company rule in India or some other. --CarTick (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

basin map

a drainage basin map will be useful. just making a note in case someone has free access to one but not seriously thinking about it. --CarTick (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've been thinking the same thing. The first map currently, File:GangesValley&Plain.jpg, is attractive but a bit dated. I might try to make a new map myself, but will probably instead just ask User:Kmusser if he would. Pfly (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
if the map can feature international and state borders, that would be excellent from my perspective. i am no good at making maps. --CarTick (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, over the last few days I went through the various sources I had dug up and made a bunch of edits to this page. I'm basically done, for now, with significant edits. I've begun to make a map of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna basin, and maybe a second one focusing on the delta region. Making maps takes a lot of time though, so don't hold your breath. I am adding Indian state borders, as you asked CarTick. With map intended for viewing on Wikipedia, online, at a relatively small size, with relatively few pixels, clutter is always an issue. But I think state borders can be shown without clutter. State names probably won't fit, but at least the borders should work. Bangladesh has internal divisions too (Nepal and Bhutan as well), but I am thinking that since these countries are smaller than many Indian states there's no need to show their internal divisions. China's internal divisions, on a map of this focus, include nothing but Tibet. I'm toying with the idea of using a subtle terrain image as a basemap, but most likely I'll sacrifice it in exchange for simple clarity. Terrain can look very attractive in a map, but also divert attention from the primary focus. But we'll see, maybe terrain will work—it would be nice if it does, as the Himalayas are rather important for the river systems. Anyway, all this to say, I think my recent editing spree is more or less over. Finishing a map or two may take weeks, even months. Pfly (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

thank you for the hard work. because of you, the article looks so much better than it started with. please feel free to take your time with the map. i would love both terrain and state borders, not mentioning names is ok. but, it is your call, clarity and conveying the message are more important. i am really looking forward to this. regards. --CarTick (talk) 12:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm certainly learning a lot about Indian geography. Some of the state borders sure are strange. Uttar Pradesh has an appendage reaching south, vaguely along the Betwa River, with a very sinuous border. Similarly, Madhya Pradesh has a large northward bulge. Northern and southern West Bengal are barely connected, the state looks like a big chunk was cut off, which I suppose is just what happened. There's five or six rather small states in the east—Nagaland, Manipur, Mizoram, Tripura, Meghalaya, Sikkim—for historic/ethnic reasons I assume—a region of particular diversity over smaller distances? Or maybe something related to the more hilly/mountainous landscape. Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud. What a curious country, geographically speaking. Pfly (talk) 18:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The states were formed on linguistic basis, not along straight lines. That may explain it. The Geography in India is very diverse, with Himalays, large and smaller rivers, deserts, coastlines, plains, - you name it.असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 19:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
i would love to know the reason why and how so many languages evolved within a group of people in India who are not always ethnically different and are not always separated by mountains and other physical barriers. i often wondered this whenever i crossed the next state border. people looking the same with similar way of life, food and so many other similarities suddenly start speaking a different language. well, it is not that abrupt, people living in the border can often speak both languages although with a different accent. nevertheless, there is a gradual difference as you go from south to north or from east to west that the difference is quite big when you compare the extremes. it is mind boggling when you think about what keeps the country together. please feel free to make changes to the map as you may see fit. --CarTick (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The idea of nation states is a fairly modern phenomenon. Historically, a kingdom or an empire was defined more as a collection of fiefdoms or smaller kingdoms and, since both the smaller kingdoms as well as the larger empire were formed through a constant tug of war with neighboring kingdoms, their boundaries were always less than straight lines. This is fairly normal - take a look at the political map of Europe for example. In India, many modern states were defined by the British when they lumped together princely states as and when they acquired them. Linguistic redrawing of state lines is a more modern phenomenon. (CarTick, if you get the chance, take a look at the book "The Myth of Continents" - it makes interesting points about the politics behind geography. Thus Pfly is surprised - and I mean no offense Pfly, we should all read that book - at the small states in the north east but would be less surprised at the small countries in Europe!) --rgpk (comment) 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh I wasn't surprised so much as curious. There are plenty of strange state borders even in the US, where straight lines and rectangular shapes are practically the norm. West Virginia, for example, has curious appendages and an odd mix of straight and twisty lines (map). And yea, there's always politics behind boundaries—West Virginia again being an obvious US example, though even the rectangular US states were shaped by politics—usually wrangling over the effect of adding senators to Congress and what political party would gain advantage. Anyway, given India's vast population, diversity, and deep history, I'd be more surprised if the states were nice simple in shape. I can only imagine the complex politics behind it all. That book looks interesting rgpk, I will check it out. Pfly (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
PS, looks like there a limited preview of The Myth of Continents on Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=C2as0sWxFBAC Pfly (talk) 00:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Please dont compare what is not comparable ie the state boundary of USA (not by linguistics) to state boundaries of India(not by map). This is not a FORUM...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 07:24, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
Fine. Pfly (talk) 07:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I will say one more thing. This page has been nothing but bitterness and bickering since I got involved. I stuck with it because the topic was interesting, despite the poisonous atmosphere. Then, when things finally seem to have cooled off a little and there is a hint of comradery, a slight sharing of apparent personal commonalities, I am told to shut up. I could deal with everyone here being hostile toward one another, but this, this makes me walk away. Pfly (talk) 08:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Pfly, You are much more valuable than Thisthat2011 who is both rude and ignorant. In my opinion, you're the best thing that has happened to this page, which before you was both neglected and fought over. The weird shapes have little to do with linguistics. The reason why the boundaries of Indian states are crooked (and I've wondered about them as well) is simply that they were once approximately 562 individual kingdoms (and even more, before the British arrived). As the British began to annex the kingdoms, many of which later became parts of British Indian provinces, the kingdoms began to coalesce without any real geometric order. Consequently, strange shapes resulted (to which RegentsPark alludes as well). The snake-like protuberances of Madhya Pradesh, for example, which was the British Indian Central Provinces + Native States of Central India Agency, is most certainly the result of such annexation. After India's independence, some of the larges states were subdivided on a linguistic basis, but that didn't really affect the original doodles. Please see the page Presidencies and provinces of British India to get a feel for how these shapes evolved. There are plenty of maps there which give you a historical feeling for the changing shapes. But, most importantly, please don't allow rude drive-by editors to spoil it for the rest of us. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
PS No reason to scratch what you wrote. There was nothing offensive in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 11:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Let it go. Though I disagree with your understanding, I won't discuss it here. Everyone is entitled to his viewpoint...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
I agree with Fowler that Pfly has done a great job to this page and really helped cool things down. Thisthat, you have no clue what you are talking about. do you know how much he dispassionately contributed to this page and sort of served as a mediator and is largely responsible for its current status now. see his contributions history, he has been consistently contributing to articles related to rivers all his wiki career. i completely understood the spirit of the conversation Pfly started and indulged in it happily that things are calming down. Pfly, please dont go away. --CarTick (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi this is indeed my time to apologies. From my side I can say that the talk I thought, may be as a novice, was going away from the conversation, and was unaware of how state boundaries will affect this article. My understanding is that when I said this is not a FORUM, it would appear not as a shout, but as pointer to WP:FORUM or something like that, which I think is fairly common to say when someone moves off topic. I neither doubted myself or yourself about anything, just mentioned it as incomparable.
I have put forth my understanding correctly, and would like to apologies what it has become. I take the blame entirely on myself and no one else...असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 11:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisthat2011 (talk • contribs)
we were talking about state boundaries because pfly is making us a map of the ganges river basin and i requested him to include the state boundaries. --CarTick (talk) 11:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Indeed my fault as I have accepted..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 12:08, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I shouldn't have overreacted with vitriol. I think it touched a nerve because I find one of the most enjoyable aspects of Wikipedia is when there is a harmless bit of somewhat off-topic chat on talk pages. WP:FORUM is, I think, necessary when off-topic chat reaches the point of hampering constructive work. In contrast, a bit of off-topic chat can serve to build a spirit of collaboration. I find working here more enjoyable when I get to know something about the people I'm working with, especially when they are from a culture so different from mine. I don't know what WP:page to cite, or if there even is one, and don't care either way. Policies and guidelines are for addressing problems, not to be followed blindly. Finally, I was comparing only the fact that states can be oddly shaped and that there is usually something political behind the shapes, not in the least suggesting the reason for oddly shaped states in India is anything like the reason for oddly shaped states in the US. If the comparison was offensive, I apologize. Sometimes I worry, when meeting and working with people from other countries, that being an American automatically makes my words offensive. Pfly (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
You can check this link here. States_Reorganization_Act According to me, the states reorganization was done independently in India after bloody partition, political integration India and writing of the Indian Constitution by brilliant Constitutional experts & recognized in Indian Parliamentarian, none of which are because of anyone elected by anyone pre-independence. The districts were reorganized as per languages, the languages all have about thousand years history (example [[Marathi_language]-1000 years, Tamil_language-2400years old) and more, and British officers (who were elected by the Queen, not selected by the people) never did anything based on linguistic basis anyways, therefore have not much to do with the British. The whole exercise was a vibrant, well-debated and documented exercise in India. At the same time, many facets of different aspects were incorporated from different parts of the world. The Westminster Parliamentary model for Parliament and so on. Whenever cooperation was required, it was requested and extended aid and understanding incorporated, not to forget the same knowledge and experience was and is shared whenever required by other democracies also, such as when SA was formed. This is wall done in good faith with cooperation from all and cooperation extended to all. .असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. 18:54, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I would paint as rosy a picture of the linguistic division of states (which basically carved up the oddball states created when the British annexed princely states) as thisthat does, but this is getting way off topic. Pfly, don't let all this get to you. Good content editors are far too valuable on wikipedia to be driven away by peremptory injunctions to stop from people who don't know better. State boundaries in the US tend to be straight lines because they were largely carved out for administrative reasons but when nations were involved, weird shapes were often the result. Look at the shape of the Louisiana Purchase for instance! --rgpk (comment) 20:16, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, rgpk, and I do apologize for being melodramatic. The shape of borders is one of my geeky interests, and I could go on about it, but will refrain! Pfly (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Topo maps

While trying to work out the geography this part of India I kept wishing for detailed topographic maps, available online. I had trouble finding much, but just now I found a large set: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/india/ ...Yes, it is a US Army source (though the US Army Corps of Engineers does a lot of unwarlike things, like building dams), and they are somewhat dated--1950s or so--but have far more detail than any other online maps I have been able to find. And they appear to cover all of India. I find topo maps especially useful for physical geography stuff--rivers, mountains, etc--the kind of things Google Maps and similar things don't do well. Here is the topo map called "Jorhat", showing the confluence of the Subansiri River (yes, I just made the page) and the Brahmaputra. And here is where the Bhagirathi and Alaknanda join to form the Ganges. And here is where the Farakka Barrage wasn't yet built in the 1950s. ...anyway, after finding it so hard to find this level of detail topographic maps of India online I can't help but share. Also, being a US federal government source, they are in the public domain. Pfly (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

good find. it is a dream come true for map lovers. thanks. --CarTick (talk) 12:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Great detail. The topo map above (north of) the Bhagirathi/Alaknanda should have Gangotri the source of the Bhagirathi, and the beginnings of Alaknanda (as Saraswati) and the one to the right (east) should have the rest of Alaknanda. It would be interesting to see how a headwaters map obtained this way compares with the one already there which is based on a topo map of the Survey of India. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Yea.. looks like the glacier source of the Bhagirathi is near the top of this one. Unfortunately the headwaters seem to lie along the map seams a lot. I'm a little surprised by the apparent lack of roads, even bad ones, all along the upper Bhagirathi. Are they just not shown, or is it really that isolated? I thought people visited Gangotri fairly frequently. There are lots of "camping grounds" marked. Do people hike long distances to get there? Pfly (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I spotted the Gangotri glacier in your map 44-05, but as you say, the headwaters occasionally slip out of this particular grid square. You need 44-01 and 44-06 for the complete picture, the latter especially to see the Dhauliganga, which has greater discharge than the Alaknanda, when the two meet at Vishnu Prayag. (Vishnu Prayag is not mentioned in 44-06, but Joshimath, which is nearby, is.) But you can see that Dhauliganga, and therefore the Ganges itself, gets some of its water from the snow melt of peaks such as Nanda Devi, Nanda Kot, Trisul(i), ... Also 44-01 shows that one of the headstreams, the Jadh Ganga, rises in China (Tibet), (and you can see all that as well in the headwaters map.) As for the roads, they are certainly there now, all the way to Gangotri, but likely weren't in the 1950s(?) when the US Army map was made. It was better (for the river) when the roads weren't there. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure about the camping grounds. I saw a lot of those in 44-01 in Tibet. In wonder if they refer to places where nomadic groups traditionally camped. It's unlikely that any tourists were camping in Tibet in the 1950s. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 14:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ganges/Archive_4&oldid=1136276789"