Talk:Adam's Bridge/Archive 8

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 October 2022
103.141.87.88 (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Not clear what the request is, but since it is targeting the redirect I assume this is another request to make the redirect the article name. See the FAQ at the top of the page. Meters (talk) 05:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is a spike in interest in this article, probably related to a film that was released yesterday(Ram Setu (film)). 331dot (talk) 08:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That explains the uptick in page views. I'll keep my eyes on it. It's been almost 18 months since the last RM, so we'll see if anyone wants to start another. Meters (talk) 20:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Popular culture
This section title doesn't fit the current content very well. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Changed it to "In Ramayana" as more accurate. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nice. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Geological evolution
I have little understanding of geology but we need to use peer-reviewed scholarship published in reputed journals, monographs etc. Every single source apart from Bahuguna (2006) and Stoddart (1972) is junk; ruminations by departmental heads of local colleges or unpublished reports of in-house surveys by governmental bodies do not belong at Wikipedia especially in its own voice. Indeed, little reliable scholarship exists on the topic and it is a pity that the increased Hindu Nationalist fervor in India will only reinforce the trend. TrangaBellam (talk) 14:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I had a look earlier but now that you have done some cleanup I went ahead and removed this section which was earlier named "Controversy over origin". This is because the section looks totally WP:UNDUE now and it appeared to be only lending weight to unconfirmed speculations and theories. This page should be only about this particular bridge instead of discussing too much about the speculations that might be related to it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 09:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp I disagree with you completely. There is a great deal of RS discussing just this topic thus making it actually WP:DUE for this article. Some sources (Sify, TOI) are quite bad and needs to be referenced from good RS as TB put it. I also remember reading somewhere about a suggestion to create a standalone Ram Setu and/or Ram Setu (Ramayana) for that topic — DaxServer (t · m · c) 10:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Scholarly sources are absolutely clear that its just a proposal that Lanka exists in Ceylon, present-day Sri Lanka. Yes the sources are problematic but I still find it WP:UNDUE to write 5 paragraphs to discuss this particular proposal. It is better not to discuss it any further until it gains any prominence. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * until it gains any prominence is a strange argument (consult Jaffrelot et al) even though I agree that the section is not written in an encyclopedic NPOV tone and need to be reduced in size perhaps to a half. I need time to sieve through the many excellent sources referenced to in the section. TrangaBellam (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "it gains any prominence" in terms of acceptance, instead of being subjected to more debates.
 * The section can be reduced. Why did you remove this edit though? Its one of the dominant proposal that Lanka could have existed in Andhra Pradesh. We can also discuss it in this section we are talking about and reword the section title to "Analysis of origin proposals". Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal is not dominant and fringe; Eck is not a scholar of Ramayana. Most scholars, who are at all concerned with the epical geography, accept that Lanka was in Madhya Pradesh. A minority stick with Sri Lanka but this is increasingly losing traction. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Badrinarayanan/Shinde
Yawn. TrangaBellam (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Change the name
Its not Adam’s bridge its Ram Setu. Change the name. Its in India so Indian name should be applicable not english name. 2402:3A80:1981:4FED:A93B:9FCA:CEAE:AFF5 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please provide evidence that English-language sources are now using "Ram Setu" as the common name. —C.Fred (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It is called the local name in Indian language versions of Wikipedia. For it to be called that here, you must do as CFred says above. 331dot (talk) 21:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Why english language source should be given priority for something which is in India and Indian sources should be ignored? Could you please explain the logic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.68.214.77 (talk) 07:17, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Because WP:COMMONNAME is based on the common name in English of the subject. Indian sources are not necessarily ignored, if they are in English, but non-English sources do not serve any purpose in determining a global common name. —C.Fred (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My suggestion to you, IP user, is to ask your government to pressure other governments to recognize the local name as the English name for this geographic feature. That wouldn't mean this article would be immediately renamed once that occurred, but if most governments recognize a different name, then other sources will as well. 331dot (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 October 2022
Please change name of its bridge it's not Adam's Bridge it's Ram setu and there are many traces of it. But I don't understand why you have named this Adam's bridge with no proofs. It was built by Prabhu Shree Ram 7000 years ago to visit Ravan's Lanka to Save Sita Mata. And this was Ram setu only in every historical books till the east India company changed it to Adam's bridge. So I would request you to change it's name to Ram setup. 103.241.82.78 (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See the FAQ at the top of this page. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * We might need to start reverting these on sight again; most of these are drive bys who have no intention of engaging with us. If they do, okay. There is a spike in interest in this article due to a film just released. 331dot (talk) 12:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * 331dot, I agree. I've been letting them ride for now, but it's starting to become disruptive again. A revert with instructions to discuss in an existing section might help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See the above section for where my logic is going. If they want to ask why the change isn't made, we can discuss the reasoning. That said, if it's just a blind "change the name!" with no evidence of having read WP policy, much less the FAQ, a straight revert is acceptable again. —C.Fred (talk) 13:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Questioning the name "Adam's Bridge"
Why is the bridge called Adam's Bridge when the concept of Christianity didn't originate in India? 122.172.81.21 (talk) 18:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * The etymology is in the article and sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please also see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 19:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Ramsetu is not Adams Bridge
The name changed by East India company in 1804 from Ramsetu to Adams Bridge. The Britishers destroyed the history of India and gave the name of Adams Bridge. But it is Ramsetu. So in Wikipedia I'm unable to edit it someone has blocked access and in Wikipedia you will find Ramsetu/Adams Bridge which is wrong. Reference Ramsetu Movie Speech of Akshay Kumar Rockstar A.A.C (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page for information as to why this article is titled the way it is. 331dot (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly review the naming policy and common names WP:POVNAME. 38.59.166.5 (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2022
In accordance with Wikipedia's naming policy quoted"Wikipedia generally follows the sources and uses that name as its article title (subject to the other naming criteria). Sometimes that common name includes non-neutral words that Wikipedia normally avoids (e.g. Alexander the Great, or the Teapot Dome scandal). In such cases, the prevalence of the name, or the fact that a given description has effectively become a proper name (and that proper name has become the common name), generally overrides concern that Wikipedia might appear as endorsing one side of an issue. An article title with non-neutral terms cannot simply be a name commonly used in the past, it must be the common name in current use." That is the common name most commonly used today is "Rama Setu". I would again like to bring into consideration that this also complies with the naming policy quoted"Article titles and redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess and balance that with what readers expect to be taken to."

Thus I humbly request you to change the name of the title and the article to Rama Setu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.59.166.5 (talk • contribs) 07:48, November 12, 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Request a page move if you must, but see the FAQ at the top of this page first. Meters (talk) 07:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * IP user, what matters is the name in English language sources, not local sources(which can be used for the name in those language versions of Wikipedia). 331dot (talk) 10:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2022
Hey,pls change the title of this article from Adams bridge to rama bridge.The story of Adam's Bridge is not mentioned in any religious text.It is just a fabricated story created by al biruni and the name Ram Setu was changed to Adam's bridge by the British only 200 years ago.Rama bridge is mentioned in the Ramayana in 700 BEC.So pls change the title from Adams bridge to rama bridge for god's sake 🙏🙏🙏 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prashanta Chakraborty (talk • contribs) 16:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Adam is just a myth of genesis so pls change the title Prashanta Chakraborty (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read no personal attacks and civility. Have you read the FAQ above? 331dot (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The myth and mystery behind Ram Setu
This was an interesting article, maybe good for something. It also mentions coming publications, "Professor Arup K. Chatterjee, the author of two forthcoming books — Adam’s Bridge (Routledge 2023) and Ram Setu (Rupa 2023)." and " Chatterjee, in his upcoming research paper, Do believe in Ram Setu? Adam’s Bridge, Epistemic Plurality and Colonial Legacy to be published by the journal ‘Island Studies’" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Ram setu (Rama setu)
Everyone knows .. hinduism is the oldest religion. According to science this bridge(rama setu) is build around 4000 year ago. And its not created naturally.

And as per my knowledge Adam just  born AC may be on 6th day or something.

So, definitely its not made by adam. So, please just this bridge Ram setu or Rama bridge.

Thank you.

As i said. Hindusim is oldest religion. If you want to find any answer go scientifically or you can find through hindusim also. I am just saying through. Not to change your religion or convert yourself again and again. Khushal dhingra (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Hinduism is not even close to being the oldest religion. You may find the article Timeline of religion illuminating Dāsānudāsa (talk) 17:38, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe the OP meant that Hinduism is the oldest surviving religion that is still prevalent. Looking at that timeline, it seems to me like what happened before the Hinduism entry represent religions that no longer exist.
 * Of course, the age of a religion has zero relevance to the title of this article. This is the English Wikipedia, so we title the article according to the common name in English. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ram Setu
The title of Adam's bridge shall be Ram Setu not the other way around. The bluecarpels (talk) 08:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, as well as the numerous prior discussions about this topic. 331dot (talk) 09:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 December 2022
Please mark that till now supreme court didn't giver their verdict about tha ram setu, it might be natural or man made. So, I request you to change it 103.204.171.255 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2022 (UTC) More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2022
2405:201:1011:E02A:181B:CDA8:D737:3058 (talk) 06:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC) this is only ram setu not adam brigde
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see FAQ Cannolis (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This article has partial information
This artical doesn't cover on the basis of history of Srilanka and India which is thousands of years old. Partial information not good for any thing. Waste information. This is not ADAMs bridge, this us Ram Setu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.73.219.198 (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If there is missing information about the history of this geographic feature, please offer it along with your reliable sources. See the FAQ at the top of this page as to why the article is titled as it is. 331dot (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 December 2022
Change Adam’s Bridge to Ram Setu 27.33.126.130 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this talk page. Favonian (talk) 10:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The bridge name is not Adams bridge
Bridge name is RamSetu. As per original books and documents when British took control of India they renamed the bridge to 'Adams Bridge's. This page should be changed as RamSetu and also known as Adams bridge. Please stop providing wrong information and start publishing correct information. 76.16.199.166 (talk) 03:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ at the top of this page. Meters (talk) 03:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Name is not Adam Bridge. It's Ram Setu!
Name is not Adam Bridge. It's Ram Setu! The Ram Setu is known as Adam Bridge! Pl correct 2405:201:403D:D7:B1B8:F655:E05C:936C (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. Herostratus (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide an abundance of English-language sources showing that Ram Setu is now the common English language name. —C.Fred (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Revert
, I have reverted your edit. Oak is a pseudo-historian. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 16:38, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @TrangaBellam, I have no idea if that's correct or not. He's not cited for any historical truth, however, but his own views on current politics. Per publisher, I think it's a reasonable inclusion. They thought his view was worth mentioning on this topic, we can think so too. Perhaps other editors will have opinions.
 * Content under discussion:
 * Nilesh Nilkanth Oak, author of The Historic Rama: Indian Civilisation at the End of Pleistocene, states that "regardless of whether I agree or not with the claim that the structure between India and Sri Lanka is Ram Setu, the value of its assumption by those who believe and revere it is the same as what Jerusalem would be for Jews or Mecca for Muslims." 
 * Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Searching for ""Nilesh Nilkanth Oak" in Google News gives about a dozen hits; of them, only the afore-cited IE article passes RS. I am reasonably sure that the journalist was gullible enough to correlate the verbosity of the title of Oak's book with expertise :) TrangaBellam (talk) 12:53, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is one way to assume, sure. It's possible that the journalist had access to some non-English sources, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is one way to assume, sure. It's possible that the journalist had access to some non-English sources, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Source compilation
Talk:Adam's Bridge/sources should be a page to complile sources, Google Trends atond similar things to determine what is the common name for this topic. Inspired from the Talk:Kyiv/sources page. I will start it, for future move requests it should be organised clearly. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 02:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Consider keeping Ram Setu, Rama Setu, etc separate. There may also be a challenge to weed out off-topic hits in recent trends and ngrams, like Ram Setu. Assuming this is meant for a future WP:RM, in which case it's a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point that the film will make evaluating hit trends and ngrams challenging. —C.Fred (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The film was released in 2022, separating the trends would be as simple as looking at the results before the film was announced. The Ngrams end at 2019. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

To read
TrangaBellam (talk) 06:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Subramaniam, Banu. Holy Science: The Biopolitics of Hindu Nationalism. University of Washington Press. 2019.
 * Deloche, Jean, and Pierre-Sylvain Filliozat. “RĀMĀYAṆA’S ‘SETU’ AS SEEN BY APPAYYA DĪKṢITA.” Annals of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, vol. 68, no. 1/4, 1987, pp. 457–69.

Proposal
The ancient Sanskrit epic Ramayana mentions a bridge constructed by the god Rama with aid from an army of Vanaras (monkeys or forest-dwellers) to reach the island Lanka and rescue his wife Sita from Ravana.

In popular belief, Lanka is equated to present-day Sri Lanka and the bridge is held to be created by Rama. However, such a correspondence is not found in Sanskrit sources of the first millennium, some of which even make an explicit distinction between the two islands. The equation appears for the first time in the Kasakudi Copper Plates of Nandivarman II pertaining to the conquest of Sri Lanka by one of his ancestors. The correspondence was gradually co-opted by the Aryacakravarti dynasty of Jaffna who presented themselves as the guardians of the bridge. The bridge was a popular destination for pilgrims in the mediaeval period and was a popular subject for court poets.

117.194.203.44 (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this looks better. The section should be kept limited to what has been interpreted according to the religious texts and not what the researchers have said about identification of Lanka, otherwise the section becomes prone to lending WP:UNDUE weight to unrelated content. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Just two minor edits. I would put the final sentence of the second paragraph into a paragraph of its own since its largely an afterthought in its current place. Also, in the same sentence "mediaeval" should be changed to "medieval." Even though "mediaeval" is correct, "medieval" is more commonplace. Sajiwannaicker (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose - To claim that Robert P. Goldman — widely hailed to the foremost scholar on Ramayana in the academe — is not a reliable scholar on the issue of identification of Lanka and/or the Bridge is borderline ridiculous; the claims of UNDUE are a strategy to eliminate the scholarly consensus on the historicity of the epic. See our section on "Controversy over origin claims" for Hindutva-aligned efforts to present the bridge as a man-made structure, deriving from the Ramayana, and the fight against such (ab)use of history. I do note that the factoid, added by me, about two reputed medieval commentaries on Ramayana distinguishing between the epical Lanka and Sri Lanka has been removed! Granoff is unclear on whether Setubandha (or Bhattikavya or Mahaviracharita) concerns our subject — a real-life geographical artifact — or the mythical bridge (borrowing from Robert Goldman) of Ramayana to the island of Lanka. The proposed use is unwarranted. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of this battleground mentality where you're fighting Hindutva in every edit and assuming bad faith sneaky strategies from those who disagree, you should perhaps consider that this page is not about the historicity of the Ramayana, but about a specific bridge. I reiterate that we can have a Geography of the Ramayana or Historicity of the Ramayana article; we do not need to rehash the whole debate again and again on every related page. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources discuss the (lack of) historicity of the epic and the Hindutva-driven historical negationism, in the Hindu-Right's bid to declare the Ram-Setu as an artificial construct; not me. We need to rehash all relevant details on this page. For a lay-reader who is interested in knowing whether the Hindu Right's bandying of Ramayana to claim about the bridge being a manmade artifact is accurate or not, it is necessary to come across the opinions of the foremost scholar of Ramayana on the historicity of Lanka and allied episodes. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree that all relevant details need to be rehashed on this page. A hyperlink to the Geography of the Ramayana or Historicity of the Ramayana article is adequate. On this page, a simple reiteration that the bridge is a natural formation despite beliefs that it is man-made is adequate. An in-depth argument about whether or not this bridge is the bridge of the Ramayana seems beyond the needs of this page. Sajiwannaicker (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a fair viewpoint true to historical scholarship but I doubt that others will agree with you on whether the in-depth arguments belong here or not. I will wait for others since this is a subjective issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While I agree is Goldman is a reliable scholar on the identification of Lanka and the Bridge, I do not think this page exists to shed light on the historicity of the epic. In the controversy section, the fact that this bridge is not a man-made structure can be reiterated as can the fact that many scholars of Sanskrit agree that this bridge is not Rama's bridge. I hold, however, that that is not content for the religion nor the etymology section, especially if we are combining them. Sajiwannaicker (talk) 21:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We are not merging the religion and etymology section. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Can we get a reason for it rather than a definitive? It seems like others are on board for merging the two especially since the religion subsection Islam does not offer anything novel and the Hinduism subsection can easily be placed in etymology and still be relevant. It seems there's a desire to have a religion section to merely have a religion section. Sajiwannaicker (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not interested in pursuing a frivolous debate. Good luck in convincing others, TrangaBellam (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly new to Wikipedia on the editor side so unsure of what the protocol or method is for straw polls. I guess voice your support or opposition to combining religion and etymology sections below? Sajiwannaicker (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The protocol is 'don't hold polls'. See WP:POLL. MrOllie (talk) 16:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 January 2023
Request to expand the etymology section in order to include Rama's bridge. In brief, add "Adam's bridge is also known as Rama's bridge (Rama Setu) because Hinduism claims that the bridge was built by Rama and his army in order to cross over to Lanka, where they were going to rescue Rama's wife. This claim was originally made in Valmiki's Ramayana, and it has persisted through various editions of the Ramayana." Sajiwannaicker (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)


 * @Sajiwannaicker: What secondary source(s) can we verify this claim in? —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/ram-setu-not-an-ancient-monument-former-v-c-tells-sc/article33805549.ece
 * "According to the epic Ramayana, the bridge was built by the ‘Vanara army’ to rescue Sita, who was kidnapped by Ravana."
 * https://hwpi.harvard.edu/pluralismarchive/news/hindus-protest-possible-destruction-ancient-bridge-ram-setu?page=6
 * "Recent NASA satellite images show clear pictures of the broken bridge that Hindus believe was built by an army of monkeys to help Lord Ram walk over to the land of Lanka to battle its king Ravan, who had abducted his wife. The war and Sita's rescue form the climax of the Hindu epic Ramayana."
 * https://novaonline.nvcc.edu/eli/evans/his111/Notes/RamaBridge.html
 * "You will recall from your reading of the Ramayana that Rama had to rescue Sita from the demon king Ravana who was holding her in Lanka (aka Sri Lanka aka Ceylon), an island south of India. Hanuman, Rama's comrade, with his army of monkey-men built a "bridge," or causeway, across the narrow strait from India to Sri Lanka to reach the island.  There a great battle took place before Rama and Hanuman defeated Ravana and liberated Sita." Sajiwannaicker (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Our article has [sources omitted from reproduction]:
 * As can be understood, the reality is complex than the cacaphony raised by Hindu Right. scholars (not lay-journalists) need to evaluate the usage of "Ram Setu" in referring to the bridge. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, and it is entirely possible that Rama Setu is a different bridge altogether. However, I still believe that a mention of the saga is merited in the etymology section as the term "Rama's bridge" is largely used for the natural land-bridge discussed in this article. Including the history of the term in the etymology section is not an admittance that this is the Rama's bridge, but, merely, it is a nod to the second name for the land-bridge. It can easily be accompanied with "While most scholars disagree that this land formation is the original Rama Setu, popular belief holds that this land bridge was built by Rama in order to rescue his wife." In this way, the etymology section can explain why this land formation is also called Rama Setu or Rama's bridge - which is the purpose of the etymology section - whilst still maintaining a level of separation from the usage of "Rama Setu" and the original Rama Setu, wherever that may be.
 * In a simpler manner, I ask that the first sentence of the quoted passage be moved to the etymology section, with a minor edit so that it reads, "The ancient Sanskrit epic Ramayana mentions a bridge constructed by the god Rama with aid from an army of Vanaras (monkeys or forest-dwellers) to reach Lanka and rescue his wife Sita from Ravana, and popular belief takes this land bridge as the one created by Rama." The remainder of the section can remain in the religion section.
 * My main qualm here is that the etymology section fails to explain all the names of the bridge, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate they may be to the real deal, and that the section ought to be expanded to become more sufficient. Sajiwannaicker (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My main qualm here is that the etymology section fails to explain all the names of the bridge, regardless of how accurate or inaccurate they may be to the real deal, and that the section ought to be expanded to become more sufficient. Sajiwannaicker (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. The "religious significance" section mentions significance in two religions, one in greater detail than the other. Some of that detail should go into the etymology section perhaps, or both these sections can be merged outright; the two sections are unbalanced in opposition directions and have similar themes. While we're at it, a few more things: the current section makes it sound like the connection was invented in tenth century by Chola rulers "seeking a cause to invade". But the cited paper (Henry 2019) is much more nuanced and says something quite different. p. 734: "However, direct identification of Sri Lanka with the abode of Ravana appears from the eighth century in South Indian inscriptional discourse". "[...]the Cholas standardised the equivalence between ‘Lanka’ and ‘Lankapura’ as they began making military headway on the island in the early tenth century". The bridge of course had geopolitical and religious significance, and the connection was accepted by both sides, with Chola kings naturally drawing parallels between themselves and Rama. But that is not the same thing as them having "promulgated" it as they "were seeking a cause to invade". Footnote 7 (p. 733) says "some" ("often" as used in the Wikipedia article seems to be quite a stretch) sources make the distinction (between Lanka and Sri Lanka), but also notes an exception. Perhaps these deviant details in the Wikipedia article came from the book cited last, which doesn't look very reliable, or some other source. If so, that should be made clearer, otherwise it looks like a case of "failed verification". The paper later cites Granoff 1999; which talks of the bridge as a pilgrimage site and mentions several works about it, including the 7th century work Setubandha by Pravarasena (if the Wikipedia article for Pravarasena II is accurate, the work is early as the 5th or 4th century) which recounts how Rama built this bridge, and it was also visited by a disciple of Shankara—this site in Tamil Nadu has been identified with the bridge of Rama long before the tenth century. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 00:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair observations. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Btw, as to the "book cited last, which doesn't look very reliable":
 * While Agashe is not a trained historian, her book has been blurbed and reviewed favorably by multiple academics. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * While Agashe is not a trained historian, her book has been blurbed and reviewed favorably by multiple academics. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Brodbeck 2011 lead: "The Rāmāyaṇa has the appearance of being set in real places in the subcontinent, and many scholars have explored the details given in the text to try to identify the places it mentions, especially Laṅkā. Pargiter 1894 follows Rāma on his travels, step by step; equating Laṅkā with Sri Lanka (Ceylon, in his day), he hypothesizes a dual reference for the term “Vindhya.” Kibe 1936, Iyer 1940, and Shah 1975 in different ways contest the equation of Laṅkā with Sri Lanka, proposing that Laṅkā is not so far south. Chatterjee 1980–1982 has ethnological concerns and criticizes those who would locate Laṅkā in central India. Sankalia 1982 brings archaeological data to the issue and treads a middle ground between the two basic hypotheses, arguing that different Rāmāyaṇa authors imagined Laṅkā’s location differently."

On Chatterjee 1980-82: "Takes the Rāmāyaṇa as a good description of pre-Buddhist India, and discusses its geography in terms of ancient communities and the interactions between āryas and anāryas. Mentions the arguments against the identification of Laṅkā as present-day Sri Lanka but rebuts them in spirited fashion."

So, one pre-independence scholar for the Sri Lanka hypothesis and two against, one post-independence scholar each for and against Sri Lanka hypothesis, and the latest source wanting a middle ground. Hardly enough to say "most scholars" locate it in Madhya Pradesh. Purely weasel words. Even Shah 1975, opposing Sri Lanka hypothesis, apparently locates it somewhere in western India, not Madhya Pradesh. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sankalia does not tread a middle ground. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I find 117.194.203.44's analysis to be mostly correct. While I have replaced "most" with "many" (like it was before), I would also like to hear what type of wording 117 wants. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 12:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Break

 * I interpreted the source as it is while your interpretation is inaccurate because the quote is specifically about locating Lanka. Also, why we are using a Sanskrit scholar to dispute the findings by archaeologists? Only archaeologist should be used for that. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the inaccuracy?
 * Take Goldman's reliability to RSN. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Its a rule of thumb that we don't use a Sanskrit scholar to dispute what archaeologists are saying. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, RSN is thatway. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Aman in spirit. Ideally this is not the page to rehash the debate about where exactly the Ramayana happened, historically or in some specific text. Something about "misguided attempts" has been said now, and what this or that specific text says about Lanka. All that gunk can either be rehashed on every page from Chitrakoot to Ayodhya to Sri Lanka, or we simply put it on a special page like Geography of the Ramayana, or in the case Lanka and leave a simple link at the top of the section. I would prefer the latter.

This page is about a specific geographical bridge (and not a general page on Ramayana geography or Lanka) which we know to exist, which we know has been identified with the bridge built by Rama since at least the 8th century, or the 7th century if I interpret Granoff 1998 correctly or even earlier, and it was visited by pilgrims as Rama Setu for tens of hundreds of years. Speculation: I do not have access to Sankalia 1982, but perhaps the middle ground he was treading was identifying earlier Sanskrit sources as having identified Lanka with Sri Lanka, as Nagar and Nanda 1986 implies: "identification of the Ravana's Lanka with the island of Ceylon or Sri Lanka by Indians seems to have come about after the fourth century A. D. when the Ramayana story had become a part of the popular culture in south India."

This article should note only the most salient facts. I propose something along the lines of:

"The ancient Sanskrit epic Ramayana mentions a bridge constructed by the god Rama with aid from an army of Vanaras (monkeys or forest-dwellers) to reach the island Lanka and rescue his wife Sita from Ravana.

In popular belief, Lanka is equated to present-day Sri Lanka and the bridge is held to be created by Rama. However, such a correspondence is not found in Sanskrit sources of the first millennium, some of which even make an explicit distinction between the two islands. The equation appears for the first time in the Kasakudi Copper Plates of Nandivarman II pertaining to the conquest of Sri Lanka by one of his ancestors. The correspondence was gradually co-opted by the Aryacakravarti dynasty of Jaffna who presented themselves as the guardians of the bridge. (Henry 2019) The bridge was a popular destination for pilgrims in the mediaeval period and was a popular subject for court poets. (Granoff 1998; p. 97: Even before this miracle story collection was compiled, and perhaps long before the site was a popular destination for pilgrims, the building of Rama's bridge was a popular subject for court poets. In the 7th century A.D. Pravarasena wrote his Setubandha, a lengthy poem in Prakrit, which tells the story of building the bridge. Pravarasena embellished the Ramayana account and described really two attempts to build the bridge.)

That's it, that's most of what we need on the bridge, without digression into the weeds of Ramayana geography. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 20:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think that the section is becoming somewhat off-topic topic.
 * Can you draft your proposed version with for better understanding? Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 21:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Where does Granoff state that Setubandha or Bhattikavya or Mahaviracharita concern our subject — a real-life geographical artifact — than the mythical bridge (borrowing from Robert Goldman) of Ramayana to the island of Lanka? As of now, I offer no opposition to adding a line about the S. Indian pilgrim from the 16th century as long as you do not tamper with my content. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll have to look where exactly, if he does so and we can have it without the last fragment for the time being. But "tampering" with your content is important here, the main thrust of my post is that you're stuffing undue, tangential content here when most of it belongs somewhere else (a new Geography of the Ramayana article sounds like a good project you can undertake). We don't need that. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to go back to the beginning of this thread, are we still planning on combining the religion and etymology sections? Sajiwannaicker (talk) 21:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I planned to ask the same question. Are we going to combine them? I am on board.
 * If you're interested, you can also share your opinion on this proposal below, in the proposal section. 117.194.203.44 (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Now, put to straw poll at §Proposal. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I'm closing the request while it is under discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

IT is Ram setu later named as Adams bridge.
If Indians have been referring it for centuries as ram setu. Some British explorer names it as Adams bridge and cooked up a story about Adam then it’s considered as reliable English sources how is that fair? 2405:201:C039:803B:576:9A69:C008:94A7 (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about knowledge and truth is not only about English common name and English known facts. India has more English speakers and readers than UK so write the history and content as it is people will learn to read and spell “rama setu bridge” it won’t be that hard. 2405:201:C039:803B:576:9A69:C008:94A7 (talk) 04:46, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the FAQ a the top of this page. Meters (talk) 05:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I almost hate to say this, but I will. There had been a moratorium on the talk page forbidding suggestions to move or rename the page because of frivolous requests like this. Wikipedia has policies in place like WP:COMMONNAME to regulate how to handle things like this. Requests that ignore WP:COMMONNAME, other WP policies, and the FAQ at the top of the page could lead to another moratorium, so even a well-reasoned move request could not be proposed. —C.Fred (talk) 15:21, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is another spike in page views of this article for some reason. Most of the comments here are from drive bys who have no interest in engaging with us. 331dot (talk) 19:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please explain why this can't be changed when more than a billion people know this as "Ram Setu"? That's more indigenous and more popular. Why are you trying popularise something less known to people? How does it make Wikipedia articles reliable then? Baburaodesai2007 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page, this will answer your question. For more information, please read WP:COMMONNAME- Wikipedia articles are titled based on the most commonly used term in English-language independent reliable sources. The versions of Wikipedia in Indian languages use the term most common in those languages.  Popularity is not relevant. If you can demonstrate that "Ram Setu" is the most commonly used English language term in the preponderance of English langauge reliable sources, please make your case.(note that you are by far not the first person to attempt to do that, many have tried and failed) Otherwise, I would suggest that you direct your energy into asking your government to pressure other countries to recognize the local name of this feature as the English language name. 331dot (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What evidence was used to demonstrate that "Adam's Bridge" is the most commonly used English language term in the preponderance of English language reliable sources? India is an English speaking country and all independent reliable Indian sources refer to "Ram Setu" as such. "Adam's Bridge" is only used in Western sources. The issue here is not language, it is Western imperialism. 122.171.20.74 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't go back in time and undo Western imperialism. This isn't Indiapedia any more than it is USApedia or UKpedia. It's not just sources in India that are controlling here. If you want to change policy from WP:COMMONNAME to a more nationalistic approach with article titles, you are free to work to do that. But until that is done, you need to show that most worldwide English language sources use the local name rather than the current title. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to peruse the archives, IP user. all independent reliable Indian sources refer to "Ram Setu" as such – no, that isn't the case, as you will see when you read the archived discussions. --bonadea contributions talk 19:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: revert the drive-by requests without response
Which is why I'm wondering whether community consensus is to start reverting the drive-by requests on sight again. —C.Fred (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC) Something to do with this perhaps.https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/ram-setu-debate-in-parliament-jitendra-singh-response-2312723-2022-12-23 Doug Weller  talk 20:16, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support reinstatement of removal of drive-by requests on sight - Arjayay (talk) 20:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Doug Weller  talk 20:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as this seems to be a perennial disruption — DaxServer (t · m · c) 23:22, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Honestly I feel the time on this proposal, should it be enforced, should be indefinite. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support The proposed move is contentious. Without a prior successful move discussion there should be no proposed edits to rename the article. Meters (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Maybe add something about this to the FAQ. 331dot (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposed added text: "Because of the frequency of meritless and disruptive requests, any further requests to move the page or to change the name will be removed without consideration, unless the request complies with all relevant Wikipedia guidelines, including WP:Requested moves, WP:Common name WP:Article titles, and WP:Reliable sources." —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2022 (UTC) revised 17:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps instead of WP:Common name, use WP:Article titles? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion. —C.Fred (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per others. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:39, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support proposal including C.Fred's amended text for as long as possible. Favonian (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The FAQ (why deleted/moved) is still using Common Name, and presumably wants updating to use Article Titles? Nosebagbear (talk) 10:49, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Adam's bridge on Muslim Tradition
Is there any reference about Adam's bridge in Quran or Hadith which is considered as the religious text/teachings of Islam? If you can't provided any references ,then mentioning about Muslim/Islam in relation with Adam's bridge is an insult to Islam. Please remove it. Bin2004 (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That part of the article is referenced. If those sources are in error, you will need to take that up with them, not us. Wikipedia is not censored for any reason. If particular information offends you, do not look at it. 331dot (talk) 16:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reference should be genuine one. When it comes to Islam, the final word should be quran or Hadit.Ypou can't use some links created by some one as reference to establish Muslims believe in this cooked up story. Please remove it. Bin2004 (talk) 16:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Your comments reflect a fundamental misunderstanding as to what Wikipedia does. It summarizes what independent reliable sources state about a topic. If you have independent reliable sources that summarize what the Quran says about this topic(not the Quran itself), please offer them for consideration for placement in the article. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not everyone using this site is Muslim, and Wikipedia strives to present information in the most neutral manner as possible. You are free to read up on Reliable sources and explain how the sources aren't reliable with respect to the claim. — Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 16:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Not on Wikipedia, no. See WP:RSPSCRIPTURE and WP:RNPOV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Garden of Eden
This page mentions that Abrahmic religions believe that Adam crossed this bridge from Garden of Eden (Sri Lanka) to mainland Earth (India). However, in the “Garden of Eden” page on Wikipedia none of the possible locations mention the Indian subcontinent. The content on this page and the Garden of Eden page doesn’t match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.115.129 (talk) 04:12, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You are free to add the information here to the Garden of Eden article. As this is a volunteer project where people do what they can when they can, this sort of thing is not uncommon. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t have much information on this topic, and personally would be surprised that Garden of Eden would be in Sri Lanka per Abrahmic religions, as this article suggests. Logically it doesn’t make sense… My concern is that the article has information that cannot be verified, and may potentially be contributing to misconceptions… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.115.129 (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The information is already verified, by the cited sources. MrOllie (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Who is this Mr.Ollie? An expert in historical facts, and a public speaker? I clicked on the link above and didn’t see any details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.115.129 (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You don't need any details about me. Once again, verification is provided by the citations already in the Wikipedia article. Click on the little numbers after the statements. MrOllie (talk) 15:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Got it. I see the citations now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.248.115.129 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One does not need to be an expert in a topic to be able to contribute about it. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
 * One does not need to be an expert in a topic to be able to contribute about it. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Discovery Channel on Ram Sethu
Dr. Ritesh Arya an Indian Hydrogeologist and Guinness World record holder socializing in understanding paleochannels. He is an expert on and did extensive research to understand the mechanism of the formation of Ram Sethu ("Sethu" in Hindi means Bridge) for the serial "Legends of Ramayana" on Discovery Channel [Https://www.cineblues.com/tv-news/discovery-channel-premiere-legends-of-the-ramayana-amish https://www.cineblues.com/tv-news/discovery-channel-premiere-legends-of-the-ramayana-amish]. In the episode aired on Discovery channel, Dr. Arya concluded that the answer to finding the science behind Ram Sethu to be natural or man-made lay in finding the source for the accumulation of the sand in the middle of the two mighty oceans, the Indian and Bay of Bengal. But once the mechanism was understood it was very simple as the source of the sand was from Ganga-Brahmaputra and other rivers transported by currents from the Bay of Bengal southwards and the currents in the Indian Ocean move in the opposite direction. This balance does not allow the sand to flow further and results in the accumulation of sand in that region in the middle of the ocean. So the bridge between India and Sri Lanka existed since time immemorial naturally but changed form, depending on the intensity of the current in the ocean every 6 months. In the rainy season July to January Indian Ocean is very active but from February to June Bay of Bengal is very active. Due to tectonics and climate change the sand in the Ram Sethu changes form and sea levels have constantly risen due to climate change. These sand deposits form like marine sand dunes. The land bridge had been used between the two countries and corals (both floating and non-floating) are used to fill the gap and this is what Nal and Kneel did to make the Ram Sethu. They kept floating corals at the base for the simple reason that these corals weighed less and occupied more space. Thereby increasing the time for the completion of the gaps in the bridge. Dr Ritesh Arya https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ritesh_Arya concluded that the Ram Sethu is natural but was made moveable for the Rams army by the using corals. Hence it got its name Ram Sethu. Chambatale (talk) 00:36, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2023
Remove the term Adams Bridge. In all history no Adam came to make this bridge and should be write fully called the ram setu. 196.207.187.243 (talk) 06:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: see FAQ Cannolis (talk) 06:42, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Ram setu
Adam s bridge isn't a modern name. Hence there is no factual basus fir naming an Indian structure as Adam a bridge. It was first called Ram setu, hence it should be named Ram setu. Lord kai07 (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page as to why this article is titled as it is. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't have any particular good reason it. It just claims that it's called adam bridge because it's an English article. But that doesn't make sense. The bridge is located in India and was officially called as Ram Setu by locals. Lord kai07 (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that is not the claim. This article is titled as it is because the preponderance of English language reliable sources (which is not limited to India) use that name. The versions of Wikipedia in local languages use the name most common in those languages. If you want to change the title of this article, you would need to show that the majority of English language reliable sources use the name locals use. Many have tried and failed over the years. If you really want to attempt such an enterprise, I suggest that you review the prior discussions(linked to above) and examine English language sources. Your other option is to work to change WP:COMMONNAME or other Wikipedia policies. 331dot (talk) 16:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * And there are Indian sources using the name Adam's Bridge. Doug Weller  talk 16:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Another option is to ask your government to pressure other governments to recognize the local name as the proper English name. 331dot (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

What kind of assumption is this? So if locals call it by their local name and some random coloniser names it differently, the coloniser  name will be used? I can't even understand if you are serious or not. Governments? Rama s bridge was the first name given to this place hence it should be named that way. Adam s bridge is just a recent phenomenon. Lord kai07 (talk) 16:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You are in the wrong place to right the great wrong of colonialism. This isn't about colonialism, but what name sources use today and now. I've said how you can proceed. 331dot (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 February 2023
14:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Chadmemer (talk) Chadmemer (talk) 14:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * We cannot evaluate a blank request. Please propose your edit in the format of "change X to Y". 331dot (talk) 14:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2023
Why this is called Adams Bridge also known as Rama Bridge when Rama Bridge is way much older believed by over 5000 years old history. This should be corrected. and not given a western name for an old historical structure. Rashminbs68 (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See FAQ 1 above - Arjayay (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 April 2023
Change the title from "Adam's Bridge" to "Ram Setu". 2405:201:9005:5111:56F:EF3D:D31B:E09C (talk) 14:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌ See FAQ 1 above - Arjayay (talk) 14:13, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Time for a new RM?
The moratorium time has passed. I have added new sources to the /sources page. I also reiterate the comment posted during or after the Kiev/Kyiv RfC: the reason the page gets so many RMs is probably because it is at the wrong title. Solve that and the resultant problems will go away. The ngrams and media position of Ram Setu is much, much better than Kyiv's was at its time. I'll copy this comment at the official RM when someone starts it. 117.251.197.56 (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It would need to be shown that something has fundamentally changed and that now the preponderance of RS now use the local name. 331dot (talk) 14:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree that the number of requests indicates a need to change it. Most requests here are drive-bys with little if any understanding of our policies, and who do not stay and engage with us to learn them. Many recent requests were prompted by the release of a film. 331dot (talk) 14:28, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents you (or maybe WP:AUTOCONFIRM does, idk, but that's not hard to overcome) or anyone else who wants to start a new one, see WP:RM and the rest of that page for instructions. And make sure to decide if you want to change the title to Ram Setu, Rama Setu or something else. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 May 2023

 * 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: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – Material  Works  21:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Adam's Bridge → Ram Setu – Major international and reliable news sources use the proposed title, BBC uses the line Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones, India Today, The Hindu, Quint, Rediff.WP:COMMONNAME, google search results shows "56,70,000" results for Adam's Bridge and "53,80,000" results for Ram Setu, which is really close considering the fact that wikipedia's article titles make huge impact on google search results. Also a point other than the policies that Ram Setu is a sight/place in the Indian Subcontinent, so its name must be with accordance of Indian Beliefs i.e. It is Rama's Bridge or Ram Setu 2405:201:501A:E807:FC52:4137:22EC:CD16 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We're primarily concerned with policies here. WP:COMMONNAME has no allowance for local beliefs. This isn't the place to right the great wrongs of colonialism. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose This again? Nothing has changed since the last time this proposal was made in April 2021 or even the last time I cared to comment on it in July 2018. So, I'll keep it short for now, directing the interesting reader to the 2018 discussion where the issue was hashed out at considerable length.
 * The is: Scholarly sources continue to overwhelmingly prefer the term "Adam's bridge" over "Ram setu" (JSTOR: 198 vs 13; Google scholar: 722 vs 210). And "Adam's Bridge" is the prefered name when talking about the geographical feature and associated geology, ecology, history, economics etc,  with the "Ram setu" name mainly used in context of the politico-religious controversy, which itself has simmered down since its heydays circa 2010. Abecedare (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose and reinstate moratorium for 2 or 3 years. This proposal appears to be DOA. you needn't have bothered formatting your command as a !vote; just a comment, as 331dot did, would have been sufficient. Nothing has changed since the last RM, especially that BBC news source from 2007 cited above. Naturally, Indian sources would call it Ram Setu, that is expected and also has not changed throughout the past RMs. Hand-waving arguments about Google searches, particularly unsubstantiated assertions about Wikipedia having a "huge" impact on search results, are also irrelevant. The fact that actual English sources (not merely Google search results) show double the number of references to "Adam's Bridge" versus "Ram Setu" is further evidence that "Adam's Bridge" is still the common name. Even if the lines in that ngram graph crossed, the preponderance of English sources referring to "Adam's Bridge" throughout history vastly outnumber the comparitively miniscule number referring to "Ram Setu", which is far from becoming the WP:COMMONNAME anytime soon. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a bad faith Oppose, in that it makes a claim already addressed in the proposal. I know you have no interest in renaming this, but you could at least do the proposer the courtesy of pretending you're treating the proposal seriously by reading it properly! HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you're wrong. I read the proposal carefully, and know exactly what it says. And no, I cannot take it seriously when the underlying rationale is so obviously invalid; apparently you didn't bother to read my explanation as to why it's invalid. In contrast, your own "support" !vote below lacks any supporting data, and has zero grounding whatsoever in our policies and guidelines. Anyway, because others have chimed in with needless !voting, I will convert my comment to one. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose move and propose a new one-year moratorium on threads on moving the page or changing the common name used in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:19, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Support move It's time to accept the local name. HiLo48 (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What policy is your viewpoint based in, given that keeping it here has a policy to support such a view? 331dot (talk) 07:03, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and ngrams. Sources provided by the nominator are cherry picked and in some cases quite old; the BBC article is from 2007. BilledMammal (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Abecedare put it well explaining the context between the geographical structure, which this article is about, and the politico-religious squabble — DaxServer (t · m · c) 07:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Abecedare and Anachronist. Support a one-year moratorium. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose – joining once more the WP:COMMONNAME chorus with a sotto voce request for a one-year moratorium. Favonian (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Amend request to "moratorium of at least one year. Favonian (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We can block accounts and protect pages for up to 3 years (if not indefinitely), so the next moratorium can be 3 years too. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, it's reasonable to stick with the standard 1-year. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree that 1 year is sufficient. 331dot (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * How about we split the difference and do 2 years? Personally I'd prefer 3 (I've been involved in many of the discussions on this page in the past, before the move lock, moratorium, FAQ etc... got tired of repeating myself.) but I also won't fight it if consensus is 1 year. Paris1127 (talk) 16:32, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say I'm opposed to two years, but I think this being reviewable after a year is not unreasonable. I do not wish to stand in the way of two years if that is the consensus. 331dot (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2023 (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.
 * Oppose per Abercedare, Anachronist, et al, but suggest a longer moratorium this time. Paris1127 (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oppose, as per the arguments provided by Abecedare and Anachronist. Support two year moratorium. Dan arndt (talk) 06:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Just shoot me. Let's just rename it to List of butterflies of Europe and be done with it. Herostratus (talk) 21:32, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * "Oppose" per Abecedare. Also, a simple google search from my location throws up 93 million hits for Adam's Bridge and a meagre 5 million for Ram Setu. A hefty chunk of the latter is dominated by a movie of the same name (with, um, interesting reviews!). Not even close in common usage. RegentsPark (comment) 21:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

New moratorium
The closure of the above doesn't address the moratorium issue(not that it should have, just saying). Sounds like the only issue is whether it should be more than a year. I stand by my views above. 331dot (talk) 00:08, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Among those who made any statement about it, the consensus was more than one year. I advocated three. I'm happy with two. Any objections? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prefer 1 but will not oppose 2. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Prefer 2 but will not oppose any number greater than or equal to 1. Favonian (talk) 09:49, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel that 3 is too long. I'd prefer 1 but won't argue against 2. Meters (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * My preference would be an event- rather than a time-based trigger for when an eighth (!) RM can reasonably be started. Say, when the ratio of JSTOR articles using Adam's Brige vs Ram Setu has reduced from 10:1 to 2:1, whether that happens in 6 months or in 20 years. I realize that this proposal is unlikely to be adopted due to (among other possible objections) its novelty, but the point I am trying to make is any future proposal should be based on solid evidence that usage has changed and not be merely another roll of the dice because some arbitrary time has passed. Abecedare (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Abecedare. This is a nice way to tackle the issue. TrangaBellam (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Although I like the idea of an event, rather than a time-scale, Abecedare's suggestion is based on "scholarly sources", whereas Article titles should be based on the Commonname, not scholarly sources. JSTORs list also includes a lot of mismatches - currently, the fourth entry is to Pulteney Bridge and the fifth to "Montana's Minneapolis Bridge Builders". Unless we can come up with a way to measure the Commonname, a time-scale is the only practical solution, and is also easily understood by the lay-reader. As for its duration, I'd prefer 1 year, but wouldn't argue against 2, or maybe pick a specific date in between like 31 December 2024 or 1 January 2025 ? - Arjayay (talk) 09:59, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I've posted this on WP:RFCL. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The last moratorium was for a year, and it has been two years since the last request; before that, there were three years between move requests. Given that, I don't believe a moratorium is required at this time. BilledMammal (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal That's between properly structured move requests. There are requests with no justification that come in weekly, if not more. —C.Fred (talk) 00:20, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True, but we've been able to deal with those without a moratorium for a year. BilledMammal (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Oppose any moratorium. If the readers are consistently complaining about the article's title, that is a pretty good indication that the article is named wrong. We've been through this before (see Talk:Kyiv/naming for a textbook example), and the complaints will stop if the article is moved. –  bradv  02:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There's also examples like Talk:Cat Stevens, Talk:Turkey and Talk:Czech Republic. That Kyiv was moved in 2020 doesn't mean that the 12 "not moved" discussions from 2007 and onward was closed "wrong" in the WP context. WP:ADVOCACY is a thing and can be a significant time-sink. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are other readers from areas other than India who are not complaining. Most of the complaining comes from drive-bys who don't engage with us, many of whom were motivated by a recent film. 331dot (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 August 2023
The Bridge is called Ram Setu. Or Rama’s Bridge.

There is no need to call it Adam’s Bridge. Please have the title reflect the correct name. 74.14.196.204 (talk) 21:45, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. M.Bitton (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2023 (UTC) Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. M.Bitton (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a perennial request which is always rejected as most who make it are not familiar with our guidelines(like WP:COMMONNAME). Usually we direct them to the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * IP User, please see the FAQ at the top of this page. 331dot (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I recall a community agreement recently to revert these requests on sight. These are drive-by posts that don't require any more attention than reverting them. If they cannot be bothered to read the talk page header or the first section of this talk page, they won't be bothered to read the response, so we're wasting our time by responding. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. M.Bitton (talk) 00:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For reference, the discussion is here: Talk:Adam's Bridge/Archive 8. See also "Why was my comment removed?" in the FAQ. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was giving M.Bitton some leeway here. :) 331dot (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Why the article is titled Adam's Bridge instead of Rama Setu?
"Rama Setu" is a name deeply rooted in Hindu history and tradition. According to Hindu history, Lord Rama and his army built a bridge of floating stones (setu) to reach Sri Lanka, and this bridge is believed to have historical and religious significance for many people. "Rama Setu is a symbol of love" using the name "Rama Setu" provides a clear geographic context. It immediately associates the bridge with the epic story of Lord Rama and his journey to Lanka. Choosing "Adam's Bridge" may be seen as emphasizing a specific religious interpretation of the feature, as it is based on the belief that the bridge was constructed by Adam in Abrahamic traditions. Opting for "Rama Setu" in certain contexts avoids any potential bias toward one religious perspective over another. It's important to recognize that titles can vary across different sources and contexts. Some articles or publications may use "Adam's Bridge" while others prefer "Rama Setu" based on their intended audience and purpose. 59.98.150.174 (talk) 10:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Note that there is a moratorium on proposals to change the title of this article. 331dot (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Off-topic, but
If this should happen, there may be a discussion or 135. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Help needed
@331dotUser:Gråbergs Gråa Sång see   Doug Weller  talk 07:55, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * @Anachronist seems to be doing stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 January 2024
From "India" by Al-Beruni, page 100-101

"The distance from Panjayavar to Ramsher (Rameshar, Rameshwaram?) is 40 farsakh, that between Ramsher and Setubandha 2 farsakh. Setubandha means bridge of the ocean. It is the dike of Rama, the son of Dasaratha, which he built from the continent to the castle Lanka. At present it consists of isolated mountains between which the ocean flows. Sixteen farsakh from Setubandha towards the east is Kihkind the mountain of the monkey. Every day the king of monkeys comes out of the thicket together with his hosts, and settles down in particular seats prepared for them. The inhabitants of that region prepare for them cooked rice, and bring it to them on leaves. After having eaten it they return into the thicket, but in case they are neglected, this would be the ruin of the country, as they are not only numerous but also savage and aggressive. According to the popular belief, they are a race of men changed into monkeys on account of the help which they had afforded Rama when making war against the demons; he is believed to have bequeathed those villages to them as a legacy. When a man happens to fall in with them, and he recites to them the poetry of Rama and pronounces the incarnations of Rama, they will quietly listen to him; they will even lead on the right path him who has gone astray and give him meat and drink. At all events, thus the matter stands according to popular belief.

- India by Al-Beruni, page 100-101

Abridged Edition of Dr. Edward C. Sachau's English Translation Edited with Introduction and Notes by Qeyamuddin Ahmad, Second Edition Third Reprint 1995

farsakh: a persian unit for measuring distance that equals three and a half to four miles

Abu Raihan Muhammad ibn Ahmad, a Muslim of Iranian origin, commonly known as Al-Beruni, born A.D. 973 at the outskirts of Khawarizm (modern day Khiva in Uzbekistan), wrote Kitabu'l Hind in around 1030 during the reign of Sultan Mahmud. He was the first person to document Hindu beliefs regarding Setubandha, now known as Ram Setu.

This should be corrected in the article and his description can be added Afv12e (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Your request is quite vague. Please make a specific suggestion of what should be corrected and how it should be corrected. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Al-Biruni's Tārīkh al-Hind (c. 1030) was probably the first to use the name Adam's Bridge
 * This sentence is wrong in the article, Al-Biruni's Tārīkh al-Hi used Setubandha instead of Adam's Bridge Afv12e (talk) 20:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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. Shadow311 (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The change wanted is reasonably clear, I think. I checked the ref in the article and made this change based on what it said:. Afv12e, thanks for pointing this out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:50, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Afv12e (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Just wondering in the source where it mentioned that 'it was during Al Beruni times the word 'Adam's bridge' first appeared.
 * Because even Al Beruni used the word 'Setubandha ' and he bever used 'adam's bridge' in his writings. Afv12e (talk) 14:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What I'm reading is bottom of page 58, and I attempted to paraphrase that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In the article, the rephrased sentence :
 * The name Adam's Bridge appeared probably around the time of Al-Biruni (c. 1030)
 * and in the source the original sentence :
 * The term Adam's Bridge does not appear to have been given by the Arabians until the time of Albyrouni (1030 a.d.).
 * These sentences convey similar meaning but :
 * the second statement makes it clearer that the term itself wasn't in use among Arabians prior to that time
 * So is that apt to use the second sentence itself ? Afv12e (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * To me there's not much of a difference. @Anachronist, feel like having an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're referring only to when the name appeared, both sentences say the same thing. If we're referring to whether Arabians were using that term, then perhaps Arabians could be mentioned, but in the context of the paragraph I don't think it's necessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)