Talk:Hogenakkal Falls/Archive 3

A new lead and a new section
I am not sure how many people here want to include the details of dispute to the article. Initially I never wanted to mention about the disputes since they have their own entries. Nevertheless, if we can get most of the editors agree on it, I propose the following lead and a new section into the article. Hope this satisfies the party who are keen on the border issue.

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 its border 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. The falls lies close to an uninhabited island, the jurisdiction of which is contested by Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. -
 * Repetition of the same old POV with speculative information on water project without wp:RS. As pointed out several times in the past it is incorrect to state  that the falls is in a specific state when there is a correct statement already that says falls is on the border. Simple English tells that. Above  suggestion is putting all back to same loop again (round and round!)Naadapriya (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Naadapriya, I don't think you have read what is WP:RS. I have used news agencies like Times of India, New Indian Express, The Hindu etc., which have been in Indian journalism for so many years, with two of them being more than an hundred years old. I think you should first read what is said in WP:RS before you comment. I don't think you can get your ways by just saying same thing again and again. Let others coment on it too. We two are not the only people on wikipedia. OK? Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 11:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dispute on jurisdiction
Soon after the river passes the Hogenakkal falls, at the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu lies an unnammed island. The jurisdiction of this island has been disputed between the two states. The states agreed on a joint survey in 2005,  but was ended with one of the states withdrawing from it. Plans for a new survey are underway to end the dispute.


 * Confuses readers with unnecessary information of Original Research which is beyond scope of wikipedia's articleNaadapriya (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would have thought it was not important too, but it was you and SKBhat who kept bringing the issue about the border dispute here. So it makes more sense to spell that out in this article. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 11:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * well until the dispute over the island is resolved let the article stay with the present day reference, no reference upto date has been provided that the water falls is located in the state of karnataka or in between borders but all reference provided including maps have supported to the stand that it falls within the border within tamilnadu ,every single references presented upto date says so , so untill a new lead is attained its good to state the present day situation may be with the info that the island is under dispute .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 13:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we don't quite work like that regarding not including information. My suggestion would be to determine the name the island is most commonly known by, and including that name in the article, at the same time indicating that there is a dispute regarding the jurisdiction of the island. Then, if and when a court case is filed, a new article on the island could be created, and the information regarding the legal dispute included there. John Carter (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no name for the island mentioned anywhere, as far as I can look for. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 18:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That could well be the case. If there actually isn't a name for the island, then the article might be titled something like Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border dispute or something similar. In that case, it could still be linked to from this article once, with the content regarding the island and the dispute included in that article. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal boats
Boating is allowed during the dry-season as the water falls are not strong to disrupt the passage of the boats. Local boats called parisals operate from the banks of both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka banks of the gorge. This is the main source of income for these boat operators. The parisals are about 2.24m in diameter, but still can take a load of eight persons at a time. These parisals are made of bamboo, and with all materials available takes about a day to build. The bottom of the boats are made water proof by the use of hides, but sometimes with sheets of plastic. Use of plastics in the Hogenakkal vicinity, not just for boats, has been criticised due to problems with polution. These boats are steered and propelled using a single paddle, making them unique.

Freshly caught fish are sold by the gorge and also various vendors selling water and snacks up and down the gorge rowing their parisals is not uncommon. The fish caught include katla, robu, kendai, keluthi, valai, mirgal, aranjan and jilaby. After leaving the gorge, on the left shore one can find improvised stalls set up on the sand. There, one can let the fresh fishes be prepared in one of the many kitchens. Also, many people can be found swimming or bathing around there. --

Wrote this all between work and may need tweaks. Thanks Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Also see if addition of an image explains it better! <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm also proposing a rewrite to the section on Boating with new citations (pasted with the above). It is also my opinion that the independed entry on parisal can be merged here, where we can expand on them. One of the references I have used on the boats is a book (availabe online) which also talks about the structure and stability of these parisals. Since parisals are unique to Kaveri and especially more known in Hogenakkal, I guess its best to talk about them here. This will help get this article to a resonable size. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Information about boating and fishing related to up and down streams of falls is fine. But photos are nothing to do with them.Naadapriya (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean the picture with the parisals on it has nothing to do with the boating? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 11:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Where is 'parisals'? Cited references already have better photos. No need to expand hereNaadapriya (talk) 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The parisals are there in the valley. May be click on the image and look at the bigger version. We can't take images from that source. Those are copyrighted. If we can get someone to get better pic with closer picture of a parisal, that would be much better though. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The comment was not meant to say that one has to take copyrighted pictures from there. One can view them by going to the link. Readers know that it is easy. Naadapriya (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You want people to follow the reference link and then see the pictures??? You can't be serious! <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 23:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * What else can be done if a good photo without copyright issue can not be posted in the article. Links are there for readers to get more information. If all strongly wish the current photo can be retained till someone gets better one. I guess no more discussions are needed on this.Naadapriya (talk) 05:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Modified NPOV lead statement
Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River. It is located at the border between Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts 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 MM hills. . The route to falls from close by MM Hills from Karnataka side is very beautiful as it passes through hills and forests. 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".
 * I would oppose the above. The language does not indicate which state government claims control over the falls themselves, or whether there is a current argument to that effect. That is information which is included in virtually every other geography related article I have ever seen. I can see no purpose served in not including a clear statement regarding the fall's current "political" location here. John Carter (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

border is the political location as most Naadapriya (talk) 17:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have produced several reliable sources which explicitly state the area is in Tamil Nadu. Your own statement seems to be trying to avoid directly addressing those sources which have not been specifically contradicted by any other sources, for reasons which I cannot comprehend. Oppose the phrasing above on the basis of it seemingly trying to avoid including reliably sourced information. As it does exclude reliable sources, I think it clearly qualifies as POV, rather than NPOV, and should not be considered until all the reliable, verifiable information which has already been obtained is given its due weight. John Carter (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The proposed lead does not say the falls area is not in any state. It says it is on border belonging to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka states based on WP:RS already provided by many. It is requested not to mislead with misinterpretation of obvious definitions such as border. Above comment is making discussions go round and round Naadapriya (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have used the words belonging to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka states. Can you show us a reference that states it belongs to Karnataka? I can show you reference that it belongs to Tamil Nadu (ie., in Tamil Nadu and in Tamil Nadu again to start with). Now show us your reference. Just to the point. No beating around the bush. Just give us a reference that states in Karnataka. If it is not in Karnataka, then it doesn't belong to Karnataka. I can not spell it anything simpler than this. You can call me incompetent if you wish to. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

The lead statement is about falls area including immediate up/down stream and surroundings not for one of the a specific limited section of water dropping. It talks about boating, Island etc.. It has been discussed in the past. Please No going round and round again. As SheffieldSteel and others have already indicated to date there is no WP:RS to state it that falls discussed in the article is in any specific state completely. Therefore either border or near is the best choice.Naadapriya (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * SheffieldSteel said that? Are you reading something that I can't? May be! He asked you to change the header. I can see that though! I would stongly suggest that you take your points to the mediation. FYI it is because that we talk about things happening upstream and downstream that we are calling it along the borders! All the more reason that we include about the island as well as the water project. I still don't see why is it that hard to see that. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As a personal favour to me, Naadapriya, would you mind not titling these sections "NPOV" and instead using a neutral term such as "proposed lead"? We are all trying to suggest solutions that are compatible with policy. If your proposal is NPOV, it won't hurt to just call it a proposal, and if it isn't, calling it NPOV won't help.
 * Needless to say, I don't think that this lead is neutral. I see the following problems:
 * There is no need to quote the distances to the capitals of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. This quote, in conjunction with the omission of the cited information saying the Falls are in Tamil Nadu on the border with Karnataka, gives the impression that the Falls are somehow more part of Karnataka than they are of Tamil Nadu.
 * I think that the description where the river reenters from Tamil Nadu back to Karnataka is wrongly phrased, not to mention unsupported by the cited source. A better way of phrasing it might be near where the river crosses from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.
 * Although Tamil Nadu tourist websites are cited, the text presents the Falls as a tourist destination only from the perspective of someone travelling from Karnataka. The gives undue weight to that point of view, particularly considering the many Tamil Nadu tourism sources we have examined.
 * In short, I don't think this is an improvement on the current version. I think that future proposed changes should be smaller in scope. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Responses to above constructive comments by User:SheffieldSteel
 * 1) NPOV is used since strong POV material is already exists in the current lead of article. We can keep it in  background for discussions.
 * 2) Proposed lead says border and therefore it gives equal benefit to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka
 * 3) Incompatible use Bangalore and Dharmapuri were repeatedly pushed by Wikiality123. Therefore proposed lead replaced Dharmapuri with Chennai to be compatible.
 * 4) Major city references are helpful to readers who may not be very familiar with India and want to visit falls
 * 5) I am ok with near where the river crosses from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka.
 * 6) The article is about nature. Adding details about nearby natural beauty regarding approach through MM hills will improve the article.
 * 7) Another sentence can be added that says However approach through Dharmapuri may be more convenient for those with limited time.

Naadapriya (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Proposed lead says border and therefore it gives equal benefit to both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka????? Is this encyclopedia or blogspot? BTW I am not pushing in Dharmapuri or anything. You will have to read (I repeat R E A D) what others are telling you. I have said, you can use Chennai if you want to, but use a citation for it, not OR. BTW how come you didn't know that calling someone a POV pusher is an example of personal attack? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality123 reverted the use of Chennai. Please see history. Unrelated use of word blogspot Naadapriya (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * But "equal benefit" is not what NPOV requires of us: read WP:UNDUE for more on this. The idea of "equal benefit" implies there are two possible choices and that a fair balance has been struck between them. That is incorrect in this case. Sourced statements about the location of the Falls have included, as possibilities, (A) in Tamil Nadu, (B) on the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, and (C) in Tamil Nadu on the border with Karnataka. That is three alternatives, not two. You have selected the most pro-Karnataka point of view of the three, and you label this view NPOV, despite the fact that it does not "represent significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias". It ignores the sources supporting (A) and (C). The current lead states (C), which does not deny either of the other two views.
 * The introductory paragraph (see WP:LEAD) is supposed to provide a fair and concise summary of the article's contents. Adding more material about approaching from Tamil Nadu might make it fairer, but so would removing material about approaching from Karnataka, which would also make it more concise. I think that tourism material can and should be included later in the article. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

No Pro-Karnataka view is intended. I have not used 'benefit' in the lead. The lead is drafted to keep the wikipedia article independent from on the going legal dispute which may take many many years to end. I agree it is better to write a section on approach and keep the lead concise. Then I would suggest modified lead and a new section.
 * There is no reason to keep the article independent of any legal dispute though. In fact, by policy, we should at least mention any ongoing legal dispute in the article, so that the entire subject is discusssed. To the best of my knowledge the legal dispute in question is about the downstream island. That content could certainly be added to an article about that island, if and when it is created. This article would need nothing more than a link to that article and a very short description of the dispute here to meet our content guidelines. But our purposes would not be served by trying to keep information which meets verifiability and notability criteria from wikipedia, and an ongoing legal dispute is almost certainly going to qualify as both verifiable and notable. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River. It is located at the border between Dharmapuri and Chamarajanagar Districts 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 MM 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".

Approach to falls area
There are two ways of reaching the falls area. The route to falls from MM Hills of Karnataka side is adventurous as it passes through beautiful hills range and forests but takes time though close by. When time is a concern it is faster to reach from Dharmapuri of Tamil Nadu.

Naadapriya (talk) 07:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Use of clearly POV terms like "adventurous" and "beautiful" is rarely if ever permitted in wikipedia. Also, the comparatively dismissive second sentence is dubious because of the lack of any accompanying similar commentary there. On that basis, I cannot see any good reason for the inclusion of the material above. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation
Personally, it seems to me that the best course of action to follow right now is to basically end the comments on this page itself and wait for any mediation to take place. I get the impression that neither side is particularly willing to budge from their positions, and continuing to remind each other of that point isn't particularly helpful. So it might just be better to see if all the intersted parties agree to take part in mediation, where if nothering else we have a much better chance of resolution of some sort taking place. John Carter (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion. It is OK with me unless I have to reply to responses that deliberately misinterpret my comments as in the past. Naadapriya (talk) 07:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Then I would suggest that you do sign on to the mediation proposal at Requests for mediation/Hogenakkal falls. I cannot guarantee that you will not be asked to respond directly to questions asked of you by the mediators, but all other parties would be asked to similarly respond to any questions asked of them. John Carter (talk) 15:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * My 2c. Sarvagnya 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bogus cites?
The second sentence in this article reads --


 * "It is located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu,[1][2][3][4][5][6]"

The six references cited are --

One, Two, Three, Four, Five, and Six

Of these, #3 is dead. 2, 4 and 5 do not refer to the falls at all and #1 is ambiguous - though it talks about the falls (and not "areas" or "village" or "habitation") it doesnt state that the falls belongs to TN. Can those who have added these references care to explain? Sarvagnya 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * PS: I have also found these two sources which claim that the falls fall in Karnataka, not Tamil Nadu. Sarvagnya 20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI the first reference clearly states that it is in Tamil Nadu (please refer to point 6 d), where it states 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. This is from the Government of India (Law Ministry). The KSTDC was working even till last night and I have got no clue what in the heavens has happened to it. This reference and this states that it is in the border, which we all agree (please note the lead which states along the border). Also please note that as far as legalities are concerned Goverment of India's Law ministry holds an upper hand rather than tourism devolopement organisation. I am sure that a editor of your caliber know that by now. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 21:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like a problem with KSTDC itself since their home page by itself doesn't seem to work. Hope that clears doubts. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 21:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "This reference and this" do not merely state that it is on the border, but also say that it is in "Kollegal taluk" and "Chamarajanagar district" respectively. Now, I can only hope that you dont come up with a TN site also claiming the whole C'nagar district, Kollegal and all for Tamil Nadu!  And you are reading the lawmin source wrong.  It does NOT say that the falls is in Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu alone .  It only says that it flows east until the falls and then changes direction.  That source can neither be used to back "belongs to TN" POV nor can it be used to rebut the "belongs to Ktaka" claim.  And bogus as your argument -- "...Also please note that as far as legalities are concerned Goverment of India's Law ministry holds an upper hand rather than tourism devolopement organisation..." is, for various reasons, the dubious contrived contest here is not between the ministry of Tourism and that of law at all.  I am sure the Chamarajanagar Police know their district quite well and if they are claiming that the falls is in the Kollegal Taluk of C'nagar district, then we will simply report that.  If you have a problem with their claims, take it up with the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India under whom I believe they operate.  And btw, you havent yet answered for the refs 2, 4 and 5 yet.  Cheers! Sarvagnya 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Really funny reply, but may be Karnataka government itself looks confused here. Look at tha google cached version of Karnataka's state run Tourism corporation's site itself would state that the Hogenakkal falls is in the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu. Wonder why a state run tourism will want to advertise a falls that would belong to it as its neighbours? BTW thanks for the idea about caches that I got from your comment on mediation talk page. Wonder why you didn't try that when you couldn't find the link work! BTW when did Police website became reliable information on tourism? Please note that the Chamarajanagar police website lists the Hogenakkal under tourism but fails to mention that in the Jurisdiction page, where as Tamil Nadu police of Dharmapuri district has a police station at Hogenakkal . The only third party here is the Central government itself. You simply can't dismiss that and move on Sarvangnya. If you can find references with Home office of India, bring it on. Why not? Provided you don't we will have to live with Law Ministry. Just because it would miss the word alone there means nothing at all. If you think it does why don't you take it to the talk page of WP:RS and am sure you will get an reply there. The law ministry document is about the inter-state dispute and it also mentions a great deal about Karnataka. You can be pretty sure if the falls come under K'taka's jurisdiction too, they would have mentioned that. You can't ask for reference which is not there. References are used, as you will know, to back to claim, and not to counter the other party's claim. As for the other references, you should wait till the person who added that replies. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If you still have concerns, why not join yourself as a party at the mediation. I'm sure we can find a solution for it. By talking here we are just wasting each others time. Let the third party decide. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The Tamil Nadu govt., has a police station right on top of the waterfalls?! LOL.  Very funny.  Stop misleading people with half-truths.  Hogenakkal (village) is different from the falls.  The falls is not on either side of the border; it is itself the border.. ie., the Kaveri river itself is the border for about 64 kilometers (see this GoI map and this and this) and the Hogenakal falls is, but a waterfall in the Kaveri river.  Obviously since the falls is itself the border at that precise point, it can be reached from both sides of the 'border' (a la Niagara) .. ie., from both Ktaka and TN.  And the kstdc routinely conducts tours to tourist and pilgrim spots in other states (like tirupati, ooty etc.,) and the cached version of the kstdc page seems to only be pointing to its tours of the Krishnagiri dam (which is certainly in Tamil Nadu) and Hogenakal falls from the TN side.  That doesnt mean the falls "belongs" to TN.  And this "District map of Chamarajanagar", in fact marks the falls within the Karnataka border.  You can continue to act amused, but you have some serious explaining to do with your bogus citations and also contend with the sources I have recently brought to the table.  Hope this helps.  And btw, no.. I dont have to join any malformed RfM to work for a 'solution', peppered as it is, with lies, half truths and colossal bad faith.  I am sure an editor of your calibre sees that charade for what it is.  Cheers! Sarvagnya 23:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What you have failed to see is not the captions saying Hogenakkal falls in those maps, but where it is marked to be so. The Government of India map's caption does fall in Karnataka, but if you look at the river are where the falls lies, you can find it marked in Tamil Nadu. You will just have to look at the discussion on the maps done earlier which clearly talk about the belly shaped of the river where the falls are. Once again if you look at the District map you would see that the circle denoting the Hogenakkal falls is placed right on the border forming almost a semicircle. If you have confused yourself with the FA symbol like star used, you will have to look at the key in the map. To clarify if you look at the south-west corner where it says Bandipur you will note a star and a circle. The circle denotes the town and the star a tourist site near there. We can be pretty sure that Bandipur is not that huge to cover such wide are including the star. The references you have pointed and  were already visited a few times. Where the Hindu reference talks about the dispute about the island near the falls (which is very true), the Deccan Herald article just quotes what Nanje Gowda talks about it. He is not a current minister (or did he talk about it when he was a minister, ie., when he was a representative of the government) and hence not a government statement. If you are following up the recent drama, Vatal Nagaraj has also put claim on towns like Erode and Ooty for Karnataka and he is an MLA. Personal comments of them (which are not official) cannot be used to denote the jurisdiction. BTW wheather you appreciate it or not, but to hear from you as a editor with calibre is very encouraging. As for the RfC, it was done since Naadapriya was not giving us any references even after third-party comments and RfC. To accuse of an editor of assuming bad faith is assuming bad faith itself, but I don't think (honestly) that you tried to do so deliberately. If the TN police have the station on top of the falls, or underneath it, or they stand their holding an umbrella is something I don't know. But they do seem to have a station in the area. BTW the Falls seem to be in the village . I think that explains much of it. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops! I missed to mention about the cached google page of KSTDC. It just plainly says 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, leaving little room for ambiguity. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I am responding since my name is inappropriately dragged into above comment. I pointed out to all including to the third party the WP:RS from Tamil Nadu Tourism site that states in the lead Hogenakkal   is situated on the border of Karnataka.  The solicited 3rd party repeatedly refused to accept it  but at the same time was ready to accept interpretation from Wikiality123 of a statement from Karnataka Tourism site. It is still a puzzle to understand why 3rd party ( Guess Admn) had such a biased view. Both tourism sites should have equal weight. However the statement by TN tourism site was further supported by maps, photos and news reports from Hindu etc.. Therefore reference to my name in above comment is not made in appropriate context. Naadapriya (talk) 08:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Naadapriya is free to bring other third parties in. I can't agree with you more that if there are two states involved, the claim of both sides carry equal weightage. Nevertheless, what carries more reliability here is the the Central government, which as you very well know, govern both states and hence are the most reliable. This is what we been repeatedly trying to tell you. Your name is not unwarrantedly dragged in. You involved yourself into this discussion yourself. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 08:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Above comments clearly means that finally you accept that I produced a WP:RS to support my statement in the proposed lead statement. All comments by  solicited 3rd party editors John Carter and others telling  that I did not provide  WP:RS is mute now. The corresponding statements in your petition for mediation are also not valid anymore. BTW Naadapriya has not and will not solicit 3rd parties to support his views. He believes in unsolicited support by editors based on knowledge about the article  not in  ad hoc support just to support someone else view point. Naadapriya (talk) 15:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh! Blatant misinterpretation. You didn't produce any RS material. Where did I say so? Sorry to ruin your small victory dance there, but atleast Sarvangnya is making the discussion move ahead, something which you had stalled for a long time. Mediation still stands in light of materials Sarvagnya is providing and his interpretations of it. For eg., use of C-nagar police website where it talks about tourism - the argument of reliability of police websites on tourism and lack of mention about Hogenakkal in jurisdiction. Placement of Hogenakkal falls as a semi circle (when compared to places within K'taka as full circles) are ambiguous and can not be solved if the parties keep insisting them as RS over Central government's Law Ministry document, unless we have neutral parties assessing them. It would have been nice if Naadapriya had showed such material during third party comments or RfC, whereby a good progress in discussion would have been made. Sarvagnya may say that Naadapriya is a novice and may not be aware of wiki policies. But, Sarvangya himself knows that when I was a novice (much less experienced that time when compared to that of Naadapriya now), Sarvagnya was the one who posted the first ever message on my talk page, demanding for citations on neutral affairs, which I was able to show with reason. To remind Sarvagnya, he had instructed me that if one party denies and other party claims, that information stays as claim alone (one party's POV), not as fact. A simple logic pointed by Sarvagnya which a novice me with less than 20 edits then, was able to understand! Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Bogus cites? (contd)
@wikiality - Stop beating round the bush. And stop with your dubious contests. Bottomline is, you have blatantly used bogus sources and taken people for a ride. You still have not answered for your citations 2,4 and 5. And, to boot, you are misinterpreting the others.

As for Nanje Gowda is a well known inter-state waters expert. He is not making a claim one way or another. He was interviewed by a WP:RS source as an independent expert and he is simply pointing out the fact (which is corroborated by the MEA map) that the cauvery is itself the border for about 64 kilometers on the Ktaka-TN border and the Hogenakal falls falls in that stretch. And I only pointed it out because it was pertinent to this issue and I thought it would go a long way in helping people understand the issue. Obviously, I didnt bargain for the fact that you would throw it into your potent brew of straw man arguments, rank obfuscation and juvenile logic.

Also, your "jurisdiction" argument is as juvenile as your other arguments. Nobody lists every rock, twig and grain of sand that falls under their jurisdiction. The C'nagar police, however, leave nothing to imagination when they state, categorically -- "... It is in the Kollegal Taluk and right on the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu." And the Kollegal taluk, when I last heard, was in Karnataka. Do you disagree or do you have a source up your sleeve which claims otherwise? And, to be sure, the Dharmapuri police dont claim jurisdiction over the falls either. All that they do is to indicate on their site that they have a police station watching over Hogenakal "hamlet" which falls under the Koothapadi "mother village". Hogenakal "village"/"habitation"/"hamlet" is different from the falls. The bone of contention here is the "falls". And stop throwing in corny links to a mustsee.com etc., to further obfuscate the issue.

And then, there is also this source which states that the Hogenakal falls is in the Kollegal Taluk.

This snippet of an academic journal refers to the falls as being in Karnataka.

This one shows a Karnataka MP arguing that Hogenakal is in Karnataka.

The way I see it, there's enough sources claiming that the falls is in Karnataka and only one (citation number 6) so far that it is in Tamil Nadu. Sources are also unanimous that it falls right on the border and that the river is itself the border for a stretch of about 64 kms or so and obviously the falls is part of the river and cannot possibly be physically removed from the river.

It then stands to reason that the falls itself is the border at that precise point and therefore, in the light of all the sources, we'd have to reword the lead stating that the falls is right on the border between the two states and that both states claim it as theirs (to be sure, it only seems to be a case of WP:RS sources being divided over the matter). Let the readers make whatever they want to make of it. Sarvagnya 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Firstly go and see my edits yourself. I did not add those references. Trying to throw stone at me with that is something I really can't be bothered. All the mud slinging won't help either of us to start with and the Wikipedia on the whole. If you want to make a fuss about it and still accuse me of something I didn't add, you are free to go on with bad faith. Who am I to stop that? Nanje Gowda was a minister. If he is an expert on irrigation, thats where his expertise will be and stays there as such. He was neither a minister when he gave that interview, nor did he represent any government. I don't think its so hard to understand, given the example already of what you told me more than a year ago . One party claims, other party disagrees and the over all third part accepts. Have you changed your interpretation of the RS these days?
 * This reference as to mean the falls in Kollegal is really bad reading. It states to spell out Protesters led by members of the Zilla Kannada Sanghatana Okkuta burned the effigy of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa here on Wednesday condemning the "encroachment" of an island near Hogenakal Falls in Kollegal taluk by the Tamil Nadu Government.. Are they talking about the falls or the island? Got doubts? Ask a third party. Wonder why is your side so reluctant for third party to step in. You want to know what the academic world say? It was just on the RfC page if you wanted to read. Its alright, I will give it here as well   and this book which am not just giving you ambigous tit bits, but the whole context (try page 13). Just like to remind all editors that am not talking here with empty hands indeed. I do not know how come you are still not able to accept that Law Ministry document is the most superior authority ever shown here. This really won't go too far if a denial stance is shown on that. We will go in circles and circles. Karnataka MP or MLA or Minister arguing about it doesn't make it official. Does it? That will be Karnataka's MPs/MLAs POV alone. As I been sugesting, if there is a state that is placing a claim, lets spell it out in the article for it stands on all the disputes related to the Hogenakkal. Why not? Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 19:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would only go on to say that all of Sarvagnys's claims, regardless of clear failure to abide by our policies and guidelines of WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVILITY, all of which can reasonably be said to possibly have been violated in comments starting this subthread, themselves seem to violate another policy, WP:SYNTH. He seems to be saying by selectively putting together references, and then drawing a conclusion based on that original research in drawing that conclusion, that he thus has a clear case for his position. In fact, that case is built on a series of interpretations which cannot be made in this article, as doing so would violate policy. I would sincerely urge Sarvagnya and Naadapriya, and anyone else interested in seeing such content added, to stop the attacks, insults, and attempts to dodge the issue, sometimes explicitly, and actually try to produce a statement which clearly and explicitly states what they are trying to place in the article. John Carter (talk) 20:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Synthesis eh? Spare us your wikilinks.  Please.  I have shown atleast two sources which explicitly claim that the falls is in Kollegal taluk of Karnataka.  Would you bother countering those  or perhaps defending the bogus citations squatting in the lead before you lecture us about synthesis and original research!  What is with you jumping into every random article on wikipedia and fighting for a POV even when you clearly dont have the foggiest about the subject of the article?  Can you even tell between a "taluk" and a "panchayat"?  Or between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for that matter?!  Nothing can be more incivil than filibustering and insulting others' intelligence with bogus citations in hand. Sarvagnya 21:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you seem to find being asked to abide by policy something objectionable. I read the three links you provided. This source states, and I quote exactly, "Protesters led by members of the Zilla Kannada Sanghatana Okkuta burned the effigy of Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Jayalalithaa here on Wednesday condemning the "encroachment" of an island near Hogenakal Falls in Kollegal taluk by the Tamil Nadu Government." If one were to read the whole sentence, the statement "in Kollegal taluk" seems to more clearly refer to the island, not to the falls itself. Your second source here uses the word "Hogenakkal" agreed, but you have already made clear above that that word does not solely refer to the falls. As such, it would be a violation of original research to say that it does directly refer to the falls. The third source here, says, and I quote the intact sentences exactly, "... Karnataka. We do not have sole rights over the river.
 * SRI G. RAJU GOWDA - Perhaps the Hon. Minister did not catch my point. The distance between Mekedatua and Hogenakal is about 80 miles. It comes under the Karnataka Government's jurisdiction." What is said to fall under the Karnataka Government's description in that quote is "it", seemingly the river, not the falls itself. In short, none of your three citations even remotely come close to addressing the falls itself. Please spare us all these attempts at misdirection. If the falls do fall at least in part within the boundaries of Karnataka, there shouldn't be this level of difficulty in finding a source which clearly says that. But, as indicated abaove, none of the sources you have produced directly address he issue at hand. Given that you seem to be incapable of keeping a tendency you have repeatedly been warned about, toward pointlessly insulting others, in check, I would very much sugget that you spare us all these possible attempts to obfuscate the discussion of sources with your frankly gratuitous insults and perhaps instead spend some of the energy you waste in such matters in finding a source which actually verifies the statements you wish to include. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When the sentences in references are read with too much care, we can question the sentence in the first reference. The sentence says that "In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir".  With the word upto, this sentence holds even if, the falls is just within or on the border of any one of states Tamilnadu or Karnataka.  Hence it does not provide any information in this context. --Skbhat (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know if you do it to amuse yourself, but do you even read before you reply? I presented two sources right at the beginning of the discussion in my post with the timestamp "20:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)".  Those sources clearly and explicitly state that the "falls" is in Kollegal taluk/Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka.


 * Also, the Hogenakal "village"/"hamlet"/"habitation" is in Tamil Nadu, not Karnataka. So if there is a source talking about a Hogenakal in Karnataka, it clearly is referring to the falls.  The river is "Kaveri" not "Hogenakal".  Also, for all your bravado, would you mind telling us (with the backing of a WP:RS source) to which taluk of Tamil Nadu this falls belongs?  Of course, you need to be able to do little things like tell taluk from district and karnataka from tamil nadu to understand the sources.  Are you sure you are capable of that?


 * Will you now spare us your attempts at misdirection, OR, SYNTH and all that nonsense you're throwing at us. It is apalling that an admin can take exception to somebody pointing out that most of the refs in the lead of an article are bogus.  Even more galling is that you decide to counter it with equally spurious, even downright dishonest claims of SYNTH, OR, CIVIL etc.,. Sarvagnya 22:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Pardon me if I'm wrong, Sarvagnya, but did you not cite the three sources to which I refered in the opening post of this subthread, timestamped 18:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)? If you did, then what was your purpose in doing so? Did you post the three links to which I responded to amuse yourself, as you seem to be indicating, or were they presented as being some form of evidence? Please respond directly, and if possible civilly. Regarding the two sources you placed at the beginning, the first says, and I quote directly from that page as I just retrieved it, "Hogenakal Falls : Hogenakal Falls is situated at about 30 Kms from M.M.Hills and is famous and beautiful falls in Chamarajanagar District.It is situated at the Border of Tamil Nadu and karnataka." The phrase used is "at the border". "At" is similar to "on", but it has already been discussed that something "at" or "on" a border can be completely on one side of that border, so, in effect, that statement really proves nothing. The second site you linked to says, and I quote directly from that page as I just retrieved it here as well, "Hogenakal : Hogenakal is a famous waterfall where the river Kaveri cascades down a gorge to give a breathtaking view. It is in the Kollegal Taluk and right on the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu." This one is interesting, because it does state that the falls are "in the Kollegal Taluk". Unfortunately, while I acknowledge that it could be a source, it does seem to disagree markedly with several other sources, and is not necessarily the most reliable source. Like I said above, I used to work for the Department of Natural Resources in this state, and I know firsthand how often governmental offices use inexact language for purposes of, more often than not, trying to increase their budget. So, while it is indicative that there is a claim, it is from a description from a secondary source regarding a matter of a subject which is at least in part in their jurisdiction, the area of the falls. And, as I stated above (you did read that, right? :), that information is basically included in a tourist description for the area on that web page, which can be seen as calling into question its accuracy. It could be interpreted as meaning "one of the exterior banks of the falls" lies in that area, which seems to be what is related by the other extant sources. And, in effect, I think it has already been agreed to that the border is very close, if not in fact on, one side of the falls. In fact, had you yourself read comments I had made earlier, the border could, based on the other information given, be on the extreme side of the falls. To date, I have seen no reliable, verifiable evidence which indicates that such could not be the case. And, believe it or not, that's what we need. So while I agree that the falls may be "on" the border, whatever that means in this context, that doesn't necessarily mean that any part of the falls crosses the Tamil Nadu border to Karnataka. In fact, had you read any of the discussion which had taken place before you yourself arrived, you would note that that point had been made before. You did read that, right? :) John Carter (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

@wikiality - Since you seem not to "hear" anything, let me try be even more clear. There is no parallel whatsoever between that issue and the one at hand. There, the tribunal was explicitly and specifically adjudicating the dispute. Here, the pdf you are waving around is NOT from any adjudicating body. The context is entirely different. It does NOT pertain to the issue at hand at all. If you have a legal copy (not the same as a web page from the law ministry) of some judgement somewhere which goes into the Hogenakal issue and decrees in favour of TN, bring it to the table. Otherwise, your source is only as good as mine and your dubious pitting of that one against another doesnt cut it.

And about Nanje Gowda - yes he was a minister. But now he is not, but he still remains a leading expert on the issue and his views are notable - especially when made in his capacity as an independent expert and not as a minister. And ... read my lips.. he is not making a claim one way or another. He is neither supporting Karnataka nor Tamil Nadu in that quote I gave. He is only stating a fact about the nature of the border. It is pertinent to the issue at hand. Also, I am not using that source to claim the falls for Karnataka. So stop harping about it.

As for the other refs you claim you didnt add, I was asking for an explanation from "those who added it". If you didnt add it, fine. I hope you dont have a problem if it is removed. I also hope you dont have a problem with removing every source which does not talk about Hogenakal falls, but about the Hogenakal hamlet/village/habitation instead. This article is about the falls and the issue at hand is whether the falls belongs to Ktaka or TN. I have come up with sources which state explicitly that the falls (not the "hamlet", not the "habitation", not the "village") is in the Kollegal taluk of Chamarajanagar district in Karnataka. Would you bother showing us a source which gives us the Taluk location of the Hogenakal "falls" ? And until then, would you stop being so sure of yourself? Sarvagnya 21:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source. "Hogenakal Falls is undoubtedly one of the most beautiful places in Tamil Nadu state". Is there a similarly clear unambiguous quote claiming the falls for Karnataka? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Deccan.net? wow! Do you know the first thing about WP:RS?  And to answer your question, refer to my previous reply to JC. Sarvagnya 23:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've ignored your incivility and read your citation. It was neither clear nor unambiguous, as has been pointed out. Interestingly, those sources that talk about disputed territory and borders seem to invariably mention a particular island, which (see above section Reconciling The Sources) is downstream of the Falls and which everyone here agrees is on the border. By contrast, sources that talk about the Falls themselves seem to place them in Tamil Nadu and/or on the border. I would expect that a tourism organisation might be considered a reliable source as to what tourist destinations are where. If not one organisation, then perhaps three or four in agreement. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 23:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "..It was neither clear nor unambiguous, as has been pointed out..." - "as has been pointed out"?? By who? where?  And what can be clearer than --
 * Hogenakal Falls is situated at about 30 Kms from M.M.Hills and is famous and beautiful falls in Chamarajanagar District.It is situated at the Border of Tamil Nadu and karnataka. or


 * Hogenakal is a famous waterfall where the river Kaveri cascades down a gorge to give a breathtaking view. It is in the Kollegal Taluk and right on the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. ??


 * "...I would expect that a tourism organisation..." - oh now deccan.net is a "tourism organisation"? neat.  how about you try "my_random_screwed_up_blog_i_will_pass_for_WP:RS"?
 * "...If not one organisation, then perhaps three or four in agreement." - you seem to have some serious trouble comprehending WP:RS. I suggest you find yourself a wiki-mentor. Sarvagnya 23:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that these comments of Sarvagnya above were addressed already in the other comments I made which he didn't seem to think needed to be read by him before responding in a rather redundant way. However, if he wants to file a request at WP:RSN regarding the information, I don't think anyone would object. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "Addressed"? Your "addressing" or wishing them away doesnt make them vanish.  And what do you want me to file RSN about?  The deccan.net?  You go ahead and file RSN for the deccan.net site arguing that it is RS.  Just be ready to get laughed at. Sarvagnya 00:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It has already been filed, in fact. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sarvagnya, are you always this unpleasant to work with, or does this sort of behaviour only surface in articles related to Karnataka? I can't help but wonder if there's some underlying reason why you feel the need to be so combative and insulting. It might be a good idea if you were to avoid contentious issues in areas that you feel very strongly about. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 02:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that your best defense of deccan.net and all the rest of your screed on this page so far? May I suggest that you and Carter confine yourself to editing pages where you have so much as a clue about the subject?  And also that you familiarise yourself with WP:RS before you venture to edit any page on wikipedia. Sarvagnya 02:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You could so suggest. Might I also suggest that you follow some of the conduct "suggestions" that any number of people have made over time? :) John Carter (talk) 02:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break
The big question I have is whether, basically, a statement in a tourist promotion section of a police department web site is to be considered reliable. As a former government employee, my own reaction to that is, in effect, only if other sources can be produced to verify it. Tourist information is, after all, marketing, and marketing is known to be less than completely honest. A statement from a site which did not have a clear COI regarding the information it presents would be more useful. The fact that that site is in fact so far as I can tell the only source which makes that claim makes it rather dubious. More exact language, particularly given the weight of other evidence which has already been produced, would probably be required to warrant inclusion of such a claim in the introduction, although it probably is sufficient to include such a statement later in the body of the article. John Carter (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Regarding the two sources you placed at the beginning, the first says, and I quote directly from that page as I just retrieved it, "Hogenakal Falls : Hogenakal Falls is situated at about 30 Kms from M.M.Hills and is famous and beautiful falls in Chamarajanagar District.It is situated at the Border of Tamil Nadu and karnataka." The phrase used is "at the border". "At" is similar to "on", but it has already been discussed that something "at" or "on" a border can be completely on one side of that border, so, in effect, that statement really proves nothing. "


 * This gem above ought to be the most amazing piece of hand waving I've seen so far on wikipedia. It may "prove nothing" to you, but for the rest of us who recognize that the Chamarajanagar district on the Karnataka-TN border belongs to Karnataka, it means exactly what it is supposed to mean.


 * "...given the weight of other evidence which has already been produced,..." - Pray, where is this evidence you're talking about? Would you mind listing them here?  And would you please tell us to which taluk of TN, the falls belongs to?  My source on the other hand is quite categorical.  It not only states that the falls is in Karnataka, but also states that it is Kollegal taluk.  Sarvagnya 00:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's already included in this talk page and archive. Please feel free to read it, as you evidently haven't yet. John Carter (talk) 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. One more. This is the Chamarajanagar M.P, Mr. M. Shivanna addressing the speaker of the Lok Sabha --


 * Title - Regarding construction of dam by Tamil Nadu Government in the Hogenakal Water Falls area in Chamrajnagar, Karnataka.
 * SHRI M.SHIVANNA (CHAMRAJANAGARA) : Sir, I would like to raise a very important issue regarding the construction of a Drinking Water and Hydel Power Project at Hogenakal Falls by Tamil Nadu Government. Hogenakal is a famous water falls situtated on Karnataka Tamil Nadu border.  It is in my constituency Chamarajanagara district.  Tamil Nadu Government has laid the foundation to construct a Drinking Water Project in this Hogenakal Falls.  It is a part of Cauvery and therefore this project should not be taken up as the Cauvery issue is pending before the apex court. … (Interruptions)

The above clearly shows that

a) Karnataka claims the falls as its own. b) TN is attempting to build a hydel power plant there. c) Karnataka is opposed to the power plant not only because the falls is in Karnataka, but also because the waters in question is of the Kaveri river and the Kaveri dispute is sub-judice. Sarvagnya 00:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The one relevant question, which isn't explicitly stated in the above, is when the claim was made. It should be specified that the statement was evidently made on March 14, 2008. Actually, for the first time so far, it looks to me like we have the clear statement we have repeatedly been requesting. I'm assuming the redlink above is meant for Kaveri River Water Dispute. Clearly, on a protected page, as this one is, we would need to have a draft of the particular phrasing to be inserted into the article so it can be added to the protected page, and get consensus for the proposed changes, so I would want to see some of the others agree to the changes as well. The question of the exact phrasing to describe the location of the falls might remain a problem. But I don't see any objections to at least drafting a change indicating that the location of the falls is, according to varying sources, in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, or possibly both. For what it's worth, I read the quote "It is in my constituency Chamarajanagara district." as being not necessarily an exclusive claim, as this is a politican making a speech, and he wants to present his case in the strongest way possible, but that they at least state that at least part of the falls are in Chamarajanagara district. On that basis, I would prefer something like the three option statement I made here to be included in the draft, but that is just one person's opinion. I would like to see some others as well. John Carter (talk) 01:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I already said about 10 kb ago.. "...we'd have to reword the lead stating that the falls is right on the border between the two states and that both states claim it as theirs (to be sure, it only seems to be a case of WP:RS sources being divided over the matter). Let the readers make whatever they want to make of it.". Now the only thing that remains is, where are the sources which state that TN also claims the "falls" as its own?  Present that and be done. 02:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To the best of my knowledge we haven't found that specific source, because we had found several other sources, generally easier to access, which stated that. That's one of the reasons I suggested above using phrasing like "the location of the falls is, according to varying sources, in Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, or possibly both." Several reliable independent sources made the statement that the falls were in Tamil Nadu, so there was no apparent reason to necessarily look for sources specifically from Tamil Nadu itself. John Carter (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "...Several reliable independent sources made the statement that the falls were in Tamil Nadu..." - like which one? the deccan.net?  Would you mind listing them please?  And no.. I dont want to sift through 200 kb of trash by the likes of Sheffield Steel who clearly dont know the first thing about WP:RS.  And fwiw, let me tell you, I did look through (as much as is humanly possible).. and didnt find any that state where and in which taluk of TN the falls is located.  Find me one/some and be done. Sarvagnya 06:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the above source is a primary source and, as such, is undesirable because it is so open to subjective interpretation by editors. Whenever an editor says "clearly", consider how much work that word is doing. Sarvagnya says the source shows that "Karnataka claims the falls as its own". My reading of the source is that a certain politician claimed the falls at a certain time; needless to say, there is an enormous difference between the two. This is why secondary sources are so much more desirable: they provide much-needed interpretation. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 02:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You have a point. However, given the recent nature of the quote (March) and the location where the quote was made I have to assume that the statement was "approved" by the Karnataka government, making it a de facto claim of that government. I do acknowledge that I don't specifically remember seeing any source which specifically stated that the falls might be in both, but the insistence on the "river as a divided border" claim made earlier would seem to be reason to assume that it might be made in such a case. John Carter (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We may have to find a form of words which is very careful, then. For example we might describe the location as "in the region of the border between TN and K" or "in the border zone". We'd also presumably have to say that the exact location of the border is disputed, as well as access to the island and the matter of the various projects, and that a new border survey has been proposed. At least all of those statements are sourced. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break

 * Nice to see things moving. Now if you guys hold on revisit the reference you guys are talking about . The MP states that Hogenakal is a famous water falls situtated on Karnataka Tamil Nadu border. It is in my constituency Chamarajanagara district. ie., the falls is situated at the border (we agree) and the border area is in Chamarajanagara district. OK! Then he goes on to say  It is a part of Cauvery and therefore this project should not be taken up as the Cauvery issue is pending before the apex court to be inpreted as to keep the project on hold because of the border dispute is not right. Given that the Cauvery issue pending before the apex court is not about the border, but about the water share. If the waterfalls was an area under Karnataka's jurisdiction, how come TN government laid foundation over there. Shouldn't the TN Chief Karunanidhi be arrested for it? The problem was and is about the TN's share on Kaveri water. That is what the apex court the MP refering to is for. Nevertheless, in light of the references Sarvagnya has provided, I think we can conclude that atleast some parties in Karnataka claim the jurisdiction to be theirs. Does that make it official for all? Not as far as I can see. Especially in light of the reference from the central government states Hogenakkal falls to be in Tamil Nadu. The lead as it is now should be rephrased. But keeping in mind of all these sources. It would be properly balanced to say that there are claims for it from Karnataka (either official or not) but still with the only central government document shown here, the falls is in Tamil Nadu. I would request a proper lead to be rephrased showing them all. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry read that again and a few more references. Although the MP of Karnataka has said the falls is at the border (a border which is in his contitution) TN MP in the floor of the parliment have raised Hogenakkal issue, but this time they did not use phrase at the border or in the border. Please see references . These are list of issues raised and please note where does the Hogenakkal project is stated to be in (as in TN or Karnataka). The project is to be at the falls (as the Karnataka MP himself said). I don't think this is too hard to see. I shall also provide another Indian Government document here, which once again talks about the project, as in to be carried out in TN. Claims of Karnataka are there, but it stays as claim and can be mentioned as claim alone. Not official. Whereas Hogenakkal in TN is not just a claim. It is open for people to read, unless you have a preset mind. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comic relief.. but no. Your fantastic interpretation of the MP's words doesnt cut it. He is talking about the falls and saying that it is in his district and that he is opposed to the attempted construction of the TN govt., of a water and power project at that site. The border is not a line drawn with chalkpiece or charcoal! The river is the border and the falls is an integral part of the river (unless you can come up with another fantastic explanation to somehow magically uncouple the cascade from the river) and the border at that point. And, according to Karnataka, it falls on the K'taka side of the border (ie., Kollegal taluk of C'nagar district). And pray, where is this "Central govt.," source adjudicating on the issue? Anyway, Ananth Kumar's address below makes things even more clear.


 * SHRI ANANTH KUMAR (BANGALORE SOUTH): Sir, on 26th of February, the State Government of Tamil Nadu has come out with a project called Hogenakal Drinking Water and Hydel Project and the hon. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu went ahead ...(Expunged as ordered by the Chair)  to lay its foundation stone.  Actually, Hogenakal is part and parcel of Karnataka and we have been continuously communicating to the Government of Tamil Nadu that it is part of Karnataka and that they cannot proceed without the permission of the Central Water Commission. ...


 * ...Sir, the basic point is that even the legal experts and the erstwhile Madras Government’s topo sheets clearly proves that Hogenakal is part and parcel of Karnataka.… (Interruptions) During the hearings before the Cauvery Water Tribunal, the Government of Tamil Nadu did not bring anything about this Project to the notice of the Cauvery Water Tribunal.   They have misled the Tribunal and now after the Tribunal has given its final verdict, the whole matter is before the Supreme Court. The matter is sub judice. Since the whole matter regarding the Hogenakal Project is before the honourable Supreme Court, nothing should be done in that area.   Therefore, we, from the State of Karnataka, register our strong protest against the Hogenakal Project....


 * We also urge that the Union Government through the Central Water Commission and the Ministry of Water Resources should immediately intervene and stop this illegal water project being constructed by the Tamil Nadu Government.   … (Interruptions)  Sir, they have got no right on the water.  They have got no right on the land as the land belongs to Karnataka and the water belongs to Karnataka.  They have misled the Tribunal totally.  When the matter is before the Supreme Court, they are not supposed to do anything in that area.

Now.. go ahead. Devour this one too with your own inimitable comprehension of the English language. huh. Sarvagnya 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sarvagnya, you are surely aware that the current lead of the article says that the Falls are "located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu", and that the article is protected from editing "until disputes are resolved". Are you at all interested in co-operating with other editors to achieve a new consensus? I only ask because it seems, based on your posts to this page, that your intent is to drive off other editors with insulting and disruptive behaviour, and then (presumably) to edit the article when no one is looking. Please, tell me this isn't your plan. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If I remember correctly, I was the first one to suggest a rewording. And I brought to the table genuine and RS sources.. not a deccan.net... nor the spurious citations squatting in the lead now which do NOT support what is claimed at all?!  So, do you have anything to say about the issue and my sources at all or do you simply want to continue with your ad hominem banter?  btw, have you familiarised yourself with WP:RS yet? Sarvagnya 20:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, where does it change the equations of Karnataka claims and TN claims, and there are two central government documents now . Tell me which stays with highest weightage here. I can't agree more that the current lead will have to be changed including Karnataka's claim, in light of your references. Nevertheless, what can be stated as fact de facto would be what the central government would recongnise. I guess you would agree that Karnataka is part of India, wouldn't you? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 21:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source from a Central Govt., adjudicating body which has adjudicated on the Hogenakal dispute ? Stop bringing dubious sources.  Firstly, neither of your so-called central govt., sources support your claim.  Secondly, stop bringing statements from from 10 years ago (it doesnt even mention the Hogenakal "falls", to boot!) and attempting to further obfuscate the issue.  How come I bring to the table sources from March of 2008 and you  end up digging farther and father back into history?  ::::* If it was the uncontested truth that the falls was in Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu alone, why is it that you need to indulge in this circus of having to cite that from a flimsy pdf dealing with some other issue?  Or from a press release related to something else?  The reason you have to do it is because the territory is disputed.  Different sources describe it differently and we on wikipedia will simply report what the reports say and let people decide for themselves.  From all the reading we have done, there seems to be a new survey afoot and once its results come out, I am sure it will answer many questions.  Until then, hold your peace.
 * Also, I recently realized that the Google map which you scammed everyone here with is inaccurate. Atleast, it is at odds with the maps I found on the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA), GoI  site.  Here are those maps.  On both maps you can see that the Kaveri river itself is the border seperating Chamarajanagar and Dharmapuri districts.  This is also corroborated by Nanje Gowda's statement to that effect.
 * And then we have the Karnataka MPs leaving nothing to imagination when they call it a "part and parcel" of Karnataka.
 * This is further supported by the two Karnataka Govt., websites I listed right at the beginning of this discussion.
 * And then, we have this report (below) from the Deccan Herald which clearly states that the "Hogenakal falls" (not the village, not the unnamed island) is "disputed area" and that the two states had decided on a joint survey to settle the matter. It also reports that TN also claims the "falls" as its own. (Note:this is a report in a secondary source, not just the GoK's view).
 * Karnataka has decided to explore legal options in dealing with Tamil Nadu's recent move to launch drinking water and power generation projects at the disputed Hogenakal falls. -
 * Both the states had agreed that Hogenakal falls is a disputed border area between the two and that the issue should be settled through a joint survey conducted by officials of both states and the Centre.
 * In a nutshell, there is a "falls", there is an "island" and there is also apparently a "village". Barring the "village" (which I have seen no evidence of being disputed), both the "falls" and the "island" are disputed.  And to those disputes are tied the controversies sorrounding drinking water and hydel power projects.  Things couldnt get any clearer and I strongly recommend that we change the lead to something like -- ".. the Hogenakal falls forms the border between Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.  The exact 'ownership' of the falls, however, is disputed".  And then in a seperate section titled ==Location== or something, we will go into it in greater detail. Sarvagnya 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * dubious sources? All sources you have shown so far are just plain Karnataka's claims as anyone can see. I don't think it is too hard to see at all. To the contrast, with the Central government documents, one source spells out A team of officials of NHPC has visited the site at Hogenakkal, District Dhamapuri, (Tamil Nadu), which leaves no doubt that according to Central government the site of the project is in Tamil Nadu, which with your sources one would see which Karnataka government claims as its jurisdiction and the next one clearly states  In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls where by the Hogenakkal falls is in Tamil Nadu. Even you know that if an RfC is called, Central government documents will be given more weightage. We can get in details about the dispute in a subsection, as I have said long time ago, but with the actual official jurisdiction, you can't avoid Central Government's documents. If you still differ, why not RfC? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello Wikiality, I think you are taking us for a ride with respect to the first citation that you are quoting above. The citation says "A team of officials of NHPC has visited the site at Hogenakkal, District Dhamapuri, (Tamil Nadu)", it does not say anything about the site being "Hogenakal falls", does it? Nobody is disputing about the existence of a village called Hogenakkal in Tamil Nadu, the dispute it only regarding the location of the falls and we should stick to citations that talk of the falls. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 05:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm taking you for a ride? Or are you didn't see whats been discussed here? Sarvagnya just showed us a Karnataka MP arguing that the site of the project in Hogenakkal belongs to Karnataka, where as this document says that the site of the project, which the officials visited is in Dharmapuri district of TN. Both the references are specifically talking about the site of the project and both parties are contradicting the jurisdiction. I certainly knew that some people will be alerted about this. That is why am sure that this can't be solved unless neutral parties come in to solve the dispute. May be you will be confident enough for it. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, the only thing that I am seeing is that you are twisting your citations out of context to prove that "Hogenakal Falls" are in Tamil Nadu, which is certainly not the case. For example, here is a citation from no less than the Geological Society of India that the Hogenakal Falls belong to Karnataka!!! You are unnecessarily holding up everyone by going on and on over your fixation of the falls belonging to Tamil Nadu. Its time you agree that the falls are on the border (or that there is a dispute regarding its exact location) and move on. You are wasting everyone's time here - ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that the number of violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA by Sarvagnya outnumber the number of their posts on this page. These attacks have been directed not just against me, but against other editors who have attempted to engage Sarvagnya with polite discussion. I ask once again for civil respectful discussion from all editors involved at this page. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have the same reservations. Although I have not involved myself in this particular process before, so I cannot be sure if my actions were exactly what was requested, I have started a discussion at Wikiquette alerts regarding Sarvagnya's recent conduct. Anyone who wishes to take part in the discussion is more than welcome to do so. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break
Reply to wikiality's 23:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC) response -- What you are indulging in is rank Original research. Let me provide you with an extract from the lede of WP:NOR (emphasis not mine) ...you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The "topic" here is "the disputed nature of the Hogenakal falls" or atleast the "Hogenakal falls". Not "Inter State river water disputes in India"! Also note that your source should "directly support" the information "as it is presented" in the article. If you are claiming that the "Hogenakal falls is in Tamil Nadu and Tamil Nadu alone and that the Central Govt., disagrees with Karnataka when it claims the Hogenakal falls as its own", then your source must say all of that. You cannot put 2 and 2 together and distill your POV out of it. That is what you are doing when you say...
 * "second central govt., report talks of the "site"... karnataka MP reference indicates that the "site" is Hogenakal falls.. ergo.. the "site" in the central govt report refers to "Hogenakal falls" and ergo ergo the Hogenakal "falls" is in Tamil Nadu"!!

Do you realize that every source I have brought to the table are directly related to either "Hogenakal falls" or the "Hogenakal dispute" while you have to seek refuge behind unrelated sources from years ago?! A press release on an unrelated issue from 10 years ago cannot trump a report in a reputed secondary source from less than 2 months ago! The Deccan Herald report which reads -
 * Both the states had agreed that Hogenakal falls is a disputed border area between the two and that the issue should be settled through a joint survey conducted by officials of both states and the Centre.

clearly states that both states recognise that the falls is disputed and that they have agreed to a joint survey. I request you to stop beating round the bush and stop trying to push your POV. The 'ownership' of the falls is clearly disputed and we will simply leave it at that. Sarvagnya 00:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view
I came here from the posting on WP:RS. I have not read all the above discussion, so forgive me if what I am saying has been discussed and refuted.
 * The Google Map link above shows the border incorrectly; it actually is on the river. This can be seen easily on.
 * According to, the river forms the border between the states for about 64 km. A rough estimate on Google Maps with a ruler shows that this is indeed the distance between the two places where the border obviously turns away from the river (one is on the Krishnagiri map I linked above; the other is at the right-angle turn in the Stanley Reservoir). So, on first look, the boundary follows the river through the falls and for at least 10 km on either side. Please let me know if you dispute this, as this is what I have determined by starting with Google Maps (which turned out to be inaccurate) and looking for other sources. Assuming this is true, there should be enough sources such as local maps that will show this and that we can cite.
 * This is a classic sisuation that may lead to a border dispute. In the United States, where I live, most of these have been settled by now. Sometimes the border is defined to run down the middle of the river and sometimes it is on one side. Sometimes it follows the course of the river as it existed when the initial definition or survey was made, resulting in anomalies like Carter Lake, Iowa.
 * Apparently the TN government wants to build a water project on the falls, and KT disputes their right to do so. So there is a border dispute. Please let me know if there are sources that detail exactly what each side claims.
 * Since governments are disputing exactly where the line is, we cannot take a position.

Here's my proposed solution:

Hogenakkal Falls...is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River, which forms the border between the states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

In this way, we avoid stating that either side is correct, while giving a clear description of where the waterfall is. --NE2 04:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You are right. Here is a well known expert of inter-state water disputes in India mentioning it.  Here and here are corroborations of his statement.  Here is a reputed secondary source mentioning that the area of the falls is disputed and that a new joint survey is afoot.  The falls is clearly "disputed territory".  Please read my post timestamped 23:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC) for more.  Please. Sarvagnya 06:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to NE2's comments
 * Thanks for your comments. I would also like you to see the two Central government documents that specifically state about Hogenakkal. First one is what you have got there in your message, which in point 6.d states that In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls. If this is a case of a shared river border, we can be sure that the Ministry of Law would not have phrased it as such. If that is not defenitive enough, Indian governments press information bureau, in a report, when this project was accepted once again specifies that the site of the project as in to be in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu. As you can see, Karnataka state government is disputing indeed, but as far as the de facto jurisdiction recognised by the Central Government of India seems to be with Tamil Nadu. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 06:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That document also says that "the river...forms the boundary between the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu for a distance of about 64km". Are you disputing that some line in or on the shore of the river is the boundary at the falls, and, if so, where do you think the boundary is? --NE2 06:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The Geological Society of India says that the falls are in Karnataka. I dont want to sit over this citation and argue that that falls are indeed in Karnataka. It is plain and clear that the issue is a disputed one and that is what should be mentioned in the article. Can we now move on please? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * First to answer Amarg, what you have shown is a journal run by the society and not a central government document. I have already shown above loads of academic journals which say that the falls is in TN and BTW I gave links to full access and didn't just show a glimpse of them on search. Here are a few if you want to see
 * Now getting back to NE2. I shall first paste the section that you have mentioned and what I have here, since they are just adjacent points anyways.
 * 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.
 * So after the river acting as boundary, the river has now entered Tamil Nadu. Then the next point states:
 * In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and...
 * I think that would be clear. River as the border is not at the Hogenakkal as far as we can see here. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you describe or show me a map of how the border goes near the falls? --NE2 07:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a map produced by a Chennai (Tamil Nadu) company that shows that the river is the border: If someone can find a comparable-quality map by a Karnataka company, it would probably be best to cite both. --NE2 08:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * OK. I really find it hard to rephrase so much, I honestly don't blame you. If only Naadapriya had made an honest effort to bring in some references like these, I surely would be in a better shape. Anyways, getting back to the topic. First, let me point out to the sentence In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards. Now if you check your map, you would realise that after Hogenakkal falls the river proceeds south, not east, until it reaches Stanley Reservoir. So if they are stating In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls, then the Tamil Nadu territory of the river starts atleast a bit before, if not well before the Hogenakkal falls. If you try measure the distance from where a tributary joins the Kaveri (after Sivasamudram) till Hogenakkal, you will find it to be at least 70, if not more. If it is still hard to interpret my message, I can try do a map and show you pictorially. But, only if you still need it. I am a bit snowed under at the moment. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this some sort of a joke? If the river is shown to be the border as per the map, how can you claim that "the Tamil Nadu territory of the river starts atleast a bit before, if not well before the Hogenakkal falls." Please be rational in your arguments else you are wasting everyone's time -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you provide a reliably-sourced map that shows a 64 km portion along the river and agrees with your interpretation? --NE2 10:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that the map you have shown is unreliable? If you didn't know, that map is from http://www.tamilnadutourism.org, which is the website of the Tamilnadu Tourism Development Corporation, which officially belongs to the Department of Tourism, Government of TamilNadu. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry; that was a reply to Wikiality123, not you. --NE2 10:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NE2, can you please tell me, if a statement from the Central Government less RS to maps? When the maps are showing you not that clear picture, as in about the island under dispute, how come you are asking me a map? I'm not wasting anyone's time here. It is some here who do not want to take the Central government documents as RS. What would be your intepretation on the phrase In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls? How can the river flow eastward in Tamil Nadu territory if the river is a shared border? Then the document should state that the river flows East-ward as a boundaray between the states . And as for Amarg, thanks for saying that tourism site run by the government are reliable for you. Please read that Karnataka state tourism says that Hogenakal Falls is a beautiful water falls in the neighboring state of Tamilnadu... NE2, I need to know why you seem to disagree on the documents shown? BTW please measure on this map which you guys are pointing to me the distance from the tributary that joins Kaveri (Law Ministry document states  Below Sivasamudram, it receives the Shimsha, and then Arkavathy, just before entering the territory of Tamil Nadu). Don't just use a straight line, but follow the river. You would clearly see that it is atleast 70km from the tributary to the Hogenakkal. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The only inference that I can draw from the MEA map is that the river seems to form the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka and the Falls are on the border. Nothing more, nothing less. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 12:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And what about the Karnataka state tourism site? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 13:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The river flows eastwards in Tamil Nadu, and apparently also in Karnataka. If you believe the border splits off from the river before it reaches the waterfall, please provide a map that shows it doing so. --NE2 12:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * NE2 you are infering that it is a shared border, based on Karnataka's claim as well as the map.
 * Whereas Karnataka claims one third of an island, we can see no island in the map. So do we conclude that the map is not right or not of enough resolution? You tell me, rather than me implying.
 * Second question for you: would you consider a map more RS or an official press release and an official document from the central government which by its nature governs both states? If you opt for map, I'm sorry I would have to resist. If you say the government document, then have a look at it.
 * The document is about the interstate dispute and by its nature cannot be unclear or ambiguous on what it states. It is afterall an official document. When in the document it goes on to describe the river in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, why doesn't it explicitly state that it also flows eastward in Karnataka? Let me remind you again, this is a document which also talks about the river's course in Karnataka. This document clearly states that the river has border is just for about 64kms. It also states that the Hogenakkal falls is in Tamil Nadu. You are taking a stance with a low resolution map, where as I am talking with government documents.
 * Also please explain if by your conclusion that the river is a shared border, then the border should run through the middle. If it does so, why would Karnataka just put a claim on 1/3 of an island in the middle of the river, rather than half of it? So this is obvious is not the case. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 13:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ans to Q 2 - Stop your attempts to mislead. What you are waving around as a Central govt., "official document" is nothing of that sort and more importantly, it has nothing whatsoever to do with this current dispute.  There has been no Central govt., pronouncement on the issue of the "Hogenakal falls dispute".  Right now, the dispute is being handled by the two state govts., bilaterally.  If and when the matter reaches the Supreme Court, we will have the court adujudicating on the issue.  Only then, can we even begin to claim that the Court's words ought to be given more weight.  Until then, any amount of gymnastics on your part will not cut it.  Also, the maps I presented (atleast two of them) are also from the "Central Government".  In any event all these sources are superfluous, as we have independent media sources from 1 month ago stating clearly and unambiguously that the falls is disputed.  The island may also be disputed, but that is a different matter.. we will discuss it on the talk page of The island near the Hogenakal falls when that article becomes reality.
 * Ans to Q 4 - Arent you tired already of amusing yourself? How much of the island belongs to whom depends obviously on the topography of the region.  I am sure everybody here realises that islands need not be geometrically symmetric. Sarvagnya 17:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you answer questions one and two there? I'm trying to mislead? Well, look the borders of the map you shown and now look at the border at the same area of this map. Why is map on pdf show smooth borders where here it is not so? This one is from government of India too. The indents are not the same. You pdf map doesn't show the districts right too. Where is Krishnagiri district which you can see in the map I had shown? Check out in detail, you will see there are loads of differences between the maps. Even if you shout abuses at me and change the lead, you can be pretty sure that it won't be too long that someone will start this discussion again and point the anomaly and discripancies in the map. Basically the pdf map you showed us lacks the resolution we need for this article. I'm amusing myself, actually any reader will see who is amusing himself by trying to shun off others by sarcasm. The island is not geometric for you but the river is! Is that so? Is it too hard to see if your border runs through the middle of the river, it has to either avoid the island and leave it for one state or split it evenly between the neighbours. Your attempts to throw me out with your funny language won't work. Your basic argument is that by releasing a report on Kaveri dispute central government has sowed seeds to another one? O please! What is OR? Is intepreting the statement that in Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls as to mean also in Karnataka is OR or me pointing that out is? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I have answered all your question many times already. And even in my reply above, though I have labeled it as answers for 2 and 4, it answers all your questions.  The bottom line is, the falls is disputed.  I dont even need the maps to source my claim at all.. I am only presenting it because it is helpful in understanding the issue.  I am supporting it with media sources from one month ago.. not ten years ago.  You, otoh, have  been reduced to taking refuge behind ambiguous words in a document NOT related to this dispute and one which is from years ago.  And to boot, it is not any "official document" as you're claiming.  It is just a document hosted on the govt's website.. thats all.  It is not a court ruling or a gazette notification.  So stop harping about this source as if it was the 'mother of all sources'.  And this map -- Is this a joke of some kind?  Any kid who has been past high school will tell you that this is a 'political map'.. not a 'physical' map which shows rivers, mountains etc.,.  For that matter, since this map doesnt show the Kaveri river at all, should we conclude that the river doesnt flow in TN at all?!  How disingenuous can your arguments get! Sarvagnya 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes a political map that doesn't agree with the map that you showed us with the borders. Both these maps are from the Government of India and both these maps show state boundaries, but why are they different in the shaping of it? If it sounds like a joke for you, you can very well have a laugh. The falls is disputed yes, but dispute doesn't mean there is no official jurisdiction for it according to Government of India. O please look at the document. It says it was a Paper was prepared for the Commission by Shri P.M. Bakshi. It is a final report on the dispute. Government of India is not stupid to host some worthless document on their website. Please find someother excuse to evade it off. BTW your physical map doesn't show the island near the falls. That was the base of my response. If the border has to divide it in someway, the map should be in a resolution enough to show that. We all agree that there is a dispute, and so it is on Cyprus, but as long as Northern Cyprus is not recognised by UN and other members of the EU, it stays seperate to that of Cyprus. Let us know if you got any reliable source that Government of India recognises Hogenakkal as part or partly to be part of Karnataka jurisdiction. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 20:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "..O please look at the document. It says it was a Paper was prepared for the Commission by Shri P.M. Bakshi. It is a final report on the dispute..." - what nonsense. It is not "the final report" of this dispute or any dispute for that matter!  It is just a "background paper" on Inter-State water disputes in India.  And, it is years old and to boot, doesnt support your claim.  Ciao. Cheers. Sarvagnya 00:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * O yes, it is years old when I use it and not when NE2 uses it to support your claim. Remember the 64 kms of border that you guys seem to continue more than that distance, is from this source. First you called this some document hosted in Government site and now an now that it is years old. You are just making the discussion go in circles, sometimes accepting the same source and sometimes denying it. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 09:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)