Jump to content

Talk:Adam's Bridge

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suksane (talk | contribs) at 06:30, 22 June 2022 (→Unsubstantiated Claims in 2nd Para: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.



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)[reply]

 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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
And there's another comment that isn't actually an objective discussion of the issue. HiLo48 (talk) 08:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

We have another problem that will impact on this

A new movie about Ram Setu with Akshay Kumar.[1] 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)[reply]

Why the personal attack, rather than genuine discussion? This is an unhealthy place. HiLo48 (talk) 08:31, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"Real motivations". Ok. Good luck. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And there's another shallow, unhelpful comment. HiLo48 (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Press have noticed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Could this be why pageviews are spiking a bit? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. [2] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Draft:Ram Setu (film), ready and waiting. Sounds like a film I might enjoy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That article is now live. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
You saw that was a reply to the OP, right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nope.  :) Please accept my apology. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fwiw, second ref can be read here:[3] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Adam%27s_Bridge&oldid=1094372285"