Talk:Mullaperiyar Dam/Archive 1


 * ARCHIVE 1

reverted Edits
Reverted the edits done by 82.148.97.69 as it was already giving a biased POV about the same events mentioned below in the Historical background of the dispute. Kindly conform to Wikipedia's NPOV standardsactivevoid (talk) 06:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Author,

This article has too many biased information towards Kerala Govt. Especially, the external link to Kerala's view on Dam dispute. The external website link should be the official website about the dam. Not about the dispute or personal view. Please remove the external website link.

The article portrays as if everything with respect to the dam belongs to Kerala. Too much one sided approach in build up of the document. The external links are very clear indications that the page is used as mouth-peice of Kerala to propagate their agenda over the decommisioning of the existing dam. Nationalistic interests are not given priority and such articles in highly respected Wikipedia page is unacceptable. I request the author of this page to remove links to one sided views. Please share only information which is 100% true. Sharing just what you feel should be done only in your own blog and do not use wikipedia for it. This is a kind request.

(I would like to notify you something.,The dam threatens the lives of 35 million people of Kerala..Okay leave it..ours is a small place and who is gonna care us???? But.,if the dam breaks..PERIYAR TIGER RESERVE.,BIRD SANCTUARY.,ACRES OF FORESTS.,ASIA"S LARGEST ARCH DAM.,NEDUMBASSERI AIRPORT..would be wiped out..Not just that..The TV and Internet connections of ENTIRE SOUTH INDIA would down.,5 districts of TN will never ever get water or ELECTRICITY..Violence will spread..ONE QUESTION..-WHO WILL TAKE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS??? FIRST MAKE IT CLEAR..!!! Is money more valuable then lives of millions?? The dirty democratic ignorance,i would call it..:/ Remember all these years Kerala was supplying TN with water for FREE!!-Harikishore) (Harikishore. It is not free. TN pays for it. Let me add another point here. TN pays for the lease of the land covered by water, if the water level is at 156'. Since the water level is kept at 136', though TN is paying the lease, Kerala potilicians and powerful individuals have built resorts. In addition, large amount of rice, vegetables and fruits cultivated using this land is sent for livelyhood of Kerala. So, Kerala gains a lot out of this deal. Remember one thing. This river originates in TN. So, Kerala cannot say that it is their water).

Very sentimental Mr.Hari kishore. Firstly, the major source of water is from Periyar river. This originates in Tamil Nadu. So, nobody can donate what already belongs to Tamil Nadu(you told that personally from your pocket you give it free because your grandfather had put it into yours). Secondly, the incompetence in Kerala side to get a favourable judgement in court is main reason for this false propaganda.Wiki is platform for giving real facts to public, so tampering this and rewriting history with your idealogies is not welcome. Future deserves to know only truth, and not the imagination. You do not have the right to call it free. even for the lease your govt has been paid the amount. Sure, there will be no outstanding dues. This very statement tells that you know nothing and just to addspice to heat you have come to talk. please go back and study original geography and history and not the fake kerala version of it. -Yutha.

Can you show a map that shows that Periyar River originates in Tamilnadu? --143.111.80.29 (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

- You need gergraphy and history lessons. get back to school and learn original version. Not the Kerala fabricated version of history. Can you show the crack in Dam? can you show that it willbreak. also prove that the dam in idukki will be withstanding earthquake.

And by that convoluted logic, every ounce of water that originates from Tibet and flows across the India plains as rivers Brahmaputra and Ganges belong solely to China. (117.204.81.82 (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

-- @Yutha.... Periyar river originates in Sivagiri hills in the south eastern part of Idukki district in Kerala and not in Tamilnadu. Please refresh your geography lessons.

POV
"However Tamilnadu didn't accept this imaginary assumed reason for denying the rights of Tamilnadu and moved to Supreme Court." This is definitely not a neutral statement. Adding POV tag -- Raziman T V (talk) 14:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The section "Disputes" have several statements (Kerala enacted the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006[26] to ensure safety of all dams in the State including the Mullaiperiyaru dam. The law empowered Kerala's Dam Safety Authority to oversee safety of dams in the State with powers to direct Tamilnadu to suspend or restrict the functioning of the Mullaiperiyaru dam, to prevent submergence of land beyond the leased land; protect environment, flora and fauna; promote tourism and ensure the safety and security of its inhabitants.) that are not neutral and spreads rumors about the dam's safety which is being tested. POV-section tag added.VaalgaTamilRam —Preceding undated comment added 14:10, 29 November 2011 (UTC).

Hi all...

This Dam is situated in Kerala's land...You take this for lease.But now situation is totally changed.Now that place is earthquake prone.We people have very much fear about our and our dear ones life.We have awareness about life of  Tamilians. Thatswhy we are saying about new Dam. If you are in this condition ,We are sure You should not think about us.You people should decommission that Dam with out considering us.Don't think our silence is our foolishness.please consider life of both states. By Sabitha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.98.2.20 (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

For your kind notice, when the mullaiperiyaru dam issue is currently there as media you should consider the people’s life and life needs on both sides rather than concentrating on debating the issue and providing information on the issue.Each side has its pros and cons. Because of lack of written information and written fact, you may miss somefacts and might be leaning on one side. As wikipaedia always gives trusted information to its readers, Please do not publish sensitive matters in your website when it is currently there, you may mention about mullaiperyaru dam but not on mullaiperiyaru issue..So please consider this and remove the message under interstate dispute,till it has been settled,as it concerns lakhs of people's life.-sukanyashree223.234.142.94 (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.235.50.222 (talk)

Hi,

I think the content under interstate dispute has been improved and neutralised as requested.thanks.-sukanyashree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.234.184.19 (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Frontline article twisted the facts leaving the focus from actual issues
For every argument raised by Tamil Nadu in support of its claims, there is counter-argument in Kerala that appears equally plausible. Yet, each time the controversy gets embroiled in extraneous issues, two things stand out: One is Kerala's refusal to ack nowledge the genuine need of the farmers in the otherwise drought-prone regions of Tamil Nadu for the waters of the Mullaiperiyaru; the other is Tamil Nadu's refusal to see that it cannot rely on or continue to expect more and more from the resources of an other State to satisfy its own requirements to the detriment of the other State. A solution perhaps lies in acknowledging the two truths, but neither government can afford the political repercussions of such a confession.

http://www.hindu.com/fline/fl1724/17240420.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.152.245 (talk) 02:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC) Surya.senthil (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

More about the controversy than the dam!
Interesting that the article seems to be more focussed on the controversy than the dam itself. Will try and improve that over the next few days. Help Welcome! Prad2609 (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Improving Mullaiperiyaru Dam article - collaboration welcome

 * Article requires significant copy editing
 * Article requires significant information about the dam itself.
 * Article requires an improved seperate section and possibly a seperate article on the controversy
 * Article requires assessment

If you're interested in collaborating on improving this article, please sign up below. The collaboration is expected to run for one month.
 * Prad2609 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Add your user id here

Thanks. Prad2609 (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you should bring this up on WP:INCOTM --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Done, Thank you for your suggestion. Prad2609 (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Location
I am unable to find a single verifiable source stating that the dam is located on the confluence of Mullaiyaru and Periyaru. All sources say only Periyar. Any comments? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My historical source makes no mention of Mullaiyaru either. AshLin (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing..Just periyaar-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   15:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The dam isn't on the confluence but about 12 km west of it. If you look at the far east end of the reservoir on Google Earth, you can see the Periyar from the south and the Mullayaru from the north meeting in a near straight line. Source. Engineers like to place dams downstream of as many confluences as possible for more water and often the location gets lost in translation. Definitely seems to have influenced the name though. I'll tweak the lead.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations needed for dam dimensions
The lead and infobox dimensions are not supported by a reliable source. Any reason why we should not fall back to historically sourced information? AshLin (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a citation.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * NortyNort please clarify which dam serial on which page/state you are referring to so that it can be verified. AshLin (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, go thru the ID/EB website of Kerala/TN. You may find something worthy. -_Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Found an alternative of 1918 vintage myself. AshLin (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the PDF references, see pages 1 and 2.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

May I request NortyNort who has found valuable references for dimensions to kindly vet all the various dam figures so that they are accurately referenced and no inconsistency can later be pointed out. If an authoritative set of dimensions are tabulated (rather than texted as at present) with sources, and given in "Design" section, I think it would be a great improvement. I will place the historic data in context myself. AshLin (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * There are two sources in the design section which despite their age, accurately corroborate each other. The design section is consistent with the infobox as well. In design sections, I try to avoid listing out specifications as they are already listed in the infobox. I use prose instead, it helps to 'illustrate' the design better. I may not have done it in the best prose, fixes or ideas welcome.--NortyNort  (Holla) 18:14, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Image of irrigated area needed
Can anyone make a free image of this diagram - pg 195 of ? It can be used in the "Purpose" section. AshLin (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think can help. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Give me a jpg image link...-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   06:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Mullaiperiyaru IA.png-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   11:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking good, will let AshLin know. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for your contribution. Captainofhope. One improvement point, three areas of irrigation, one along the valley and two others, to the North and West of Madurai, need to be in a grey-scale colour and not in white, as per the legend. AshLin (talk) 03:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Done..-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   15:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Captain. Ready for inclusion now :). AshLin (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"on" vs. "over"
As trivial as this might sound, the proper way to describe a dam's location is "on a river" not "over a river". Bridges go over rivers, dams go on them. I will change it again in the lead but wanted to explain.--NortyNort (Holla) 17:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, thank you. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Subsequent development
We need referenced details of post-construction development of the dam. AshLin (talk) 17:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05== Vandalism == Someone with IP address 64.95.214.18 has vandalized the info box map and information. The name of the dam is changed to 'Mullaiperiyaru Dam', location map is changed to 'Tamilnadu', name of the dam is changed to 'Periyaru Dam'. Somehow he/she messed up the parameters. So we cannot see any map, but only 'Expression error'. Request contributors to act in a dignified manner and contribute as professional authors, upholding principles of integrity and impartiality. Hope those who attempt to vandalize remember that this is not a political forum but an open forum creating encyclopedic articles. --Jponnoly (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I requested semi-protection at WP:RPP. I have seen several IPs vandalize the page or just edit disruptively. It is likely to continue until the movie-effect wears off for the most part.--NortyNort (Holla) 02:17, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we can all blame Dam999 for this. Till then, keep warning users who vandalise it, and ifit gets too much, report them. If needed, we can go for a mass block. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * A mass block can be proposed, as the history and the edit count is very big, Till now the damages are not recovered..-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   11:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I had typed the name of dam in Tamil. Why is that removed. Is it a reasonable act. The person who deleted this is a vandal. Though i am unable to track it, if anyone has responsibility about India as a nation and respect its integrity, I urge them to add it on my behalf. By removing the tamil letters from here do you want to prove that it is a malayalee owned property? Isn't this silly? User:Yutha —Preceding undated comment added 19:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Protection requested & done..!-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   10:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Please DO NOT add the name in either Tamil or Malayalam. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:50, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

- Hello Rsrikanth05, i accept your kind advice. There are provocative content that are being provided, my point was only to counter it and bring neutrality to the topic. All I want is that the fact to be true. When you are questioning my source of knowledge on this matter, do anyone monitor whether everything written here is true to the fullest? I am a budding contributor to Wiki. Since you are so experienced in this, I can understand that you want me not to put my own idea here. Its a common page and I wont, and I never did. But I will strongly oppose the content being fabricated by anyone. - 10:05 AM, 06 DEC 2011. - User:Yutha
 * There is no harm for including the name in local langunages (Tamil & Malayalam).. Since the subject is situated on the areas where both languages are spoken-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   06:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

-- to everyone. The Dam and localities is located within Kerala and owned by Kerala Govt. Tamil Nadu Govt operates this under a lease. User:Nubin_wiki —Preceding undated comment added 05:36, 22 December 2011 (UTC).

Potential adverse impact in the event of a disaster
the earlier portion has been vandalized. Can anyone think of a dam bursting without loss of lives and property?--Jponnoly (talk) 13:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Design specifics in lead and infobox
I appear to be in an edit war with two IPs over detailed design info in the lead and infobox. This information is already mentioned in the "Design" section where it belongs. It takes away from the reader when the articles dives into such specifics so quickly in the lead and in the infobox. I don't understand how this is "racial" or "vandalist". Does anyone else have an opinion. I think the specifics should be left in the design section.--NortyNort (Holla) 22:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * NortyNort, fight the POV war. We support you against disruptive editors. That business about uniqueness was utter bullshit. I'm a bit caught up with offline wikipedia at the moment but other Indian editors will help you fight off these POV warriors. AshLin (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is now semiprotected for a month, since the warring IPs seem to have no interest in working for a consensus on the talk page. If the problem continues after the month is over, let me know. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. I need to do a read-over of the article here soon.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The contact for 999 years

This is not true. The contract was not for 999 years but only for 99 years. Some Tamilnadu Authority guy added 9 to make it 999 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.216.135 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The Uniqueness of the Dam
The section has contents that do not seem to be properly substantiated with citations. It seems to be a new addition and looks satirical in nature. I think the section can be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reavan (talk • contribs) 17:10, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. It was redundant to the design/safety section and the sentence on bravery is unencyclopedic.--NortyNort (Holla) 23:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The article is too much biased towards kerala.I would recommend the author to verify the details before writng in public forum.If the dam is weak ,then I wonder why Supreme Court gave the verdict of raising the height to 142 from 136.

Induced Seismicity from Idukki dam
There is a detailed study conducted by Indian Geophysical Institute, Hyderabad on the induced seismicity of filling Idukki Dam reservoir. The following book details the rise and fall of Idukki reservoir water level and the frequency of the tremors observed in and around Idukki region. Can some one include this on the main page??

Induced Seismicity

(Keveyem (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

Safety Concerns
 Risk factors  Need to add the following point.


 * 1) The dam is a single block 1200 feet dam built with lime and mortar.
 * 2) This is the longest dam built using lime and mortar as a single block dam.
 * 3) The Dam is situated in the seismic fault area where earthquake of 6 in Richter scale can be expected. Under present day considerations, a dam will not be allowed if it is not having the capacity to withstand 6.5 Richter scale. It is the responsibility of the Indian government to make sure that the dam can withstand such major tremors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anilkumar.p.76 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)


 * - Any varifiable evidence..??
 * - Any reference..??..-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   06:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * - Any reference..??..-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   06:14, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Reformatted, cleaned up
Debated issues have been consolidated and presented chronologically in section Interstate dispute. Redundant lease history consolidated in one section. Article has been reformatted, cleaned up and some new references added. Hope this helps to remove some tags. Marcus334  (Talk)  07:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
Vandalism goes on unabated, in quite an organized way, making it difficult to undo vandalized portions. Jponnoly (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Merging Tamil Nadu-Kerala dam row into this article.
Looks like a POV fork of the article and should be redirected to here. Thought I'd seek consensus first.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why an independent article on the dispute shouldn't be there. For starters, it helps keep the main article free from repeated POV pushing vandalism. There are a quite a few examples already regarding interstate disputes in India.
 * Kaveri river and Kaveri river water dispute
 * Hogenakkal Integrated Drinking Water Project and Hogenakkal Falls water dispute
 * Belgaum and Belgaum border dispute
 * Just my penny worth. Cheers Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 13:57, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Makes sense but the majority of the dispute section should be cut out of this article.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thats right. I noticed someone moved the dispute part and created a new article but some other person brought the materials back here. mmmm edit wars.. what more to say *sigh*. Wiki San Roze†αLҝ 16:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Good Catch...Need to be merged under this article...-- ...Captain...... Tälk tö me...   14:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This article needs to be merged with Mullaperiyar article. --Vishalissac (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why this article has the information's related to the disputes while another larger article is already present? Can we fix this ?  P earll's S un  TALK 03:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Mullaperiyar IA.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

 * No hassles, issue resolved. The deletion request was for for older versions of the diagram. AshLin (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)