Talk:Adam's Bridge/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2019

First,on a personal note let me tell you it took me half an hour to finally figure out that on searching Ram Setu why google search was throwing up the Adam's Bridge wikipedia page, i went through the talk page and the discussion on the subject and have a solution to the problem. Please name the page "Ram Setu or Adam's Bridge" for the practical reason that users searching for Ram Setu which is a significantly higher number of times than Adam's Bridge should not turn away from the page like i was about to.

Second, The reference number 13 given on the page is incorrect. Please edit out this line from under the heading "Scientific Response to revisionist movement" The line to be edited is "A report from the Archaeological Survey of India found no evidence for the structure being man-made.[13]" Reference number 13 given herein not a report by the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) but a simple news article where the ASI is simply mentioned once and that too not with reference to any report declaring the structure to be man made but for an affidavit submitted in the court and even the affidavit was subsequently withdrawn. Thus the line in absence of any reference to support needs to be deleted. Archaeological Survey of India never came out with any 'Report' claiming that Ram Setu is a natural formation.

Third, There is an update to this line under the heading "Scientific Response to revisionist movement" After this line below:- "The Archaeological Survey of India and the government of India informed the Supreme Court of India in a 2007 affidavit that there was no historical proof of the bridge being built by Rama" Please add this line hereafter:- "The affidavit was however withdrawn by the Government of India in view of the latest findings by the National Institute of Ocean Technology wherein after one of the most in depth and technologically advanced research was conducted with respect to the bridge. As a result of the search the Top Geologist of India Dr Badrinarayan made a startling revelation that the bridge was Anthropogenic and not natural." Reference - (1) https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/centre-withdraws-from-sc-two-affidavits-on-rama-setu/articleshow/2368550.cms?from=mdr (2)https://www.patheos.com/blogs/drishtikone/2007/08/adams-bridge-ram-setu-man-made-structure-top-indian-geologist/

Fourth, There is an update under the "Sethusamudram shipping canal project" heading. The update being that the project has been shelved by the Government of India Reference: https://www.indiatoday.in/mail-today/story/centre-scraps-upa-s-stand-on-ram-setu-says-won-t-damage-it-1191458-2018-03-17

Fifth, You need to edit the heading "Geological Evolution" and name it "Geological Evolution or Anthropogenic Causeway" (Being an encyclopedia you cannot simply sideline the most indepth research done on the subject and the results of it which have been declared by the National Institute of Ocean Technology in India the results of which have been endorsed by the Top Geologists of the country because if you do then you will simply be choosing one opinion over another which is not something an encyclopedia is supposed to do. The content to be written in support of it being an Anthropogenic Causeway is given hereunder. Your heading Geological Evolution simply conveys the idea that the bridge has evolved geologically and is not anthropogenic which is basically in complete ignorance of the most in depth study ever conducted with respect to the bridge by the top most institute of India on the subject and endorsed by the Top geologists of the country. Though you have made a fleeting reference to the issue later but the reference holds back on a lot of information that i am providing below)

Sixth, At the end of the content written under the heading "Geological Evolution" please add the following:- However, as per the results of the most in depth study conducted in the Ram Setu area in recent times and hard field work including geological and geophysical surveys coupled with logging and interpretations of several cores and boreholes carried out in the area as against speculations made on the basis of satellite pictures taken by NASA, a startling revelation was made by one of the top Indian geologist, Dr. Badrinarayan. Dr Badrinarayanan is a former director of the Geological Survey of India. He was also former coordinator of the survey division of the National Institute of Ocean Technology, Ministry of Earth Science, in Chennai. As per Dr Badrinarayan the most startling fact that came through from the research is that below the corals and boulders (on top of the formation), there is loose sand, which means it is not natural. Corals are found only on rocks and such hard surfaces. And, on top of the loose sand, which was formed when the sea level was low, divers found boulders. Boulders normally occur on land and they are a typical riverine character. It is a well known fact that the coral reefs can only form in clean and unpolluted water and these being marine organisms required firm and compact formation as foundation. The presence of loose marine sand below these clearly indicates that these are not natural and are transported. Unless somebody has transported and dumped them these could not have come there. Reference file:///C:/Users/ADMIN-HP/Downloads/Rama%20Setu%20-%20S%20Kalyanaraman.pdf Ref: http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2013/02/ram-setu-man-made-structure-geologist.html

Further, on the basis of his research work Dr Badrinarayan claims that the boulders are not in-situ. They are not a marine local formation. Dr Badrinarayan feels the boulders were dumped to use it as a causeway. The boulders on top of the loose sand are transported to that place. As they are found above loose sand, it is quite obvious that they were brought and dumped there... Similar boulders have been identified to be available in near by areas. Ref: http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2013/02/ram-setu-man-made-structure-geologist.html In addition to this as per the description of the bridge in the thousands of year old Hindu scripture Ramayana; where the earliest mention of the bridge is made; the bridge was made of floating stones and it has indeed been discovered by the geologists that some of the boulders (forming the bridge) are so light they could float on water. Apparently the boulders were identified by the builders as light and strong boulders to make it easy for transportation. Since the boulders are strong they can withstand lot of weight. Ref: file:///C:/Users/ADMIN-HP/Downloads/Rama%20Setu%20-%20S%20Kalyanaraman.pdf

In addition to the lose sand below the corals, the most startling revelation with respect to the bridge has been the fact that the rocks forming the top layer of the bridge are 7000 year old and the sand underneath them is 4000 year old, thus again putting a huge question mark over the claims that the formation is a natural one. Ref: https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/gk-current-affairs/story/ram-setu-1106221-2017-12-13

Seventh, under the heading "Origin Legends" you can add the information given below which are some of the earliest quotations with respect to the bridge given in the ancient Hindu scriptures.

(Textual references) Epics and classics • Valmiki describes the construction of Setu in detail. For an exquisite rendering of Valmiki’s descriptions see: http://ramasetu.blogspot.com/2007/03/setubandhan-in-valmiki-ramayana.html Also: http://bridgeofram.com/ hastimaatraan mahaakaayaaH paaSaaNaamshca mahaabalaaH parvataamshca samutpaaTya yantraiH parivahanti ca Valmiki Ramayana 2-22-58 Vaanara having huge bodies, with mighty strength uprooted elephant-sized rocks and mountains and transported them by mechanical contrivances (yantraih). • Vedavyasa refers to Nalasetu and notes how the setu was protected during Mahabharata times nalasetur iti khyāto yo 'dyāpi prathito bhuvi rāmasyājñāṃ puraskṛtya dhāryate girisaṃnibhaḥ MBh. 3.267.45 146 .... which even today, popular on earth as Nala's bridge, mountain-like, is sustained out of respect for [Lord] Rama's command. (Nala was son of Vis’wakarma) Kalidasa's Raghuvams’a (sarga 13): Rama, while returning from SriLanka in pushpaka vimaana: "Behold, Sita, My Setu of mountains dividing this frothy ocean is like the milky way dividing the sky into two parts" There is a kavya in Prakrit by King Pravarasena II (550-600 CE) called “Setu bandha or Ravanavaho.” "Dasamuha Vadha" (Setubandha Kavya) was written by the King Damodara Sen (5th Century). Refrence: file:///C:/Users/ADMIN-HP/Downloads/Rama%20Setu%20-%20S%20Kalyanaraman.pdf Bhumi2tandon (talk) 14:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Side note: file:///... are files on your own (probably) machine; they cannot be accessed by anyone else. This just seems like it's advocating the views of one specific person which are not in line with the mainstream; see WP:FRINGE for the appropriate guidance here. Moreover, even if there's something that could be added in all this, it's all written with an extreme point of view, and can't go in as you're requesting. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In any case we already have "S. Badrinarayanan, a former director of the Geological Survey of India, said that it is impossible for Adam's Bridge to be a natural formation, because of the presence of a loose sand layer under corals for the entire stretch. Coral typically forms above rocks." Doug Weller talk 13:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2019

Edit 1: Please add the following to the end of the first paragraph of the lede.

One of the tiny shoal on Adman's Bridge constitute the land border between India and Sri Lanka measuring only 45 meters in length [making it world's shortest land border].

58.182.172.95 (talk) 08:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Not supported by the source. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:59, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

References

The bridge should be addressed a Ram Setu

The bridge should be named as Ram Setu and not Adam bridge. The script that mention about ram setu and exact geo location is way more older than word Adam ever existed. Otherwise new Article should be created as Ram Setu. Adam has nothing to do here. Gauraverma (talk) 09:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, Adam never existed, and this is a geological formation. See the top of the page and read some of the old talk pages discussions about it. This is the English language Wikipedia and thus we use the most common name in the English language. Which is why different Wikipedias quite correctly use different names. Doug Weller talk 11:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ram setu

Why is there Christianity hijacking ..... It's not adam bridge it's Rama bridge why adam Nikswager (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested, there's a list of discussions on that under "This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below." above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

False edit

It's not Adam bridge its Ram Sethu. Verify before updation. I think Wikipedia should act responsibly. Prashanthbiradar (talk) 17:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. It's not Adam bridge. Its Ram Setu (Rama Bridge) Krish013 (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's Rama bridge not adam time to boycott Wikipedia in India Nikswager (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

श्री रामसेतु Himanshub301 (talk) 04:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit It is Ramsetu .We have our history with proof n how wikipedia allowed such sensitive n important matter editable ? Shame on you wikipedia... Sampat1992 (talk) 05:49, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What the hell is adam's bridge....this is ram setu Applejellyandroid (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2020

It should be Ram setu (Rama's bridge) also known as Adam's bridge.Earliest mention was found in the ancient Indian Sanskrit epic Ramayana written by Valmiki Ipiyush3 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the top of this page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes it's Rama bridge Nikswager (talk) 04:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

It's Ram Sethu (Rama's Bridge) as mentioned in Ramayana One of the oldest Indian scriptures Where the hell did Adam came from? Wikipedia must rectify this as soon as possible. Arocks565 (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2020

There is No Adam's Bridge in the history books. This is a christianity hijacking. This has always been a RAM SETU since ages. Please rename this to original RAM SETU. This is an act of providing false information to the people, which I think Wiki will surely look into this. Wiki never has a wrong info. Surtanipinkesh (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Why all these requests? What's sending you here? And why doesn't anyone read the messages on this page before making a new request? This has nothing to do with Christianity (or Judaism), we even use Indian sources calling it Adam's Bridge. This is the English language encyclopedia and we use the most common name found in English sources, that's just the way we work. Different language Wikipedias use different names. The Tamil Wikipedia calls it Adam's Bridge, are you asking them to change it also? Doug Weller talk 08:26, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller:, this Reddit post may have something to do with these repeated and nearly identical requests. Is it perhaps time for a short-term protection for a talk page? I know that protecting talk pages of protected articles is somewhat anathema but this is becoming highly disruptive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: that would just add to the paranoia. Just copy and paste my reply with the sig of whoever does that, with tweaks if it an be improved. They'll go away sometime. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Fake updation

It's no where related to Christianity. Wikipedia is for keeping geniune news and not to spread propoganda. Prashanthbiradar (talk) 17:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

@Prashanthbiradar:, there's nothing "false" about the name of this article. In English, the most common name for the feature is "Adam's Bridge". Since this is the English language Wikipedia, we use the English name. In the Hindi, Bengali, Marathi, etc. language Wikipedias, they use the name appropriate to those languages. If you look above, you will see this has been discussed many, many times before. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:34, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

No its Ram Sethu why it will be referenced as Adam's bridge just to promote Christianity. it's an indian cultural and religious related bridge just naming the bridge according to your convenience is like misrepresenting the facts Prashanthbiradar (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for displaying the truth and not for distortion of facts. If I write an article today saying christ is the devotee of ram. will you edit Jesus Christ as devotee of ram and give my paper reference in Wikipedia. Is it valid then right? Prashanthbiradar (talk) 01:32, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Truth" can be tricky. For this kind of thing, WP goes with WP:COMMONNAME. About if your paper would be valid, see WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:27, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You cant change your name basis of language. Ramasethu is Ramasethu. What ever your history that stones on that bridge is there over then 5000years. You need to change that name now Sivarajkunnil2011 (talk) 09:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's not that uncommon that different languages have different names for things. See for example Copenhagen or Liancourt rocks. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to call Vetican city Rampur in Hindi? Abhishek Sharma Thoi (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You and your meat-puppets can call it whatever you want, but the common name in English is Vatican City, so that's what we use on this Wikipedia. Favonian (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea what the Vatican city is/should be called in hindi. Hindi WP seems to call it वैटिकन शहर, russian WP Ватикан and swedish WP Vatikanstaten. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

What the hell is adam's bridge Applejellyandroid (talk) 13:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I hear WP has articles about it in about 50 languages, try google. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Why all these requests? What's sending you here? And why doesn't anyone read the messages on this page before making a new request? This has nothing to do with Christianity (or Judaism), we even use Indian sources calling it Adam's Bridge. This is the English language encyclopedia and we use the most common name found in English sources, that's just the way we work. Different language Wikipedias use different names. The Tamil Wikipedia calls it Adam's Bridge, are you asking them to change it also? Doug Weller talk 17:55, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

False information is purposely spread by the writer. Kindly remove this content.

It is Ram Setu and not any Adams bridge. No Adam or Eve has ever been near by this bridge and why the hell the writer has changed the name .. we oppose this and demand to remove or change the content. Siddheshwar93 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Siddheshwar93:, oppose it all you want, this is not a democracy and this is not a new edit. To repeat the question asked of every other editor complaining here: who asked you to make this complaint? Why do none of you even attempt to read the page before complaining? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

False information is purposely spread by the writer. Kindly remove this content.

It is Ram Setu and not any Adams bridge. No Adam or Eve has ever been near by this bridge and why the hell the writer has changed the name .. we oppose this and demand to remove or change the content. Siddheshwar93 (talk) 04:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Siddheshwar93:, oppose it all you want, this is not a democracy and this is not a new edit. To repeat the question asked of every other editor complaining here: who asked you to make this complaint? Why do none of you even attempt to read the page before complaining? Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

This is Ram setu not Adam's bridge.

This is Ram setu not Adam's bridge. It is totally wrong information which is misleading the readers. Correct it immediately. I repeat this is Ram setu not Adam's bridge you understand. Sajankumar408 (talk) 10:07, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

We understand what you are saying, but you have provided no evidence for it. Use of Google Ngrams shows that the name "Adam's Bridge" is much more widely used in English texts. Maproom (talk) 12:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is Ram setu not Adam's Bridge.

Change it to it's real name Ram Setu not Adam's bridge. This information and heritage belongs to India (Bharat) you have no right to give out wrong information regarding our country and our culture. Endramohangaur (talk) 19:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not donePlease see the discussion above on this talk page. --regentspark (comment) 19:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, providing false information to the readers is inappropriate. तमन्ना (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps. But we still won't remove the information that the bridge was created by an army of vanara. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:58, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2020

Request to change name to RAM SETU instead of Adam's Bridge. As per mythology & research. Its known as made my Hindu Lord 'RAM'. kindly consider this fact. Thank you Sahoo.syam (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. CptViraj (📧) 12:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2020

It's ramsetu and not Adams Bridge. AbhiAmbalapat (talk) 12:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

On en-WP, as you can see in the article, it's both. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Drive-by requests

Can we agree that the drive-by demands to change the name from SPA's are not worth either keeping or replying to at this point? It is obvious that they do not read the previous talk page discussions or any other documentation of the name dispute. With only one exception, none of the accounts demanding a name change since March 15 have responded to replies. They are not interested in dialogue or engagement and replies are therefore meaningless. With only one exception, none of these accounts have provided justification for their demand. They are not interested in the move policies and their demands are therefore meaningless. I propose that unsupported demands for a move are to be reverted by any editor in good standing and that this be added to the notices. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your description is pretty spot on. I'm not that happy about just removing, they are mostly reasonably civil, but I will not fight for them either. If someone wants to try a new RM, that would not be unreasonable (it's been a while and the last one was no consensus), but it happens if it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, Gråbergs. Just to clarify: I'm not talking about reasoned, even poorly-reasoned, RM's. Those should be treated normally. Anyone who posts a formal RM or even an informal one deserves a response. If they go through the trouble of saying "The name should be Ram[a] Set[h]u and here's why..." they are not the type of posts I'm proposing removing. It is only the ones that are like, well, every "request" on this talk page currently, that I'm talking about. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Like I said, I will not fight for them. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I am indifferent to whether the repetitive and usually unreasoned edit-requests regarding the article name are archived or simply deleted: on the one hand they don't have much true "archival value" but, on the other, simply deleting them is more likely to spark meta-discussions about censorship, TPG etc, which are not worth having. So <shrug>.

More importantly, I would argue against having another formal RM discussion yet. The fifth and most recent one was in August 2018, and looking for potential new sources that may shine new light on the topic, I found:

• On Google Scholar: searches for articles published since 2018 that mention Rama setu, Rama sethu or "Adam's bridge brings up just a handful but again shows that the last name is the one most often used in neutral-context.
• On Google Books: a similar search finds one relevant book that discusses the topic at any depth:

Subramaniam, Banu (2019). Holy Science: The Biopolitics of Hindu Nationalism. University of Washington Press. pp. 118–126. ISBN 978-0-295-74560-2.

And while the book is potentially a good source for adding material to this and the Sethusamudram Shipping Canal Project article, it doesn't strengthen the argument for changing the article name.

(TL;DR)  another RM at this point will just end up rehashing all the arguments we have seen already. Lets wait 4-5 years and see if anything has changed in the real world on how the shoals are discussed and then, if needed, re-examine if the article name needs to be renamed to reflect any such change. Abecedare (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the general view outlined in Eggishorn's comment. In that there are an increased number of single edit users who's only comment is change the name, without any further explanation or rationale provided. When follow up requests have been made they are ignored, primarily because the users are no longer active. Dan arndt (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Page can't be named Adam's Bridge alone.

It should be Ram Sethu along with Adam's Bridge. Pediarect2.0 (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:TITLE articles commonly has one "name"/title. But as you can see in the first sentence in the article, six more are mentioned, and a few others in the rest of the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Please change it to Ram Setu only Vrp1001 (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

The name of the bridge is Ram Setu as mentioned in written evidence. Please correct the name and do not misguide with the wrong name. 122.175.163.78 (talk) 07:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Not done, see archived discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Religious bigotry

This article shows Christian and Islamic bigotry which has been prevalent in India and Sri-Lanka. The people of India and Sri Lanka refer to this bridge as Ram Setu. Throughout history this bridge has been called Ram Setu. But this article is named Adam's Bridge because some muslim cleric went to Sri-Lanka? Well you know what, people of Bharat have been going there from even before! Please point out valid reasons for this article to be named Adam's Bridge and not just some speculations.

--Ashishkafle (talk) 10:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Name

Change name as raamasetu Vishwa hegde (talk) 13:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion above.--regentspark (comment) 14:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Name is Ram setu change it. Chalkechirag93 (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please see the discussion above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

The name should be ramsetu. Please change. Samikatnet (talk) 16:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

There is clarity about adam visited srilanka and india. Where as in Ramayana exactly mentioned about this bridge. Srilanka has many menuments regarding Ram visit to srilanka. Hence name of article should be Ramsetu. Samikatnet (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Do not distort historical facts.and do not give any unwanted name like adam Coolgaurav25 (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I've asked at RPP for semi-protection

This is far beyond an occasional nuisance. Please feel free to chip in there. I can't think of any other solution except to just delete them. Doug Weller talk 12:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea, we'll see what happens in a week. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

This is Ram Setu not Adam's Bridge

Titel Should be Ram Setu not Adam's Bridge, as mentioned, The bridge was first mentioned in the ancient Indian Sanskrit epic Ramayana (7th century BCE to 3rd century CE) written by Valmiki,[3] wherein the god Rama had his Vanara (ape men) army construct it to reach Lanka and rescue his wife Sita from the Rakshasa king, Ravana.[3][4] Then why not mentione it Ram setu in first place. Vrp1001 (talk) 12:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Because this is English Wikipedia, and WP:COMMONNAME is the house-rule. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yes, this is English Wikipedia, BUT there are also Wikipedia articles with names like "Bhakti","Moksha" etc. which are NOT English words. What about that? If those articles can exist with Non-English titles, why not this one? Because this is more commonly known as Ram Setu since it is more commonly known in Asia and Asia has more population than West and it is the original name! So, I request you to rename it to Ram Setu. Thanks!

So name should be Rama's Bridge. Sudershan ec (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

No. See above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

In the time of lord Ram, Adam wasn't even born. This structure is the subject of faith of 1 billion Hindus. By Naming it Adam bridge you are hurting their sentiments so I request you give this title as Ram setu and remove Adam bridge. Satenjay Gaud (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

See "Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Uluru

An Australian here. A mature aged one of European ancestry. Not sure how many people outside Australia know about the place I've named in the title of this section. It's a bloody big rock in the middle of my country. For more than half of my life I knew it only as Ayers Rock. (A name given to it by an English born surveyor in 1973.) You will see that link is a redirect to Uluru. The latter name has been accepted by most Australians and governments at all levels over the past 30 years or so as the correct, more original name of the rock. Obviously the local residents, descendants of those who've been there for thousands of years before English speakers arrived, didn't call it Ayers Rock. So, English Wikipedia has chosen to use the name in the local language for this place.

I am not formally proposing a name change here. Just saying that I can certainly see the point of those among the locals that see Adam's Bridge as inappropriate for the name of our article, and feel that our recent rejections of these requests appear pretty shallow and arrogant. Why do we insist on an English language name that the locals don't use? HiLo48 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

See the very lengthy discussions linked at "This page has previously been nominated to be moved" in the box at the top. In brief, common usage from reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Nah, that doesn't convince me at all. Obviously millions of local people don't call it Adam's Bridge. That's just an insistence that a foreign imposed name is more important than an ancient local one. You seem to have ignored everything I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The main issue here is that the article should use the name most commonly used in English. All places in non-English-speaking countries have names that are not in English, but for those that have English names, Wikipedia uses those. Previous discussions have shown that even in India, "Adam's Bridge" is (or was a couple of years ago when the latest RM took place) the most frequently used name, including in official documentation, and overwhelmingly in scholarly sources. It is quite possible that this has changed, but until and unless sources showing that change have been presented in a new RM, the article should keep its present title. With Uluru, the naming situation is different. --bonadea contributions talk 12:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The title can of course be changed, but afaict, for this article it would take a successful WP:RM. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Even the Tamil language article calls it Adam's Bridge. I note that the article was created in 2002 by an IP under the name Uluru, so there doesn't seem to have ever been a move request although there were discussions in 2005 and 2012. Doug Weller talk 13:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

• Uluru is a rather poor analogy. Mainly because while Aborginal Australians have very little say in the way things are run in their land, Indians have full control over their choices, including how they name things. And, as a glance at the previous RM shows, English language sources used by the, um, "locals", apparently have a strong preference for Adam's Bridge. --regentspark (comment) 22:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you folks, for pointing things out that hadn't been said before. HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Agree with @ HiLo48. Excuse of stating this is "English" Wikipedia is a lame argument at best. Quite arrogant and dictatorial to put it politely. The question now arises on what is the most credible argument. My suggestion is to go with what two democratically governed countries have on their official records. Both countries acknowledge multiple names used for the bridge. However, compelling argument is that both countries make reference to Ramayana and Lord Rama crossing over to Lanka through the bride and being called as Rama Setu.

Rameshwaram Tourism Sri Lanka Tourism

I hope I've offered a reasonable perspective - Bmmanjesh (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Bmmanjesh, I understand your perspective, except that I don't quite understand why it is lame or arrogant to use English in an English-language encyclopedia (and no, it is not "putting it politely" – it is quite possible to have a civil discussion about issues of naming without casting aspersions.) This is the same principle that applies to the English Wikipedia articles about places that are known by millions of people in their local languages as, e.g., Baile Átha Cliath and Köln and Αθήνα. In addition, the second source you provide calls the feature "Adam's Bridge" while the first one, as you say, acknowledges several names. It is of course complicated by the fact that "setu" is a word that would be translated as "bridge" in English, but if you do start a move request, what you will need to do is provide sources showing that "Ram Setu" is more commonly used in English – references to various religious aspects are in fact not relevant here. --bonadea contributions talk 14:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 April 2020

Adam's bridge (Ram Setu/Sethu Bandha/Sethu Bandhana/Ramar Palam) was above sea level till about 14th century AD. People used to cross it on foot. It broke after a big cyclone hit it and subsequently sank underwater in the next few decades (after many other cyclones had pounded it). When it was above sea level, a Muslim cleric traveled over it to reach Lanka. He established a religious base in Lanka and his followers started calling him 'Adaam' because he was the first Muslim to visit Lanka. The bridge was called Adaam's bridge because he traveled over it. The Britishers came and chronicled it as Adam's bridge because they understood Adam, more than they understood Ram. So name of the bridge does not refer to its origin. sandeep 07:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isandeepsahani (talk • contribs)

Please point to reliable sources for this. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The name is not appropriate. There is no evidence for the bridge to be named Adam's Bridge. Only speculations have been presented. Whilst there is an entire epic which discusses interaction between Lanka and Bharat via this Ram Setu. What kind of mental gymnastics is this?

--Ashishkafle (talk) 10:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Would you take these sources as evidence that it has been called Adam's Bridge? [1][2] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Hi, would you Plz refer to these Sources specifically pg-145 to 165, there seems some [WP:RS] available on this matter. Thanks Santoshdts (talk) 21:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure there are RS, the article has several. This pdf looks like it could be an RS too, but I haven't looked closely at it. I see it mentions Adam's Bridge 51 times. What do you want to use it for? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: There are many literary and epigraphic evidences dating from 6-10th century A.D which are discussed in this and other journals and referring the site as Rama setu. Whereas the adoption of name Adam's bridge is from James Rennel made in 1804. Same Rennel, in 1788 edition of his own map he called it Rama Bridge which is available at Saraswati Mahal Library in Thanjavur for public scrutiny. My point is which source is to be considered for Title? Any secondary sources, discussing 1804 Rannel or any much earlier 6-10 century? And which source of Rannel himself is to be considered, 1804 or 1788? Santoshdts (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Guidance on that is at WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PLACE. If you want to try to change the the current title, start a sixth WP:Requested move and make your case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I shall give it a try some time later. But, do you think the WP:Move request for Title with these sources will be considered? There are other various guidelines in this regard. Right. Thanks Santoshdts (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Considered, sure. Acted on in your favor, per the 5 previous ones I doubt it, but things may have changed since 2018. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Rama Setu First Name, Adam's Bridge Second

I request the title of this article to be renamed to "Rama Setu" instead of Adam's bridge since this was first known as "Rama Setu" and NOT Adam's Bridge. Using a Western name for something Indian is absolutely ridiculous! Use the original Indian name for it, and the "Adam's Bridge" is the second name! More people know it as Rama Setu so I request it for the article to be renamed as that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakyra (talk • contribs) 07:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if whoever is sending enthusiasts here ever reads this page, but it would help if people spent a few minutes reading before posting their thoughts. Articles are not decided by whoever can make the most requests. Instead, editors need to engage with discussions and reply to earlier responses. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Johnunig Nobody is sending. It seems the discussion has been going on for a while but conclusion has not been reached. Is there a way to take this discussion to a conclusion? The explanations offered for the name "This is an 'English' Wikipedia" is quite ludicrous and outrageous. Best way to settle this is to use what both India and Sri Lanka acknowledge about this bridge. Both are democratically governed countries and their official records should be reliable as people's opinions. Both countries acknowledge multiple names used for the bridge. However, compelling argument is that both countries make reference to Ramayana and Lord Rama crossing over to Lanka through the bride and being called as Rama Setu.

Rameshwaram Tourism

Sri Lanka Tourism

Even though not a conclusive criteria, Google seems to return more results for Rama Setu than Adam's Bridge. 6.95M results for Ram Setu vs 4.5M for Adam's Bridge Ram Setu

Adam's Bridge

- Bmmanjesh (talk) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That's because you didn't search for the names but for the two words. "Ram Setu"[3] not many, Google Books gives 14 pages.[4] "Adam's Bridge" gave me 26 pages in GBooks.[5] In Google Scholar I got 587 results for "Adam's Bridge",[6] and 120 for "Ram Setu"[7] although we try to be more sophisticated than that when we can. Doug Weller talk 17:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And you were asked to read the discussions listed at the top. The latest[8] looks at other factors, eg JSTOR. You are trying to ignore our policies which isn't helping you.

Experienced Wikipedia editors aren't stupid. We know that not all these requests are a big coincidence. People are coming here and not being open about how they found this page. Doug Weller talk 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Apparently the coronavirus is responsible for the recent upsurge in page-view (see graph at top of page) and talkpage comments too!

To spell it out: Coronavirus → Lockdown in India → Ramayan (1987 TV series) being re-telecast on Doordarshan → Recent episode concerning the construction of the structure telecast → Related Newspaper articles and social media posts → Greater activity on this page. Abecedare (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah, a The Crown kind of thing.[9] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And this tweet from Subramanian Swamy [10] urging Modi to declare it a National Heritage Monument, something that might be going before the Supreme Court later this month.[11] Doug Weller talk 17:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes this is Ram setu and not Adams Bridge please rename it Mitesh242 (talk) 18:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Who is Adam?? And how anyone adam existed in South Hindustan??

ABB 009 (talk) 04:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Who cares? Lots of places are named after people who never existed. Why doesn't anyone read the top of this page? Doug Weller talk 12:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2020

change the name adams bridge to rama setu... rama setu refer to the bridge built by lord rama. mentioned in the epic ramayana, it has enough evidence.. 2409:4043:790:B026:0:0:263A:E0A5 (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Not done, see above – Thjarkur (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Common Name of Article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Many mods are using the argument of "Common Name". However, most of these mods are Western People who think the Western Common Name is the Universal Common name!

No, in Asia it is known as Ram Setu and Asia has way more people than the West and even Western Hindus refer to it as "Ram Setu" because it belongs to Hinduism and not some other religion! Ram Setu is the common name just like "Yoga","Bhakti" etc. So, if the mods are not changing the title, they are breaking Wikipedia rules! Oh, the bias will now break the precious rules of Wikipedia! How sad! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakyra (talk • contribs) 17:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Rakyra: THERE ARE NO MODS! Please have the courtesy to learn something about Wikipedia before posting here. You haven't even bothered to read the post above. If you truly don't care about our policies you are not here to improve Wikipedai but to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Read those links. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: Why are you intentionally ignoring my point? My point is since Asia has way more population than the West and it is well known in Asia as "Ram Setu", Ram Setu is the common name! So stop breaking the "Common Name" rule of Wikipedia, please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakyra (talk • contribs)

Have you thoroughly read the guideline you are citing? (WP:COMMONNAME) It clearly spells out that it is the common name among English speaking sources, not the world's population. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@MrOllie: India is the second largest English Speaking country in the world and Asia also speaks English. It's not only the West that speaks English. So this article should be renamed to "Ram Setu". Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakyra (talk • contribs)

Again, sources not population. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

At wikipedia how is merit considered? I see here [12] its written "is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.". If multiple previous editors who voted against/infavor of naming this article to Ram Sethu, if are found arguing against what is considered as merit at other articles, then their votes should not be considered? Agree? SoloWonder (talk) 00:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SoloWonder Arguments like, "Change it because I want it changed," "Change it because I'm offended," and "Change it because there are a lot of us," have no merit whatsoever. Every recent request falls into one of those descriptions and is worthless to the process of finding consensus. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

At wikipedia is OR allowed to decide merit of sources? Is there a fixed formula to decide merit? SoloWonder (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SoloWonder, if you had read the Original Research policy, it would have answered your question already ("no"). If you read the notices at the top of this page and the included links, it will likely answer your other questions. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If am smart enough, may I not create huge lobby in a planned manner? I can ask editors to keep editing neutrally? Later tell them all via an outside network to come and provide consensus? Agree? How is that tackled? Are methods with wikipedia fool proof? SoloWonder (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

SoloWonder, first and foremost, please read the notices and links available here. Secondly, NO. Canvassing is not allowed. As has been said many, many, many times already, the number of people that express an opinion IS NOT USEFUL. The name is not changed by lobbying or organizing and outside networks are strictly enjoined. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:10, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a written judgement copy in an organized manner etc whereby I can check merits of the judgement used? If WP:OR is not allowed, how was judgement done regarding merits? SoloWonder (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

If you're not going to read what you're being directed to, there's no point in answering your disingenuous questions. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you know if I read or not? Are you a mind reader? ":If you're not going to read what you're being directed to" why this remark? What made you write that? SoloWonder (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I know because no human reads >4,000 words in 12 minutes. I also know because the no less than five "written judgement copy" are linked at the top of this very page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

"no less than five "written judgement copy"" what exactly do you consider as a judgement copy? I see no title "Judgement addressing merits" etc. Please provide a link. If I am smart enough, and if I become your administrator, every time you ask me a question, instead of pointing you to the specific that I consider as "Judgement addressing merits", it will be such a fun if I ask you to read >15000 words? Will that be fine? "because no human reads >4,000 words in 12 minutes" please read carefully what you wrote "please read the notices and links available here". More than 1 notice can be addressed as notices. More than 1 link can be addressed as links. Why do I need to read more than 4000 words? Are you going to block me because I am asking smart questions? If I become a smart admin, everytime someone outsmarts me, will it be wise if I write "disingenuous" and block him without giving sufficient reasons? Public watch all this closely. That way I can hold my chosen lobby here and boot the rest out of wikipedia?

I have been not yet answered. " How is that tackled? Are methods with wikipedia fool proof?" SoloWonder (talk) 05:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an attempt to write an encyclopedia by the volunteers who show up. Of course it's not foolproof, Criticism of Wikipedia, WP:HOAXLIST, WP:General disclaimer etc. But most people do their best, and sometimes succeed surprisingly well. Since the start of WP, almost any type of discussion has happened before, sometimes many many many times, which is reflected in our policies and guidelines like WP:Consensus. In the case of the name of this article, if the archived disussions and the 5 move discussions above leaves you wanting, you can read up on WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PLACE, and then start a 6th WP:MOVEREQ, not unreasonable since the last one was in 2018. If you're still not satisfied, you can start a 7th, 8th and so on. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 05:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Pont Neuf is that an English Word? Do people writing in English write Pont Neuf the way they write Ram Setu or Ramar Palam? Pont means bridge like Setu or Palam means bridge? If the 90% of world calls Pont as Bridge, should the local's staying in that place be overlooked? Currently the place is in Tamil Nadu? So, the common name among the Tamils need to be considered presently? Pont Neuf should be named New Bridge overlooking the name used by the French just because this is English wikipedia? I am just trying to understand the whole picture. Appropriate justice should be done to all people in the world. SoloWonder (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I guess with regards to names the earliest known name should be used. If my name is Shiva, and if that means Pure in English, should English wiki call me Pure instead of Shiva? SoloWonder (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@Solowonder: are you deliberately ignoring what WP:COMMONNAME says or is this incompetence? The bridge is called "Pont Neuf" in ALL reliable English sources. Please read the link and explain where you came up with the idea that the earliest name should be used. If you don't come back with a reasonable explanation or if your next post is as disruptive, I'll ask for you to be blocked. Doug Weller talk 05:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC) @SoloWonder: Doug Weller talk 05:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:GOODFAITH. I feel like laughing and ROTF, but then I need to control myself. I must not do that. It is bad. Suggesting an new improvement to wikipedia if not already present is seen as "disruptive" as per Wikipedia Guidelines? I am not a regular editor. I am trying to understand the guidelines. Public "I'll ask for you to be blocked." see this carefully. If I keep booting all the people I wish to be not around 1 by 1 for smallest of reasons, then only my lobby is left? Did an editor not write "Of course it's not foolproof"? If I am sincere will I try to carefully explain giving specific parts of the guidelines? What if I shoot 1000000 words guidelines to follow and say "Hey you, why not see you as disruptive? You didn't read that all? You come and keep bugging us?" will that be nice? So, when are you booting me out? I intend to discuss and understand before proposing the next move if necessary. Kindly co-operate. SoloWonder (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

@SoloWonder: you aren't responding in good faith. A good faith response would be a reasoned reply to " Please read the link and explain where you came up with the idea that the earliest name should be used. If you don't come back with a reasonable explanation or if your next post is as disruptive, I'll ask for you to be blocked.". I'll give you a little more rope. Doug Weller talk 09:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

• Urgent notice for SoloWonder: I suspect you are not aware that you have a talkpage of your own. Here it is: User talk:SoloWonder. You have so completely ignored the advice and warnings on it that I think you may not have seen them. Please go to your talkpage now, take on board the comments there, and respond to at least some of them. If you continue editing this talkpage, Talk:Adam's Bridge, disruptively, as you have been doing, before responding on your own page, you will be blocked. Bishonen | tålk 09:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC).

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change the name of adam's bridge to it's original name ram sethu bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

According to our hindu history, ram sethu bridge is built by vanara's and lord rama. It is a long bridge that links to sri lanka. Please do good research and finding instead of publishing wrong/fake information. Hari 1213 (talk) 06:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hari 1213, per the closed discussion above, not WP:COMMONNAME in English sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:56, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but we can't accept something that is fake. please do proper research again and publish the true information. Hari 1213 (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Hari 1213, the alternate names are already mentioned in the lead section. English sources primarily call it Adam's Bridge and by policy that's what it's titled. If you have an issue with that you may be better off editing over here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Actually i want to change the definition that given in english not in hindi. Please consider about it. Hari 1213 (talk) 07:19, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Hari 1213:, it has been considered, extensively and many times in the past. If you were to read the notices at the top of this page, or anything else on this page, you would see that. It will not be considered in the future unless a better argument than "this is what I think it should be" is presented. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 08:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by need a better arguments. Publish the right information. Hari 1213 (talk) 09:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Asked and answered. Meters (talk) 09:34, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adam's Bridge should be Rama Setu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This land formation had an official name thousands of years before the western people saw it. Just to clarify the word "discover" is also incorrect since according to the dictionary discover means seeing or finding something for the first time. Before the western people saw it, it already had a name. Maybe, they did not bother to find out the name from the local people. However if everyone keeps renaming everything, one can call London bridge Lakshman's bridge in articles. I suggest you do some serious research of the ramayana. It even describes the exact location of rameshwar where Rama installed the jyotirlinga before building the bridge. Details of the bridge are well documented and people since then have been calling it rama setu. Please make sure the correct name is used.

50.53.189.162 (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Kathyayani Srikanteswara

See the rest of this talkpage and the archived discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2020

As per Ramayana script, written 10000 years ago, there was no reference of Adam. Someone edited incorrectly Defchari (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

. Defchari (talk) 04:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Defchari (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. TheImaCow (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

If this is about Adam's Bridge being called what it is, please consult the closed discussions above and in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 07:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

The heading be changed from Adam’s Bridge to Ram Setu

1. Change the page’s title from Adam’s Bridge to Ram Setu, as the landmark is of importance to Hindu religious belief. 2405:201:4005:990C:28E7:6D70:35B7:B434 (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the discussions above and in the archives. Jack Frost (talk) 10:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

It should be Renamed to Ram Setu instead of Adam's Bridge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Ram setu which is named as Adams Bridge is totally wrong. Ram setu is one of the most sacred placed for Indian and Indian Hindu worshiper. Renaming it as Adams Bridge without any significant cause or proof or relation is really bad . Tomorrow onwards any one can claim any thing to new name and title.

I request to rename it to Ram setu only , if you need there are so many proof are there . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bade Choudhary (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

See this talkpage and archived discussions. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:01, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Its called Ram Setu, this name is in Hindu books (oldest religion) abrahamic religions didnt even exist. RESPECT OUR BELIEFS CANT CHANGE IT. Nellerebel (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Considering what is going on in the world, I think it’s time to give the real name to this article. How can something be called one thing for generations suddenly have a new name? 2601:145:4281:5BB0:3D81:FE8E:AFBD:9E8C (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yes it should be changed to Ram Setu Ivofeh (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

Remove ‘Adam’s Bridge’ and replace with ‘Ram Setu’. The correct legal name of this place. 124.170.31.232 (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

change Adams bridge to Ram Setu Rising sun a (talk) 14:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: See above Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC

Clarifications

The term Adams bridge is incorrect since there is no reference of the specific location of Adam’s bridge but there is specific textual evidence of Ram Seri being built, how it was built, who engineered the built and why it was built. I also don’t prefer the term monkey army or anything that makes it sound less respectable. The people that built the bridge are described metaphorically like monkeys since they were actually an army of Neanderthals. Since Sanskrit is a poetic language, the direct translations hyperbolically describes it as ‘monkey’. Prem.Pajwani (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Prem.Pajwani, we go by the name used commonly in English sources. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:25, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Where is there evidence (in reliable sources) that Adam's Bridge was a man-made construction? All evidence provided is that it is a natural geological formation... Dan arndt (talk) 06:39, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we make a edit warning, would it help at all?

Is it viable to make a single talk page edit banner for when individuals try to edit this page to add yet, yet, yet, another "rename article" section?

I've no doubt at all we'd still get lots coming through, but even if we could drop it by 15% that would be a plus. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Given the statements we see, I doubt that it would have any effect at all. <griping> The people who come here to demand that their religious preferences be upheld are not interested in big yellow boxes, warnings, previous discussion, or anything else. They're offended and will express their offense and any attempts to curtail that just make them more determined to make their demands. Maybe, potentially, perhaps, one day in the distant future there will be a person who comes to this page with a cogent and policy-compliant and source-based argument for a new RM. Until then, however, there will just be a continual drip-drip-drip of posts that should be considered a waste of time. </griping> Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think providing a warning like this - "If you have come here to propose moving the article to some variant of Rama Setu; know for a certainty that it won't be moved. See this discussion for the details." is in the spirit of Wikipedia policies.. I suppose anyone can propose a move "with a cogent and policy-compliant and source-based argument for a new RM". The warning should be reframed accordingly .  Tharikrish  10:33, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Revisionist movement Vs Historical claims

I suggest to change the sub-heading under Origin claims to "Historical claims". Several opinions, some by scientists and reputed insinuations are included in this section, and as such it does not qualify as a movement. Moreover "revisionism" is a loaded statement - "“revisionist history” refers to conscious, intentional misstatements about things in the past, whether distant or recent". All ideas should be allowed to be presented here without any prejudice.

Similarly, the sub-end "Scientific response to the revisionist movement" is changed to "Reponse to historical claims". As above there is no movement as such, only claims and counter claims. There is no "scientific" response to historical claims, only opinion of a organization and suggestion for further research.  Tharikrish  10:25, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Further, the statement "In recent times, some groups have attempted to recast this religious legend as a historical event, with Adam's Bridge being the remains of the bridge built for Rama by the vanara, rather than having been created by natural processes. These groups include Tamil nationalists, Hindu nationalists, and Infotainment providers." is a political position. The reference cited is a political commentary and does not mention anything about the political expediency of Tamil or Hindu Nationalists aka Fundamentalists, not about the position of the "Infotainment" industry. There could be a place for such political views in another section or ideally in another article, and such section or article should also consider diverging political views. Secondly, the statement, "Bharathidasan University was founded in 1982 in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and named after Bharathidasan, a Tamil poet, social reformer, and political philosopher associated with the Dravidian movement, the Pure Tamil movement, and the resurgence of Tamil cultural identity generally." is more like a "poisoning the well" argument. What Bharathidasan University is or who Bharathidasan was has got noting to do with a claim advanced by one of the researchers associated with this university. Hence there sentences are deleted.  Tharikrish  14:53, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

An example of incorrectly quoting a source is here: "Indian Geologist C. P. Rajendran described the broadcast as an "abhorrent" example of the "post-truth era, where debates are largely focused on appeals to emotions rather than factual realities". The expert quoted does not make such a statement. He says that the discussions surrounding this broadcast are inappropriate. Therefore, this sentence is modified as such.  Tharikrish  15:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Land border

This article claims there's a land border between India and Sri Lanka. Is there any evidence for that? It doesn't cite any source, and I haven't seen any authoritative source that agrees with that, and there are a bunch of credible sources that dispute it. There was some discussion of this on an archived section of the talk page, but it looks like it was just Wikipedia editors doing original research. And I suspect that they didn't have a good understanding of what they were researching. They said there's a land border because the border passed across a shoal. But shoals are underwater. There are similar claims on the articles for Dhanushkodi and Talaimannar, and I'd suggest they should all be changed. Especially since now it looks like some other websites are spreading this information from Wikipedia. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:8957:C694:CC24:239 (talk) 11:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

One reference I could find is this: "While geological evidence suggests that a land border which actually existed between India and Sri Lanka in the past had, possibly, been submerged during the cyclone of 1480 or even earlier, it is still widely believed that there is a land border just 45 metres long on a land shoal along Adam’s Bridge. Given the unstable nature of these shoals and the pattern of sea tides, the governments of the two neighbouring countries had decided on an Imaginary Boundary Line located about 12 nautical miles from Rameswaram." (https://scroll.in/article/830499/what-will-you-see-if-you-visit-the-precise-point-where-india-ends-and-sri-lanka-begins)Tharik^Rish 16:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that source is wrong. It doesn't seem authoritative, and I'm not sure it's even coherent. I think "land shoal" is a contradiction. And if there is a land border, then why does it later describe the border as imaginary? - 2603:9000:E408:4800:3D36:AD7A:C6C2:393E (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020

change Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu

Shreyas 2409:4071:E92:A33C:7FBB:7646:8835:D98E (talk) 09:32, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 11:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

There are of course reliable sources that use/mention the name Ram Setu. However, the houserule is WP:PLACE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 October 2020

Bhumikadianberi (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC) To prepare this bridge Shri Ram asked help from Sea God and he suggest that Nal and Neel has power to float stones.They did this work for Lord Shri Ram.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Ram Setu Controversy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus was to merge any content of value from the draft, being careful to avoid including original research or undue weight, rather than have a standalone article. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

---

This draft talks about two controversies regarding the bridge. Its author has made their case for a stand-alone article. It would be good to hear other editors' views on this. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I see nothing reliable out there. The author could participate here if they had reliable sources to cite. The "controversy" is itself rather dubiously defined there - is it about the controversy surrounding the discussion on whether it is natural versus artificial, whether it should be named after Ram, or whether it is about the contents of the main Wikipedia entry? Shyamal (talk) 08:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The draft is very, very far from being an encyclopedia article – there are problems with the structure, the focus of the content (as Shyamal points out), the level of detail, the sourcing, and the tone. I can't actually see that the section about investigations into the origin, Draft:Ram Setu Controversy#Natural or human origins controversy, contains any information that is not already in this article; there are some more details in the draft that could be merged here, but also a number of details that are beyond Wikipedia's scope, including some editorialising/personal evaluations, and original research.

One problem with that draft is that the title uses the word "controversy" while the draft talks about two different controversies (man-made versus natural, and the shipping canal project). Unless there is a clear link between those two issues beyond the fact that they relate to the same geographical area, it is hard to see how there could be an article discussing both of them in a coherent way. --bonadea contributions talk 11:02, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that the draft's creator has disclosed a conflict of interest with "the Geologist who first declared the Ram Setu to be a man made structure", which has to be S. Badrinarayanan (also likely per this). Badrinarayanan's research, which is a minority view is presented in the draft in a manner that gives it undue weight, and it is already included in this article. --bonadea contributions talk 12:28, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Agree. It looks like a pov fork with the intention of giving undue importance to the man made theory.--RegentsPark (comment) 12:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I just took a look at it. I agree with RegentsPark and Bonadea. Doug Weller talk 14:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree, created just to promote a unscientific fringe theory, with little supporting evidence. Dan arndt (talk)|

Hi guys Thanks a lot for your views. Am the author of the page so let me clear out the a few things here.

The originally this page was meant to cover all the various controversies related to Ram Setu. You will be surprised to know there are actually four of them. 1. Its origins 2. Sethusamudram Canal Project (The court cases related to the matter which are not covered by other Wikipedia pages) 3. Chronology of the bridge 4. The dispute with respect to its name.

So am now thinking about adding the two disputes with respect to the chronology of the page and the name of the bridge as well.

Adams bridge origins page does not cover Sethusamudram court project court cases aspect, chronology of the bridge and the dispute with respect to the name.

Sethusamudram project on the other hand does not cover the origins, chronology and dispute with respect to the name.

I have researched this topic for almost one year now and have met various scientists who hold both sides of the view in the matter including the Dr Badrinarayan in the course of research (thus there's no POV fork here) and the problem faced in the research is that these four controversies above are not adequately covered and interconnected anywhere on Wikipedia thus this page desparately needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhumi2tandon (talk • contribs) 08:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It appears from your comments that you are missing a fundamental point of Wikipedia - it is a tertiary source, if you have conducted research, and are not relying on published primary/secondary sources, you would need to publish in a scientific or other peer-reviewed journal. Shyamal (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• I would prefer to just keep a single article (this one) and mention a little bit about the "Ram Setu" (Ram's bridge) theory. I noticed that it is already mentioned in the "Historical Claims" section and in proportional detail. If required, a few more sentences can be added to the section. However, the draft as a whole is not necessary in my opinion.--DreamLinker (talk) 12:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Agree with others that we don't need a separate article. Any reliably sourced content related to the bridge, such as its mythological origins and the impact of proposed bridge, can be included in this article.--Obi2canibe (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

it is ram setu amd not adam's bridge and it is requested that the article's name is changed to the same 183.83.214.167 (talk) 15:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Please consult the archives for duplicate requests and the reasons for rejecting those. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:45, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2020

Its Ram setu also known as Adams bridge not the other way around . 2001:8003:DC3A:E500:69E4:8A74:ED9:73F8 (talk) 08:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Not on this website (en-WP), see WP:PLACE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

How and when

How and when Ram Setu Bridge become Adams bridge ? Please enlighten me. Giving such a false information and try to secularise the original information you are falsify the real and known information Amanmoni (talk) 16:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PLACE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Change the name

Ram setu is only the name of the lime stone shoals..... It was built by the god of Hindu..... There is no other name for it.... Keep it as RAM SETU don't add any tail (Adam) to it.. Sai pranithji (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Sai pranithji, please see the archives and WP:COMMONNAME as to why that's not happening. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 17:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021

This is not Adam's Bridge. Why do you keep changing facts as per your choice. Better edit it and remove adam's bridge or be ready for the protest. 2607:FEA8:241F:DD00:AC5D:F6D8:CAAA:FF01 (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see archives and don't brigade. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 18:15, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Why name has been changed to Adams Bridge?

Why name of this page and references has been changed to Adams Bridge? Even though the Ram Setu name was there since long back???

Is there is any propaganda behind it??? Sureshpat (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Sureshpat, please read the talk page's archives above and WP:COMMONNAME. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2021

Please change the name Adams bridge to Ram Setu in content please update Ram setu also known as Adam BridgeSaurabh0053 (talk) 10:59, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Saurabh0053:  Not done Please see the archives above to see the reason why this change has been rejected multiple times. Keeping asking the same thing is unlikely to change the outcome. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2021

Name of the bridge is "Ramsetu" not Adams bridge 2402:8100:2823:AF35:CBF0:52F3:1931:D6DF (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

As you can see in the article and the references, it's both (actually there's even more names, like Адамов Мост). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2021

This is not Adam’s bridge . This is ram setu 103.217.121.12 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Asked and answered multiple times. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2021

Change request of page name from Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu & declare Adam's Bridge as an alternate name for Ram Setu.

Reason for change: Originally it is called Ram Setu by both the people of India & Sri Lanka. After the conquest of India by the UK, the name Adam's Bridge was assigned to undermine Indian culture over the British Culture.

I request you to change the name to what it used to be into its official name before the British intervention, that is, Ram Setu.

Thank you in advance. 🙂 2405:201:400C:708F:199A:4A7:E1A8:2F6C (talk) 04:03, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This has been discussed a lot on this talk page, and the result from the most recent requested move was for the article to remain under the same title. You're welcome to keep discussing it and try to establish consensus for the move, but it's not a change that can be made through a simple edit request. Volteer1 (talk) 04:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2021

Adam's Bridge,[a] also known as Rama's Bridge or Rama Setu,[b] should be changed to Rama Setu also known as Adam's Bridge to western world

The sentence tries to propitiate that western world's discovery is more important than the local cultural identity. Let the structure be known with its original name.

The title of this page should also be changed to Ram Setu as was and is known 4500 years ago. Nhume (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:PLACE, no it shouldn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Ramayana is not older than 2500 years. The the earlier Vedas nowhere mentions the name. ChandlerMinh (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Citations needed

Citations neede for the following statements:

Analysis of several of the older Ramayana versions by scholars for evidence of historicity have led to the identification of Lankapura no further south than the Godavari River.

and:

None of the early Ramayana versions provide geographical identifications that directly suggest that Lankapura was Sri Lanka.

ChandlerMinh (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

I want The Title TO Be Ram Setu And Not Adam's Bridge Amogh shukla1234 (talk) 10:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You will find at the top of the page several different discussions regarding this rename, and all of them have not resulted in a consensus supporting the rename. Please go through those discussions. If you nonetheless think that a new discussion is in order, please see requested moves to see how to start a move discussion. JavaHurricane 10:49, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2021

103.97.137.197 (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You didn't say what you wanted changed. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 17:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)