Talk:Auroville

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Pondicherry (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Pondicherry (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Urban studies and planning (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Religion (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by New religious movements work group (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

NPOV?![edit]

'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)

Untitled[edit]

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.


Origin of Auroville name[edit]

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)

Anarchist structures[edit]

Aren't the structures in this city very similar to the ones in Anarchosyndicalism? helohe (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


Coordinates[edit]

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


Quit Notes[edit]

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

NPOV[edit]

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)

It's baaaack! Can we not keep both points of view in this article? Anybody?--TurabianNights 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Turiya, a former member of the Auroville Council who resigned due to the threats of getting a Quit Notice, wrote on AVNet:

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.


Okay, I've re-edited to include both views. (Neither of which, I might add, are cited in any meaningful way). Does anyone have a problem with this? If so, can we work out a solution here on the talk page? Meaningless edit wars get us nowhere. --TurabianNights 17:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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)

It totally does, though! The creation of a section on Auroville's ideals is a good idea. Would you like to do the honors?--TurabianNights 16:48, 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.

We could create a "Criticism" section, but only if we are all agreed to keep opinions out of the "society" section. I suspect not all of our frequent editors are willing to do that, but I guess that's what we've got the revert feature for...--TurabianNights 18:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions[edit]

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.

Dear Earlgray, before you publish your fantasies, why don't you just ask about these things Paul Vincent (paulvincent@auroville.org.in), Auroville's former Police Liason Officer, who has been living in Auroville since its BEGINNING, and who is (like many other Aurovilians) currently denied access to Auroville's AVNet? AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

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.

Statistics can be easily confirmed with Auroville's Residents Service.AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

"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

If one analyzes the statistics (ask Auroville's Housing Group) about WHO the houses of the foreign Aurovilians have been transferred to, you will see that there has been a clear tendency.AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
A trend does not make a government policy. Its a conspiracty theory, ie. opinion... let's call it that. Is doesn't seem to be relevant to the article. I propose we make an op-ed section where this kind of stuff can stay if people are intent on creatiing a buzz on this page.
Earlgray 16:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately, this article is really a hodge-podge created by a number of editors over a number of months. I don't believe any of us currently editing, save one anonymous POV-pusher, have made any significant textual additions to the current text. It would be greatly helpful if you could find sources for everything you've said here, as we could then include it in the article. I don't think it would be productive to add or delete any more until we have hard sources for what we're doing. Additionally, if you could explain the concept of these Quit Notes, I think we'd all be grateful. As you can see further up the talk page, I am rather flummoxed by that myself.--TurabianNights 01:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
We should delete opinions that have no defence masquerading as fact, then allow changes which can be verified. Anyone can invent a so-called criticism. The only POV I can see is someone uninformed on the topic who seems intent on forcing falsehood to remain on the page. Earlgray
FYI- Quit notes is apparently what the Government of India uses to enforce it's visa policy. Auroville is not the Govt of India and doesn't have any influence on it or on the issuing quit notes.


I don't think there's any need for hostility here - we both genuinely want to make this a better article, so I'd prefer to believe we are on the same team. What I am saying is that because we have no sources for either position in this article to date, I am uncomfortable deleting the criticisms (which have been here much longer than I have). I am perfectly happy to let them go, but only after I see published proof to the contrary. Surely you must understand my anxiety, given that the criticisms deal with free speech violations. You say I am uninformed, and I am honestly asking you to please inform me. Give me a website, a journal article, anything. All I ask for is sources - if we were to delete every "opinion masking as fact," we currently would have no article because we have no sources telling us that what is written here is not opinion. I want to work together! I've been trying to do a lot of research on Auroville to supply these citations but can find very little that does not come directly from the Auroville official website - you must know of other routes to pursue, since you've got all that info above.--TurabianNights 02:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


Dear TurabianNights, you can easily verify all the info here by contacting the relevant Auroville's groups.AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
This is all certainly worth looking into. I am unfortunately quite busy with another WikiProject and am a little burnt out on Auroville at present, but I will keep this in mind for the future. Thanks, --TurabianNights 03:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


P.S. I will try and do some research on this Quit Note stuff. Could you try and get some cited facts on censorship? We can meet back and discuss our findings.
Read "News and Notes" of 2004. You will find that after one incident involving Olivier (who got a Quit Note for publishing one's views), the "News and Notes" STOPPED being issued for a while. It restarted with a statement that "no controversial statements will be published".AVPaulette 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, could you please address my concerns before making this edit again? I don't feel I'm being unreasonable here.--TurabianNights 02:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

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

As I've explained before, I am not the person asserting anything - I am merely trying to hold the article together. I've had two POV-pushers editing here for the last two weeks, so I'm sure you can understand how wary I am of these sorts of changes. I'm up to my limit for reverts today, I think, and with you around now, I'm not sure there'd be much point anyway. I am going to continue to research sources for all parts of this article, and I hope you will do the same.--TurabianNights 03:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand. Are you somehow appointed to hold the article together?


By no means. But in the absence of more stringent maintenance, I found myself doing something akin to that. Now that there seem to be far more editors here than when I started, I am less worried about that.--TurabianNights 04:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Corrections[edit]

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)

Grievances[edit]

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)

Not that it's even relevant to the article, but a recent check revealed that the board is more diverse than this recurring statement affirms: "Auroville's internal authority, Auroville Council, consists exclusively of Tamil members of Auroville." I have removed it again. Earlgray 18:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


Why don't you email to avcouncil@auroville.org.in and ask what the current membership of the AV Council is, and then email each member and ask him if he is indeed a member of the AV Council?

(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)

Even more than all this, however, I'd like to stress the importance of verifiability. In theory, Wikipedia is not concerned with "the truth" - it is concerned with what can be confirmed with citations. This is currently a problem with both "sides" on this article, and one I hope we will all be able to resolve with solid research. I still strongly believe that if there is legitimate criticism of the community, it belongs on this page. Wikipedia is not about unity - it is about being informed. However, the criticisms do need to be verifiable, and really DO need to be discussed on the talk page, just like I'd like to see everything else discussed here.--TurabianNights 06:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Greetings, all new editors![edit]

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)

Hi TurabianNights. A random sample of 50 "white" people living in Auroville has turned up no one who works in the Indian film industry. There are also many "white" people who work in reforestation, many who work in the healing arts, maintenance, manufacturing, yoga instruction, administration, fundraising, education, village interaction, publishing, youth support, Tamil cultural support, medical services, music, dance, literature, performance, academics, physical education, security, and probably as many different activities as there are people. If (as it seems) we simply must include the rather lame statement in the Economy section, that "many white people work in the Indian film industry" let's include a broader cross section. (And let's hope the film people don't have to commute to Mumbai) Earlgray 05:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Is there a published source for all this info? (And seriously, what a commute!)--TurabianNights 06:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes-There are several. I should be able to reference them by tomorrow. Earlgray 06:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Earlgray. You write that "A random sample of 50 "white" people living in Auroville has turned up no one who works in the Indian film industry". Kindly note that it was specifically stated that it is only the low-income white Aurovilians who illegally (without a work permit) act in films made in Madras and Hyderabad. Please understand that this article is supposed to reflect the facts whether they comply with the current Indian laws or not. Venkat av 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi Venkat. I don't yet understand what this information reveals about Auroville that requires inclusion in a general article about the community. Of course it may occur, but it doesn't seem to be very widespread and it's certainly not AV policy. There are probably people who litter, too, but we don't need to mention that. I prefer to document the many more important and progressive things people are doing there which are in line with the Auroville mission and with the aims of most of its residents. [As for the "white" people thing, not everyone understands that non-Indian foreigners is meant by that, and I think tht distinction should be very clear.]Earlgray 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, I suppose I should clarify: are there any NPOV published sources for this info? I see today that you've added an Auroville-published reference, which is fine, but may not exactly be NPOV where matters of censorship are concerned, which seems to be a recurring issue.--TurabianNights 04:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking however I think we should be as concerned with sources by those alleging censorship. I notice they have cited nothing besides opinion and anecdote. The fact that there are numerous Journals and Newsletters as well as web pages on the Auroville website] speaks to point that censorship might not be the issue it is alleged to be.Earlgray 07:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Free Speech Soapbox[edit]

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)

The individuals alleging censorship are not citing sources other than their own "original research" in the form of anecdotal evidence. Perhaps the soapbox will allow more than one POV to express without compromising the neutrality and sense of the article.Earlgray 07:25, 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)

Population and Social Concerns[edit]

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.

Democracy[edit]

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)

WikiProject class rating[edit]

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)

Matrimandir photo addition[edit]

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)

Anon editor reverts[edit]

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)

Controversy[edit]

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)

I've removed the material entirely. It is pure tabloid stuff—completely unencyclopedic. If anyone thinks that it must be mentioned. They should:
  1. Take note that this is not really about Auroville. It has to do with the actions of an individual and media sensationalism.
  2. Read WP:NPOV, especially WP:UNDUE, & WP:NOT
  3. Make brief mention of the incident (one paragraph would be more than enough IMO)
  4. Omit mention of it in the lead.
However, I remain skeptical that this should be mentioned at all in this article. Sunray (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, my skepticism has been proven unfounded. The current paragraph on the BBC controversy, written by Davidbrake and tweaked by Everest2424 seems entirely appropriate. Sunray (talk) 21:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)


Greetings all,

I think the BBC-broadcast has no right at all to be mentioned, for the following reasons:

-) It was a ONE TIME event, Rachel Wright has not made more than the one report, although it was mentioned more than once on the BBC and aired on two of their stations (so PLEASE correct that for starters), and the broadcast was ONLY NINE MINUTES long. (How deep can you dig in so little time? Sex-abuse anywhere is a topic juicy enough to make it at least a Panorama-feature, don’t you think?)
-) Auroville has published a quite lengthy analysis of the BBC-report (as I feel you should know if you want to give ‘objective’ info about this). If you watch the video again, with this analysis in mind, you see there is nothing that justifies the claims of Rachel Wright. Instead one will see she most likely was influenced by a certain website that carries anti-Auroville texts.
I cite the most flagrant points:
i) THE interviewee and ‘witness’ on which she clearly bases the whole ‘story’ is Raj Batra, who is introduced as a former Aurovilian, who left out of disgust with the situation. Raj Batra never was an Aurovilian, nor was he ever accepted as a Newcomer. On the contrary, he was, when he was a guest of Auroville, asked to leave the Auroville area because of anti-social behaviour and lying about his personal situation.
ii) The further ‘support’ for Rachel Wright’s claim that ‘the locals’, ‘the local population’, ‘the villagers’ etc. are worried about Aurovilians raping their children is given by NOT MORE THAN THREE ‘witnesses’, two of which report they actually saw something or lived something. They remain anonymous, but one of them, "Sundrun", who claims to have been a victim of child-abuse, could be identified as a person that has worked on Matrimandir, but was sacked when found to be involved in illegal transactions.
The other of these key-persons on whose words Rachel Wright builds her case, "Shiva", made the ridiculous statement that 1 out of 5 children of NCS is being abused. This statement was cut out of the video (but remained in the radiobroadcast) after the WC pointed out that it was pure nonsense: parents, however poor they may be, will never keep sending their children to a school where 20% gets raped. However, the rest of his 'testimony' is kept and presented as hard proof.
The third ‘witness’ is a Pondicherry politician who has set up many websites, one of which the aforementioned site with texts against Sri Aurobindo, the Mother and Auroville, some of which are almost the exact words Rachel Wright uses to describe Auroville.
iii) This same person is portrayed as being the only warrior in the ONE known paedophile case involving an Aurovilian, dating back ten years. Rachel Wright, apparently following the man's words, puts the blame for the very tardy conviction of the suspect on Auroville, instead of doing her work and look for political and judicial reasons. Auroville has no legal power whatsoever, and informed the local authorities straight away.
iv) The man who leads a local NGO that tries to make the children aware of the problem of sex-tourism, is portrayed as if he totally supports Rachel Wright’s claims. This was not the case, the man was found to have been talking about sex-tourism, not about abuse by Aurovilians. Rachel Wright personally mis-introduces his words to make them seem incriminating.
v) Normally, when journalists have ‘incriminating evidence’ against someone or an organisation, the end of the report is ‘we confronted (…) with our findings’. Rachel Wright probably knew she had no case at all, because she, on the contrary, completely refused any statement of Auroville on the subject, despite the ongoing pleads of Auroville to be heard in this report, to be included and be a part of her ‘research’.
Rachel Wright and the BBC have totally refused this until the end, with the exception of the brief telephone-talk with Carel Thieme (which they had promised to be a filmed interview).
vi) Rachel Wright produces a magnificent piece of make-belief: she very cunningly implies a lot, and misstates even more. Auroville gives a list of all of the misrepresentations and innuendos, please read the pdf-file for that.
-) An enormous flaw of the report, which in my opinion already gives away Rachel Wright’s witch-hunt, is the gigantic lack of background-info or elaboration of the totally unique and complex situation of Auroville.
If you want an audience to have the slightest insight in how Auroville is organised or what the legal situation is, it is simply imperative to mention the fact that Auroville is NOT a clear-bordered, fixed, defined and fenced space, like almost every other town on this planet, but that it exists within and around the villages. Auroville geographically and legally is a conglomerate of smaller or larger plots of land in a certain region. NOT some town you enter by the Western or Southern Gate.
Auroville has no possibility whatsoever to legally control the geographical area it is based in. Let alone to control the sex-tourism, flourishing at the whole of the Coromandel Coast, and especially in Chennai, where Rachel Wright has lived for some time.
A small detail: Rachel Wright cannot refrain from bitterly-jealously-degradingly-blamingly mention that ‘Aurovilians pay no tax’. Apart from the fact that the PARTIAL tax-exemption the Auroville Units benefited from is withdrawn, it would only be fair to mention how and why Auroville got that exemption, and foremost, she should explain that Auroville is legally dependent of the Government of India etc.
-) After having shown her witnesses, Rachel Wright adds her own testimony: on the beach, she saw several boys with men, one of which she saw taking a boy to a cabin. Accepting that Rachel Wright is not lying here (why would she?) it remains a mystery why she was unable to show us the footage of the scene. Rachel Wright was right on the beach whith a camera crew when the facts happened, but she cannot show us what actually happened. It is almost a caricature of sensationalist journalism.
It is very sad we are not allowed to judge the scene for ourselves, because, as Rachel Wright undoubtably knows, this society that Westerners might describe as oldfashioned, has a feature that can be of importance here. Because the physical contact between men and women, or boys and girls, in public is looked upon with huge disapproval, and since homosexuality is still largely a taboo, and of old not even considered, the physical contact between boys and men has since long been accepted as totally normal. Friends can be seen caressing each other or walking hand in hand, somewhat comparable to the acceptance of the physical intimacy between (teenage) girls in Western society. For the unprepared Westerner this may seem very weird, up to the point where one might think a huge part of the society seems to be gay.
-) Rachel Wright had come to Auroville under false pretences: she has acquired permission to film in Auroville by stating she was doing an item on Auroville as a whole in view of the recent 40th Anniversary.
However, her report can by no means be regarded as an ‘undercover story’. She shows no interviews of Aurovilians (apart from one phrase, taken out of context and out of a lengthy interview that never even flirted with the topic ‘child abuse’), and has not been able to shoot any even remotely incriminating footage.
-) Let’s face it: Rachel Wright draws a picture of Auroville that boils down to: a sect of Western rich perverts who, taken advantage of some (which? how??) colonial-money-power, and using spirituality for cover, created their paradisal remote resort where they can live their little ‘Salo’ (Pasolini).
Anyone for whom this was the introduction to Auroville will not escape the label of ‘nasty Western perverts abusing (once again!!) the poor Indians’.
-) Auroville has taken legal action against the BBC. It will probably take a lot of time before we will have a verdict, but it might at least be mentioned.
-) And finally: why should the suspicions of a certain Rachel Wright be mentioned on a general Wikipedia-page about Auroville?

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)

German experience[edit]

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)

wikipedia is not supposed to be propaganda for your religion, whatever that may be[edit]

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)


First of all, most of the positive info on this page is cut and paste from the auroville webpage. And basically, you are saying, since every single positive thing ever said about auroville is not on the page, then you can censor the reports we don't like. That's funny. You have to accept that the report happened and you can't just hide it at the bottom under a heading that doesn't apply to it. The rebuttal to the report is included. Why do you want to hide this?
And as for your religious nonsense about the topic of the page being "human unity," keep that to yourself. The Aurovillians don't get to define Auroville. That's like saying the pages on Islam and Christianity should only include information that represents them as "religions of peace," and anything contradictory of that should be deleted or hidden at the bottom.
And, by the way, pedophilia is now a defining aspect of Auroville. Most people never heard of the place until the BBC report on its peodofilia problem, and it would be remiss to try and whitewash the issue. In fact, in the report, an Aurovillian even acknowledged that she felt Auroville had a reputation for pedophilia. So Auroville is now stuck with that reputation. Tough.
But, to compromise, how about we start a section called Criticisms of Auroville? You can't disagree with that, can you?
Petitepassionz (talk) 12:41, 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.

First of all, most of the positive info on this page is cut and paste from the auroville webpage.

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.

And basically, you are saying, since every single positive thing ever said about auroville is not on the page, then you can censor the reports we don't like.

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.

That's funny.

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.

You have to accept that the report happened and you can't just hide it at the bottom under a heading that doesn't apply to it. The rebuttal to the report is included. Why do you want to hide this?

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.

And as for your religious nonsense about the topic of the page being "human unity," keep that to yourself.

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?

The Aurovillians don't get to define Auroville.

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?

No they don't get to define it. So should we let the Scientology goons censor any criticisms of their religion?
That's like saying the pages on Islam and Christianity should only include information that represents them as "religions of peace," and anything contradictory of that should be deleted or hidden at the bottom.

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.

And, by the way, pedophilia is now a defining aspect of Auroville.

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.

Most people never heard of the place until the BBC report on its peodofilia problem, and it would be remiss to try and whitewash the issue.

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.

The BBC, with all its faults, is way more trustworthy than a bunch of religious nuts who defend child molesters.
In fact, in the report, an Aurovillian even acknowledged that she felt Auroville had a reputation for pedophilia.

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?

So Auroville is now stuck with that reputation.

O, is it? Because you say so? Or because Rachel Wright says so? 'Gospel-truth, may we never question You!'

Tough.

No, not really. Auroville will still exist long after you finished your portion of hatred and negativity.

But, to compromise, how about we start a section called Criticisms of Auroville? You can't disagree with that, can you?

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)

Hey Sunray,
I did write it. Then you deleted it? It thought you were ok with it. Are you honestly saying you can't accept any negative information about Auroville? I know it's hard to hear criticisms of your sacred religion. Actually, you remind me of those old women who get upset when they hear about Catholic priest molesting children and claim it's all evil, slanderous lies. [User:Petitepassionz|Petitepassionz]] (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing to do with Auroville. I'm just an editor who tries to abide by WP policies and guidelines. An individual who molests children or commits other similar crimes is reprehensible. However, there are few cases in which an organization is responsible for the actions of an individual. The crimes committed by someone who was associated with Auroville have little to do with this article. Sunray (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
"An organization is rarely responsible for the actions of an individual" - Unsupported claim aka the fallacy of argument by assertion.

"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)

Auroville master plan[edit]

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)

'See also'[edit]

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)

Globally, there are quite a few such townships and settlements, with various ideas and philosohpies behind them. See e.g. [2].
I think there should be a "See also" section, or, preferably, a separate article.Borovi4ok (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2013 (UTC)