Talk:Adam's Bridge/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Origins

I comment because this article was mentioned again at WP:FTN. I propose merging "Natural or man made" in "Geological evolution" or deleting the section, alternatively merging both in an "Origins" section. It is also redundant and conflicting with the "Age" subsection. Wikipedia is also not about presenting a WP:FALSEBALANCE of random opinions (like "There is disagreement among experts as to if it is natural or man made"). The "Natural or man made" section is also self-conflictual between geological, man made or supernatural, yet there is already an "Origin legends" section... The article is clearly a mess. —PaleoNeonate – 05:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Either that, or rename "Natural or man made" to something else, not quite sure what. If I understand the mythology correctly, "man made" is not necessarily the claim. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of Vanara, did you know who used to carry around a small figurine of Hanuman? [1] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

To new users wanting to change the article's title

If you are here because you want the title of the article to change to Rama Setu (or something similar, such as Ram Setu or Rama Sethu), please read the following.

• There have been many such requests, and the question has been discussed thoroughly. All previous discussions are saved in the archives linked at the top of this page. Please read at least the move discussions [[2]] and [[3]].
• If you believe that the situation has changed significantly since the move discussions, you can create a new move discussion. You can read about the process here.
• Important: If you request a move, you have to provide evidence that English-language sources overwhelmingly use a name other than Adam's Bridge. English Wikipedia does not use names in a local language for places that have a commonly used English-language name. This includes places in Europe, such as Roma, Köln and Αθήνα. (Click those links and you will see what I mean.)

New requests to change the name without providing any of the required evidence will most likely be removed. --bonadea contributions talk 08:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Name issue

I can't accept this from Wikipedia. How they allowed title as Adams bridge Vadivarasanss (talk) 13:07, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:PLACE and WP:CODI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

This is not Adam's Bridge. It is Ram Sethu Bridge. 2409:4072:6E91:10FD:5F6D:C208:1351:4A97 (talk) 13:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — LeoFrank  ^Talk 13:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021 (2)

157.46.80.24 (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Kidly give the source of evidence which names this place as adam's Bridge

 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Kindly remove the word "adam bridge" from entire page. Renaming the bridge name is entirely offensive.they published false information.Original bridge name is Ram setu. Mohanugl (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2021 (3)

157.46.80.24 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This place has the Indian name RamSethu Bridge.. As the land belongs to India and should be given under its own Indian name RamSethu bridge only

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Terasail^[✉] 14:18, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 April 2021

Change the name Adams bridge it's not adams bridge. 2409:4072:6D11:2283:0:0:248A:BB0A (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You have not told us what you think the name should be changed to, there is no consensus to change the name, and this has been discussed multiple times before. Meters (talk) 00:27, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021

Adams Bridge name wrong all your history mentioned only RAMSETTU RAMA PALAM some one changed which hurts all our hindus brothers and sisters so do change only RAM SETTU 2409:4072:6E1C:7936:0:0:9049:360E (talk) 00:24, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You have not told us what you think the name should be changed to, there is no consensus to change the name, and this has been discussed multiple times before. Meters (talk) 00:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (2)

It's not Adam's bridge it's Ram Setu (Ramar palam) please this fake name as Adams Bridge Adam is no where related to this bridge 183.82.204.208 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see prior discussions in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (3)

False information This is not Adam's bridge it's Ram Setu aka Ramar Paalam . Please remove the entire Adams Bridge from this page . Adam is nowhere related to this bridge. 183.82.204.208 (talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see prior discussions in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (5)

this is not Adam's bridge, this is Ramar palam aka Ram setu's bridge. Don't spread fake propaganda.Do not play with the emotions of the Indians. 2402:3A80:1902:C4D4:A4AA:3189:3B4A:CBBF (talk) 04:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see prior discussions in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (6)

Please remove Adam's bridge name from this wiki page. It is RAMAR PALAM. Adam was not related to this bridge. 2401:4900:4D4A:1D18:A40:2D2C:FE2C:396B (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see prior discussions in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (7)

Ramar palam தமிழ் ராஜ் (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see prior discussions in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 06:18, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2021 (4)

Please change to Rama's bridge before BJP supporters and hindutva make genocide. They are blaming it on indian christians for no reason. Please change before they kill us. 2409:4072:39E:E9:4DD7:A9D7:9A8B:1C7F (talk) 07:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The naming issue has been discussed many, many times before. Please read through the archives (linked above) and in particular the move discussions (also linked at the top of this page). English Wikipedia uses the common name in English. If this article name is used as political propaganda that is unfortunate, but that is entirely outside what Wikipedia can do anything about. --bonadea contributions talk 08:03, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 April 2021

Please remove the word "natural" from the first sentence of the article. It is not in the cited source, and is hotly debated in India. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 15:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: the article describes its natural formation in the geological evolution section. Wikipedia's neutral point of view guidelines prevents us from giving undue prominence to fringe or pseudoscientific views, such as the supernatural. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

I'm not sure how this is called Adam's Bridge. Please stop these kind of conversion activities in the history it self.From ancient times and from ancient text (Ramayana) this is called as Ram Setu or Ramar Paalam or Ramar Bridge.

Please correct it. Please remove all the reference of Adam from this page. It's no way related or show the proof. Prakash S (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:19, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is an open Requested moves section above. If you would like to see this article moved, vote there instead of creating another edit request. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 20:17, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

This bridge is “Ram Sethu” and not some Adam/Eve’s bridge. Please get rid of the term “Adam’s Bridge” 2001:8F8:172D:65A8:4C8:C6DA:7616:A50 (talk) 12:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Please see all of the above. If you'd like to have this changed please start a discussion and provide sources to support your argument. Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that as a result of the above requested move, there's now a 1 year moratorium on such things. So, maybe in a years time I guess. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 May 2021

It is not Adam's Bridge , it is called as Rama's Bridge and Rama Setu, dont try to change our bridge name according to your abrahamic religion , adam doesn't belong to our land. 157.46.104.198 (talk) 12:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see the move request above. It appears that consensus is against changing this article's title. Thank you for your input! P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 12:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Rama setu wasn't even in the Orginal ramayana lmfao and vanaras in the Orginal epic are considered to be legendary neanderthals not in the newest version of the epic by tulsidas and lastly valmiki ramayana was Composed when Rama was alive so therefore this proves that Rama setu probably didn't happened rather in the valmiki ramayana Rama and his army of legendary neanderthals bulit a boat so that they can cross the ocean 950CMR (talk) 21:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

@950CMR TBH, this is the first time ever I am hearing about a boat !!! -- DaxServer (talk) 04:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah because no one reads the Orginal historical ramayana anyways 950CMR (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Adam's Bridge/FAQ

I just WP:BOLDly created this and added it to this talkpage. Wikipedians, do your thing. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I've handled two or three edit requests related to this. I don't think it will slow down the requests, but it will give me something to point to. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Complaint against Adam bridge

Dear team,

How should you you mentioned Adam bridge it simply located on rameshwaram to Sri Lanka if anyone constructed this bridge related from India or Sri Lanka only this is not an idea for any historical mode simply one can now it will be a property of India or Indian then you will be mentioned the Adam bridge what the reason that will be named.. if any person or an engineer one who constructed this bridge in the name of Adam or in Bible Adam and Eve are came to India that pare will be constructed this bridge.? Please explain about the name of Adam bridge..

How dare you will be named this.. this is constructed by ram lakshman by the head and shukriwar hanumanta some other vanaras to go undercover sita Devi from Sri Lanka please do not insult Indian historical moments this instant will be done 5000 years ago this is not constructed by Adam or eve... Kindly change the name Ram sethu.. is correct.

Please read the many, many discussions on the topic here and in the archives. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:14, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

At the very least, wikipedia should stop calling it "natural" in the first sentence. The article itself admits there is debate. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ohho, it's a fringe view for you? You are welcome to come and say that in one of our villages. The article on Christ does not call him "semi-legendary", why does this article call the bridge natural? 183.83.146.194 (talk) 08:37, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

This is not an article about a religion, it is an article about a geological formation. For a more apt comparison, at the article for the Earth, we say that the Earth was formed billions of years ago. We do not give undue prominence to fringe Christian young Earth creationists who say that the Earth is instead a few thousand years old, because they are starkly against the scientific consensus. The same is true here – there is no religious favouritism at play. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

"Starkly against scientific consensus" I am not saying that a God made the bridge or that supernatural monkeys made it. I am simply saying that the bridge could have been created during any historical events the Ramayan was based on. Is that not a pragmatic view? Hence "natural" should be removed. And it is not a fringe view; it is widely held in India. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 15:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of personal curiosity, about "historical events the Ramayan was based on." Is there a WP-article that goes into that, like The_Exodus#Origins_and_historicity? And I'm not saying that WP knows all. On-topic, it would not be unreasonable to try to add something concerning the "Origin legends"/"Controversy over provenance" to the WP:LEAD, but in a WP:DUE manner, avoiding WP:FALSEBALANCE. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

No article on that as far as I know. But as far as the lede is concerned, the word "natural", besides being highly offensive, is also debated (again, I'm not saying supernatural monkeys did it, but the bridge itself has a good chance of being historical). The article itself notes debate in India. 183.83.146.194 (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

This is a request for a WP:FALSEBALANCE. When a scientific consensus is clear, we do not water it down because political or religious actors "debate" the issue. MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@183.83.146.194: It does not matter whether it looks like it "could" be man-made. There is a whole section on its geology, none of which involve human-caused phenomena. There is one, and only one reason you believe it is man made - because a holy book of your religion says it is so. However, this is your personal belief; such a consideration is not present in any geological study.

As for your argument about offence, it does not matter to Wikipedia how many people a page offends by telling the dry truth - this is why pages like Islamic terrorism and Christianity and violence exist despite repetitive, never-ending talk page protests about them. W. Tell DCCXLVI ^{converse | fings wot i hav dun} 07:28, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Consensus is clearly against this move proposal. Editors have also reached a consensus for a one-year moratorium on further move requests due to disruptive repeat proposals. Therefore, any future move request initiated prior to 3 May 2022 may be speedily closed by any editor. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

---

Adam's Bridge → Ram Setu – "Ram Setu" the name is clearly mentioned in Hindu text of Ramayana. This bridge is not related to Adam. Not single text call this bridge Adam's bridge. This bridge is part of great Indian Culture so why the page name is Adam's bridge. Nitesh003 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC) Nitesh003 (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Mainly because WP:PLACE and WP:CODI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

My friend they won't even admit that it's man made... do you think they will admit so much truth as to change the name to ram setu? 😂😂 183.83.146.194 (talk) 13:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion I suggest that when this RM is closed, a 1-year moratorium on RM:s is applied to this article. This is the first RM since 2018, so make the best of it. Guidance at WP:RMCOMMENT. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose and 1 year moratorium In ictu oculi (talk) 17:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and support 1 year moratorium. Oppose arguments are in the several previous discussions above, the basic one being that the majority of English sources use Adam's Bridge. I'd be more amenable to taking another look if the whole thing wasn't apparently part of some campaign to annoy Sri Lanka, and the associated talking-monkeys-are-real schtick doesn't help my mood either. Herostratus (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, on the English Wikipedia we go by the English common name (WP:COMMONNAME), "Ram(a) Set(h)u" may have more usage in India than "Adam's Bridge", but Wikipedia is global in scope and should use titles that are more common globally. Dan arndt (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose and support the moratorium. Adam's bridge is the common name in English language sources. - MrOllie (talk) 12:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. On Google Books: Adam's Bridge has about 12,000 results, Ram Setu has about 2,000. On Google Scholar: Adam's Bridge has about 650, and Ram Setu about 150. Adam's Bridge is certainly not the common name in India, as evidenced by the Google News hits primarily from Indian news outlets (~47k vs ~700), but this is an encyclopedia for the entire English speaking world, for which Adam's Bridge is generally the common name. I also support the moratorium on requested moves. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Volteer1. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:29, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Volteer1. And, if I recall correctly, in the previous RM it was shown that most of the references to Ram Setu are about the naming controversy. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:02, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per all those who, in this request and many before it, have have pointed out that WP:COMMONNAME supports the current name. For Heaven's sake, let us have a moratorium. Favonian (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose The request does not provide a congnizable reason for the change and, as this article itself already points out, the Rame Setu "controversy" is a contrived attempt to make political hay. Despite claims of ancient status, the naming of this shoal was not part of Indian culture until very recently. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:01, 2 May 2021 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

"please change the PRIMARY name of this article from 'Adam's bridge' to 'Ram setu'. U can keep the name Adam's bridge as a SECONDARY name in lower paragraphs. But please change the TITLE of article from Adam's bridge to Ram setu" GauravMaP (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Melmann 20:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

Add the following to the "See also" section

• Coral reefs in India

Thank you. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, done. Thank you for the suggestion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

Please change the name to Ram setu. Do not malign our religion by calling something that has been there in our culture and putting Christian name on it. This is directly hurting the Indian sentiment. This bridge is called as Ram setu and never has it been called Adams bridge until the bloody English people came to India to destroy our civilization. If you don't change it it would mean that you support that racism and you are pall bearers of conversion on going throughout the world. 117.192.183.100 (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see FAQ at the top of the page. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

According to the article, the name "Adam's Bridge" seems to have Islamic roots. Hopefully that solves the problem. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2021

Remove the name adam bridge 2409:4072:6E89:EED6:C2B4:90F0:1461:88ED (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQ near the top of this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 05:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2021

" This is not "english wikipedia".... This website is working all around the world...its "global wikipedia".... If u are writing a page about hindus, and are thinking of running wikipedia in India, then u must respect the sentiments of hindus. How can u change the name of a hindu site, just on the basis of certain secondary Islamic texts? If u still want to name it as Adam's bridge, make it a secondary name. But change the primary name of the page to "Ram setu"....or better keep out of our matters if u are not a hindu/Indian/Sri lankan " GauravMaP (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQ near the top of this page. -- DaxServer (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is not written in "global". It is written in English. As a result, the common names used in English are preferred. —C.Fred (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2021 (2)

ram setu 2409:4063:208B:CD1C:89D7:7B3C:2A0A:5D8F (talk) 09:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see the FAQ near the top of this page. -- DaxServer (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 June 2021

Kharshit801 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

THE ADAM'S BRIDGE IS NOT ADAM'S BRIDE, INDIA KNOWS IT AS RAM SETU AND HAS VERY PRESTIGIOUS AND SACRED VALUE AMONGST INDIANS. PLEASE CHANGE IT TO RAM SETU INSTEAD OF ADAM'S BRIDGE ELSE THIS CAN LEAD TO POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS DISTURBANCE IN THE COUNTRY.

 Not done: Please see the FAQ near the top of this page. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

<sarcasm>You are correct, anonymous shouter. We are obviously responsible for 18-year series of Great Wikipedia Riots that have happened and are still ongoing as of this moment since this article was created. </sarcasm> Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

)

Actual bridge

The actual bridge is very prominent in Hinduism/Hindu mythology so why does it even have Adam's Bridge as it's international name when it's got nothing to do with Christianity or any other Abrahamic religion, cultural appropriation? The article should be renamed as Ram Setu or Rama/Ram's bridge as that's more befitting. TabahiKaBhagwan (talk) 10:37, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

TabahiKaBhagwan Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Wikipedis uses the most common name in English language independent reliable sources for article titles. 331dot (talk) 10:39, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

Change the name of the article as "Adam's Bridge" to "Rama Setu (Rama's Bridge, "Adam's Bridge)" as the first reference to this bridge calls it Rama Setu, and it was only called Adam's Bridge in 1800. VibShar (talk) 13:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No. Please read all of the above commentaries ... Vsmith (talk) 13:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 May 2021

"remove the name 'Adam's bridge'. The name of bridge is 'ram setu'. Its very important holy bridge of hindus. Some Christian scholar editor named our holy bridge according to their genesis' adam. Its offending to us. Would u name 'bethelem' as 'shiva place'? No. So why did u morphed our religious place's name. The anger for this wiki page is rising among hindus. Ppz take action" 2409:4053:2E1F:A9FE:0:0:E9C9:E809 (talk) 10:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. See above, this is clearly a contentious edit. Work on consensus before opening a request. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I think u should better hand this matter to India or Sri Lankan Editors. Who are u to write a article about a bridge related to our religion? And a bridge which is in indian territory? Wikipedia is increasingly becoming like quora. No authenticity. GauravMaP (talk) 19:58, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but everyone gets a say on Wikipedia, not just those from India or Sri Lanka. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 02:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

It's known as Ram setu, so i request you to change it into Ram setu. Locals calls it Ram setu. SlayTheDemons (talk) 15:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please name it Ram setu which is its original name. SlayTheDemons (talk) 15:54, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done SlayTheDemons See WP:COMMONNAME. Wikipedia uses the most common name in English reliable sources for a topic. The first sentence of this article uses "Rama Setu" as one name that is applied to this geographic feature. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

)

Change name from Adam's bridge to Ram Setu

The name was changed from "Ram Setu" to Adam's Bridge. This bridge has religious beliefs of Hinduism and Indian community. Ram Setu is a revered bridge. So please fix it as soon as possible. Otherwise I will approach the court and file a PIL in this regard. 2405:201:A412:48E7:2822:C62D:B66:1099 (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

No. See the FAQ at the top of this page. Retract your legal threat or you will be blocked. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 15:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Blocked. To the IP user, we cannot stop you from pursuing legal action, but you may not make legal threats on Wikipedia, nor may you edit when you have a legal action underway. You can pursue your grievances in the courts of your country or on Wikipedia, but not both. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Only sweet death will free us from these requests, I am starting to believe. Herostratus (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Got us a month of semi-protection... I asked for extended-confirmed (IE edits can only be made by WP users who have existed for at least 30 days and with 500 edits), but I guess we'll see in a month. Paris1127 (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Article's been extended-confirmed protected, but that's not going to stop the demands from coming in. I think we're going need to decide on something up at #Dealing with "Change Adam's Bridge to Rama Setu". —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:06, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

It's not Adam's bridge. It is only ram setu 41.223.215.164 (talk) 07:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the FAQ at the top of this page; there is a moratorium on this type of request. Wikipedia uses the most commonly used name in English language reliable sources for a topic. The article notes the name used in other languages. 331dot (talk) 07:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• I wonder if this issue has appeared in the Indian media, there are a lot of these requests today. 331dot (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Dealing with "Change Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu"

Editors who've had this article and talk page on their watchlist for a while know what's up: every once in a while a deluge of one-time accounts or IP addresses barge in to demand that the page title be renamed "Ram Setu" or similar, which obviously causes clutter in the archives. From a discussion over at ANI that moved over to a recommendation at the affected talk page, HighInBC (Many thanks for resolving similar situations at other talk pages) suggested moving all such requests to a different subpage. If I understand HighInBC correctly, since this page isn't under discretionary sanctions, we don't need to have a consensus that clearly describes what topics should be moved to said hypothetical subpage, but it might be worth doing. To a lesser extent, there is also the occasional demand that the geological formation be deemed man-made, but I'm not sure if that also warrants punting to a subpage.

As it stands, I see two possible solutions:

1. Move all requests related to renaming the article to a subpage. Per HighInBC's suggestion at Talk:Love Jihad, requests should still be answered, and users who made them should be notified on their talk pages.
2. Revert on sight. Bonadea had suggested in an archived decision that [n]ew requests to change the name without providing any of the required evidence will most likely be removed. It would take less effort than solution 1, and the reason for reverting can be provided in the edit summary.

What are people's thoughts on this? —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 14:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Revert on sight. We have an edit notice on this talk page about moving the page: maybe that needs beefed up (and maybe put on a coloured background so it stands out?). We also have an FAQ about the rename. If editors are ignoring those two items, I don't see much benefit to discussing the situation. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The sad thing is, that in mobile view, which I'm told some people use, it easy to miss all these beautiful banners. Not that even those who can see them necessarily cares, but still. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Or rather, they hurry through all the banners and notices and don't see it. I checked the IP edit process on mobile, and it's a flurry of generic messages. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment - experienced editors often overlook the process used by an IP/unconfirmed editor to make a Semi-protected edit request. Try doing it yourself, on your phone, to see.
  The IP can't edit the page, but they are given options that include "if you have noticed an error .... you can submit an edit request by clicking on the button below" - I know it later says "please check the talk page", but most IPs would have just clicked the button, so they do not see the edit notice, any of the discussions, or the FAQs - they then have a proforma to fill in, so they do so, and submit it. If their post then disappears, without any explanation, they may well assume they made a mistake and keep re-requesting the same. Unless we can get the warnings to them before they submit, which, I suspect, would not be a simple software reconfiguration, I think we need to leave a reply - Arjayay (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Arjayay I think it would actually be a fairly simple modification to change the message that is displayed when editing the page. The edit notices are just standard templates, and the system is designed so that all you need to do to display a custom message is create Template:Editnotices/Protection/Adam's Bridge. All you would need to do is modify a copy of the standard protection message to make the button to do whatever you want. I would turn the button into a link that takes editors to a subpage with a warning on it about how requests to rename the page will be declined, and which includes the actual button to submit an edit request (so the process would be: try to edit protected page, see edit notice and click on "submit edit request button", the button takes you to a subpage with a warning about how name changes will be declined and a second button to actually submit an edit request). 192.76.8.91 (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• In my experience on Talk:2020 Delhi riots most of the edit requests are drive bys who post their grievance and leave. We usually just remove them there and only if the user asks do we restore it and engage them in discussion. I think we should do that here. 331dot (talk) 22:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• I find myself agreeing with the revert on sight for drive-by posts. The subpage system worked well for the Muhammad article because the people making the argument were very persistent and not willing to be dismissed. But if most of the disruption is people posting a request then never coming back then an informative edit summary while removing it should be sufficient. If they do seek discussion then they should not be ignored but otherwise I think this is fine. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:34, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
• A middle-ground would be revert on sight, with creating the Template:Editnotices/Protection/Adam's Bridge to force the users to the warning banners. That way we would be sure that the requestors read them. If the banners are still not visible on mobile apps, maybe we could also put this one FAQ in the new edit notice template, making sure people will see the message. -- DaxServer (talk) 09:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  What could be an appropriate action regarding the new comment just made a few minutes ago by TabahiKaBhagwan and answered by 331dot - Special:PermaLink/1030507619#Actual bridge - Comment and revert / Revert and explain in the edit summary. The user edited unfortunately from mobile!! -- DaxServer (talk) 11:00, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• If there were any possibility that these editors were interested in engaging in discussion or listening to explanations, then I would favor the modifications offered by the anonymous user and DaxServer. I think 331dot's characterization, however, is much more accurate. In the 3.5 years I have been watching this page, there was only one time when a name-change demanding user has ever engaged in any follow-up after their initial demand. If it was just a matter of not seeing the warnings, then at the very least they should come back and ask why their earlier demand was removed. That's a very minimal expectation of engagement that they almost never do. If they can't be bothered with that then they won't read the edit notice and will just click through until they can post what they were going to anyway. It seems very clear that this is the behavior of people that don't want to change the name of the article, they want to feel offended by the Anglosphere. Revert on sight and engage with the small percentage that does come back to ask why their earlier post was removed is the best course of action. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  Eggishorn But as Arjayay points out if you're editing on a mobile device there is absolutely no indication between clicking the edit button and filling out the edit request form that the name of the article has been discussed to death and that there was a requested move discussion only a few months ago. Try it! Open the mobile version of the article while logged out (you don't need to be on a mobile device). If you click on the pencil to edit the page it pops up a generic banner about how the page is protected due to vandalism and a button to view the source. If you click on that button it brings up the source code with an generic edit banner talking about the protection policy and a button to submit an edit request. Clicking that takes you to a form to add a new section to the talk page, but you can't see the other dozens of declined requests. On the mobile web site there is no easy to find link to access the talk page and even if you do open it all the banners that display the previous RM discussions don't render. Will there be people who will just ignore anything you write and submit an edit request anyway? Of course there will, but even if it cuts down the amount of edit requests by a half there would be a significant amount of time wasting avoided. I certainly don't think there's any harm in trying, and since the template would 90% just be a copy paste of the existing protection banner it shouldn't take too much time to implement. 192.76.8.91 (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that and I think in other circumstances your reasoning would be very sound indeed. In the case of this particular dispute, however, the history of disruption and the behavior of those who are demanding a name change persuade me that the way non-autoconfirmed users on a mobile device see the talk page is not the problem and changing this will not reduce the disruption. The "issue" of the name of this feature was not an actual issue at all until recently when certain political forces created it as a wedge issue for domestic Indian politics. Those that are motivated that wedge are not dissuaded by reading notices, no matter how well-presented. I hope that helps explain why I doubt the otherwise-excellent suggestion. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

It's probably more intense lately/depending on current media-attention, but check the oldest archive, this is not a recent whatever. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Recent is a relative term. This article sat happily at "Adam's Bridge" for years until actual disruption started in 2010 or so (although the were previous requests for a change). It wasn't until 2005 that this became a supposed issue of great national importance. Given that the nationalists making these demands claim that Ram Set(h)u dates back thousands of years, ten or twenty years is recent. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 09:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

• As an extension, a DS alert on the user's talk page might also be helpful? The DS notices are rendered on mobile browser (tested on Brave), while the text is shown on apps on Android and iOS. -- DaxServer (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC
• Revert on sight We've had at least five failed move motions, the most recent just a few months (and which closed with a one-year moratorium on further discussions). Renaming this article is clearly contentious, and so any move request without a prior consensus on the move is not valid. And since we are currently not even allowed to discuss a move until May 2022, there's no point in allowing this disruption to continue. I support user:C.Fred's "revert on sight". Expand the edit notice to document what we are doing, point any move requestors to the notice, and delete the request. If there is a problem with mobile users not seeing that notices, well, that's a problem for the developers. Meters (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2021 (UTC

Ramsetu bridge, not Adam's bridge

I hereby voice my concern about the historical bridge between Indian and Srilanka is wrongly named on following grounds. - The bridge is Ramsetu bridge, as portrayed in age old Indian epic Ramayana. - Change in its name in public wiki changes the context of it's origin. - Hurts the sentiments of millions who believe in the history portrayed in Ramayana. - It is an attempt to change the history for future generations and Wikipedia should not allow this without any real evidence.

Last but not the least, I urge Wikipedia and it's users to stop such changes. Indian0587 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Indian0587 (talk) 14:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I recently started a discussion "Ram Setu bridge, not Adam's bridge". However my discussion page was removed in 5 mins. I put up my reasons behind it clearly. I do not understand that some people decide to randomly change the name of a bride historically depicted in the Indian epic of Ramayana , and do not allow us to raise our voices.

Why this was undone? So you guys want to do what you want to do, change the context of a bridge by using a different name l, and do not allow discussions? Seriously?

Undid revision 1067444206 by Indian0587 (talk) See FAQ at the top of this page Indian0587 (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Merged from #Dealing with "Change Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu" BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Indian0587; I reverted your edit, as there is currently a moratorium on requests to move this article to Ram Setu. For more details, see the FAQ above. BilledMammal (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi BilledMammal, Thanks for the explanation and reverting back the discussion page. This is better than removing the discussion page created to raise a concern and shutting our voices. Thanks.

Can you please provide the details of the relevant moratorium? Indian0587 (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You reverted it, not I, but you're welcome. The moratorium is in place due to excessive move requests at this article, and expires on the third of May. BilledMammal (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Indian0587 (ec) The moratorium is due to repeated requests to change the name of this article against consensus and Wikipedia guidelines, see WP:COMMONNAME as well as the FAQ at the top of this page. The English Wikipedia titles articles as most English language reliable sources use, not necessarily those just in India or in non-English sources. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Question: (1) Against whose consensus? Did you the millions of Indians about this misinformation? (2) Does Wikipedia guidelines promote mis-information? (3) Having articles in English language doesn't give the right to change the name of something that's depicted in a text known for thousands of years. It's not a translation website. And for the translation, it should have been called Ram's bridge. Indian0587 (talk) 21:42, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

1. The consensus of the people who have discussed this issue on this page.
2. No, and this isn't misinformation. This is consensus here as to what the WP:COMMONNAME is in English.
3. We're not changing the name of anything. We're simply using the most common name in English sources. See No. 2 and the above answer by 331dot. Meters (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

1. It is mis-information because the bridge is knowns as Ram setu for thousands and thousands of years.

2. What is the most common name in English sources for Ram? The bridge is named after Lord Ram as depicted in the Indian epic the Ramayana. So you cannot change the name "Ram" to something else.

3. English translation for Ram setu will be Ram's bridge, and not Adam's bridge.

Indian0587 (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, this won't go anywhere, obviously. Let's move on. There is a {{Round in circles}} at the top for this same reason. Please see FAQ at the top. — DaxServer (talk · contribs) 22:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC) ((edit conflict) Updated 22:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC))

Indian0587 It has not been called that in English for thousands of years. Unless you have a time machine to go back in time to 1804 and tell the British to use the local name, the only other thing you can do is start a global campaign to get English language reliable sources to use the local name. Maybe get your government to pressure countries to recognize the local name. This issue won't be revisited until the moratorium has ended.

Note that this is only for the English language Wikipedia; Indian language Wikipedias can and should use the local name. 331dot (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I know no one asked for this, but it looks like the British was amazed by those magestic floating rocks and they couldn't digest the reason nor understand the science behind it, so they renamed it and merged this bridge along with the abrahamic religions. Kichawww (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Kichawww:, how do rocks float? Dan arndt (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Please change this name it's offensive

Why would this article be titled "Adam's Bridge"? More importantly why is it worded as Adam's Bridge also known as Ram Setu? It was known as ram setu first and is more widely referred to by this name. Most people in the west know nothing about this bridge but you won't find many hindus who don't know about this. This extremely crucial part of Hindu history was only given this Adam's Bridge name under colonialism even according to this article. Please change this to read "Ram Setu, also known as Adam's Bridge". 173.228.226.134 (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done - Please see FAQ 1 at the top of the page for the reasons - Arjayay (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rama bridge

Do the bridge constructed by Rama is still available 103.96.18.238 (talk) 14:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you are asking. 331dot (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Almost a year

The WP:MORATORIUM ends after May 3. If someone wants to do a proper WP:RM#CM then, they can. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

• This discussion at VPP may be of interest. BilledMammal (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 May 2022

The fourth source you use in the sentence "Ramanathaswamy Temple records say that Adam's Bridge was entirely above sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480.[3][4]" Specifically argues that Adam's Bridge is a misnomer, and also says "In 1788, Joseph Parks, a Botanical explorer from Australia marks the structure as Rama's Bridge. But it is renamed as Adam's Bridge in the 1804 Survey of India map". Since the main argument you have for Ram Seethu being called adam's bridge is that adam's bridge was in the oldest account, in 1804, which has now been disproven, wouldn't it be inappropriate to now not call the land Ram Seethu?

Change Title and Mentions of the Bridge from "Adam's Bridge" To "Ram Seethu" Poxah19 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish Any discussion on a rename should probably be done here as an RFC. It needs to be established that most English language reliable sources use that term. The main point of contention here is that many editors from India flood such discussions with pleas to use the local name even though most sources do not. 331dot (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Normally I just remove these requests as duplicates or close them immediately as consensus needed, but since the moratorium is up, I figured I'd mix up my templates a bit, you know, keep things fresh. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

No, that is not the main argument, see "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:46, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I see it, but I don't see where it says something different from what I said. Happy to be corrected. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

You saw that was a reply to the OP, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Nope.  :) Please accept my apology. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Change Heading to correct word

This is known as ram setu not adam bridge Kindly change the heading to correct name — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaibhav sh22 (talk • contribs) 06:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

See "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

Edit request not done, article currently under moratorium. Moratorium ends on the 3rd, and editors are welcome to propose a new move request, with arguments based on WP:PAG, particularly WP:TITLE. Closing this discussion as unproductive - if editors disagree, please revert.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change the Header to Ram Setu Instead of Adam's bridge as Ram Setu is ancient Indian name LeftLibrary (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2022 (UTC) @LeftLibrary: Normally I'd revert on sight and point to the FAQ near the top of this page in an edit summary (as agreed in this discussion), but feel free to start a move request on or after May 3rd. I strongly suggest that you read all the archived discussions to see what arguments have been constantly brought up. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:55, 28 April 2022 (UTC) Also, it is unlikely that such a proposal would get anywhere. This is the English Wikipedia, so things tend to have English titles here. And based on LeftLibrary's contribution history, this looks like just another disruptive drive-by post. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Uluru is Aboriginal, despite some conservatives insisting we should still be calling it Ayers Rock. This request is made frequently, demonstrating that there IS considerable popular opinion to change the name. An RfC would not attract all the people who have asked for this to be changed over the years. The standard negative responses here don't impress me. They look a lot like ownership, with a small group of regular players here standing in he way of the views of a lot of less experienced editors. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC) This has nothing to do with ownership. It has more to do with the fact that "the views of a lot of less experienced editors" are generally not grounded in Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I don't see this situation as any different from the Muhammad article, in which nearly all inexperienced editors who are Muslim demand that depictions of Muhammad be removed from the article because it offends them. The fact that they are numerous and vocal doesn't impress me, and shouldn't matter. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC) It's nothing like the Muhammad situation. That's ridiculous, and impresses me even less than before. These requests are usual;y dismissed with wording like that above asking that editors establish a consensus. You know they are not experienced enough to easily do that, but if this was purely a vote (yes, I know it's not), those wanting change would clearly win. Repeatedly and individually dismissing large numbers of requests is not a good look. Policy here seems to be getting in the way of what really is a consensus. Perhaps you could help them learn enough to achieve their goal, unless you have some non-policy reason to not want that to happen. HiLo48 (talk) 06:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Per comments on talkpages, and the context which has some religion in it (also politics etc), this is something like the Muhammad situation. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Whether it is or not, that's not an automatic reason to reject what is obviously the view of a significant number of editors who just happen to be less skilled at making there case here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2022 (UTC) We could start moving all name-related threads to a subpage instead of deleting per previous discussion? But as I noted above, there's an anniversary coming up, and now may not be the time. Are you going to start a WP:RM#CM after May 3? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC) And there's another comment that isn't actually an objective discussion of the issue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Sorry, HiLo48, but you don't get to declare a consensus based on repeated requests by IPs with virtually no history and a few SPA accounts. I object to your characterization of this as ownership by a small group of regular players. We have a procedure. A controversial move without consensus is not going to happen. Requesting such a move without prior discussion is not constructive. Anyone can open a RM once the moratorium ends, and the the discussion will be decided by consensus based on policy based arguments. And I suggest that, whatever the outcome, another requested move moratorium would likely be in order. Meters (talk) 08:34, 29 April 2022 (UTC) I didn't read past yet another misrepresentation of my position. I did not declare a consensus. Please try to lift the quality and level of this discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Policy here seems to be getting in the way of what really is a consensus. What is that if not a declaration of a consensus? Perhaps you should stop now before you contradict yourself again. Meters (talk) 09:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Second the objection to HiLo48's characterization. None of the arguments to change the title of this article are based in Wikipedia policy. It's not a matter of how those arguments are articulated. 331dot (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2022 (UTC) You have either completely misunderstood or are deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote. It makes me feel even more strongly about what I wrote. HiLo48 (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2022 (UTC) Re Uluru mentioned above: I don't know what has happened at that article but if proper procedures are being followed, it would be called "Uluru" because that is what English reliable sources call it. It is not named Uluru because that is the Aboriginal name. Johnuniq (talk) 09:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We have another problem that will impact on this

A new movie about Ram Setu with Akshay Kumar.[4] I'm told it's being presented as more or less historical. I'm sure there will be an article about it, but it's going to drive more and more people here. HiLo48 is right about the numbers in a vote, wrong about how we name articles. Doug Weller talk 08:17, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Why the personal attack, rather than genuine discussion? This is an unhealthy place. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack by user:Doug Weller, but I do consider the accusation of ownership by user:HiLo48 to be one. Meters (talk) 08:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to work out the real motivations of those defending the article against renaming. The arguments are terrible. If it's not ownership, a much better case needs to be presented, plus some consideration for the views of the obviously significant views of those who are seeking change. The fact that they aren't experts in the arcane workings of Wikipedia doesn't make them wrong. HiLo48 (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

"Real motivations". Ok. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

And there's another shallow, unhelpful comment. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

If you are going to show a lack of good faith by suggesting editors are hiding their motivations.... Doug Weller talk 10:48, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Press have noticed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48 saying that I agree with you is obviously not a personal attack. Nor is saying you are wrong, how can that possibly be a personal attack? If it were, we could never say that someone was wrong. Have I misunderstood you? Doug Weller talk 10:47, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully it won't be as bad as The Kashmir Files (the WP-situation, I haven't seen the film). Time will tell. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Could this be why pageviews are spiking a bit? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Definitely. [5] I looked at Google Trends today and it seems to me that Rama Setu, Ramsethu, Rama Sethu, etc. are all increasing in popularity while Adam's Bridge is decreasing in popularity. A sober look at the sources about this subject would be welcome. It's a pretty exhausting task, however, as even in Google Scholar a number of the sources are complete garbage. jps (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

JSTOR shows very little use of Rama Setu, Ramsethu, Rama Sethu, etc, (at most one result for each), compared to 166 journal results for "Adam's Bridge". The strongest argument would be WP:TIES based, but that fails because WP:TIES doesn't apply to toponyms, and Adam's Bridge has ties to both India and Sri Lanka. BilledMammal (talk) 12:19, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

You should try "Ram Setu", but, yes, still only 17 results. Adam's Bridge still remains the most popular, but my comment is about the derivative. Well-considered point about Sri Lanka, of course, but also difficult to suss out. As far as I can tell, the Indian government has made no declaration as to which term is to be preferred, so we aren't quite in a Myanmar/Burma situation either. jps (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps another interesting point to consider is that there do not seem to be any articles about the "Adam's Bridge controversy". When referring to the argument about whether a channel should be build through the shoals, all the sources call it the "Ram[a][ ]Set[h]u controversy". jps (talk) 04:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස, Talk:Adam's_Bridge/Archive_6#Draft:Ram_Setu_Controversy may have something of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I remember that discussion. The controversy is an entirely political one that initially pitted the zealous religious believers against the Congress government. Now with BJP in power, it's essentially off the table. But it makes sense that the name "Adam's Bridge" wouldn't be used in discussions of this controversy because (a) I don't think the non-religious really care what the name of this thing is and (b) the religious people who do care in this instance were all using that name for precisely religious reasons. That's my guess anyway. The sources, of course, only show that the convention is one way. They don't address why they are that way. In any case, the sources I'm reading could be used in this article or the spin-out Sethusamudram_Shipping_Canal_Project#Religion. We certainly don't need a WP:POVFORK about the controversy. jps (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Akshay Kumar's Ram Setu Poster Triggers A Meme Fest On Twitter I expect we'll have an article on this film pretty soon. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:58, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Ram Setu (film), ready and waiting. Sounds like a film I might enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

That article is now live. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

@ජපස that will probably continue with the release of the movie, but how many of those sources will meet RS - probably not many outside of reviews of the movie. Doug Weller talk 15:35, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that distinction must also be made during the next [RM] discussion, which I gather seems inevitable. Do we consider the sources that are related to the movie, RS or otherwise, as a single event/entity (like the WP:1E) ? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

• Now we have Draft:Setu (film), Nov-2023 film — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  @DaxServer, consider an Adam's Bridge in fiction article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Doubt that it's notable at the moment. Doug Weller talk 08:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Not now, fails WP:NFF, but sometime next year — DaxServer (t · m · c) 08:47, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

  Makes sense. Doug Weller talk 10:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Raamsetu..

Please change this name adm's bridge. this is not Adam's bridge this is ramsetu.and Adam's bridge not know as ramsetu but, ramsethu know as ramsethu. please don't try to change history.in India you can asked anyone about this. 2402:3A80:1B92:F4D1:171F:ACB1:8096:267E (talk) 03:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You will need to provide multiple reliable sources to show that Ramsetu is the common English name for it. —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Name of bridge is Ram Setu not Adam bridge

Why it is names Adams bridge. Who are you name it 2409:4070:4784:5CE7:6AC9:8D6:D06C:AE8 (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

See "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" above on this talkpage. If you are not on a laptop, you may have to tap something to see it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:01, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Name

We should change it's name to ramsetu rather than a British fool or whoever is adam. Did he constructed it? Was he first to notice it? Millions of people knew before him. We must change it's name. 103.211.55.96 (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources establishing that Ramsetu is the common name in English. —C.Fred (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

IP User, you may need to ask the Indian government to pressure worldwide media and other governments to use the local name instead. This has been done elsewhere(like with Uluru). 331dot (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

IP User, this topic has been debated endlessly and a consensus has been arrived at regarding the naming of the page. The bare minimum you can do is look up the talk page as mentioned above in numerous exchanges on this topic. Suksane (talk) 12:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 June 2022

Change Adam's Bridge to Ram Setu.

This article should be titled Ram Setu, not Adam's Bridge. Christian missionaries have renamed this invaluable piece of Hindu history as 'Adams Bridge' ONLY on this webpage. It is not called Adam's Bridge anywhere else. Calling this Adam's Bridge is Hinduphobic, not to mention completely false. This is not a Christian part of the world. Give back Hindus what is theirs. 141.225.242.171 (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done and won't be done - please read Q1 in the "Frequently asked questions (FAQ)" section near the top of this page - Arjayay (talk) 14:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Further, there are plenty of English sources using the name "Adam's Bridge". Any change must be based on what the common name in English sources is. Again, see FAQ #1, and note that a moratorium had been placed on even discussing a name change because of previous frivolous requests. —C.Fred (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated Claims in 2nd Para

From where do these fantastic claims originate in the 2nd para of the article? It was reportedly passable on foot until the 15th century when storms deepened the channel. Ramanathaswamy Temple records say that Adam's Bridge was entirely above sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480.[3][4] It was passable on foot till the 15th century? Really,? That too without citing any sources or citations? Second sentence is also absurd, the sources mentioned in defense of the 2nd sentences lead to some book titled' Encyclopedia of the Hindu world' edited by a certain Mr. Ganga Ram Garg, that's the source of assertion for making this ridiculous claim that the bridge was above sea levels till 1480? And the source [4] is an article on rediff.com (https://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/04spec.htm) which contains the usual hogwash of the so called NASA discovery amongst other drivel. Unless someone objects, I am going to remove these 2 sentences, in their entirety from the 2nd para. Suksane (talk) Suksane — Preceding undated comment added 12:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Fwiw, second ref can be read here:[6] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Gråbergs Gråa Sång , the reference is from 'Encyclopedia of the Hindu world', which by itself is not an unbiased source,with no scholarly agreement on the assertions made therein. This is not a wiki standard source, agree? Suksane (talk) 06:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

editors, any comments? 157.40.109.86 (talk) 06:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the sentences. Hemantha (talk) 10:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Hemantha - Thanks a lot Suksane (talk) 12:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Aman.kumar.goel - Any reason why you reverted @Hemantha 's edit and inserted back the sentence highlighted in bold in the above discussion? Suksane (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I did it because that user is blocked for block evasion. I can't see merit in your claims. Your claim that "Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World" published by Concept Publishing Company is unreliable really makes no sense. This claim of the bridge being above the sea levels before 1480 is on display since 1901 or earlier,[7] and also recent sources.[8] Do you have a reliable source that contradicts this information? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see that the sources you have now given are entirely different from the ones in the initial discussion thread above. Now, coming to your arguments

Your claim that "Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World" published by Concept Publishing Company is unreliable really makes no sense - So, my question to you is, what makes this book an wiki standard source? Any publishing house can publish any claim from any Tom/Dick/Harry. Does that make it reliable? Is this book used for some references in academic research, has this been cited by any historians as sources for their research? You can't pick a random book from somewhere and assert THAT as a reliable source material and ask for counter proofs to disprove some fantastic assertion made in what was in the first place,an obscure book or journal. The onus of providing adequate proof that 'Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World' is a reliable source used/cited by historians/academicians lies with you, not me.

Frankly, using this book as a reliable source makes no sense at all.

You have cited 2 new sources to back up your claim

source [4] leads here

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/geological-magazine/article/abs/voscillations-in-the-sealevel-part-iii/B37D4F61229C2548D54036A3CBA63F8F

Which is basically a geological magazine article about 'History and Antiquities of Norwich Castle' . Quite how this leads to Adam's bridge and from wherein you cite this as a reference to this discussion is beyond me, unless you have actually read this book and can cite the page number(s) wherein there is this particular reference to Adam's bridge s made.

source[5] leads to here

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zGPvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

Which again is going to be challenged on the same basis as the reference to 'Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World', namely is this a book accepted/used/cited in mainstream academics? The claim of the bridge being passed by foot is ascribed to Alexander Hamilton. Now, the only Alexander Hamilton of note that I could find is not a historian but was an American revolutionary, statesman and founding Father of the United States. Quite how his purported words (which no doubt is based on secondary sources) is a reliable wiki source for making outlandish assertions is beyond me. Suksane (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

How many times it has been cited is not going to be taken into account when deciding what is a WP:RS since you don't have a rebuttal. This source redirects to "Geological magazine, or Monthly journal of geology" which said "Adam's Bridge, connecting Ceylon and India, breached by high water in year 1480". The "Alexander Hamilton" cited by the source actually wrote the cited book "A new account of the East Indies. Vol. 1",[9] at least 11 years before your "Alexander Hamilton" was even born. You need to improve your research skills before disputing well sourced content without having any basis. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 17:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You have made 3 points

1- Regarding what constitutes a wiki reliable source - You oversimplify the citations argument,it is not merely how many times (although probably in this case the number of citations from this book would be close to zero) but also, has this been cited by any academic paper(even 1?) or used as part of a curriculum of any university just to give a couple of examples of what constitutes a quality source. I don't think you have bothered to read Wikipedia:Reliable sources , which you yourself nudge me to read and understand or maybe you are willfully ignoring the contents therein.Under the 'Some types of sources' section in the wiki RS page, examples of what constitutes a good and reliable source includes references to dissertations, citation counts, peer review in journals . So much for your argument about the number of citations in academic papers as NOT being a criteria for a reliable source. This book in question neither has the quantity (# of citations in academics) nor the quality (published by a reputed publication) and hence I disagree with your assertions on 'what constitutes a quality source' completely and fully. More form the wiki RS page 'Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent. Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications.'

Pray tell me revered Sir, on what basis does "Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World" meet any of the criteria above? At this rate, tomorrow if i publish a book with XYZ publishing house claiming that Adam's bridge used to float around the world before getting stuck between India and Sri Lanka that would also have to be an accepted source, since you have no considerations on the source being vetted academically, cited in main stream research etc. as the basis of a reliable source. Mere publication of a book is enough for you for it to be quoted as a reliable source.

2- Fail to see on what basis you make this claim 'This source redirects to "Geological magazine, or Monthly journal of geology" which said "Adam's Bridge, connecting Ceylon and India, breached by high water in year 1480". This leads to a link with an abstract and references with no references to Adam's bridge. If you can cite the page number (which is possible since this is a paid link for me and for most people) where your claimed sentence for Adam's bridge is stated verbatim within the edition of the Geological Magazine referred to, then please update the source instead of just giving a link which most people can't access fully because it is a paid link. "Geological magazine, or Monthly journal of geology" is a good source but its behind a paywall . I am sure though that your references here are genuine, could your perhaps update the source with the proper page number where a reference to Adam's bridge is made

3- Thanks for your extreme courteousness and for being so polite while pointing out the correct A.Hamilton.

Actually the source book(by Amitabha Ghosh) [5] here https://books.google.co.in/books?id=zGPvDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA149&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false makes a reference to Hamilton's book in page 149. It is not possible to view from this book (since this is in limited preview mode in google books) what actually Hamilton's book said or claimed on this subject. Maybe you can enlighten us more on where exactly did Hamilton's boom make this claim? And was/is Hamilton's books considered a quality source? Amitabha Ghosh's book is not a reliable source for sure. Though Mr. Ghosh is a highly qualified academic, his area or study and expertise is NOT history but mechanical engineering. The book (used as a source here) treats old texts like the Puranas and Mahabharata as literal sources of history. Be that as it may, this book is NOT the correct source. It refers to Hamilton's book in making the claim of Adam's bridge being passable on foot. Same objections as with "Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World" , namely is Hamilton an accepted source as a historian by main stream academics? Citations in other academic journals/studies/dissertations.

When i started this thread there were only 2 sources linked to the claim of It was reportedly passable on foot until the 15th century when storms deepened the channel. Ramanathaswamy Temple records say that Adam's Bridge was entirely above sea level until it broke in a cyclone in 1480. Now someone (or you) have added 2 more sources.Let me summarize then below

[3] - "Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World" . Absolutely no way this is a wiki RS standard material, irrespective of your claims, should be removed as a RS

[4]- Re-diff article with gobbledygook, can't really see why this was even listed as a source in the first place , should be removed as a RS

[5] - Book by ghosh amitabh, which in turn refers to A.hamilton. Since you have done quite some scholarly research on this subject, you need to prove where in Hamilton's book the said claim about Adam's bridge is made and what are his quantity and quality of citations to qualify as a wiki RS. Keep in mind, we are not able to read the actual page/section by Hamilton (apart from the issues with having his book classified as a RS) wherein this claim is made. If Hamilton's book is to be used as a RS providing you have convincing answers to my objections, and not mere rhetoric, wouldn't it be worthwhile to cite Hamilton's books instead of A Ghosh's book as the source in itself?

[6] Geological Magazine - I genuinely think you are correct on this source and are able to read this edition of the magazine and maybe I(and most users) are behind a paywall.So if you can update the page number from this magazine edition, that should be enough to be a wiki RS. Suksane (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty

From the article it is not clear to which (if any) country this area belongs or whether there's a dispute between India and Sri Lanka. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.26.254.227 (talk) 10:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Part of the chain belongs to India, and part to Sri Lanka. Apparently as of 1974 there was an official maritime border, but some low level squabbling still occurs. See https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/indian-court-proceedings-to-declare-adams-bridge-as-indian-heritage/ and https://www.deccanchronicle.com/nation/current-affairs/070517/sl-border-stone-kept-in-adams-bridge-area.html Meters (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Ramayana geography

These sentences do not belong here. I propose they be moved to the article on Lankapura, or somewhere else.

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. These are based on geographical, botanical, and folkloristic evidences as no archaeological evidence has been found. Scholars differ on the possible geography of the Ramayana but several suggestions since the work of H.D. Sankalia locate the Lanka of the epic somewhere in the eastern part of present-day Madhya Pradesh. Tharik^Rish 22:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Why Adam's bridge?

As we know ramayana is a history not a mythology why the headline is as Adam's bridge? Why not Ram Setu? As of me add ram Setu first then you can add or Adam's bridge!! Kindly change the Adam's bridge to Ram setu Thankyou!! Rakshit priyadarshi (talk) 06:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Adam's_Bridge#Frequently_asked_questions;_please_read_before_posting. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 September 2022

Utkarshrambhakt (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge is not real name of that man made structure . Its real name is RAM SETU . RAM SETU is not subsidiary name of Adam's Bridge , but Adam's Bridge is Subsidiary name of RAM SETU. I urge you to look into this matter .

 Not done: Please see Talk:Adam's_Bridge#Frequently_asked_questions;_please_read_before_posting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:02, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 October 2022

The real name of adam 's bridge is ram setu so please change haeding to ram setu. 117.230.22.183 (talk) 09:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

•  Not done Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 09:32, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 October 2022

It would be better to add Adam's Bridge/Ram Setu rather than Adam's Bridge itself. AKI470 (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see Talk:Adam's_Bridge#Frequently_asked_questions;_please_read_before_posting. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

About your question here:[10]. If you look at this talkpage in desktop mode (or on a laptop) You'll see a template headed "This page has previously been nominated to be moved. Before re-nominating, review the move requests listed below." Those are the relevant discussions. WP:RM#CM may be of interest. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Change the context

This is not a Adam's bridge it is called Ram setu only build by Shri Ram. Please change 117.228.194.115 (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

And what has changed since the last proposal? —C.Fred (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)