Talk:Hogenakkal Falls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.

Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject India (Rated Start-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

This article is maintained by the Karnataka workgroup.

[edit] 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

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 (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River.It is located along the border between Chamarajanagar^[1] ^[2] and Dharmapuri districts where river reenters from Tamil Nadu to Karnataka ^[3] ^[4]. 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. ^[5].

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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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 Wikipedia: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)

[edit] Another attempt at consensus

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border^[6] between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka^[7]^[8] and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.^[9]^[10] The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.^[11]

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".^[12]^[13] Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.^[14].

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? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found one in the archives, and added it to the ~~article~~ proposal above. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 20:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm always willing to be proven wrong :-) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

One more bad English article [7]. Let not the language barier be the cause of rejecting these RS materials. Times of India has been around since 1838!!! Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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:

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 Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boats

BTW, sorry to sound ad hominem, but shouldn't the article on teppas be merged with parisal or vice versa? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 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. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 22:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Admn please change as per consensus

editprotected

Please see section 4.1[8]]. Clear consensus is reached on new lead. Please replace the current lead with

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border^[15] between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka^[16]^[17] and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.^[18]^[19] The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.^[20]

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".^[21]^[22] Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.^[23].

and editprotect the lead section. Naadapriya (talk) 22:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: Consensus not reached as it is obvious that they references are still being discussed. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 22:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Five agreed. Above one oppose with no valid support is mute. Discussion can continue after making the correction needed immediately due to strong consensus. Current lead in the article is misleading the wikipedia readers.Naadapriya (talk) 03:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose : its wise to wait and let the discussion process to continue ...any rapid action on change in the article is one sided , when 6 references were produced for its location in tamilnadu and nul was provided as otherwise this discussion was allowed to proceed and no such change effected the article but now with two new references you wanna change the article , i oppose to any change in the article until or otherwise the reference's are absolutely discussed and their verifiability are given a clean chit by other editors .:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

i don't understand why this haste work .... without discussing the references how do you expect the article to be changed , when you people came out with nul references we did wait for you but the same doesn't seem to work here ...why?? the proposed lead would surely mislead the readers . so we have to discuss the references before proceeding with the article. : --@ the $un$hine . (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Extensive discussions have taken place since around April 20 by about 13 editors. The consensus based new lead has less but more accurate references agreed by 5 editors. It can be discussed after the current major misleading information about the location is corrected with the new lead.Naadapriya (talk) 06:31, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

You will have to get your wiki rules straight. Consensus is not majority vote. Anyways, you are free to ask Shefeild and John if they agree on it still after the references from Economic times and Times of India! Naadapriya, you have made several attempts to call the lead that you propose as NPOV lead a few times and then calling it as final lead. You also changed the heading to mislead once on the talk page. This will be your last warning. As @ the $un$hine pointed out, when you showed us no reference by a google search [9]. In spite of all this, we had been patient, took it to third party discussion, then to RfC, both of which you did not agree to. In contrast, we are asking you to come on the table with an RfC and let us get comments on the references, including the Law Ministry reference, which is very cleverly beeing misinterpreted (million dollar question there: how long is 64kms?). I once again urge you to show atleast minimal respect to your fellow editors. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending input from other editors and determination of consensus. This is not to say that I at this point personally have any real reservations about the lead, but it would be a bad idea to place in the new lead without getting a clear consensus about it, and there is no need to change it now and then potentially have to change it again later when we could alternately ensure that there are no weaknesses to it before changing it. The one clear question I have, and it is one which could arise, is possibly nit-picking, but that doesn't mean that it might not arise anyway. Right now, I'm assuming that the order of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu was determined by alphabetical order, which is fine. However, we could at least potentially have a revert war later regarding the order in which the two states are named if someone were to argue that Tamil Nadu had some sort of clearer, prior, more often enunciated, more acted-upon, or otherwise, in a way, "stronger" claim to the falls than Karnataka. Such a revert war might be petty by most people, including me, but that doesn't mean that it might not happen anyway. Is there any indication that such a argument could be made? John Carter (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think nothing new is happening in this discussion page. References have been produced to suggest that the falls is in Karnataka, Tamilnadu and on the border of these two states. I will support the conclusion which states that the exact membership of the falls is a dispute between the states, until any new reference(I mean new political development, not another link to an old article) has been produced.--Skbhat (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Remember Skbhat, that the reference produced that claims the falls to be Karnataka unequivocally state that as a claim, or when they don't call it as a claim, it would be on a Karnataka website and not on a third party. The materials that state that the falls is in Tamil Nadu at the border are third party. The list including Law Ministry, Encyclopedia Britannica, Times of India and Economic times are all provided above. Feel free to read them. The balance is not right with the references. I have repeatedly asked you guys to have a look at Cyprus and Northern Cyprus. Northern Cyprus is claimed by Turkey, but the claim is not recognised by UN or EU nations and hence the claim stays as a claim alone. It is not too hard to see that logic isn't it? It is also good for you to note that the survey was initiated long time ago [10] [11] [12] and Karnataka withdrew from it [13]. Now a new survey is once again initiated. Although it is pretty clear on what this all means, I prefer to stick on to the topic. If you have any source from third party stating that the falls is in Karnataka then the lead proposed is acceptable. You chaps don't agree on an RfC we initiate nor initiate one yourselves too. If solving this issue is really your motives, lets RfC. OK? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

When you are demanding explicit sentences in the references provided against the argument you are supporting, you cannot get away with references which contain 'until' and 'up to'. Those sentences hold even if the falls is just within the border of Tamil Nadu or on the border or just within the border of Karnataka. --Skbhat (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

May I request you to kindly read and then tell me what the upto stands here for.

In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir

I'm sure anyone with minimal knowledge of English can clearly say that upto is used to refer to the direction of the course of the river, where after Hogenakkal it takes takes a southernly course. If you still can't agree on it, ask a native English speaker. Now about the until:

Upon entering Tamil Nadu, the Cauvery continues through a series of twisted wild gorges until it reaches Hogenakal Falls and flows through a straight, narrow gorge near Salem

If it is too hard to understand again please do ask some native English speaker. Until is used to say that till Hogenakkal the river flows through twisted gorges but after the falls it flows through a straight narrow gorge. It is not that hard to understand this. Once again you guys seem to act clever by deliberately avoid Economic times and Times of India. You don't think that I will forget them if you avoid talking about it, do you? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:58, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

To Wikiality123. Please answer this question directly with yes or no. Will not those 'upto' and 'until' sentences hold even if the falls is on the border of Karnataka and Tamlinadu? I am not expecting you to forget anything. Remember you were not convinced that Chamarajanagar is close to Hogenakal with a news reference Hindu and Deccan Herald. You wanted an explicit statement saying that "Hogenakal Falls is close to Chamarajanagar". Also you were asking a single reference for Karnataka's claim on the falls initially for arguing that the exact ownership is disputed. Sarvajna provided it. Then you started saying that your Law ministry reference overrides all other references. So first you follow the rules. Get a central govt document saying explicitly that Hogenakal Falls is in Tamilnadu. Otherwise all the references have to be considered to reach the conclusion. Yes I have to become clever, otherwise it is very difficult to survive with people like you. Sorry for being personal, I don't want to blame others. --Skbhat (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Upto and until in the sentences will hold even if the falls is on the border, but if it didnt say in Tamil Nadu in both of them. It is not that hard to see that it says in Tamil Nadu. If it was a shared border it would not state just TN and leave of Karnataka. If you keep refusing, you will be just wasting everyone's time including yours too. Read your own references. They say that Vetike and Samiti are claiming the falls to be under its jurisdiction, to the controry if you see this and this it would state that the falls is at the border but in Tamil Nadu, not as TN's claims, but as a matter of fact. What Sarvagnya did was to show us that Karnataka claims the falls and not that any other third party accepts the claim as valid. How can In Tamil Nadu, the river Cauvery continues to flow East-wards upto Hogenakal Falls and takes a Southerly course and enters the Mettur reservoir mean that the falls is also in Karnataka? Once again refusing to see this is just causing delay for both of us. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate to that it has to be reminded again and again to pay attention to use of 'up to' and 'until in citations quoted in above comment which is mute since it is already discussed/countered several times.Naadapriya (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It is even more unfortunate that, after receiving opposition to the request edit, that the above editor seemingly on his own disabled the first request and filed a second request immediately below. John Carter (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If Naadapriya bothers to read the materials he/she would know what the upto and until stands for there. UPTO in the Law Ministry is for the change of course of the river, from east to south and UNTIL in the encyclopedia is for the narrow gorges that widen up. As I said earlier, if the user has any doubts in the interpretation then RfC. What is Naadapriya's interpretation of the Economic Times and The Times of India articles may I ask? It is really very painful to see that the editor would freely move oposition to the proposed lead to another section. Even after all this bullying I would still assume good faith with the user and request not to involve in such acts in the future. As for one sided references used to argue that the falls is in Karnataka, may I ask them to provide third party references which claim so. With that I do not mean to ask for interviews of Karnataka politicians from third party, since it once again will be Karnataka's own claim. Refusing to see this point is indeed unfortunate. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Renewed Request to Admn to change the lead ASAP so that we can move-on

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

Summary of valid citation based responses

9 in favor of A

4 in favor of B

Please see section 4.1[14]] for details. Clear consensus is reached on new lead. Please replace the current lead with

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border^[24] between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka^[25]^[26] and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.^[27]^[28] The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.^[29]

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".^[30]^[31] Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.^[32].

Please edit protect the lead after the change.

Request to Editors: please do not add comments to this section. This section is only for Admn. Add your comments in new section. Adding comments here except for Admn will be disruptive. (Note: such statements as this are clearly non-binding.)

Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Strongest possible oppose to this attempt to bypass consensus on the part of a single editor. While I am myself somewhat agreed to the terms, there has yet to be a clear WP:CONCENSUS established for the inclusion of the language as is. The editor making this request has more than once stated that he would seek to have content changed on the basis of his own action, rather than through consensus, as can somewhat be demonstrated on this page. I believe any further attempts to act in such a way can and very likely will be seen as tendentious editing. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Again unrelated comment. Please read the disclosure on edit summary. As in the past the above comment is the typical example of forcing the discussions into a never ending LOOP and an attempt to stall the progress. Such comments are disruptive and for sure not of Admn's quality. Naadapriya (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely urge the above editor to cease ignoring the fact that a clear consensus has yet to be established. This is a warning that any further attempts to ignore the fact that there is not a clear, present consensus to date can be and very likely will be seen as WP:TE. Instead of dismissing the concerns of others, I request that the above editor actually address some of the concerns raised, or allow others to do so, rather than once again seeking to ignore the input of others, as he has repeatedly and occasionally pointedly done. John Carter (talk) 18:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly opposition to this edit, so I have disabled the edit request. There are no deadlines, and there is no need for an edit to be made "ASAP". Please keep in mind that consensus is not a head count. - auburnpilot talk 18:22, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. The consensus reached is based on citations and discussions. Following opposing comments are repetition of previously discussed issues. Above information is provided not as head count but to show the level of effort went in to reach a consensus. Currently the article is edit protected with incorrect information as pointed many editors. Neutral Admn help is needed to progress further.Naadapriya (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I take that you are serious of involving neutral parties. This is why we have RfC on wikipedia dispute resolution protocol. I strongly urge the user to cooperate in initiating an RfC on the citations provided by both parties. This will help in solving the issue soon. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 19:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, if you are looking for neutral editors to join the discussion, I would advise opening a request for comment, as others have suggested. Very rarely will neutral admins/editors stumble on a debate. . - auburnpilot talk 19:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There was a Rfc on this topic. Including it the consensus is strongly in favor of new lead. Therefore I am renewing the request to correct the lead. The 2 editors who are opposing the correction have not produced any WP:RS to support their views so far. Naadapriya (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Alternately, formal mediation might be possible. In this case, though, I think at least part of the problem could be addressed by allowing a bit of time to pass to allow people to respond, instead of moving an edit protection request from one section to another because the first one received objections, as Naadapriya did here. Such actions cannot be taken as being particularly constructive, and very likely fail to assume good faith and otherwise qualify as at best dubious editing. As has already been said, there is no need to rush to a solution. We can and should ensure that the solution is the right one, so that the questions which arise can be resolved, rather than trying to initiate changes prematurely, and then have the possibility of having to do further edits to undo those edits later. John Carter (talk) 19:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

i too wish to request him for an request for comment which would have many neutral admins/editors to join the discussion ...this will at least give some sort of an idea of where we r wrong and what neutral admins/editors think , and will again save our time so that we may put those in some useful work , having just few minutes to spare those may be invested elsewhere than going round and round on this talk page with same argument with multiple achieves .i wish if he thinks about it regards:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 20:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I came as a neutral party from the mention on WP:RS/N, and quickly determined that the line is in fact the river. The problem is the editors that cannot accept that Google Maps is imprecise. --NE2 00:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually NE2, we are not still sitting on Google maps. I have come to understand that there was something wrong with google maps a while ago, but the problem is the other party is not ready to accept the very fact that the 64kms can't mean 70 kms. You yourself decided that the GIS map is imprecise although it corelates very well with the Law Ministry document. Reasons I don't know why! Leaving that aside and moving on, I am assuming that you are native English speaker and am sure you know very well tha the upto and until in the Law Ministry document and Encyclopedia Britannica article stand for. You have seen some users deliberately misinterpreting these words. The very fact that Karnataka withdrew from the survey when demanded of the papers should tell you what this all means. Anyways, those are upto you to examine your conscience and I'm no one to demand that from you. You yourself used the Law Ministry document to explain your stance. When you used it, the other parties agreed to the document, but when I used it, one called it an old out-dated document, another on called it half-baked and one more went to the extent of saying that it is not a legal document at all (just some thing hosted in the Law Ministry website). Now you tell me who is stalling the progress of the discussion? I have also shown you guys articles from Economic Times and Times of India. Is there any such third party sources that the falls is in Karnataka or a shared border? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that User:Wikiality123 and User:Pearll's sun putting discussions back into the same loop again and again.John Carter keeps reversing his own opinions often. All possible avenues are exhausted including Rfc on this topic.[15]. For RFc, with a reference to citation JeremyMcCracken endorsed A. Without any reference to citation Renee supported B. To date all conclusions lead to A and therefore the corrected lead is valid.Naadapriya (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Another third pary website 'map' which gives an indication that Hogenakkal falls is in Tamil Nadu. http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080045719&ch=4/2/2008%204:49:00%20PM I request all the neutral admins of wikipedia's Hogenakkal article to retain the current content which has more authentic references to show both, Hogenakkal village and the falls is in Tamil Nadu. Yasirian (talk) 08:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is a news item not a WP:RS to oppose the current strong consensus. Also note 'gives an indication'. One should review all comments before jumping in the middle. The above comment cannot be considered in deciding the consensus. Naadapriya (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

First let me enlighten you that there is no strong consensus here. Second what is your defenition of RS material? It seems to me that your interpretation would be articles that support Karnataka's stance. If so, then yes, there is no RS material that we have provided. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Naadapriya, all the mud slinging at us won't help you nor the article. The RfC you pointed out and your interpretation is open for all to see. Renee is quoting from the Law Ministry website. If you read that, Jeremy used Wikimapia as his reference. So tell me if you are going to agree wikimapia? If so that would be a big turning point in this discussion. Wikimapia and Google maps have been refused by your side of the parties involved. Let me know if you guys are now considering wikimapia border defenition as reliable now. That will solve the issue straightaway. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 09:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Finally through the above comment it is acknowledged that there was a RFC on the issue and there is no need to repeat it. Jeremy referred to map for correct purpose. Even with the earlier RFC the consensus is for the lead proposed in this section. BTW 'mud slinging '???? 'your side of the parties' !!!??? Naadapriya (talk) 23:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikimapia is just Google Maps with stuff added. Google Maps uses imprecise data. --NE2 00:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess NE2 can now see which party is trying to beat around the bush, sometimes accepting the same document and when it is not something that supports them to refuse it. For the record let me remind again that this was not alone done for Google maps or Wikimapia, but also for the Law Ministry document. Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Need to change the lead based on strong consensus and Rfc

Based consensus reached because of detailed discussions since about Apr 20,2008 by 13 editors and Rfc, the lead needs to be changed to:

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India, located on a stretch of the Kaveri (or Cauvery) River that forms the border^[33] between the Chamarajanagar district of Karnataka^[34]^[35] and the Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu.^[36]^[37] The exact location of the border near the falls is disputed by the two states, pending a modern survey.^[38]

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".^[39]^[40] Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of their kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.^[41].

Thanks for helping us to move on Naadapriya (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

The user has repeatedly shown no respect on fellow editors and has decided to himself that a consensus has been arrived at. User Naadapriya can be sure that unless he/she sits down to discuss this won't be solved. Let me remind the user that repeated demonstration of disrespect for fellow editors would only act agaisnt the user himself. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 08:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

I oppose the above proposed content. The existing content of the article should continue. These recent claims by some Karnataka politicians should not be considered serious as these are political gimmicks by the power hungry politicians who fool people and spread hatread with their false claims. I dont understand how educated people are also falling prey to these cheap politicians.Yasirian (talk) 09:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

This comment is mute since does not provide evidence to oppose. Naadapriya (talk) 14:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

oppose: how many times we need to stress for this discussion to continue ?? this member doesn't seem to respect other members views or expressions ... this is the second repeated requests for edit the protected article based on false claims ... an Rfc is the only solution for this ....:--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 09:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I Support the above lead. Or we can keep the page protected until the Govts of respective states solve the issue.--Skbhat (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

To date since Apr 20, 2008 13 editors participated in detailed discussions with citations. 9 support and 4 oppose. Consensus is strongly in favor of new lead.~Naadapriya (talk)

If so, lets see if those 9 editors extend the support here. OK? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 15:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Earlier responses speak to themselves in support of the same corrected lead. One needs to vote only once on the same issue. To date 9 have supported with valid evidences and 4 opposed . It is unfortunate those oppose have decided to keep the article with current tags. Naadapriya (talk) 17:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the {{editprotected}} for now as consensus does not appear to have yet been reached. Regards, PeterSymonds (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

wht ?? 9 editors support ?? kindly ask then to drop in here and extend their support...still this is no Afd where we take voting based solution ...we strongly oppose to any request to protection or edit the article based on weal and false claims ...--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hope earlier discussions were reviewed before making the above stalling remark. Naadapriya (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

this is no stalling buddy but an usual style of refusal from your side .... and nothing else... with no valid citations and consensus nor any you wish to proceed to change the article and keep on requesting to un-protect the same ...this wont work..try to take part in the discussion or else let us continue the article based on absolute references....this talk page is continuing to the mere fact that we must make your side understand that the article has been protected to avoid any possible vandalism as it happened multiple times ....now multiple requests are made to un-protect the same to favor the same .... --@ the $un$hine (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Request will be repeated as needed. Looks like while making above comment it is forgotten that the article is tagged. Till it is corrected and tags are removed, readers may not trust even the accurate statements other than on location and speculative info on water project Naadapriya (talk) 20:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

yup ! you r right ... im here discussing the topic and producing these many reference to justify that the article is right ....yup once again ...im once again here just to remove the tag which has no meaning in a well sourced article...----@ the $un$hine (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed revision to lead

I would propose that maybe rephrasing the lead to something approximating the following might be acceptable to most parties:

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located in the area of the current Kaveri River border dispute. It is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India". With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.

Tamil Nadu has recently completed work on a water project in the area, without notable opposition from either the federal government or the Karnataka government. However, Karnataka has recently reasserted its own claim to the falls, and the question of the exact location of the falls relative to the border is currently scheduled to be heard by the Indian supreme court."

It is I hope understood that this is not intended as a final draft of the possible lead, but just a first attempt at one. However, it does lay more emphasis on the falls being in disputed territory earlier. It also indicates that Tamil Nadu has, in effect, more actively persued its claim, seemingly without opposition at the time (if there was such opposition, please point it out to me, I must have missed it), while also indicating that the matter is going to be decided by the national court. John Carter (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess we are getting closer to what SHEFFIELDSTEEL once called as "not too bad" lead. Just two things that I think need to be mended, with little I can read with my drowsy eyes. I'm not sure if we can include Hogenakkal issue with Kaveri River Water Dispute. I think we can direct to Hogenakkal Water Dispute article instead. Second thing is that the project has been started[16], later stalled [17] on the request of Karnataka [18] and now resumed [19] but not completed yet. Moreover, in India, the federal government is either called as the Central government or Union government. I have also tried to avoid personification of the states and added the word government next to it. Not sure if that makes it read clumsy.

Hogenakkal Falls or Hogenakal Falls (Tamil: ஒக்கேனக்கல் அருவி, Kannada: ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ) is a waterfall in South India on the Kaveri River. It is located in the area of the current water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu governments. It is sometimes referred to as the "Niagara of India".^[42] With its fame for medicinal baths and hide boat rides, it is a major tourist attraction. Carbonatite rocks in this site are considered to be the oldest of its kind in South Asia and among the oldest in the world.^[43]

Tamil Nadu government has initiated works on a water project in the area, with the approval from Union and the Karnataka governments.^[44]^[45] However, Karnataka government has recently reasserted its own claim to the falls,^[46] and the question of the exact location of the falls relative to the border is currently scheduled to be resolved by a joint survey of the two states.^[47]

Any more suggestions? Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:07, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I was actually altering the text to read "border dispute" rather than "water dispute", to emphasize that it right now isn't clearly in either state. I expect that we will need to add 2 "X km from (place)" statements, to help triangulate the locataion, and such can be found on articles on other waterfalls. Which are the two closest cities are at different enough directions to make meaningful triangulation possible? John Carter (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

My eyes are too soar to look it up now, but I am sure we had a reference showing us the two close cities, Bangalore and Dharmapuri (unless you want to use this one which you didn't like much [20] :P). I reckon Naadapriya wanted to add Chennai instead of Dharmapuri. As earlier, I do not have a problem with stating in Chennai instead of Dharmapuri, provided the distance measure is sourced. Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 21:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that reference will suffice for those two cities. John Carter (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

This revision to the lead is not acceptable. I oppose changing the lead. we have similar example in wikipedia itself, that too related to Karnataka state. There is a disputed town/area known as Belgaon or Belgaum in Karnataka. This area is disputed by Maharashtra which has claims to this place since the Indian states reorganisation in 1956. There is also a pending court case related to this issue in the supreme court of India. Yet there is no mention of this dispute in the lead for the wikipedia's Belgaon article. Status quo is maintained in the lead of that article i.e. the place is under the juridiction of Karnataka state is only mentioned in the lead of that article. A place which is formally disputed by a legitimate government of Maharashtra since 1956 has no mention in the lead of the Belgoan wikipedia article. But you guys want to include a false claim based on a false agenda, that too claimed by some cheap politicians which came up just before the elections. It is not even a formal claim by Karnataka state. There is no pending case against this in any court.

I will support adding statements regarding claims in this article only after Karnataka assembly approves resolutions claiming Hogenakal or Karnataka state government filing a case in supreme court of India claiming hogenakkal. Even then, it can be included, not in the lead of the article, but somewhere in the middle of the article similar to the 'border dispute' section in wikipedia's Belgaon article. Until that time, I kindly request all the admins of this article not to make any changes to this article and certainly, not anything in the lead of this article. Yasirian (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

good work Yasirian . i too support his view .without any formal state approval for its claim or any pending cases in court the lead otherwise would sure be a false report . now the state has got a state government in power and tamilnadu announcing the resuming on water project this issue will be soon solved legally ...so a temp change in the article is not needed .--@ the $un$hine (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Although I do agree with both the above users, I see no end to this discussion. I am rather sickened with the way the discussion has been going on. The only way out I can think of right now is to proceed on to a mediation on the references in hand. I especially would like the Law Ministry and the Encyclopedia Brittanica articles and the usage of the words until and upto. I think all good faith editors will want this issue to be resolved. I strongly urge cooperation on discussing the references in hand, from both sides, rather than we talking between ourselves. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 22:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

yup !consensus based on mediation is an good attempt ...but if it is mentioned that karnataka is claiming and other may be included in the article without damaging the real view , if we leave the article to progress as mediated the there is no point for us to take part in such a long discussion with this much citations , this such work or mediation will sure keep me off from future discussion's since even tough claims has no values but flexes and proves itself inferior to wrong claims . so what is the point in citation ?? i think i will wait since the state govt has initiated work on the water project once again and the other side is about to get into seat ...the clue is not far off..once the project is started then it itself would become the evidence based claim .....so i think i would still wait...--@ the $un$hine (talk) 23:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to comment anymore on this issue until the political development becomes clear. Even though my view point is disputed status for the falls, I think it is better to wait and see.--Skbhat (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

me too feel the same . im sure that the political situation will soon improve due to tamilnadu's announcement to continue with the water project & a stable govt on the other side .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

Talk:Hogenakkal Falls

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Consensus based draft for the lead

[edit] Another attempt at consensus

[edit] Boats

[edit] Admn please change as per consensus

[edit] Renewed Request to Admn to change the lead ASAP so that we can move-on

[edit] Need to change the lead based on strong consensus and Rfc

[edit] Proposed revision to lead

[edit] References

Views

Navigation

Interaction

Search