Talk:Hogenakkal Falls/Archive 5

Admn please change as per consensus

editprotected

Please see section 4.1[1]]. 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 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..

---

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 [2]. 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 [3] [4] [5] and Karnataka withdrew from it [6]. 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)

shouldn't we remove all 'near karnataka' or 'kannada' references on a place in tamilnadu since elections in karnataka are over now?

dear friends,

other than the distance from bangalore (which might be of use to non indians), all text in kannada should be removed besides the useless discussion on an unsubstantiated claim that is clearly contradicting all official govt. data on its location.

I, hereby, request the administrator to remove all words/ phrases related to karnataka or its claim from the "hogenakkal falls" article & suggest that such non encyclopedia worthy discussions on "non-fact-based" 'claims' can be done on karnataka tamilnadu dispute forum or in the court..

besides including kannada words on an article on a place in a different state might set a dangerous precedent..

who knows, someone might ask belgaum to be named in tamil or thirunelveli in malayalam...

i won't be surprised if bangalore and tirupathi too are added as "on/in/within/under/over/along the border of tamilnadu" if naadapriya & co.s arguments on "so called" consensus are accepted...

if such lies are accepted by the administrator, it will go a long way in making wikipedia a liar's paradise..

Cityvalyu (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

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

{{editprotected}}

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
9. User:Sarvagnya
10. User:SheffieldSteel
11. User:Skbhat
12. User: Tempshill
13. User:Wikiality123

Summary of valid citation based responses

9 in favor of A

4 in favor of B

Please see section 4.1[7]] 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 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..

---

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.[8]. 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)

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 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..

---

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)

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[9], later stalled [10] on the request of Karnataka [11] and now resumed [12] 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". 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 government has initiated works on a water project in the area, with the approval from Union and the Karnataka governments. However, Karnataka government 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 resolved by a joint survey of the two states.

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 [13] :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)

opinion tag removed based on overwhelming citations .

opinion tag removed based on overwhelming citations . --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 04:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "law" :
  • The river carries [[sediment]] which makes the "down-river" land fertile. At Hogenakkal the river spreads out over a wide area of sandy beaches, then flows through a straight but narrow ravine near [[Salem, Tamil Nadu|Salem]] where the [[Mettur Dam]] creates a 60 sq mi. lake called [[Stanley Reservoir]]. Built in [[1934]], this project improved [[irrigation]] and provided [[hydropower]].<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cauvery.com/cauvery_river.html |title=Cauvery River in Southern India |publisher=cauvery.com |accessdate=2006-11-11 }}
  • [http://lawmin.nic.in/ncrwc/finalreport/v2b3-6.htm ARTICLE 262 AND INTER-STATE DISPUTES RELATING TO WATER] ''Ministry of Law, Government of India''

DumZiBoT (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Thirteen member consensus?

An editor is repeatedly claiming a so called 13 member consensus [14], [15] which never existed. Please present your case here on which 13 people gave a go and when was a consensus reached? Cheers Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikiality123 was one of the 13 members who participated in the detailed discussions. Wikiality123 is one out of 4 who opposed the lead that was supported by 9 members. The correct lead is reverted by Wikiality123.Naadapriya (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Show us where there was a consensus. You have repeatedly claimed that there was a consensus in your version of the lead, but there wasn't any. Show us where and when it happened? No one deleted anything from the talk page FYI. It is there all intact in the archives. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

This article is about one revert away from being fully protected again. Stop edit warring and discuss. - auburnpilot talk 14:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess, its better off edit protected. There seem to be a perception with one editor of some consensus being reached, which is obviously not the case. The edit wars will never cease unless its edit protected and changes made by admins after consensus. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 16:11, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

i support Wiki San Roze absolutely , edit protecting the article would do a lot good , after a consensus is reached ....which would take some time...if the article is left as such unprotected then this edit war is hard to freeze ......thanks--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 18:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearll's Sun is one among 4 who opposed the lead that was supported by 9 members. The correct lead is reverted by Wikiality123Naadapriya (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead you are suggesting did not have any 9 member support. Show us where some 9 people expressed their support to it. Ciao Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 10:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Your lead never had a 9 member support , i suppose tht u r considering this as ur lead , if so kindly re-check , there was never a 9 member squad supporting any lead . and there wasn't any lead but only an edit war . claiming something as a lead for a period of time doesn't actually make one . you need strong citations and member support . quoting a person or a small team or a news article doesnt change the real fact's and needs no alteration in the article as a whole .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 14:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I request admins to make this article "edit protected" to prevent it from people attempting to change the lead of the article by inserting claims which are bogus. Yasirian (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Tag is needed

{{editprotected}}

Atleast 9 out of following 13 users

1. User:Amarrg Last edit to talk: 06:00, 21 May 2008
2. User:Gthorvey Last edit to talk: 04:42, 12 May 2008
3. User:Jeremy McCracken Last edit to talk: 01:32, 25 April 2008
4. User:John Carter Last edit to talk: 21:38, 27 May 2008
5. User:naadapriya Last edit to talk: within last week
6. User:NE2 Last edit to talk: 00:04, 26 May 2008
7. User:Pearll's sun Last edit to talk: within last week
8. User:Reneeholle Last edit to talk: 00:00, 30 April 2008
9. User:Sarvagnya Last edit to talk: 00:22, 21 May 2008
10. User:SheffieldSteel Last edit to talk: 20:56, 23 May 2008
11. User:Skbhat Last edit to talk: 09:26, 3 June 2008
12. User:Tempshill Last edit to talk: 23:02, 8 May 2008
13. User:Wikiality123 Last edit to talk: within last week

have pointed out that present protected version contains inaccurate information Those discussions are either archived or deleted through vandalism. Recent 'AuburnPilot' warning posted on Aug 23rd is also deleted by someone. Therefore at least toofewopinions tag is needed since the present edit protected inaccurate version.

Naadapriya (talk) 14:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Copy of my response to the same request duplicated above:Admin AuburnPilot has already added the tag {{pp-dispute}} so as to make it clear that the current protected version is not an endorsement[16]. I don't see why we need multiple tagging. The warning message by AuburnPilot is in the bottom of this page and no one even tried to delete it. Can you please be adviced that this is not the first time you are accusing people of deleting content, when no such thing ever happened. May I also request the editor to make sure that he/she doesn't speak for others and if those users really do feel so they will express their opinion here. I don't recollect a single instance that any of the other users listed other than Naadapriya to have expressed that such a tag to be added to this article. Thanks Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 14:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I never said 9 suggested a tag. Many strongly suggested the correction to the existing inaccurate lead. I suggested the tag so that readers are not mislead by the current inaccurate lead. Now I see the Aug 23rd by warning AuburnPilot. But I did not see it this at 14:32, Aug 25th. I will research and follow-up with wiki experts for possible reasons. Naadapriya (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to get involved in the actual dispute, but I've noted the last time each of the editors in the above list edited this page. Considering how long ago most of them looked at this page, I think it's time for you, Naadapriya, to accept that consensus can change. That old consensus from months ago should not be cited as support for your version. Discuss the merits, rather than waving your arms and screaming "CONSENSUS!!".- auburnpilot talk 15:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that consensus can change but only when new facts are found. Facts have not changed since the correction for the lead was suggested by many (~9). Though you state that you do not want to get involved, a logical explanation of the timing of 'edit protection' will clear the air. When other editors are busy in the interest of readers someone needs to wave the arm and ‘scream’ about obvious and deliberate incorrect information. Wish some Admn will spend some time to read extensive discussions that took place about the current incorrect lead. Thanks. Naadapriya (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Not done: how about, instead of fighting just to get the page tagged as needing cleanup, you actually fix the problem? If there really are perspectives missing from this article, then they can be researched, verified, referenced and added, obviating the need to argue over the balance of the article. Oh, and someone needs to find and add (or arrange to have added) the "this page contains tamil text, which may display as horrible squares if you use a crap browser" template... :D Happy‑melon 15:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree tag is not a long term solution. However it will alert readers to use their judgment till the lead is corrected. Naadapriya (talk) 05:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

though i respect admin tagging an article as disputed ..... i would say tht this article doesnt need one , just one member fighting tht too with some press reports . even the central govt has maintained its stand tht the falls is an integral part of tamilnadu and i fail to understand how a member can bring absolute articles under dispute tht too with some pres reports ....the water project connected to it has been financed by the Japaneses govt ..... btw its a good action from the admin side to make it edit proof .....--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 01:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT stall

Thanks to Wikipedia tools. One is enough to defend the hard fact based information. Just because 2 state incorrect information it does not become correct information. Central Govt never stated that falls is completely in one state. Please read what about 9 said in the past. Naadapriya (talk) 02:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

well .... so far youhave never provided proper and good citations ( not other than some press reports ) so first let us clarify our stand based on citations 1 : its an island tht the state ( i dont wanna personalize) claims to need a resurvey and kindly discuss the issue based on proper citation tht too with some good govt source and not from any political speeches else it is a waste of time for everyone ..... btw places with similar names does exist so tamilnadu's hogenakkal falls has nothing to do with karnataka's claim on 1/3 of an island --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 15:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Just posting a note to say that, although I have not posted here for a while, I have been keeping an eye on the page. If people want me to assist in finding a consensus version, I can try to help. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it certainly helps to improve the article. Thanks Naadapriya (talk) 14:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As the discussion here appears to have lost interest, I have unprotected the page. I would hope that the long period of sterility has highlighted the adverse impact of edit wars leading to protection, because if it starts up again, the protagonists can reasonably expect to face blocks and more protection for their efforts. Splash - tk 19:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I remember saying that before, yet I still had to reprotect this article. Hopefully you've added the page to your watchlist, as I've now removed it from mine. Best, - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Currently I believe there are more admins than editors here :-/ SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate map

The location of the falls on the map shown is inaccurate. They are located to the north of the Stanley Reservoir, and not to its south as indicated by the map on the article page. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 07:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. The coordinates given in the article point to a town 50-60 miles away from the actual falls. Using Hogenakkal (village) as a start (which also has the wrong coordinates and comparing Google earth aerial photography with ground level shots, I have come up with the following corrected coordinates: 12.1192°N 77.7740°E / 12.1192; 77.7740. This also puts the falls on the Kaveri River along the border between the Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. I expect this is also why Monk415 (talk · contribs) was asserting through recent activity that the falls were located in Karnataka. I will update the coordinates in the article. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Should the lede paragraph be modified to reflect that the falls are along the border between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu (Chamarajanagar and Dharmapuri districts)? It might also be advisable to select a more neutral map. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 00:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

hi ! wht User:Monk415 was doing was a clear damage to the article is no diff from this by the blocked user .....we have provided multiple ref's for the fall's location ( kindly check the talk's page archives ) . & thanks for your effort's . kind regards .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 00:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

any change in the lead paragraph means a change in the state & any change in the state means then therzz no reason for us to put these many citation's to prove it's location . so any change in the lead paragraph or the location or the state where it belongs to should be done only after reaching a consensus cuz this talk page had much hot debates earlier & a good read at it would help any editor in a lot ways .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 00:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware of the previous discussions in the archives. It was not my intent to reopen those issues, only to investigate the reason behind Monk415's edit activities. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 01:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

thats fine , but seeing his activities i suppose he was here just to change the article's location where it does not belong to . otherwise he would have discussed here & wouldn't have sent me an e-mail asking me to refrain from restoring the article & promising more such vandalism . good luck .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 01:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible need for a consensus on a general policy

After making this edit, I got reverted by User:Pearll's sun who has a policy of reverting everyone who tries to include the name of the falls in Kannada or in Hindi script and then, quite inappropriately, accuses them of vandalism without examining before whether they were in good faith or not. His actions are inconstructive, because he does not give a specific explanation of why he does that; no explicit wikipolicy is cited. I, for instance, was wondering how the falls are called in Kannada (the falls may belong to a state where Tamil is the official language but the info about how the the kn name of the falls is still useful); I just added ಹೊಗೆನಕಲ್ ಜಲಪಾತ to the lede in order to improve the article. My question is why shouldn't that name appear in the article's lede? This situation reminds the one with the articles on Greek villages who happen to have non-Greek names in neighbor-countries' languages, and there are often edit wars about whether these nonGreek names should be added as (neutral) info or be left out because their existence there may be inflammatory. Am I missing something fundamental here? --Omnipaedista (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I see that this seemingly minor matter has been crawling in the talk-pages' archives for more than three years without an explicit consensus having being reached, I would like to suggest to take the matter to the Arbitration Committee. As far as I know there doesn't exist currently a general policy about situations like this: Tamil (or Malayalam) placenames which notably have an Indo-Aryan, or Kannada name (say Belgaum or Hogenakkal Falls), and vice versa. In most such cases, there emerges a somewhat disputable consensus according to which, if the place or monument or whatever is placed in the jurisdiction of a region where one of the "opposing" language families is predominant, the article's lede should only include this one. This is a practice that is frowned upon in articles concerning places in Europe or Eastern Asia (even in cases where there is great tension between two neighboring countries), and I honestly don't understand why South Asian placenames should differ. In other words, why shouldn't one appoint a committee of neutral observers who will examine the issue and reach a consensus about a general policy which will be applied in all similar situations. Provided that such a policy will be available, one can then cite it and avoid all this fruitless argumentation that has been developing on Wikipedia's talk-pages for years. It could prevent the countless opinionated edit-wars, as well. --Omnipaedista (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}} Revoke the protection this dosen't deserve protection for high rate of wrong information circulated which is against the Information ACT IPC Section 199 (Wrong representation of suppresion of actual facts and figures) Consent can be given by same person in different names, that doesn't mean you can change the truth. The truth is that the Central government which is puppet of Taamil ndu government is not agreeing for survey and still it is disputed land. Moreover hogenakalu has been part of Karnataka and will part of it (See the name it is Hogae which is kannada word and kallu whichs is also kannada word) How the hell you tamils claim every prosperous thing in this world as theirs. See the history and you will know everywhere these people went they will not accomodate and respect to that place of people but will claim that land as theirs. I warn you Hogenakallu jalapatha is utilized by people of both regions... If you try to meddle with sentiments of Kannada people then you know from history... People of kannada are generous, peaceloving and belive in harmony don't try to harm it. I wish you all see the artifacts properly and if you don't know then take the consesus.. Do not make this page protected as it is sign of tamil hooligans.. I request the admin to look into this protection and immediately remove it.. See the page it is of the tamil fonts.. Why? Show harmony to great land of karnataka and kannadigas.. else time will teach the lesson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishanadevaraya (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

striking the above text tht contains offensive statement's & reviling by the sock puppet of the blocked user Kannadiga1975 since it does no good in the talk page .--Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 23:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The editsemiprotected template is only for requesting specific changes; requests for removal of protection should be made on the talk page of the administrator who protected the page or at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. snigbrook (talk) 14:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure if the Arbitration Committee would take on a case regarding something like this, because they say that they don't address matters which are specifically content related, and this seems to be. Having said that, I do think that it would make sense to have some sort of clarity in policy and guidelines regarding use of alternate names in variant scripts. I have at least started discussion regarding this matter at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 71 #Inclusion of names in alternate scripts. Any sort of informed input is more than welcome. Intereted individuals should also feel free to leave messages at the talk pages of any WikiProjects or similar groups which they think might have an interest in that discussion. John Carter (talk) 16:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

The word Hogenakal is formed of two Kannada words hoge and kal. When the water falls on the rocks it appears as if hoge (smoke) is emanating from the top of the kal (rock) because of the force of the water, hence Hogenakkal (smoking rocks)

If this is not sorted out by the user properly an legal action will be taken from Karantaka State Givernment at High Court. Take action before it is too late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajimcat25 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request from Kanindian, 27 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Hogenakkal Falls is on the Karnataka/Tamilnadu Border. I notice that in the Hogenakkal Falls page it is only given as Tamilnadu which is wrong. Hogenakkal falls can be reached from Karnataka Side via Kollegal, M.M.Hills and the Karnataka government has taken up tourism develpment works on the Karnataka side of the Hogenakkal Falls. I request the concerned to permit me to edit the relevant details regarding Hogenakkal falls about Karnataka.

Kanindian (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

go through the above discussions. The falls itself is within Tamil Nadu. Karnataka sometimes disputes Tamil Nadu's ownership, but hasnt followed that up with legal challenges or brought the issue up with the TN and central governments (though there are ongoing disputes over cauvery river and hogenakkal water scheme)--Sodabottle (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Following the guidelines of Wikipedia Editor who protected should honor legitimate request by Kanindian. I come from that area and I see that facts are not correct in the current article. Avanale (talk) 03:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Banned user Naadapriya. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Go through the archived discussions and the sources provided. This issue has already been discussed a lot of times.--Sodabottle (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Views can change and new evidences may be presented. Unprotection is a separate issue from earlier discussions. The Administrator who protected should open it for editing as per wikipedia guidelines. Avanale (talk) 07:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Banned user Naadapriya. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is new evidence, please present it here. It would be most welcome. Please review the Wikipedia:Reliable source guidelines for information about what sort of sources we can use. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 12:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I second you !

I spent some time reading the previous discussions. In spite of consensus and reliable evidences several facts are altered e.g. name in Kannada. Please advice the administrator to un-protect the article so that others can improve its quality and accuracy. Thanks. Avanale (talk) 06:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC) Banned user Naadapriya. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

a)Claims consensus where none exists b) ignores the request to provide the new evidence which he claimed exists. Seems to be the modus operandi of Naadapriya --Sodabottle (talk) 06:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Incorrigibleanoop, 14 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Incorrigibleanoop (talk) 20:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

User Devargud

Devargud,

You are changing the article against consensus after being goaded by the banned user Naadapriya. Please stop this disruptive editing and go through the talk page archives.--Sodabottle (talk) 07:07, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hogenakal Falls: This falls is from Karnataka State of India and it is wrongly biased as belongs to Tamilnadu of India

An very good Example to say my word is: the same Wiki under ==Etymology== it is wriiten where the name come from. the name came from Karnataka and still the falls is said to be as belongs to Tamilnadu State which is geograhpical proven and still thsi page is all giving wrong information.

The page is protected and hence we are nto able to comment to the user of the page