Talk:Kaveri River water dispute

message: Reference 17 is not reliable. It has POV statements like "The answer to this lies in history, which we cannot re-write now."  It never states that all laws passed  by occupying country are mute after independence in 1947.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:CDC3:A9D0:0:0:0:3ED (talk) 07:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: This section needs to be further broken down. I guess its too big. The 18th and the 19th centuary events can be in one subsection whereas the 20th century preindependence can be in the other. This is make it easier to read. If there is no issues from others I will do the changes after a couple of days.Wikiality123 11:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to bring this up myself.  Not just the length of the narrative, but I feel that it is also a little incoherent.  I also hope that there has been no copyvio.  I wanted to clarify this with user:Rajachandra before I made any changes.  I havent gotten down to doing that yet.  I'd appreciate if you could talk to him and do what needs to be done.  Thanks. Sarvagnya 15:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History of the crisis section

message: The entry does not talk provide any data to substantiate.
Important data are the agricultural area benefitting from Kaveri waters in both states from 1800s to 2000s. This will show all the truth abouth who humungously increased the areas, and who has been serverly constrained end.
The logic behind british government giving Veto to presidency of madras, all can be traced just to that data.
Also there are complete factual irregularities, like Pondicherry being carved out of madras presidency.
:*Yes.  There ARE indeed factual inaccuracies.  There is indeed some information that needs to make it into the article.  that is exactly why i have the underconstruction tag there.
:*As for the agricultural area benefiting both states, it is there.  i dont know if you deleted it when you edited it, but i had mentioned the areas.  As it stands today, it is 11 lakh acres for K and 28 lakh acres for TN.
:*In any case, the article is far from complete, especially the events from 97-98 to 2006 are yet to make it into the article.  Your reverting the article to your version is not helping me in finishing the article.  Please refrain from doing so.  In the next couple of weeks, I will be adding all the references, citations etc and also hopefully expand the article to cover the developments from 97-98 to 2006 also.  I urge you to refrain from editing or reverting the article repeatedly.  Sarvagnya 15:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The above statement marginalises Madras since according to the source I have (http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bcid/research/papers/Paper3.pdf  - refer page 20) Madras had agreed for both the faces but for the second phase if Mysore promises to assured that Madras wont be ADVERSELY EFFECTED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References, Inaccuracies etc.,

message: * 60% TN 40% KA rest 10% Kerala and pondichery
This totals upto 110% which is not possible. I'm not able to find a proper referenced article of the same. Can someone try fix this. But altertatively if this be replaced by verbalising the Basin area data from the table stated in the article the %s would work out as 54% TN, 42% K'taka. 
* In the history of dispute it is stated that The dam was planned to be built in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.
:: The above statement marginalises Madras since according to the source I have (http://www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bcid/research/papers/Paper3.pdf  - refer page 20) Madras had agreed for both the faces but for the second phase if Mysore promises to assured that Madras wont be ADVERSELY EFFECTED. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiality123 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate data to be fixed

message: *Please note that to the best of my knowledge none of the data in the article is "Original Research".  If you find anything which you think is WP:OR or WP:POV, please discuss it on the talk page before you edit.
*The information in this article has been collected from dozens and dozens of sources though the bulk of it might be from around half a dozen articles.  So I request you to please go through atleast all the references provided in full detail.  I will be adding many many external links in the days to come.
*Some of the information(these instances are very rare) may vary between sources.  In such cases, I've used the version cited by most people/sources, in other words I've used the most popular version.
*The article badly needs some tables and pictures to enhance clarity.  I will be adding couple of tables, but if somebody can help me with the pictures, I'll be grateful.  For the pictures, its my guess that pics from newspaper articles can be used claiming 'fair use' because, I've seen such pics being shared across articles.  For instance, I came across a pdf file about this issue which was in French but had used pictures from The Hindu.
*The info about 2002-2006 is unreferenced as yet and I have written it from memory(of all the things I've read in the last many weeks).  So there may be minor inaccuracies which I will fix in course of time.
*Regarding 1991 riots, unfortunately, not much information is forthcoming on the internet, mainly because there was no internet those days and also because online archives of newspapers like The Hindu and the Deccan Herald dont go that far back.  I have made only a mention of the riots and I'll be adding a few more lines now.  Whatever info we find about it on the internet, unfortunately is limited to stating the fact that horrible riots took place and many were killed.  But even with such things as the number of killed, number displaced etc., there is some disagreement between different sources.
Thanks.  Sarvagnya 23:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to fellow editors 

message: On second thoughts, I feel we should rename "Kaveri River Water Dispute" to just "Kaveri Dispute".  I am not sure how to go about it.  Please share your thoughts.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 01:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name Change 

message: Hi,
Consider below sentences which can be termed POV or harsh commentery , try to put them in milder tone.
*While the state of Tamil Nadu has historically enjoyed a vastly greater usage of the waters compared to Karnataka, Karnataka on the other hand feels that it is being denied its fair share of the waters
* however, thanks to the genius of Sir.M.V and the foresight of the King
*In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and scant regard, if any, would be shown to competing interests.
*Karnataka ’s irrigated area was a mere 4.2 lakh acres
*The one sided nature of the so-called agreement was there for everyone to see.
*Karnataka was thus forced to accept the interim award 
*Tamil Nadu slapped another contempt petition on Karnataka
*the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the CRA
*This also however, fell on deaf ears...
Mahawiki 03:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible POV 

message: Just to let everyone know, I have started another thorough cpedit of the article.  I will also be fixing the refs/external links etc.,.  Hope this will answer any concerns the above user or anyone else might have.  Please bear with me during the cpedit. It may take a few days though.  Sarvagnya 04:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I see User:Praveen Pillay is expressing some concerns.  First of all, let me apologise for not working on this article since I posted the message above.  The reason was that I had to go on a long wikibreak after that where I neither had access to internet nor the time to even logon.  I returned a couple of weeks or so ago and have since then been on a limited internet connection and have been busy in real life.  I will definitely find the time to work on this article soon.  I will definitely work on it over this weekend and next weekend.  I request User:Praveen to take another look after that.  But, please continue to list your concerns below.  Thanks.  Sarvagnya 18:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting a cpedit

message: *Dear Wikiality and PP - Among the POV issues you've raised above, 1 and 2 may sound POVish.  But 3 is certainly just a question of style.  I used hackles because I dont want to be using '...met with resistance...', '... was opposed...' etc., on every consecutive line.  And I dont see how 'raised hackles...' can be POV.
*And in any case, even if there are POVs in the article, I refuse to acknowledge the insinuation that I am pushing a POV.  As you can see, this is a fairly long article which I've put together from dozens(possibly hundreds) of articles and I put them all together fairly quickly.  If it has suffered in narration, it can certainly be fixed.  That is what 'cpediting' is for.  Declaring '5 days!! 10 days!!' etc., time constraints and holding the article and somebody else's efforts to ransom is not the way to go.
* Let me suggest something.  I request you to go through the article once and point out if there are any factual inaccuracies.  If there are, I'll be more than happy to fix it or put in a reference to support my figures.
* While you do that(look for 'factual inaccuracies') I'll go about cleaning up the references and adding external links.
* Once that is done, we'll go section by section and work on the language, tone etc.,.
* And as for me putting in 'my analysis, opinion' etc., I am not sure I agree with you(I'll take another look).  Even if you are right, you only will have to put it down to the fact that I've gathered information from several articles written by 'notable' people in 'notable' sources.  And none of these articles are free of the writer's analysis, opinion etc.,.  And while putting this article together, I've given equal weightage to everyone's views.  For example, it is a fact that S M Krishna's padayatra was seen as a gimmick  by some while others(like U R Ananthamurthy saw it as a good faith effort and joined him in the padayatra.  It is a fact that there was a flare up and high drama in 2002.  It is a fact that 'belligerence on both sides hit a crescendo.  It is a fact that it degenerated into a 'free for all with all and sundry taking to the streets'.  These are not my analyses, but this is how almost every single 'notable' source(from both sides) has characterised the episode.  If anything, what I've written is watered down versions of experts' analyses.  I may, at best only be guilty of reproducing experts' analyses and I have done that solely to maintain a flow in narration  And such things can only be fixed during several rounds of copyediting.  No article, least of all an article like this one, can end up in 'finished state' or FA-state on the first go.
:* So please go through the article for any 'factual inaccuracies' while I'll start cleaning up the references and make fixes for tone, POV, style etc., where I can.  If you find anything being stated as 'fact', and if isnt supported by a citation, feel free to make use of the {fact} or {citation needed} tags.  And I will add them.  This in my opinion should take a week or two.  Once we are through with that and have a stable article, we'll see how to weave in the "Karnataka POV" and "Tamil Nadu POV" sections.  If you want, you can even come up with a draft for those two sections and we can assemble it straight into the article.  Sarvagnya 17:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Even though you have not answered the main question of why you quoted only part of Griffin's statement so as to modify the meaning of the statement, I see your reply above is in good faith. I consider your reply to be constructive and I will try to make a draft for the POVs of both states. I may be wrong but I am of the view that the finished article should not flame more hatred from both sides. I think, the article should present the problem as between the  people from upper and lower portion of basin. Not as a problem between states since the states as a whole do not contribute or use water. I am ready for a open dialog where everyone has a unprejudiced view on the whole thing. Thanks and have a blessed day!Praveen 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: re to Wikiality and PP

message: I have removed the npov tag because the article has changed considerably since the tag was last added.  If anybody feels that it is still POV, they should add the tag to whichever section they feel is POV.  And ofcourse, I'll continue to clean up the refs etc., and check for tone also.  Sarvagnya 23:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  npov tag 

message: I just read this article for the first time an hour back and feel that it has a rather pro-Karnataka tone. After reading through the discussion page, I found that this is the case even after making it milder. I can only imagine how bad the original write up would have been. Some of the parts that need to be rewritten, along with my comments:
1. The first table in the article named "A snapshot of the numbers":
a) Why add a row for "What Tamilnadu demands" ? Why not also include what Karnataka demands other states' share should be. If they can demand 465 tmcft for themselves, they must have come up with some numbers for other states too. So, either add a new row "What Karnataka demands" or remove the row "What Tamilnadu demands".
b) Rename the row "What they demand" to something more specific, since those numbers are what each state wants for itself. 
It could be "What they demand as their share" or "What they demand for themselves" etc.
2. One piece of information that has not been considered (and which I'm unable to quickly gather...but will continue trying) is what percentage of the river basin is "cultivable" in both states. Karnataka may have 42% of the basin area, but a significant portion of the river in that state flows through the Western Ghats, a terrain which may not as cultivable as the fertile delta region in Tamil nadu. This information needs to be considered when assessing whether the apparent "unfairness" in the irrigated area is only due to Madras having the upper hand historically.  While the '07 verdict may have considered this statistic, this article needs to at least make a mention of it, to seem neutral.
As an illustration one can refer to the Krishna water sharing http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Lenin%20Babu%20et%20al.pdf. (As an aside, I just realized that most of this article has been taken over verbatim from this source, which is a paper written by a group of Kannadigas... no wonder the article shows the bias. Funny how that paper introduces the states in pages 7 and 8.. Karnataka apparently is the "economic power in south india" and TN is known "mainly for temples". What a bunch of jokers !!!). Anyway, if one looks at the Krishna water sharing, even though Karnataka has about 43.7% of the basin area, it has been awarded only 34% of the water. I think the missing link here is the share of real cultivable area. 
So, let's try and add that information to the current article. If statistics are hard to come by, we should acknowledge the possibility of the %age cultivable area being lesser in Karnataka and tone down the rhetoric on historical injustice.
3. In the section "Nineties and beyond" it says that the irrigated area in TN grew to 28 lakh acres. Please refer to the source reference [8] http://www.cicero.uio.no/humsec/papers/Lenin%20Babu%20et%20al.pdf. On page 9, it clearly mentions that the irrigated area in TN was 28 lakh acres by 1974, while Karnataka was 6.8 lakhs. So, between 1974 and the nineties Karnataka has almost doubled its irrigated area, while (if the number mentioned in the section is true) TN has not added anything. This section needs scrubbing.
4. In the section "Crisis of 95-96", I quote the following: 
"In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and Karnataka found itself hard pressed to fulfil the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC"
So, does the author know that the monsoon failed in TN too and that is why they were demanding their fair share. Or, are these too many words to mention, lest the reader lose his sympathy on Karnataka ???
I can go on more, I'm going to stop here and see how these comments are being addressed. I feel this article, as it stands now, needs the NPOV tag at the earliest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.177.4.123 (talk) 11:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  venkatesh's views 

message: If the Kaveri River dispute is not between two Dravidian civilizations (Tamils and Kannadigas), then who is it between, the Chinese and Japanese? Or is it between the Punjabis and Gujuratis? Your rash unsourced statement is confusing me.Wiki Raja 21:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of my statements are rash or unsourced. You cannot tag every south indian topic with dravidian civilization template. You did the same thing with your another template "dravidian topics" and that got deleted, with the community consensus. Now you have been tagging with this different template. I again repeat, this dispute has got absolutely nothing to with any civilization, let alone so called "dravidian civilization". - KNM  Talk 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then who is it between? Wiki Raja 21:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is explained well through out the article. - KNM  Talk 21:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article explains that it is between Tamils and Kannadigas. Wiki Raja 21:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, not just that. Please read the article again, completely. Also, let us stop doing original research. If you have a notable reference which clearly tells this dispute is related to any of the so called civilizations, please provide them. - KNM  Talk 21:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have read the whole article and all I see that it is between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Wiki Raja 22:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  It is between Karnataka and TN and Pondicherry and Kerala.  So?  Can you demonstrate how these states represent your cooked up 'Dravidian civilisations'??  Sarvagnya 01:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see that you dislike/ do not want to be associated with Dravidian Civilization. But it is believed that  Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Tulu etc are Dravidian languages and majority of the people in these states are Dravidian 
 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthorvey (talk • contribs) 16:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Dravidian civilization

message: "a) Why add a row for "What Tamilnadu demands" ? Why not also include what Karnataka demands other states' share should be. If they can demand 465 tmcft for themselves, they must have come up with some numbers for other states too. So, either add a new row "What Karnataka demands" or remove the row "What Tamilnadu demands".
b) Rename the row "What they demand" to something more specific, since those numbers are what each state wants for itself. It could be "What they demand as their share" or "What they demand for themselves" etc...."
:*'What they demand' is most definitely and obviously 'What they demand as their share' or 'What each state demands for itself'.  'They' very obviously(and as confirmed by the column headers) refers to the states party to the dispute.  
:* As for why there is a row dedicated to TN, well,  no other party in the dispute is pointing to any previous pattern of sharing and asking that everyone goes back to that.  TN on the other hand is/was insisting that everyone just go back to the 1974 1924 pattern of distribution and honour it.  The other states on the other hand are simply demanding what they think is their fair share and that is precisely what is represented in the 'What they demand' column.
2. One piece of information that has not been considered (and which I'm unable to quickly gather...but will continue trying) is what percentage of the river basin is "cultivable" in both states. Karnataka may have 42% of the basin area, but a significant portion of the river in that state flows through the Western Ghats, a terrain which may not as cultivable as the fertile delta region in Tamil nadu. This information needs to be considered when assessing whether the apparent "unfairness" in the irrigated area is only due to Madras having the upper hand historically. While the '07 verdict may have considered this statistic, this article needs to at least make a mention of it, to seem neutral.
:*If you have information about what you are talking about, please feel free to add it and quote a source.
:*And just as an aside, you assumption that the terrain in western ghats is not cultivable is absurd if not laughable.  I am not sure if you've been to the western ghats ever, but all kinds of cash crops are grown there.  I agree, the western ghats may not grow too much paddy, but it is home to coffee plantations, tea plantations, rubber plantations, spices etc.,.  The western ghats is home to some of the few biodiversity hotspots in the world.  I dont exactly remember reading anywhere that the parties to the dispute claimed that they'd only be growing paddy or sugarcane.  And ofcourse, there's something called terrace farming.
:*And again, this is the 21st century.  All agriculture need not be rain fed.  Agriculture is carried out in deserts also.  Most of the time, all that is needed is just water.  Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have cited all my sources and will be adding more citations and I dont think I have yet used this particular pdf as a citation anywhere yet.  Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *What a joke!  (First of all, may I know how you concluded that they were Kannadigas?)  If that were to go by such considerations, we wouldnt have any sources at all to write.  I have cited extensively from the Hindu.  Should I just disregard all that because Hindu is written by tamilians?!  Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *In any case, I havent reproduced those descriptions in the articles. Have I?? So what are you whining about?  Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Stop whining and add information if you have it.  And stop mixing issues.  Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please see WP:OR.  Sarvagnya 23:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *I have sources which say that in 1974, TN's area was 24 lakh acres and Karnataka's was less than 5 million.  The more articles you read, you will find that there is a slight discrepancy in the numbers.  So you cant just take one source and write the whole article.  Sarvagnya 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *  This is funny.  Karnataka was not 'hard pressed' to release water to TN because the rains failed in TN.  It was hard pressed because the rains failed in Karnataka!  And TN demanded water not because rains failed in TN, but because that was the interim order.  TN had the right to demand those waters even if TN had record rainfalls.  The failure of rainfalls in TN is irrelevant here and had nothing to do with Karnataka being 'hard pressed' to release waters. Sarvagnya 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *You can go on and on and on, but you are not making a very good case for having the npov tag. Sarvagnya 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Venkatesh 

message: The tag seems to have been added simply because a user thinks that there is one sentence that he thinks is OR.  The sentence in question is -- "...In other words, it was made clear once again that British (and hence Madras) interests came first and every effort would be made to safegaurd the same..."
He has also tagged this specific sentence as OR.  This itself is gratuitous and debatable.  However there is no way that the entire section can be deemed as OR based on just this one sentence.  In fact, the section is sourced.  So I will be removing the OR tag from the section.  Unless the user comes up with a better justification for tagging the entire section as OR, I will be removing it.  I will however, pending further discussion, retain the  tag that he's added to the sentence I've quoted above.  Sarvagnya 23:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is sourced? Could you tell me on which page the "other words" sentence is written in the reference? Praveen 14:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History section OR tag

message: A  tag has been added to the history section.  I've read and re-read the section and I dont see how this tag is justified.  Apart from the  tag that I've dealt in the previous section I dont see anything really wrong or debatable in this section.  All facts have been sourced.  I will remove this tag pending an explanation from the user justifying this tag.  Sarvagnya 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The story tag is there because the starting paragraphs are written in un-encyclopedia way. You think sentences  "the story goes long way" etc as normal? Praveen 14:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Rewrote the history as per the given reference. Removed repeated wiki-links. Added important portions of 1892 agreement Praveen 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <nowiki>{{story}} tag</nowiki>

message: I think its high time that the facts are disclosed in wiki.
There southern deccan has only one major river Kaveri and has to be shared between states.
Karnataka has to feed its population and also increase the land under irrigation.Its a pity that whole addition of all the dams in Karnataka represent a meagre percentage of dams in Tamil Nadu by just comparing their capacity.
source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_reservoirs_and_dams_in_India
Now the density of population of TN is 478 while Karnataka is 290.The population is less in Karnataka as compared to Tamil Nadu.Now in India, democracy says that if u have more population then give more water to them not only for meeting drinking water needs but also for incresing land under cultivation! a new prescriptive right extension and a tribunal of jokers to defend it with made up statistics. 
Tamil Nadu had Madras Presidency in its territory more under British control which was instrumental in shifting Tamils into Bangalore for jobs.Even now the number of people working in Karnataka under central government jobs like Railways is greater than Kannadigas.
Even the people working in dams of Karnataka are Tamils.
Tamil Nadu has always controlled the political will at the centre.Soon sanction of classical tag to Tamil,Kaveri tribunal's one sided verdict which restricts the capacity of reservoirs and land under irrigation in Karnataka favours the opposite in Tamil Nadu, and top positions at the centre has been due to agreement between two regional political parties DMK and AIADMK who buy votebanks alternatively and bait the centre.
In the neighbouring Karnataka there are no regional parties on other hand and have to look for centre for everything and hence there is no power just because it doesnt have lobbying leaders.
The land under irrigation in Kodagu,Mysore and Chamarajnagar is standstill without any improvement ,farmers commiting suicide at large scale in India.
Its highly a mockery that a state which gives out water is held back to use its own resources.
On the other hand Tamil Nadu grows two crops per year,has increased land under irrigation manyfolds,has surplus surface water in addition to ground water,has many reservoirs,amount of storage surpasses Karnataka's storage by large.
What has this done to Karnataka- Most people are selling farmlands and are converted to urban areas.
Agriculture is confined to a few areas all through the year.
Urbanisation is rapidly increasing and industrialisation is becoming high thus giving a dull imbalance and more crowding from other parts of the country.
There is a lot of agitations happening in Karantaka.Ambareesh has resigned from centre although belonging to ruling party.
All cabinet members staged a protest in the capital,Karnataka rakshana vedike met PM Manmohan Singh for justice.
Karnataka Bundh was called on Feb 23 which was complete and peaceful.
Kali-K 05:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One cannot gernalize a whole ethnic group. Your above statement is racist. Wiki Raja 10:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiki, please do not reply to the troll. Praveen 04:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That is a misinterpretation.I have great Tamil friends who never speak any other language but never hurt others also.I have only touched the politics of Tamils, nothing else.Its the worst thing to encounter in India.
Kali-K 03:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one still cannot generalize a whole population. If it is a selected group of individuals from a particular group then say so, otherwise it would be taken as a stereotypical statement. Also, what can one expect in India? It is like taking China, Japan, Korea, and Indonesia, making it one country. Then expecting each group within that country to get along. Do you get what I am saying? It is nothing new, especially in India where different ethnic groups or different groups speaking different languages would pretty much engage in groupisms. Wiki Raja 03:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats great .So you are for groupisms - that is very obvious .Thats what shows in Tamils.Thanks for being open.Thats what lacks in Tamil politics and statesmen. Its like guerilla warfare inside a single nation and the generalisation is not illogical it has facts to support.
* There are Tamils who don't speak anything except Tamil.They oppose centre but
* Still there are a lot in Central Government jobs and politicians at centre.
* Its well known that more than Kannadigas Tamils are working in central government jobs in Karnataka and it continues. Why - the system created for privileged.Bangalore has Kannada hater Tamil speakers -thanks to cantonment created for Madras presidency and Kannada ignore Hindi speakers - thanks to defence establishments all over city not giving an inch of road to the burgeoning traffic.
* They practice not only groupism but also racism - unable to speak or accept other languages ,they term them as dirty .Seen a lot of Tamils who hold this(Something common with Pakistani and the Taliban who have blindfold pride )
* Links with LTTE and Rajiv Gandhi assassination.
* Stronghold of Kaveri verdict from time of British.
* Opposing Hindi, Tamil gets classical status.Others just look on.why -just because of politics.(there are sufficient rock edicts of Kannada lying but no one cares till they become extinct)!
* One of the worst-Lalu removes other language boards from Trains except Tamil ,English,Hindi.
* IT industry - Northees and Tamils practice worst groupisms.I am sorry to say no other ethnic group does this - even though Kerala is known to have strong communist ideologies.
This is what boils from partition in a family to partition of a nation.I also advocate that we should follow a European model with a Central defence and control to states.But the factor of immorality from a neighbour is always to be suppressed.
On the other hand Karnataka has been weak in recent politics.It conceptualised a national pride which was never achievable with Tamils in south and Hindi in North- still it gasps .I dont know when the politics improve in Karnataka.
But still there is something more moral than Tamils is the relieving factor.
Its perfect for locals to administer their ethnic group but when scope is out of the land something more should prevail - SENSE.
If Karnataka takes a little harsh step and wants then not even a single drop of Kaveri will flow out and no one can question out with some Tamil blabbering.I would like to tell that whenever there is a competition Tamils use koota neethi much earlier than anyone else even if it is its own neighbour who has helped it or a enemy.Even if we leave politics in this case even the Tribunal which is supposed to be formed with intellectuals says about prescriptive rights as if Tamils have landed directly from heaven and Kannadigas are there to store and leave water. Also not to increase land under irrigation,2/3rds of Bangalore is out of Kaveri basin, not to clean any dams etc seems very iilogical even to a neutral expert.That makes a complete sweep of decisions.I don't know how this koota neethi will influence the ways adopted to tackle it and the decisions of neighbours , but I am sure if this continues TN will be responsible for peace instability in the peace loving South India which is the only mark of Indian culture which is depicted by the fact that a leader like Madegowda in Mandya is leading protests for 45 the day today still peacefully.
I am hopeful sooner or later this koota neethi of TN will be tamed.Kali-K 13:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tamil Nadu and Karnataka

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but has there been a good justification for the neutrality tag? In reading the article, it actually seems to be a fairly unbiased overview of the history of the issue, with both sides being covered. If it's justified, please state what actially is non-neutral about this article, otherwise I'm going to remove it. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 04:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality tag

message: The whole article reflects only one side of the dispute. Starting from the history of the dispute section, it references only the karnatka side, even ussage of names. Please refer to my earlier edits and the entries in discussion page. I am perfectly okay in removing the NPOV tage, if the article is renamed as "karnataka's stand point in kaveri water dispute", instead of having it "kaveri water dispute".
The validity of tamilnadu's claim to water, and its alignment towards internation water agreements have been comfortably neglected. Kindly go through the complete discussion page, to understand how this entry lacks neutrality.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjsnathan (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding NPOV tag again

message: This article suffers from heavy POV together with "data" without any citations. For e.g., the statistics table makes no references to reliable third party sources, especially for the rows "What They Demand" and "What Tamil Nadu Demands". Consider revising with replacing "They" with something more concrete, as well as giving references to support data. Gowdramesh (talk) 04:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not  candidate but . You were right on the wordings and I have tried to tweak it a bit, but I reckon it needs more revising. Feel free to change it if need be. Cheers Wiki San Roze †αLҝ 11:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heavy POV; needs cleanup and refs 

message: There's a "Mr. ??" in there, which looks sloppy. It needs replacing with a particular name or copyediting to not make reference to which judge is being referred to. –Donal Fellows (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2003-2006" cleanup 

message: These Discussions (brawls rather) are a clear exposition of what India really is. No wonder British ruled it for 200 years. In future some African or South American Country would rule India and these people would still be fighting and even approach it for settling the Kaveri River Water Dispute  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satvistayou (talk • contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everything we Stand for 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources.  Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  GermanJoe (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed