Talk:Hogenakkal Falls/Archive 1

Spelling

Is the spelling (Hogenakal with one "k") correct? I am aware of the fact that the Latin spelling of Indian place names is subject to variations, but Hogenakkal (with two "k") scores significantly more Google hits than the spelling with one "k". At the least, a redirect from one spelling to the other would be prudent. -- 129.69.181.199 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hogenakkal

Which state is Hogenakkal Falls located in ? I was under the impression that it is in TN, as is reported by this site.

Why do we need both Tamil and Kannada transliterations ? Depending on what state it is located in, I think we should remove the other.

Since no objections have been raised, I presume it's ok to remove the Kannada transliteration. Lotlil 14:22, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tamilnadu Tourism Official website mentions here that the falls are on the border, so makes sense to retain both -- Amarrg 09:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While I think you've misunderstood the meaning of that statement in Tamilnadu tourism website, you at least had the decency to bring citations and argue, unlike some vandals who keep reverting without knowing squat about anything. In any case, it lies on the border, but comes under the jurisdiction of GoTN, so even if you want to include Kannada, it has to be behind Tamil. Lotlil 13:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I dont think I have misunderstood. By the way, the question on who has the jurisdiction of the falls is inconclusive as seen here. The current order is good enough. Moreover, Hogenakal is a word derived from Kannada and hence Kannada transliteration deserves to be the first -- Amarrg 13:56, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurisdiction of Hogenakal Falls is not disputed, it is firmly with TN. The website you listed only says the following:

"...condemning the encroachment of an island near Hogenakal Falls."

So what is being questioned is not the falls itself, but an island near it. Lotlil 14:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please see this article (which is the Dharmapuri District official website and says - Hogenakal is at the border of Karnataka) and this (The Hindu - which says that the actual boundary is in the middle of the Cauvery river, and hence the Hogenakal Falls). Actually Kar and TN wanted to do a joint survey of the area to clear the dispute, but it has not happened. Till it is through, we cannot say that one state or the other has a jurisdiction over the falls itself. Hope this clarifies -- Amarrg 16:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, your link only says the following:

"Even as the argument between the State and Tamil Nadu over an island near Hogenakkal Falls threatens to become a serious dispute..."

So, again, the dispute is about an island not the entire falls. The boundary being the middle of the river is only where the river forms the boundary of the states. This is only true at the higher elevations and does not follow along the waterfall. And, I dont see any mention about joint survey, could you give a link? Lotlil 16:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You can interpret it the way you want but IMHO if Dharmapuri district (and TN tourism website) had complete jurisdiction on the falls it would have mentioned that the falls are in the district and not on the border of Karnataka. If you want to discredit the contents of an official district website of Tamil Nadu, I will find it futile to discuss further on this... -- Amarrg 16:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Amar, please.. Sarvagnya 21:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I had been ignoring this page for a while since I got busy elsewhere, but there seems to be some activity of late, so I thought I'd chime in. Amar seems to interpret "being at the border" to mean "shared jurisdiction". While I don't agree with the interpretation, I can see that there's some ambiguity at the source. So, I want to bring in a more authentic and explicit reference from GoI. This link pretty much walks you through the course of the river, saying what part of it lies in what state. Excerpt:

At Sivasamudram, the river dips by about 97m. in a series of falls and rapids and, after flowing through a very narrow gorge, continues its East-ward journey and forms the boundary between the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for a distance of about 64km. Below Sivasamudram, it receives the Shimsha, and then Arkavathy, just before entering the territory of Tamil Nadu. In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir. It leaves the Eastern Ghats below Mettur and is joined by Bhavani, about 45 km. downstream.

Lotlil 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Amarrg's contention is that since Tamilnadu tourism site states its on the border with Karnataka, it belongs to Karnataka. But the Karnataka tourism doesn't even mention the falls. If it were to lie on the Karnataka side of the border, it should have been mentioned in the State's tourism site. Also there is a lot of talk about a dispute whether Hogenakkal belongs to Karnataka or Tamil nadu. This allegation is baseless as there is no such claim made by the Karnataka government at any time. There is only a dispute regarding some islands near the falls and the surveys were meant to iron it out. 159.53.46.141 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Kindly note that Hogennakal falls is in Tamilnadu and not in karnataka. i guess we need to stop the editing of this article and revert it back to its original form of the falls being in tamilnadu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aravind.iyer (talk • contribs) 08:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong.hogenakal belongs to karnataka.not tamilnadu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.194.90 (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

How far is it from Chennai

Hogenakal is more than 350 KMs from Chennai. It is 20 KMs from Male Mahadeshwara Hills in Karnataka and 45 Kms from Dharmapuri in Tamilnadu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanindian (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

its all fake... hogenakal belongs to karnataka has the name only suggests its belongs to karnataka no more arguments..

There is a dispute in the content of "Land dispute" link in this page.

The fact that the content under "Land dispute" in this page is abruptly written and abruptly ended too seems to expose the misquoted content of the page that it is linking to. Has Wikipedia referred to this link and examined its reliability? As far as facts go, there is no such claim made by Karnataka state to have Erode and such places in its possession. Besides, I wonder why a dispute about these lands needs to be mentioned here on a page talking about Hogenakal falls and perhaps the dispute of the border between KA and TN states. Erode is visibly far away from the border nearing these falls.

I strongly urge re-phrasing the land dispute section to make it sound more reasonable in this context. This link would be helpful in understanding the context —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohith.br (talk • contribs) 15:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i too know erode is far away but that is what kannada saluvali katchi thalaivar had to say..please get a tamil interpreter to read the text in this widely circulating respected newspaper dated 2 april 20008 @ http://dkn.dinakaran.co.in/firstpage.aspx# Lieskillme (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Location of Hogenakal falls

Since the Hogenakal falls is originally considered (and a fact indeed) to lie well inside Karnataka's border, and never, inside of Dharmapuri district of Tamilnadu, it makes little sense for Wiki to be talking like this about this waterfall of Karnataka. It is agreeable that there is an ongoing dispute in Indian courts about this border, but please give it a thought before telling me what sense does it make for one to provide google map links to prove (a myth that it is) one's point? Does the satellite see the borders that really matter? Google maps can only show you the maps that it has been given by the central govt of India - and that is what is being disputed. So now, tell me, if you think that providing this kind of evidence to (mis)quote things is congruent with Wiki principles.

Besides, I have shown it very clearly, and everyone accepts it too. The name of the waterfall is in Kannada, and that it goes to show how much it belongs to Karnataka itself. And its not that it has been named only recently like that, unlike some places names in today's Karnataka, which the Tamils may come back claiming, but Hogenakal has been its name since the waterfall had been spotted by people in that area - and those people spoke Kannada then, and not Tamil.

Even today, people originally belonging to that place speak Kannada, and are part of the Karnataka state, not Tamilnadu.

"Stop publishing that Hogenakal falls belongs to Tamilnadu, accept reality, speak to your own mind, and then think about what you want, and a fair way of getting it." - this is to the person repeatedly editing the content on this page in favour of myths and lies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohith.br (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree,Hogenakal belongs to karnataka. - MCM19 (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

To thow some more light:- Hogenakal is a confluence of two words Hoge --> Smoke and kalu --> Rock / stone in Kannada.This verdant falls is engulfed by smoke. The apparent smoke is formed by the water descending from the falls. Hence this was named as smoke rock. This aboriginal name was coined from the language of the land Kannada. Hogenakal is situated in Chamarajnagara District, Karnataka State. Although this has been made a controversial land, TN has weak arguments to claim. This has been branded as disputed land, much unfortunate for Karnataka. Still Karnataka has the right over the land until the Issue is resolved. All law of Karnataka Government and only Karnataka Government is officially applicable in Hogenakal. One Illustration: Law and order perspective: Any crime, theft,.. are reported to Chamarajnagara Police station (in Karnataka state). First information report (FIR) is filed in Chamarajnagara Police Karnataka State. --59.92.140.116 (talk) 09:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)Subramanya

Please provide references on when Karnataka Government contested Tamil Nadu's juristriction over Hogenakkal Falls. As per the quotes provided in this site, only some islands near the falls are disputed by Karnataka Government.

Also please provide references (Website quotes from karnataka govt/Central govt or tamil nadu govt sites) that it belongs to Chamarajanagara district in Karntaka.

If your claim is purely based on the origin of the name "Hogenakkal", it stands no legal ground just like the fact that Belgaum does not belong to Maharashtra inspite of that place having a Marathi speaking majority and the mayor of that city passing a resolution to join Maharashtra according to the wishes of the people of that district.--Gthorvey (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess this discussion is leading to a troll with POVs. Lets get WP:RS over here with what we gotto say. Did Karnataka give a go to TN for the Hogenakkal water project? Yes as far as the old news that we can see [1] and also [2]. If someone can produce references before the current year (since the crisis has risen up now), then we can see some logic in it. Yes Hogenakkal is a Kannada word and so is India a Latin word of Greek derivatives. But lets keep our own POVs and ORs out. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

River as border

According to the co-ordinates given in this site and according to Google Maps, WikiMapia and MSN Maps, the river never forms the border between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu [3].

According to this map, the river flows through mutthathi forests in Karnataka, enters Tamil Nadu and continues to flow into Billgundala in Tamil Nadu and re-enters Karnataka beyond Hogenakkal falls.

A Youtube video reference is provided of Mr. H N Nanje Gowda. This guy happens to be a former Karnataka Minister belonging to BJP[4], which TamilNadu is accusing of starting this controversy for political gains in the upcoming Karnataka general elections. How can his statement be considered as neutral or authentic?

Please remove this section if further references are not given.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthorvey (talk • contribs) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Youtube can't be used as WP:RS, agreed on that. The news of his support for the project and his view that the falls comes under the TN territory was report here. Although this is not english WP:CITE states that ...However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it... It can also be argued again that this is a Tamil website and would support TN stand-point. But thatstamil.com is part of oneindia.com which also runs thatskannada.com and hence they cannot be argued as single sided. But to keep out trolls and maintain calm here I shall rephrase the sentence there. If someone still feels that it has not been phrased properly leave a {{lopsided}} tag there. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this statement cannot be argued as biased but is it accurate? The below statement contradicts the state boundary according to Google Maps. Which one do we take as accurate?

The Kaveri river which flows on a stretch of around 60kms (on the periphery of Chamarajanagara district, Kollegala Taluk, in Karnataka), having Karnataka on one side and Tamilnadu on the other forms a virtual border between the two states.

--Gthorvey (talk) 17:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup Gthorvey, I don't think that is right. Feel free to remove it, lets see if someone comes up with a ref for that. Well spotted. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

edited the article with actual references

i have edited the article with actual references from both the state and central governments records . and stubbed it as Tamilnadu geo-location stub .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted your edits.
Reason->boundary is still in dispute
see http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/30/stories/2005093006130400.htm - MCM19 (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey MCM19! Please read your own reference. It states Row between State and Tamil Nadu on jurisdiction over island near the tourist spot of Hogenakkal Falls. There is no dispute on the falls (on which this wiki article is about) but only about an island near the falls. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

MCM19's Deccan herald reference [5]

I think MCM is failing to read that his own reference says that the falls is in TN. It clearly states Hogenakal Falls is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful places in Tamil Nadu state. and I dont see how you can call Deccan herald better source over Govt websites. Although right now I would like to AGf with you, please refrain from adding things without reading to wikipedia. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

it cleary states hogenakkal falls is situated in karnatka -tamilnadu border.can you see it?? - MCM19 (talk) 15:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how is Deccan herald more RS than Govt website? And it states both that it is in the border and on the TN. Which part of this is hard to understand for you? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

previous references which is added by User:Pearll's sun is not from a government website. please recheck it. - MCM19 (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you know what NIC.IN stands for? Do you know who owns it? Do you know who hosts websites for President of India to all the ministries? Please get your info straight. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry,i've no idea about NIC
those reference links cites for Hogenakkal_(village) not about hogenakkal falls - MCM19 (talk) 15:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

NIC is Govt establishment. Where does it state that it is about the village and NOT about falls? Is this your OR. Remember that you have already breached 3RR. It is best practice to revert your changes. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

sorry ,i'am in sleepy mood,unable to reply.do whatever you want,add anything you like.i never comeback to this article page again.bcoz i failed to prove the information which is true. - MCM19 (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

so u must have been in a sleepy mood while you edited all those references .lol. so you'v failed to prove your informations , you must first agree to the point that when you fail to prove something it's better to recheck the trueness/actualness of all those you've learn t which may or may not be correct , and moreover as User:Wiki San Roze stated all NIC websites are a part of the ministry of information and technology and is in no way a private concern so you have no way other than to trust it . we never discourage members who produce true references from trustable\good sources . it's wise to learn something that is true than to quit it , simply quitting leaves you simply leaves you to trust false claims .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Village or the falls

There has been a new perspective arised by some editors that the census data may point out to the village and not to the falls. The website doesnt say that it is not the falls but only the village and people who have been indeed following this issue would know that the dispute has always been only on the island and not on the falls. A clear case of misunderstanding is very evident. Coming back to the point of village or falls unless someone comes with a RS that the census data on nic.in domain is pointing to the village. As I said earlier in the previous section, this would stay as an OR to claim that the census is talking about village, unless someone comes up with an RS on it. Please do not troll, edit war without sources. Moverover, may I request all editors to discuss before making changes. I am indeed aware of WP:BOLD, but for a disputed article like this, anyone who wants to maintain peace will discuss before making major changes. And please use your own reasoning if your changes are prone for edit warring and if it does, please discuss. Cheers. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please refer to this report on Cauvery issue on Ministry of Law website(THANKS TO Lotlil). It clearly states that the FALLS without any ambiguity that it is within TN. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

i wish if all the members who edit the article without knowing the actual facts from the government websites . so im here providing all the infos which are mentioned in the government gazette . [6][ http://www.tn.gov.in/policynotes/archives/policy2004-05/tourism2004-05-2.htm][7] . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 18:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is really shameful to see that people are still reverting their own POV in spite of loads of references provided that the falls was always regarded to be part of TN. Even Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation (THANKS @ the $un$hine) agrees on it. So what is the problem folks? Pushing your POV on Wikipedia? The only reason neither @ the $un$hine nor I are not reverting the POVs is that we are running a risk of 3RR which am sure the POV pushers will be so glad to point out. What more do you want folks? The Law Ministry accepts that, Karnataka's own KSTDC accepts that, but a bunch of wikipedia editors cant? Can't beleive we do live in a civilised world!! Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

yup ! this claim inspite of concrete references from the Karnataka State Tourism Development Corporation is really a shame , some are even claiming more parts of TamilNadu . during chola dynasty the tamil rulers even had more lands under their rule[8] which are now as various states and nations , does any one claim the same now ?? even the english ruler's had a many nations under them , if all start's to claim their presence then where will this issue lead to ?? people must think what they are up to and the result of the same . one thing they should be aware that each and every event is now gets marked in the history so these such claims will sure do no good for a healthier future . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

article tagged as not neutral , needs cleanup & disputed

i have been forced to tag an article which was once a good one , but now to preven poor wikipedians from reading false claims im tagging . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

tag's removed as the article is cleaned and now clear from any disputes and all such earlier disputes have been addressed with real references . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2008 (UT

Request

Extended Discussion
The following is a discussion that has been placed in a collapse box for improved usability.
Keep the article focused as a beautiful falls of India that belongs to both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Disputed political issues do not belong to the article.Naadapriya (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Questions Is this site the location of the proposed project or not? Does the section on the project claim anything against any of the states? Refer to article on Kaveri river where it mentions about the dispute and directs it to another article. What difference do you see here? Does mentioning it here make the falls less beautiful in the minds of the reader? Awaiting to hear from you. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Above everything, this is an encylopedia (or that is what I believe). To talk about the beauty alone is to make it a tourism website. To go in details about the issue is WP:UNDUE which I would agree not to be here. Nevertheless a small section to be removed is unwarranted. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) 1.Is this site the location of the proposed project or not? There are many water projects, dams anecuts along Kaveri. Water project can be located any where not necessarily near the falls. The article is about the falls not about speculative surrounding activities. Speculative talks about a project that may or may not happen is beyond the scope of current article. Reply Anything that is planned to go on there will be mentioned. Read it and it will say that it is proposed and thats the fact and thats what it states. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 2.Does the section on the project claim anything against any of the states? I did not say that project claimed anything against any state. It is proposed by one state and other state still has to either approve or disapprove it. Speculative information about a unilaterally proposed project on a jointly owned location is not Wikipedia material. Reply Approve or disaprove? O dear Lord! You need to read some news outside Karnataka for God's sake. To start with an old news [9] and a current one [10], both are WP:RS. 3. Refer to article on Kaveri river where it mentions about the dispute and directs it to another article. What difference do you see here? Those who wish may discuss there since it is a general article about Kaveri river. Reply This is a general article about the Hogenakkal falls. What has made Hogenakkal falls hit the headlines these days? What has caused so much of political debates in specific to Hogenakkal? To deny this is to close one's eyes to reality. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) One more point to add here. Before you try answering the above question, go have a look at the edit history of the article page. Number of edits till March 2008 was less than 110, but for April (we just half way down it) is nearly 400! What attracted people to edit and in many cases vandalise this page? You may also want to look at the number of hits on this article this month [11], compared to March [12], Feb [13] or Jan [14] this year. What brought them HERE? Once again to quote myself To deny this is to close one's eyes to reality. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC) 4.Does mentioning it here make the falls less beautiful in the minds of the reader? The topic about beauty is an integral part of an article when one writes about any water falls. I guess Wikipedia is no exception. Disputed water project information is an unnecessary distraction. Seeing the title of the article readers would like to know about the falls but not about speculative disputed information. Reply I don't think you have answered the question. The question was if for eg; you were reading about a wonderful falls in north America and you bump into a section on a proposed water project, would that make you think less of the falls? I don't think this question can be put much more clearer. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Therefore the section on Water Project need to be removed.Naadapriya (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC) well ! as far as political dispute is concerned its about the water project alone and not about the location of the Water Falls (though some say) , and this article is not into any political debate as mentioned by Naadapriya , all such disputes have been sorted out with enough concrete references from all sources and the tags been removed , kindly check under which geo-stub it belongs to . and how the article clearly states about its location , i barely find any reference to your query here anywhere in the article , but the political dispute is mentioned only where there is the inclusion about the water project , and it cannot be excluded as it is involved in the water falls . the state govt of the state tht is involved in the water project has decided to wait a bit just to ensure that the chaos would not continue and trouble public life for a meaningless debate and that the issue could be easily tackled once the government has been formed on the other side . moreover Wiki San Roze has clearly answered you and we are waiting for your reply to it .and i dont find any where the beauty of the falls has been affected or damaged , here we have done enough to present an encyclopedic article and making it more beautiful will have no meaning in staying in an encyclopedia but then would have to be sent to an advertising journal --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 03:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC) There is no dispute about location since the falls is located both in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states at the border. The project is not a valid information for Wikipedia till it is officially approved by both states. Wikipedia is about actual facts not about speculative information. No where I mentioned to make the article 'beautiful'!. It is an adjective when referring to the falls. I guess such use is allowed in English!! In summary the section on water project is not needed in this article.Naadapriya (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC) Your stance is made clear with what yous said above. To quote There is no dispute about location since the falls is located both in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu states at the border.. You didn't even bother to read the first three references provided in the article isnt it? Even Karnataka's tourism department states that it is within Tamil Nadu. As I mentioned earlier the project was agreed. Please get yourself updated. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 08:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC) May be you should also check out other encyclopedias if it is relevant to mention about projects that are carried out in the falls. Check out this entry on Niagara falls on Columbia encyclopedia. 15:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC) None of the above statements justify the inclusion of section about water project that too which is not officially approved. 'As I mentioned earlier' is not a justification to add a section and noone owns the article. Project needs to be formally agreed by both states and endorsed by central govt before it becomes official. Oh please! You still haven't bothered to read the news articles I showed you? Once again here it goes again. Please read this and this one too. You can see that both parties agreed and Union Water Resources Ministry has endorsed it. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) It is requested to read the information carefully. 'Niagara Falls' is also a city.'Hogenakkal_Falls' is about falls not a city. Therefore adding unrelated sections such as 'Water projects' is nothing to do with the article. It should be removedNaadapriya (talk) 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC) You once again failed to read. The link I provided was about the falls, ie Niagara Falls and not Niagara Falls, Ontario. Hope you see the light now. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC) All know there are twin cities of Niagara Falls associated with falls of Niagara river at the same location. Writing about hydroelectric project is logical. Water projects are not specific to a falls. It can be anywhere along the river. There is no need to stall the improvement of the article by deviating the topic to something else. The key issue here is that the section on 'Water Project' that has speculative, unrelated and incorrect information need to be removed from the article.Naadapriya (talk) 07:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Naadapriya, I am very sorry to say that you are showing an adament outlook on your stance. I am going to stop repeating myself. Get a third party opinion if you want. The proposed water project is to get water from Hogenakkal falls and that is what it says. Go to WP:AN/I or anywhere you find it fit to ask. Your reply on Niagara falls doesn't make the least sense, because Columbia encyclopedia has three entries on Niagra falls, id est, the water falls, US city and Canadian city. Can't you see that the water falls article talks about the hydroelectric project? That the water falls article is seperated from the cities articles? Do you want to have look at some other falls entries? How more can I explain? To call the infomation there as speculative, unrelated and incorrect is pushing your limits. I have tried so far to assume good faith with you so far and even doing it till now, but for heaven's sake, don't us off the edge. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 09:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC) No need to feel sorry when discussions are based on facts. Water is taken from the river and it does not matter whether it is near falls or elsewhere. The water project is not officially approved. Please do not show ownership on the article. There is no official proof that water project is approved by all controlling Govts. It needs to be removedNaadapriya (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Naadapriya, it really amusing that you still say that the project is not approved. Oh please! Answer this simple question, did you read what I showed you. What did the Indian express and Hindu entries tell you? It is only the Karnataka govt that disagrees (along with you). You are just trolling and as per what I said earlier am going to ignore you and if you remove the content I will have to take it to a admin. Ciao and next time learn to think out of your shell. Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC) O BTW can you show some ref for your edit here? Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC) i hope that Naadapriya will reply with proper references which is equal / provides good info to wht she & others who claims for , else it means a waste of time arguing with something which never had / has or will have some meaning , as far the water project is concerned thinking about the other side's claim is baseless and to equally argue with is useless , first the people who claim for their right must realize that any international co-operation / fundings wouldn't happen without proper permission from the state and the central govt & i think tht all those references wht Wiki San Roze is quite ....& more than enough for the talk to state that the falls and the project comes well within tamilnadu and needs no more words nor comments to stress .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC) by seeing all the references she has provided it is quite clear tht she reads some press reports based on some individual (baseless)claims everyday and i wish if the member first confirms weather or not such reports are reliable . else we arguing here is a waste of time .she is arguing here and vandalizing too , so her argument here has no proper reason to be answered . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Response to Quote What did the Indian express and Hindu entries tell you? It is only the Karnataka govt that disagrees from above comments. Press do not decide Govt projects. International Govt provides aid to a state but does not make a policy. Since Karnataka Govt which has legal control over the river has not approved (above editors agree), the project is not valid. To date none have shown the proof that the project is officially approved by all concerned Govt authorities. The statements about the project is pure Synthesis based on on going dispute and speculative conclusion drawn by some editors. Therefore it needs to be removed immediately. It may be considered for Wikipedia if it gets officially approved by all Govts with endorsement by Govt of India. However still there is another issue. There is no relation between a falls and drinking water project as it was explained earlier. I guess irrigation engineers agree with this. It is requested editors to keep their comments focused on technical issues not personal attacks. In @ the $un$hine .'s comments who is 'she'. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 07:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC) well if you are hurt by any of my comments then i feel sorry for the same . kinly consider my reply to ur Naadapriya comment as a reply to ur comment and in no way directly or indirectly points at you is not any personal attack . i assure you that if the word she hurts u then i wont use it further . regards --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Well well, Naadapriya. First and foremost, if you still going to say that K'taka controls over the falls or the entire river, then you should not be editing this page, because it shows that you are not ready to accept the WP:RS citations shown, including Law Ministry and K'taka own govt sites. So that is the end of it, if you still going to say one more time that the falls is disputed, I will make sure some action is taken on you. Yes this is a warning, and any sane person will see that I have tried my best to assume good faith with you and it YOU who failed to appreciate that. Secondly, we have provided you with reference that all governments have agreed on the project. Once again, if you keep trolling here without showing any citations, you will have to face necessary consequences. Think again before you respond. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC) yup ! i second Wiki San Roze , if the member trolls here without any citations then necessary action becomes inevitable as Wiki San Roze has said you have to Think again before you respond--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC) I did not say that Karnataka solely controls the river. It has legal control over the river because of the origin , length and significant catchment area. The point is very simple. If the project is legally approved then Tamil Nadu will not be waiting for the approval of Karnataka Govt. All references defending the inclusion of water project in the article are mute at this stage. Editors are requested to stop threatening and using irresponsible words as it was done in the earlier comments.Naadapriya (talk) 17:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC) What says that TN is waiting for aproval of K'taka? Is that another figment of your imagination? AND BTW, it wasnt thretening, its a warning! It is good practice to warn the user before taking action. K'taka having legal control over Kaveri is absurd. Then why do we have a central government? Why was there a tribunal? Why is there a Supreme court? Seriously mate, you have already had your warning. Show us some citations for all your claims and not some google search page pointing to some early version of this wiki entry. 17:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Sir/Madam 17:17, before a response is given please identify yourself by signing. Are you one of the above editors. If not your comment may be considered as mute. ThanksNaadapriya (talk) 05:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC) That was my responce as you would have seen on the history. For some reason the full signature didnt apear. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The above is an extended discussion that has been collapsed for improved usability.

content dispute

The page is protected until Monday. Please take the opportunity to agree on the scope of the article. —EncMstr (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help. I guess this would give enough time to avoid edit wars. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The editing freeze—article protection—is not an endorsement of any particular version or view. Since no obvious vandalism nor defamation is present, it's simply The Wrong Version. Refer to those two links for clarification. —EncMstr (talk) 07:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

this protection at least will save the article from further vandalism for time being . i didnt get to the EncMstr comment The Wrong Version ,if he refers the article so ....--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey EncMstr! You just need to look at the references provided here and how some editors show a blind eye to references. For eg: we have proper WP:RS sources defining which state the waterfalls fall under, but the other party calling it the border is not showing any proper citation. Nevertheless, they take the freedom to remove the citations. This can't be a wrong version. You will just have to look above and below this section to see how a particular user is trolling on this page. That user is even showing google hits as his ref, which is actually pointing to wikipedia's older version of this page?!?!?! I really didn't get what you mean by saying

“ Since no obvious vandalism nor defamation is present, it's simply The Wrong Version ”

Can you pleas explain??? Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent lead

The location of falls is in both Chamarajanagara district of Karnatakaand Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu [15]. Closest town in Karnataka is Anekal town similar to Dharmapuri, not city of Bangalore. For Wikipedia readers it is better to give internationally known reference places, Chennai and Bangalore cities not small towns. The lead needs immediate corrections to be consistent.Naadapriya (talk) 08:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

i dont understand why editors dont agree even to central government or supreme court infos . we ( Wiki San Roze & @ the $un$hine . are clear what we are doing and for what are we arguing . kindly read the 6.1 d of the Article 262 & Inter State Disputes relating to Water where it is clearly mentioned the location of the river according to law ministry and these proofs State Tourism development Corporation & state map .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya. I don't think you understand what is WP:RS. I strongly recommend you to go and get yourself to sit and read that stuff said there. If you are still thinking of trolling this page, I will have to take this to WP:AN/I. Stop trolling and start reading.Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 13:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer is very simple. If the falls area solely belonged to Tamil Nadu then central Govt would not have agreed to resurvey [16] the area to determine the ownership. The falls area belongs to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka State. Note above quoted link http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-6.htm%7Clawninistry does not exist. Also Tourism Dept is interested to show the best parts of falls irrespective of which state it belongs to. It does not decide the ownershipNaadapriya (talk) 17:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that you will have to use some reason before you check a link. This link works. And BTW your argument on tourism site doesn't make sense. Yes, K'taka will still mention it although it is in TN, that is what we are saying too. So according to your point, YOU decide the ownership, is it? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, do you read? Read the news links you get with your search. What is the survey about? [17] [18] It is about the ISLAND, and NOT about the waterfalls. O dear o Lord. How many times do we ask you to read. Well, lets see if you give an apology for your stuborn stance as a last resort to AGF, before a complaint is launched. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the links quoted in the previous comment prove that a particular state owns the complete falls location. Many news agencies still report as of April 03, 2008 that there is a legal dispute on the issue.[19]. Wikipedia is about existing facts not about speculative information. The falls area belongs to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka states. Otherwise Central Govt would not have accepted to resurvey the area. The lead needs modification to reflect correct information. Please note that this editor is neither defending actions of Karnataka state nor opposing the acts of Tamil Nadu state. His interest is to defend accurate information for Wikipedia readers. The incorrect lead need to be modified.Naadapriya (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

All your queries are already answered, just to list them out:

• the dispute is on an unnamed island near the falls [20] [21]
• the falls itself falls under the TN teritory as per Union law ministry [22]
• all projects planned will be mentioned, since both parties agreed on the project and the project is kept on hold to resolve the island issue and not because either party oppose the project itself. Reference on approval [23] [24] and on island survey issue [25] [26] are already provided.
• examples of projects provided were produced using Niagara falls entry on wikipedia and also on other encyclopedia,[27] when opposed to the city entries.[28] [29]
• your WP:OR that just because TN asked for K'taka's aproval makes the falls fall under K'taka teritory is nothing but more than laughable. According to your logic, just because K'taka asked for TN's aproval for Bangalore drinking water project [30] will make Bangalore part of TN? lols..

No more trolling will be tolerated and with this I shall stop answering your BS, since its just wasting my precious wikipedia time (which I hardly get between my work). You shall be replied to ONLY if you raise any sensible issues. If you start reverting and vandalising then you shall reep the consequences at WP:AN/I. Yes, a warning with all due respect. FYI I already have a feed back from a non-Indian admin on this issue, since I wanted to know if I am the one being stuborn here. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 06:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the above references justify the inclusion of non-existing water project in the article and conclusive statements about the ownership of land that is under dispute as per all states and Central Govt. For example, one reference says had deployed hundreds of police and forest personnel in the disputed area to prevent untoward incidents. The reasons for the dispute is reported in many articles [31]

It is unfortunate that uncivil language is used in above comment in spite of request to stop personal attacks. Naadapriya (talk) 15:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not Rfc? Get a third opinion, since you are the only one wanting to remove it? BTW, warning a user before taking action is not uncivil. It is the recommended procedure. There is no personal attack there. By unwarrantedly accusing me, it is you who is resorting to personal attacks. I have taken the discussion to your talk page because I dont want the troll to go on here in this article talk page. It would be better if we can solve the issue amicably. But having said that, if you keep going on with your stuborn stance, I will be compelled to go to WP:ANI. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Section on Water Project need to be removed

Other editors are welcome to post their opinions. As it was justified, the section on Water project need to be removed. Restatements of reasons already provided are:

1)The water project does not exist and as shown in discussions with reference there is an on going dispute between two states about it. Even the references quoted by other editors defending the section say that. Therefore water project is not a part of the wikipedia article.

2) As it was mentioned earlier, it is logical to talk about the hydroelectric project since it needs the kinetic energy generated in the river at the falls. Water for drinking can be drawn from the river at different locations. There is no relation between a water falls and water project.

To date none of the comments by other editors contradicted above statements with objective evidences. Except above two issues, topics mentioned in previous comments by other editors are not related to the present discussion. Therefore the section on water project has to be removed from the article immediately. When water project becomes a reality, a separate article may be written on it.Naadapriya (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Great to move ahead from the ownership issue. Nevertheless

1. The project is approved and it is on hold (not abandoned) till there is a democratically elected government in Karnataka. There is a proposal and there are aprovals.
2. Water from Waterfalls makes more sense than, electricity from waterfalls. As earlier, I would recommend you to go for a thrid party comment. Since I think that is the best way we can solve this. I will, on my side contact editors listed in assistance so that we can get a proper solution for this long time standing problem. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. The project is proposed by one state yet to be approved by other state and Central Govt. Karnataka which has objected to the project has a legal Govt appointed by democratic Central Govt.
2. Still I say there is no relation between water falls and water project. It is very obvious not a rocket science.

BTW there is no technical justification to prove otherwise. Other editors opinions are welcome.Naadapriya (talk) 08:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement that The project is proposed by one state yet to be approved by other state and Central Govt. Karnataka which has objected to the project has a legal Govt appointed by democratic Central Govt. is not valid since it has been shown many times through references. Are we going in circles? [32] [33]

As far as you second point is concerned let us wait for a third party opinion as per wiki guidelines. Ok? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not going on circles. Now Karnataka has legal Govt appointed by Center. Governor and Secretary of State can officially represent the state. Your references are not related to Govt issue. You should refer to the constitution. Please stop loading with unrelated references as in the past. Opinion by other editors are optional. Irrespective of Govt issue, from Wikipedia perspective the speculative section on water project has to be removed.Naadapriya (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry mate they are not optional. These are guidelines. I don't think you are saying that you don't want to follow the guidelines. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

when it comes to an article about the water falls the inclusion of the infos of the recent happenings / projects associated with it directly /indirectly needs to be included , it seems there is only one editor expressing such disagreements and is expressing major changes quite often , may be if someone wish for big changes thereby entirely removing it may state the reason and reach the admin at least there they my find success . its better to rethink and read such similar articles for better knowledge before expressing such changes.--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is neither a recent happening nor an existing project. Therefore above comment defending the section is muteNaadapriya (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

kindly try this friend!! google hits on site , google hits on water project , if not google then try this , this too so what did you observe buddy !!well need to leave to class..will write to u later ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) 03:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fact based information is not for popularity contest. Please focus on the issue. Good luck with your class.Naadapriya (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

it is a recent happening and an existing project , kindly see these proofs [34][35][36][37] well finally uv said its not a popularity contest ...so does it mean tht u'll stop giving citations to google hits??...any how many thanks for ur wishes....best wishes 4 u too....cant stay here for a long....--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I can see no good reason for the content relating to the water project not to be included. Given the stub status of the article as is, the article could certainly do with the addition of more material. Also, it is apparent that the content being discussed is directly relevant to the subject, which would further justify its inclusion. Certainly, someone opposing this position, or seeking further input, would be advised to file an RfC on the subject, but I have seen no good reason in the discussion above why the content should not be included. John Carter (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The water project does not exist. All references including that from MSN news [38] show that there is a dispute between states, particularly regarding its current planned location. Also there is no technical relation between water project and current article on water falls. All along the river there are many water projects. Nothing special about the proposed one. BTW To resolve the dispute and provide the water to needy quickly, some are suggesting to move the project to different location than falls. [39] As a PG trained irrigation engineer and one that grew up wondering around that area, I think such solutions work.

When the water project becomes a reality, a separate article can be written. It is not clear why some are insisting to leave current speculative and unrelated topic in the article.

Regarding expanding the article there are several topics such as unique granite based geological formation directly related to the falls. Just for the sake of length it is not necessary to leave an unrelated speculative content in the good interest of readers.Naadapriya (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya! If you still think the section on the project doesn't belong here, please take the next step in dispute resolution, as in Ask at a subject-specific Wikipedia:WikiProject talk page. Two things to remember here, firstly that you are the only person here who wants it to be removed (even after third opinion), secondly, I'm not dismissing your argument still. As I said earlier, we shall follow the protocol. As for your idea on including geological data, that is a brilliant idea. You (as your say) being a irrigation engineer, will have some knowledge on geology and me being an ecologist can help you too. As for the section removal itself, you are free to move on to the next stage of dispute resolution. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To date none of the editors have addressed the 2 issues pointed out in this section from Wikipedia perspective. Unless someone provides logical arguments with objective evidences against the two issues, the speculative section on water project has to be removed. Since the issues are obvious they do not warrant actions beyond the discussion page. Naadapriya (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, they have. You just refuse to see it. The information is not speculative, but is clearly based on numerous reliable sources. The project may not yet exist, but that is another matter entirely. The information is reliably sourced. It could be argued that it is about an upcoming event, but that is a different matter entirely. Until and unless the article is of such length that inclusion of that information would make it prohibitvely long, it should be included. You have been told that, if you sought further input, you should file an RfC. You have to date not done so. As such, your opinion, or POV, is simply one person's opinion, and an opinion which seems to disagree with the existing consensus regarding the subject. If you were to file an RfC, as has been suggested to you, you might be able to achieve a broader consensus. However, to act against what is apparently the existing consensus might qualify as either WP:DE or WP:VANDALISM, neither of which is particularly good thinking. If, however, you were to request an RfC, you might get a broader group of opinions on the matter. John Carter (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

This is very interesting comment. Needs some time to respond since it implicitly address the present issues about the article. Though all editors are free to comment, it is helpful to know why the above specific editor was solicited by Wikiality123 to comment on the issue. Please correct me if that is not the case. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 07:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not one specific editor Naadapriya, but two. Check our user:Walton One too. I know John Cartor through WikiSaints project and his critical comments on an article I wrote. The message he left is on my archives here and I believe that he being an non-Indian (thats is why I chose Walton too) would be best without bias. Do not try to distract the article. OK? If you want, get another one. We have been asking you to get that. Along with the AN/I you have put on me and false warning message on my talk page, you are adding more to this personal attacks and harassments from you. Why not help expand the article rather than wanting to remove contents? I was expecting you to add some geological data on it. I have fished out some papers on the Carbonatites in Hogenakkal and some history of its formation. Can pass them on to you, since you are the irrigation engineer here. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

During my tenure in Wikipedia I have not come across anyone lobbying to support their POV. I am not sure it is within guidelines. I believe it is voluntary for editors to comment but no one needs to walk-through them. Also the accuracy, not Nationality is important for Wikipedia. Current issue is about the accuracy of information. I removed speculative contents (which are unfortunately reintroduced) but not accurate contents. BTW As a trained irrigation engineer I suggested the topic on geology but I am not an expert in geology to write a section. Also I did not say that I will write one. I am sure by keeping this article as unbiased, non- political, fact-based and focused about the beautiful falls many others will be attracted to add relevant material. By the bye asking questions is not a harassment. Please assume assume good faith. Naadapriya (talk) 08:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You are entitled within your rights to contact and ask for comments. You are not allowed to campaign, but asking for comment is all within the rules. Why are you still not taking it to RfC if you got concerns? Nationality usually doesn't matter, but when it comes to third party comments as recommended in dispute resolution, a non-Indian will make the best third party. Which part of this logic is hard to understand? Wonder why you didn't bother to ask what BS in my earlier statement stood for. To be honest you are wasting everybody's time and energy here.

As far as calling my stance POV, it is once again open for all to read and see who pushing his/her POV. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for too few view points?

As far as I can see this tag has been put there because it doesn't support one user's view point. Unfortunately that view point is not supported by citations. So this tag will be removed. If quite a few editors have a valid concern, yes indeed this tag will stay, or else unprecedented tagging itself will be a case of vandalism. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

You have repeatedly removed the valid changes made by previouseditors. It is vandalism to undo valid edits and tags without discussing. Please stop.Naadapriya (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Which valid edits? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that, for the time being, you should both agree to stop reverting one another's changes to the article. If this doesn't stop, you may both be blocked for disruption. As an aside, it might be best to allow some form of dispute tag to be placed on the article until this issue is resolved, after which it can be removed. Would that be acceptable to both of you? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sheffield above. Also, it is unfortunately possible that, were this sort of activity to continue, the page itself could be locked until such time as a consensus is reached. But the locked version would clearly disagree with one or the other party. I have contacted the Wikipedia:WikiProject Waterfalls on their talk page regarding this subject. Unfortunately, we have yet to here from them. I would suggest that all parties refrain from any further changes without consensus being established first. That, as has now been repeatedly indicated, would be helped by the filing of an RfC. Wikiality123 seems to agree to having such a request filed. Naadapriya seems to have to date not addressed the possibility whatsoever. I once again suggest that getting a broader consensus of what should be done with the article would be the best way to go, and an RfC with notes given to the India and Waterfalls project would probably be the best way to go. I also urge Naadapriya to Assume good faith, and not come to conclusions regarding the motivations of others which he seems to potentially be using now or in the future as the basis for dismissing the input of others. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I also agree with Sheffield above. Tag is an acceptable solution for now. I do not mind RFC. But I think it is too early a burden on Wikipedia now. All observations others and I made have to date are based on existing and new citations from reliable sources. Hope other editors review them in depth and discuss. With a tag I will wait till a consensus is reached on discussion page or beyond that.I would suggest Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Right! I lost once again what I wanted to say, since it said edit conflict.. damn!! Anyways, I reckon a tag be added on that particular section of the project, since we don't want the overall article to be damned. It would be nice if someone can find an editor who can write on the geology of this locality. There seem to be interesting articles on it, as in the carbonatites here are the oldest in the subcontinent and one of the oldest in the world. It would be good to find an expert to write. As for me, I can save the expert's time by providing with papers, so it won't be too much of trouble. Hope there is a consensus on it. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 18:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

If that happens again, just copy the information you wrote which should appear in the bottom part of the page that comes up, and place it in the top revision box. It's happened to me a lot too, so I've learned the hard way how to do it. If you can provide links to copies of the geological information though I think we could probably find someone who could review them and add the information. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks John, you are making me look bad in comparison :P I just posted a similar message to †αLҝ.Seriously, thanks for helping. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks chaps! I will have to remember this when I next encounter that. Should I say am looking forward for an edit conflict now? lols Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Location of the falls

Statement of the dispute

There is disagreement on how the location of Hogenakkal Falls should be described. One editor advocates "in Tamil Nadu". Another editor advocates "on the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka". 19:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Sample diff showing the two competing versions: diff

Comments by parties

Parties that claim that it is under Tamil Nadu jurisdiction

I thought its best to split it and have replies below the comments, feel free to change the format if this is not right. Ok, now to move on to the topic. The waterfalls is at the border, well and good, but under the jurisdiction of TN, as far as the reliable sources that I can find. It is not us who decide on that, but the Governments themselves. Yes it is at the border (even Tamil Nadu agrees to it) and that is why even the lead I been supporting says It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu,[1][2][3] along the borders with Karnataka state.[4]
What does Karnataka govt say about it? In the Karnataka governments tourism page here it states that Hogenakal Falls is a beautiful water falls in the neighboring state of Tamilnadu, is a good Picnic spot.....
What does Goverment of India got to say about it? This is a document on Inter-state water disputes relating to water from the Law Ministry of India. If you move to the geography section and note points 6.1 c and d, it would state
(c) At Sivasamudram, the river dips by about 97m. in a series of falls and rapids and, after flowing through a very narrow gorge, continues its East-ward journey and forms the boundary between the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for a distance of about 64km. Below Sivasamudram, it receives the Shimsha, and then Arkavathy, just before entering the territory of Tamil Nadu.
(d) In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir. It leaves the Eastern Ghats below Mettur and is joined by Bhavani, about 45 km. downstream. This important tributary then turns West-ward in the Nilgiri District of Tamil Nadu and takes a detour in Kerala territory for about 38 km and turns back to Tamil Nadu, before joining the main river. Cauvery thereunder takes a more Easterly course there and is joined by Noyil, and then by Amaravathy.
I don't think we need to go ahead after this since there, as far as I can see, is no need to look for further legal WP:RS than Law Ministry of India. Nevertheless, let me also mention that the acedemic world always knew Hogenakkal as part of Tamil Nadu. Lets look at the carbonatite papers [40] [41] and other research articles [42] (page 13). I am happy to provide more references if need be. There is indeed a dispute between the states, but not on the falls, but about an island near the falls. [43] [44] Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

its first not we who have to decide where the falls is located ( these have already been decided by the lawministry & by the other state & by the state that owns it ) but to provide the article with supporting and absolute citations and a real picture about what the article is and where it is . we work here based on citations and citations only ( if the sitations proves otherwise im very well ready to change my opinion on this issue ), if there is a controversy we have to mention the same there , but here the controversy seems only from one side so we may create yet another article as we did it to many such and let it stay as a different issue without disturbing the main one which is again based on the citations [45][46][47] that clearly states it location so a Google hit mustn't be allowed to deface the main lead and here again we must focus to in case of any recent happenings nearby it becomes a must for us to mention the same there to bring it to the users knowledge , this article has the most and the concrete citation by the nations the lawministry so this controversy here has no worth continuing as not based on true and highly notable proofs . so until or otherwise an editor comes out with such real citations the article must be preserved in its original form and must be protected from any possible vandalism (i call this as vandalism due to the fact here in wikipedia we dont work upon unverified claims and if claims persist then we must mention it within the article not changing the article as a whole )--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 00:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

and its quite a shock to see that here in wikipedia we keep entertaining to unverified / not notable claims which keeps extending this not needed controversy , one side we have the people Wiki San Roze , @ the $un$hine . who claim it based on real and unchallengeable citations/references and the other side a member User:Naadapriya who wishes to completely rewrite the article with unverified/no citations/references but nothing other than Google hits . it looks like we are slowly diverting ourselves towards the wrong direction , this is the reason that helps the member User:Naadapriya to keep on editing the article where by eventually leading it to own a tag for verification for ever . plzz lets focus on real facts and references and plead the member User:Naadapriya to provide some real references than to keep wasting our time focusing on discussions that will never end . where are we being lead to ?? --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 00:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

i too saw this wikimapia link provided by JeremyMcCracken ( many thanks JeremyMcCrackenfor it ) here i can clearly see that the river as hogenekkal is "Pennagaram, 14 km от центра (from centre ) (Coordinates: ) Координаты: 12°6'54"N 77°46'33"E" so we have got yet another proof to where the falls is located exactly , though in the border it is best mentioned within the border of tamilnadu in Pennagaram which comes well within the jurisdiction of tamilnadu [48].[49][50] that comes under Dharmapuri [51][52] [53] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearll's sun (talk • contribs) 02:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

more proofs of where this area comes under Indian govt report on flood in various states (hogenekkal is included in tamilnadu dharmapuri dist) , Environment Profile for Dharmapuri District ( reports about forest and environment ) , 11.4 TOURISM all the citations/reference provided here are from the " .gov.in (Indian government) domain that is administered by the General Services Administration (GSA), an independent agency of the federal government of India(.in is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for India. The domain is operated by INRegistry under the authority of NIXI, the National Internet Exchange of India. INRegistry was appointed by the government of India.) " i hope that i may stop citing references since these citations would prove enough..regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 03:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Parties that claim that it is on the border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu

To date none of the references explicitly state that Hogankkal falls is completely located in Tamil Nadu. Cauvery river serves as a border between two states for about a length of 67 kms. The falls is located on that border in current Chamarajanagar District district of Karnataka. This was re-transferred to Karnataka in 1956 to correct the mistake done under foreign rule. [54].

1. Tamil Nadu Tourism lead sentence says 'Hogenakkal is situated on the border of Karnataka' (Ref4)
2. Govt of India document just says 'the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards up to Hogenakal Falls'. It does not say that the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu. (Ref 1)
3. All official maps including Google map show the falls on the border
4. Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of economics and statistics says Hogenakkal water falls : here cauvery enters into Tamil Nadu [55] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs) 07:06, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Map posted on the article shows it is on the border
6. The name of the falls is derived from Kannada the state language of Karnataka. BTW it implies that before foreign rule the falls was under Karanataka.
7. Current disputed land is the part of falls area[56]
8. Karnataka Tourism refers to Tamil Nadu Side of falls that may be more beautiful than Karnataka side in some seasons. It does not say the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu (Ref 3)
9. To date about 4 editors have defended the fact with objective evidences and mostly opposed by one editor.
10. Easy way to find the fact is to search on Google map
11. The major reference cities to falls location are Bangalore and Chennai

Wikipedia is about facts. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. However, in your recitation above, you have yourself produced no evidence to substantiate that it is in any way in Karnataka, rather than just on the border of Karnataka. There is a difference. If you can produce RS which state that part of the falls, and I am presuming that means part of the falls proper, are actually in Karnataka, then I have no reason to think that your position would be disputed. But none of what you said above even remotely qualifies as saying any part of it is in Karnataka. Linguistic derivation of the name is frankly irrelevant. Maps showing it is on the border to not indicate that it is at all in Karnataka. I agree wikipedia is about facts. But in your recitation above you produced no directly relevant facts. What would be required would be a Reliable source which clearly and explicitly states that the falls are at least partially included in Karnataka. Please produce the required facts from reliable sources to support your position. Without those facts, you will yourself completely failed to produce any facts to support your own position. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have answers for this. Since I have to mostly repeat what others and I stated in the past with evidences, can we PLEASE move this to users talk page since it will interfere with the rfc and stall the progress??Naadapriya (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok Naadapriya, although we have been through this earlier too, let me state them agai for others to see and give comments.The following are my replies to each point Naadapriya as raised.

1. As on TN's tourism stating that it is in the border is what I already said in my message too. The question is, it is in the border, but under who's jurisdiction?
2. You stated that Govt of India document just says 'the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards up to Hogenakal Falls'. It does not say that the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu.. But I do not see why you picked to partially quote the sentence. The sentence states in full In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls. So it is in Tamil Nadu.
3. I have given the google maps link further down and explained to Jerry about it. You can have a look too here.
4. Yes, Kaveri enters at Hogenakkal! I think the question is about the jurisdiction, not where the river enters which state, isnt it?
5. You said Map posted on the article shows it is on the border. Please see my reply to Jerry again.
6. Yes, Hogenakkal is Kannada word, so? India is a word given by Greeks, Britannia was the name given by Romans, with Greek derivative, does this all mean India and Britain are ruled by Greeks now?
7. You said Current disputed land is the part of falls area, but I don't see where it states so in your reference. Can you paste the sentence for us please?
8. This statement that # Karnataka Tourism refers to Tamil Nadu Side of falls that may be more beautiful than Karnataka side in some seasons. is OR. Sorry.
9. Head counts of opposition doesn't matter Naadapriya, as long as we have enough citations to back.
10. Easy way to find the fact is to search on Google map. Yup done it and showed it.
11. The major reference cities to falls location are Bangalore and Chennai. Ok, who opposed that?

Thanks. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer to all above comments is simple. It is obvious that border belongs to both states.Naadapriya (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It may be am a daft nut, can you explain elaborately how please. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is obvious to me is that no sources saying that the falls are in both states has yet been produced. Instead, what I have seen is a recitation of at best tangential factoids. It is often the case that something which is "on the border" does in fact lie exclusively on one side of that border. No evidence to indicate otherwise has yet been produced. Until and unless a reliable source indicating otherwise is produced, I cannot see that the claim that it belongs to both states even has the most basic required sourcing. John Carter (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Answer previous 2 comments: In the absence other specifics which is the case here by definition border belongs to both sides. To date no one has produced a citation that states that the falls completely belongs to a specific state. At least there are two Govt citations (please read my recitation! above) and many news reports that say it is on the border with maps supporting it. BTW It is first time I am facing simultaneous coordinated comments from 2 editors. Looks like it is becoming fun to answer them same time! Naadapriya (talk) 07:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

well said John Carter"no sources saying that the falls are in both states has yet been produced." , "It is often the case that something which is "on the border" does in fact lie exclusively on one side of that border. No evidence to indicate otherwise has yet been produced. Until and unless a reliable source indicating otherwise is produced," best wishes --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 10:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments by others

Please leave this section for users to leave comments. Any discussion can be added in the next section. Thank you.
Outside opinion By clicking on the geocoords and going to wikimapia, I see the falls labeled where the geocoords pointed; zoomed in, it is here: [57]. Assuming the area visible in the aerial photo is indeed the falls, switching it to map view and zooming out a few clicks makes the state borders visible. To me, it looks to be on the border. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on sources As far as I can see, this is the source that has been cited to back up the claim that the Falls are located on the border. [58] It's a background paper on inter-state disputes relating to water, published by the Indian Ministry of law and Justice. Interestingly, the same source is cited in support of the statement that the Falls are located in Tamil Nadu. So what does it say? (Note that the Kaveri river is spelled Cauvery here).

“ At Sivasamudram, the river dips by about 97m. in a series of falls and rapids and, after flowing through a very narrow gorge, continues its East-ward journey and forms the boundary between the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for a distance of about 64km. Below Sivasamudram, it receives the Shimsha, and then Arkavathy, just before entering the territory of Tamil Nadu.

In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir. It leaves the Eastern Ghats below Mettur and is joined by Bhavani, about 45 km. downstream. This important tributary then turns West-ward in the Nilgiri District of Tamil Nadu and takes a detour in Kerala territory for about 38 km and turns back to Tamil Nadu, before joining the main river...

”

• I read this source as stating that the falls are in Tamil Nadu.
• Recall that Wikipedia defines a reliable source as being one with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. I think that a government report on water disputes is the most reliable source we are likely to find on the subject of where the river flows. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Outside Opinion. From the evidence presented by both sides and from my reading of the most reliable sources (tourist sites are not reliable in my opinion), it appears the falls are (just barely) in Tamil Nadu and the river is at the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. How about writing something like: "The Hogenakkal Falls are located in Tamil Nadu, along the river that borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka." Renee (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. "The Hogenakkal Falls lie just within Tamil Nadu on the Kaveri River, which runs along the border between Tamil Nadu and Karanataka upriver of the falls," or something similar, should work. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

By definition Border particularly if it is a river, belongs to both sides equally. Statement can not be biased with one sideNaadapriya (talk) 06:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

But something being on the border is something else entirely. It is always very possible for something that lies along a border to be entirely within the confines of one side of the border. You have yet to produce any evidence which clearly states that there is a real claim that any part of the subject falls within Karnataka. Your lack of such evidence makes your case very, very weak. Please produce evidence which uses the required phrasing. Until that is produced, all we have is the inadmissable POV of one person, yourself, regarding the subject. John Carter (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

@ Naadapriya : see again you seem to go out of topic .."By definition Border particularly if it is a river, belongs to both sides equally - Naadapriya" here we are discussing about a water falls and not about the river , i wish it would be nice if you write according to the discussion , may be you are writing in the wrong place ?? if yes then kindly try to shift your comment to the respective talk page --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of comments

Please discuss outside comments here, to avoid cluttering up the comments section.

Reply to JeremyMcCracken (moved from above section)

Yup, I think you have got the right place. You can also refer to google maps here. The link will take you to Terrain view. You can notice the white boundry line soon after the falls. That is where the River reenters Karnataka. You will see that if you zoom out a bit (if you further follow the river, it will enter Tamil Nadu at Stanley Reservoir). Since the river goes in and out of the states, its best to change to map view (like you did earlier with wikimapia) then zoom out slowly (anyways the pointer will be there to guide you to the falls). Now, if you get back again to the earlier terrain view (the link I provided) and then switch to satelite view, you will find an island soon after the falls and you can see, the boundry line runs through the island (satelite view wont show you the line, so you will have to remember the position -sorry). This is the island of dispute. Thanks Jerry for getting into geographical maps. I think it is pretty clear that the water falls is at the border, within Tamil Nadu. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the view of Niagara which is right at the border for two nations, the map shows like this. I think we can see the difference. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 07:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

To help understand how the river from Karnataka enters into Tamil Nadu and then reenters Karnataka to eventually get to Tamil Nadu again at Stanley reservoir, I have obtained some images from Google Earth which are copy right free as far as I can see [59]. Please refer to the images below:

• 
  The waterfall is more visible and marked. Soon after the falls is an island-the bone of contention, where the states borders run through.
• 
  The same bird's eye view as earlier, but zoomed out. Although the typical features of the falls and island are not clear, the state boundaries can be seen with better clarity, id est the river reentering Karnataka and then flowing into a large reservoir to Tamil Nadu.
• 
  Just the same one as earlier, but this time its an aerial view so that the editors can compare it with the maps they obtain with Wikimapia or Google maps.

Hope this helps. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 12:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to comments by User:SheffieldSteel

The falls is on the River-border owned by both states. The Govt of India article does not state that falls is completely in Tamil Nadu. The river enters, leaves and reenters that state. If Govt of India had decided the ownership then there would not have been a dispute currently reported by so many news agencies as cited in the article. Also it would not have agreed to resurvey the falls area. The 1956 [60] State reorganization act [61] supersedes all other acts.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs) 16:02, 25 April 2008

The location of the river and the political location of the falls are entirely separate matters. What is being asked of Naadapriya is for him to produce any reliable sources which explicitly state that Karnataka has a clear claim on the falls. So far, all I have seen is a congolomeration of unacceptable original research on his part, which he is putting forward as fact. I once again ask of him to produce the required reliable source which substantiates his statement. Until the time that source is produced, I cannot see any reason for such a statement to be included in the article. John Carter (talk) 19:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You must be seeing something in the government source that I can't see. Can you indicate which bit of text you think says that the river is on the border at the Falls? As to the sources indicated above, the first is an opinion piece and not considered reliable, and a quick search of the second revealed no mention of "Hogenakal", "Hogenakkal", or "Falls", so I am not sure how it is relevant. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like both of you are looking for more than valid citations already presented by both parties. To date none of the citations presented by both parties state either the falls is exclusively located in any specific state. Interpreting the Govt of India's old statement that 'In Tamil Nadu the river flows towards Hogenkkal falls' as 'Hogenkkal falls is in Tamil Nadu' is a incorrect interpretation since the river enters TN, leaves to Karnataka and reenters TN. The other Govt document by TNs tourism and Dept of Economics and statistics explicitly state that falls is on Karnataka border. Therefore the best NPOV statement for Wikipedia is that 'falls is on the border between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu'. It will keep the article above all political controversies about the falls. Naadapriya (talk) 22:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Naadapriya

As I mentioned earlier too, yes there was a survey earlier and is planned now too. Both the earlier survey [62] [63] [64] which ended abruptly [65] and the currently planned survey [66] [67] are about the island and not about the falls itself, which you can very well see in the references. BTW, I cant find anything mentioned about Hogenakkal in the THE KARNATAKA GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1899 you provided. Are you mentioning about a specific statement in that document? Can you point us to that if you can please? Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Island is a part of the falls area. Therefore there is dispute over the falls area accepted by the Govt of India which is conducting survey again to correct the mistakes done during foreign rule.Naadapriya (talk) 06:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC).

Reply to John Carter

I think using the word just in the lead is not very encyclopedic. Well thats my opinion. Can you think about someother word by that line, or shall we stick on to Renee's suggestion? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughhts, why do we need to say just? Its either in or out isn't it? I think we should stick on to Renee's suggestion. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 22:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

so finally we seem to reach a consensus , well done Renee and well said Renee"The Hogenakkal Falls are located in Tamil Nadu, along the river that borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka." . do other editors & admin ready for this one ??--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The incomplete surveys, ongoing political discussions clearly points out that it is a disputed border. Even the Tamil Nadu govt has agreed to wait till the elections in Karnataka assembly. Hence concluding that Hogenakal Falls is in Tamil Nadu is totally wrong. I strongly suggest to keep it as disputed until the Governments of the states solve the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 05:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

None of the citations state that falls is in a specific state. All lead to conclusion that it is on the border. The best solution for now from Wikipedia point of view is Hogenakkal Falls is located on the river-border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. It will keep the article independent of current on going political dispute.Naadapriya (talk) 06:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is directly opposed to Wikipedia's policy on original research and verifiability. We cannot come to any such conclusion based on a lack of sources. I also note that no reliable source discusses any dispute over the location of the Falls. There are disputes over usage of river water, and over access to the island below the Falls, but not the location of the Falls. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Naadapriya's statements look unfortunately similar to statements I have seen made by politicians and others elesewhere, when they potentially false issues to obfuscate the central point of discussion. At least one of the sources uses the phrase "in Tamil Nadu" to describe the falls. I haven't seen any yet that use language which clearly and specifically state that the falls fall inside Karnataka at all. I would welcome seeing any such reliable source produced. Without such a source, the contention that the falls are even remotely "in Karnataka" cannot be substantiated. John Carter (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to above 2 comments:TO date there is no single verifiable citation that states the falls completely belongs to a specific state. Two Govt citations listed above and many reputed news paper citations clearly state that it is on the Karnataka border. 'In Tamil Nadu it flows towards falls does not say that falls is completely in Tamil Nadu. (Rivers enters TN, then flows out to Karnataka and reenters, See the map pointed out byJeremyMcCracken ). Such interpretation will fall into original original research. NPOVis requested particularly from Admns. All should make an effort keep this wikipedia article on beautiful water falls independent of ongoing political legal dispute and not a party of the dispute.Naadapriya (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no "ongoing political legal dispute" as to where the Falls are located. Naadapriya has agreed that the river does not just flow along the border, therefore it is possible that the Falls are not on the border. I have yet to see a reliable source saying the Falls are on the border. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement that river flows in and out of TN obviously means it is on the border some places (see the map). 'therefore it is possible that the Falls are not on the border' is original research. Naadapriya in not Refusing to 'get the point. He is making a point based on valid Govt citations.NPOV is requested from the AdmnNaadapriya (talk) 19:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to Skbhat

The survey is not on the falls, as per the reliable source news citations I have shown. Tamil Nadu government has kept the project on hold, not the survey. I would be more than glad if you can show us references that Governments of these states actually are disputing on the jurisdiction of the waterfalls (not the island). Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't understand why the editors who claim the falls lies in between the two states fail to produce any citations , even a single reference would do some good for their claim , they still maintain a 0:6 ratio while they continue to argue for their stand . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

TO date there is no single verifiable citation that states the falls completely belongs to a specific state. Based on the responses and citations todate majority agree that it is on the borderNaadapriya (talk) 18:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)