This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Auroville article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
'Auroville complained to the BBC that the report was biased, untrue and contravened BBC editorial guidelines. The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold any of the complaints. Police officers of the Tamil Nadu government visited Auroville and surrounding area to check the truth of BBC allegations and found it false' How can this part take place in it without any references? Is this what You call neutral point of view? Victorcsiky ( talk) 16:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
from the content...
‘The Auroville land is owned by no-one in particular and is held by the Government of India and the Sri Aurobindo Society’.
GOI’s role is understandable. But how SAS??????
I 've myself edited the content as a follow up to my earlier question.
I find it suprizing to read that he city was named after the French name "Aurore". I would think it was mainly referring to Sri Aurobindo, the reference to "city of Dawn" being some convenient side-effect. I coudn't find any evidence of this, even on Auroville official web site. Does anywone know for sure, is there any written source? Patch051 ( talk) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the structures in this city very similar to the ones in Anarchosyndicalism? helohe (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to add coordinates properly so i'll just post them here so that someone else can add them.
12° 0'8.80"N, 79°48'53.76"E
I'm sorry, but could someone explain how the Quit Note system works? The article seems to claim that Auroville is "achieving world peace, international understanding, and the unity of mankind" through asking foreigners to leave..?-- TurabianNights 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Turabian. A "quit notice" is issued by Indian immigration to any non-Indian who has violated some Indian law or has misbehaved. In Auroville this has occurred, but upon explanation by the incriminated parties, the notices were cancelled and only two foreign members of Auroville have actually had to leave India over Auroville's 38 year history.
The person writing about "quit notes" is attempting to defame Auroville with lies. Really, too bad.
Aurodon, a resident of Auroville
I am highly wary of deleting all criticism entirely, particularly as it related to free speech. Can we reach a consensus to include both the praise and the criticism? Otherwise I'm afraid the NPOV notice will have to stay.-- TurabianNights 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Avnet has been created when the Aurovilians have decided to censor themselves in the News, knowing that what they wrote in them was viewed by people everywhere in India and could be used against AV and some of its members; they have decided also to self-censor in their Resident Assembly and general meetings, for the same reasons (what people said there was immediately reported to Delhi and to any other place around AV); there only remained Avnet for those who wanted to discuss freely about what they wanted. I also feel that there should be a place where people should be able to say – but they should also learn to say things in a more acceptable way, after all human beings have a sensitivity – what they feel is the truth without being accused of being racist or defamatory. It seems that this safe place does not exist anymore. It is either the court case or the quit notice.
Why don't we move all the text about what Auroville "should be" or "is supposed to be" to a separate section (e.g."Auroville's ideals"), and leave the facts about what Auroville IS nowadays?
The current version sounds like a propaganda, I am sorry to say that. Babujee 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How about leaving subjective opinions about Auroville out of the main article, and create another article called "Auroville: Views and Opinions" or something? That could be a place for people to praise/vent & discuss it in general.
Agree with above. The Criticism section seems to be an invention by someone with a grievance and should instead be labeled opinion. It's easily debunked and its inclusion makes the entire article suspect.
Paragraph 1 - There is no censorship. Historically and to the present, residents can and have done harm to Auroville by publicizing their opinions, unilaterally bringing in outside agencies, or involving third parties. The outreach group's purpose is other than stated in the "criticism" section and it has no enforcement ability. When a visitor suggested that they try to regulate and facilitate media contact and to screen media content for accuracy like any other institution in the world, he was told that "[Auroville residents]would not agree to it." The nefarious and censored "News & Notes" is in reality a xeroxed event schedule. There are additionally at least 30-40 regular publications with the "Auroville" imprint. There is no overseeing authority as to what can be published.
Paragraph 2 is patently false. Not one assertion is true.
Paragraph 3 is speculation bordering on the conspiratorial. High crime rate? Compared to what - the local Tamil Nadu area? Percapita; by number or severity of crimes committed, it's Impossible.
"Auroville is supposed to adhere to a life free of violence, for the sake of world peace, international understanding, and the unity of mankind." Author speculation not Auroville policy. Not a coherent statement.
"This unity has so far been achieved by the GOI's issuing Quit India Notes to all non-Indian Aurovilians who are in disagreements with the Indian members of Auroville."
Pure speculation as to motive of GOI.
80% of foreign Aurovilians who have been in Auroville for over 5 years have received Quit Notes.
A potentially verifiable statistic. No citation.
"This forms part of the Government of India's strategy according to which all foreigners have to quit India after they created any immovable property in Auroville that can be transferred to the Indian Aurovilians free of cost."
Does this author claim to know the motives of the Government?
~Earlgray
Earlgray 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
See a recent message published on AVNet by Turiya (a former member of the Auroville Council who resigned due to the threats of getting a Quit Notice): I believe that Avnet has been created when the Aurovilians have decided to censor themselves in the News, knowing that what they wrote in them was viewed by people everywhere in India and could be used against AV and some of its members; they have decided also to self-censor in their Resident Assembly and general meetings, for the same reasons (what people said there was immediately reported to Delhi and to any other place around AV); there only remained Avnet for those who wanted to discuss freely about what they wanted. I also feel that there should be a place where people should be able to say – but they should also learn to say things in a more acceptable way, after all human beings have a sensitivity – what they feel is the truth without being accused of being racist or defamatory. It seems that this safe place does not exist anymore. It is either the court case or the quit notice. Venkat av 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is not possible to prove a negative, ie: there is no censorship in Auroville, I won't waste any time trying. The oness must lie with the person who asserts something to show some evidence of its existence. In the case of censorship, that should be easy. One example would prove its existence. If it is in fact the policy of the organization, then the evidence should be abundant.
Re-posting falsehood without any proof is exactly the same as posting it originally. Accountability lies with the person posting the information and claiming it as fact. Verify your assertions. ~Earlgray
I have corrected the Population and Society section which mis-dentified the number of journals available in Auroville and also misrepresented the policy of the Outreach Group. However now that the information is correct it no longer seems relevant to the section. Rather than delete it which might cause someone to revert to the incorrect information, I will move it to a new section. Earlgray 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Heres a suggestion for getting a more neutral POV. There are many emotionally charged words and sentences scattered throughout the article in seemingly random fashion, not relevant to the topic, many not relevant to the adjoining sentences. Someone(s) obviously wants this information public because it keeps being re-pasted. Perhaps that stuff could be tagged somehow - bolded or italicized. Once that's done it should be obvious what is a candidate for future moving to a Grievances section. Earlgray 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
(As far as I know, all non-Indian members of the Council resigned a few months ago after a racial conflict inside the Council. ) Tamilll 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Tamilll, thanks for talking. This is not personally to you, but something I would like to bring up for the general editing discussion.
I'd like to reflect a moment on whether the information and the numerous statements that keep coming and going in this article are really essential to this exciting experiment of encyclopedic collaboration - Wikipedia. Among other things, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of trivia, or a soapbox for opinions, according to its own guidelines. Too bad if some people feel there's censorship and racism and an attempt at a take-over by the GOI... even if we could verify the veracity of these to everyone's satisfaction in less than a hundred wiki pages, the percieved offence and grievance is merely an example of process that every large institution is continually going through in order to maintain and preserve it's identity and interest. I think only history will prove or disprove these "truths". Since these things are not what Auroville is striving to be about, and since only a few specialized persons have any dealing with them, I am suggesting that they are not what someone wants to know who is interested in studying, visiting and learning about Auroville from an article. Let them read a little about it, then go to Auroville and find out soon enough whether or not this stuff is occuring.
Cries of alarm and hurt belong on a different forum, where people with the possibility of doing something about them can be contacted and proper forces marshalled. Collaboration, something that IS relevant to a discussion on Auroville, does not mean one person constantly stamps his/her opinions over the contributions of other people until everyone else gives up and moves on or cowers in submission. Nice example, that, especially from someone claiming to understand Auroville.
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Let us hope that at the minimum, a tiny little article about Auroville, the city of human unity, can reflect that kind of unity. Earlgray 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello all, I am delighted that so many people have taken interest in the Auroville page! However, I would like to suggest that instead of warring with reverts, we discuss changes to the page here before we make them. People seem to have a lot of different opinions about what is or is not true about Auroville; it's great to have debate, but I'd like to remind everyone that it is better to have it here on the talk page than on the subject page itself. That's what talk pages are for. In addition, I think we should all take care to remember that Wikipedia is most concerned with what is verifiable. This means we should ideally have sources for all statements made on the page. Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow original research. This means all sources cited must be reliable, authoritative published sources. I realize this might be something of a bother if there are concerns about free speech and the only published sources are produced by Auroville itself, but I would prefer we discussed these difficulties here before participating in needless edit wars. Agreed?-- TurabianNights 04:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I created this area in hopes of solving the free speech and other issues.
My main concern, as I've intimated in the past, is that if there really are problems with censorship at Auroville, we'd need to find a source on that that doesn't come from Auroville's press. I don't know first-hand one way or the other, though of course that would violate the no original research policy. :/ -- TurabianNights 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the quit notice information to the Free Speech section to try to provide a balanced context to the whole topic of quit notes. If we must cite court records i'm sure it can be done "sigh", but I still doubt that the 'free speech, quit note, crime rate' information in the context presented is relevant to a neutral article about a community of nearly 2000 individuals. Earlgray 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I created this section to try and bring some logic to the narrative. That sentence about the board being comprised of 100% Tamils has no context and seems to border on racism. Perhaps the person who keeps putting it in would be so kind as to elaborate their concerns about the racial component of the board.
In the article it says "from democracies and socialist societies". That's a bit american, to oppose democracy with socialism is somewhat uneducated. 83.70.247.123 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Added Matrimandir photo from here [1].Thought it would serve the purpose of elaborating the matrimandir section in auroville. Ankithreya ( talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past few months, anonymous and newly created accounts have been replacing the sourced text of the article with an unsourced, propaganda-like version. This should stop -- please review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Fireplace ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted edits which placed too much emphasis on the BBC controversy in the lead, and restored most of the information to the 'controversy' section, attempting an eve-handed presentation. Also restored other well-meaning edits, which would profit from further cites. JNW ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings all,
I think the BBC-broadcast has no right at all to be mentioned, for the following reasons:
You want to give info that can be cited. Perfect. Do you ask the same of Rachel Wright? Or do you just accept by the fact she is aired on the BBC that she can account for all her statements?
You cite her ‘findings’, is it not reasonable to ask to cite the answer of Auroville?
I believe that any objective person, watching the video WITH the corrections and background information given by Auroville, will come to the same conclusion: Rachel Wright has no case at all, and it is totally incomprehensible why the BBC has aired this piece of slander.
The extended version of this can be found on Auroville’s website:
http://auroville.org/wc_statement_on_bbc_broadcast.htm
and specifically:
http://auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/June-July_2008/bbc_broadcast.htm
http://auroville.org/downloads/BBC_WC_detailed_info_May_31st_08.pdf
I have the feeling Wikipedia is not at all about truth, but about rigidness and conservatism: the people with the more tenacious attitude will control the changes.
I also feel there is something missing in the discussion about verifiable facts that you want to be in this page: if that is the only criterion, the fact that a fact is verifiable would make it worthy of being mentioned. I think what is mentioned on this page should be a logical consequence of the amount of detail you want to present. In a short introductory page about Auroville, where you give some basic, general info, what is the point in giving some details that may be very true and verifiable, but totally marginal?
In the end it seems Wikipedia is likely to become a free billboard for propaganda and slander instead of a source of information.
If any of this sounds offensive to you I apologise, for that was not at all my intention. I easily get carried away when I am confronted with the fact that truth does not seem to exist, but falsehood on the contrary seems to get the world offered as an empty stage.
Lieveco (
talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please use this link http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiskussion%3AAuroville%23Erfahrungen_mit_Auroville&hl=de&ie=UTF8&sl=de&tl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.123.128 ( talk) 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Everest2424, please stop deleting what you feel is negative information about Auroville. Just because it contradicts your religious beliefs, doesn't mean you can just delete it and make it go away. The BBC report did occur, and just because you don't like what it said, doesn't mean you can make it disappear. Everything that was reported is now on the record. The Auroville page is not supposed to serve as propaganda outlet for Aurovillians.
Petitepassionz ( talk) 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Petitepassionz,
May I ask you to take a moment and ponder the idea that the truth you so brightly put into words may also be applied to yourself?
Yes, the BBC report DID happen. As did hundreds of other reports on Auroville. Unfortunately for the vultures, they were not all as slanderous as this one.
Take for instance the recent extra edition of The Hindu on 'India's Best', in which they listed their opinion of the 50 best features of India. Guess what: they included Auroville. And they did not quickly publish a withdrawal after the BBC report.
rovillians donSo: what is so un-religious about insisting on having ONE extremely negative report put on the page, while having NO mention of many positive reports?
But do you think it is possible for us to discuss this matter in another way than just saying to each other 'Does!' 'Does NOT!!' etc.?
I have spent quite some time in enumerating the reasons why I think it is not within the notions of 'objective info' to mention the viewpoint on Auroville of Rachel Wright.
Can anyone give some attention to that, read the answer of the Working Committee and take it into account? Thanks!
Would be nice to see that we could reach a littly harmony on the page of a topic that has as main objective 'Human Unity'...
Lieveco (
talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Petitepassionz,
This is exactly the kind of childish nonsense I didn't want to get involved in. I will take the time once to reply to every point in your post, but don't expect me to do anymore. You can have the whole wiki-page about Auroville, you can have the whole Wikipedia and as far as I'm concerned you can censor the whole internet, it will not change anything about the truth, a place where this kind of attitude will never lead.
Have you reasons to doubt that the info given on the webpage is correct? Otherwise it seems a good place to get info about Auroville, as it was designed for that purpose.
This is about the opposite of what I have said. What I said was that it seems very strange to feel an urgent need to make a special heading to feature the ONE very negative report (even if it were not contested) while omitting any mention of many positive reports.
Sorry, it isn't. It is very sad that the internet is overcrowded with people who are dyslectic and/or have no notion of receptive reading.
Why on earth do you think I want to hide anything? It is not because I think it has no meaning on this page that I all of a sudden would want to hide it.
The reasons why I think it has no place here are mentioned above (under the heading 'controversy', where all of this nonsense belongs).
And the mention of the rebuttal is of very little significance: anyone who actually càn read comprehensively will tell you that the fact that the report is mentioned here shows the author gives it credibility and value. Enough to mention it, apparently.
I'm sorry, it this a threat?? What on earth happened to the freedom of speech all of a sudden, Mr. No-religion??
Can you please explain to me WHAT in the notion of 'Human Unity' might be religious, let alone 'nonsense'? Is it a personal thing? Did you or your family or anyone else ever get hurt by Human Unity?
To say it differently: could you please explain the reason for your incomprehensible intolerance?
Well, that about does it. That's logic for you! If the founders of something don't get to define the bloody thing, who does?? You perhaps? Oh, no, I see, it's Rachel Wright, THE authority on Auroville, who has the unique right to say something about it. After all, she more or less spent 3 days in the neighbourhood.
And since when did we discuss any definitions here anyway?
Wrong again. First of all, Auroville has never been, is not, and will never be a religion, whatever your small-mindedness may think of it. For your info: it was exactly the fact that it is NOT anything religious that made the Government of India the 'patron', so to speak, of Auroville, instead of the SAS. Please do your homework.
Secondly, Christianity and Islam are self-acclaimed religions with a history that stretches over many centuries. A rather bizarre comparison with an experiment that is just 40 years old. It would have been very hard for anyone outside Christianity or Islam to define them after their first 40 years of existence.
Thirdly, it is not at all clear how Christianity and Islam would define themselves today. To simply state that they would say 'religion of peace' is quite simplistic.
And by the way, if the pages about Christianity and Islam had to contain every 9-minute report that voices the negative opinion about them of a single person, they would become impossible to read or understand.
Well, well. Is it really? Since when? Since Her Holiness Rachel Wright published her Papal Bull? I thought you were against religion, but apparently every word of Rachel Wright is Gospel Truth to you. Please go visit Auroville and see for yourself how much of what you so wisely utter is reality.
Again, your unreligious zeal carries you away: no one spoke about any whitewash. The discussion is about its relevance on this page. The fact that most people now think Auroville is about paedophiles is reason enough to be more intelligent here, and not run along in the witch hunt started by Rachel Wright.
Really? Can you please give me the time-coordinates? In the whole of the video there is just ONE Aurovilian interviewed, and she is a man... He says one phrase, which was cut out of a lengthy interview that had not the slightest hint of any mention of sexual abuse whatsoever.
Is this statement representative of your accuracy?
O, is it? Because you say so? Or because Rachel Wright says so? 'Gospel-truth, may we never question You!'
No, not really. Auroville will still exist long after you finished your portion of hatred and negativity.
What is the compromise in you having it your way???
But of course I don't disagree. This is still a free world, isn't it?You can write it all on your own. Enjoy!
Lieveco (
talk) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"The Crimes committed by someone who was associated with Auroville have little to do with this article" - Also unsupported. Please refer to any independent source as citation, if such claims are to be made.
Apart from that, editors of Wikipedia (including those contributing to the article) should not judge validity of any criticism personally. Rather, they should "represent(ing) fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
Please do not delete contents of the article out of personal beliefs, opinions, or evaluation.
Will revert some deletes if needed, welcoming further discussion.-- Hongmt ( talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a little sumthing about the new buildings as the Health Spark (Spa-Park), and the Integrated Health Centre by the Auroville Design Studio (see http://www.auroville.org/thecity/architecture/two_at_once.htm) can be written. Also include info on Senior Indian architects, Sen Kapadia, Chamanlal Gupta, and B.V. Doshi, who have led the sustainable and thinking-out-of-the-box movement in India (see article)
Thanks 81.245.182.116 ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Came to the article in search of a 'See also' section with information about similar 'experimental townships' and was disappointed not to find one. Should there be such a section? Can anyone point me towards similar settlements? - Drswiftus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.38.49 ( talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
[Auroville (شهرستان از سحر) یک شهرستان تجربی در منطقه Viluppuram عمدتا در ایالت تامیل نادو، هند با برخی از قطعات در قلمرو اتحادیه از پودوچری در جنوب هند است. [1] آن را در سال 1968 توسط MIRRA Alfassa (شناخته شده به عنوان "مادر") و طراحی شده توسط معمار راجر خشم تاسیس شد. [2] [3] [4] همانطور که در اولین پیام عمومی Alfassa در سال 1965 اظهار داشت، او می گوید، که Auroville به معنای یک شهر جهانی که در آن مردان و زنان از همه کشورها می توانند در صلح و آرامش مترقی زندگی می کنند، بالاتر از همه اعتقادات، همه سیاست و همه ملیت ها. هدف از Auroville است که به درک وحدت انسان است.
Small text
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Auroville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello dear wiki editors,
Auroville, though a standalone entity, it does not exist alone, as it sits within the local community with which it aims and undertakes programs to integrate with and to develop that community. I am inserting the following two articles, these are in the vioinity of Auroville, in the SEE ALSO section of Auroville with the following rationale:
If for some reason, any editor has strong reason that they do not want to see my edits in the SEE ALSO section (please explain why not?) then please suggest alternative place in the Auroville article where they be placed. Please keep the discussion focused, mention all the objections in one go and for sake of COOREPATIVE EDITS for each objection you make against inclusion of my edits please offer an alternative suggestion for the resolution as to where and how they can be appropriately inserted into the Auroville article.
Many thanks. Being.human ( talk)
If any other leading media have reported by occasion of the Auroville birthday, users are welcome to include the respective reports. We will then call the section "International Media on Auroville". No objection at all! As for the length, this is not the only Wiki article which has some length. The summaries contain a lot of relevant information on actual life in the city, as well as the viewpoints, reflections and perceptions of top level journalists. My own contribution is complete now. P.S. I will make abridgments if several other users express the same wish. -- Raimundo ( talk) 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I have abrdiged and revised the whole text. There is no original research involved. I have summarized the sources in my own words and not added any content or drawn any conclusions etc. -- Raimundo ( talk) 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The quotation in the lede paragraph is clearly a poor word-for-word translation of something originally said or written in French. This passage needs to be re-written in native English. Laodah 03:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The language box in the infobox is broken, and I can't find a way to fix it . Could someone work on that? Thanks! BhamBoi ( talk) 20:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I want to talk someone?
202.51.69.3 ( talk) 03:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
Citation needs to get added in the Economy section in the paragraph last sentence beside the word " for its citizens".
Here is the citation links to get added as citation in the sentence "Instead of paper and coin currency, residents are given account numbers to connect to their central account. Visitors are requested to get a temporary account and an Aurocard, a special debit card for its citizens."
Link : alchetron.com/auroville
Link: https://www.tripoto.com/auroville/trips/auroville-t-n-pudducherry-62cb19d4c4ff7
Please take out some time to check and consider my suggested links from above two related to addition of citation. Prudent CAS ( talk) 12:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Auroville article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
'Auroville complained to the BBC that the report was biased, untrue and contravened BBC editorial guidelines. The BBC Editorial Complaints Unit did not uphold any of the complaints. Police officers of the Tamil Nadu government visited Auroville and surrounding area to check the truth of BBC allegations and found it false' How can this part take place in it without any references? Is this what You call neutral point of view? Victorcsiky ( talk) 16:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
from the content...
‘The Auroville land is owned by no-one in particular and is held by the Government of India and the Sri Aurobindo Society’.
GOI’s role is understandable. But how SAS??????
I 've myself edited the content as a follow up to my earlier question.
I find it suprizing to read that he city was named after the French name "Aurore". I would think it was mainly referring to Sri Aurobindo, the reference to "city of Dawn" being some convenient side-effect. I coudn't find any evidence of this, even on Auroville official web site. Does anywone know for sure, is there any written source? Patch051 ( talk) 12:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Aren't the structures in this city very similar to the ones in Anarchosyndicalism? helohe (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't figure out how to add coordinates properly so i'll just post them here so that someone else can add them.
12° 0'8.80"N, 79°48'53.76"E
I'm sorry, but could someone explain how the Quit Note system works? The article seems to claim that Auroville is "achieving world peace, international understanding, and the unity of mankind" through asking foreigners to leave..?-- TurabianNights 18:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello Turabian. A "quit notice" is issued by Indian immigration to any non-Indian who has violated some Indian law or has misbehaved. In Auroville this has occurred, but upon explanation by the incriminated parties, the notices were cancelled and only two foreign members of Auroville have actually had to leave India over Auroville's 38 year history.
The person writing about "quit notes" is attempting to defame Auroville with lies. Really, too bad.
Aurodon, a resident of Auroville
I am highly wary of deleting all criticism entirely, particularly as it related to free speech. Can we reach a consensus to include both the praise and the criticism? Otherwise I'm afraid the NPOV notice will have to stay.-- TurabianNights 05:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe that Avnet has been created when the Aurovilians have decided to censor themselves in the News, knowing that what they wrote in them was viewed by people everywhere in India and could be used against AV and some of its members; they have decided also to self-censor in their Resident Assembly and general meetings, for the same reasons (what people said there was immediately reported to Delhi and to any other place around AV); there only remained Avnet for those who wanted to discuss freely about what they wanted. I also feel that there should be a place where people should be able to say – but they should also learn to say things in a more acceptable way, after all human beings have a sensitivity – what they feel is the truth without being accused of being racist or defamatory. It seems that this safe place does not exist anymore. It is either the court case or the quit notice.
Why don't we move all the text about what Auroville "should be" or "is supposed to be" to a separate section (e.g."Auroville's ideals"), and leave the facts about what Auroville IS nowadays?
The current version sounds like a propaganda, I am sorry to say that. Babujee 16:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
How about leaving subjective opinions about Auroville out of the main article, and create another article called "Auroville: Views and Opinions" or something? That could be a place for people to praise/vent & discuss it in general.
Agree with above. The Criticism section seems to be an invention by someone with a grievance and should instead be labeled opinion. It's easily debunked and its inclusion makes the entire article suspect.
Paragraph 1 - There is no censorship. Historically and to the present, residents can and have done harm to Auroville by publicizing their opinions, unilaterally bringing in outside agencies, or involving third parties. The outreach group's purpose is other than stated in the "criticism" section and it has no enforcement ability. When a visitor suggested that they try to regulate and facilitate media contact and to screen media content for accuracy like any other institution in the world, he was told that "[Auroville residents]would not agree to it." The nefarious and censored "News & Notes" is in reality a xeroxed event schedule. There are additionally at least 30-40 regular publications with the "Auroville" imprint. There is no overseeing authority as to what can be published.
Paragraph 2 is patently false. Not one assertion is true.
Paragraph 3 is speculation bordering on the conspiratorial. High crime rate? Compared to what - the local Tamil Nadu area? Percapita; by number or severity of crimes committed, it's Impossible.
"Auroville is supposed to adhere to a life free of violence, for the sake of world peace, international understanding, and the unity of mankind." Author speculation not Auroville policy. Not a coherent statement.
"This unity has so far been achieved by the GOI's issuing Quit India Notes to all non-Indian Aurovilians who are in disagreements with the Indian members of Auroville."
Pure speculation as to motive of GOI.
80% of foreign Aurovilians who have been in Auroville for over 5 years have received Quit Notes.
A potentially verifiable statistic. No citation.
"This forms part of the Government of India's strategy according to which all foreigners have to quit India after they created any immovable property in Auroville that can be transferred to the Indian Aurovilians free of cost."
Does this author claim to know the motives of the Government?
~Earlgray
Earlgray 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
See a recent message published on AVNet by Turiya (a former member of the Auroville Council who resigned due to the threats of getting a Quit Notice): I believe that Avnet has been created when the Aurovilians have decided to censor themselves in the News, knowing that what they wrote in them was viewed by people everywhere in India and could be used against AV and some of its members; they have decided also to self-censor in their Resident Assembly and general meetings, for the same reasons (what people said there was immediately reported to Delhi and to any other place around AV); there only remained Avnet for those who wanted to discuss freely about what they wanted. I also feel that there should be a place where people should be able to say – but they should also learn to say things in a more acceptable way, after all human beings have a sensitivity – what they feel is the truth without being accused of being racist or defamatory. It seems that this safe place does not exist anymore. It is either the court case or the quit notice. Venkat av 04:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As it is not possible to prove a negative, ie: there is no censorship in Auroville, I won't waste any time trying. The oness must lie with the person who asserts something to show some evidence of its existence. In the case of censorship, that should be easy. One example would prove its existence. If it is in fact the policy of the organization, then the evidence should be abundant.
Re-posting falsehood without any proof is exactly the same as posting it originally. Accountability lies with the person posting the information and claiming it as fact. Verify your assertions. ~Earlgray
I have corrected the Population and Society section which mis-dentified the number of journals available in Auroville and also misrepresented the policy of the Outreach Group. However now that the information is correct it no longer seems relevant to the section. Rather than delete it which might cause someone to revert to the incorrect information, I will move it to a new section. Earlgray 05:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Heres a suggestion for getting a more neutral POV. There are many emotionally charged words and sentences scattered throughout the article in seemingly random fashion, not relevant to the topic, many not relevant to the adjoining sentences. Someone(s) obviously wants this information public because it keeps being re-pasted. Perhaps that stuff could be tagged somehow - bolded or italicized. Once that's done it should be obvious what is a candidate for future moving to a Grievances section. Earlgray 16:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
(As far as I know, all non-Indian members of the Council resigned a few months ago after a racial conflict inside the Council. ) Tamilll 03:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Tamilll, thanks for talking. This is not personally to you, but something I would like to bring up for the general editing discussion.
I'd like to reflect a moment on whether the information and the numerous statements that keep coming and going in this article are really essential to this exciting experiment of encyclopedic collaboration - Wikipedia. Among other things, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of trivia, or a soapbox for opinions, according to its own guidelines. Too bad if some people feel there's censorship and racism and an attempt at a take-over by the GOI... even if we could verify the veracity of these to everyone's satisfaction in less than a hundred wiki pages, the percieved offence and grievance is merely an example of process that every large institution is continually going through in order to maintain and preserve it's identity and interest. I think only history will prove or disprove these "truths". Since these things are not what Auroville is striving to be about, and since only a few specialized persons have any dealing with them, I am suggesting that they are not what someone wants to know who is interested in studying, visiting and learning about Auroville from an article. Let them read a little about it, then go to Auroville and find out soon enough whether or not this stuff is occuring.
Cries of alarm and hurt belong on a different forum, where people with the possibility of doing something about them can be contacted and proper forces marshalled. Collaboration, something that IS relevant to a discussion on Auroville, does not mean one person constantly stamps his/her opinions over the contributions of other people until everyone else gives up and moves on or cowers in submission. Nice example, that, especially from someone claiming to understand Auroville.
Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. Let us hope that at the minimum, a tiny little article about Auroville, the city of human unity, can reflect that kind of unity. Earlgray 05:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hello all, I am delighted that so many people have taken interest in the Auroville page! However, I would like to suggest that instead of warring with reverts, we discuss changes to the page here before we make them. People seem to have a lot of different opinions about what is or is not true about Auroville; it's great to have debate, but I'd like to remind everyone that it is better to have it here on the talk page than on the subject page itself. That's what talk pages are for. In addition, I think we should all take care to remember that Wikipedia is most concerned with what is verifiable. This means we should ideally have sources for all statements made on the page. Please also keep in mind that Wikipedia does not allow original research. This means all sources cited must be reliable, authoritative published sources. I realize this might be something of a bother if there are concerns about free speech and the only published sources are produced by Auroville itself, but I would prefer we discussed these difficulties here before participating in needless edit wars. Agreed?-- TurabianNights 04:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I created this area in hopes of solving the free speech and other issues.
My main concern, as I've intimated in the past, is that if there really are problems with censorship at Auroville, we'd need to find a source on that that doesn't come from Auroville's press. I don't know first-hand one way or the other, though of course that would violate the no original research policy. :/ -- TurabianNights 07:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I added the quit notice information to the Free Speech section to try to provide a balanced context to the whole topic of quit notes. If we must cite court records i'm sure it can be done "sigh", but I still doubt that the 'free speech, quit note, crime rate' information in the context presented is relevant to a neutral article about a community of nearly 2000 individuals. Earlgray 17:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I created this section to try and bring some logic to the narrative. That sentence about the board being comprised of 100% Tamils has no context and seems to border on racism. Perhaps the person who keeps putting it in would be so kind as to elaborate their concerns about the racial component of the board.
In the article it says "from democracies and socialist societies". That's a bit american, to oppose democracy with socialism is somewhat uneducated. 83.70.247.123 05:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Added Matrimandir photo from here [1].Thought it would serve the purpose of elaborating the matrimandir section in auroville. Ankithreya ( talk) 07:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Over the past few months, anonymous and newly created accounts have been replacing the sourced text of the article with an unsourced, propaganda-like version. This should stop -- please review WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Fireplace ( talk) 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I have reverted edits which placed too much emphasis on the BBC controversy in the lead, and restored most of the information to the 'controversy' section, attempting an eve-handed presentation. Also restored other well-meaning edits, which would profit from further cites. JNW ( talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Greetings all,
I think the BBC-broadcast has no right at all to be mentioned, for the following reasons:
You want to give info that can be cited. Perfect. Do you ask the same of Rachel Wright? Or do you just accept by the fact she is aired on the BBC that she can account for all her statements?
You cite her ‘findings’, is it not reasonable to ask to cite the answer of Auroville?
I believe that any objective person, watching the video WITH the corrections and background information given by Auroville, will come to the same conclusion: Rachel Wright has no case at all, and it is totally incomprehensible why the BBC has aired this piece of slander.
The extended version of this can be found on Auroville’s website:
http://auroville.org/wc_statement_on_bbc_broadcast.htm
and specifically:
http://auroville.org/journals&media/avtoday/June-July_2008/bbc_broadcast.htm
http://auroville.org/downloads/BBC_WC_detailed_info_May_31st_08.pdf
I have the feeling Wikipedia is not at all about truth, but about rigidness and conservatism: the people with the more tenacious attitude will control the changes.
I also feel there is something missing in the discussion about verifiable facts that you want to be in this page: if that is the only criterion, the fact that a fact is verifiable would make it worthy of being mentioned. I think what is mentioned on this page should be a logical consequence of the amount of detail you want to present. In a short introductory page about Auroville, where you give some basic, general info, what is the point in giving some details that may be very true and verifiable, but totally marginal?
In the end it seems Wikipedia is likely to become a free billboard for propaganda and slander instead of a source of information.
If any of this sounds offensive to you I apologise, for that was not at all my intention. I easily get carried away when I am confronted with the fact that truth does not seem to exist, but falsehood on the contrary seems to get the world offered as an empty stage.
Lieveco (
talk) 20:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Please use this link http://translate.google.de/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FDiskussion%3AAuroville%23Erfahrungen_mit_Auroville&hl=de&ie=UTF8&sl=de&tl=en —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.116.123.128 ( talk) 19:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Everest2424, please stop deleting what you feel is negative information about Auroville. Just because it contradicts your religious beliefs, doesn't mean you can just delete it and make it go away. The BBC report did occur, and just because you don't like what it said, doesn't mean you can make it disappear. Everything that was reported is now on the record. The Auroville page is not supposed to serve as propaganda outlet for Aurovillians.
Petitepassionz ( talk) 20:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Petitepassionz,
May I ask you to take a moment and ponder the idea that the truth you so brightly put into words may also be applied to yourself?
Yes, the BBC report DID happen. As did hundreds of other reports on Auroville. Unfortunately for the vultures, they were not all as slanderous as this one.
Take for instance the recent extra edition of The Hindu on 'India's Best', in which they listed their opinion of the 50 best features of India. Guess what: they included Auroville. And they did not quickly publish a withdrawal after the BBC report.
rovillians donSo: what is so un-religious about insisting on having ONE extremely negative report put on the page, while having NO mention of many positive reports?
But do you think it is possible for us to discuss this matter in another way than just saying to each other 'Does!' 'Does NOT!!' etc.?
I have spent quite some time in enumerating the reasons why I think it is not within the notions of 'objective info' to mention the viewpoint on Auroville of Rachel Wright.
Can anyone give some attention to that, read the answer of the Working Committee and take it into account? Thanks!
Would be nice to see that we could reach a littly harmony on the page of a topic that has as main objective 'Human Unity'...
Lieveco (
talk) 08:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Dear Petitepassionz,
This is exactly the kind of childish nonsense I didn't want to get involved in. I will take the time once to reply to every point in your post, but don't expect me to do anymore. You can have the whole wiki-page about Auroville, you can have the whole Wikipedia and as far as I'm concerned you can censor the whole internet, it will not change anything about the truth, a place where this kind of attitude will never lead.
Have you reasons to doubt that the info given on the webpage is correct? Otherwise it seems a good place to get info about Auroville, as it was designed for that purpose.
This is about the opposite of what I have said. What I said was that it seems very strange to feel an urgent need to make a special heading to feature the ONE very negative report (even if it were not contested) while omitting any mention of many positive reports.
Sorry, it isn't. It is very sad that the internet is overcrowded with people who are dyslectic and/or have no notion of receptive reading.
Why on earth do you think I want to hide anything? It is not because I think it has no meaning on this page that I all of a sudden would want to hide it.
The reasons why I think it has no place here are mentioned above (under the heading 'controversy', where all of this nonsense belongs).
And the mention of the rebuttal is of very little significance: anyone who actually càn read comprehensively will tell you that the fact that the report is mentioned here shows the author gives it credibility and value. Enough to mention it, apparently.
I'm sorry, it this a threat?? What on earth happened to the freedom of speech all of a sudden, Mr. No-religion??
Can you please explain to me WHAT in the notion of 'Human Unity' might be religious, let alone 'nonsense'? Is it a personal thing? Did you or your family or anyone else ever get hurt by Human Unity?
To say it differently: could you please explain the reason for your incomprehensible intolerance?
Well, that about does it. That's logic for you! If the founders of something don't get to define the bloody thing, who does?? You perhaps? Oh, no, I see, it's Rachel Wright, THE authority on Auroville, who has the unique right to say something about it. After all, she more or less spent 3 days in the neighbourhood.
And since when did we discuss any definitions here anyway?
Wrong again. First of all, Auroville has never been, is not, and will never be a religion, whatever your small-mindedness may think of it. For your info: it was exactly the fact that it is NOT anything religious that made the Government of India the 'patron', so to speak, of Auroville, instead of the SAS. Please do your homework.
Secondly, Christianity and Islam are self-acclaimed religions with a history that stretches over many centuries. A rather bizarre comparison with an experiment that is just 40 years old. It would have been very hard for anyone outside Christianity or Islam to define them after their first 40 years of existence.
Thirdly, it is not at all clear how Christianity and Islam would define themselves today. To simply state that they would say 'religion of peace' is quite simplistic.
And by the way, if the pages about Christianity and Islam had to contain every 9-minute report that voices the negative opinion about them of a single person, they would become impossible to read or understand.
Well, well. Is it really? Since when? Since Her Holiness Rachel Wright published her Papal Bull? I thought you were against religion, but apparently every word of Rachel Wright is Gospel Truth to you. Please go visit Auroville and see for yourself how much of what you so wisely utter is reality.
Again, your unreligious zeal carries you away: no one spoke about any whitewash. The discussion is about its relevance on this page. The fact that most people now think Auroville is about paedophiles is reason enough to be more intelligent here, and not run along in the witch hunt started by Rachel Wright.
Really? Can you please give me the time-coordinates? In the whole of the video there is just ONE Aurovilian interviewed, and she is a man... He says one phrase, which was cut out of a lengthy interview that had not the slightest hint of any mention of sexual abuse whatsoever.
Is this statement representative of your accuracy?
O, is it? Because you say so? Or because Rachel Wright says so? 'Gospel-truth, may we never question You!'
No, not really. Auroville will still exist long after you finished your portion of hatred and negativity.
What is the compromise in you having it your way???
But of course I don't disagree. This is still a free world, isn't it?You can write it all on your own. Enjoy!
Lieveco (
talk) 20:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
"The Crimes committed by someone who was associated with Auroville have little to do with this article" - Also unsupported. Please refer to any independent source as citation, if such claims are to be made.
Apart from that, editors of Wikipedia (including those contributing to the article) should not judge validity of any criticism personally. Rather, they should "represent(ing) fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
Please do not delete contents of the article out of personal beliefs, opinions, or evaluation.
Will revert some deletes if needed, welcoming further discussion.-- Hongmt ( talk) 18:41, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a little sumthing about the new buildings as the Health Spark (Spa-Park), and the Integrated Health Centre by the Auroville Design Studio (see http://www.auroville.org/thecity/architecture/two_at_once.htm) can be written. Also include info on Senior Indian architects, Sen Kapadia, Chamanlal Gupta, and B.V. Doshi, who have led the sustainable and thinking-out-of-the-box movement in India (see article)
Thanks 81.245.182.116 ( talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Came to the article in search of a 'See also' section with information about similar 'experimental townships' and was disappointed not to find one. Should there be such a section? Can anyone point me towards similar settlements? - Drswiftus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.38.49 ( talk) 12:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
[Auroville (شهرستان از سحر) یک شهرستان تجربی در منطقه Viluppuram عمدتا در ایالت تامیل نادو، هند با برخی از قطعات در قلمرو اتحادیه از پودوچری در جنوب هند است. [1] آن را در سال 1968 توسط MIRRA Alfassa (شناخته شده به عنوان "مادر") و طراحی شده توسط معمار راجر خشم تاسیس شد. [2] [3] [4] همانطور که در اولین پیام عمومی Alfassa در سال 1965 اظهار داشت، او می گوید، که Auroville به معنای یک شهر جهانی که در آن مردان و زنان از همه کشورها می توانند در صلح و آرامش مترقی زندگی می کنند، بالاتر از همه اعتقادات، همه سیاست و همه ملیت ها. هدف از Auroville است که به درک وحدت انسان است.
Small text
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Auroville. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello dear wiki editors,
Auroville, though a standalone entity, it does not exist alone, as it sits within the local community with which it aims and undertakes programs to integrate with and to develop that community. I am inserting the following two articles, these are in the vioinity of Auroville, in the SEE ALSO section of Auroville with the following rationale:
If for some reason, any editor has strong reason that they do not want to see my edits in the SEE ALSO section (please explain why not?) then please suggest alternative place in the Auroville article where they be placed. Please keep the discussion focused, mention all the objections in one go and for sake of COOREPATIVE EDITS for each objection you make against inclusion of my edits please offer an alternative suggestion for the resolution as to where and how they can be appropriately inserted into the Auroville article.
Many thanks. Being.human ( talk)
If any other leading media have reported by occasion of the Auroville birthday, users are welcome to include the respective reports. We will then call the section "International Media on Auroville". No objection at all! As for the length, this is not the only Wiki article which has some length. The summaries contain a lot of relevant information on actual life in the city, as well as the viewpoints, reflections and perceptions of top level journalists. My own contribution is complete now. P.S. I will make abridgments if several other users express the same wish. -- Raimundo ( talk) 16:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
I have abrdiged and revised the whole text. There is no original research involved. I have summarized the sources in my own words and not added any content or drawn any conclusions etc. -- Raimundo ( talk) 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The quotation in the lede paragraph is clearly a poor word-for-word translation of something originally said or written in French. This passage needs to be re-written in native English. Laodah 03:50, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
The language box in the infobox is broken, and I can't find a way to fix it . Could someone work on that? Thanks! BhamBoi ( talk) 20:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
I want to talk someone?
202.51.69.3 ( talk) 03:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedians,
Citation needs to get added in the Economy section in the paragraph last sentence beside the word " for its citizens".
Here is the citation links to get added as citation in the sentence "Instead of paper and coin currency, residents are given account numbers to connect to their central account. Visitors are requested to get a temporary account and an Aurocard, a special debit card for its citizens."
Link : alchetron.com/auroville
Link: https://www.tripoto.com/auroville/trips/auroville-t-n-pudducherry-62cb19d4c4ff7
Please take out some time to check and consider my suggested links from above two related to addition of citation. Prudent CAS ( talk) 12:18, 5 January 2024 (UTC)