This is an archive of past discussions about Adam's Bridge. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Adam's Bridge is not correct because the name should be something that the people call it, not just the UK or US call it. It is called Setu Band or Ram Setu Bridge. This has been seen in ancient scriptures in the Ramayana and is related to Ram and Sita and their love story. Anyone that has ever read the Ramayana would know this. It is important that we see this because not everything can be named according the English Language. It has to do with the culture not what it easier to pronounce. Please change the name because it can also be known as "Adam's Bridge". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishan1234 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Broken link
The link supporting "The Madras High Court has said that this bridge is man-made" is broken, but rather than label it as such I have removed the statement, as another ref notes that the court did not pronounce on the issue [1]. I have added a {{cn}} request for the statement that some geologists regard the bridge as "man made" --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Distances
The length said to be 30 m /48 km may come from the British Encyclopedia, but does not appear to be correct. I took measurements in Google Earth from the very tip of the Dhanushkodi beach (9° 9'11.05"N 79°26'45.71"E) to the shore of Mannar Island (9° 4'32.03"N 79°40'59.39"E) and obtained a linear distance of 17.03 miles = 27.41 km = 14.8 nautical miles or, on the curved path following the little islands, of 17.82 m = 28.68 km = 15.49 nautical miles. The distance from the pier in Rameswaram (9°16'49.64"N 79°18'56.65"E) to the pier in Talaimannar (9° 6'35.47"N 79°43'48.67"E) was 30.6 m = 49.25 km = 26.59 nm. May be this is the origin of the distance quoted so far in the article. (I found similar discrepancies in Palk Strait. I thus change the width to 18 m. --AHert (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Rameswaram Island / Pamban Island - Mannar /Talaimannar / Mannar Island
The introduction says: a chain of limestone shoals, between the islands of Rameswaram, ..., and Mannar. The article Rameswaram says it is the name of a town on Pamban Island. That article says that the island is also known as "Rameswaram island". Rameswaram Island redirects to Adam's Bridge, but Rameswaram island redirects to Pamban Island. The link to Mannar (the town) is wrong as the chain of limestone shoals ends at Mannar Island. All this is quite confusing. For the sake of simplicity and clarity I suggest: "a chain of limestone shoals between Pamban Island, off the southeastern coast of Tamil Nadu, India, and Mannar Island, off the northwestern coast of Sri Lanka". As it appears to be important to our Hindu users, there could be inserted after Pamban Island: "also known as Rameswaram island". The subsequent paragraphs on Location and Transportation and navigation should be adapted accordingly. Furthermore, both Rameswaram Island and Rameswaram island should redirect to Pamban Island. The article on Pamban Island uses both "Pamban Island" and "Pamban island" which should be cleaned up. --AHert (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Neither or both, it's just a chain of shoals, not a bridge, not permanent geological features, so each country owns whatever is in their waters, be it the seabed or a sandbank. There's no need for the article to deal with this. Dougweller (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
If an editor needed to have a question related to the article answered on the talk page, it should probably be mentioned in the article, if sufficient sources can be found. --snowolfD4( talk / @ )13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
The article answers the question, looking again. It's obvious some of it is in India, so we don't need to reiterate that. And the article says it's a chain between some Indian islands and a Sri Lankan island, so that's covered. And it is not actually a bridge as Vanjagenije seems to assume. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I know it's not a bridge, it's just called a bridge, that's why I said "bridge". The article says that Adam's Bridge is a chain of limestone shoals, and the article "Shoal" says that a shoal is a somewhat linear landform, so I assume that if it is a landform, than it belongs to a nation (either India or Sri Lanka). Vanjagenije (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
none of the people here have any proof whether or not it is a bridge, when you say "I know" you actually don't know a thing but want others to believe what you believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisheeth baluni (talk • contribs) 23:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Needs attention from an expert on the subject
An expert required to clean-up the mess of other experts. Position open since May 2008. Better to edit the section a bit to logically order the confusion and remove the 'expert' tag.
Tharikrish 20:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
LEAD
The lead section says "It was reportedly passable on foot up to the 15th century until storms deepened the channel: temple records seem to say that Rama’s Bridge was completely above sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480 CE". The reference given is 'Encyclopaedia of the Hindu world', By Gaṅgā Rām Garg. This is not a reliable source for history. 15th century doesn't belong to pre-historic period. There are no historical records to suggest that "It connected Ceylon to India until the end of the 15th century (1480), when, during a storm, the sea made a breach through the rocks, which a subsequent storm enlarged, after whcih foot traffic ceased" as this Hindu encyclopaedia says. Even this reference does not mention any temple records. So which temple record are we talking about? The article does not mention this foot traffic claim anywhere else. How can such a ridiculous claim appear in the lead section which is supposed to summarize the most important points of the article. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
According to OCLC Dr Garg has authored or edited over eighty books (although the total includes some multi-volume works which may have been counted separately). What is your reason for "[t]his is not a reliable source for history", please? --Old Moonraker (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Certainly the source does not mention temple records. Frankly, I'd like more sources if we are going to have this in the article at all, hopefully sources that were written before the fifteenth century and confirm it was being used as a 'foot bridge'. I'm not keen on using encyclopedias for something like this. Certainly it shouldn't be in the lead. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Dr. Garg is not a historian; he is at best a scholar of religion; not the best person whom we rely on for the 15th century status of Adam's bridge. This is LEAD; the article does not discuss this claim elsewhere. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Note that I have done what should have been done some time ago and protected this article against moves. I'm involved so if another Administrator wants to unprotect I won't protest, but given the history of moves this seems an obvious step.
The current title is I think the most common title, even in Indian news sources, eg [2], [3][4] and this includes those who think it is not natural. Our policy (see WP:TITLE) says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources.". I don't think that there is any serious doubt that the current title meets these criteria. --Dougweller (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment: I'm semi-involved in the sense I reverted some past moves and title-changes, but I concur with Doug's move protection. The current title is the most appropriate even per English sources including Indian English sources. Even if a move is deemed appropriate, the target title is entirely inappropriate as it is a religious title not in use outside of certain sources discussing it in that context. So I'd oppose a move from the current title. —SpacemanSpiff07:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Note that the original editor last night (who also I presume is the IP) placed a speedy delete on this article with the reason 'criticizes Hindus'. Thanks for removing it, Spiff. Clearly tendentious and I'd say a reaction to the speedy deletion of his creation of a duplicate article with his preferred name. Dougweller (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
There has been extensive discussion of the article title already (preserved in the talk page archives 1 and 2). Also consider WP:COMMONALITY("Wikipedia tries to find words that are common to all varieties of English") when deciding here. — AjaxSmack 05:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I tend to think this should not have been brought. It was brought on behalf of someone else who hadn't actually made a request but who made a move without discussion, created a duplicate article with their preferred name, and created a sock puppet. I suggest that it be withdrawn/closed now. Dougweller (talk) 06:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I was trying to think of something novel to support my view to oppose any move, but the previous discussions were so exhaustive—and exhausting—that I failed. It's back to the definitive policy at WP:AT: "[Use] names most frequently used by English-language reliable sources to refer to the subject".--Old Moonraker (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
when its religios bridge,the title should be the correct one,what is the use of incorrect--non-religious title??Or you are trying to change its historic meaning?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.204.162.142 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
What did Tad S Murty say?
Our current accepted version says:
Tsunami expert Professor Tad S Murty has stated that Adam's bridge might have acted as a protection wall during the Indian Ocean Tsunami event in 2004, because of its elevation, and prevented damage to South Kerala. However he concedes that this view is not based on his own original research, nor is he aware of any such studies being carried out by anyone.
If you look at the reference given you can read thus:
It is reported at various places that if not for the Ramar Sethu, the 2004 tsunami would have created widespread destruction in Kerala. Is it true?
I have not seen any of these reports. It is quite possible that the Ramar Sethu might have had some impact. However, until and unless I do a very detailed numerical (computer) model on this aspect, I cannot say with any certainty the influence of these on tsunami travel. Of course I can do a numerical model if someone will provide me funds to do it. Other scientists might have done this already, but I have not seen those results.
If so, in what way did Ramar Sethu reduce the impact on the coasts of Kerala and Tamil Nadu?
I cannot comment on this until I do a numerical model specifically on this aspect.
Despite the best efforts by the person who interviewed this scientist, he did not say anything in support of such a claim. Then why is this statement here? 14.139.128.14 (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've accepted the change; the TS Murthy bit was misinterpretation clearly. The other two changes - one was not really a reliable source, so deletion seems ok; the other one (lede), I've taken your comment at face value, I haven't checked the source. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff18:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There is a claim that Adam's Bridge is man made and we should report it as a significant fringe view. However the following sentence which appears in the current version is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. "Geological and archaeological findings of Teri formations, a rich assemblage of Mesolithic-Microlithic tools and human fossils found on both sides of the bridge by the Department of Earth-Science in March 2007 are also quoted as evidence for manmade structure". The two references given for this are nowhere near being reliable sources. The second one quotes Dept. of Earth Sciences, Govt of India like this "IN THE CASE OF ADAMS BRIDGE AREA WE OBSERVE THAT THE CORAL FORMATIONS HARDLY OCCUR 1 TO 2.5M IN LENGTH AND RESTING ON LOOSE MARINE SANDS. MOST OF THESE CORAL ROCK PIECES ARE SEEM TO BE ROUNDED PEBBLES OF CORALS. THESE THINGS APPEAR TO POINT THESE CORAL ROCK PIECES AND PEBBLES HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED AND PLACED IN THESE AREAS". Even if it is accepted as genuine, there is nothing in that to support this claim. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Edit request on 9 December 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
You guys realize this structure is near India and Sri Lanka right, surely we should use the name that most Indians and most Sri Lankans would use for this structure. And why aren't non-English sources equally valid as English sources? So Indian scholarship is completely worthless just because it is not in English? Do you guys realize how offensive that statement is??? Any way Dr. Subramaniam Swami, leader of Janata Party which reinstated democracy in India after Emergency Rule of Indira Gandhi, is explaining his efforts to protect the structure from destruction in the Indian Court system in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83-smXzOvFA&feature=related. Dr Swami uncovered hidden documents of geological survey conducted by the Government of India. Please take a look. And this video is in English by the way. If this is not enough, can someone please direct me to the exact definition of "reliable English-language sources" and I sincerely hope this does not just mean imperial documents from the British Empire. Thank you for your time.
Nirvana74v (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC) — Nirvana74v (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Regardless of the fact that this has been discussed previously, there is no reason...other than ethnocentrism by Christians and Muslims...to have this named with the Islamic/Christian name of "Adam's Bridge," when that is not the historical or commonly accepted name of the area. Relying upon Islamic and Christian legends for the name, rather than the actual name for the place is like changing the name of the article for the USA to "Estados Unidos" or whatever name the Native Americans might have had for the place. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm neither a Christian or a Muslim, and we use the commonly used English name - and I see even "Garg, Ganga Ram (1992). "Adam's Bridge". Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World. A-Aj. New Delhi: South Asia Books." Is that ethnocentric? The title follows our guidelines and there's been a discussion. We use alternative names in the article's lead and as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree. The fact that when I search for Ramasetu I get redirected to "Adam's Bridge" is astounding. It is racist. There is an indigenous name, and one that is more common than "Adam's Bridge." To not acknowledge this name is a gross injustice and confirms once again that the Western world is incapable of living with difference - they must transform everything in their own image in order to understand or appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.31.227 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Someone tried a compromise by putting Adam's Bridge/Ramasetu but it was quickly reverted. I propose we use that title as a compromise.
@Bryonmorrigan : I agree totally. This name needs to be changed to either Ramasetu or Rama's Bridge, as this is what the bridge is known as and calling it by any Christianized name is nonsensical. It is not a construction of Judeo-Christian history; it is significant to Hindus. Calling this article Adam's Bridge is like calling the Bible "Jesus' Gita."
Zondrah89 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
I sympathize and wish it was easy to change the article name to the obvious consensus. But what you're up against here isn't any Christian or Muslim institution; if it were, the change should prove quite a simple one indeed. No, what you are up against, I'm afraid, is the modern version of this:Same attitude, different century. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
That's as much nonsense as the 'Christians and Muslims' bit argument, which is nonsense. We should use the most common English name on the English Wikipedia. That's what it is known as in English. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
In English, Ramasetu translates to "Rama's Bridge." "Rama" does not translate to "Adam." THAT is nonsense! Should we translate the English Wikipedia page "Mahabharata" to say "Great India"? Why not!? Since our arguments are such nonsense, let's take your argument even further! Let's translate the page "Coup d'etat" to "strike against the government"! "Pierre Trudeau" should be called Peter Trout! Let's translate the English page about "Karma" (a Sanskrit word) to "What goes around comes around"! Zondrah89 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
No one is talking about a translation. We are talking about the most common name in English, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Your argument is a red herring. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Our guideline on article titles says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." You have to convince people that your suggestion meets that guideline more closely than does the present title. Til isn't suggesting it doesn't meet that, nor so far as I can see is anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
{{edit semi-protected}} is for non-controversial edits backed by consensus, not for circumventing normal talk page discussion. Please gather a consensus through discussion before opening another edit request. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 3 April 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the name of the page from 'Adam's Bridge' to 'Rama Setu'/'Ram Setu' because I do not understand why it should be called Adam's bridge. This pre-historic monument is mainly a part of Hindu Culture and not so much of Islamic/Christian culture.
Thank You
Compbug.me (talk) 02:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Such Ethnocentrism going on even in Wikipedia! My friend just told me see this and I'm shocked! How can these people give an article like this such a name? And who are these people who translated 'Ram' into 'Adam'? This is Blasphemy! Do you people know the importance of this? The people this bridge concerns is the Hindu and Sri-Lankan people and I think it should be called by the REAL NATIVE name, and not by some ethnocentrist christian names.
Ggforever (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
We use the most common English name in the English Wikipedia. WP:Title says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.". I note that the article on the Tamil wikipedia also uses this name, see [7]. Dougweller (talk) 07:58, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I have never personally heard of this geological formation before today. I can't see how Adam's Bridge is a common name for this when this is the first I've heard of it and I try to be fairly well informed and educated. Since Wikipedia allows for redirects and it is entirely reasonable to have a redirect using the name "Adam's Bridge", my suggestion is that we create that name as a redirect, and rename the article to the most common name used, not an invented name that is at best 200 years old. I also find little evidence via sources used in this article that we should maintain the name "Adam's Bridge" over other titles. The Encyclopedia Brittanica reference seems the only one that really supports it and that reference is miniscule at best, with very little detail. Since there would be no loss of discoverability, and since this seems to be an issue that several editors feel strongly about, I feel that a redirect and rename is a simple and easy solution, especially given the obscurity of this geological feature and the preponderance of sources that do not use the name "Adam's Bridge" first, but either leave it out or use it as a secondary name. -- Avanu (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Adam's Bridge → Ram Setu –
This page should be called "Ram Setu", Adam is not a common name in India. Rightfully as per the location the name should be used. They changed Madras to Chennai, and so it is.
Support - Seems like a reasonable request. Current name has no strong sourcing and is not generally used, especially in comparison to the names used by locals. If we're going to educate people about this, we can still mention the Adam's Bridge name in the article, so let's just use its common name. Surprised this ever was an issue. -- Avanu (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
My colleage below appeals to WP:TITLE, yet the sources all support a rename by the standard being mentioned. I don't see much here but a stubborness, and because we have redirects and those redirects are included in search, this dispute makes no sense. Let it be renamed. -- Avanu (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - As I've said about, "We use the most common English name in the English Wikipedia. WP:Title says "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources.". I note that the article on the Tamil wikipedia also uses this name, see [8]." The name is actually used in Indian English language sources as the list of references or a Google search will show. I don't understand the comment 'has no strong sourcing' - did you actually do a search? More later. Dougweller (talk) 17:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Please show where the preponderance of sources use Adam's Bridge as their PRIMARY name. If you don't, I can comfortably assume that you're just being biased. -- Avanu (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Funny, I just went to that article, and you claim it says "Adam's Bridge", strangely enough it is written in a language I can't read. I did use Google Translate and it comes back as "Adam Bridge", but when I check the three sources (which are English-language sources) used for the article ALL THREE use Rama's Bridge first. So why did the Tamil Wikipedia use a name that is only secondary? Honestly, I don't care what other language encyclopedia's use, and if the sources don't even use it as their primary name, I don't see how the article should be named that. Our article names do not have to be parallel to other language Wikis, but if you are going to make a claim, please back it up with supporting sources, not just your opinion. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm asking you in good faith to back up a claim. You misinterpret AGF if you think it means we merely accept statements at face value with no supporting evidence, and considering that the evidence is plain on the other side of this, and I provided you with solid statements, simply asking you for the same is VERY reasonable. Like I said earlier, I'd never even heard of "Adam's Bridge" until someone posted a complaint elsewhere about the intransigence of some editors here. So the idea that this is a common English usage doesn't carry weight with me personally. My personal experience, however, isn't the Wikipedia standard, so I looked at the sources for this article, and then the other article you presented, as well as looked via Google, and lo and behold, the argument that this is a common title IS TRUE, BUT the idea that it is the PREMIER title is NOT TRUE. So I have to ask why you are being so bold to withhold consideration of other titles and allow "Adam's Bridge" to follow sources and be a secondary title here. Simple answer ... some kind of bias. Now please respond with facts rather than vague accusations on my willingness to accept your intentions, and I'll know you aren't simply being stubborn. To paraphrase a Supreme Court Justice, AGF is not a suicide pact. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Oppose Firstly for use in English-language sources, per WP:COMMONNAME. Secondly, sorry, I don't what it is in Sinhalese, but Tamils of all faiths both side of the divide generally call this ஆதாம் பாலம் and it is at ta:ஆதாம் பாலம் in ta.wp. (please don't rush to ta.wp and do a move). In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Notwithstanding the poor state of the references for this article (most Internet links won't load), most of the ones that do, and the ones in that Tamil article, all three of which are in English, show a name other than Adam's Bridge as the primary name. So from what I can tell, using WP:COMMONNAME means that we don't use Adam's Bridge. If you can show otherwise in a PREPONDERANCE of reliable sources, I'll take a different position, but using your own argument, we MUST change the name. -- Avanu (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Those Google Books search links are a compelling answer for which term is more predominant, in order to be truly accurate, however, we need that type of connection in the sources for this article, and not simply anecdotal evidence. The current sources do not support the COMMONNAME argument, and like I said, the Google Books search is compelling, but in the end it is not dispositive. Our knowledge in Wikipedia comes mostly from secondary sources, and sometimes from primary sources, but the Google Book search doesn't tell us how many books or what quality they are, how many times each is used, what they might use instead of the term, etc etc. So its interesting, but it can't settle the issue. Real sources can and should. -- Avanu (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As a Sri Lankan Tamil from Puttalam (near the actual shoal), I can confirm that this is indeed known to us as ஆதாம் பாலம் (Adam's Bridge). This may sound strange to North Indians as Tamils are mainly Hindu. But this can be explained by the fact that Vishnu/Ram has very little to no following among Hindu Tamils (our principal deities are Shiva, Ganesh and Murughan). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.231.91.22 (talk) 07:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Ramar pallam (இராமர் பாலம்) generates 58,600 results on Google search. However Adam Pallam (ஆதாம் பாலம்) generates only 14,500 results. As per WP:Google, Ramar pallam or Rama's bridge should be used at that Wikipedia (and I believe here as well IMHO) --92.14.189.196 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, you did a Google Web Search to get that result. Using a similar search to In Ictu Oculi above (Google Books), you will get only 6 results. Using a Google Web Search on "Adam's Bridge" returns 134,000 results. So comparing apples to apples in a Google result gives Adam's Bridge back as the winner. Still need a real source however. This is merely anecdotal, and as I said, the actual sources listed in this article and the other list Adam's Bridge as at least secondary or less. -- Avanu (talk) 02:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Edit request on 27 April 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the title of the page from "Adam's Bridge" to "Rama's Bridge" which is what the page originally started as. This is more commonly understood title among the public. Thank's Ashish!
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: not moved without intention to inflict emotional distress or target any community. Trying to determine the common name often includes examining both the references given in the article and also news, book, and scholar searches. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
Oppose I'm in favour of quick second RM if the rationale is different or there was a fundamental error in methodology in the first one, I've done 2 myself. But this? What's changed? Nominator hasn't addressed the result of above. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Request close - I'm in favor of a rename, but the last one closed without consensus just a couple weeks ago. Not seeing how this will change now. -- Avanu (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment. This page originally started as "Rama's Bridge" for obvious reasons, this is more commonly understood and oldest name for the monument. It is disrespectful to call it by any other name. There is no reason to not move it under its historical common name. Not resolving this promotes intentional infliction of emotional distress towards a targeted community and is criminal in nature.Pe9asus (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Edit request for name of the article from Adams bridge to Shri Ram Setu
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I WANT TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE ARTICLE REGARDING BRIDGE NEAR RAMESHWARAM. FROM ADAMS BRIDGE TO SHRI RAM SETU
BECAUSE IT IS INDIAN MYTHOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL MONUMENT AND MUST BE NAMED AFTER THE GREAT WARRIOR AVATAR OF LORD VISHNU (LORD RAM) AND HE IS THE 0NLY PERSON TO BUILD IT WITH HELP OF APES ALTHOUGH THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC REASON OF FLOATING OF STONES BUT IT IS ONLY HIS NAME WRITTEN ON EACH STONE WITH WHICH THE STONE FLOATS
Darshan malshe (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Not done, please see the above discussions. Start a well-sourced discussion on this talk page and gain consensus before requesting this again. —SpacemanSpiff06:20, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change all the mentions of Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu. The name "Adam's Bridge" name has no base and its falsification of the actual name. This is nothing more than mere imperialising History, facts and the truth.
NNot done and not likely to be done As a previously discussed and rejected move, please read Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves first and file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Read the policies and justifications, and draft a move request which addresses something not previously addressed. Previous move requests which have insulted other Wikipedia editors or impugned their motives have failed to get sufficient support to achieve consensus supporting the move. User:Mkweise, who created the page as Rama's Bridge on 13 May 2003, is still active, and could be asked why they created it at that title; it was not moved to Adam's Bridge until 19 March 2007. Sources in English fairly consistently call this Adam's Bridge first; as there are several other names in English, none of the others are consistently listed first. Dru of Id (talk) 10:04, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 14 August 2012
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Request for name change of the article from Adams Bridge to Shri Ram's bridge
Please change the name from Adams Bridge to its actual name Shri Ram's bridge because IT’ S INDIAN MYTHOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL MONUMENT. Shri Ramchanderji had made a bridge from India to Sri Lanka, now that is a fact and all Hindu’s believe it !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anika49 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
This is the English wikipedia and we follow WP:TITLE, using the most common name in English speaking sources. Note that a number of the sources using "Adam's Bridge" are Indian sources. Dougweller (talk) 13:28, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Wheather this bridge is ram-setu is not clear and properly addressed in controversy section. Beging of 'name' section it is assumed that the bridge is same as the mythical bridge described in ramayana. I do not see any source for that. Please provide one, otherwise I will have to edit the name section considerabely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pallab1234 (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change title from "Adam's Bridge" To "Rama's Bridge" because historically the name "Rama's Bridge" (ca 1747) precedes "Adam's Bridge"(ca 1804) as per cartographers. Also redirection of a search for "Adam's Bridge" should be made to "Rama's Bridge" and not vice versa as it is being done now.
I strongly protest naming Ram Sethu an Adam's Bridge. You cannot change anyone's or any place's names simply because it's an "English: Wiki...
Second point: Just because Adam went there, it doesn't give you the rights to name something that was there so many years before Adam even got there!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkharod (talk • contribs) 03:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
This is the English wiki, we use the most common English name. It's completely wrong to claim we changed the name, look at the Indian sources that use the name 'Adam's Bridge' - we didn't make them use that name. And Adam never existed. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Again, those Indian source must have altered during the colonial times. And again, it should not matter what's commonly called in English - you CANNOT change something or someone's name... How would someone (e.g. you) feel if someone called you by some other name? I know I won't accept it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.239.226.243 (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 25 February 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Rejected. As has been stated multiple times on this very page, we use the most common English name on this edition of Wikipedia, and that name is "Adam's Bridge". Paris1127 (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 26 February 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The response of this editor was to create a copyvio copy of this article at Shri Ram Setu, even changing quotes, image names and sources - it is now a redirect to this article. Dougweller (talk) 18:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 8 June 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change Mahabharata written as a caption to the first picture to Ramayana as it is incorrect. The persian translation was for Ramayana.The bridge was a part of the story of Ramayana .
There is a grave error in the text. The Chennai High Court has never stated that the Setu is Man Made. It is a case of misrepresentation of facts. The Chennai High court has requested the government to clarify its stand on Adam's Bridge. It had requested the Indian Government to Clarify whether the structure can be declared a national monument.
The indian government has declared that the structure is not man made.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I would suggest refraining from calling it "Adam's Bridge" except for informativereasons. This name has been given only quite recently in history and in an imperialist perspective. It doesn't seem quite right, and I feel it would avoid some chaffing of national susceptibilities. While it may seem logical that one nation names one sea strait "Channel" and the other "La Manche", being as they are neighbouring nations, how would we like Chinese geographers to come and name it Mao's strait?
There has been much discussion on this, and the consistent consensus has been that we should follow the principles at WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, which are that articles on the English Wikipedia use the most common English name in English language sources for the article subject.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This shouldnt be named as Adams Bridge, It is constructed by lord Rama, so this should be named as Rama Sethu. please change the name to Rama Setu.
Ramayanam one of the ancient book, just like bible to christians, this is the reference for this name change. please help me in avoiding spreading of false information like this.
203.99.193.237 (talk) 11:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please rename it with the name of the condtructor, or with the name of trhe owner who actually make this construction to kill a cruel king, please dont name it with a person who just walked on it. If we name it with the name of Adam people will forget the history before Adam, so kindly avoid doing so.
203.99.193.237 (talk) 11:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
I request You to edit the name Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu. As there is no documentation showing that Adam's Bridge was built in this geographic area. Instead, as per Hindu religion and as per ancient scripture like Ramayan (Hindu Epic) has been singing about a bridge build by Ram from Rameshwar to Shri Lanka. I assume location's names depends on how local/regional population know about that place or how they call it. I am sure, no one tries to change name of China, or any other country in Europe, even if it is in different language. I request you to understand religious feelings of entire Hindu population of the world regarding the bridge. Just by changing name in wikipedia is not going to give it a certificate that it was built by Ram, but it will certainly bring you a sympanthy of Hindus. If you edit anything depending on citation, than you will find a lot more sources that explains that why that bridge is called Ram Setu.
On the other hand, Adam's Bridge would be in Bible, and I dont think he came all the way from Africa/ Europe to Southern part of India.
Abvyas21 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)A Vyas<Sundarkand in Ramayana> You can find it in any library in India.
Abvyas21 (talk) 03:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
1. Google searchers for Ram sethu is way more than Adams bridge. This indicates that people know the bridge as ram sethu and not as adam's bridge.
2. The bridge was originally named Ram Setu. Later, an islamic saint named Adam walked over the bridge to mediate in Sri Lanka. This is how the name 'adam' came into being. Even today people talking about the bridge call it Ram setu and not Adam's bridge. Why should we stick to this name when every one knows it by the name Ram Setu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.206.173.172 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 26 July 2013
How do you name a place? I believe, by using common logical name or official name. Anyone in India knows about Ram Setu. Chennai court did not provide verdict on Adam's bridge, but that was on Ram Setu. Ask any one in India (where the bridge is) and they will tell you "Ram Setu" not Adam's Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.88.179 (talk) 14:38, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 18 August 2013
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Adam's Bridge is originally Rama Setu as it is mentioned in the Hindu Granth Ramayana, written at a very old period. It is searched by every hindu as rama setu, It is humble request change it to Rama Setu.
Shubhamjindalofficial (talk) 12:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been much discussion on this, and the consistent consensus has been that we should follow the principles at WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, which are that articles on the English Wikipedia use the most common English name in English language sources for the article subject.
This article is strictly concerned with INDIA, geographically and factually, as it is a fact that this bridge (commonly called as "RAMSETU") was built by lord RAMA. For the sake of principles at WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, "RAMSETU" can be named here as RAMA'S BRIDGE or likewise but not Adam's bridge.Thank you.(115.241.199.161 (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)).
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The name of the bridge is "Ram Setu" and Adam's bridge is totally irrelevant. Thename was given by European who preferred connecting it with their beliefs. It should be names as Ram Setu with which it has been called for hundred of thousands of years. People should know what it is & Adam's bridge name should be included with the fact that it was called as such by Europeans.
I hope you will understand my concern. history need to be presented in the correct way.
So I was reading all the arguments that are given "not to change the name" and one of them was "There has been much discussion on this, and the consistent consensus has been that we should follow the principles at WP:TITLE and WP:COMMONNAME, which are that articles on the English Wikipedia use the most common English name in English language sources for the article subject". So if we are going to stick with most common English name convention then why do we have a wikipedia page called Chennai, when the common english name is Madras given my British? Or Kolkatta when the common English name is Calcutta. My point is if we are sticking with policies then we should all the way, but if we are making exceptions then we should respect people'e sentiments ( in this case more several million people).
~RamSetu — Preceding unsigned comment added by RamaSetu (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Note that a number of our sources that use the name Adam's Bridge are Indian. And just because other articles don't follow our guidelines is not a good reason for this one not to. Dougweller (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2014
This edit request to Adam's Bridge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Rama Sethu is not Adam's Bridge. Its built by Lord Rama and his army. I don't understand why Wikipedia is communal in its view and misleading people.
SHINOY KALADHARAN (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Not done: See above. Wikipedia is not misleading people, as the first sentence of the article has the alternate names for the bridge. Adam's Bridge is the accepted name in English, in scholarly sources from India and elsewhere. Paris1127 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Adam has absolutely no connection to this bridge so why name it inaccurate
Adam has absolutely no connection to this place and we are not short of Indian names that we need to name it in 'English'. Naming this as Adam's bridge and referring to it that way is not only historically inaccurate but, also idiotic at best. Because, if some one named it as "Adam's Bridge" and we just follow it for without questioning... (Even if many say we discussed it analyzed it and accepted it the net result is the same) It is just too pacifist. It does not matter whether it is a common name or English name... The name "Rama's Bridge" or "Setu's Bridge" should be the common name and correct name both historically and factually relevant to this place consistent with History. The hard decision of changing it to "Ram's Setu" has to be made and a categorically conveyed that this will be the going forward name no matter what. In a section, it should be mentioned it is also referred as "Adam's bridge" incorrectly which would put the correct context to this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.113.130 (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Besides the fact that we have Indian sources using the name, we go by WP:Commonname which says " Wikipedia prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources) as such names will be the most recognizable and the most natural." Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course they do. I expect them to continue to push their Hinduvata agenda into archaeological fields as well. This is like being told that because the government of Odisha claims someone was born there we have to take that as our official stand, which has also be tried. And this is nothing to do with Christianity so far as I'm concerned. It's to do with being the English Wikipedia and we are English language-centric. Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Adam's Bridge in Islam - new section needed
It isn't just Christians who have called this Adam's Bridge. Take a look at [10]:"occurs in early Arabic sources. The traveler on a pilgrimage to the sacred mountain, Adams Peak, can there behold Adams footprint in the rock where he first fell, as Ibn Battuta did in the fourteenth century. Adams Bridge is, for Muslims, the name of the string of small islands between Sri Lanka and southeastern Tamil Nadu where Adam is supposed to have crossed to India, or Keling (that same “bridge”is considered by Hindus as the site where Rama crossed with his monkey army to Lanka in his attack on the demons’kingdom, as depicted in a central episode of the Ramayana)."
And [11] "Adam's Bridge The name of a line of rocks and islets, with a length of about 30 km, connecting the southern tip of India with Sri Lanka. According to legend, first narrated in Gnostic sources (see GNOSTICISM) and later given in Islamic texts, when Adam was expelled front paradise, he crossed this bridge, and then stood in penance on one foot on a mountain further south in Sri Lanka. After one thousand years of standing on Adam's Peak (also known by different names and sacred to Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims and Christians), he was reunited with Eve."
[12] "Many Tamils maintain that the Biblical Adam fell to earth somewhere in Ceylon (Sarandib) after being cast out of Paradise: the path he later took from Ceylon to India is said to be marked by the chain of islands off the Tamil coast which is known as Adam’s Bridge. The Sri I^nkan mountain called Adam’s Peak has similar sacred associations for south Asian Muslims. Pilgrims revere a hollowcd-out rock which is hailed as the nabi’s footprint; to other devotees it is the footprint of the Buddha or the divine Rama." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 13:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I can't look at the first reference you cited (I get an error message), but here are some points about the other 2:
Reference #2 ("The Religions of India: A Concise Guide to Nine Major Faiths") ALSO has a separate listing for "Ram Setu" on page 302. So if anything, it proves nothing but that BOTH names are applicable.
Reference #3 ("Islam Translated") specifically states that the name is "for Muslims". ("Adam's Bridge is, for Muslims, the name of a string of..." (p. 136)) Muslims, like Christians, are a minority in India, and do not get to dictate the geographical names of features. The Muslims and Christians are relying upon the same mythology for their attempts at cultural appropriation of Ram Setu, and should be viewed under that lens.
I would agree that content re: the Islamic view/mythology should be added. And it doesn't matter who is or is not a minority in India - the article name is based on usage in the English language. The suggestion was for a new section and not about the name of the article. Vsmith (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the Arabic Wikipedia has it as Adam Bridge (at least according to Google; I verified it by going to the Arabic page for Adam, which is آدم, while the page in question is جسر آدم). Paris1127 (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014
This edit request to Adam's Bridge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Why is the name ADAM'S BRIDGE GIVEN TO THIS PAGE? IT is RAMA SETU and no ADAM built it.
And it is very clear from history with evidence. I want to know the reason for this.
The article contains the sentence, "Many other maps in Schwartzberg's historical atlas[12][13] and other sources such as travel texts by Marco Polo call this area by various names such as Sethubandha and Sethubandha Rameswaram.[14][15][16][17]" I can't find the claimed names in any of the sources that are mentioned, and some of them actually seem to be fake? Can somebody double check and delete this sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reddyuday (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2014
This edit request to Adam's Bridge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
TO Admin,
Please change the title of this page It's is NOT ADAM'S BRIDGE... It's "RAM SETU
CHANGE THE TITLE TO RAM SETU OR WIKIPEDIA WILL NOT GET MY DONATION NEXT YEAR !?
I WILL MAKE SURE NONE OF MY FRIENDS DONATE EITHER.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tophrsj (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
We aren't going to change our policy on article because you are trying to use blackmail. Article titles reflect the most common name used in English language reliable sources. That's Adam's Bridge. Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Favonian/Dougweller,
Wikipedia articles are global, So they should compliance with "Interests of people" rather than "English language sources". And more over "Rama Setu"/"Adams's Bridge as called up Britishers" is name and a noun, it got nothing to do with English. And also i don't understand why you are defying to change, where tons of sources are available on internet as references. Even goverment of india terms it as "Rama Setu" [1]. In interest of majority of people i request you to change the page name to "Rama Setu", If not can you explain why you prefer "Adam's bridge" over "Rama Setu".
Shivaji Varma (talk) 12:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is the English language Wikipeda, I'm not sure what you mean by global. Of course it can be accessed most places, but different languages have their own Wikipedias. See WP:COMMONNAME. The Indian government is now saying that students should use textbooks claiming airplanes, cars, TVs etc were invented thousands of years ago in India, so this isn't surprising. Dougweller (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This edit request to Adam's Bridge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
It should be mentioned as below.
Rama's Bridge or Rama Setu (Tamil: இராமர் பாலம் Irāmar pālam, Sanskrit: रामसेतु, rāmasetu), also known as Adam's Bridge (Tamil: ஆதாம் பாலம் ātām pālam),[1] is a chain of limestone shoals, between Pamban Island, also known as Rameswaram Island, off the southeastern coast of Tamil Nadu, India, and Mannar Island, off the northwestern coast of Sri Lanka. Geological evidence suggests that this bridge is a former land connection between India and Sri Lanka.[2]
Reason -
THE TERM "ADAMS BRIDGE" , AS YOU HAVE USED HERE , IS YET ANOTHER ATTEMPT BY CHRISTANITY TO TAKE OVER THE WORK OF ANOTHER CULTURE / NATIVE PEOPLE. (O WHAT A SURPRISE ??!!)
IT HAS BEEN PROOVED IN COURT AS TO WHY IT CANNOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH "ADAM" . FURTHER , THE STONES THAT MAKE THE BRIDGE HAVE THE NAME OF "RAM" INSCRIBED ON THEM...SO ??
PLEASE DON'T USE THE THE TERM "ADAMS BRIDGE" AS YOU ARE SPREADING MISINFORMATION.
UNLESS YOU'R GOAL IS TO SPREAD MISINFORNATION, IN WHICH CASE , I'M SORRY FOR BLOWING YOU'R COVER !
The name of this bridge should rightfully be Ram Sethu because ancient texts such as the Ramayana (no I can't post you the source link but please go ahead and buy yourself a copy, it is cited by old sages who don't live anymore) I am sure Wikipedia will appreciate that.
Anyway if you aren't satisfied by that answer, I'll give you an overall understanding of why the name should be changed. Ram was born in around 5114 BC http://www.quora.com/When-Where-was-Lord-Rama-born-and-what-evidence-is-there-to-substantiate-this This bridge building in the Ramayana occurred also around 5000-6000 BC. This article http://www.ancient-origins.net/human-origins-opinion-guest-authors/ramas-bridge-where-modern-science-and-ancient-myths-collide also states that the archaeological similarities between the ram sethu or the so called 'adam's bridge' is exactly the same as described in the Ramayana. The history of 'Adam's Bridge' in Islam only dates back to around 9000BC. When comparing these two wouldn't the oldest name that has been used in history be put first? (Seeing the evidence supporting it) What evidence is there that Adam did walk the bridge? Has he described the bridge? Regardless this is all recorded after 5000 BC while the Ramayana is the earliest most scripture recognising the Ram Sethu, yes even before NASA.
Here are certain points from the Ramayan to be considered: There is no other book than Ramayan that has put into scriptures describing such geographical constructs. Ramayan says that it was build under the supervision of an Architect Nala – son of the greatest Architect of all times ‘Vishwakarma’ (Note: ‘Vishwakarma’ is a designation given to the greatest archeologist and builder of the era in ancient Hindu society). Thus, the book makes sure that such a bridge can be constructed by only architect of highest skill. What seems to be mythical to the Historians and Science is the concept of Monkeys building the Bridge. Science does not forget to mention that man evolved out of monkeys, yet when the Ramayana states that the Ram Sethu was built by monkey's with human like strength. It's laughed at? No historian can deny the fact that this is a pure coincidence and only one coincidence between a reality and its occurrence in a book called the Ramayana. Yet the presence of shoals below the bridge and their type indicate that they cannot be found in sea in the manner it exists at Ram Sethu which is what is written in the Ramayana. I am sorry Wikipedia there is not substantial source on the web that can site the name Ram Sethu but it resides in a book dating back millions of years ago even before Christ or Islam was about (Yes, carbon dating has been done) yet I guess you only rely on sources that you want to rely on. Latashayal (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
You don't seem to have read the rest of this page. See my comment at the bottom. You also seem to have not read about carbon dating, which won't even work for something 100,000 years old. But I'm wasting my time. Dougweller (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know the history of the name 'Adam's bridge'?
Who coined this name?
What are the reason's for naming it so?
Who is Adam in 'Adam's bridge'?
BhargavaPS (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
The British coined it. The reason was oppression. The reason it's the name on Wikipedia is that this page is dominated by editors who think that non-Indian sources are more important than Indian ones. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk14:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You know that's not true. Not only are there Indian sources for the name, we follow WP:COMMONNAME. More to the point, the origin of the name seems to be Muslim and related to Sri Lanka's Adam's Peak. I've edited the article to add that. I'm puzzled as to why instead of actually finding out the source of the name you simply attack the British, and why you ignore the Sri Lankan link. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Because it's in English? Would not an Islamic name be in a different language (even if it translated into "Adam's Bridge")? And the Indian sources for the name are dwarfed by the modern Indian sources for "Ram Setu". I'm pretty sure that I could find plenty of Indian sources for "Bombay" or "Calcutta", but those names have been changed to redirects, because those colonial names have been replaced with Indian ones. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk16:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Adam is Adam, the Arabic is آدمwhich is pronounced Adam although with a slightly different emphasis.http://www.forvo.com/word/%D8%A2%D8%AF%D9%85/ Again, please do your own research first. Not colonial. And again, WP:COMMONNAME, "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it prefers to use the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources." Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
And in Arabic, do they add "'s" to show possessive? And does the word for "bridge" sound just like the English word? I haven't the foggiest idea about the Arabic language, but my Spider-senses are tingling, giving me the distinct impression that it's highly unlikely that "Adam's Bridge" translated into Arabic is..."Adam's Bridge". Also, I'm fairly certain that "Bombay" and "Calcutta" occur more frequently in English-language reliable sources, but we don't use those terms on Wikipedia because...{wait for it}...it's considered kinda colonialist to do so. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk19:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
No one has right to change the name Rama Sethu to Adam's Bridge.
We The Great INDIANS will not accept it at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.101.16.4 (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
A number of the sources using the name are Indian sources. The bottom line s that this is the English encyclopedia and we use the name most commonly used in English reliable sources. We wouldn't expect the Urdu, Tamil, etc versions of Wikipedia to call it Adam's Bridge. Dougweller (talk) 14:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, a good way to settle this controversy may be to see how many people use "Ram Sethu" to come to this page and how many use "Adam's Bridge". Game for that? User:Groovy12 (talk)
I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam's Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Brahmanic Followers or Abrahamic Followers or Civilians and Followers of More Ancient Socio-Religions'-Artiso-Politico-Policing-Traditional-Ritual-Cultural (sub) systems?
Who needed a bridge if it could be easily reachable by boats, dinghy (dongi), ships?
Where else this kind of Shoal-Coral-Rock-Bridge found built on across any-other river or sea or ocean!?
Was this 48 km bridge war-crafted OR peace times man made rock, shoal and coral depositing, rearing and kept up (upkeep) by Ancient Indians- Sri Lankans classes and groups?
Why did English-Europeans call Senior-Settlers of North-America as American-Indians?
Cotton suggested that the channel be dredged to enable passage of ships, but nothing was done until 1828 when some rocks were blasted and removed under the direction of Major Sim.[34][35]
A ship channel could (should) had been built for easy transfer of ships and could help in sea high-tides and low-tides.
In 2005, the Government of India approved a multi-million dollar Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project that aims to create a ship channel across the Palk Strait by dredging the shallow ocean floor near Dhanushkodi.
The channel was expected to cut over 400 km (nearly 30 hours of shipping time) off the voyage around the island of Sri Lanka. This proposed channel's current alignment requires dredging through Adam's Bridge.
(The channel could be tolled for (foreign) revenue gains for decades)
Political parties including the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), Janata Dal (Secular) (JD(S)) and some Hindu organisations oppose dredging through the shoal on religious grounds – Adam's Bridge being popularly identified as the causeway described in the Ramayana — and suggest using an alternate alignment for the channel that avoids damage to Adam's Bridge.[39][40]
Should we go ahead with majority everytime. Does Majoritarianism always provide good concepts, solutions and results, time and again?Or Do Minoritarianism come up with the concepts, solutions when implemented produce better and well effected results, time and again?
The state and central government have opposed such changes, with Union Shipping Minister T R Baalu, who belongs to the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam and a strong supporter of the project, saying the current proposal was well scrutinised for economic viability and environmental sustainability and that there were no other environmentally feasible alternatives.[41][42][dead link][43]
Was 2015 South Indian floods a result of not starting and implementing and completing the above project!?
Is Majoritarianism (bad) Converting and Transgressing more on Minorities institutions, lives and after lives?
Is Minoritarianism (bad) Converting and Transgressing more on Majorities institutions, lives and after lives?
There should be ample redesigns, implementations, checks, measures, enforcements and improvements in Socio-Religio-Artiso-Politico-Policing-Traditional-Cultural-Ritual (sub) systems and networking for Majoritarianism transgressing, converting, hurting or killing the Minoritarian ways of (After) living, and vice-versa.
This edit request to Adam's Bridge has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the Name "Adam Bridge". It Hurts the feelings of Hindus.
As this is the English language Wikipedia, we use the common English name as found in reliable sources. These include a number of Indian sources such as The Hindu[13]. The Hindu Wikipedia uses "Sethu", also mentioning the name "Adam's Bridge". I'm sorry if our guideline on this produces a result that offends you (although from the sourced evidently not all Hindus), but you might also want to read WP:NOTCENSORED. Doug Wellertalk09:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just added archive links to one external link on Adam's Bridge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Done Link is now labeled as dead. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Fixed by Googling for the article title. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Not done and not likely to be done As a previously discussed and rejected move, please read Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves first and file a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. Suggest reading up on policies and guidelines for move discussions so that the reasoning is clear. Dru of Id (talk) 02:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done:. Superseded by move request below. Favonian (talk) 08:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Not done and not likely to be done. See the naming criteria policy; we are using "what the subject is actually called in English" as explained, several times, above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks for pointing that out. Paris1127 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
![[5]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Silk_route.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Transasia_trade_routes_1stC_CE_gr2.png){kind=link}
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.