Talk:Hogenakkal Integrated Drinking Water Project

Untitled
why does maximvsdecimvs/ gnanpiti/ knm/ ganeshk not allow the 1998 pact to be made public? they are free to quote any referenced work that says that the info abt the pact is wrong...without using talk page or giving valid reasons, they have no business here to delete referenced content from other editors..this article is not owned by karnataka / by liars..tamilnadu's stand needs to be entered..and by the way if i am a sock puppet, i wont be able to edit this article..!!!so shut up your 'sock claims' miss. maximvsdecimvs / miss/mr. gnanpiti..have guts to explain your acts of deleting refernced facts!!Cityvalyu (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

the spelling views are needless Who knows, someone might want hoggenaggal or oggenaggal or ogganagel or whatever... the tamilnadu tourism board uses double kk so what is this great talk of the spelling of a NON ENGLISH proper noun being correct/ wrong in ENGLISH!! English experts have to clarify or if any official govt. data exists to substantiate the different versions, please quote it to end this confusionKsense (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

i dont wish to point out individual flaws within the text of the article. but, it seems maximvsdecimvs & ganeshk cant quote valid references or valid reasons for deleting other people's contributions..the "stable" reason is hypocritical since other these two, any other contribution is deleted to ARTIFICIALLY create an illusion of stable BUT WRONG content... Ksense (talk) 10:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Very POV
There are serious flaws in the article....Firstly...there was no agreement..... given by the state of Karnatak for the project... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.57.191.97 (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

62.57.191.97 may be lying willingly / ignorantly in a non neutral manner. the agrrement has been highlighted in many newspapers having an e edition example refer hindu editorial page dated 3 april, dinakaran tamil daily - same date. anyway the links given corroborate to the factual details.. Why not this (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A Copy of the No-Objection Certificate for the project from Union Ministry of Water Resources can be found here. It is also implied in this letter that there is no dispute on the juristriction of the actual falls under Tamil Nadu. --Gthorvey (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

apology to fisherqueen..mischief over vandalising the factual location of the tourist spot was done by 122.167.219.165. fisherqueen didnt have anything to do with that mischief Ksense (talk) 04:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to have a serious neutrality problem. I'm referring to the now-current version, here. For instance, "these narrow minded region/ religion based petty politicians work overtime to destroy india's unity & pluralistic tolerance" and "Karnataka's politicians pay lipservice to india's unity". Other sections, though less blatantly polemical, seem to be offering arguments for one side in particular ("The water utilised for this project will be from tamilnadu's share of cauvery water, thereby placing no extra demand on karnataka") and speculating on the other side's motives ("But some karnataka politicians oppose it now for creating an election platform for the may 2008 assembly elections."). -- Why Not A Duck 19:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i agree with why not a duck...

hogenakkal may be in tamilnadu. but once we claim it as karnataka territiory, it automatically becomes a disputed territory. people there may be tamil, but it will take no time to de tamilise the area once the control is transferred to karnataka. being upper riparian state, dont forget that you cant make us give water to you ...no one including the supreme court has been able to implement any order / tribunal award (interim/ final) that gives tamilnadu its share.. but dont think we are heartless, we will give you tamilians enough water after our reservoirs get filled up & all of karnataka's water needs are met adequately..if tamilians start using water for drinking, one day it might lead to loss of crops in karnataka..is nt it another needless dispute?Kannadiga1 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't saying the wrong point of view was being represented -- the article should be neutral. It should not represent a particular point of view. -- Why Not A Duck 21:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)