Misplaced Pages

Talk:Kaveri: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:16, 20 September 2006 editLeotolstoy (talk | contribs)728 edits →Please make water sharing section nuetral← Previous edit Latest revision as of 01:10, 28 December 2024 edit undoGnomingstuff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers48,706 edits rv 2022 test edit 
(90 intermediate revisions by 53 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{River|Mapneeded=yes}}
{{WikiProject India|importance=high|tamilnadu=yes|tamilnadu-importance=high|karnataka=yes|karnataka-importance=high|history=yes|history-importance=low|geography=yes|geography-importance=high}}
== Alternate Spelling of Kaveri ==
{{WikiProject Rivers|importance=mid|Mapneeded=yes}}
}}
{{afd-merged-from|Kaveri Crater|Kaveri Crater|7 January 2022}}


==Karnataka to Tamil Nadu or Tamil Nadu to Karnataka? ==
Kareri is also spelt Kavery, as can be seen from numerous google hits. Mentioning the alternate spellings helps users who are using keyword searches. It also helps Wiki editors in understanding redirect pages. For these reasons, I am restoring the alternate spelling. --] 13:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
In the section 'Kaveri in Tamil Nadu and 'Kaveri in Tamil Nadu' it is stated that Kaveri enters Tamil Nadu from Karnataka at Hogenakkal. I dispute this statement. I have reason to believe that it is the other way around according to this . <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


I have removed this entry:
Also, the title of article is Kaveri, so that name should appear first, not Cauvery. --] 13:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
<blockquote>The great ] marks the exit of kaveri from karnataka.</blockquote>.
Please let me know if it is ok.--] (]) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


:The boundary shown on Google Maps is inaccurate and the area has been disputed by both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the past. As of now, the river itself is considered to be the border between the states between Billigundlu and Stanley Reservoir. ] (]) 07:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
== Krishnaraja Sagara or Krishna Raja Sagara ==


Technically speaking the river enters Tamilnadu at Kongangundu near Palar,where it completely enters Tamilnadu
The existing article is to ], not to ''Krishnaraja Sagara''. Changing the links to ''Krishnaraja Sagara'' broke them. An alternative solution would be to change the links ''and'' change the article to which they point. However, in this case, I think that would be incorrect. The dam is commonly known as the KRS dam, implying a three word name. For these reasons, I am restoring the links to ]. --] 14:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


I doubt that because It's clear that Kavery starts from Brahmagiri Hills which is in Karnataka and serves as boundary between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. ] (]) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
==Dam Induced Drought(photograph)==
There is a photo which accompanies "Significance of Kaveri in TN". It is captioned, "Kaveri river bed at Tiruchirapalli, after years of dam-induced drought"


== Etymology ==
Can someone explain what that caption means. Which dam induced what drought? The landscape looks quite green for one that has suffered 'years of drought'. What is that photograph supposed to convey and how does it even fit into this article. Or I shall remove the photograph.] 22:18, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


In Tamil, The river Kaaviri (Kaa+Viri) means spreading support. Do not ask for reference. . <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: 2003 monsoon was unusually dry and there was drought in TN. Blame was placed by some on the KSR dam. However, there was very little water behind the dam. Ground was exposed which was usually under 5 - 10 meters (my guess) of water. --] 20:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::*"Blame was placed by 'some' on KRS(not KSR) dam".. So?? So what?? Tamil Nadu irrigates three times more land using Kaveri than Karnataka and seldom has tanjavur run dry when KRS was full. So stop throwing in subtle hints for your POV. ] 04:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


==Proposed rename==
:I support that the photograph be removed. It is not related to any of the content in the article and the caption is uniformative ] 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
:''The following discussion is an archived discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. ''


The result of the move request was: '''page moved'''. ] (]) 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Those opposing to pic can build a consensus.There is no problem inculding that pic in this article.]


----
The question of why that pic needs to be included, hasnt been answered yet. Neither has it been answered on the talk page nor does the article speak '''even a word''' in the context of having the picture there. BostonMA has said something about year 2003 and 'some' people blaming a dam that doesnt even exist. As for Mahawiki, even though he has nothing to say here, has just decided to vote for keeping the pic. Unfortunately, WP is not a democracy in the strictest sense of the word. Or else, we would have a situation where whichever POV got more votes would make it to the article. Fortunately WP is about NPOV. Whoever wants to have the pic there, ought to spell out the reasons for having it there or the article should make the reason clear. So stop reverting. ] 07:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Why shouldnt that pic be on this article?Provide this answer.Until that pic has to be here.] 07:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:First of all, it is not for me to explain why it should NOT be there. It is for whoever who wrote the article to explain why it is there. Even though BostonMA has given some weak explanation based on hearsay, the article does not explain anything. Even if we were to accept BostonMA's explanation, how does it become 'years of dam-induced drought'??!! just one year 2003 doesnt become 'years of ...' as the caption says. also, dont forget that neither BostonMA or any other editor has bothered to explain it on the talk page or on the article page.
:Also as for why the onus is not upon me to explain why it should not be there, let me give u an example(you can call it outrageous if you want). I will put a photograph of Kittur Rani Chennamma on Shivaji's page without any explanations. Then I will say you have to explain to me why it should be removed!! How would that look?? ]
:If u r assertive of 'removing this pic' u need to explain.Change the caption if u feel so.The inclusion of that pic might explain the controversy of Kaveri waters in a profound way.TN has problems with K'taka about release of Kaveri waters,so perhaps the editor who included wanted to emphasize that 'thew controversy leaded to draught'(may be of a year or so)/
:What is Kittu Chneamma?Is that the same Banglorean lady who's reference is included in ]? ] 07:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::For starters, Kittur Rani Chennamma is from Belagavi not Bangalore. Just shows how little you know about Belagavi though you keep fighting to edit it. She is probably the first woman freedom fighter of India. She fought the British before Jhansi Rani was probably even born. You need to read up on history first before talking/arguing about it.
::And whatever explanations the creator of the article may have for the inclusion of the pic, he has to explain it in the talk page atleast if not the article page. Why are you talking for him? Are you his spokesman? If you have anything to say in support of having the pic there, say it. Stop speculation for or on someone else's behalf. ] 08:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


] → {{no redirect|1=Kaveri}} – per ]. A move discussion was already initiated on the talk on 2 May, however the Requested move tag was not added. --] <sup> ] </sup> 18:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Whats Belgavi?Anyways if u refer to ],I think we are more concerned of Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj than anybody else.And I would request u to stop making comments like 'Kannada is older than Marathi', 'our Amma fought Britishers first than ur Jhansi Rani Laxmibai' etc. because whole nation knows how great Jhansi queen Laxmibai was,whereas very few even know about Kittur queen.This is not to show disrespect to her but just wanna say that Belgaonkars are indifferent to 'ur' freedom fighters and actors which u promote like brand-ambassadors of Karnataka.If that queen has any statue in Belgaon,then plz add it there but whats the need of mention of Bangalore's statue?
:Thanks for ur advice,but I think Tamil Nadu has a POV reagarding this and we must include that also.Rather than singing 'see how our Karnataka is suffering bcoz of TN..' lets have a NPOV here.The pic shows the draught situation which happened because of controversy.You are free to add any Karnataka pics.] 10:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::If Tamil Nadu has a POV about the matter(not even clear about which matter u r talking), then some editor should first write what that POV is. I dont see any explanation. Do you? ] 17:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::We should use reputable sources. If a reputable source says that low water levels in Tamil Nadu were due to damming, then it should be reported. If it is just opinion, then that is original research, and even if true, should not be voiced as fact in Misplaced Pages. --] 17:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::I dont see any sources being mentioned here much less a 'reputable' source. And to say that in a drought year when the KRS dam itself is dry, that places downstream are dry because of the dam upstream is a classic example of POV if there ever was one. ] 19:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::::::Hi Mahawiki, I mean no offense to anyone, but I believe the caption on the picture is at best questionable. Even if there are reputable sources that say that the water shortage was caused by damming, it is an open question of whether that particular river-bed is dry as a result of damming, or even if that riverbed is representative of the Kaveri in that area. That could have been a spot that only fills when the water is very high anyway. Just my thoughts. --] 16:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


This is a proposal to rename this article from “Kaveri River” to “Kaveri”. This would be in parallel with the usage for the two great rivers of India - ], ]. The naming convention at ] says ''River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage. ''
==Karikalan==


Addition of the term 'river' for disambiguation is not necessary or appropriate, as the river is the primary use of this name.
''Irrigation works have been constructed in the delta for over 2000 years. The most ancient surviving irrigation work is the ] or ''Kallanai'', a massive dam of unhewn stone, 328 meters (1080 feet) long and 20 meters (60 feet) wide, across the stream of the Kaveri proper. It is attributed to the ] king ], and is supposed to date back to the ]. The dam is still in excellent repair, and supplied a model to later engineers.''


The obligatory reference to google hits – searches produced the following for me on 2 May 2011;
] was no real king. He exists merely in some ] poetry and in the vivid imaginations of some peope. It is unencyclopaedic to attribute a real dam to an imaginary king or soldier or servant or whatever. Also can you cite some sources(other than some fuzzy allusions in some poetry) to say that the 'dam' was built in 2nd century. Just curious, is there any dam anywhere in the world which has stood for nearly 2000 years? Or is this one built by an imaginary guy the only exception? -Sarvagnya.


*Kaveri – 7,750,000 (this of course also includes all other uses of the name)
::Although the consensus amongst historians (such as Prof. K.A.N. Sastri) is that ] was a real king, supported by many literary and epigraphic (albeit from later Cholas), there is no evidence for his alleged building the Grand Anicut. It is indeed unsustainable to claim so. - ] 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
*“Kaveri River” - 124,000
:::If Karikala was a real king supported by epigraphic evidence why does ] say,
*“River Kaveri” - 33,000
::::''"The story of Karikala is mixed with legend and anecdotal information gleaned from Sangam Literature. Karikala has left us no authentic records of his reign. The only sources available to us are the numerous mentions in Sangam poetry. The period covered by the extant literature of the Sangam is unfortunately not easy to determine with any measure of certainty."''
*Cauvery – 840,000
:::Clearly, atleast from that article, there is no epigraphic evidence of he being a real king. If literary evidence is enough to establish historicity, everyone from the Ramayana and Mahabharata would have to be considered real people. ] 07:31, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*“Cauvery River” - 74,000
*“River Cauvery” - 130,000


For comparison, some of the other uses of the name;
::What do u mean?Krishna or Rama are not real people?Than how come Kannadi kavi pampa or Rashtrakutas are real people according to u?Plz dont hurt others sentiments.All Kannadi mythological texts and people are real and others are not?This is what counts to Kannadi vandalism.] 07:35, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*”Kaveri engine” – 490,000
:::Yes. Krishna and Rama are not real people. Atleast on WP, they cannot be considered real people. As for Pampa and Rashtrakutas etc., there is epigraphic and other evidence to establish their historicity. But for Rama, Krishna and Karikala(going by the Karikala article on WP), the only reference to them is in literature. References in some literary work alone imo cannot be used to establish historicity. Correct me if I am wrong. If Rama and Krishna were real people, we would have to include them in the history of Indian Kings(Rama ruled Ayodhya and Krishna ruled Dwaraka) and Indian history in general. But we do not. Hope this clears things for you. ] 08:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
*”Kaveri Restaurant” – 730,000


The additional google hits for Kaveri River over River Kaveri compared with those for the name Cauvery are probably explained by the presence of the Misplaced Pages article under its present name for the past 8 or 9 years.
::Speculations about Krishna and Rama not being real are insulting to our religion. I would advise Sarvagnya to check out the articles on WP - ] and ]. As for Pamapa and Rashtrakuta, even if their is evidence etc. it doesn't mean that they were Rashtrakutas or Pamapa. It may be myth. Please look before you leap. --] 09:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:::If you think I have insulted you or your religion, I encourage and exhort you to go and file your complaint with any authority on Misplaced Pages(even Jimbo Wales if you want) or even outside Misplaced Pages. ] 17:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


The usage in practice is often just Kaveri. Among the texts included in the references, this can be seen at . In most of the other live websites apart from the first one (the waterfalls database, an US based website), the usage is either River Cauvery/Kaveri, or mixed. While the website largely uses the form 'Cauvery River', all of the news links from its page at use “River Kaveri/Cauvery” or just “Kaveri/Cauvery”.
::Forget about these speculations!If Rama or Krishna were Kannadis,Sarvagnya would had considered as real person.:))No offence meant!!] 10:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
::For "starters", the very frst sentence of Rama's article is '''...was a king of ancient India whose grand story is portrayed in the epic Ramayana, one of the two great epics (mahakavya) of India...'''


The reasoning for this renaming would also of course apply to many other Indian rivers; e.g. Narmada; Godavari; Tungabhadra among the major ones, where the primary name is that of the river.
Any comments?And any evidences,if that Kittur Amma existed in real?] 10:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Its clear that you know neither about history nor mythology nor the distinction between the two. Rama and Krishna are mythological characters. Kittur Chennamma, Pampa and Rashtrakutas are historical entities. Historians have '''proved''' their existence in history. Rama and Krishna's lives havent been '''proved''' unless you and your pals have come up with your own ground breaking evidences. ] 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


] (]) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Dear friend,
Rama and Krishna are real but I doubt are u for real?
Do u know Dwarka, Mathura, Ayodhya, Dandakaranya?All these places are real.Do know that recently NASA decipehered the 'Palk Strait' and Setu described in 'Ramayana'.
Are all non-Kannadi figures non-existent!!!] 17:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:Ok. If Rama and Krishna are real, go and add them in the list of Indian monarchs so that they show up


*'''Comment:''' Isn't Kaveri also a name? Though I do note that the ] redirects here therefore, other things being equal, I support the move. --] <small>(])</small> 19:06, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
==Segregation of facts and religious/mythological connotations==
I feel that this article needs a major cleanup. It is anything but encyclopedic in nature. I believe we need to segregate the religious references into a separate section. Can I shift the mythological origins into a subheading under religious references? ] 07:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
==Kabini/kapila==
Kabini and kapila river are the same] (]) 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


** Yes, Kaveri is used as a name, (as are some other river names); but the primary use is the river. ] (]) 19:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
== Tamil transliteration ==
*'''Strong Support:''' I support the move to Kaveri as the page Kaveri redirects here. <span style="white-space:nowrap;">&mdash;] <sup>]</sup></span> 02:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


* '''Support'' per ]. Added Requested move. --] <sup> ] </sup> 18:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me the need for having the tamil transliteration here. First of all, let me point out that I wasnt the one to add the transliterations. Somebody had already done it. I looked at articles of few other rivers and didnt find any transliterations. But since it was included here, I thought it would be fair to only retain the Kannada transliteration as the Kaveri originates in Karnataka. ] 07:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Per ]. '''] •]''' 14:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom -->


== Location ==
Since the Kaveri river is a controversial issue among two states,imho, the Tamil translation should also be included.] 10:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Over here, the location is mentioned as karnataka. However, major parts of the river are in Tamil Nadu. ] (]) 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Stop mixing issues. The dispute has nothing to do with this article. And the dispute does not even concern whether Kaveri takes birth in Karnataka or in Tamil Nadu. Everybody agrees that Kaveri takes birth in Talakavery in Kodagu district of Karnataka. Stop trying to mislead people not familiar with the issue. ] 16:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:{{ping|Diamond hazel}} could you be more specific, please, on which paragraph you are referring to? ] (]) 19:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
:Let me not go into the touchy issue of the Cauvery dispute. That's immaterial to this discussion. But, a significant length of Cauvery runs through Tamil Nadu. The whole of it is the river, isn't it? Then it would be correct to include Tamil transliteration as well, IMO. See ] for example. -- ] <sup>\] \]</sup> 06:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
:@Diamond hazel, I think you are refering to the infobox, thats the only place where word location is given. The source location is Karnataka, and the mouth is in Tamil Nadu. Both of them are mentioned.] (]) 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


== article needs sourcing == == 2017 drought ==


There was a lot of talk in the spring and summer of 2017 about the drought in Tamil Nadu and the problems caused in the river Kaveri basin, with possible catastrophic consequences. See for example Channel News Asia (CSA) from July <ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/as-a-river-dies-india-could-be-facing-its-greatest-human-9060070</ref>. I hope someone who knows more about this can edit the article properly.
Per Misplaced Pages policy ], this article is to be encyclopedic and facts must be verified by citations to reliable, unbiased third-party sources. One means of dealing with this problem is to remove all material in the article that is not referenced. That would help solve any claims of NPOV and is what Misplaced Pages requires anyhow. ]] 12:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
] (]) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


The articles have enough citations, so it is not fair to keep the "tag" there. what do you think abt removing it.? (] (]) 13:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC))
:]. I am not sure that every statement needs an inline source, or it should be deleted. Do we need to have an inline reference to a third party source to verify that Paris is in France? The course of the river is easily seen from maps. Sould we place a reference to a map on each line describing the course? Would it be original research to describe the areas through with the river passes? Please clarify your position. Sincerely --] 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


{{reflist-talk}}
::I agree with Mattisse that the article needs sourcing. I also agree with Boston MA that most of it is 'common knowledge' but some things like Karikalan, the claims about the antiquity of the dam etc., needs referencing. ] 17:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


== Reference needed for earliest Sankethi source for Etymology ==
:::Agreed --] 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


There is documented usage of Kaviri way before Sankethi (only 1087CE as said) if any ] (]) 04:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
:::I agree that common sense should prevail. Of course you don't have to source obvious things, India is a country in the world, etc. An article that is often referred to as a model for citations is ] because the topic is controversial. The only way any material can last in that article is if it is sourced. Misplaced Pages's currrent policy is that any editor can remove unsourced material at will, so sourcing it is a way of protecting the information you put in. ] is Misplaced Pages's one absolute policy that has to be followed. ]] 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


"... காவிரி வாயிலில்", மணிமேகலை 22:43 around 2-3rd century CE ] (]) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
== NPOV tag ==


"காவிரிப்பூம்பட்டினத்துக் காரிகண்ணனார்...", அகநானூறு 107. ] (]) 15:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Whoever added the npov tag, please explain why you added it? There is no issue of POV in this article yet. ] 17:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

== Water sharing==
Is there any problem with the line below. I am discussing this before adding this in the article. Please tell YES or NO and reasons for that. No personal attacks please.

Kaveri water sharing has been a major issue of contention between the two states. A central government agency has been formed to look into this issue. As per the Tribunal's interim report, Tamil Nadu should be given <s>210</s>205 TMC. But the state has not got that amount in the past years, inspite of the fact that the other state has been utilising more than twice the amount <ref>http://waterresources.kar.nic.in/irri_in_kar.htm</ref>

<font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 18:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

NO.Include the names of states "which has been utilising more than twice the amount".There's no need of 'asking' as u have citation ready.] 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

:No. Dont add those lines. <s> First of all 210 is factually incorrect. It should be 205 TMC.</s> Also saying that TN has not got 205 TMC in tha past years is blatantly false. TN has infact got '''more than the stipulated 205 tmc''' every year since the interim order till now, except in the drought years of 95-96, 98, 2002 when the shortfall was merely in the range of 10-20%.
:Also about your citation, where does it mention in your citation that other states(I presume you mean Karnataka) used/uses more than twice the amount that TN uses?? ] 19:08, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:: Here dear, here... http://waterresources.kar.nic.in/irri_in_kar.htm.. It say Karnataka (alone) uses 425. Stipulated for Tamil Nadu is 210. SO I can add that now. The reference is the Government Website. It is authenticated
::: This webpage gives total potential, not the amount being used. Total available is 400+, and if you leave 205 to TN, usage is much below 200. So in effect Karnataka has been restrained to use less than 50% of the water. My answer is NO ] 13:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC).
:::This is what I meant by ridiculous interpretation of facts. Some people either dont know the difference between 'potential' and 'usage' or dont ''want'' to understand it. Ignorance probably suits their convenience.
:::Just see how he contradicts himself. In one place he says Karnataka is using 332 TMC or something. In other place he says Karnataka is using more than twice what TN is getting(ie more than twice 205 TMC). If I learnt my Math well, 205x2=410. and 332<<410!! Anyway, some people seem to be experts in everything, history, maths and moreover they have support from some experts who are experts in every conceivable field!! ] 17:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

:: Can you give citations for the fact that Tamil Nadu has got more than 205 TMC.
:::*'''I can give you not one, but dozens of citations. For now, here's one, dear -->http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/aug/12flip.htm . I only hope your extraordinary knowledge of arithmetic doesnt come in the way!''' ] 17:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
::::From the same site - ''Tamil Nadu didn't receive enough water in the crucial months of June, July, and August.'' Please note that the interim order specifies a criteria for uniform flow and not opening the fllod gates during rains (leading to wastage of water as it flows into the sea) and not giving anything at all during the needy times. Also this is not a site for debate. There is no use in arguing over here. Let us close the debate here. If another article comes up. We can add facts there and till then let Cauvery run in peace (at least let it run and not crawl) <font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 01:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)



:::::* Aahh!! You could write a book about how to quote selectively to suit your convenience! Let me quote the complete sentence. This is what the article says!!
:::::*'''''Some may say Tamil Nadu didn't receive enough water in the crucial months of June, July, and August. However the Cauvery tribunal didn't take this argument very seriously when it gave a clarification of its order in December 1995.'''''

:::::*To anybody who can understand english, it is clear that - '''even though''' some may say that TN didnt get water in the crucial months, '''the competent authority''' ie., the tribunal, did not agree with that opinion!! so who are you trying to kid?! ] 01:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)



:Also refrain from going into the details of the dispute in this article. I have created a seperate article for the dispute and have given all the details there. However that article is not yet complete and I will try to complete it as soon as possible. Of course this article needs to mention that there is a dispute and it has already been mentioned. ] 19:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
:: SInce there is NO article, at present, we have to mention in detail here. <font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 22:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well there's a wonderful article created by a user about Kaveri dispute.But sadly that article talks about 'how a state is been opressed by another' and doent have NPOV.
Regardless of that few details about Kaveri dispute should find place here.Its safe to ignore the tall claims made by users here without any citations.
Well done,Doctor!
] 05:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

==References added==
I have addeed adequately cited points in the main article. The 210 TMC was a mistake. It is just 205. But it is truth that Karnataka has not given that over the years and also hat It has used more than twice the amount for itself in contrary to the Supreme Court and other authorities.

If you have any points, please add those
If you are against a fact/sentence/phrase, please discuss here and let us try for an consensus

Don't delete the points given with reference without a discussion here. <font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

If needed, we can give reference from other sources also. <font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 23:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Cite as much as u can.Because few users are not contented by 1-2 ciations.To be on safer side cite all of them.What r ur views on the pic which was questioned by few of editors here?(of draught condition in TN?)] 05:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

== Please make water sharing section neutral ==

I know this is a emotional issue. But please keep this article fit for a encyclopedia.] 13:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
: That means it should be ] <font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 01:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
:: And relevant ] 03:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Not only is the content unfit for an encyclopaedia, but the language also. The less said about the content the better. It is full of ridiculously interpreted facts and moreover keeps harping about the happenings of 2002. Tries to pass off a citation from 98 or 02 for the 91 happenings. Poor. Since I am writing a whole article about the dispute I am not sure I should be wasting my time here fighting misrepresentation of facts. ] 16:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thats good Sarvagnya. Try to find more information about how the conflict started. Especially the reaty between mysore kingdom and madras state (British). ] 16:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Leo, I have all the information and have almost finished writing the article. I need to still add information from 2002-2006 and then I will add the references and citations. ] 17:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

==Please stop fighting over here==
I would like all of us to stop arguing over the merits and demerits of one state getting more (or not) at this talk page. There are other sites. Just give the links and write the story. Try to collect date and Please mention
# How much should have be given as per Interim Order - 205 TMC
# When it should be given (how much every week, every month etc) If you have articles to show that it should be uniform, please cite that. If you have citations for the other cite, please tell that also
# How was it given. If you have articles to show that it was given as per judgement, please cite those facts. if you have citations that it was not given, please cite those
Don't mention your own points about
# Whether it should be given more
# Whether it should be given less
Misplaced Pages is not River Authority to decide about the merits and demerits of who should get more and how much!!!! <font style="background:black" color="gold">]</font><font style="background:gold" color="black">]</font> 01:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

::And where have I mentioned "Whether it should be given more... given less" etc?? It is '''you''' who has been talking without facts and figures and saying things like karnataka is using twice the amount of water tamilnadu is using blah blah.
::Let us take your own figures, In 72, TN=489, K=177, so total =666. Out of 666, now '''according to your own citation''' K=312. therefore, it stands to reason that TN=666-312=354. So, K=312, TN=354. now dont tell me that K is giving TN only 205 so how TN can be using 354?!!... K is giving TN 205(infact more than 205 most of the times as my link shows)from the SW monsoon it gets, remaining TN is getting from the S-W and N-E monsoon that falls over TN. ] 02:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
::Basically, I'll tell you something. You need to do your research and homework before you argue about something. Let this article live in peace and let me finish the article I am writing about the dispute. ] 02:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:10, 28 December 2024

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconIndia: Karnataka / Tamil Nadu / Geography / History High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian geography workgroup (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian history workgroup (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject iconRivers Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article needs a map.
Kaveri Crater was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 7 January 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Kaveri. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Karnataka to Tamil Nadu or Tamil Nadu to Karnataka?

In the section 'Kaveri in Tamil Nadu and 'Kaveri in Tamil Nadu' it is stated that Kaveri enters Tamil Nadu from Karnataka at Hogenakkal. I dispute this statement. I have reason to believe that it is the other way around according to this Hogenakkal Map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gthorvey (talk • contribs) 21:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this entry:

The great Hogenakal Falls marks the exit of kaveri from karnataka.

.

Please let me know if it is ok.--Gthorvey (talk) 21:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

The boundary shown on Google Maps is inaccurate and the area has been disputed by both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the past. As of now, the river itself is considered to be the border between the states between Billigundlu and Stanley Reservoir. SBC-YPR (talk) 07:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Technically speaking the river enters Tamilnadu at Kongangundu near Palar,where it completely enters Tamilnadu

I doubt that because It's clear that Kavery starts from Brahmagiri Hills which is in Karnataka and serves as boundary between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. Althaïr Ibn La Ahad (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Etymology

In Tamil, The river Kaaviri (Kaa+Viri) means spreading support. Do not ask for reference. "Kaa" means Support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malarmisai (talk • contribs) 09:29, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rename

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


Kaveri River → Kaveri – per WP:PRIMARYMEANING. A move discussion was already initiated on the talk on 2 May, however the Requested move tag was not added. --Redtigerxyz 18:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This is a proposal to rename this article from “Kaveri River” to “Kaveri”. This would be in parallel with the usage for the two great rivers of India - Ganges, Yamuna. The naming convention at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Rivers#Naming says River articles may be named "X", "X River", or "River X", depending on location and most common usage.

Addition of the term 'river' for disambiguation is not necessary or appropriate, as the river is the primary use of this name.

The obligatory reference to google hits – searches produced the following for me on 2 May 2011;

  • Kaveri – 7,750,000 (this of course also includes all other uses of the name)
  • “Kaveri River” - 124,000
  • “River Kaveri” - 33,000
  • Cauvery – 840,000
  • “Cauvery River” - 74,000
  • “River Cauvery” - 130,000

For comparison, some of the other uses of the name;

  • ”Kaveri engine” – 490,000
  • ”Kaveri Restaurant” – 730,000

The additional google hits for Kaveri River over River Kaveri compared with those for the name Cauvery are probably explained by the presence of the Misplaced Pages article under its present name for the past 8 or 9 years.

The usage in practice is often just Kaveri. Among the texts included in the references, this can be seen at . In most of the other live websites apart from the first one (the waterfalls database, an US based website), the usage is either River Cauvery/Kaveri, or mixed. While the website largely uses the form 'Cauvery River', all of the news links from its page at use “River Kaveri/Cauvery” or just “Kaveri/Cauvery”.

The reasoning for this renaming would also of course apply to many other Indian rivers; e.g. Narmada; Godavari; Tungabhadra among the major ones, where the primary name is that of the river.

Imc (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Location

Over here, the location is mentioned as karnataka. However, major parts of the river are in Tamil Nadu. Diamond hazel (talk) 16:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Diamond hazel: could you be more specific, please, on which paragraph you are referring to? MikeLynch (talk) 19:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
@Diamond hazel, I think you are refering to the infobox, thats the only place where word location is given. The source location is Karnataka, and the mouth is in Tamil Nadu. Both of them are mentioned.Jonathanarpith (talk) 19:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

2017 drought

There was a lot of talk in the spring and summer of 2017 about the drought in Tamil Nadu and the problems caused in the river Kaveri basin, with possible catastrophic consequences. See for example Channel News Asia (CSA) from July . I hope someone who knows more about this can edit the article properly. Drnoam (talk) 13:30, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The articles have enough citations, so it is not fair to keep the "tag" there. what do you think abt removing it.? (42.109.164.54 (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC))

References

  1. http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/cnainsider/as-a-river-dies-india-could-be-facing-its-greatest-human-9060070

Reference needed for earliest Sankethi source for Etymology

There is documented usage of Kaviri way before Sankethi (only 1087CE as said) if any Senthilkumaras (talk) 04:07, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"... காவிரி வாயிலில்", மணிமேகலை 22:43 around 2-3rd century CE Senthilkumaras (talk) 04:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

"காவிரிப்பூம்பட்டினத்துக் காரிகண்ணனார்...", அகநானூறு 107. Senthilkumaras (talk) 15:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Kaveri: Difference between revisions Add topic