Talk:Adam's Bridge/Archive 2

What is this structure?
Would it be more accurate to describe it as a causeway, instead of a bridge? Horatio 05:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think a 'causeway' is supposed to be above sea level at least part of the time? --dab (��) 08:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I guess so, but so is a bridge :) Horatio 23:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I know... but it's not "a bridge", it's the "Adam's Bridge", that is, "Bridge" is part of its proper name. dab (��) 10:52, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Bridges may be floating bridges, practically at the level of the water, not raised at all. 24.21.10.30 (talk) 20:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

POV dispute
I am disputing the article. Wikipedia is not the Platform to project Sangh Parivar Agenda

- The statements made by some professors (Professor S.M. Ramasamy) are not backed by any carbon dating test or any valid evidence. Just some statements can't be treated as evidence

- The Name Sethu Samuthiram has nothing to do with Ramayana. Sethu was the Kingdom that existed in Rameswaram also known as Sethu Kingdom. Thus the Name Sethu Samuthiram was derived. Samuthiram in Tamil means Sea/Ocean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thamizhsasi (talk • contribs)


 * I have moved these comments from Talk:Adam%27s_Bridge/Comments, which should now be deleted. As for the objections themselves:
 * The statements are not being treated as evidence; they are being quoted simply as opinions along with the contradictory opinions/studies. You may be right though that even quoting S. M. Ramasamy's statement to a newspaper may be giving it undue weight.
 * I have added a fact tag to the statement about Sethusamudram etymology in the article. Perhaps we can find a citation for the true etymology and then keep/delete the statement accordingly.
 * I'll wait for a day or two for your response, before removing the POV tag. It is usually added only when the article presents gross POV issues and not when only a couple of statements are borderline. Abecedare 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Subpage deleted — Lost (talk) 16:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

"Setu Samudram" means "Sea of the Bridge", and as such does not constitute a prejudice of "whose" bridge this is, just that there is a "bridge". There are undisputably two legends associated with it, Rama and Adam. This is merely a question of which name is more current, or which is official. This is not about Adam's or Rama's historicity any more than Giant's Causeway is about the historicity of Fionn mac Cumhaill. dab (��) 06:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please use official name Ramarsethu
Ramarsethu (along with Adam's Bridge) is the official terminology used by the Honorable Supreme Court of India. I think we need to stick with the same. ("Till Sep 14, the alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu will not be damaged in any manner. The dredging activity may be carried out but without damaging the bridge," the bench ordered the government after a two-hour-long hearing of an interim application by former union minister Subramanian Swamy.) this is the official statement from the supreme court of India as per the Hindustan Times article (First Published: 16:29 IST(31/8/2007)). See.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

you have posted the exact same thing above and were answered. Please don't unnecessarily clutter this page. "alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu" isn't exactly a clear statement on the preferred name. They rather seem to dodge the issue of naming and try to humour everybody happy by putting the official name first, but placing an "alleged" in front to forestall another shouting match from the BJP benches. Show us an actual verdict on the name, or show us an Indian map already. dab (��) 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "alleged Adam's Bridge" surely for me means this article is about "alleged Adam's Bridge", do you have official statement better than the "Supreme Court of India's?" I think we need to improve the article as per the official terms. If we wiki respects to the true terms. I've nothing more to clarify. I've presented my views. I cannot further clarify things here. If we all agree we quote, or we can leave this article with un-official terms. BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for article fork
Also as per the official statement "the alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu" from the Honorable Supreme Court of India, both Ramarsethu or Adam's Bridge could be the same, or not same geographical bridge we are currently seeing. So, I think we need to have 2 different articles that covers both the mythologies if there are official documents present. In Ramayana I think, the mention of a Setu named Ram Setu is there. From Honorable Supreme Court of India's statement it becomes very clear that the court has no way declared that the piece of land seen is Rama's Setu or Adam's Bridge. So, there need to be 2 different articles as none of the official documents found so far has claimed that "This land is Ramarsethu" or "This land is Adam's Bridge". We can sure claim from the 2 mythological articles that, the piece of land seen "Could be possibly" Rama's Setu or Adam's Bridge. BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * these are just two names for the same limestone shoal. Neither is the "correct" one, it's a matter of prevalence or usage. dab (��) 06:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right here Dab, the best here would be, till the time there are official declarations as what actually the bridge is, we have 2 different articles those cover the detailed mythology as none of the beliefs should be hurt. It would be wrong to officially claim that land is Ramarsethu or Adam's Bridge as the Government of India (The respected authority) has so far resisted from claiming name of the land. So, when the Government of India declares officially declares the name of the bridge we can have a single article.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * your suggested split would be a textbook pov-fork. It is enough to mention both names here. dab (��) 07:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then do we need to go as per WP:ENGVAR ("Strong national ties to a topic" that has asked wikipedians to use the nomenclature which has strong national ties) ?? BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * what are you even talking about? this is about British vs. American English spelling, not about toponymy at all. Do us a favour and stop spamming this page until you can present at least one map that has "Ramasethu" or similar. dab (��) 07:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ramarsethu" (Is a proper noun) in English like "Mumbai" dab, you need to ask the Supreme Court of India why they used that term. You are surely right that term is not in any Maps.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 07:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

the court did not make a pronouncement on the name, but on the claim that the thing will not be damaged. If you have an unambiguous official document on the name (such as a map), please show it. --dab (��) 08:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry dab, "alleged Adam's Bridge" is what I see. So, that also means that we do not have an official India-map that shows Adam's Bridge either.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Maps
so, please, if you want to pursue this, as a matter of courtesy point us to at least one single map that actually features your preferred name. dab (��) 07:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * maps showing "Adam's Bridge"
 * United Nations Cartographic Section (2001)
 * Merriam-Webster
 * Encyclopedia Britannica
 * Collins Bartholomew Ltd. (2003)
 * maps showing "Ram Setu" or variant
 * I have not been able to find any
 * None of these are better than "Supreme Court of India". We honor the Supreme Court of India as it does not provide false/Outdated maps like these. If Supreme Court of India calls Alledged Adam's Bridge, none of these you show are valid. All of the above maps are either BOGUS or out-dated. BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't surprised. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/nytmaps.pl?india is still showing Bombay (Mumbai). It's now Mumbai Dab (No more Mumbai (Bombay) ) either.
 * Multimap does not show Adam's Bridge at all!!!!... |8|4&loc=LK:9.00588254148085:79.9500602866374:8#t=l&map=9.11645,79.58133|11|4&loc=LK:9.00588254148085:79.9500602866374:8 Did you check them before you posted them?
 * for the unlikely event that you really didn't look at the evidence above: this link posted immediately above is to a 2003 Collins Bartholomew Ltd. map hosted by multimap.com. --dab (��) 10:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

 BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Google Map shows "Rameshvaram Talaimannar" http://maps.google.com/ nothing near to Adam's Bridge..  BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry dab, these maps are outdated. I think you do not live in India, So, you probably missed those. BalanceΩrestored Talk 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid I must conclude you are just trolling now. Do you, or do you not have a reference to any English language map showing "Ramsethu"? According to Union Minister for Shipping and Road Transport T R Baalu, "The Indian map since independence showed only Adam's Bridge". Are you claiming this is wrong? Then show us the bleeding map. --dab (��) 10:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite obviously T R Baalu is lying here, or he is surely referring to Britannica Map or this one which is showing still showing http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/nytmaps.pl?india Bombay. I think the verdict from Supreme Court Says it all. There are wrong maps aren't there? BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the name was clearly Adam's Bridge, supreme court would have referred the same.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * if the name was clearly "Ramasethu", the Supreme Court would not have mentioned "Adam's Bridge" first. Can you stop harping on a completely incidential mention of the name by the Supreme Court and present official maps? Or, of course, feel free to drop the topic. --dab (��) 11:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You just referred me wrong maps dab. It's not nice to be addressed as "spammer", "troller" etc. I am contributing my efforts here. If the place is really referred to Adam's Bridge why should I have the problem accepting that?? I am trying to help wiki by contributing my important time. If you don't appreciate that don't at least use those terms. If things where clear why are so many editors having problem here? BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

then why do you insist the maps I found are "wrong"? They are from the UN and from major works of reference, for crying out loud. It's not that I picked them, they are simply all maps that I could find online that even label the shoal. I am asking you again to produce at least one map that labels it differently, or else drop the subject. You will admit, I hope, that if the Britannica or UN maps showed the name you happen to prefer, and I rejected them out of hand, we'd never hear the end of it. You idly claim that "obviously T R Baalu is lying here". So we have, what, the word of the Indian minister of Transport vs. the word of Wikipedian "BalanceRestored"? --dab (��) 15:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's no use dab. I showed two maps with Adam's Bridge (here and here), but they claimed it was "colonial" and therefore invalid. I can't find a single map where they have it named as "Rama's Bridge" or "Rama Setu" or anything. This is just misplaced nationalism and propaganda. There is no desire here to improve the article. -- vi5in [talk] 16:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * to be fair, your maps are colonial. Unlike the 2000s maps I found. We still haven't a single reference to a map that mentions Ram Setu. Until we have, I consider this debate closed. --dab (��) 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There are colonial maps who name the structure as Adam's bridge. Many of recent maps do not have any name for this structure. So should we mark this place up for deletion? Why dont we go for what supreme court says. I quote the verdict: “Till September 14, the alleged Rama Sethu/Adam’s bridge shall not be damaged in any manner. Dredging activity may be carried out so long as it does not damage Rama Sethu.” Rama Setu is being used 2 times by the court. So that is the name in legal context (if not official). Why dont we go by the honorable court's verdict? Wikiepdia guidelines also asks us to look at the name in LEGAL context and this should be clear indication of what name is to be used. And this verdict is more RECENT than the 1600-1700 AD maps that vivin has produced. RainDew 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * see above. this is just going in circles now. four notable maps less than 7 years old are linked to right above, so it is hardly in good faith to pretend we are discussing "1600-1700 AD maps" --dab (��) 20:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * sorry I missed that. But a quick look at those maps show EB and MariumWebster map show that they still label Bangaluru (official name)as Bangalore and Puducherry (official name) as Pondicherry. Unless I missed something I didnt see the place labelled in the last map. So I dont know how EB and Marium Webster can prove that the official name is Adam's bridge when its clearly wrong on the official names of the other 2 places. In any case, as pointed out several times, common name does take precedence over official name. And the common name is Ram Setu. Again my above post shows that the Supreme court mentioned the strcuture as Ram Setu 2 times. So the legal name is definitely Ram Setu. With the common and legal name being Ram Setu, why are we arguing about the official name(which is unclear)? RainDew 21:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * indeed: this is why I am asking for an official map. The EB/UN/MW maps are not bound to the official Indian pov. Notably, they don't give the Kashmir borders preferred by India, but try to be neutral. Similarly, the toponyms given are those most familiar in the Anglosphere, not those officially endorsed by India. If you can show that "Ramsethu" is officially endorsed by the Survey of India, we can continue this discussion. T R Baalu says it isn't, so I guess your only 'hope' is that he was "lying" or mistaken. These maps show that the "common name" in respectable geographic sources of the Anglosphere is Adam's Bridge. This is certainly good enough for Wikipedia: If the UN, the EB and MW agree on a point of nomenclature, it is a very safe bet to go along with them. The Supreme court avoids making a statement. Recent news sources do not count in that they document a controversy, not "common use" (Recentism). I really urge you to check usage of the Survey of India, and base your argument on that. You'll need to find a SoI map of Tamil Nadu, since the structure is not important enough to be labelled on maps showing all of India. It is also unclear why the official name should be in Sanskrit/Hindi seeing that the local language is Tamil (thus, Atam Palam vs. Ramar Palam). This naming issue is a red herring. Public outrage should focus on environmental concerns, not "communal" nonsense related to "Rama's historicity". --dab (��) 09:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dab Wikipedia guidelines recommends. 1) Usage of news sources/google hits 2) News Archive 3) Encyclopedia articles 4) Google Books  as possible sources to decide appropriate name for Geographical places. Rama's bridge and its variants gives more hits in these sources except encyclopedia. Which wikipedia guideline says Map/official name should be given more preference over commonly used name. If you are convinced about your line of thinking then you can suggest for modifying those guidelines and initiate action  for modifying other articles which uses commonly used name instead of official names. Articles list given by me earlier. You are arguing more hits is due to recent controversy created by BJP. How Google books is giving more hits to Rama's bridge over Adam's bridge. (I have not added hits for other variants like Ram sethu, Ramar sethu etc.) Let us focus about this article contents. Whether public should focus environment or Rama's historicity is not the subject matter of this article. --Indianstar 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Balance Restored: Wikipedia is not bound by Indian constitution or Indian supreme court. So supreme court statement is not the correct reason for changing name.--Indianstar 12:54, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * granted. But don't you find it strange that people feel compelled to argue for a toponym that they are unable to point to on even a single map? I am not saying there are no such maps. I am saying, the burden of producing them lies on whoever is arguing for the move. Once we have seen both variants on maps, we can begin hit-counting etc. to establish common and/or respectable usage. I am not denying both names exist. My google books count is: 319 for "Rama's Bridge" (plus perhaps 50 for various spellings of Rama setu) vs. 676 for "Adam's Bridge". I would conclude that the latter is about twice as common in general use, and much more common on professional maps. Clearly "Rama's Bridge" should be mentioned as an alternative name, but I see simply nothing that would justify a move. --dab (��) 16:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * But, was the first move from Rama's Bridge to Adam's Bridge justified on the basis of a map that all have already proven wrong dab. So, on that basis we need to rename this article back to Rama's Bridge dab. That's what the policy says.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9106091/Bombay, It's still Bombay for Britanicca, while there's no more a place called Bombay. BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The current Britannica article is quoting false that "Mumbai" is a marathi equivalent, and, with out a discussion how was this article renamed keeping in mind Britanicca? I think a serious mistake was made.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 06:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Bombay" is not "false", it's an alternative name in wide use (25 M google hits), a bit like "Burma" (vs. Myanmar). dab (��) 11:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now, what's that, where's Bombay is India's current MAP?? http://www.surveyofindia.gov.in/soi_maps/atlas/p_21_200.pdf I do not see it any more. BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Survey Of India" is the official agency which is here to decide what place is called what in India. It is not mentioning Bombay any more.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

official name
A 1974 maritime boundary agreement between India and Sri Lanka calls it (surprise, surprise!) Adam's Bridge. the text of the agreement is available at India's foreign ministry, U.S. State department and the UN websites. as does the Indian National Hydrographic Office. Doldrums 18:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article Doldrums, I think we should have no problem to accept that this bridge is Adam's Bridge as on 26.6.74. But, on 31st Aug 2007 Supreme Court Addresses this bridge as "Alledged Adam's Bridge/Rama's Bridge", so there's something that's officially needed to come. That agreement is dated 26.6.74. Bombay was re-named to Mumbai later. Currently the article should be "Alledged Adam's Bridge/Rama's Bridge" or get something that's current. There are older maps showing "Ramarsetu", which I did not present, as they would be out dated.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose this settles the case. "Adam's Bridge" is the official name. "Rama's Bridge" is an inofficial name that is in wide use. dab (��) 11:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * dab, you need to explain that further. How? from the current statement from the supreme court you see this??? I see there's an obvious dilemma quoting any of the names? "Alledged Adam's Bridge/Rama's Bridge" is what supreme court has quoted, what makes you see it's not? BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * there is no "verdict" of the Supreme Court, as you keep alleging. The court order restrained any construction work touching the shoal, it did not discuss nomenclature, at all. The SC (apparently) avoided setting a precedent on nomenclature by referring to "the alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu". --dab (��) 12:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the name of the bridge was officially announced, as you all say. Why should the supreme court avoid the same? BalanceΩrestored Talk 08:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk Page
Please stop arguing for the article to be renamed as "Rama Setu" this is a TALK page, NOT a discussion/argument page.--Yu5uF 16:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Er... actually, this is the appropriate venue for that. -- vi5in [talk] 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Look there's a need to know what's the article actually to be named. We all here are honestly trying to present facts. Kindly WP:AGF and help finding facts. Kindly don't look at all these as any arguments. These are debates (Debate is a formalized system of (usually) logical argument.), and debates are not arguments friend. (In an argument we become abusive, and that's not happen here.) BalanceΩrestored Talk 05:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * it's not the place to keep harping on the same points over and over again long after they have been discussed and dismissed. We have established beyond reasonable doubt that the official name of the thing is "Adam's Bridge". Please don't bring it up again until you can present compelling evidence this has changed. dab (��) 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary
Nothing more to say. If any one need further clarifications, I'll quote the same. BalanceΩrestored Talk 12:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) These comments were to accompany my statements for the RFC. I've moved them below.
 * 1) The current status "the alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu" Supreme Court of India said on 30th Sept 2007, See for the article (Please refer to the talk above)
 * 2) Maps provided and references provided so far, have been proven faulty (Please refer to the talks above)
 * 3) A two year old article Rama's Bridge (Started in the year 2004) was renamed to Adam's Bridge with out finding WP:CON and having any sort of discussions on the talk page. (Please refer to the talk above) giving reference to Britannica, which is still calling places in India with wrong names. E.g. It is still Bombay for Britannica, and not Mumbai. See
 * 4) All references so far provided are out dated. (Please refer to the talk above)
 * 5) As per WP:ENGVAR I've already proven above that the (proper noun used by the supreme court in English) "Ramarsethu" (Rama's Bridge) is popularly known in India and has strong national tie-ups for that name. I've given references to all the popular news papers in India. (Please refer to the talk above)
 * I do refer to talk above. There is no need to repeat yourself for the umpteenth time. None of your points hold any water, refer to talk above. dab (��) 15:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add 4 more points to BalanceRestored's points:
 * 1) The common name is definitely "Ram Setu" as shown above. So whatever the official name is, wikipedia guidelines call for using the COMMON NAME. (See Rajnikant, Pope Benedict, Bangalore etc. So the discussion taken to the tangent of what is the official name is really not necessary at all. (In any case as pointed out, the references and sources for official names are inconsistent and hence disputed)
 * 2) The legal name is "Ram Setu". The Supreme Court Verdict: “Till September 14, the alleged Rama Sethu/Adam’s bridge shall not be damaged in any manner. Dredging activity may be carried out so long as it does not damage Rama Sethu.” Rama Setu is being used 2 times by the court. So that is the name in legal context.
 * 3) I have shown how the name "Ram Setu" meets the guidelines for WP:NCON
 * 4) The accusation of recentism for the name Ram Setu is totally inaccurate. Ram Setu is the name what this structure was known by for at least a few centuries before it was renamed 'Adam's bridge' by the British colonialists. So if anything, the name Adam's bridge is more recent than Ram Setu. It was and is still commonly known as 'Ram Setu'.

(I have added these comments so that its easier for the person who comes to review to get a summary of the whole discussion here)RainDew 23:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

all of your four points are completely mistaken and just rehash the fallacies already fully addressed above. The more I look into this, the more unambiguous the question becomes. Moving this article now would mean nothing less than that Wikipedia moves around its articles every time the religious right in Indian parliament decide they want to throw around their weight a little bit. dab (��) 10:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) the "common name" is not "definitely Ram Setu". did you pay attention at all? By "common name" we mean, de facto widespread usage in pertinent, respectable publications (such as professional maps, atlases, tourist guides, etc.), not google hits or random blog postings. Not a single map with "Ram Setu" has been shown. The DK Concise Atlas of the World (2005) has "Adam's Bridge Sri Lanka / Adam's Bridge (Ramas Bridge)", just like Wikipedia. Your insistence on "common name" would mean that even if "Ram Setu" was made the official name in India, you would still have to support "Adam's Bridge" as long as it is more common in English language topographical publications.
 * 2) the legal name is not "Ram Sethu" at all. The only legal document that was shown is the 1974 treaty between Sri Lanka and India, which has "Adam's Bridge". The famous "alleged" in "alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu" may or may not syntactically extend to "Ramarsethu" as well, and is not a verdict on nomenclature ("alleged" used by a court of law means simply "we did not consider this question"), nor is it an official document, but apparently a wording chosen by an unnamed SC speaker at a hearing, as reported by IANS. The court has not discussed the question of naming at all, but the question of stopping dredging, so stop handing around this soundbite in what is clearly a disingenious manner.
 * 3) you have shown no such thing. The applicable guideline is WP:NCGN. Which has: 1. Consult English-language encyclopedias. Check, "Adam's Bridge" to 100%. 2. Consult Google Scholar and Google Books. Check, "Adam's Bridge" to about 65% (which includes all references to the mythological "Rama's Bridge" in discussions of the Ramayana epic, not the physical shoal). 3. Consult other standard histories and scientific studies of the area in question. Check, "Adam's Bridge" to 100%. Only 4. Consult major news sources gives you "Ram Setu", in the context of the recent political propaganda stunt.
 * 4) "recentism" does not mean that "Ram Sethu" is a neologism. It is, indeed, the older, a historical non-English (Sanskritic) name, not the one in current English use. It is being revived now by Hindu nationalists. This is what makes the matter a recentism


 * As per WP:NCGN 1) Not applicable since it says other later limiting period may be applicable for other parts of the world. Subject itself has come to widespread attention in recent days. So we should check how encyclopedias name this in future.

2) Google books for Adam's bridge and its variants is loaded with 60-70% of sites which is nothing to do with this structure.[][]. There are bridges with same name in Brooklyn, Berlin and there are geneological person names similar to the same. It also refers to many christian stories. Ramar bridge has more variants [][] [][][]. This rule clearly says to look for relevance of search results rather than count. In Absolute count Adam bridge and its variants is only 30% more, if you exclude 60% (12/20 sites in first few pages) non relevant sites then Ramar bridge is clearly the leader. Moreover Ramar bridge related matters are more likely to be written in Indian regional language books rather than English language websites/books so this is in the scope of WP:Bias3)Pl refer these links for many historical ,educational references.>>.4)News sources obviously points to more links which you call as recentism.--Indianstar 06:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats true, giving precedence to "International Sources" more than Indian sources when its clear that there are a lot more Indian sources shows a clear example of WP:BIAS. In fact, I just realized that most of the google hits that even mentioned Adam's bridge have nothing to do with this structure at all since there are many structures named Adam's bridge. Good job IndianStar...its surprising no one ever thought of this. RainDew 15:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment on Naming of the article
Fixed RFCxxx template - changed section param in template to match section heading in article. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 03:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The supreme court of India (India to which a portion of this land is attached) has currently declared the following "Till Sep 14, the alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu will not be damaged in any manner. The dredging activity may be carried out but without damaging the bridge," the bench ordered the government after a two-hour-long hearing of an interim application by former union minister Subramanian Swamy.", also this article was renamed ambiguously to Adam's Bridge from the originally named "Rama's Bridge" (two year old article first created in the year 2004) referring Britannica that's currently providing wrong names for places in India. For e.g. Mumbai, is referred to Bombay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BalanceRestored (talk • contribs) 11:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've asked Request for comment, hope the problem get's resolved soon.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 11:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * this is just forum-shopping. The question was resolved. You were unable to provide evidence backing up your claims. Will you now try and wikilawyer until you get your way regardless? This isn't going to work, and until sources backing up your position are presented, there isn't even anything to discuss. --dab (��) 12:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Statement from
With regards to the name of the article, I've summarized few points that I've quoted earlier. Nothing more to say. If any one need further clarifications, I'll quote the same.  BalanceΩrestored Talk 13:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The current status "the alleged Adam's Bridge or the Ramarsethu" Supreme Court of India said on 30th Sept 2007, See for the article (Please refer to the talk above)
 * 2) Maps provided and references provided so far, have been proven faulty (Please refer to the talks above)
 * 3) A two year old article Rama's Bridge (Started in the year 2004) was renamed to Adam's Bridge with out finding WP:CON and having any sort of discussions on the talk page. (Please refer to the talk above) giving reference to Britannica, which is still calling places in India with wrong names. E.g. It is still Bombay for Britannica, and not Mumbai. See
 * 4) All references so far provided are out dated. (Please refer to the talk above)
 * 5) As per WP:ENGVAR I've already proven above that the (proper noun used by the supreme court in English) "Ramarsethu" (Rama's Bridge) is popularly known in India and has strong national tie-ups for that name. I've given references to all the popular news papers in India. (Please refer to the talk above)
 * these points are all without merit, and have been answered several times over, for the last time in the section immediately preceding this one. dab (��) 11:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No one from request for comment page commented until now? Strange.RainDew 00:44, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I waited for collecting evidences which Dab wanted like maps references etc. Based on the evidences available now, It is quite clear that this place was called before by names related to Rama's bridge or some related Tamil/Sanskrit names before 18th century.(Names change over the period of time so we cannot expect same name to be called for centuries together) People's faith for multiple centuries as Ramar bridge is well established now. Officially it is called as Adams bridge from 18/19th century. This page meets all wikipedia guidelines to be named as Ramar bridge or something similar. Traditions set by wikipedians prove that common names has to be given more precedence over official name. (Many examples quoted by me earlier). I am not asking  name change based on Indian Supreme court judgement. I am asking for name to be changed as per wikipedia guidelines and traditions. Infact Google/google book/google scholar search will be more if we add all variants of Ramsetu. Whereas Adam's bridge search returns only 50-60% pages related to this structure and balance due to different structures all over the world since Adam is very common name. --Indianstar 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Great..so should we now re-name the article? I agree 100%. I have been arguing that official name is NOT the ultimate name when there is a common name. In fact no one is 100% sure what the official name is. RainDew 02:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Now, even the Madras HC has called it Ram Sethu, additional point for "name used in legal context". Also no one has commented after new references have been collected. So should we rename this page as per wp guidelines? RainDew 15:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Frontline article
One image from this article is featured in the front page and another inside in Frontline Sept 22 - Oct 5, 2007 issue.
 * Tharikrish 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

the image is used illegally, apparently because they fail to understand the term "Creative Commons". You cannot give "Creative Commons" as your image source, this is just the licence type. If they use the image, they would either have to link to commons:Image:Adams_Bridge_aerial.jpg, or credit "Planemad (2005)". dab (��) 10:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Few months back I asked permission to use one small image from Hindu group newspapers (Frontline also belongs to same group) for Wikipedia article. They asked hefty amount from me and put down many conditions.  100 year old group should know copyright terms and use it appropriately. How wikipedia takes up these kind of copyright violations?. --Indianstar 14:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I informed Frontline yesterday about the copyright non-confirmation. Frontline online version today changed the credits to Planemad 2005, CC Attribution ShareAlike 2.5 license. It is assured that a correction will follow in the letters page of the print edition. The matter was looked into by Frontline Senior Assistant Editor Mr V.M. Rajasekhar and Associate Editor Mr R. Vijayasankar and was resolved within 24 hours. --Tharikrish 11:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Good job.--Indianstar 13:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The correction has appeared in the letters page of the Frontline print edition (October 6 - 19, 2007). --Tharikrish 07:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE? Merge Controversies section with SSCP
It seems that the whole Controversies section might be running afoul of WP:UNDUE. It's only a few fringe groups that actually believe that the "bridge" is not a natural formation, and was built by Rama. I support the decision to merge that section with the actual article about the SSCP. -- vi5in [talk] 05:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Controversies about age of Rama's bridge or whether it is natural or manmade structure is nothing to do with SSCP project. Even if you don't want to execute SSCP project or executing SSCP project using different alignment does not resolve these controversies. It does not make sense to move that section under SSCP article. SSCP articles should have details only about project.


 * I personally believe it could be a natural formation. I am not here to write what I feel. I am supposed to write what experts says. If 100 organizations are advocating that it is natural structure with proof and 2 organizations are advocating that it is a manmade structure then it will become WP:UNDUE. Here it is reverse. Can you name which organizations or support groups consider it as natural formation. Which scientific organizations collected evidences for its natural formation?.  Another factor to be considered is Faith and science are different. Most of the scientists may think Noah's Ark or Great Flood or Ramayana may not have happened. Do you want to delete those articles as WP:Undue. If you feel several scientific studies were conducted about its natural formation, why don't you add those references. Currently as I understand One Astrophysist who is nothing to do with geology and few unknown professors who are in Karunanidhi's payroll are claiming it as natural formation without showing any research reports. Fringe groups quoted by you are claiming it as manmade based on scientific reports like Department of earth science report, archeologist's statement and Geologist's statement. You are free to add references of other scientific or experts comments if available. --Indianstar 08:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the controversies surrounding its age do have something to do with the SSCP. Basically people are concerned about the "religious sentiments" regarding the bridge. This is where the natural vs. manmade argument comes in. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Anyone can make a "statement". The burden of proof is on those that claim it is a manmade structure, to prove it. I believe the article already talks about people who say it is a natural structure and why. The "controversy" surrounding the bridge doesn't require a lot of attention - this article is about the bridge. I believe that a small mention of the controversy would suffice. Your argument about Noah's Ark and Ramayana is invalid. Of course, those articles need to be there. But that's not the same thing as talking about a controversy that is clearly only politically motivated. The issue has been gaining press in India right now because of the SSCP. Like I said before, there are objections to the project because some people associate the bridge with the one built by Rama. WP:UNDUE says that a major part of the article shouldn't be devoted to something believed by a fringe minority. Even you stated that you believe that the bridge is a natural formation. It is - it can't be anything else. The only argument that I have seen is about the layering of coral and sand. I did a Google Search, and came up with this link. I realize it is a blog and therefore we cannot include it as a reference. However, the author is a geologist. He says:


 * "Dr. Badrinarayanan is clearly puzzled by this inter-layering of sand, boulder and coral and concludes that the boulders have to be artificially placed there, since there is no way they can appear on top on a marine sand layer. As a geologist who specializes in limestones, I can say that this sequence of sediment is exactly what you would expect from such a setting. The coral animal secretes a skeleton of calcium carbonate. Corals are colonial organisms, so hundreds of millions of such animals aggregate and secrete calcium carbonate skeletons. This, over time results in large structures which produce topographic highs on the sea bed. Such coral aggregates which show topography are called reefs. The shapes of these structures range from delicate branching types to more massive aggregates of carbonate material, some of which look like giant brains. As these structure grow upwards from the sea bed they encounter shallower water and start getting battered by waves. Particularly during storms, pieces of corals break off from the main reef.It is common for reefs to have an apron of debris composed of small and large boulders sitting on top of the sandy sea floor. In reef systems, sand is everywhere. The natural disintegration of coral skeletons upon death of the coral animal produces sand, erosion by waves produces sand, and additional sand can be transported from the surrounding continental shelf. In this case much of the sand is being brought by currents from coastal areas of India (Rameshwaram to Vedaranniyam coast) and Sri Lanka (Jaffna penninsula). This sand infiltrates the cracks and crevices of the coral structures and also blankets the sea floor."'


 * So what other "evidence" is there to prove that it is manmade? -- vi5in [talk] 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not an expert. It is my intution. My argument does not count like yours or some bloggers. What is happening in India is reverse of what has happened to Kepler or Darwin. Here Religious people are putting scientific arguments. So called rationalists are having blind faith and instead of denying scientific arguments through a proper research involve in party office breaking,intimidation and violence. . Let your blogger's report is published in reputed sources then it can be added as counter arguments. Till such time minority view of less known professors working under Karunanidhi is available as alternative views. Contradictory views of Nasa between their two statements is also available. (Statement1 says Remote sensing object cannot find whether structure is man made or natural. Statement 2 says it is natural structure). I strongly deny it is minority view. If we insist on deleting well cited sources by experts then Dab may consider adding Pseudo rationalists in his essay for the people who have blind faith in politician views and reject scientific arguments by religious people.--Indianstar 16:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately on Wikipedia we need something more substantial than "intuition". I find it rather amazing that you think that "minority views" support the fact that the bridge is natural and not manmade. Can you please give me evidence to show that the bridge is manmade? Dab's essay is an essay. As such, it reflects his POV. It's not a Wikipedia article. You are free to create your own essay if you so wish. You may refuse to believe the truth. But the truth is that only a fringe minority actually believes that the bridge was built by Rama. There has been no proof to support it. I stated that we cannot add the blog because we don't add blogs as references. But I provided a valid counterargument. Can you tell me why his argument is wrong? He provides a very valid explanation. NASA's statements are not contradictory. I would think twice before taking your argument down this path. It's your argument versus the argument of a very reputed scientific agency. All NASA said was that direct information about human involvement is not available from remote sensing images. Then they go ahead and clarify that the bridge is a natural formation. The "some astrophysicist" you talk about is Jayant Narlikar, a highly respected scientist. He said that he saw no evidence to support the theory (and to date, there is no evidence). Finally you have historians weighing in. See this. I mean, even the Archaeological Society of India says that it is a natural formation. Your group of "religious people" haven't given any scientific arguments. The problem is that religiously motivated arguments are rarely scientific or even logical. One only needs to look to the Evolution vs. Creationism debate in the US to understand that. I will invite more people to take part in this discussion. -- vi5in [talk] 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should I give evidence. I am a wikipedian not a scientist. I added points of reputed geologist who gave evidences. I am not knowledgable enough for evaluating replies given by blogger for those evidences. Let some scientist validate blogger's theory after it is published in reputed journals. I have added expert claiming habitation as one of the proof for man made structure along with other proofs which is perfectly valid as per WP:Cite. Moreover I am not making that assumption and expert who analysed it has made that assumption. It is published in so many reputed neutral websites and newspapers.  So many scientific theories lies on assumptions. For example Dinosaur extinction is attributed to Asteroid impact. Inspite of so many questions scientists accept that theory because of date matching of both events. Same way expert is claiming in his opinion Ramayana period and habitation period matches so he claims it could be a man made structure.(This is one of the proof he has given, not only proof) Let scientists dispute his claim or you publish your claim in reputed journals and then remove that point. I don't belong to any group of religious people. I have never contributed to any religious article. All experts quoted by me are nothing to do with religious groups like Badrinarayanan (Former GSI Director) or Satyamurthy(Former ASI Director) or Department of Earth science  or Sundaram (Former Tuticorin port trust director).--Indianstar 09:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why should you give evidence? Well generally you want evidence to support points in the article. An "it is because I said so" won't do. You have added one point which says that the formation of the corals is "odd". Your "expert" doesn't claim anything about habitation. All they say is that the area show signs of habitation. How can they infer anything as to whether the bridge is natural or not, from that? They haven't said anything about that. You say it is published in "so many reputed neutral websites and newspapers". I have yet to see you come up with any that doesn't parrot what is said by the other source. Stop trying to be pedantic and switch the subject. We aren't debating the scientific method here. The Asteroid Impact theory is a hypothesis and a widely accepted one (numerous theses, papers, journals, books, and articles have been written about it). Rama's Bridge being "artificial" is a fringe hypothesis. Are there any journals that talk about Rama's Bridge being artificial? I didn't say you were part of any religious group. I said that the arguments given (by those religious groups) are given on the basis of religion and as a result seem rather illogical. Like I said before, the burden of proof is on those people to provide adequate evidence. They have failed to do so. Are you aware (and I realize I am repeating myself here) that the Archaeological Society of India has said that the bridge is natural? -- vi5in [talk] 09:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly oppose yourself removing Department of Earth science comments. WP:SYN says we cannot make our own inferences from available citations. In this case citation quotes habitation as a supplementary evidence (In addition to geological findings) for man made structure. I did not make my own inferences. Some citations also quotes why they consider that as evidence . Let scientists or experts answer those questions. You are saying from your knowledge that it is not correct which is considered as original research. Regarding ASI Comments I will add that point to the article to bring more balanced views--Indianstar 00:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * See WP:CITE for acceptable citations. hvk.org says its aim is to "promote Hindutva" - that doesn't sound very reliable. The article is written by someone whose credentials are completely unclear. Lankalibrary.com says that there are signs of human habitation on both sides of the bridge, and not on the bridge. I appreciate you discussing this with me in a proper manner. Yes, you are correct about WP:SYN. I shouldn't have drawn my own conclusions from that. We can leave that point about the habitation in, but we have to edit it to show that they are talking about habitation on both sides of the bridge, and not the bridge itself. -- vi5in [talk] 02:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thorium and Tsunami
The following statements by Dr. S. Kalyanaraman are not correct:


 * That relates to the existence of 32 per cent of the world's reserves of thorium in just three villages, south of Ram Sethu
 * Thorium-containing coastal sands south of Ram Sethu represent 32 per cent of the known reserves of the world

The thorium resources as spread over a long swath from Kerala in the west coast, to Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa in east coast. It is incorrect to say that the thorium reserves of India are located in three villages south of Ram Setu. Therefore I have removed the entire sentence and the reference from the article.

Moreover the total thorium resources of India is about 14% to 24% as per the numbers given here. The figure of 32% is derived from an older source, i.e, of 1985 as against sources dated 2001 and 2006. As exploration and investigations are still ongoing, the latest figues should be considered.

His statement with reference to Tsunami is not supported by relevant citations pointing to original research:


 * The accumulation of thorium placer deposits is emphatically due to the existence of Ram Sethu acting as a cyclotron against the clock-wise and counter-clock-wise ocean currents depositing Th-232 on the coastline lands.

Howerver I agree that this is a brilliant observation by him and could be quoted somewhere in the article : "The logo of Survey of India refers to Sethu-Aa Sethu Himachalam, meaning: from Sethu to Himalayas as Bharatam."

--Tharikrish 16:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Alternative Alignments.jpg
Image:Alternative Alignments.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 07:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Belonging
Does it belong to India? Or belong to Srilanka? - &#9993; Hello World! 12:24, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Indo Srilankan border cuts this bridge in the middle. --59.92.24.7 (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

etymology
if the title is Adam's birdge then the etymology should be corresponding to it. I find no reference to Adam in it. --117.196.139.71 (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * that was due to vandalism. --dab (��) 09:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

tagged for an expert in geology
This is an article about a geological feature. At present it has lots of different hypotheses about the formation of the feature and it is difficult to see which ones are compatible or incompatible with each other. It would be nice to get a geologist to untangle it for us. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding changing the article name to Ram sethu instead of Adam's bridge
Hi All, I dont understand why people calling this Adam's bridge as it is related to historical place of hindus and it is well within indian border. The name is totally uncalled for. Its pretty clear that it's in no way realted to adam. I hope no proof is needed. The change in name is therefore very important as the history should not be changed.

with regards, Jayabalaji M.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalaji.md (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I take your point, but this is the common name in English for it and Wikipedia liks common names. Anyone doing a search on Ram sethu will automatically be directed to this article. Doug Weller (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * for details, you can also review the discussion of May through October 2007 on this very page. The question has been discussed exhaustively, and there is no need to rehash it. --dab (��) 12:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * And the scientific literature uses 'Adam's Bridge'. I've reverted the redirect, we need to straighten out other articles now - see

As for the spellings, there are three main names in English usage, Adam's Bridge, Rama's Bridge and (not translating the "bridge"), Ram Setu. There are countless variants, such as Ram's Bridge, Rama Sethu, etc., but we don't need to list them all. Most of them being just awkward (no reason for the th in sethu, Ram's Bridge needlessly reminiscent of a male sheep, etc.) --dab (��) 08:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Doug Weller, Threatening me (i.e. trying block me) isn't going make the validity of my positions any less valid; but it does diminish yours. I stand by what I wrote, you don't understand the level INSULT your so-called 'editors' have imposed on an entire culture by Anglicizing a piece history and land that belongs to India and its culture. If you do block me, I'll simply change my HW address and IP and you will have achieved nothing other that proving your own pettiness. Consider what I said, this issue is a hot-potato item in India right now; elections are on the horizon, like in every democracy, the media's 'silly-season' is about to kick-off. It might be useful for you to realize that the main political opposition just announced today that the RAM SETHU controversy will form part of their 10 point platform for India's federal elections. It would be interesting how you or even wikipedia's management are going answer embarrassing questions (potentially) posed to you by members of the Indian media about your choice of the name as this issue enters an election year media frenzy. I'm not saying this will happen, it just that during election year silly-season, the risk is much higher for bringing bad publicity and controversy onto wikipedia. It amazes me that you still don't understand how important and central the story of Lord Ram(a) is to most Indians including secular ones, this is not just some ordinary landmark in India, it is akin to someone in London deciding that Bethlehem (Beit Lehem) should be named 'Salahuddin's Hamlet' because he happened to conquer the area and install a camp there; that is the level ridiculousness, ignorance and bigotry entailed in naming this landmark "Adam's" Bridge. Why don't you instead place Rama's Bridge alongside so-called Adam's bridge in the Title, even that is still insulting, it would be less so. see attached Wire report on the India opposition proposed election plank (see the last paragraphs): http://in.news.yahoo.com/48/20080914/814/tnl-bjp-s-major-poll-plank-terror-not-nu.html.

The fact remains, that this issue will not go away for you guys because there are way too many people who will continually bring this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.60.207 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read the article and here I quote "The earliest map that calls this area Adam's bridge was prepared by a British cartographer in 1804". However, earlier in the same article it says "The bridge was first mentioned in historical works in the 11th century, mentioned by Alberuni Ibn Khordadbeh in his Book of Roads and Kingdoms (ca. 850 AD) and was called Set Bandhai or "Bridge of the Sea" AND "Maps prepared by a Dutch cartographer in 1747, available at the Tanjore Saraswathi mahal library shows this area as Ramancoil, a colloquial form of the Tamil Raman Kovil (Rama's Temple)" AND "Another map of Mogul India prepared by J. Rennel in 1788 retrieved from the same library called this area the area of the Rama Temple". This clearly shows that the bridge was first referred to as Adam's bridge only in 1804. None of the earlier references call it as such. So it is only logical that it should not be referred to as Adam's bridge but by any of the earlier 3 names. Sudhir 8/10/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudhirjo (talk • contribs) 02:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * HI Can I suggest we bring this to Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.71.87 (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

so, Sudhirjo, the "threat" is that "this issue will not go away for you guys because there are way too many people who will continually bring this up" (as opposed to the article actually missing anything substantial). You can rest assured that "you guys" have a lot of catching up to do before you start looking anything remotely like "these guys" (not that I recommend you try. The point is that even they failed to have the least effect on article content. Wikipedia can deal with more disruption than you seem to think). dab (𒁳) 16:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Your arrogance is astonishing DAB, so by your twisted logic, no matter how erroneous and illogical the article or its title maybe, somehow it is a badge of honor to resist correcting the error. No matter if an editor holds bigoted and ethnocentric views, we are supposed to admire their decision to maintain an error. Wow what incredible intellect you've displayed here. This is fine by us, because no matter how hard those editors with a Eurocentric bias try, you'll be on the losing end of this argument over time; that is inevitable. The inconsistency Sudhirjo has pointed out underscores this. This is akin to the BBC continuing to call Mumbai, "Bombay", for several years after it was officially renamed Mumbai, eventually even their entrenched neo-colonialist bureaucrats were forced to cave-in. Once wikipedia lands a "so-called" expert we'll see how this proceeds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.202.32.187 (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't threaten anyway, I left a standard warning that certain behaviour may lead to a block. The problem is that Wikipedia has naming conventions for the titles of articles, and what that says is
 * Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.
 * This is justified by the following principle:
 * "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists."
 * "Wikipedia determines the recognizability of a name by seeing what verifiable reliable sources in English call the subject.'"

dougweller (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Readers can learn incorrect information right dougweller? No, things should be the right thing so they can learn it the right way and not the incorrect way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishan1234 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)