Talk:New Moor/Archive 1

message: I think the map shown here has been illustrated in a manner that favors the argument by Bangladesh. 75.111.198.59 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, definitely the one sentence near the end and the one line on the map did, with no evidence to support that.  In fact, available evidence (official hydro charts, appearances on imagery including Google Earth) show just the opposite....a deeper channel to the east, favoring India (BTW, I'm not from the region.)  Fixed on 5/27/09.DLinth (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: this image should answer your question, look for the white spot.
http://academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/wetland/tropical/sunder2.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.250.103 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This image was taken in 1985 .  Here is an image taken in 2002 that shows no sign of the island .  --Lasunncty (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Concur.  That newspaper article is crappy to say the least.  Sea levels don't magically rise in one particular bay, and the rate is so low that even the 2m or so would take 600 years to be submerged under legitimately rising waters.  Those are tidal influences.  It was also a sandbar to begin with. and only 40 years old.  The article makes it sound like some long-term geologic structure subsumed under rising waters.  I realize it's hard to find sources, but that sources is very poor.76.219.161.202 (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Existance 

message: Based on latest german news the island does not longer exist:
Sven Schäfer 13:23, 24 March 2010  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.89.25.84 (talk)  
Also reported by the BBC: Disputed Bay of Bengal island 'disappears'  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.206.1.49 (talk) 12:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Existance 

message: The whole wikipedia every article, ( if india is invloved ) is india-leaning. It very much indianapedia rather than any neutral encyclopedia. Check every other article where india is realated suppose kashmir, srilanka issue, poor countries of the world,  bhutan foreign issue, cyclones in bangladesh-srilanka ----  everwhere all are indian versions of truth.  Could any administrator begin a 'reform' to make the REALLY NEUTRAL versions to get rid of these indians POV?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.65.231.123 (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You may well be right - the problem is that we don't know how to fix the bias.  Most of us are Americans or Europeans who just don't know both sides of the issue.  We look up whatever English language sources are on the Web... probably strongly biased toward India.  That's why we need editors like you to join the Wikipedia project (preferably signing up with a user name - many people's IP numbers change, so I don't know if you'll ever see comments at your IP number talk page).  We need you not just to tell us that we're biased, but to list the sources that give the other side of the story, and preferably to start editing the articles to describe what they say. Wnt (talk) 02:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Indianzed Wikipedia