Talk:Adam's Bridge

Man made structure?

There is a claim that Adam's Bridge is man made and we should report it as a significant fringe view. However the following sentence which appears in the current version is a violation of WP:NOR, WP:V, etc. "Geological and archaeological findings of Teri formations, a rich assemblage of Mesolithic-Microlithic tools and human fossils found on both sides of the bridge by the Department of Earth-Science in March 2007 are also quoted as evidence for manmade structure". The two references given for this are nowhere near being reliable sources. The second one quotes Dept. of Earth Sciences, Govt of India like this "IN THE CASE OF ADAMS BRIDGE AREA WE OBSERVE THAT THE CORAL FORMATIONS HARDLY OCCUR 1 TO 2.5M IN LENGTH AND RESTING ON LOOSE MARINE SANDS. MOST OF THESE CORAL ROCK PIECES ARE SEEM TO BE ROUNDED PEBBLES OF CORALS. THESE THINGS APPEAR TO POINT THESE CORAL ROCK PIECES AND PEBBLES HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED AND PLACED IN THESE AREAS". Even if it is accepted as genuine, there is nothing in that to support this claim. 14.139.128.14 (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Name? Are you kidding?

Regardless of the fact that this has been discussed previously, there is no reason...other than ethnocentrism by Christians and Muslims...to have this named with the Islamic/Christian name of "Adam's Bridge," when that is not the historical or commonly accepted name of the area. Relying upon Islamic and Christian legends for the name, rather than the actual name for the place is like changing the name of the article for the USA to "Estados Unidos" or whatever name the Native Americans might have had for the place. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm neither a Christian or a Muslim, and we use the commonly used English name - and I see even "Garg, Ganga Ram (1992). "Adam's Bridge". Encyclopaedia of the Hindu World. A-Aj. New Delhi: South Asia Books." Is that ethnocentric? The title follows our guidelines and there's been a discussion. We use alternative names in the article's lead and as redirects. Dougweller (talk) 20:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that when I search for Ramasetu I get redirected to "Adam's Bridge" is astounding. It is racist. There is an indigenous name, and one that is more common than "Adam's Bridge." To not acknowledge this name is a gross injustice and confirms once again that the Western world is incapable of living with difference - they must transform everything in their own image in order to understand or appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.189.31.227 (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

@Dougweller : What a pathetic excuse! The article name should immediate be replaced to its original and historically proper name which is “Ram Setu” --Pt.Sumit (talk) 15:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Someone tried a compromise by putting Adam's Bridge/Ramasetu but it was quickly reverted. I propose we use that title as a compromise.

@Bryonmorrigan : I agree totally. This name needs to be changed to either Ramasetu or Rama's Bridge, as this is what the bridge is known as and calling it by any Christianized name is nonsensical. It is not a construction of Judeo-Christian history; it is significant to Hindus. Calling this article Adam's Bridge is like calling the Bible "Jesus' Gita." Zondrah89 (talk) 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I sympathize and wish it was easy to change the article name to the obvious consensus. But what you're up against here isn't any Christian or Muslim institution; if it were, the change should prove quite a simple one indeed. No, what you are up against, I'm afraid, is the modern version of this:

Same attitude, different century

. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

That's as much nonsense as the 'Christians and Muslims' bit argument, which is nonsense. We should use the most common English name on the English Wikipedia. That's what it is known as in English. Dougweller (talk) 21:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

In English, Ramasetu translates to "Rama's Bridge." "Rama" does not translate to "Adam." THAT is nonsense! Should we translate the English Wikipedia page "Mahabharata" to say "Great India"? Why not!? Since our arguments are such nonsense, let's take your argument even further! Let's translate the page "Coup d'etat" to "strike against the government"! "Pierre Trudeau" should be called Peter Trout! Let's translate the English page about "Karma" (a Sanskrit word) to "What goes around comes around"! Zondrah89 (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is talking about a translation. We are talking about the most common name in English, as this is the English language Wikipedia. Your argument is a red herring. Dougweller (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

@Til Eulenspiegel : LOL! Nice pic... But in order to make a change, who exactly do I have to convince, in this virtual bureaucracy? 174.95.151.182 (talk) 02:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Our guideline on article titles says "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." You have to convince people that your suggestion meets that guideline more closely than does the present title. Til isn't suggesting it doesn't meet that, nor so far as I can see is anyone else. Dougweller (talk) 06:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 December 2011

You guys realize this structure is near India and Sri Lanka right, surely we should use the name that most Indians and most Sri Lankans would use for this structure. And why aren't non-English sources equally valid as English sources? So Indian scholarship is completely worthless just because it is not in English? Do you guys realize how offensive that statement is??? Any way Dr. Subramaniam Swami, leader of Janata Party which reinstated democracy in India after Emergency Rule of Indira Gandhi, is explaining his efforts to protect the structure from destruction in the Indian Court system in the following video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83-smXzOvFA&feature=related. Dr Swami uncovered hidden documents of geological survey conducted by the Government of India. Please take a look. And this video is in English by the way. If this is not enough, can someone please direct me to the exact definition of "reliable English-language sources" and I sincerely hope this does not just mean imperial documents from the British Empire. Thank you for your time. Nirvana74v (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC) — Nirvana74v (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Done Link is now labeled as dead. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Fixed by Googling for the article title. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)