Talk:New Moor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

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)

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)

Existence

Does this island exist at this moment? I read from several sources that this island has eroded, and can't be found in latest satellite photos from Google Earth/Maps. --Ragib (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed as well that in Google Earth's image it's missing....I believe it looks very similar to the similarly formed sandbar landform (Sarwar Island) 34 km to the east northeast......If this spot has an image just like the spot 34 km away, I think that is what we would see. The image in GE covering the exact spot and especially the image from 21-36-30 south may suffer from GE's practice of "fuzzying up" or "smoothing" actual images when they approach the ocean "blue bathymetry data" area. .

It does show up as an island right at that location, listed under "India", at the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) site at http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/index.html and also as an island on an old 1:250,000 scale US map (with the word "breakers" there too.) The two countries have made so many official recent statements about the island, it must exist. "New Moore Is." is also shown clearly, in the correct spot (at exactly the coordinates now shown...21-37-00N 89-08-30E ) on that 1991 hydro chart for sale, in a crescent shape just like someone describes in the article, and that '91 chart shows Sarwar Is. as just a tiny dot. The growth of the similarly-located Sarwar Is. (mouth of big silt-laden river) since then is very significant as you can see on Google Earth, so it makes sense that S. Talpatti-New Moore has grown too.....if only GE had the better (detailed, in this case, browner) imagery for the S. Talpatti area, it would help!

That hydro chart shows 16 to 22 meter depths just to the east of the island, and only 3 to 11 meter depths immediately to the west of the island.DLinth (talk) 17:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I am just curious about the current state ... there is no doubt that the Talpatti island existed in 1991 or so, but I am curious whether it has eroded or not. Do you have any recent data / map showing it? The NGA data -- is it based on a new satellite image? It is not unusual for chars and other silt-created islands to erode/shift/grow/shrink, so may be this one had a similar fate. As for recent news reports ... the island came up because the India and BD are marking their nautical boundaries, and the island's ownership will play a role in it. So, they probably don't care if it exists or not in reality when writing these reports. --Ragib (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Existance

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)

This image was taken in 1985 [1]. Here is an image taken in 2002 that shows no sign of the island [2]. --Lasunncty (talk) 23:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Should the article really say that it was swallowed by rising sea levels. The evidence does not appear to support that conclusion.

If you take the article linked below at its word sea level has been rising at a rate of .12 inches per year prior to 2000 and at .2 inches per year since then. If the maximum elevation of the island was 2 meters (78.74 inches) and it appeared in 1974 then sea level has risen 26 x .12 + 10 x .2 = 5.12 inches since the island was born. Accordingly global warming sea level rise only caused about 6.7% of the islands loss of elevation (and that is assuming that the island reached its peak in its first year of existence). Also if you follow the logic of the scientists you would be forced to conclude that sea level was dropping prior to 1974; otherwise why did the island appear? Could it be that the real answer is that this is just a sandbar? Sandbars routinely appear and disappear because of shifts in current flows.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/new-moore-island-disappea_n_511162.html

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)

Re: Existance

Based on latest german news the island does not longer exist: [3] 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)

The spot looks really strange on Googlemaps, as if they had wiped it out with Photoshop. Too eager to be up to date?--87.162.15.206 (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The numbers don't add up

This article presents several unpronounced questions which I think ought to be delineated and discussed. First, can the regional seas rise more than ocean-levels worldwide? Also, couldn't the landmass have sunk rather than the sea level rise? Only the second would be possible to related to global climate change. Then there are the actual numbers, which also don't seem to add up, at all. With the island first being described and charted in 1974, and even having increased in size during the past 36 years, and the sea level rising 5mm a year, there is an apparently insurmountable discrepancy in the calculations. By these numbers the sea level surrounding the location of the island has risen 18cm. That is not enough to have made the island disappear if there aren't also movements of the underlying landmasses. __meco (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the article should be editted to make it clear that though newspaper reports link it to global warming that is unlikely to be the case. Even if rise is 5 mm a year thats only 170mm since 1974 which wouldnt sink a 2m island, additionally does even that reported 5mm rise correctly agree with figures in the atlantic say. Its probably a sandbar and has simply shifted as even seabed subsidence is normally slow. JDN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.176.244 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Given that Bangladesh actually has gained landmass (almost 20 square kilometers per year[4]), I think the "global warming ate island" conclusion is quite misleading. Very often, reports like this are showcased as the "proof" of global warming. But if you look into the Bengal delta, the whole area changes frequently like this, and this has been going on for thousands of years. For example, the island Sandwip is now a fraction of what it used to be. Not due to warming, but due to erosion. The island Hatiya is having the same fate. At the same time, the island Nijhum Dwip is growing in area every year. The numbers of global warming won't add up ... the erosion rates would. But "erosion ate island" is not a hot spicy headline, so that doesn't attract media. --Ragib (talk) 16:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Can you try to find a source for that? Otherwise it's just speculation. CheesyBiscuit (talk) 16:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for what? That Bangladesh actually adds 20 square kilometers every year? See above. --Ragib (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm very much with Ragib on this one. The article states and cites that this island wasn't even exposed prior to 1974. This is not evidence of global climate change, but rather of a local mechanism. As a result I suggest removal of the weasel words herein. Bryteline (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm also very suspicious - for example, I'm suspicious of what will happen if there's a drought and the river flow decreases - but Wikipedia just mirrors what is published and should neither add nor take away anything based on personal opinions.

Speaking of personal opinions, I have to wonder: did anyone propose splitting the island? Don't islands like this usually form opposite the mouth of a river, smack dab in the middle of the flow? Or does the "thalweg" principle not allow for splitting of river outflows? Wnt (talk) 16:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If the island emerged in 1970, as the Wikipedia article suggests, then wouldn't it stand to reason that the island's disappearance is a result of the water removed from the Ocean slowly making its way back? It is near the outlet of two rivers, after all. That said, 40 years is an awful long time for a previously submerged piece of land to return to its previous state. 142.163.154.192 (talk) 19:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, return of water isn't a realistic reason ... sea levels do not work that way. The only realistic cause I can think is erosion. According to Banglapedia, the erosion of islands is a common natural phenomenon in this delta. Quoting from Banglapedia's article on coastal erosion: Available data for the last 75 years (1913-1988) show that Sandwip was reduced to about 50% of its original size, with considerable erosion northwest and accretion southeast. Map comparisons show that erosion on the northwest coast of Sandwip accelerated after 1963. It was about 200m per year between 1913 and 1963 and about 350m per year between 1963 and 1984. Urirchar grew from 3 sq km in 1963 to 46 sq km by 1981. [5]. If Sandwip lost almost 350 meters of coastline per year, it is not unreasonable for a smaller (and newer) island like Talpatti to lose most of its tiny landmass in a couple of decades. --Ragib (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming

The current name is awful. In case of islands with disputed names, I think the norm in Wikipedia is to use the most common one, and mention the name inside the article. No articles have the / in name. For example, see Falkland Islands. I recommend to move the article to a new one.

Also, while we are deciding on a name, I would like to move it back to the previous name. The current move was unilateral and undiscussed. I'm fine with using the most popular name ... but having both names in the title is a horrible way to compromise. --Ragib (talk) 01:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Ragib, you really think we'll be able to determine the most "popular" name while being immune to bias and POV? And I hope you realize that given the difference in the size of netizens from India and Bangladesh, the latter will face a severe disadvantage in this case. Anyways, works for me.

"New Moore" gives 247,000 hits, "South Talpatti" gives 335,000 hits.

Even in news articles regarding the recent events, New Moore was more widely used to refer to the island: 693 to 461. Thanks--Nosedown (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I was not actually referring to GHits, which are unreliable and subject to bias. But anyway, what is another existing example of such an uninhabited island, disputed by two countries and called two names? I'm looking at Category:Disputed islands to see another such example and naming precedent exists. --Ragib (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Rename it Stroke Island :-) ? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:55, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Good example there. Another good example is Imia/Kardak which is disputed between Greece and Turkey. I don't think there is any point in continuing this useless discussion further as this is the best possible solution. So, I'm reverting Ragib. --Nosedown (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the example, Tivedshambo and King Zebu. Since the "stroke" naming style has more than one precedent, we can definitely use it here. So, I have no problem with the stroked version of the article title. Thanks for the feedback. --Ragib (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Indianzed Wikipedia

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)

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)