Talk:Hogenakkal Falls/Archive 4

Disputed
From the various citations shown, it is quite clear that the location of the falls is disputed and that is what we can quote in the article. We are in no position to judge the exact location of the falls and any discussion thereof is futile. I would suggest the wording to be:

Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall on the Cauvery river, located on the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

A separate section can dwelve on the dispute. I think its time we moved on from this needless discussion. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 05:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, Similar was suggested by several in the past but got opposed by the same two editors with support of some other solicited editors. We can try again and move forward. Naadapriya (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we be sure that the border is actually in the river? Sometimes, in the United States, the border is the "low water mark" rather than the center. If this were the case here, the waterfall would be entirely within one state. --NE2 06:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The border is indeed the river. I know its hard, but please read my posts above in the "Bogus cites?" section.  I have presented a source where a well known expert mentions this and also two maps from the Govt. of India which clearly show the river as the border.  The Google map is inaccurate as I have also noted here.  Sarvagnya 06:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The border is the river, but do we know that it is in the river, or could it be on the river's shore? --NE2 06:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, here's what an "expert" the side arguing for TN says: "According to internationally accepted principle, the centre of the river is the boundary." What about the other side? Where do they claim the boundary is? --NE2 07:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops - I can't be sure that the expert is on TN's side. What does each state claim as the boundary? --NE2 07:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This statement In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls. from Govt India article is repeatedly used to falsely  claim that HK falls is completely in TN. Talking to language experts (such as editors of new paper and journals  etc) it is observed that


 * The use of 'upto' removes any direct relation between TN and HK falls from the given sentence point of you.
 * ‘Upto’ indicates some thing happens at HK falls and beyond. One of them is it enters Karnataka State.


 * Therefore one can say that authors of the article have diligently used the word 'upto' since it was already well known that HK falls was on the border. The sentence can only imply that HK falls is on border because of other already shown with  supporting WP:RS by many.  Naadapriya (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Should I say it is upto you to show us some citation on your intepretations. Pick one from here may be. To see or not to see, is all upto you anyways. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 09:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the lead. Always there is something new to learn in English for those lucky ones who study in local state language till high school. Now I see what the authors of article meant smart people to understand the sentence as.  'In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls where it enters Karnataka State.' Puzzle solved!! Now let us pay attention to the logical proposal given in the next section. Thanks again Naadapriya (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
As I see, there are three different type of citations:


 * 1) That claim that the falls are within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu.
 * 2) That claim that the falls are within the jurisdiction of Karnataka.
 * 3) That tell that the falls are on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

On careful search, I am sure that we could pick up "reliable" citations corroborating each of the above three statements. As such, there has been no detailed survey of the area conducted and hence it is difficult to take a stand with respect to one state over the other. In view of this, as I had earlier suggested, we can take a middle ground saying that "the falls are on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka". The dispute related to the area in question can be covered in a separate section, including the various claims. This I think is reasonable and should satisfy all parties concerned. Please let me know if you think of any other alternatives. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Every source I have seen, with the exception of Google Maps, backs up the statement "the border follows the Kaveri River past the falls". The dispute is, presumably, over where in the river the border actually is. I think it's best to avoid the question entirely, unless we have sources that both sides agree that the line is somewhere in the middle. --NE2 10:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont think we should entertain that question since according to widely accepted convention, for any river that forms the border, the border lies in the middle of the river. I think it is safe to assume that this is the case with Kaveri as well. Sarvagnya has infact provided a citation that says so. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 10:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In the United States, this isn't always true; sometimes it's at the "low water mark" on one side of the river. It does appear though that in this case the line is in the middle, though I haven't found any sources stating that both sides agree on this. How about "is a waterfall on the Kaveri River, the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu"? --NE2 11:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If I'm reading properly, Karnataka states they own the entire waterfall. Whether or not we believe this to be true, I don't think we have enough sources to state whether it is. --NE2 11:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * NE2, I know it can be difficult for you to keep track, but there are more than enough sources (from as recently as March of 2008) to indicate that Karnataka claims the falls in its entirety as its own. And then, we have reports in reputed secondary sources stating that the falls is disputed.  As also is the island in the same area.  And to these disputes and the Kaveri dispute is tied the controversy sorrounding Tamil Nadu's attempts to start a drinking water and power project in the area. Sarvagnya 16:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, we can get many citations that claim one way or the other, however I feel that it is better to take a common ground. As you have indicated, I am OK with "is a waterfall on the Kaveri River, the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu"? -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 11:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * As many have repeatedly suggested I agree with the logical and accurate statement 'falls is on the border' not in any specific state, either Karnataka or Tamil Nadu.Naadapriya (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it would be best to say, "Hogenakkal Falls... on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River, which forms the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The exact location of this border is disputed by the two states.[sources]" and then we can talk about tourism. I say this because it seems that the disputes are more notable than the tourism (based on the available sources). S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably agreed, having not had the opportunity to review all the material, taking the word of Amar, whose reliability I've never had cause to question. I'm not sure that the quote cited by NE2 really does say that Karnataka claims the whole falls, given the less than specific nature of the quote, but if other sources do, they do. For what it's worth, I have myself found that, according to the tour guides I have consulted, the falls are notable for being a location used in several films, and its reputation on that basis is the primary cause of what foreign tourism there is. Whether we would want to specificy between the foreign tourism and the domestic tourists who seem to use the river/falls complex for water sports is a different matter. John Carter (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out from the previous discussions and references that Kaveri river is never the border between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The Border is not parallel to the river but cuts the river. Also Kaveri re-enters Karnataka from Tamil Nadu beyond Hogenakkal.Google Map link --Gthorvey (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You should find yourself a blog or come back when you have some sources. Thanks. Sarvagnya 16:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sarvagnya, please recognize that this is a page to improve the article, not to engage in completely irrelevant, off-topic sniping. Such commentary as you have made above, which do nothing to address the article itself, do absolutely nothing to even address the article. Please confine any further comments to the article itself. Thank you. In fact, all comments from this point forward should be about the content of the article, not derision of others, off-topic commentary, or speculation about the motivations of others. John Carter (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Trying to take the discussion backwards by "blogging" on the talk page of an article is not something that we should be condoning and in fact, should be taking exception to. As you can see below, Gthorvey admits that he was wrong (whatever it is that he was trying to say in the first place).  And as for confining posts here to the topic and not "off-topic sniping" how about you practise what you preach? Sarvagnya 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to refresh your memory that those statements were infact quoted by you. And thank you for being so nice.. Are all Kannadigas so nice like you? Infact, I just got to see another reference that contradicts my statement ... which infact supports what the karnataka ex-irrigation minister says. Sorry I missed it.--Gthorvey (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi - as a newcomer here, and someone quite ignorant of this dispute, it seems to me that the initial proposal in this section made by ¿Amar៛ is a good idea, as long as the paragraph about the dispute is the 2nd paragraph of the article. The first paragraph would intentionally avoid the matter because a brief comment suitable for the introductory paragraph seems impossible. Tempshill (talk) 23:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. For the record (though I've said it many times already), I also agree with Amarrg's proposal. It seems like Users: sheffield steel, nadapriya and john carter(?) also agree. Sarvagnya 23:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I like Amar's idea. Stay focussed on Hogenakal falls in its article, take the dispute to another sub-article, with a brief two line mention of the dispute. In the page relating to the dispute, provide citations from Gazatted sources only, entirely avoiding newspapaers, blog sites and tourism web pages. Hope this helps. thanksDineshkannambadi (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? The page about the dispute would need to cite newspapers to describe the dispute and public reaction. --NE2 00:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The newspapers and such can be used to describe the dispute and public reaction, not to decide where the falls are located. The Belgaum page is a good example of this kind of solution which actually worked.Dineshkannambadi (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well.. the sub-page will sort itself out. The question here is whether we should tell our readers that the falls belongs to Ktaka or to TN or simply that it is disputed.  Clearly, "it is disputed" is the only reasonable conclusion we can draw from a study of the sources. Sarvagnya 01:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, yes. All we can really say about the location is that the border is somewhere along the river. --NE2 00:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * plzz lets keep this press reports, blog infos , loksabha discussions ( HUH almost all topics come here  . if we keep relying then then no even a single Indian article will be salvaged since almost all such articles come into the speeches some how ) , let us force on real govt sources and ( or ) maps as sources , let me remind newcomers of these citations - tourism info , - kindly focus on the CHAPTER 6.1.d , - reliable map source , lets now focus on this.or atleast consider as this  support for the first proposalregards--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)I haven't taken part until now, but I have closely followed the discussions here for the last few days. I agree with the proposal that the lead should be reworded to state that the falls is in the border and the exact location is disputed. Thanks, KNM Talk 01:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * kindly consider that the editors supporting the second or third proposals have failed to produce even a single citation, one person is giving a loksabha discussion as a citation to divert the talk pages course , these national debates involves almost every topics so taking them into consideration ill not salvage even a single topic . for eg every countries budget will be included in the countries article , if we keep editing the article on everydays debates then our job will be just fixing , fixing and keep on fixing and never improve new ones , why not consider this ?? , our almost every single momt on this talk seems to fade away , me kept off bored... now again , no idea  how much....new members blanking the talks ??? i have no words ..... sorry admin u really disappointing here .... mant thanks S HEFFIELD S TEEL  , John Carter & others for your continued support despite the merry go / worry go round .  regards : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To an extent, I agree. Those who are seeking to place the information regarding the recent discussion would have apparently been well advised to write content for Wikinews regarding the subject when the stories were run, which evidently hasn't been done. It should be noted that I myself barely know what Wikinews is, but most of the stuff I work with relates to dead people, so my content doesn't get in the news that much. My personal view would be to just add a link to a page regarding the border dispute to any and all articles which can be directly indicated to be subjects of dispute, and, until the dispute is over, funnel all the information into the article or articles on the disputes per se. Unfortunately, and I say this as someone who has had to agree to inclusion of a lot of information I myself find at best unpleasant into articles, if it is notable, reliably and verifiably sourced, and given due weight, it should be included. I would think an ongoing dispute would be more notable than a not currently active dispute, but others might disagree. It really would help a lot if some of this information were established somewhere else first though, given the clearly dubious nature of an admittedly poorly defined extant border. That would in effect provide a working draft of the content which could be pointed when seeking to adjust article content. John Carter (talk) 01:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "the second and third proposals"? Are you talking about Amarrg's "three different type of citations"? If so, clearly shows that the river is the border. --NE2 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * i meant
 * That claim that the falls are within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu.
 * That claim that the falls are within the jurisdiction of Karnataka.
 * That tell that the falls are on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
 * well so u wanna me go there ?? if so why not here ??, huh maps ...even cleared maps were given earlier ...ill try to act as uv requested John Carter . --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 02:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Both of those maps show that the river is the border. --NE2 03:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * oh common we r here discussing abt the falls and not abt the river, ofcourse the river runs in 3 states but falls is located in 1 state only as per citations , and kindly focus the word...in tamilnadu , not from tamilnadu .....--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the falls are on the river, the river is what matters, and the river is the border. --NE2 22:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Solution
Thanks to all of you for putting forth your comments and I see a general consensus emerging. In view of the above proposal and the comments received, this is how I plan to word the lead now:

"Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall on the Kaveri river along the border of the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in India. Sometimes referred as the "Niagara of India", the falls are a major tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks found in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and one of the oldest in the world. The exact location of the falls is however disputed, with both the states claiming that the falls are within the jurisdiction of their respective states. The fact that the state of Tamil Nadu wants to undertake a water project in the vicinity of the falls, has caused further altercations between the two states."

I will add appropriate citations for the above statements. I feel that the lead section as specified above takes credence of all available viewpoints and takes a middle path. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 08:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd replace "along" with a comma: "Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall on the Kaveri River, the border between the states..." Also, I think there's too much in your proposed lead about the dispute; surely there's more to say, such as the height? Maybe your last two sentences could be combined to "A proposed water project by Tamil Nadu in the vicinity of the falls has caused a dispute over jurisdiction of the river and its water." --NE2 10:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi NE2. I have just modified the lead as it exists currently. Ofcourse, information like height, volume of water and all would need to be mentioned in the lead as well. That would come in due course. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 15:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * of course not agreed .... this solution is without any citation, if such happens then a citation tag and original research tag is necessary , we produced 3 Citing sources , to prove its location otherwise how many has been produced here ?? kindly try to produce a good citation else any such would be challenged under No original research , Verifiability  , Citing sources  . kindly take my post here as  a normal forum and not with wrong tone  , the truth is so . :regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would call this plain nitpicking and stalling on your part. Your objection needs to be dismissed. We cannot go around in circles. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Amar's draft looks good particularly since it is a complete lead. May consider replacing 'falls are' with 'falls is' and  'in the vicinity of the falls' with 'at the falls area'. Naadapriya (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Amar's draft. Tweaking for style can be done in due course. Sarvagnya 17:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hogenakkal Falls is a waterfall on the Kaveri River, the border between the states..." could mean that kaveri is the border between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu at all the places. But the fact is it is the border only for 64 kms as per the references. --Gthorvey (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Hogenakkal Falls (insert alternate spellings) is a waterfall in southern India, on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the boundary between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka." S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of WP:TALK
I've posted about the Talk page abuse at WP:AN. I want an outside opinion. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A formal request for comment has been made at Requests for comment/Sarvagnya. John Carter (talk) 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Can everybody at least agree on this?
The border between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu follows the Kaveri River between a point south of Kanakapura and a point near the west end of the Stanley Reservoir.Vishnu Maps Publications, Tamil Nadu, accessed May 2008

If you agree, just say so; I'm trying to keep this section easy to follow. However, if you disagree, please provide a map that shows how you think the border goes. Thank you. --NE2 03:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. A simpler formulation though, would be to say that the river forms the border between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka and the Dharmapuri and Krishnagiri districts of Tamil Nadu. Sarvagnya 04:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree.--Skbhat (talk) 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest that we need to discuss the whole new draft of the lead for consistency and appropriateness not just a sentence. For e.g current lead has undiscussed, speculative and unrelated information about a non-existing water project that was added just before the article got protected. It needs to be removed. The modified complete leads suggested earlier by some of us similar to one proposed here may be considered.Naadapriya (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would very much help if Naadapriya actually understood wikipedia better than he does when making these absolutist statements of what "needs" to be done. It is in fact commonplace for content to be added regarding works either in progress or in development, including even movies which have been announced but haven't yet had any actors or other staff selected if there is sufficient verifiable, reliable sourcing, as there seems to be in this case. While no one would be averse to a reasonable discussion of altering the lead, using POV and NPOV as the terms are generally meant, I do believe that this party's regular misuse of those terms earlier does not lend credence to his own particular, dogmatic, statements. John Carter (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would very much help if people, including you, would use this section as intended and not as another free-for-all. Thank you. --NE2 16:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * new to this articles taLKpage ?? umm ..for ur kind notice better maps were given and removed based on copyright issue ..if possible check [Coordinates: 12°6′54″N 77°46′33″E this ] in google earth and any ....regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that is incorrect? --NE2 12:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi NE2. Please dont bother asking questions to people who dont understand -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's better to catch them in a trap, especially when they are capable of reverting... --NE2 14:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * wanna catch me on a trap ?? im not playing a game, this is not my place .... i got involved in this issue so im here ..... so do u disagree with this ?? --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do disagree with Google's location of the border; it is apparently made from imprecise data. Do you disagree with ? --NE2 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though the Google map is widely used, this map   should be  more authentic.  This is also corroborated by the map from the Krishnagiri district map [] and other references previously presented.  We can conclude that the river indeed forms the border for some 64kms.  I agree with NE2 --Gthorvey (talk) 16:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * current lead has undiscussed, speculative and unrelated information about a non-existing water project that was added just before the article got protected. It is neither speculative nor unrelated.  The project is alive and kicking  .  It was put on hold as a goodwill gesture to help karnataka with its law and order problem.  .    --Gthorvey (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hope you have followed earlier discussions on this. It is not for wikipedia editors to make judgment (as done in the previous comment) whether one state created a law and order problem in the other state by making plans for a water project at a wrong place. This article is about falls not a water project that can be located anywhere not necessarily near the falls. It does not exist now and may not be a reality at the falls as per present situation. BTW : From engineering view point it may be less preferable near falls area. Please note I am not against the water project for needy if it is done correctly with out affecting others involved. Now let us focus on the consensus on its way as per section above.Naadapriya (talk) 06:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont know what you call these

 in your bo-bo land.. but on earth call this a law and order problem.. BTW: whose engineering point of view are you talking about? Is it vatal nagaraj's or  narayana gowda's or yours? --Gthorvey (talk) 04:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * me too wonder the same . here in this talk well known google maps, Indian internet backbone are being ignored and claimed to be false and imprecise , only god knows on whose engineering point of view some talk about .... today talk page again  archieved ...no end for this merry / worry go round . regards : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to above 2 comments:It is noted again that This article is about falls not a water project that does not exist now. It is not a rocket science to understand the simple fact that there is no relation between water falls and water project. BTW : No  follow-up on BTW here.  Naadapriya (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW where have you read that the water project doesn't exist ?? is what you claim is true then what are these, , ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,  ,   so before you could given any wrong infos kindly try to refer to archives there  u'll find  replies with citations . almost all these citations are from  the most trustable Indiannational internet backbone servers , we have to accept it , and for more info the project is on hold and will continue ..this reply will continue with the same citations for any number of times asked....well may i ask you for one info?? i deserve this since it wouldn't be nice to leave simply not raising the question after providing these many citations. now my question: can you provide at least one reliable citation.....sorry ...why reliable but some sort of press report to that the water project has been called off or dropped?? if u may then u deserved to get replies on this regard else kindly forget about giving such false infos and confusing people after all wikipedians are neither this nor thisnor this .regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * All know that the water project is proposed by one state and legally contested by other state which jointly owns the area. Time and wikipedia space is wasted through above comment just restating the same information. An unilateral proposal is  speculative till it is agreed upon by both parties involved . It is not for wikipedia to pass a judgment whether it is going to happen or not. If water project is  built at the falls with all metal pipes etc etc running around adding beauty to the falls ! then it may have a place in the article. Until then the topic is mute for this article. Naadapripya may not respond further on this.  Naadapriya (talk) 07:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You also might be interested to know that the Central government approved of it.
 * The following is the text of a letter written by B.K. Chakrabarti, Deputy Commissioner in the Union Ministry of Water Resources, on September 21, 1998, to the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary, giving Tamil Nadu the go ahead for the Hogenakkal project
 * and Karnataka Government had even agreed to give clearance for the Hogenekkal project.
 * Hope this helps. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 07:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Showing an incomplete document is not as per wikipedia standards. If Central Govt is looking into Karnataka's protest one can be sure that there is something beyond the scope of discussions here. Better to focus on facts on-hand. Falls exists and let us talk about it. BTW: There is no evidence that Karnataka authorized a dam and power project at the falls. It is a common sense that a dam is not required to extract water. Also one need not have to extract water at falls. If authorities that are planning were serious about getting water for needy, I am sure they would have planned water project in a logical way. From first hand information, I am confident TN has bright civil engineers  who can design the water project without any controversy. Please take it easy on non-existing water project for now till you understand based on clear and obvious facts that the falls is on the border and both states have equal rights. Naadapriya (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * incomplete document ?? kindly try to read those given by Wiki San Roze, you might had not read the exact one , btw we r not here....atleast im not here to discuss whether a dam is needed to extract water or a  or simply through air it could be done but to discuss how the article to be displayed , so far too many citations have been given to state its presence in tamilnadu and absence in karnataka , you first try to provide citations for otherwise , so fat i have seen just words from you and not even a single citation , wikipedia works with citations or any article will be challenged and removed if so not , well for the current style of article it has atleast 6 citation to prove its presence in tamilnadu if u wanna claim otherwise how many of such citations ( kindly donot bring vatal  nagaraj's or  narayana gowda's press reports )can you provide from good sources ?? and i once again plead you kindly do not divert this talk page with these ( those claimed to be out of topic and mere diversion from the same  Naadapriya  " It is a common sense that a dam is not required to extract water. Also one need not have to extract water at falls. If authorities that are planning were serious about getting water for needy, I am sure they would have planned water project in a logical way. From first hand information, I am confident TN has bright civil engineers  who can design the water project without any controversy. "  )and for admin notice ..how many times iv pleaded you to take some action on the people who divert the page with useless comments , so far this page is progressing with only such works and sometimes i wonder if iv landed in some civil / bridge related page , kindly help us to focus only on the falls & only on the falls . regards : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Excuse me Naadapriya, the project is to extract water at Hogenakkal and pump it to the reservoir at Madam . No one is building dams at the Hogenakkal. Get your information straight. If Karnataka didn't give consent, why would Indian express state Karnataka Government had even agreed to give clearance for the Hogenekkal project? Please start reading news outside Karnataka. If you don't want to I don't have a problem. There is always an RfC!! Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 13:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Both above comments strongly imply that there is no relation between water falls and water project. The citation quoted above states that water project is proposed about 11km from the falls. Clearly at this stage the water project has no relation to the current article on the falls. BTW : There is no smoke without fire. If SMK made a statement then there is some action behind the scene. Such topics are beyond the scope of wikipedia article. Let us focus on the falls.Naadapriya (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Once again mate, read it before you comment. The water is taken from the falls and then

passed on to Madam which is 11kms away. If we start elaborating about Madam here, then its not relevant, but it is in Hogenakkal that water is taken from. You are arguing on something even you know that is very relevant here. I have loads of other things to do, what about you? Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 15:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 'that water is taken from'???. Nothing is taken yet. It can be considered when as if there is no other place they put pumps at falls with lubricant oils adding beauty to the falls. For now it is not relevant to the article. BTW; Thanks for your concern about me. Take care of yourself. Naadapriya (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * THE WATER IS GOING TO BE TAKEN, though not now soon for sure , funds are alloted and with international , central and state govt's nod . no it has to be mentioned ..... wanna ignore such a big issue?? ..and once again u r trying to divert the talk from its course and claiming it's not relevant...if not relevant then why to mention it ( "It can be considered when as if there is no other place they put pumps at falls with lubricant oils adding beauty to the falls. For now it is not relevant to the article.") and once again i insist you to focus only on the falls & only on the falls and nothing else , we are not running a beauty competition where by discussing how beauty ot how far beauty ....first stop this....regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * and once again i insist you to focus only on the falls!!! thanks for reminding yourself what I have been telling since long time. Unrelated topics such as water project should be removed from the article. Naadapriya (talk) 16:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * 'THE WATER IS GOING TO BE TAKEN' I wish so for needy but it is not for wikipedia to make a statement for Govt. Please read other articles e.g 'The Niagara Falls are renowned both for their beauty....'. It is unfortunate trivial issues to be proved for some. Naadapriya (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Just out of curiosity, can Naadapriya tell me which policies and guidelines he is basing his conclusions on? So far as I know, there is nothing in WP:MOS which seems to support his contention that the article should contain only content specifically related to the falls? Can he point out to me where he finds the material supporting his contention? Otherwise, I know of no policy or guideline which supports his position. John Carter (talk) 17:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Again I lost you. What conclusions? Please read earlier discussions about speculative information related to non-existing water project that has no relation to water falls. You should read and comment on all earlier discussions rather than jumping in the middle with vague questions which stall's the progress. For e.g. Can you please tell me what is the relation between a 'water fall' and a 'water project'.Naadapriya (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * @ the $un$hine . and John Carter, wait if anyone else is got an objection to it too. If it is just Naadapriya, its best not to reply to that user. If Naadapriya still got concerns about it, the user should take it to RfC. Naadapriya has shown no respect or honour to fellow editors' messages. If someone else is concerned about this section, I would advice them to start a new section on the talk page and we shall discuss about it there. As of now, it is proposed project, aproved by Government of India. If Yeddiyurappa added dubious territorial dimension to it for vote bank politics, its not of concern for Wikipedia. If the editor wants to follow him, its his/her personal choice. Wikipedia will report all facts as such. We are calling it a proposed project, and thats what it is, and thats what will stay, unless there is a valid objection by anyone. As for the objection Naadapriya has raised, like I said earlier, is not valid and if Naadapriya disagrees, I would request the user to start a RfC and I will not shy away from it. Good luck. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 17:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This not an issue of 'respect or honour'. It is about facts. Wikipedia articles can not talk about speculative topics particularly when they do not exists now and also not related to the article. Please read earlier discussions. I guess we had a section for this but as usual your comments deviated to something else. Please do not waste Wikipedia space talking about politics. Focus on technical issues. As of today you have not explained a rational relation between 'Water project' and 'Water falls.'Naadapriya (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Wikiality123, User:Pearll& and User:John Carter '''are the only editors defending the inclusion of speculative and unrelated topic about a water project in this article on water falls. To date they have not provided a WP:RS to prove a logical connection between a water fall and a water project. Also they have not provided WP:Rs why a non-existing and speculative topic should be in the article. As a result the article will be corrected once Admn allows editing. Reverting the valid edits are considered vandalism''' Naadapriya (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes feel free to take it to AN/I claiming adding that project as a vandalism. Lets see what people there gotto say. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 16:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The previous comment,  first misinterprets then suggests prematurely to go for AN/I which will waste  valuable wikipedia’s resources. I did not say existing incorrect information is vandalism which is written by those wrongly motivated by political statements. My comment states removing valid corrections to it will be vandalism. Naadapriya (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Google map can be understood if you can imagine moving a section of the border West and slightly North. Then you can see that the shape of the border exactly matches the course of the river. I would draw a diagram but licensing issues prevent us from posting images on Talk pages, except free use images of course (which Google data definitely is not). S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well chaps, I really appreciate all the effort made to evade off the question if the resolution of the maps provided from Gvt of India is good enough for this issue. Well anyways, I shall show you a GIS map (for people who work with geographical data would know that GIS data gotto be accurate or else the whole analysis is all messed up) from TN government site . As I said it is a GIS data, hence will have layers, so please use the pane in the right of the map and please do not forget to check the option to show rivers. I would like to see the Karnataka version of this map, if it is different. NE2, you kept asking me for an RS map and here it is. If you are impartial, then you would ask the other party to show such a map too. I shall wait and watch!! <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 09:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That map is imprecise, just like Google Maps. Somebody probably screwed up the projections; it's easy to do that with GIS data, and not as important on an application for the public. If you want a good source, use a map that was actually checked after being drawn, such as . --NE2 22:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * yup ! any map tht is diff from 100 others is precise and the 99 others r imprecise, and moreover even if the precise map is a bit zoomed then it becomes imprecise or wrongly drawn by some ..... people ?? am i right ?? so u confidently say tht a map tht too an "GIS" from a more and the most reliable source ie. from ".nic.in" becomes imprecise compared to a normal one ...... may be you dont know wht it stands for an ".nic.in" and its trustability ....sorry friend i cant make you understand....i give up.....--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:27, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Please give up; it will make this so much easier. --NE2 02:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * no brother ! lets all together find a solution else time will find one, why u wish me give up ??:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, NE2 you are unfortunately not ready to accept when we show you a map with better resolution. You did say yourself that if a river acting as border doesn't mean that the river has to be a shared jurisdiction. Have you changed your mind on it? Have you seen any evidence so far that it is not the case. This is as simple as a fence, which can very well be shared or in one of the party's territory. Even more, if it is a shared river border, you know it very well to benot more than 64 kms downstream of Sivasamudra. Isn't this what the reference said. How far is Hogenakkal falls from the the Sivasamudra falls, when you calculate it following the river? Is it 64 or more? It is defo more. How come you have taken sides when the document you are reading doesn't actually support the map to details. The GIS map clearly shows, that when the river starts to be a border, the river is in Karnataka jurisdiction, but when it enters TN territory, flowing a bit east, just before it reaches the falls and taking a southward turn. If you read what I said above, then look at the map, you will find that it makes complete sense with this, to the word. By denying it and still claiming to be a third party is really a pity. You are just trying to make a compromise, which is what the goal of the other party, ie., to make it seem on wiki that TN and K'taka has equal claims on Hogenakkal falls. There are people in Karnataka who claim every place at the Karnataka border, including Erode, Ooty etc., as to belong to them. What we should be doing is to see what the central government would state as the jurisdiction. I have already explained this using Cyprus and UN not recognising Northern Cyprus. Failure to see the point here, will be really unfortunate. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 09:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Where exactly in your map does it say that the Hogenakal falls is in TN? Sarvagnya 16:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sure that by now you can locate Hogenakkal falls on the map! Tell me where it falls in that map please. If you can't locate it, use any satellite image of the river of your choice which will show you the position of the falls. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I am sorry I cannot locate Hogenakal Falls in that map since the map by itself does not show where it lies. I can compare other maps with this one, but there are many maps that show Hogenakal falls to lie on the border and I would have to go with them as the location of Hogenakal Falls (because I can see the location on the map) rather than the one which just shows the path of the river. The map that you have shown is wide open to assumptions on the probable location of the falls, and I dont think can be used as a reliable source to point out the exact location of the falls. By the way, where in your map does the 64 km. boundary talked about by the Law Ministry article appears. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 08:36, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You do know where the falls is. Locate that on the river. I don't see any problem in that. Please read my message before you comment on it. The 64 kms said to be the border and doesn't state if the river is on one side or both. With the map I have provided we can be sure that the 64 km is on the Karnataka side, which justifies why it is said Below Sivasamudram, it receives the Shimsha, and then Arkavathy, just before entering the territory of Tamil Nadu. Your explanation of the river as border being shared between both the states doesn't make sense with the that statement, since if it is a shared border then it would be TN's territory along with Karnataka's. If you keep denying that you can't see the falls location in the map, you will be just wasting everyone's time. This is the only map that also makes sense with the sentence  In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls .. where after Kaveri enters TN in the map I have provided it still continues to flow eastwards upto Hogenakkal, then to quote takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir. If you still want to disgree, well and good. Show me a map that goes with the statements of the Central government document then. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 13:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Bogus... You cannot bring a half-cooked map on the table and ask everyone to pinpoint the location of Hogenakal Falls. Unless the map itself shows the location of the falls, no one can say for sure where the falls are. Cannot you understand that simple argument? You are the one who is wasting everyone's time here by bringing in some map which does not even show where the falls are, and then arguing about the accuracy of the map and asking everyone to predict the location of the falls. In your map, no where does the contour of the river seems to follow the contour of the border (near the area where the river is seen entering TN) and hence your argument that the map exactly shows what the law ministry document is saying, is WRONG. By the way, I dont think the Central Government document covers all aspects of the trajectory of the Cauvery river and hence I dont consider it as reliable to pinpoint the location of the falls. If you do believe that the Central Govt. document is sacrosanct, the onus is on you to bring such a map (with Hogenakal Falls displayed on it). Till then, request you to stop your flimsy arguments. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 05:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Half-ccoked I see! You are using a map that doesn't go with the 64 kms boundary as stated by the Law Ministry document, but you are discrediting the one that does. Why don't you show us one that supports the 64 kms boundary? Are you going to call even Encyclopedia Brittanica half cooked? Lets see if you do. Now we have Law Ministry document stating that the falls is in Tamil Nadu, Encyclopedia Brittanica supporting it, a GIS map showing the flow of the river matching that of what the Law Ministry document states. Are you going to discredit all of these (including Law Ministry and Encyclopedia Brittanica) with a map that doesn't show enough resolution? You can go on and on with that map. Is that map the only thing you got? Does your map tell you anything of if it is a shared river (as in border running through the middle) or on a single side? Does it explain why would the Central Government state just 64kms as the river border when in your map is near 70kms? Didn't we just discard Google maps as not being consistent with the Law ministry document? How consistent is your map with it anyways? As I said, we can go on and on untill you see the light. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 08:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * to see light ?? i wonder if it would ever happen, one member here wanna discuss abt rivers beauty and lubricating oil falling on it and the other found a map and argues with it , im not ready to argue with these people who has a map that fails to locate the exact location of falls if it doesn't why don't you agree to those told in the law ministry report ?? if not why didn't you get a better map yourself ?? you failing to agree world renowned sources isn't our problem . you people never provide any citations and disagree with those provided . may be they are jocking : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Encyclopedia Britannica and Law Ministry for what they are worth, do not have a final say on matters concerning the location of Hogenakkal falls. Why do you keep on flagging your Central Government document as an authority on the location of the Hogenakkal Falls, here is a Central Government document that states that the falls are in Karnataka. You guys dont want take a middle path and agree for a compromise that I have suggested and want to continue to nitpick. If this continues, I will have no option to treat your constant interruptions to the probable solution as vandalism and report it to the admins. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 05:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Law Ministry doesn't have the final say? Can I ask you the same question that you guys bombard us with. In the Polution monitoring document that you have given, are they talking about the falls or village or island or what? But, I wouldn't go that far. If you bothered to read it, it will tell you that they were sampling from the Kaveri river at several points and you can see for yourself they are talking about the sampling point (refer the table) as in Karnataka. Get your facts straight before you present your data. The sampling points in that stretch are in Karnataka. If you have any doubts, ask a neutral third party to read it and explain that to you. Who is vandalising here? People who refuse to accept Law Ministry document on jurisdiction (saying that Law Ministry doesn't have a final say in that), refuting Encyclopedia Britannica and showing us a document that talks about sampling points as to mean to Hogenakkal falls, or we who are showing you unequivocal statements? You just refused to take those documents. Do you have any reason for that? Trolling is what is done here at best by the other party, and let me remind you guys that it is vandalism. Once again I ask you if you have done any single edit other than adding Karnataka to this falls? You have been to this talk page about an year ago too. From then till now, you haven't added anything else to this article. Can you explain your motives? Neither you, nor Sarvagnya or Naadapriya, has ever tried to do anything good to this article other than trying to add Karnataka to this. If I had been as stuborn as you chaps, I should have insisted on the Google maps, which I didn't. Tell me now, who is trolling and vandalising? You know who it is yourself, although I don't see you chaps agreeing to it. If you go through the archives, plans have already been made on to improve this article, but because of this jurisdiction issue its all been delayed. Do something good for this article and for us please. Its an request!! <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 07:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep your advice to yourself. The document clearly states "Hogenakkal in Karnataka" and it is a central government document like your law ministry document. Here I am at least showing a document which links Hogenakkal to Karnataka unlike your map which just shows the trajectory of the river. You still have not answered the correlation between your law ministry document and the map. Nowhere in the map do I see the 64 km. border that the law ministry document proclaims, let alone the location of the Hogenakal Falls. If you dont recall, here are other gov.in sites: and  which unequivocally proclaim the falls to be in the jurisdiction of Karnataka. It is your stubborn attitude to brush aside all this and proclaiming (vandalising) that the falls are a part of Tamil Nadu, is what is holding up this discussion. Dont blame me for your ills. As I have said earlier, for every source that you bring in that proclaim the falls are a part of Tamil Nadu, I can come with a source that say that it is on the border and also come up with a source that says that the falls belong to Karnataka. Instead of pushing for the falls to be in jurisdiction of Karnataka, I am atleast mediating to put in a middle path. Unlike you, who just want to argue bringing in bogus citations and half-cooked maps on the table and want to push your POV. Not adding anything to the article does not in any way give you an upper-hand to brow beat others. How many more sources do you need to understand that the location of the Hogenakal Falls is disputed? And about your request to me to improve this article, that is exactly what I am doing, preventing people like you from pushing in blatant POV --  ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 12:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I request you to read the document you produced and then make the claim again. It says:
 * The details of monitoring locations on Cauvery River Basin is given in  table 3.2 .The Kaveri river from (a) Talakaveri to Mysore Border, (b) Yagachi, Downstream of Krishnaraja  Sagar Dam  to Hoggenkkal in Karnataka and...

They are clearly talking about the monitoring locations. Pity that you are refusing to see it. You really do know that if you on to AN/I reporting me of vandalism with this document, that it would be quickly pointed out on who is refusing to see the point. We have already dealt with your Karnataka government sites. I also showed you a cached version of KSTDC which said the falls is in TN. If you can't see that anymore, sorry, you should have earlier when it was provided here. They have moved their domain. Anyways, Karnataka claims and TN claims doesn't solve the equation. Show us something from the central government that states Hogenakkal falls is party or part of Karnataka. Both of us know that neither of us are foolish enough to fall for that monitoring points document. Don't we? You really do know that its a futile endevour to hang on to that. BTW, you didn't answer my question if you have done any single edit other than adding Karnataka to this article? Probably you missed that last time. Awaiting to hear from you. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 12:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Section break
Wikiality123, I am sorry, but it has also been pointed out to you several times already that
 * 1a) The "Central Govt source" that you are presenting does not support your claim that the falls belongs to TN.
 * 1b) Even if we were to assume that it did, it is only as good as any other WP:RS source and does not supersede the other sources. If you think otherwise, please tell us clearly why you think otherwise.
 * 2) Independent third party news sources (neither the Ktaka, TN govts nor Central govt.,) from just a month ago clearly say that the falls is "disputed". Why do you think your reading of the situation is better than that of those news sources which have a long standing reputation for fact checking and accuracy?  Please let us know.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 19:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that correct? There may be a typo in the first sentence of point 2. I thought that no source actually said the Falls was disputed. Surely the disputes are about the border, the island below the Falls, the water from the river, or some combination of those?  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. There are sources to show that the falls is disputed.  As is the island and the water and power projects. Sarvagnya 19:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a link? Thanks, S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Here your are, this is from March 20, 2008 -
 * Mr Rao said the Karnataka government was seriously concerned with the issue and “We will take appropriate action in this regard after consulting legal experts.”


 * 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.


 * Karnataka is of the view that TN cannot take up any project unless the dispute is settled. Besides, it is demanding that the TN’s projects be kept on hold until the Cauvery river water sharing dispute between riparian states is resolved.
 * As you will note, the water and power projects are disputed precisely because there is a border dispute at the falls (which, however is still being sorted out by the state governments and has not reached the courts) and also because the question of actual sharing of waters (which is what the "Kaveri dispute" is about) is sub-judice.  Sarvagnya 20:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If Sarvagnya is so sure that the Law Ministry document doesn't support that the waterfalls is in TN, why don't we RfC? This is what I been asking you guys. Karnataka is disputing is just one party, be it island, water or anything. The governing body of India, Central Government, has stated that it is in TN. There is a dispute on the island. I would highly recommend that we spell that out clear in the article and if you chaps want, we can add that in the lead too. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the fact that In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls. The same question I ask Amarg which I had asked you too earlier keeps poping up in my mind. Why is that you guys appear here just for the jurisdiction issue and do nothing else to improve the article? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 19:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You dont seem to understand, do you? Your brandishing of one single document (which by itself is inconclusive) as the solemn truth in this matter, is stalling this discussion from proceeding further. Your document (law ministry or otherwise) cannot supersede other documents that say something in the contrary. By the way, your question to me above is laughable... Why dont you get away from this discussion and do something to improve the article, why are you questioning others about it? Practice what you preach -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 07:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I said in 1b above that even if your source says what you're saying it says, it does not automatically supersede other sources. An example of a RS which would supersede all other RSes would be, say, a copy of the judgement of an adjudicating body or a Gazette notification/Press Release by the Govt., of India (or somebody like the Attorney General or someone) saying ... "We have looked into the matter and have decided that the falls belongs to Tamil Nadu."  Something like that would certainly supersede the claims of either state or reports in reliable news sources.  Your source is not one such.  Sarvagnya 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * how about this info A team of officials of NHPC has visited the site at Hogenakkal, District Dhamapuri, (Tamil Nadu)., and to the question my reply is that i fail to see any improvement in the article by the other side other than changing its location .regards: --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Any hydro power project is going to require a building site, which must be situated on one side of the river or the other. I don't think that source provides conclusive information one way or the other about the location of the falls. However, it is a good sourceand will be relevant to the article in the longer term. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right. That source has been discussed before and there are also sources which explicitly state that the site where the foundation stone was laid is not at the falls.  Its presumably at the Hogenakal village by the falls in Tamil Nadu. Sarvagnya 22:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I note that the form of words used in the article says that the falls is a border area (meaning, not a pinpoint, but an extended region). That source also raises another question: the Deccan Herald says [Karnataka] Chief Secretary Sudhakar Rao told reporters ... that he had received a letter from his Tamil Nadu counterpart ... [saying] “that the Hogenakal falls belongs to TN and not Karnataka.” - is there a more direct source than 'DH says SR says TN sent a letter'?
 * On a related note, let's all try not to get too distracted about who's here for what purpose. Remember that the root of the dispute is the location of the falls, which is, in fact, disputed. Let's just concentrate on collecting together the most reliable sources, and then work to eliminate any contradictions or inconsistencies between the sources. We should be able to agree upon a form of words that, while it might not make anyone happy, all of us can agree is "not too bad". Then we can call it a consensus, and get the article unprotected.
 * If the contributors to this debate trust me to write a neutral summary, I will take the time to do so and post it here. If so, post your best sources (not too many, ideally secondary sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). If not, please say so. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
 * First to answer Amarg: Please have look at the history, where you can find me adding references and also improving the boating section of the article before it was edit protected. You may also find in the talk page where I proposed to improve the boating section and also at my efforts to include geological data asking for expert help here. I try my best to practice what I preach. Thanks for the advice anyways. As for not too bad lead as suggested by SheffieldSteel, the best I can think of right now is Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River. It is considered to be located in the Dharmapuri district of the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu, which is disputed by its neighbour Karnataka.. The is considered looks messy, but I guess with so many people around this can be mended. We can either include the disputes in a subsection in this article or take it to Hogenakkal Water Dispute article. Initially my view was to keep the disputes and war of words of the politicians in the latter. Nevertheless, if there is a consensus on spelling it out here, we may very well do that. How about moving ahead from here? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 17:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

OK.. lets cut to the chase -


 * My Source (an independent source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy) - "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. "


 * My paraphrase - The Hogenakal falls is a waterfall on the Karnataka-TN border. The exact jurisdiction/location of the falls is disputed with both states claiming it as their own. Note: I believe we all agree about the first sentence in my paraphrase.  If not, ask and I will provide a source for that sentence too


 * Your paraphrase - "the falls is considered to be a part of TN, but is disputed by Karnataka"


 * Your source - ???

Remember, no OR.. no SYNTH no WEASEL. Just your source and your paraphrase. Thanks. Sarvagnya 18:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You may want to disregard or discredit the Law Ministry document, but that would be taking the view of Karnataka alone and leaving Government of India. As I said earlier, if you really don't think that the Law Ministry document doesn't state that the falls is in TN, lets RfC. I have asked this several times. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 23:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Law Ministry document is that it is a primary source (see WP:PSTS) and we cannot agree on how to interpret it. Some readers think it says the falls are in TN; others, on the border. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources because they interpret the information in primary sources.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We can accept the argument of it being primary source, if the text is hard to interpret. I guess it is pretty easy to see what the word upto in that statement denotes, since soon after it talks about the river's course to the south. If you see the encyclopedia britannica entry on Cauvery it uses the work until. I leave it to the educated fellow editors to think about it. As for the secondary source, you can have this. Economic Times is indeed RS materia. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 17:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Final lead based on consensus
Enough of unnecessarily going round & round, discussing topics already well discussed and bringing unrelated topics. No need to further stall. Based on consensus reached above the corrected lead is.

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu. The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.

The falls area is a major tourist attraction in the region, known for boat rides using a traditional hide boat known as a Parisal or Theppa, and for its medicinal baths, and has been called "the Niagara falls of India". Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world. .

Naadapriya (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Would really appreciate if the editor Naadapriya would not premptively call his/her decisions as final. Of course the references used there are already being discussed above. Ciao <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:18, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to include a "not" in there, right?

Consensus based draft for the lead
The major issue of recent discussions is choice between:

 A. That tell that the falls are on the border of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

B. That claim that the falls are within the jurisdiction of Tamil Nadu.

To the best of my knowledge following editors participated in detailed discussions since around April 20, 2008
 * 1) User:Amarrg
 * 2) User:Gthorvey
 * 3) User:Jeremy McCracken
 * 4) User:John Carter
 * 5) User:naadapriya
 * 6) User:NE2
 * 7) User:Pearll's sun
 * 8) User:Reneeholle
 * User:Sarvagnya
 * 1) User:SheffieldSteel
 * 2) User:Skbhat
 * 3) User: Tempshill
 * 4) User:Wikiality123

Summary of valid citation based responses 

7 in favor of A

4 in favor of B

1 indications in favor of A

1 no clear opinion

Therefore the following draft based on previous suggestion, information based on only Govt sites and wikipedia articles is proposed for the location in the new lead.

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River.It is located along the border between Chamarajanagar and Dharmapuri districts  where river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka . It is located about 90 kms from Bangalore and 280 kms from Chennai. The near by towns are Dharmapuri and Mahadeshwara Hills. The falls is also known as Niagara falls 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. .

Cooperation is requested from all to end this long edit war and move forward. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * well then...any idea about how many gave citations ?? and how many citations ?? so to end this edit war you want us to accept the unreferenced or null citation draft ?? wikipedia works on citations ..why not try the other way ?? friend ...:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 09:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You got it wrong Naadapriya. We are asking to state both A and B and not just B! OK? Moreover Wikipedia doesn't work on majority vote. I think you should ask Sarvagnya who knows the rules better. I see no effort made what so ever to take this to RfC from the other party. If Amarg is going to ask me again to practice what I preach, to let him know that I did indeed initiate an RfC earlier, which Naadapriya did not agree and hence the RfC had to be deleted. Remember chaps, as long as we solve this, the page will be edit protected, so please lets move on to RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 10:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * yup buddy hegot it in the wrong way ....its not an AFD here where vote counts.....i support Wiki San Roze for an RfC ....lets see if there is any reply?? if one way doesnt work why not try the other ?? : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 11:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Response to above 3 comments: Please read the title of the section. Naadapriya (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should perhaps also be noted that the above editor in fact changed the heading of this subsection at the time he made the comment directly above from "Summary of responses" to "Summary of valid citation based responses", as per here, thus perhaps seeming to some to be trying to invalidate the earlier comments on the basis of his own later, unilateral, change. John Carter (talk) 15:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out. I forgot mention the minor change in the edit summary. It was not meant to invalidate any comments that were already invalid.Naadapriya (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Even upon changing his own heading, I do not understand how the user calls Encyclopædia Britannica and Law ministry document as invalid. Is there any rational behind it. As I said earlier, Karnataka's claims stay as its own claims and until and unless it has been validated by either the Central government or Supreme Court of India. I think it is best to add which is disputed by its neighbour Karnataka to the current lead, which is best the references provided by the other party claims. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 15:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * yup! until or other wise they produce any valid citations this should be the lead ...in spite of several requests the party that claims A hasn't produced any citation but they keep on insisting  one sided  ( claiming the law ministry and the central govt as invalid ) with a few press reports .... so as per Wiki San Roze its best to add which is disputed by its neighbour Karnataka ..this is what can be done ..other than this needs some sort of citation which is not produced till now is to be noted ...: --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 16:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess 'Encyclopædia Britannica' does not have unlimited public access like wikipedia to validate information easily. Also it uses 'until' just like'up to' by Govt document ( well discussed and already included in the lead) before HK falls. Therefore above comments are mute.Naadapriya (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Unless the majority of actively participated above 13 editors or new editors ( who reviewed all discussions) with valid citations oppose, the new lead will be sent to an Admn for inclusion in the article by one week. Naadapriya (talk) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Naadapriya, I think that you should understand the policies and guidelines governing changes to locked articles. Unfortunately, your comment above indicates that you do not. You are of course free to send your draft to an Admin, but no one will act on it, as per Protection policy, which I very much urge you to read. What has to be done is what was done before, specifically, concensus reached by the editors invovled in a discussion, and then placement of a formal request with the editprotected on the talk page to request a change to the content in a way which the consensus of involved editors would agree to. If you were to send your draft, no admin would act upon it without getting consent to such a change on this talk page. Such an attempt could also be seen as trying to game the system as well. John Carter (talk) 22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

When an experienced neutral Admn goes through about 40 sections of discussions with many sub-sections by 13+ editors,  I am sure the result  will lead to a good conclusion. It is unfortunate that above comment taints this constructive effort as 'game the system'. It will be proceeded as planned. Naadapriya (talk) 03:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * well...40 sections is good and many subsections are too but where r the citations ?? your citations r just in words and not in table...if such thing as you'v told ever happens then it is sure a game the system, and how do u suppose we would agree to an article without any citation ?? and who taints a constructive effort ?? its few editors here who are keep on stalling the process instead of acting on citations...any lead as claimed by you based on the majority of editors ( which is fit only for an AFD ) and not on citations will be challenged . im dam sure about it : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it should be noted that no one other than Naadapriya has shown the slightest degree of support for the proposed change, but, with this comment, I now make it three who have now expressed opposition. I believe that should be taken into account if and when anyone considers making the change he has proposed. John Carter (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Another attempt at consensus
Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu. The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.

The falls area is a major tourist attraction in the region, known for boat rides using a traditional hide boat known as a Parisal or Theppa, and for its medicinal baths, and has been called "the Niagara falls of India". Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world. .

My best effort so far. I've tried to keep it neutral and avoid making definite statements about the jurisdiction, and I've also added a couple of refs (compared to Naadapriya's version, which this is based on). Also I have fixed up the spacing and punctuation around the ref links. What do people think? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 04:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with this treatment of the border, though I haven't checked the specific references. --NE2 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I also agree after replacement of '(hide boat)'  with  'also known as teppa (hide Boat)'. Naadapriya (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. I always backed such a conclusion till the political disputes are over.--Skbhat (talk) 14:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How does it look now? I've incorporated both names for the boats, rearranged that sentence, and fixed the piped URLs in the "tourism" references.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It is better.  I agree Naadapriya (talk) 14:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Sarvagnya 00:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly what I have been trying to imply all these days and hence this proposal suits fine for me. -- ¿Amar៛ Talk to me / My edits 06:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. John Carter (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we have a reference for located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border with some RS material please? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found one in the archives, and added it to the article proposal above.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't see where it states in that article that Hogenakkal falls is located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border. I may be missing something, so please do point me to the right sentence. I guess we all know that Hogenakkal falls is near the border. You might also want to see this. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The article I added (currently ref #6) includes the text These maps contain topographical details, such as islands, rocks, and Hogenakkal Falls itself, apart from the course of the Cauvery. They show Kollegal taluk on the Karnataka side and Pennagaram taluk of Dharmapuri district on the Tamil Nadu side. The boundary between the two States is clearly depicted on the maps by dotted lines along the middle of the course of the Cauvery. This verifies that the border lies along the river, and it puts the Falls in the correct stretch of the river (unless the border suddenly turns off-river in the ~500m between the island and the Falls - something that none of our sources implies).  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * To state without doubt that the falls is part of the river where it acts as the border is WP:SYNTH. Alternatively, if you still want to state that, please state just that the river acts as border, for that is all what the reference provided claims. We already know form the Law Ministry document that the river border is only about 64 kms. Even if you decide to avoid the question that Hogenakkal is more than 70kms away from where the tributary joins Kaveri, atleast please do not add own interpretations to it. I do know that this is getting too frustrating for you and others (same as me) to go on and on about this, but let us not forget that by trying to satisfy parties, no one should add anything other than facts. Thanks <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In the absence of a source explicitly saying where the Falls is located, a certain amount of logical deduction is necessary (call it synthesis if you like; I'll get to that later). There is no source - correct me if I'm mistaken - that says there are two stretches of the river that form the border, but we do have a source that says the river forms the border downstream of the Falls, and a source that says the river forms the border upstream of the falls. In more detail...
 * The Hindu's article does say that the maps clearly show:-
 * islands
 * the falls
 * the border running down the middle of river
 * The Hindu does not say anything about the border suddenly veering westwards out of the river at some point between the Falls and the disputed island. I would certainly expect it to comment on such a feature, considering that article's subject. Consider also that the Law Ministry document says that the river forms the border for a stretch of 64km (though it does not say whether this is measured along the centre of the river or "as the crow flies"). It does not say that there are two stretches of river that form the border, one above and one below the Falls, which seems to be what you are implying.
 * I agree that the source does not explicitly spell out that the Falls is located on the border. However, I can see no reasonable interpretation of the sources that says anything else. Synthesis it may be, given a certain interpretation of WP:SYNTH, but it's the best interpretation of the best source that supports the best compromise wording currently on the table. If you have a better suggestion, please do say so.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * When the reference doesn't state so, then we can't imply it ourselves, taking bits from here and there, and then filling the gaps with our own interpretations. I still don't get a simple logic answered here. How come a 70km stretch be put into a 64 km border? Anyways, did you read the Economic Times article I gave above? This one clearly states that the falls is in Tamil Nadu and also that it is at the border:
 * Situated on the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border, Hogenakal Falls is 140 km from Bangalore in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu and 46 km from Dharmapuri city.
 * There are two ways to interpret the sentence as far as I can see. Either Bangalore is in Dharmapuri district, or Hogenakkal Falls is. You decide. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 20:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It should of course be noted that Bangalore is in fact the capital of Karnataka. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks John, I was wondering myself about whether that was a trick question. The sentence certainly is strangely written, isn't it? One possibility is that the writer initially wrote Situated on the Karnataka-Tamil Nadu border, Hogenakal Falls is 46 km from Dharmapuri city in Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu and 140 km from Bangalore. - and then, during editing, swapped the two cities and distances around. That's the best interpretation I can offer.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would ascribe it to the rather different phrasing that I've seen in a lot of Indian English. Sometimes clarity is lost in the translation, and I think the languages of India use remarkably different sentence construction rules than English does, so at times they use the non-English sentence construction techniques with English words. John Carter (talk) 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah chaps I do know that the garden city Bangalore is capital of Karnataka. Please Sheffield, be reasonable. Sorry but am gobsmacked by Sheffield's rearranging of the words. The chap who wrote it is missing a few commas, which I think is obvious. Anyways, I pointed out the two interpretations for that sentence, what about anymore? Which interpretation makes best sense? Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm always willing to be proven wrong :-)  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * One more bad English article . Let not the language barier be the cause of rejecting these RS materials. Times of India has been around since 1838!!! Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 21:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * With all due respect to fellow editors, can people please clarify the following in the proposed lead:
 * located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border- The reference provided talks about river acting as border somewhere, but does not specify that it occurs at the Hogenakkal falls.
 * SheffeildSteel had pointed out that there are references that the river had been acting as border upstream of the river and also downstream, so it would be safe to conclude that the waterfalls is on such border. But I guess, there has been a misunderstanding by the editor, since I see no such source provided that the river is acting as a border downstream of the falls.
 * There have been at least two different attempts from the other party to call my opposition as stalling the process. If you guys think so, take it to RfC on me and I shall prove myself. When the references for the falls as part of Karnataka's jurisdiction are all what Karnataka claims unilatererally. Where as the third party references state to the contrast:
 * Law Ministry
 * Encyclopædia Britannica
 * Economic Times
 * Times of India
 * As I said earlier, the current lead has to be changed, which I agree, but to include that Karnataka disputes the jurisdiction. I guess it is clear that who is stalling the process, by trying to equate one sided sources with third party sources. Cheers <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Boats
BTW, sorry to sound ad hominem, but shouldn't the article on teppas be merged with parisal or vice versa? <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 18:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Discuss this on their respective pages. Naadapriya (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have raised it if the editor hadn't tried to add his/her own work to the lead here. <b style="color:orange;">Wiki San Roze</b><i style="color:green;">†αLҝ</i> 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)