Talk:Hogenakkal Falls/Archive 2

Lead - phrasing
There have been quite a few suggestions.
 * User Renee's sugestion
 * The Hogenakkal Falls are located in Tamil Nadu, along the river that borders Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.


 * User John Carter's suggestion
 * 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.


 * My suggestion
 * The falls are located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, close to the border with Karnataka.


 * User @ the $un$hine's suggestion
 * It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, which is located / lies close to the border with Karnataka.


 * Finally the one already in the article
 * It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, along the borders with Karnataka state.

I'm hoping to hear contrustive feed backs. As for as comments not based on proper citations I guess its best to over look and move on, or else we won't get anywhere and just wasting our precious time. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 11:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * A NPOV statement as suggested earlier will solve the issue and save time for all. Only way is to keep the article on the beautiful falls independent of politics and above state legal disputes. Pushing POV included in the current text is stalling the progress and wasting time for all. Naadapriya (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence that there is any possible violation of POV has been repeatedly requested of you. None has yet been forthcoming. The matter would be solved once and for all if you would produce the evidence of there being disagreement in reliable sources, as you have been repeatedly asked to do, but have to date not yet done. Please produce the evidence requested to verify that there is any real question regarding the position of the falls relative to the extant political boundaries. You have been asked to do that repeatedly, and have to date failed to produce any useful evidence to that effect. Until that evidence is produced, there is no valid reason to think that there is any real dispute. However, continuing such a dispute without evidence being produced could be seen as being a violation of wikipedia guidelines, and could lead to either the page or the user in question being locked or blocked. Once again, I request you to verify that there is in fact any verifiable question regarding whether the falls per se even partially lie within the boundaries of Karnataka. Thank you for your cooperation. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply to Naadapriya
 * (Edit conflict)Please note that the following third party users are able to see the that reliable sources have been produced that the waterfalls is in Tamil Nadu:
 * S HEFFIELD S TEEL
 * John Carter
 * Renee
 * There is nothing much more I can tell you rather than this. It would be really unfortunate that you are not able to see the point we all clearly see. So to move on, if the third party/outside users can come to an agreement on the lead, we can proceed on improving the article. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 16:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * At this point, my opinion would be that the lead, as it stands, is too short and lacking in detail. Perhaps something like, and the exact phrasing here isn't suggested as being remotely final, I'm making it up as I go along, "Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, near the border of Karnataka. It has historically been used for bathing and boating, and has recently been the subject of a proposed project to generate drinking water." That would summarize the existing content of the article better, as per WP:LEAD. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What about this:
 * Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, near the border of Karnataka. It is sometimes refered as the Niagara of India. With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. This is also the site of a proposed project to generate drinking water.
 * Does is sound ok? Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 16:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We would need sourcing for the "Niagara of India" part, and the rock part, as neither is yet extant in the article. Otherwise, no objections from me. John Carter (talk) 18:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * References
 * Niagara of India -
 * Oldest carbonatites -
 * There are quite a few references for the Niagara of India thing, but I'm not too sure about using the urls to avoid link spams. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 18:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Above has embedded POV] statement without [[RS. Therefore I suggest NPOV statement. Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is on the border between Tamil Nadu  and Karnataka states. The nearby towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. It is sometimes referred as the Niagara of India. With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world.  Naadapriya (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the above statement about POV is wrong, as no reliable sources contending otherwise have yet been produced. I would very much regret it if the editor above were to be found to have broken our behavior guideline of WP:DE and be subject to a block on that basis. I once again, for it seems like the seventh or eighth time now, ask that editor to produce clear evidence which clearly and explicitly make the claims which the statements he has used as sources above do not clearly make. Should he continue in making claims which seem to everyone other than him to be possibly deliberate misrepresentations of the evidence he has so far produced, I regret to say that the chances of the article being protected, and no changes whatsoever made to it, are unfortunately good. Also, should he continue in at least in the eyes of some, apparently misrepresenting his own cited sources, he may himself be made subject to some sort of block to prevent further disruption. I once again ask that he produce the required evidence which explicitly makes the claims he is asserting, which none of the evidence he has to date produced does. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Instead of unnecessarily tainting other editors with wrong doings, please focus on following two points.
 * To leave the statement that falls is in Tamil Nadu does not have RS support.
 * To state falls is on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka there are RS supports including those from Govt websites
 * Naadapriya (talk) 20:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, none of the statements you have yourself put forward meet WP:RELIABILITY or WP:VERIFIABILITY standards for the claims you make of them, so there is no just case to say that the other, existing sources, which do state the falls are within Tamil Nadu, to be questioned. Please find a source which actually states what you are claiming, which none of the sources you have to date does. You are the one who has made claims which cannot be substantiated by the sources you have provided. Please focus on finding sources that do. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

"Map Of Tamil Nadu" searches

 * Bharat Heritage map (shows Hogenakal Falls)
 * Kerala Tourism map (shows Hogenakal Falls)
 * India At Its Best map (shows Hogenakal Falls)

"Map of Karnataka" searches

 * Bharat Heritage map  (shows Shivasamudra Falls, but not Hogenakal Falls)
 * Kerala Tourism map (no falls shown)
 * India At Its Best map (identical to Bharat Heritage map)

"Hogenakal Karnataka" searches, because sometimes you have to root for the underdog

 * Cauvery feature presentation "Situated on the Karnataka - Tamil Nadu border" "Hogenakal Falls is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful places in Tamil Nadu state"

Note that I've had to remove links to maps-india dot com, which is currently on our spam blacklist. Their map also showed the Falls in Tamil Nadu. Honestly, at this point I feel I have done enough research. I have better things to do with my life.

Conclusion
Hogenakal Falls are in Tamil Nadu, and they are on the border with Karnataka, but very much in that order. Disputes about water usage or land usage have nothing to do with this. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The conclusion is based on the maps by private organizations which may not be official. This conclusion should be made only after RS (preferably from Govt) is shown that states the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu state. No such RS is provided to date. Island on which there is a legal dispute is part of the falls area. The article is not just about a specific part of the falls (say where water drops). As expected it talks about approach, fishing and boating etc. Land associated with falls is also part of the article. Many of us are spending voluntary time to make article more reliable for readers. Time should never be a constraint when it comes to accuracy issues. Please revisit your conclusion.


 * I would suggest NPOV statement: 'Hogenakal Falls is in South India located about 280 km from Chennai and 90 km from Bangalore. The nearest towns are Dharmapuri of Tamil Nadu and Mahadeshwara hills  of Karnataka which are located about 40 and 30 kms, respectively.


 * This will give best idea about the location of the falls to readers. Also will keep the article independent of all on going disputes. Thanks for every one time.Naadapriya (talk) 22:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do note that WP:CONSENSUS does not require that every person involved in a discussion agree, but that where there does seem to be an intractable party involved, only the majority of editors involved in a discussion agree. I note that no evidence has yet been produced which indicates that the falls are at all in Karnataka, and that several pieces of evidence have been produced indicating that it is in Tamil Nadu. I think that, barring the production of clear evidence which explicitly indicates that the falls are "in Karnataka", which means in common usage "are at least in part physically located within the boundaries of the extant state of Karnataka", that consensus regarding this matter has been reached. John Carter (talk) 20:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Great! Seeing that we are getting close to a consensus here, see if this lead sounds reasonable. I pinched a bit from the existent one and a bit from this book (page 13).
 * It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, close to the border with Karnataka.
 * with the references going in place. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 20:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * sure!! i agree to this conclusion and if they feel they need other alternative then they may write this way too It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, which is located / lies close to the border with Karnataka.regards: --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned earlier I would suggest NPOV statement: 'Hogenakal Falls is in South India located about 280 km from Chennai and 90 km from Bangalore. The nearest towns are Dharmapuri of Tamil Nadu and Mahadeshwara hills  of Karnataka which are located about 40 and 30 kms, respectively. Naadapriya (talk) 08:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I dont agree with the conclusion. None of the official maps from both states show clearly that the falls entirely belongs to one states. Even the map given by the tamilnadu government http://tnmaps.tn.nic.in/blks_info.php?dcode=05&blk_name='Pennagaram'&dcodenew=9&drdblknew=3 does not show any reference to Hogenakkal. An article about Hogenakkal(Village) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hogenakkal_%28village%29 is started when, there is no such village listed in the map of Dharmapuri. The other evidence provided as proof are from http://mrcindia.org/ and other tourism departments. The illustrations from these entities will be based on the physical routes through which they reach the place, which cannot be used as a proof. The news in http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/30/stories/2005093006130400.htm clearly states that "The boundary between the two States is clearly depicted on the maps by dotted lines along the middle of the course of the Cauvery". If you can reach one side of the falls from a state does not mean that the entire falls belongs to that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Skbhat! Instead of showing us any citation on if the any part of falls physically lie within the jurisdiction of Karnataka, you are saying the same old thing. to avoid other editors quit the project in frustration I think I shall move on to phrasing the lead, unless in light of any WP:RS material shown by the other party. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Wikiality123 I have never claimed hat the entire region of the falls is inside Karnataka.  You were claiming that entire falls is in Tamilnadu.  You have to produce proof for it.  I have produced a citation which says that "The boundary between the two States is clearly depicted on the maps by dotted lines along the middle of the course of the Cauvery."  Even you have agreed that the falls lies along the border of the two states.  Hence I don't agree that the falls lies entirely in Tamilnadu.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 05:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Skbhat. To date none have shown any RS that states falls is completely in Tamil Nadu.All RS  including Govt sites from TN state that it is on the border. From Wikipedia point of view a NPOV statement independent of ongoing legal dispute is needed not the current POV statement in the article.User:Wikiality123 please note that to date you have not shown any RS to support your statement. Naadapriya (talk) 16:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And there has also been absolutely no evidence to indicate otherwise. You have been asked repeatedly to provide any evidence whatsoever to substantiate the claim that any part of the falls is within Karnataka, and have yet to produce any such evidence. There is no reason to try to disprove something which has not been indicated to be a reasonable possibility in the first place. You have yet to demonstrate any evidence which meets WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY to indicate otherwise, despite repeated requests to do so. Until and unless you do so, there is no good reason to believe that any extant evidence even hold open the possibility that any part of the falls per se, which is the subject of discussion here, are located within the political boundaries of Karnataka. Also, repeatedly demanding that others produce evidence that meets reliability and verifiability standards, when you have yourself to date failed to do either regarding this subject, could conceivably be taken as a violation of WP:TE on your part. I also, regretably, notice what could be seen as an attempt to game the system on your part in the prior RfC, considering that the bulk of your argument to date has been about the proposed water project, not the falls themselves. However, considering you have yet to produce any useful evidence at all that the falls do not fall entirely within Tamil Nadu, no one else is required to show that they do. The onus of proof, right now, is on you, Naadapriya. I sincerely urge you to try to find the proof required to verify your assertion before questioning existing reliable evidence on the basis of what is, to date, a completely unverified contention on your part. John Carter (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sir 1 and 4 in my recitation! above are Govt based RS to that states the falls is on the border. All maps shown today from reputed sites including that from Google support it. It is not understood why one is failing to see that. Please do not stall the progress with interpretations based on original research. Even the article 262 which is attempted for use as a citation to state that falls is in a specific state has a recent amendment 'In the last of the inter-State meetings held in April 1990 the principal contestants viz. Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, predictably, agreed to differ.' Therefore NPOV statement suggested is the best solution. BTW: In order to follow your view points consistent responses to all comments are requested instead of spontaneous random responses. Thanks for your time. Naadapriya (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw them. But neither one even remotely comes close to making the statements required. I am assuming, as you didn't clarify, that you meant, "Tamil Nadu Tourism lead sentence says 'Hogenakkal is situated on the border of Karnataka', and (4) "Government of Tamil Nadu, Department of economics and statistics says Hogenakkal water falls : here cauvery enters into Tamil Nadu." "Situated on the border" does not make it clear whether or not the border is on one side of the falls, which is certainly possible. As such, it does nothing to indicate that any part of the falls explicitly lie within Karnataka, as the border could be on one side of the falls. Number four suffers from the same vagueness, as it does not indicate exactly, relative to the falls, where the border lies. Such vague phrasing, particularly in translation to English, could just as easily be used to indicate "The outside edge of the falls forms the border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu". If that is the meaning of the clearly vague statement, then there is no evidence to state that any part of the falls lies within Karnataka. As such, there is no concrete evidence to support the contention that any part of the falls do fall within Karnataka. What would be required is a clear, direct statement to that effect. Believe it or not, I used to work, several years ago, in my state's Department of Natural Resources, which dealt with rivers, streams, lakes, and yes, waterfalls, and I can attest that the language used by such entities is not necessarily such that meets encyclopedic standards, and is in fact far from reliable.
 * If any clear, unambiguous evidence that the border between the two states lies within the space taken by the falls itself, then there somewhere be a document using clear, precise phrasing to that effect somewhere. There is a city in Colorado whose border extents out a lane or two in the highway, because the speed limit for their lane is much lower than the highway's, it is a notorious speed trap. The boundary there is very clearly defined in law indeed. If there were a real dispute about the location of the falls, or if it was clearly the case that the boundary fell within the area of the falls per se, there would certainly be evidence much more clear than you have to date shown which would clearly state that. There would also be almost regular statements in the local press and other reports dealing with the subject which would at least mention in passing that the falls extended into both states, using clear, unambigous language. If you were to produce those sources, which made such explicit statements as are required, then there would be no need for any further discussion. Please produce the sources making the clear, unambiguous statements required. Unfortunately, the statements you have produced, which do not themselves inherently make the claims you say they make, do not meet that threshold. John Carter (talk) 17:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Request for edit
I am proposing that the following text be substituted for the current lead: Hogenakkal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu,    along the borders with Karnataka state. It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 46 kms from Dharmapuri. It is sometimes refered to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. This is also the site of a proposed project to generate drinking water."

It incorporates the current lead, and the new additions proposed above. It also substantially agrees with the comments of the parties who came in for the RfC. I believe, given the remarkable lack of reliable evidenciary support the contention that the falls lie in part within the boundaries of Karnataka, which was the proximate reason for the placement of the toofewopinions, coupled with the lack of support for that position during the RfC, that it would be reasonable for that tag to be removed. I do however believe that the page should probably remain protected, at least for some time, until agreement on the remainder of the content of the article can be achieved. Comments? John Carter (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed! I too reckon the page protection should stay (atleast semi protected). Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the proposal, and with the suggested continuation of protection, since I think other issues may need to be resolved. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposed lead still contains strong and controversial POV statements without support of Reliable sources as pointed out earlier in discussions by many editors. It needs further editing. Article still needs the current tags until all issues are resolved.Naadapriya (talk) 23:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the editor above has been requested repeatedly to provide reliable, verifiable sources to justify his claims. He has to date produced no such sources that, seemingly, few if any parties other other than he himself accept as reliable. John Carter (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * i fully agree to the text of John Carter and too wish that the page remains semi protected  at least for some time to  stop any possible vandalism .regards: --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to above two coordinated and previously solicited editor's comments.: Comments are based on repeatedly ignoring to acknowledge Reliable sources identified in items 1 and 4 of the list of 11 justifications in section 15.2.2 'Parties that claim that it is on the border of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu' and also map identified by User:JeremyMcCracken. Making invalid comments is stalling the progress and leading to vandalism.Naadapriya (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have produced a citation which says that "The boundary between the two States is clearly depicted on the maps by dotted lines along the middle of the course of the Cauvery." (http://www.hindu.com/2005/09/30/stories/2005093006130400.htm) Even you have agreed that the falls lies along the border of the two states. Hence I don't agree that the falls lies entirely in Tamilnadu. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skbhat (talk • contribs) 05:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of the best graphics based Reliable sources presented to date for this article. As engineers say a picture is worth 1000 words. I agree with user:skbhat's conclusion. The evidence clearly proves that falls area is on the border not in any specific state. One can see both falls and Island which is an integral part of the falls area. This is  supported by map identified by User:JeremyMcCracken earlier. Falls is located where the river crosses the border. Admns are requested to take a detailed look.Naadapriya (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I reviewed the link shown. It has serious weaknesses, however. One, it says that the middle of rivers are used as boundaries by "prevailing opinions" or words to that effect. "Prevailing opinions" are not necessarily applied in all cases, so there is no clear and distinct evidence that it applies in this case. Also, that statment about the river being divided refers to the river being divided, not the falls. That is a real difference. Lastly, of course, it does not specifically state in an unambiguous way that some point in the middle of the falls is the border, or that the falls themselves are "joint property" of the two states. In fact, no explicit statement that the falls are considered joint territory can be found in the statement. It would be a violation of wikipedia's policy on original research to declare that the statement made in the source pointed to says something it does not explicitly say. While that link can be used to say that the river, not specifically including the falls, forms part of the border which runs along the middle of the river, it does not specifically say the falls themselves are so divided. You can criticize me for being over attentive to details if you want, but, in all honesty, the source itself doesn't make the claim which it's proponents say it makes. If another source is found which does clearly make that statement, then of course the content would be revised. The parties advocating the split nature of the falls have basically been told that repeatedly. It should not be difficult to find such a statement if the claim is true. Please find such sources if you want the content to be adjusted. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Going by above comment 'no explicit statement that the falls are considered joint territory' todate there is no explicit statement  in any Reliable source that says the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu.Naadapriya (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe it or not, the official documents regarding Los Angeles nowhere say that the city isn't a part of Algeria either. No one has to disprove something which is not specifically asserted by any reliable sources. No reliable sources indicating that the falls are even partially in the territory of Karnataka have been produced, so there is no reason for any other source to try to disprove what seems, at least to me, to be an opinion which seems to have started with you. By the way, I don't know that George W. Bush has ever specifically denied reports that he is a cannibal from outer space. Does that mean that we would be justified in saying he is? As you have been told for about a dozen times now, it is incumbent on you to produce reliable sources which do clearly and explicitly make the statement you are making. Until and unless you do so, there is no reason for anyone to try to disprove something which no demonstrated reliable sources explicitly say. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ignoring the unrelated comments in above response it is repeated again that 4 Reliable sources including those by user:skbhat and user:User:JeremyMcCracken are already presented. They are more than adequate from wikipedia requirements. BTW 'opinion which seems to have started with you' leads to believe that one has ignored to read previous comments by other editors and possibly jumped in at random responding to some editor's solicitation. It is requested to focus on the topic instead of unrelated commentsNaadapriya (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The comments were relevant, actually. They were to indicate that there is no reason to disprove something which has never been clearly asserted by a reliable source in the first place. Your contention has never been clearly asserted in a reliable source that has yet been produced, so there would be no reason for anyone else to contend otherwise. For what is now at least the twelfth time, I once again urge the party above, Naadapriya, to attempt to find a source which clearly does make the required statement. His failure to even, so far as I can tell, attempt to do so to date would certainly at least indicate to any outsider that he himself might realize that the evidence required for the inclusion of the content he seeks to add does not exist. If that were to be the case, then, in all honesty, there would be no reason to even respond to any further comments that party might make, as those comments would not be addressing any real issues, but simply attempting to force through changes in the content based on inadequate evidence. If, as Naadapriya as repeatedly said, the falls do at least in part fall in Karnataka, then it would seemingly be a comparatively simple matter for him to locate at least one reliable source which clearly makes that statement. If he cannot, the evidence that he has submitted to date is, by the existing consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS, apparently inadequate to justify the changes he seeks to make. John Carter (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One a lighter note he might be..lols <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 20:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * i beg u plzz go through this entire page and to the citations/ref ...see u seem to argue without nul references ...why ??--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 15:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

✅ The consensus of the reasoned contributions to this discussion seem to be in favour. Naadapriya appears to have shot himself in the foot by making accusations of canvassing for which I can find no evidence. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 09:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Happy-melon Glad to know that you just jumped in to the discussions at this stage. Can you please justify your comments particularly  Done in detail referring point by point to all discussions so far????. Otherwise your comment may be considered as mute as per guidelines. Naadapriya (talk) 15:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the edit Happy-melon, can you get this toofewopinions tag out too please. I'm assuming, people are fine with that. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * good work Happy-melon, if possible you may even add this citation ( thanks S HEFFIELD S TEEL ) for the waterfalls location if you find its needed [ "Map Of Tamil Nadu" searches


 * Bharat Heritage map (shows Hogenakal Falls)
 * Kerala Tourism map (shows Hogenakal Falls)
 * India At Its Best map (shows Hogenakal Falls)] regards :--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the current lead sounds good and is properly sourced with the best available sources, with the exception of this clause, "along the borders with Karnataka state." The plural "borders" is confusing to me.  Grammatically, shouldn't it be "along its border with Karnataka state" or "along the border of Karnataka state"? Renee (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're right. Considering that is a really minor edit, I could do it myself if the rest were agreeable. John Carter (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree that along its border with Karnataka state is grammatically correct. I also think it's noncontroversial. Such a change doesn't alter the meaning of the text at all. If the article weren't editprotected, I'd make that edit myself and mark it as minor. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 01:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that most comments here are going round and round about an incorrectly proposed statement in lead that has no Reliable support. Based on current Reliable sources already presented ' Falls is located on the border between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu not just in Tamil Nadu'. To add one more citation even the news agency from Thailand states ' The waterfall is located about 450 km west of Chennai, in the region bordering Karnataka and attracts thousands of tourists every year'. Therefore proposed lead in this section needs significant correction before posting.Naadapriya (talk) 06:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What about close to the border with Karnataka like this guy mentions it? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 08:49, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is unfortunate that Naadapriya in his own comments has yet to provide any evidence to support the contention that the falls are even partially in Karnataka. In fact, his own quoted source above seems to be indicating that the falls are not in Karnataka, as it would be linguistically incompetent to say that a place in area X also borders on area X. What would be useful would be some clear indication, possibly from a geological survey, which indicates just how close the falls are to the border. If we can find clear evidence of how close the falls are to the border, it would give us a better idea of how much emphasis to lay on the matter. John Carter (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

NPOV lead statement based on comments and Reliable Sources
The following NPOV lead statement will be sent to Admn for inclusion in the article.. Comments are welcome.

Hogenakkal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located along the border where river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka  It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. . Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs) 07:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree
 * Obvious disregard to policies and RS material <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree : if you wish to start the whole discussion once again then u may very well do the same HERE but im sure it's not here . im not ready for this game . are we wasting time with this member, if yes then kindly let the admin know ...plzz i cant bare this ......any more....we r not here without work. kindly recheck all the citations uv included here , which of which disproves the location in tn or its presence in karnataka ?? something is wrong for sure ....im not ready for this game...--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes to getting real facts into wikipedia time should not be a constraint. To date there is no single Reliable source which says that falls is in any specific state.Naadapriya (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Did not know that one of the wonderful tourist place is a matter of hot debate!!! Tourist information says that it is a part of Tamilnadu. News shows that Karnataka is also putting claims on that piece of place. Anyhow I am not saying any side is correct or wrong. You people carry on. Just wanted to know is it safe to visit the place. love KP —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karatprakash (talk • contribs) 09:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * you r most welcome to visit ...the entire falls are comming under the jurisdiction of tamilnadu( kindly check all those citations provided above ) and security is very well there so u may happily tour there and have the right to ...regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well.... <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 10:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * well.... following and agreeing to Wiki San Roze --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:Karatprakash I agree that it is a safe place to visit. Both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka facilitates the visits. As some news says majority of tourists come from Karnataka particularly the IT capital Bangalore. Also do not forget to visit beautiful Madeshwara hills close by in Karnataka. Under Govt of India all places in India are safe and also it supports the fact that falls belongs to both states.Naadapriya (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagree. The lead proposed above does not match the evidence provided and/or the sources fail to meet Wikipedia standards. Here they are:
 * No. 1 -- This one is a primary source (a court document) so does not meet WP:RS or WP:V. In addition, I did a search for "Hogenakkal" and it came up empty. The word is not even in the document.
 * No. 11 -- This clearly shows the falls on the right side of the river, and when you click on "hogenakkal" by the letter "A" a photo comes up and clearly says "hogenakkal, tamil nadu" at the bottom of the photo insert.
 * No. 12 -- This is a tour guide site (i.e., self-published, does not meet WP:RS) and further, it says "Hogenakal Falls is a beautiful water falls in the neighboring state of Tamilnadu."
 * No. 13 -- This is another tourism site (i.e., self-published, not reliable) and no where does it say that the falls are in Karnataka. In contrast, because the site is a Tamil Nadu site, it indicates that where the river enters Tamil Nadu is where the falls are, i.e., "It is in Hogenakkal that the Cauveri enters Tamil Nadu as a big river with gushing waters..."
 * These sources, though not reliable in my opinion, actually support the fact that the falls are in Tamil Nadu. Renee (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree The sources are split into three groups:
 * those who say it is in Tamil Nadu;
 * those who say it is on the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnakata;
 * those who say it is in Tamil Nadu, on the border with Karnakata.
 * This third formulation is the best choice for the article lead, because it represents all three views, while excluding none of them. Is is the only way I can see that we can comply with WP:NPOV by representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Good grouping. However 2 is the best NPOV statement and represents all views. Importantly it will keep the article independent of ongoing legal dispute which may go for many many years.Naadapriya (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1 says "A", 2 says "B", 3 says "A and B". How you can look at that list, and say 2 represents all views fairly, is beyond me. Please stop this now. It's getting beyond being "unwilling to respect consensus" and moving in the direction of "tendentious and disruptive" editing. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * NO 1 is not court document.It is part of the constitution. The 1956 state reorganization act is the latest one. As mentined earlier it is amended that both state agreed to differ on the contents of 262. (see earlier discussions).


 * No 11. The map shows border area where the falls is located. (Belly shape area).


 * No 12 The same Govt is now legally disputing now. Therefore the sentence must be referring to specific side of the falls


 * No 13 The lead sentence from TN official site states "Hogenakkal is situated on the border of Karnataka'


 * Therefore the falls as described in the article is on the border not in any specific state. Naadapriya (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No. 1 -- Well, that's funny, given the website is for the Indian court system . And, the document, titled Background Paper* on ARTICLE 262 AND INTER-STATE DISPUTES RELATING TO WATER, sure reads like a legal document for a court case.  And (besides that), the word "Hogenakkal" does not appear in the document. And (most importantly), court, legal, or govt documents are all primary sources and need secondary sources for interpretation, so it is not a reliable source.
 * Nos. 11 and 12 -- Both of these sites clearly say that the falls are in Tamil Nadu (the former in the picture caption, the latter see the quotation above).
 * No. 13 -- Site leads one to believe falls are in Tamil Nadu at the border of Karnataka (not a reliable site anyways).
 * Yes, I agree with John Carter that this is a round and round meaningless exercise. We have consensus based on the sources.  I honestly don't see what the big deal is -- as Sheffield Steel says, the article does say the falls are along the border.  I suggest Naadapriya pursue dispute resolution if s/he is still unhappy.  Let's move on! Renee (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * so nice to see u people bringing this worry go round to a conclusion, many thanks . regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Too few opinions
Why do we still have the article tagged with toofewopinions? I am under an impression that it is resolved, although the other party is showing a stuborn stance. So to clarify my question, do the editors who agree on the lead still think we need this article tagged? Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 14:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably the wrong way to phrase it, as that phrasing seems slightly prejudicial. Someone might, for whatever reason, disagree on the lead for some other basis as well. Personally, however, I myself do not see how a viewpoint which is not explicitly stated in any yet-cited reliable source qualifies as significant. As that seems to be the reason for the tags inclusion, I would support removing it as there has yet to be any reliable, verifiable assertion that the opinion which is not included qualifies as significant. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Tag{toofewopinions) needs to stay till lead is corrected with NPOV statements and section on unrelated /speculative water project under legal dispute is removed. Edit protection is OK since Admns can modify based on rational consensusNaadapriya (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, since we still need to talk about it, it would be fair if the tag is moved to that section under question and not the whole article, isnt it? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 16:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For now Global tag is fine till important corrections are made. Otherwise the article needs too many internal tags that may confuse readersNaadapriya (talk) 16:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * By your logic the whole wikipedia should be tagged then. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Added templates
I have added templates to the top of the page. The more important of them I believe is the Round In Circles template. Certain parties appear to be dedicated to repeating certain statements on a regular basis. Such repetition seems to fill no purposes. I urge all parties considering editing this page to see whether their comments have anything new to say. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a great template -- never seen it before and agree it's relevant here. Sorry to be dense but I don't see any different templates added to the top of the article?  Thanks, Renee (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, I just saw it at the top of the talk page. (I was looking on the article page.)Renee (talk) 00:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * many thanks John Carter for this Round In Circles template much needed template else visitors may feel drowsy going round and round this vicious circle. :--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST TO ALL
'''Please do not modify comments by other editors. It is against the guidelines. If done your comments may become invalid'''Naadapriya (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first half of the statement above is true. The second half, declaring that comments might become invadlis, is difficult to comprehend at best. I don't know what it is supposed to mean, but it is a bit of an irrelevant point. Having said that, beyond fixing formatting and the like to maintain continuity of discussion, which is occasionally allowed, it does make sense not to remove comments. And, if one might make a request of the starter of this thread, his/her love of bolding is getting a bit tiring as well. Maybe he could lay off it for a while. We can read, you know. ;) John Carter (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to know that the message is conveyed to some extent.Naadapriya (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Away from crowded discussions
Due to crowded discussions and adhoc random and possibly coordinated responses from editors  the response to a specific comment by  User:SheffieldSteel is posted here.


 * 1) Strong POV statement that falls is in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, does not have Reliable Source to date.  To date about 10 editors have opposed the statement. Also it contradicts the following statement 'along its border with Karnataka state'. Allowing such POV statement that has legal implications is not correct for wikipedia.
 * 2) For Wikipedia we need to go by definition of border. It either belongs to both sides or to a neutral party but not for one side.

To all:Please do not repeat the same answers unless you have a new valid citation to prove otherwise. No personal attacks please. It is a waste of energy and time for all.Naadapriya (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Modified NPOV lead statement  for Admn to add

Hogenakkal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located along the border between Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts where river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka  It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. . Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls.

Naadapriya (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

At present let us keep the lead just mentioning the distance of the falls from near by landmarks (Not even mentioning whether it is on the Border or Tamilnadu or Karnataka), till somebody comes up with verifiable Govt records. Even for mentioning that it is on the Border, we need verifiable reliable source. --Skbhat (talk) 02:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, in the interests of avoiding going around in circles, I'll ask a new question. What, in this new proposal, is new? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 02:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is very simple. It does not have the unsupported and legally controversial statement which conveys that 'the falls is in a specific state.' I think word 'border' is needed but will not affect too much if removed since adequate location information is given.Naadapriya (talk) 06:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To all here, including the admins. Thanks for your support and I think I am really fed-up with all this. I can do much better things within the limited time I have on wikipedia. This discussion on the border and jurisdiction is going nowhere at all. I am out of here. There are loads of articles to be improved on wikipedia and I also have a GA review going on one of my articles. I am in such a situation that I can't spend too much time on wiki anyways and always believe in quality time rather than quantity. I have been talking to the specific editor for longer than anyone else here and trust me, its just so heartbreaking that someone would not respect a fellow human's courtesy and the time spent on him. For now, am out of here. Adios amigos and amigas if any (you may never know!). <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 09:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To Wikiality123, Please have patience. What is the problem to have a non-committal lead for

this subject like the one below, till we get a deterministic reference. Please comment.--Skbhat (talk) 10:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a place for lukewarm compromise sentences or in your words non comittal. It talks the truth as what the official documents would state. This has been told to your guys so many times by so many people. You probably didn't see that!. Show us all something tangible. Huh.. I know am barking up the wrong tree anyways. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * well me too, nowadays its really getting irritatable to go around this vicious circle....this is more than enough....the two members (Skbhat , Naadapriya )so far haven't produced even a single citation though requested by multiple editors and admins too , but these people  create something as a new lead with citations/references which all support its presence in the state of tamilnadu ....first try to give references else stop giving false references .... ref 1 : clearly states its presence in tamilnadu, ref 2 : clearly locates its presence in tamilnadu, ref 3 : r u jocking or u fail to find the word that it is mentioned as located in tamilnadu , ref 4 : , me a medico myself now wanna know if i find something tht others cant ???need to check ??  plzz do somthing abt this admin else ull sure loose members to work here in this discussion

OH COMMON ......THIS IS TOO MUCH ...I CANNOT STAY HERE ANY MORE ......IM NOT HERE TO KEEP ON ARGUING WITH ... WHO FAIL TO READ NOR REFER.....BUT IS A BOT THAT IS TRAINED TO REPEAT COMMENT .many thanks editors and admin's who spared their valuable time in this meaningless debate - i really feel sorry for that @ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Lead statement without any controversy.
I think we can have the following lead until one among us comes up with reliable verifiable source of information.

Hogenakkal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka  It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. . Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls.

--Skbhat (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It is the best NPOV and validated statement based on input from many editors to date.Naadapriya (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * many editors ?? how many ?? are you talking to urself ?? kindly go HERE, im dam sure ull never leave it , u may write what ever u wish for , none will oppose u ??  no  citations no nothing....but when it comes to a common page such as this we are forced to ask u such  citations and stuffs , so kindly forgive for repeatedly requesting you to provide the same and donot consider as a personal attack asuv claimed earlier , but u r amazingly arguing without basic grounds , hats off and congrats......--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Care full reading of discussions since June 2007 will reveal all facts. 'talking to urself' type personal attacks will not help anyone. 'hats off and congrats' to all who participated in intense debate that lead to non controversial statement posted in this section.  Let us unanimously recommend to Admn. Naadapriya (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * However, it clearly and deliberately refuses to mention where the falls specifically are. If you want to seek mediation to resolve the matter, fine, I don't think anyone would object. However, at this point, we have seen sources which specifically state the falls are "in Tamil Nadu". No sources specifically stating that the falls are "in Karnataka" have been found. Therefore, in the interests of accuracy, the opening paragraph should also include "in Tamil Nadu", and perhaps, "in Karnataka" if that is ever substantiated by a direct statement to that effect. However, as no statement to that effect has yet been presented, but sources which meet WP:RELIABILITY standards have been produced saying the falls are "in Tamil Nadu", there is no good reason to not include that information. I am in the next few days going to try to find some more sources on my own, and with any luck we might find more sourcing then. However, based on the current situation, I would completely and utterly oppose the willful removal of information from sources that meet WP:RELIABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY standards, as the proposal above does. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please show which WP:RS specifically state the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu that the current lead strongly implies. Otherwise we will be going in circles again

.
 * BTW. Good job on this round and round tag. Naadapriya (talk) 00:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I oppose this change. I agree with John Carter. Anything else I could say would be repeating myself. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess you are responding as one of the active editors of this article. To date you have not identified WP:RS that justifies current statement which strongly implies that the falls is completely in Tamil Nadu. How can an one accept just 'oppose' without explanation. BTW There are some curious observations about your involvement since beginning from Admn' side perspective. It may need clarifications. I would list them and post on user's talk page. I plan to consult Admns before I finalize the list. Before that I appreciate if you clarify your role about this article since you come in at random.Naadapriya (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Reconciling the sources
I've decided to look again at the map, to visualise the problem, to try to make sense of all the confusing information, and I'm happy to say that I have managed to reconcile all the sources. I urge all editors to view this map and my description immediately following. This is a view of the falls showing the border as a white line. Tamil Nadu is North and East of the border, Karnataka is South and West. The river flows into view from the West, and out to the South. By zooming in and out, and switching between Satellite and Terrain views, you can confirm for yourself that the waterfalls are upstream (North) of the island which is on the border, and access to which is disputed.
 * The first point to make, I think, is that there is no question of the border running along the river at this point. This is not one of those cases where half the river is in one territory, and half in the other. The river clearly crosses the border.
 * The disputed island is indeed on the border. Many sources say this. One of the sources I read today (I think it was The Hindu newspaper?) said that two-thirds of the island was in Tamil Nadu and one-third in Karnataka. From the map above, that seems very likely.
 * This does mean that the Falls are on the Tamil Nadu side of the border, although close enough to the border (in the legal sense of the word, meaning an infinitely thin dividing line) that they are described by many sources as being on the border (in the everyday sense of the word, as in "the border region").

Thus I present my theory. I humbly submit that it is in agreement with all of the sources presented so far, which means that none of the sources needs to be argued over or dismissed as unreliable. Now, there is still the matter of ongoing border dispute on the island. However, the sources that we have are all in agreement. Unless and until the government publishes a ruling, or re-surveys the border, or both, we're stuck with the situation as it is now. Personally, I think that any revision of the border is unlikely to move the border by more then the ~500m separating the falls and the border. But if it does, we can report that. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't be 100% sure about the specific definition of border in the third bullet point, but don't think that it's worth arguing over, as other sources use the phrase "on the border", so it could be used on that basis alone. Like I said, I acknowledge the map I saw earlier today may not have been to precise scale. Even if the exact border were a few millimeters or even a few meters to one side of the falls, along a given longitude or latitude which might fall just one side of the falls, I still think that would probably be close enough to use the word "on" as it is used in the sources. However, it does stand to reason to me that the law or existing definition of the border might be "the western side of the falls" or something similar, which would be functionally the same thing. John Carter (talk) 23:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, to be honest, I have lost you guys! May be a Friday early morning thing! <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * oh ya !! me too dont get a word :(, but im sure people r working out for a solution --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 08:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I figured out the problem why I didn't get that this morning. Too much caffeine!! Now that I have hydrated myself otherwise I see what you are getting at. If am not confused still, you are saying something similar to what I wrote a bit earlier with bird's eye views of satellite pictures from Google Earth. They pretty much say the same story as what ShefeildSteel is saying, I believe. If you guys can, you may download Google Earth and check it out. I guess to avoide further confusion and beating around the bush, what we can do is to include in the lead somewhere something like, the ownership of a piece of an uninhabited island near the waterfalls is contested by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. . Let me know on what you guy's think. Hope this solves the problem. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The map was already discussed above. Previous suggestion for lead is tainting the article with more unwarranted political dispute issuesNaadapriya (talk) 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Change to first sentence

 * Old text: Hogenakkal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River.
 * New text: Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River.

Reasoning: both spellings (both of the Falls and the River) are used in the sources, and this will reduce the reader's confusion (I know it caught out Renee, for example, who was trying to help us resolve this). This change should be non-controversial; please indicate any urgent problems below, and I can modify the proposal as necessary. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 00:54, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Naadapriya (talk) 07:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ after no apparent dissention. <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 17:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Most accurate, WP:RS based, nonpolitical and unbiased NPOV Lead statement
This is based on latest suggestions by user:skbhat and User:SheffieldSteel

--

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River. It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka  It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. . Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls.

--

Naadapriya (talk) 07:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed--Skbhat (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can any one of you for heaven's sake show me where is it mentioned in your four references for this sentence It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, i.e.,    the word Chamarajanagar? Failing to point such, both of you are unfortunately guilty of WP:HOAX. I reserve the right that in a possible scenario where Naadapriya or Skbhat do not show us that I would take this to the already filed AN/I agaisnt the user. I am well within my rights to warn a user before taking action. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the references do not mention about Chamarajanagar. Hope this link is useful. http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/27/stories/2008022757710300.htm --Skbhat (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no need for 'Sorry'. Wikiality123 is mistaken Chamarajanagar for Chamarajanagara District. Use of 'Near' is too general compared to the 'border'. AS i suggested earlier 'border' is better suited word. BTW  I have added this comment after reviewing all discussions to date.Naadapriya (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on!!! Does your reference talk about any one of them, either Chamarajanagar or Chamarajangara??? No no no!!! They don't. Your references say nothing of the sort you are using them for. This is not right Naadapriya. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 09:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * may be he wanna diver u elsewhere . the member produced a lot references tht has nothing to do with this topic and was told by various editors still he does the same .plzz do something diff. try to show something as ref tht has something to do with this article.--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to above 2 comments. The falls is included in wikipedia article cited on Chamarajanagar District. It is requested to read comments careful and stop misleading the discussions as above. The wording are based on references and maps. It needs to be noted editors are not just reporters. I guess there is a policy not 'cut and paste' information as implied by above 2 comments.Naadapriya (talk) 16:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable references for other articles in wikipedia. John Carter (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Mate read your own reference. It is about the island. How many times do we need to tell you that? If you guys want to talk about island dispute in this article, feel free to do so, but don't mess up the waterfalls' jurisdiction. I very strongly recommend you to read the news you had shown us it says
 * Ms. Gitanjali told the protesters that she could not permit them to enter the disputed part of the island as the joint survey to decide on the territory had not been completed. 
 * Both of you are in serious breach of being disruptive to the article. BTW Naadapriya can you explain on why you used the references which did not even mention about Chamarajanagar to back a sentence that specifically mentions that? This is to let who ever proceeds the AN/I to see for themselves the facts on what is going on here. Awaiting your reply! <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 12:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

To Wikiality123, See the claim in the lead. It just claims that Chamarajanagar is close to Hogenakkal. I think the reference(http://www.hindu.com/2008/02/27/stories/2008022757710300.htm) is sufficient for the claim. --Skbhat (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes please show me where does it state that in your reference! Feel free to paste it here for us to see, may be am just being daft. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 13:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The article in the link starts with "Hogenakkal (Chamarajanagar district) Members of the...........". Hence I have provided it.  As suggested by †αLҝ, I will go through WP:RS to check whether it prohibits from citing it for the claim.  thanks --Skbhat (talk) 15:09, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As mentioned to you on my talk page, first and foremost, stating in brackets in no way mean that Chamarajanagar is close to Hogenakkal. Then even if it is, it doesn't make Dharmapuri district close to the waterfalls, since we have materials from govt stating that the falls is in the Tamil Nadu. You will have to understand that no news agency can supercede Govt documents when it comes to the subject of jusrisdiction. Basically an RS is defined on the purpose you are using it for. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * For God's sake Naadapriya, what do you think an inline citation is for? Is it there just to fill in something there? The inline citations should state the claim it is used for. On closer look there are loads of serious problems and I'm stating it here for the record:
 * As said earlier the first four citations you used doesn't even mention the word Chamarajanagar
 * You are free to mention the distance from Chennai to the falls, but does the reference you used say that? Nopes!!!
 * Next sentence you stated was near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills backed by this reference, but once again the citation doesn't say anything at all.
 * Then your last sentence stating that Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls is once again not mentioned in your citation.
 * So basically the changes that you proposed were backed by citations that doesn't claim so. This is indeed a blantantly misleading the reader and a serious offence. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 14:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RESPONSES WITH OBJECTIVE EVIDENCES


 * 1) The WP article on Chamarajanagara District includes falls
 * 2) All maps including already cited Google map show that Madeshwara Hills is close by
 * 3) The current  article is about falls area that includes immediate up and down streams not just about a specific one spot of water dropping.
 * 4) Island at the foot of one portion of falls is a part of the article (cited photo shows it).
 * 5) Photos and maps are objective evidences.

Therefore the proposed lead in this section is the best NPOV. It gives credits to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka with no bias. All need to try best not to go round and round again. Responses with no personal attacks are requested.Naadapriya (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SELFPUB states Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources which brings down your first argument about Chamarajanagara district entry on wikipedia. If all maps are showing the M' hills closeby, why did you use www.mmhils.com which doesn't mention anything about it being close to Hogenakkal? And I haven't got a clue why you said The current article is about falls area that includes immediate up and down streams not just about a specific one spot of water dropping. Then you went on to say Island at the foot of one portion of falls is a part of the article, but does it say it is unique? I have seen many falls with islands closeby and you would be knowing that as a irrigation engineer! BTW you still haven't justified using references which don't even mention Chamarajanagar as a source backing that claim and all the other sentences with fake citations. I am under an impression that you are moving this discussion into a further complicated issue, by breaching more and more wiki rules. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia readers are smart enough to relate a map and a article. Redundant citations about MM hills are not needed. I have not seen such a island proporational the size of the falls  just near the foot. Island is more relevant topic than the speculative water project unrelated to falls. No one 'generates' water from water falls as the current POV lead states.  Water can be extracted anywhere from the river not necessarily at the falls.  If you cite at least  3 other similar falls,  'unique' can be removed. From beginning it is ChamarajaNagar District in the revised NPOV lead yet to be implemented. It is requested not to stall the discussions with false alarms like in the previous comments about obvious facts.BTW Irrigation engineers are not expected to see all falls in the world!!! It is again requested to stop personal attacks.06:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naadapriya (talk • contribs)

I have gone through WP:RS(not word by word). It does not explicitly say that Govt records are more reliable than news agencies. But if Ministry of Law, Govt of India, is considered scholarly, then definitely according to the guidelines it carries more weight than news publication.

1. Even the citation given by the Law ministry (http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-6.htm) says that "In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls" which certainly makes one feel that Falls is in the border, because the river enters Karnataka before reaching Mettur dam.

2.Information in a reputed news paper will have latest information than any other Govt records. Also, in this context, information provided by Karnataka and Tamilnadu govt is less reliable(Even if it has more weight politically).

3.Information provided by Tourism organizations or any other organization which is not concerned about the exact location of the border, will describe the their part of the story based on the route they have chosen to reach the location. The roads from Tamilnadu side are well maintained and provide comfortable access to the Falls. The route from Karnataka has to pass through Madeshwara hills, which was under strong influence of notorious bandit Veerappan for many years.

4.The Hindu is one of the reputed national news paper of India and hence I think the references from this news agency can be taken a bit more seriously than Tourism departments.

--Skbhat (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly if you didn't know Govt reports are drafted by experts and there can be no ambiguity allowed there. So that makes it scholarly more reliable than any other source provided here. We all do agree that the falls is near the border, but in Tamil Nadu. I do not think this is very hard to comprehend. Secondly, you have failed to see that jurisdictions are what governments decide and it makes the government documents more reliable than any news article. As for your third point, I do not see what has Veerappan got to do with this jurisdiction issue. As for Hindu's reputation is concerned I can not agree with you more. Nevertheless, what I have been repeatedly asking is to show where does it mention in your reference that the waterfalls either entirely or partially fall in the Karnataka jurisdiction. You may have failed to read what parties other than Naadapriya and you are saying. We do say that the falls is near the borders of the Karnataka state, but we don't see why it should be a shared border? The reference from the Law ministry specifically states that the falls is in Tamil Nadu as I mentioned earlier. If by your claim that the borders were then changed and the news papers are reporting it, can you give us such a news (that the borders have been ammended). If you still want to read something from the news papers, I shall give you another Hindu news article. I am not going to ask you to read the brackets and do your own interpretation, but, rather I shall point you to the exact phrase . Since you have agreed that you shall abide by news articles from Hindu rather than Government sites, I shall request you to read the link aloud and you can hear yourself reading Tourism potential of Dharmapuri district, which has one of the famous sight-seeing attractions in the State, Hogenakkal, remains untapped. Now tell me which state are they talking about? Please do not tell me that it is Karnataka. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree 'Govt reports are drafted by experts and there can be no ambiguity allowed there'. Therefore it clearly says the river flows towards falls. It does say that falls is in any specific state.
 * 2) Citation from Hindu quoted above says nothing about falls ownership. It talks about man-made pollution issue on Tamil Nadu side of the river border near falls.
 * 3) Citations from highly reputed Deccan herald news paper published from major city closer to the falls are also equally reliable as Hindu.
 * 4) Therefore the latest lead suggested in this section is the best NPOV for the article.Naadapriya (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * kindly add this citation too....hogenekkal is mentioned, hogenekkal isnt mentioned so in the lead too the same should reflect....here have a few more too - once again a central govt source...sorry except few almost all others will fix to govt sources , - sorry once again hogenekkal in tamilnadu , ,  , - any idea about trusting postal dept?? no?? then this is of no use--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just citations with name. Yet no WP:RS that states to defend current lead statement which strongly implies invalid information that falls is one specific state. BTW Nice to see this editor back in loop.Naadapriya (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In a way, as a former government employee, I disagree with the above, but only in a way. Like I said, I used to work for my state's Department of Natural Resources, and I have a little direct experience with such bodies. I think a more accurate statement would be that, when a governmental publication is being used to convey a publicity-related point (and they often do) that the statements which are not clearly made in a scientific, formal way, but rather in an "advertising" type way, may at times be being made for purposes of "advertising", and in that way at least a little dubious.
 * Having said that however, I can say I just reviewed five different travel books regarding India and South India. Three of them did not even mention the falls at all. Two others did mention the falls, "South India" by Richard Plunkett, etc., Lonely Planet, 2001, and "India Travel", TradeTravel Publications, 2001. Both of these books were clearly broken up into different sections for each state and region. In the former, it is mentioned on p. 593, which is in the section of the book clearly about Tamil Nadu. No mention is made about it being on the border. In the second, it is shown in a map of Tamil Nadu on p. 764. It is there shown in a map, specifically, a map of Tamil Nadu. In that map, which is on a comparatively small page, the map has the falls placed about one millimeter or so on the Tamil Nadu side of the border. Neither volume mentions the falls in the Karnataka sections. While I acknowledge that the scale of the distances in the map in the second volume could well have been altered for purposes of clarity or some other reason, the falls were clearly shown to be (at least in part) in Tamil Nadu in that map.
 * I believe that on the basis of the falls being included in the Tamil Nadu sections of those two volumes, both of which I believe meet WP:RS standards, that there can be no real question that the falls are at least in part in Tamil Nadu. Whether the falls are also in Karnataka is another matter, and one neither source addresses. And I cannot believe that these books do not qualify as a Reliable source, because as this page shows, at least Lonely Planet's books are used as a reference or external link in some 3800 pages already. John Carter (talk) 19:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Clear non-political NPOV lead statement independent of ongoing legal dispute
Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River. It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu back to Karnataka  It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills. Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls. With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides in the down stream, it is a major site of tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. . The falls is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India".

To date no opposition to above NPOV lead statement with objective evidences based on WP:RSNaadapriya (talk) 15:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish to express serious objection to the deliberate POV of the above proposal, as it seems to explicitly seek to ensure that information which is clearly supported by sources which meet reliable source criteria be not clearly stated for no apparent good reason. John Carter (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I also object. NPOV requires us to present all significant views on the subject, and this proposal does not present the views of multiple sources that have been discussed. The fact that there are ongoing real-world disputes does not mean that we should omit information from the article; on the contrary, we should document the disputes. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My sincere thanks to the above editor for expressing my own concerns better than I had done myself. :) John Carter (talk) 15:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The same question keeps haunting me as earlier. May be ShefeildSteel and John Carter can help me out. Does the reference used in the lead above actually back the statements they are used for? If yes please guide the daft me to it, if no isn't this deliberately misleading by an editor? Or is my understanding on inline citations completely flawed? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge, no. However, as it isn't possible to determine which source Naadapriya is referring to in this instance, it should be incumbent on him to demonstrate which source he is referring to and why he considers it a reliable source for the statement made. John Carter (talk) 18:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 'No' on what!. Which statement needs RS since all have it!!!. Making ambiguous comments as above is just misleading and stall the progress. BTW Looks like such comments have become a habit while responding to Naadapriya's comments to taint as if his comments are violating wikipedia guidelines, Naadapriya (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Naadapriya, it has been suggested to you several times that you read the page WP:RS. I once again urge you to do so, as you seemingly have not. If you had, you would have noted that for anything to be included, particularly if challenged, it is incumbent on the person seeking to include the information to indicate how it is sourced and how the sourcing indicates that the exact phrasing used is substantiated. Wikiality123 has raised questions regarding the quality of the sourcing, particularly questioning whether the sourcing provided actually substantiates the statements made in the proposed change as they are made in that proposed change. I myself acknowledge that I did not review each and every point, but have regretably noted that you seem to have had an at best weak grasp of the policy regarding WP:RS to date, and perhaps unjustly assumed that that understanding of the policy had not improved. However, it would be very reasonable if at this point Wikiality123 were to indicate which statements he considered dubious, so that you could respond exactly how the phrasing you seek to use is substantiated by the sources used. John Carter (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Dubious references:
 * Statement: It is located near Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts from where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu back to Karnataka
 * References used
 * 1 Doesn't even mention the word Chamarajanagar
 * 2 Once again doesn't mention anything about Chamarajanagar
 * 3 Just states Hogenakal Falls is a beautiful water falls in the neighboring state of Tamilnadu, is a good Picnic spot and also its water is supposed to have curative powers and once again no mention about Chamarajanagar.
 * 4 No mention about Chamarajanagar but states that the falls is at the border.


 * Statement It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai.
 * Reference used
 * 1 Shows distances from Bangalore and Dharmapuri but not about Chennai. Although not much a deal there, I do not see why Naadapriya has to use this reference for something that it doesn't state.


 * Statement The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Madeshwara Hills
 * References used
 * 1 Doesn't state anything about the nearby towns to Hogenakkal.
 * 2 It is a book and it doesn't state anything about the Hogenakkal falls (or alternate spelling Hogenakal).


 * Statement Another uniqueness of this falls is that there is an island near the foot of the main falls
 * Reference used
 * 1 Talks about the island, but I don't think an island near a falls is anything unique and so does the reference used doesn't mention about it.

Yes indeed, fixing the last three statements are no big deal, but what is troubling is the first sentence (i.e., falls being located near Dharmapuri district) making it seem that the waterfalls comes under nobody's jurisdiction (just near). If the citations (RS or not) had backed it, then there is a way to discuss about it and scrutinise on the references. BUT, the citations used by Naadapriya does no way claim what they are used to back. I once again insist Naadapriya to show us some references to back his/her claim. By not doing so, the user is just stalling the progress of the aritcle. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)