Talk:B. R. Ambedkar/Archive 1

Family Life

Would somebody write on Ambedkars family life? Who was his wife? Did he have children? What happened to them all? Did they play any role in his life? Was he circumsized? Those who know more about it please write it.

Why does "Ambedkar" in search redirect to the disambiguation page and not to B.R.Ambedkar page? Flewovercuckoo (talk) 11:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Babasaheb is a term of veneration, and Google searches make clear it does not also happen to be his name. Even Jesus Christ is only a redirect to Jesus, and IMO the only reason we have to put up with Mahatma Gandhi as a title is that ignorant Westerners would get confused and probably think M.K. Gandhi was one of Sonia Gandhi's kids.

As a whole, the article is sufficiently hagiographic, and defensive about his qualifications, that it IMO compromises its accessibility and probably ends up preaching to the choir. The repeated use of "Depressed Classes" without a link or definition is another symptom of this. The wording "intended to be treated as human beings", an exaggerated POV slogan of resentment rather than conveying any objective information about the (shocking) grounds for resentment is yet another.

(This article is IMO presently headed for being gutted because of its unencyclopedicity. I also hate to see wasted effort, but personally (not as an editor) i feel the most unfortunate aspect of that is that a more encyclopedic article would be more effective in recruiting public opinion to his cause than this one will be.)
--Jerzy(t) 09:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Completely agree about Babasaheb, but I couldn't see how to alter the existing title of the stub. This needs to get done. My original article was I think NPOV, but I hadn't looked at it for a while. It's a bit difficult to keep the Ambedkarite faction in check, if that's what it is. Please be bold and re-edit as you wish. Shantavira 10:59, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Agree on the article being full of POV stuff and non-encyclopaedic. Not sure if I agree on a move to change the title. It's hard to believe Mahatma Gandhi is the only such article (with a term of veneration in the title). How about Mother Teresa? Of course, I'm not even getting into royalty, Christian saints and the like. IMO, the reason is that Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu is known worldwide as Mother Teresa. And if Babasaheb Ambedkar is more popular (on Google, say) than Bhimrao Ambedkar, why not stick with the current title? Ambarish |hahahaha

I added this article, early this UTC day, to Cleanup, noting that the change of title needs (if loss of history is to be avoided) action by a sysop.

Mother Teresa is indeed another good example. FWIW, i am less bothered by her, royalty and the ancient saints and saint-equivalents of all traditions, for distinct reasons:

• Mother T, and the monarchs of more than a few generations vintage, have other names, but virtually everything about them that we still care about was done in interaction with people who had stopped even thinking of them by their original names. And while Mother and King do have "venerative force", if you will, they are also definite functional roles as well, diluting that problematic effect IMO.
• Saint George and Sri Krishna are figures that i assume to have no verifiable history, but more importantly, whether they do or not really only matters to the people who venerate them: their bios are IMO pseudo-bios whose substance is philosophical rather than historical, and i would, for instance, have no strong objection to Sri Krishna as a title, especially since i am aware of historical figures with names like Krishna Menon and (hmm...) Ramakrishna (?).
• Altho there are plenty of official saints with some verifiable history, some of them not only are usually called "St. ...", but also can't be clearly identified without the word. (Francis of Assisi is as well recognized as St. Francis of Assisi, and i am pleased that the non-PoV version is the article title. But, for instance St. Lawrence may be necessary; IMO e.g. Lawrence of the gridiron would be silly and less effective.)

As to the suggestion of keeping the title of veneration in this article's title,

1. My brief Google test was impressionistic, but "Babasaheb" certainly was not the overwhelming choice, and Web pages with may be less common than without it;
2. Even if it is/were overwhelming, i think it is clear that that would be because people whose PoV makes them venerate him are disproportionately interested in him and creating more pages.
3. IMO it is a fact that the term is widely but not universally used, and that it is not necessary to identify him. I happen to think he deserves veneration more than, say Indira Gandhi, but that's PoV, and i favor keeping PoV's like mine out of article titles whenever possible, if only to keep as clear as possible our commitment to NPoV as being crucial to our mission.

IMO, the article should acknowledge what the most used term of veneration is, but not pretend it is necessary to identify him or actually part of his name; i didn't do a thorough edit, but that was one area where i made a change.
--Jerzy(t) 18:42, 2004 May 19 (UTC)

Since I am fairly new at this, I won't edit myself, but I think the first line of the article should use the term Dalit rather than Untouchable

THIS ARTICLE IS COMPLETELY BIASED, WRITTEN BY A DALIT I RETURN FOR RESERVATION.i am sorry if i violated anything. BUT ",GANDHI BALIEVED IN PRINCIPLES OF CHATURVARNA", IS IT NOT ORIGINAL RESEARCH?the article on Ambetkar was disrespectful of MAHATMA GANDHI and i only corrected it. the article was biased, and written by a pro reservationist , probbly dalit.PLEASE DONT LET ANYONE SLANDER OUR FATHER OF THE NATION —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajeeshvet (talk • contribs) 13:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer to First Question: 1) Family Life: There are Clear References of the family life of Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar If you are good in reading you can refer 'Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar' an Biography of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar written by his contemporary writer Mr. Dhananjay Keer,Popular Publications, Mumbai, 1966 This is a Primary Source for Any Research for Dr. B.R.Ambedkar because it is written by contemporary Author, Every thing about his family is mentioned in this book. Answer to Second Question: 2)Babasaheb is a term of veneration: A person should Read the books on Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar first, Dr. Ambedkar had many education degrees like, MA,PHD (cOLUMBIA),M.SC,D.LIT(OSMANIA),BAR.AT.LAW(LONDON),D.SC(LONDON),LLD(COLUMBIA.)The people like Justice M.G.Ranade, Mahatma Gandhi, Muhammad Jinah you can not compare with him because of his weak Socio-Economic Condition. But what a man he was! instead of participating in freedom struggle he concentrated on his studies, because he was well aware that the either rule of Britishers, or of Orthodox Hindu ideology would not make any difference in the condition of down trodden masses. He fought for them You can refer the volumes which were published by Government of Maharashtra, famously known as 'Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar his Writing and speeches' Volume No.I to XXII you will come to know why he was called as 'Babasaheb' this real statesman. Answer to Third question 3) Dishonor of Mahatma Gandhi: As a contemporary to mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Ambedkar was a keen criticizer he was well aware that political revolution have no meaning without the social uplift of downtrodden classes as well as emancipation of women, the mystery of this is in the social hierarchy since Ancient times. Many Social reformers like Gopal Ganesh Agarkar, Justice M.G. Ranade, Bhau Daji Lad, Mahatma Phule had the similar vision about the need of necessity of Social reforms before Political revolution. Most of the Indian Writers have admitted while writing Modern Indian History, that Social Reform Movements in India was a back bone behind the rise of 'Nationalism'. It proves that without social reforms, political reforms were useless. Dr. Ambedkar highly criticized the policies of Indian National Congress, and role of Mahatma Gandhi for their approach towards Untouchables their social aspect was missing, during the round table conferences you can see there was a lack of clarity of thought about untouchables so congress was biased about the 'Political rule' they were not bothered about giving equal status to untouchables. They were ready to give separate electorate to Muslims, Sikhs, but were not ready to give similar political power to untouchables, result of it reflected in Poona pact, 1932. Any learned visionary was able to criticize on these policies of Mahatma Gandhi, and Congress, Ambedkar was not the exception. For Gandhi believed in the principles of 'Chaturvarna' related sources any one can get by reading the 'Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, Writing and Speeches', Published by Education Department, Government of Maharashtra,Vol-9, 1990 these are original writings of Dr. Ambedkar. If a person who is pro-reservationist who is unable to understand the concepts of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar (as a revolutionary thinker,liberator,Constitution maker & who fought for equality, fraternity, brotherhood)then who else will understand the importance of his concepts. The big population who visit Dadar Chaityabhoomi for Death Anniversary day('Mahaparinirvana')of Dr.Ambedkar ,6th December every year, There is no other personality in India can be a cause for gather of such a big crowd of people for a salute to the great master Dr.Ambedkar. Is there anybody who can gather such a big crowd after his own death? Certainly there is nobody. It means in the past Social reforms were necessary, than the political.One sould understand the concept of reservation first what was the aim of it, which was explained by Dr. Ambedkar during the CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY DEBATES? please refer it once. Otherwise the the so called 'biased', 'pro-reservationist' terms are useless. Publication of thoughts of Bharatratna Dr. B.R.Ambedkar is not at all a 'biased thing'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shramik.kharat (talk • contribs) 19:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not a question of who gathers more crowd. Marc Anthony could gather crowd. Hitler was elected by the crowd. But that does not make them right. Gandhi has also done a lot for the Dalits. He used to practically live with them. Can't say Ambedkar was 'Poor'. He had wonderful educational opportunities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.32.21 (talk) 09:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Dr. Ambedkar had wonderful educational opportunities is a myth. his society had no right to study or even to study vedas of his own country. Please do not consider him as lucky or wel supported person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shramik.kharat (talk • contribs) 17:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits on 4 September 2005

Hi, am reverting the last edits by the user Nirav.Maurya to his previous edit because there is no reason why the section 22 vows should be removed. IMO it may be a better idea to list a section deletion on talk page before doing so. His first edit on the same date rewrites a lot on the relation between Mahatma Gandhi and Ambedkar but references are absent. However, I have not made any modifications to it; Yet, i am mentioning it here so that someone may fix it. ---Gurubrahma 08:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

- The Gandhi-Ambedkar reference is from Rajmohan Gandhi's book "Patel: A Life." The reference has been added. - Nirav Maurya

Dear friends,

in my opinion nobody who is agaist casteism should blame Dr. Ambedkar on this issue, neither should blame his works, nor this page: he was and he is the only one who points the problem of India, under the Britishers, and under this fake democracy of nowadays. Even the bahujan parties became corrupt. Come and see: India is not free from casteism, and I don't give a damn to these brahmins and uppercaste people who still feel they have any right to say anything about caste. If they renounce to casteism, then they can talk: otherwise, who is being partial here? I completely agree with Ambedkar, and all westerners should try to overcome this fancy about mystical India and so on. Casteism is Hell for the many.

Salud!

Aleix Ruiz (Univ. of Barcelona, Spain - Univ. of Pune, India)

Neutrality Problem

Dear All, i This article is posing a problem in my point of view over its well-pointed out criticism of Hinduism and Hindu society.

Its fine with me if Ambedkar believed Hinduism was no good. Its his own right. But this article comes across more as an anti-Hinduism page than a biography of Ambedkar.

ALSO, please refer to "Patel: A Life" by Rajmohan Gandhi for its discussion of the Yeravda Pact discussions. It was entirely incorrect to present Gandhi and the Congress Party as untouchable-baiters, while Ambedkar as some sort of hero for not recognizing the British "Divide and Rule" Policy.

What specific points would you like changed? - Nat Krause 20:24, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The 22 vows

What is reason to dispute the neutrality of the article or 22 vows ? Is it because, the most barbaric Hindu religion is unmasked ? Is it because there is fear among the Brahmanic class of Hindus that downtroddens will realise their slavery and will break the shackles of slavery ?

The divine slavery is given utmost protection by the Hindu gods (as mentioned in the vow Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh etc), scriptures. Can someone point to me that which Hindu God has opposed the divine slavery ? The divine slavery is practised not for few decades but more than 3000 years treating the downtrodden man worst than an animal. If the atrocities on the downtrodden masses were raised in Human Rights court, no doubt the severest of the punishment would be awarded to the oppresor Brahmanic classes. Well, few members have mentioned Babasaheb's views are anti-Hindu. Just to tell you, can someone show me a learned man like Babasaheb as Social reformer, Economist, lawyer etc. till date ? He has provide ample evidence in his "Writings and speeches volumes" and no one has dared to challenge writings till date. It is because of the 22 vows that the ideology of Babasaheb Ambedkar cannot be diluted by the Brahmanic media. The 22 vows are a great inspiration to the anyone who opposes caste system, untouchability and believes in liberty, equality and fraternity. Each vow can be tested with evidence, and more tests will bring out the ugliness of barbaric Hinduism. Hence POV of article is neutral and is nothing but truth. Suspecting neutrality of the article would be a great suppression of truth. --NishiU

I have no problem with the fact that Ambedkar didn't like Hinduism. It's totally his own point of view. However, since this article is regarding his life, not his point of view, the 22 vows should be removed from here. Does this 22 vows have some mystical importance, which deserve to clog up the space? There are so many things that Ambedkar wrote and why just 22 vows are shown here....why not all other work of Ambedkar. I demand, if 22 vows can have a place in this article, then each and every article of Dr. Ambedkar should appear here. I know, I know, I am being unrealistic, :) but I am trying to make a point here. I guess you understand.

This article is not about Hinduism and publishing biased information is not going to take us anywhere. If one view is published, then the other view does deserve to be published.

Finally, wanna keep the 22 vows, then why not all works of Ambedkar? Peace.

Among the vows, the vows 1-6, 8 & 19 can be construed as against the practices of Hinduism where as the others are more general in nature. The 22 vows are important because among the people who converted to Buddhism along with Ambedkar, most of them were illiterate and these vows were viewed as a mechanism to make it simple for them to understand why they and Ambedkar are renouncing Hinduism. IMHO, the article is not against Hinduism, but against some practices. At another level, the 22 vows reflect the great antipathy Ambedkar had for Hinduism; an exposure to these vows would hopefully let the reader judge Ambedkar's biases objectively. It may also help in giving some insights if Ambedkar became a Buddhist because he was pro-Buddha or anti-Hindu (my two cents is that it is an interaction effect). -- Gurubrahma 06:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I just deleted these as an apparent direct copy from this site: http://www.ambedkar.org/

I've a feeling a lot of other material in this article is also copied from the same site.--FRS 00:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Having read the article carefully and compared it to the biographical material at http://www.ambedkar.org/ , I didn't find any more copyvio problems. I cleaned up the article a little, and now find it pretty unobjectionable from a PoV standpoint; what are the objections to taking down the PoV dispute flag?--FRS 17:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, I hv just noticed your edits (as stated above by you) where you deleted a section titled "22 vows" stating that it is copyvio. However, facts are never copyvio. For example, if I copy the list of Ten Commandments from a website, it would still not be copyvio as the list of commandments is accepted as a fact. Hence, I'd be reverting your edits. --Gurubrahma 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, although "facts" are not subject to copyright, the "expression" of facts most definitely is. You have reattached over 300 words literally copied from here http://www.ambedkar.org/ without apparent permisssion of the copyright holder. Unless you have permission or it could be construed as "fair use", I believe it to be a copyvio. (By the way, the "Ten Commandments" are not subject to copyright because of their age, not because they are "facts.")

But even if the copyright status was resolved in favor of your position, it's my firm opinion that inclusion of all this copied material is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. On the other hand, if you want to compose a summary of what the 22 vows are about, and how they relate to the subject's overall life and times, that would be most welcome.

You also reverted out without comment a number of other edits that, imo, made the article more appropriately NPOV.

I'll wait a reasonable time for you and others to comment, but my position is that this version of the article[[3]] is much preferable to what you reverted to. --FRS 17:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, let me deal with the issues you raised in the reverse order. 1) While some of your copy-edit is good, you have removed information about his editing of a newspaper etc and other information about early life. It is wrong to say that I have not commented - look at the edit summary. 2) As far as the question of 22 vows being UE goes, there was a discussion on the talkpage and if u have viewpoints to profer, that would be the place (Pls. see the issues I have raised there). If I summarise 22 vows it wd be my POV. If I leave them as they are, ppl. can make their own inferences. 3) As far as the final issue of copyright goes, pls. look at [[4]], [[5]] - the first quoting 22 vows as they were taken and the second, refering to 22 vows at a later date. Just as Ten commandments would mean the same wording with the same meaning and the same sequence, 22 vows also remain the same. And you are mistaken abt "Ten Commandments" not being facts (facts in the sense of generally accepted wisdom) - you may ask a trusted editor. Finally, do not make statements such as "literally copied" as at least another website has the same info as well as some pamphlets and books. Why not check the reference you have added or some other book? Pls. assume good faith from editors who have been around for much longer, hail from the context that they are writing abt (e.g. India) and who hv been working on an article on continuous basis. You'd hv noticed anon IPs re-adding 22 vows w/o discussion - that pretty much happens because they are not of good faith. And btw, I am a strong Gandhian (look at my efforts in fighting vandalism on Mahatma Gandhi) with academic interest in Ambedkar.--Gurubrahma 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the copyvio issue, the issue is not whether the 22 vows existed or whether they've been elsewhere reported: I'm not disputing that they are "facts" in that sense. It's also immaterial whether or not the vows (or the Ten Commandments) are 'generally accepted wisdom" (a question about which I have no opinion) or that they've been previously copied by others. The issue is whether Ambedkar's expression can be reproduced without the permission of whoever holds the copyright for that expression. In the U.S. at least, such copying, unless it is "fair use," is generally prohibited. See, for example, the warning here regarding use of Dr. Martin Luther King's writings & audio recording:[6] and WP article here:[[7]]

Regarding the UE nature of copying all 22 vows into this article: I came to this article b/c of the PoV dispute flag, and would like to improve the article so that consensus emerges that we can take the flag down. I generally agree with the anon editor above, and disagree that a summary of the 22 vows is necessarily PoV. To the extent a draft summary you (or I write) is PoV, others are free to correct it, whereas, of course, we cannot "correct" the vows themselves to be NPOV. -FRS 18:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am completely with you when you say that one cannot copy a speech. However, any pledge or a statement made can be quoted - as it is a fact that the pledge has been made. So, I can always quote Martin Luther King "I have a dream." Entire lists such as the FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 are reproduced - If it qualifies as fair use, the 22 vows for whatever worth they have, wd also constitute fair use. The anon editor's comments had more to do with his perceived belittling of Hinduism through the vows. Anyways, as you have reported the issue in copyright problems, let us wait for comments (though I believe that the tone you have reported it in is not very conducive for a harmonious debate). Thanks, --Gurubrahma 07:57, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, I have added a separate section below for copyvio discussion/analysis which I hope will be joined by others, but to respond briefly to your statement above: lists or compilations of fact, e.g., FHM 100 Sexiest Women in the World 2004 generally do not enjoy copyright protection (in the U.S., at least, under Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1990)), even though they may have required substantial efforts on the part of their originator to compile, because they lack the required "modest quantum of creativity". So the reason they can be copied, is not because it is fair use, but because the lists are not copyrightable. The 22 vows, imo, cannot be considered a mere list.

Regarding further improvements to the article, irrespective of the copyvio issue, I would prefer a synthesis of the purpose and effect of the 22 vows rather than the bulk copying of them mainly to preserve balance with the rest of the article; considering B.R.A.'s other accomplishments and span of life, spending 10% on the article on the events of the last seven weeks of his life seems out of place. A better place for the 22 vows would be in the Neo-Buddhism article, in my opinion.

Another problem with the 22 vows section, is the reference to "Three Jewels and Five Percepts." This should be explained or removed.

Copyvio Examination Request

is still pending at [[8]] --FRS 00:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Your posting says "Copyright examination has been requested for the material described below". Could you please clarify where has it been requested from? The 22 vows are part and parcel of the Buddhism that Dr. Ambedkar gave to his followers. One has to understand that his followers were those people who were oppressed and treated as untouchables under the Hindu Varnashrama social order (Hindu Caste System). Dr. Ambedkar, after a long wait for reforms in the Hindu religion, decided to embrace Buddhism along with his followers. The Buddha's religion, he saw as the only scientific religion that had in its core value for human being and no God.

The 22 vows is a two way process - detachment from the orthodox Hinduism and its Gods (of which his followers were victims) and then attachment to the scientific path of the Buddha.

regards, NW.

I'm not sure I understand your question. If "clarify where has it been requested from?" means (1) who requested it and (2)why, the answers are (1) me and (2) for the reasons discussed in the section just before this one, and here:

• B. R. Ambedkar--In the long form of this section [[9]] of the article, advocated by some users, over 300 words are copied verbatim from (for example) [10] or [11]. I don't know the copyright status of this text, but it is recent enough (1956) that it could easily still be under copyright. It would be good if someone w/ an authoritative view on WP copyright policy would comment here [[12]] TIA--FRS 23:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If that doesn't answer your question, please rephrase it. Thanks, --FRS 21:21, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

The following material was apparently authored by the subject of the article in 1956. Its copyright status is unclear.

1) I shall have no faith in Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh nor shall I worship them.

2) I shall have no faith in Rama and Krishna who are believed to be incarnation of God nor shall I worship them.

3) I shall have no faith in ‘Gauri’, Ganapati and other gods and goddesses of Hindus nor shall I worship them.

4) I do not believe in the incarnation of God.

5) I do not and shall not believe that Lord Buddha was the incarnation of Vishnu. I believe this to be sheer madness and false propaganda.

6) I shall not perform ‘Shraddha’ nor shall I give ‘pind-dan’.

'7) I shall not act in a manner violating the principles and teachings of the Buddha.

8) I shall not allow any ceremonies to be performed by Brahmins.

9) I shall believe in the equality of man.

10) I shall endeavor to establish equality.

11) I shall follow the ‘noble eightfold path’ of the Buddha.

12) I shall follow the ten ‘paramitas’ prescribed by the Buddha.

13) I shall have compassion and loving kindness for all living beings and protect them.

14) I shall not steal.

15) I shall not tell lies.

16) I shall not commit carnal sins.

17) I shall not take intoxicants like liquor, drugs etc.

18) I shall endeavor to follow the noble eightfold path and practice compassion and loving kindness in every day life.

19) I renounce Hinduism, which is harmful for humanity and impedes the advancement and development of humanity because it is based on inequality, and adopt Buddhism as my religion.

20) I firmly believe the Dhamma of the Buddha is the only true religion.

21) I believe that I am having a re-birth.

22) I solemnly declare and affirm that I shall hereafter lead my life according to the principles and teachings of the Buddha and his Dhamma.

Nothing in the article can be said to be non factual.

The term `Babashaeb' is indeed the epithet Dr. Ambedkar was given by his millions of followers. Non Dalit or upper caste people may refer to him as Dr.Ambedkar but Dalit from all over India fondly prefer to call him `Babasaheb'. The reverence and intimacy being shown to Dr.Ambedkar by his follower through the epithet is not shared by many of the upper caste people who are in the print media. They simply refer to him as Dr.Ambedkar. This could be the reason for dispute. Dr. Vijay C. Sonawane

There is no copyright on 22 Vows, these were the Vows at the time of conversion in open speech at Nagpur in 1956 before 2 million people. This has been fundamental points of Dr Ambedkar at the time of conversion; All those want to dipute the copyright are doing it for the sake of Hinduism as it trounce Hinduism. This is the same way if some one posts India's national Anthem(Do they ask for copyright from President of India???) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.251.119.26 (talk • contribs).

Well, some editors believe that it would be regarded as copyrighted and I too believe the same. However, I do not feel that it violates fair use but anyways, an editor removed the vows from the article without waiting for the response from WP:CP. I have reverted your edits because I am waiting for a proper discussion on this. It would be better if you do not impute motives to people about why they have removed the section. Also, national anthem of India was written in 1911 and hence, would be public domain. Also, I am definite that the governments round the world release these in the PD. --Gurubrahma 07:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is the neutrality being disputed?

To my knowledge the facts stated in the article are correct so why is the neutrality of the article being questioned. Babasaheb is not his real name as we all know but Buddhists across India fondly call him by this name irrespective of whether veneration is the motive or not. Secondly people who say Babasaheb's views are anti-hindu have neither complete knowledge of Babasaheb's views nor have they complete understanding of Hinduism. i would only recommend reading Babasaheb Ambedkar:writings and speeches Vol 2 for his deep sociological analysis of the caste system and only then can his thoughts be understood in the right context.

I don't have a problem with the neutrality of the article as it stands right now. The parts I had issues with have been NPOV'd to my satisfaction. --FRS 05:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I too feel that it no longer has POV. Probably, we shd wait for a week for comments & potential objections and then take down the NPOV banner from the article. --Gurubrahma 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish to post here Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's Thoughts on Untouchability in India and Hindu religion.This is posted by NISHIKANT WAGHMARE, MUMBAI.pLEASE READ AND ADD.Dr. B.R. Ambedkar's thoughts on "Untouchables of India":-

                                           Untouchables are not Hindus

What is there in conversion, which can be called novel? Really speaking what sort of social relations have you with the caste Hindus at present? You are as separate from the Hindus as Muslims and Christians are. So is their relation with you. Your society and that of the Hindus are two distinct groups. By conversion, nobody can say or feel that one society has been split up. You will remain as separate from the Hindus as you are today. Nothing new will happen on account of this conversion. If this is true, then why should people be afraid of conversion? At least, I do not find any reason for such a fear... Revolution - Not Reform Changing a religion is like changing a name. Change of religion followed by the change of name will be more beneficial to you. To call oneself a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist or a Sikh is not merely a change of religion but also a change of name.. Since the beginning of this movement of conversion, various people have raised various objections to it. Let us now examine the truth, if any, in such objections...

A congenital idiot alone will say that one has to adhere to one's religion because it is that of our ancestors. No sane man will accept such a proposition. Those who advocate such an argument, seem not to have read the history at all. The ancient Aryan religion was called Vedic religion. It has three distinct characteristic (features). Beef-eating, drinking and merry-making was part of the religion of the day. Thousands of people followed it in India and even now some people dream of going back to it. If the ancient religion alone is to be adhered to why did the people of India leave Hinduism and accept Buddhism? Why did they divorce themselves from the Vedic religion?... Thus this Hindu religion is not the religion of our ancestors, but it was a slavery forced upon them... To reform the Hindu society is neither our aim nor our field of action. Our aim is to gain freedom. We have nothing to do with anything else.

If we can gain freedom by conversion, why should we shoulder the responsibility of reforming the Hindu religion ? And why should we sacrifice our strength and property for that? None should misunderstand the object of our movement as being Hindu social reform. The object of our movement is to achieve social freedom for the untouchables. It is equally true that this freedom cannot be secured without conversion. Caste can't be destroyed I do accept that the untouchables need equality as well. And to secure equality is also one of our objectives. But nobody can say that this equality can be achieved only by remaining as Hindu and not otherwise. There are two ways of achieving equality. One, by remaining in the Hindu fold and another by leaving it by conversion. If equality is to be achieved by remaining in the Hindu fold, mere removal of the sense of being a touchable or an untouchable will not serve the purpose. Equality can be achieved only when inter-caste dinners and marriages take place. This means that the Chaturvarnya must be abolished and the Brahminic religion must be uprooted. Is it possible? And if not, will it be wise to expect equality of treatment by remaining in the Hindu religion? And can you be successful in your efforts to bring equality? Of course not. The path of conversion is far simpler than this. The Hindu society does not give equality of treatment, but the same is easily achieved by conversion. If this is true, then why should you not adopt this simple path of conversion? Speech by Dr.Ambedkar- May 30-31,1936,Nashik..

This speech is highly saddening...the message is "take the easy way out, convert to other faiths rather than trying to fight to reform Hinduism". Its almost as if Hindu reformers were idiots to try and reform Hinduism. Rohitbd 16:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well put Rohitbd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.32.21 (talk) 10:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Ambedkar is standing for social reformation, hinduism itself is seen as the problem. The modern brahmanic hinduism is trying to impose its vew and idea upon the masses of this country whom they claim to be part of one hindu religion defined in terms of caste hindu. It is to propagate this hinduism its proponents tried to reform. Dalits begin outside this framework has no obligation to reform hinduism. They aim at ensuring that they become citizens who command respect from the other sections of the society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs) 06:48, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I feel that this article no longer has POV. Therefore I intend to remove the tag. If there is any reason for it to be called POV. Please post them systematically below this comment. If no adequate reply is provided the POV tag will be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs) 06:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

PoV fork regarding Manusmriti

A recent edit [13] changed

"The Chowdar Tank campaign also saw the ceremonial burning of the Manusmriti or `Institutes of Manu', the ancient Hindu law book that Ambedkar believed bore much of the responsibility for the cruel treatment that the Untouchables had suffered. By thus desecrating the much-revered volume, Ambedkar's followers intended to demonstrate that equality among castes was an issue that could not be ignored."

to

"Chowdar Tank campaign also saw the ceremonial burning of the Manusmriti or `Institutes of Manu', the ancient Hindu law book that Ambedkar believed (incorrectly) bore much of the responsibility for the cruel treatment that the Untouchables had suffered. Manusmriti is neither a part of Hindu Scriptures nor is it used in any religious ceremony. This text is neither revered - for most part it is not known, outside rural areas. By thus desecrating volume, Ambedkar's followers intended to demand equality."

I propose the following as an NPOV variant of these two para's:

"The Chowdar Tank campaign also saw the ceremonial burning of the Manusmriti or `Institutes of Manu', the ancient Hindu law book that Ambedkar believed bore much of the responsibility for the cruel treatment that the Untouchables had suffered. By thus desecrating the volume, Ambedkar's followers intended to demonstrate that equality among castes was an issue that could not be ignored. However, the importance of Manusmriti to Hindu beliefs, particularly outside rural areas, is disputed."

Just one comment, I'm not trying to make a point. While most Hindus know what are Vedas, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagavad Gita, Ramcharitmanas, etc, as far as I know, few laymen know about Manusmriti. deeptrivia (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

More on the copyvio

Ambedkar's 22 vows, while public, are still copyrighted. I'm afraid they can't be reproduced here. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for details. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been asked to elaborate, so I will. First off, let me say that I am a Buddhist and a fan of B. R. Ambedkar, and I think his vows are very important. On the other hand, I want to follow Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, and according to United States law, anything written down is automatically copyrighted. (This is also the law in India.) Reproducing someone else's text without their permission - even in these cases, where our intentions are only good - is illegal.

Now there is the concept of fair use, where the law allows minor copyright violations for educational purposes, so long as the copied text is short. (This is why it's legal to quote someone, for instance.) But the longer the text is, the less likely it is that fair use would apply. If you copy a one-sentence quote from a book, that's fair use. But if you copy a whole chapter, that's not.

In this case, with over 300 words copied, it seems unlikely that a fair use rationalle would stand up. It's unfortunate, but it's the law: we can't copy someone else's text unless they agree to license their text under the GFDL. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 13:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been listed at WP:CP for a long time and the very fact that there has been no response yet may be indicative of the dilemma if fair use applies or not. Until such time, I believe that the section on vows should stay. However, I just want to inform that I will not revert the changes. --Gurubrahma 13:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, when an article is listed on WP:CP for 7 days with no objections, the article is deleted. This one was listed for months with no objections. I removed the vows in order to save the article from deletion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 14:02, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The article was not listed, the section was mentioned and no one deleted it. You can find the link in one of the threads above. --Gurubrahma 14:08, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as the 22 vows are properly cited they can be reprinted, as has happened repeatedly in works about Ambedkar.--Julesinman 01:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The LL.Ds

At the end of the "Education" section, it says that Ambedkar was presented with honourary LL.D's from Columbia and Osmania universities, in 1952 and 1953, respectively. The degree is strictly honourary, however. It was therefore not part of his education. He received them both within five years of his death, and the statements therefore violate the chronological flow of the article. I think it should be moved further down.

--Anon. 03:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalising by Hindu right wing

Babasaheb is the number 1 enemy of the hindu right wing. As its impossible to fight his ideology directly; the hindus are using the strategy of coopting him as integral to hinduism. --Yeditor 06:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed in this blog posting [[14]] that statues of Ambedkar are being vandalized. I was wondering if this is the "vandalising" you are referring to. (BTW, I hope editors will not mind my referring to a blog posting simply as a matter of reference in this talk page.) MarkPritchard 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

This is why blogs are unreliable. The vandalism was actually done by a Dalit youth [15].Rumpelstiltskin223 18:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

That news article does not describe the person arrested for vandalizing a statue as being Dalit. In fact, I think it says rather the opposite, that the vandalization is an example of "the deep-seated animosity towards Dalits, which found expression in disfiguring and dishonouring Dalit icons such as Dr. Ambedkar." MarkPritchard 23:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. Read the article more carefully. Also, read this [16]. The youth in question was "let off" on the grounds of PC towards the radicalized Dalits. Looks like some elements are trying to justify rioters who set trains on fire and kill people over a statue (which was the work of one of their own, which is why they were so "angered by the arrest", if it was an OBC, also low caste, they would not hesitate to yell for murder). I believe that wikipedia is not supposed to be a soapbox for partisan propaganda. Thaa.Rumpelstiltskin223 00:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

His writings and speeches

I have added the all the items and thier links. But I think that written work of babasaheb needs and introduction covering atleast the range of topics that he covered. May be difficult as there is hardly any one in the world who wrote and spoke with such mastery on so many subjects.

The list of links has also become very long. Any Idea on how to put it may be in a table along side so that the length reduces--Yeditor 12:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

203.101.20.116 has changed the topic to "Books by Ambedkar" This is not correct. Not all writings of Dr. Ambedkar can be called as books. SOme are speeches, some are transcripts of the deliberations in the parliaments. So i am reverting the topic to "His Writings and Speeches" This same topic has been used by the goverment while publishing his writings. I dont know why you have deleted the links to his writing and speeches. so i have to revert them. Please justify on talk before making such drastic changes.--Yeditor 08:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeditor, I request you to understand the reason I replaced the section with a link in the external links section. Not all his writings and speeches are so important that need to be mentioned and linked from this article. Only those that are absolutely essential should be mentioned in a paragraph format with background and emphasis on why they are important. Without it, it just looks a horrible list which doesn't solve any purpose as it doesn't evaluate the importance of any specific speech. If you don't trust me, ask for opinion of any other long-standing editor. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Who can decide which work of Babasaheb is more important. Neither you nor any other user is qualified. My Position is that all of Babasahebs works are important. Thats why all have to be mentioned. Note that this is a Biographical Article. "Evaluating the importance of any specific speech" as you are suggesting, leads to POV.

It is not a "Horrible" list as you say. Its an excellent list with all the links. This is the purpose of WIKI. "To give a quick reference to Knowledge". I dont understand your constraint when there is no space constraint. Unless you are finding particular writings as "Horrible"????.

Again, I mention the way of listing as horrible, and not the content of the listings. It is again your POV that all his works are (equally) important. Evaluating the importance needs to be done with respect to how much quoted or notable specific speech/writing is, rather than on personal experience (which will lead to POV), and this is usually done. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If you havent noticed, I have kept the writings and speeches in alphabetical order only to avoid this issue of 'importance'. Individual editors can make a particular writing "BOLD" if they think that its more important than others. This solves the issue... closedYeditor 07:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Single-handed declaration hardly closes any issue. You have completely misunderstood the points raised by me. Please re-read the reasons given by me above. Also, if you notice in the Peer-review, another editor has raised a similar issue, and what exists now has been found inappropriate. So in other words, the issue is not closed. Will you mind if I ask for other editor's opinion by posting this in the Indian Wikipedians' Notice Board? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

And what does creating an issue where there is none, do. I have addreessed your issue regarding importance rating of Babasahebs Writings and speeches. You should not be having any more concerns,unless you want to hide the writings because you find them objectionable. Is that your hidden concern?? Please remember that this is Babasahebs page and they are his life's works. So they stay. In case you feel that mentioning mere topics of the writings is not proper, Feel free to follow the links, read them, and add a synopsis to each work. FYI, I will be doing that tooYeditor 11:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

If I had any hidden agenda(s), I would be opposing any mention of his writings and NOT asking them to be written in paragraph format with description and analysis. I guess you are still a long way before understanding Wikipedia:Assume good faith. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I jumped to conclusion. But you too deleted the list before explanation. My further views on this topic in reply to AKSIs comments are here [[17]]Yeditor 13:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The collection in the section "His Writings and Speeches" must go per Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Medtopic 04:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Writings and speeches comes back. That is the most important section He writings and speeches make 21 voulumes not counting the writings in two news papers he started. This is only a selected protion from those writings. Deleters/medtopic is giving an excuse to block Dr Ambedkar's writings. This is what most Bhramins do. Suggest that he goes and checks the list of writings on Bertrand Russel page as suggested before.

political career

"Growing fiercely critical of the Congress, Ambedkar grew close to Muslim politician Muhammad Ali Jinnah and aligned his party with Jinnah's Muslim League. Ambedkar and his supporters attended a rally organised by Jinnah in 1939 to celebrate the en masse resignation of elected Congressmen (in protest of India's arbitrary inclusion in World War II), which Jinnah termed as a "Day of Deliverance" from "Hindu rule." In contrast to the Congress, Jinnah and Ambedkar supported the British war effort and Ambedkar encouraged his supporters to join the army'

I have deleted the above sentence . As can be seen obvious, this is an attempt to villfy Dr Ambedkar by associating him with seperatists. Dr. Ambedkars thoughts ( Highly critical of Jihnna and Muslim league) can be found in his book "Pakistan and the Partition of India"--Yeditor 05:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

review- not taken note of

To avoid edit wars Mahitgarparticipated in 'peer review' and left the mater there ,but none of usual editors seem interested to take note of the same is surprising. Mahitgar 11:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing Myself

Since none of the usual editors have replied this note and the peer review for more than last 30 days ,I consider it to be correct and start editing the article soon on my own. Mahitgar 16:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

avoid negative tones,and negative POVs

In Indian context, now it is time that dust settles . Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar,is no longer a controversial figure and he and his thoughts have been accepted by all main stream contemporary Indian Politcal thought.

It is not fair to get involved in Edit Wars about this Gentelmans Biography, And it usual an Indian cultural aspect to accept and treat with respect every being who is no longer on this earth.

Please discuss issues on talk page and dont do edit wars. Mahitgar 08:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

proposing Changes in this para

• In 1926, he became a nominated member of the Bombay Legislative Council, and led a satyagraha — non-violent protest and civil disobedience as pioneered by Mahatma Gandhi — in Madh to fight for the right of the untouchable community to draw water from the main water tank of the town.[4]

• • Earlier in peer review I had remarked descripancy in the name of the place 'Madh' is wrong.
  • While studying this aspect I found and belive that the nomenclature to this movement could be a march.
  • Needs confirmation and correction if needed in year and date of Mahad event. Conflict of year 1926 Vs 1927 observed [18]please discuss.
    • • I respect Mahatma Gandhi and Dr.Babasaheb both and it is also welknown that Mahatma Gandhi was major inspiration of Non violelnce,Mahatama Gandhi also supported movements against untouchability;Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkars Mahad struggle was non violent ,But still is Mahatma Gandhis name relevent in Mahad Struggle ,if so in what way?- I do not support about inclusion of Gandhi being not necessary.

Mahitgar 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi man.If you can find any factual innaccuracies that you can back up with Reliable Sources then please make the corrections :).Hkelkar 11:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Changes in Para 2 of intro

• Leading numerous public agitations, he would become a fierce critic of Mahatma Gandhi and the Indian National Congress.

• • While it is agreed that he has majior disagreements of views with Mahatama Gandhi and Congress ;he criticised them where he did not agree with them and we can almost devote a complete different section for that.
  • While his public agitations were against manipulative socio-religious hirarchy ;The above sentence in intro creates a false impression that those agitations were against Mahatama Gandhi only which is certainly not true.

Hence I am making two changes One is breaking the sentence and creating entirely separate section about Gandhi -Ambedkar relations. I am sure all will agree with me Mahitgar 14:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay. But please maintain neutral tone and marrative. This article has been vandalized too many times by Neo-Buddhist whackjobs.Hkelkar 15:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

improvements in criticism section

[Limitations] electoral achivements these links info will be used for updating the section discuss Mahitgar 01:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Statements without sources

Some anonymous editor has updated death section.This section was already a POV without source mentioned,further some one has vandalised it.Why people do not spare him even after his death and keep vandalising an article about a genuine scholor is ununderstandable

Contribution to independence movement

Can anybody write about Dr. Ambedkar's contribution to Indian independendence movement? The only reference is in criticism and Indian independendence movement template. Current article talks nothing about independence movement anywhere else.

Wces423 11:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please protect this article against vandalism

While it is understandable that every other individual from India may hold different views than mentioned in the article ,if every body keep doing edit war this article will never be at rest.

Undersigned participated in peer review after keeping a note on talk page with proper references I made changes with nuetral agenda and here people are coming mercylessly they are making edits and re-edits with zero courtesy to explain what change and why they are doing so?

It is quite frustrating to see all effort time and knowledge and study being vandalised this way. Here with I appeal to the administrators,to disable editing of this article by unregistered or newly registered users because of recent vandalism and other disruption. Let such users may discuss changes, request unprotection, or create an account. Mahitgar 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The request should be placed here Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection. Andries 17:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

From the public records, it appears that Dr.Ambedkar was the Labour Memberin the Viceroy's council(Labour Minister in current terminology). Therefore, it is improbable that as far as 1942 Quit India movement is concerned, he could not have taken part. Gururajbn (talk) 02:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)B.N.Gururaj.

unnecessary Reference in Persian script being removed

سنڌي:ڀيمرائو رامجي امبيڊڪر) "" Ambedkars mother toungue is Marathi so this non-Marathi and Non english reference near the name is not related and being removed . Another reason,Marathi script can remain in constant check and it is very necessary to avoid any other script to ensure no foul language is being used.About this biography we would be extra cautious on this count. Mahitgar 11:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

About anti-Brahmin text

/* Ambedkar and Brahmins */ Moved to the more relevant article Anti-Brahmanism article. dear wiki members please write things to more relevant articles. Your inputs are welcome.

Escaping caste on BBC World

BBC World's radio program Assignment has had an episode, Escaping caste, about Dalit conversions and Ambedkar's impact. I heard it on 18 November 2006, but I can't find a direct link. I have added a short para to the section Ambedkar, Gandhi & Congress, based on what I heard in this program. --Singkong2005 · talk 05:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism and legacy

This section seems like anything but criticism and legacy. Most of it seems to be the right wing explanation of how and why the reservations have failed in India. This content is totally irrelevant under the heading of Criticism and Legacy of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar. In fact the two separate sections for Legacy and Criticism should be created. Nowhere in this section is there a mention of Ambedkar's legacy. The inheritance of Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar's constitutional means to fight against injustice, acceptance by Indian society of his views of Equality, Fraternity and Liberty are absent. Even more populous events like the lakhs of people gathering at Deeksha Bhoomi (Nagpur) and Chaitya Bhoomi (Mumbai)every year to pay respect and homage to him are conveniently omitted from his legacy. (Flewovercuckoo 18:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Theorized Mahar bias by 'Untouchable' leaders

It is a well known fact that as B.R. Ambedkar was vehemently opposed to Hinduism, and later converted to Buddhism, he had many Caste Hindu and Right Wing critics. The section 10.1 talks here about criticism by some individuals who were not well known even in their own era. Mentioning their personal opinion about Ambedkar in a meeting does not seem appropriate here. This sub section tries to prove his bias for Mahar caste without giving substantial proof and hence is nothing more than an attempt of vandalism. No reply to this discussion shall be reason enough to delete this sub section (Flewovercuckoo (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC))

As there is no response as to why this biased view shall not be removed, I am going ahead and cleaning the article of such POVs. Flewovercuckoo (talk) 16:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Aftermath

Edit: Talking About Aftermath Many People accomplished in dalit literature believe that "Dead Ambedkar is More Dangerous then the Living One" - Please Note that it is not in offense with anyone . It is believed that After Dr.Ambedkar's Death Number of People In His Support has turned out Huge and Positive which was a bigger figure before also. With Lakh's and Lakh's of People Coming from far villages and states to Nagpur and Mumbai On Dr.Ambedkar's Death Anniversary. Huge Processions are Seen on 14th April of each year (which is Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar's birthday) in almost All cities in Maharshtra and Uttar Pradesh and Other states Also.

The Support for Ambedkar may be estimated with the People's outcry in 2006 Dalit Protest in Maharshtra. With thousands of People Protesting which in Later part turned out violent in some places. satishynd

This section seems to be work of a fanatic fundamentalist person who is evidently using wikipedia to satisfy his grudge against Dalits. The 2006 Dalit protest in Maharashtra were not anti-hindu but were outcry for justice for the Bhootmange family who was brutally killed by upper caste Hindus. This section encourages hate mongering and needs to be deleted. Any issues can be discussed, no response shall lead to the deletion of the controversial section.(Flewovercuckoo 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC))

Agree with you Flewovercuckoo.. This article is turned making Babasaheb some kind of villian or something. Everything said is pointed to the controvery and criticism section.. This needs to be Pruned. There is too much Criticism in this ariticle. It's Like some WWW page to express Anti-Dalit thoughts. Wiki Needs to be un-baised .. it's a World Recognised site and it need to be un-biased. satishynd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.0.111 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

 A FEW COMMENTS
first of all, B.R Ambedkar was influential on all dalit / SC castes

throughout india, not just maharastra.

the second point, while Ambedkar preached buddhism, this religion 
has not become popular among all dalits. Except in the case of
a few politicians such as  Ms. Mayawati, ordinry dalits prefer

christianity or islam to convert from hinduism

on the whole a very good reference article  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.167.130 (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC) 

We need to definitely rephrase this section. There is a definite bias in this section, that goes against wikipedia's policy of Neutral Point of View.--Harish89 (talk) 19:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

babasaheb ambedkar bodhisatva?

wqwqwqwq 15:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)babasaheb was given bodhisatva title from buddhist monesteries? if so the i think it is nessesary to added in introductory parts. http://books.google.co.in/books?id=Ur3mgfASI7AC&pg=PA65&lpg=PA65&dq=bodhisattva+ambedkar&source=bl&ots=hyxLF7DyEh&sig=7C7ZMI1LbN0hXU4akmSmyPCL5Lo&hl=en&ei=cdQrSsbmNseMkAWluOzuCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 given information about this matter. so any body help me on this matter? user:rajvaddhan usertalk

Place of Cremation - Chowpatty or Dadar ?

Dear All, As far as I have read, Ambedkar's place of cremation was at Dadar. i.e his final resting place is in Dadar, where the annual gathering happens. Is it right to say his cremation was in Chowpatty ?

If my observation is right, I will change the information in the article. Please advise.

~Pras —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasanl (talk • contribs) 17:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move (and insufficient evidence that the WP:COMMONNAME policy should be overlooked or that the current title is not the common name. --RegentsPark (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

B. R. Ambedkar → Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar — This article is currently named B.R. Ambedkar which is a name with initials. His full name is Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and the article have this full name as the title. I've tried to move the page myself, but the redirect page with full name already exists.

It think article should be named Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar with a redirect from B.R. Ambedkar. Shivashree (talk) 09:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Our titles use the form normally used in writing of the subject in English: V. S. Naipaul, C. S. Forester, H. G. Wells. So here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It is true that Dr. Ambedkar is sometimes called Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, but his complete name Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar is also commonly used. In India, he is mostly referred to as Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar. So, all the three naming styles are common in Dr. Ambedkar's case, which is not the case with the names that Pmanderson gave. I suggest to move this article to his complete name with a redirect from B. R. Ambedkar and Babasaheb Ambedkar. Shivashree (talk) 04:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. My rough google test results in "B. R. Ambedkar": 310,000; "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar": 83,800; "Babasaheb Ambedkar": 239,000. Of all the options, the current one seems to be the more commonly used one, so I don't see a need to rename to a less commonly used name. The less commonly used names can and should be redirects to the article, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Dr.B.R.Ambedkar is popurlarly called as "Babasaheb", even in his life time B.R.Ambedkar is addressed as "Babasaheb". So, I think "Babasaheb" could be the Proper name for this Article. In my browser the google search results for "Babasaheb" is 328,000, this result is very high then any combinations. The Complete name of Jyothi Rao Phule is Jyothiba Govindarao Phule, which is not used in common. If this article cannot be nammed as "Babasaheb" then I suggeset to rename it as proposed(Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar) without initials —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranjithsutari (talk • contribs) 20:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support.

1. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is the person's full name and should be the title of the article. This is followed even in naming other similar articles such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Atal Bihari Vajpayee etc.

2. Also in this Maharastrian patronymic name Bhimrao is the person's first name, Ramji is from his father, and Ambedkar is the last name. See [19]

3. I agree with Shivasree that "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar" is also commonly used. [20], [21], [22], [23]

4. One important reason why Bhimrao should be in the title is that a majority of Indian people identify and associate it with Ambedkar. This is reflected in the slogan 'Jai Bhim', meaning victory to Bhim ,i.e, Bhimrao Ambedkar.

5. Regarding number of google hits here is my data : "Ambedkar" (1,650,000), "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar" (279,000), "B. R. Ambedkar" (264,000). (I dont know why Good Olfactory has got different results. I searched google.com from India). Clearly "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar" is more popular.--Mgtm7m (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Requested move Discussion round 2

1. First of all If at all WP:COMMONNAME is taking in to account google searches then why it is missing Google's google trend service which strait away provides a comparative study from which area and which search is more common becomes more obevious and is more scientific.
2. When I searched all above terms at google trends I found that " Babasaheb Ambedkar " is the most searched term so,as per WP:COMMONNAME " Babasaheb Ambedkar " should stand as the common name, Bhimrao Ambedkar is the second most searched term ,B.R.Ambedkar search term is on third and complete Name with middle name Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar is the least searched term (being middle names usually not used for searches on search engines) .
3. Third is people from the regions search most they are asking for the change, and at the end of the day level of interest of those who are showing rules opposing the change is least one.SO I feel those who are opposing reconsider this aspect
4. I do have one more reason st support the change, that Government of Maharashtra State (INDIA) has come out with new publicly deliberated cultural policy which suggest in particular usage of full names of persons of emminance at public places and not to use short forms of initials.And Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar belongs to the same region in India.
5. Final Cultural Policy as observed on 2nd July 2010 3.30 pm Indian Standard Time

Mahitgar (talk) 10:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mahitgar, I appreciate your valuable analysis in support of moving this article. The current title of this article does not meet the guidelines of WP:UCN. According to this policy "Babasheb Ambedkar" is the most common form of this article. This policy also suggest to Avoid abbreviations in article title format then this title should be the proper name "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar". I think this article should be moved to either proper name or common name without any request to moves, because google trends is not the WP:UCN naming convention or guidelines.--Ranjithsutari (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No, we also have a policy against including honorifics and titles in names (in general). That's why we have an article at Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi even though Mahatma Gandhi is more common. Without including "Babasaheb", "B. R. Ambedkar" is the more common term. (Google Trends notwithstanding.) Shreevatsa (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could not undertand what you want to prove and which policy you are referring to. Here in above discussions the common name is "Babasheb Ambedkar" and the proper name is "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar". "B. R. Ambedkar" name is already assigned to this article, most of the editors supporting to use Proper name that is "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar". with regards--Ranjithsutari (talk) 05:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Conversion back to Buddhism

Dear editior 61.8.139.218, I'm not surprised with you edit summary that is "@Ranjithsutari - you read the book Who Were the Shudras?, Ambedkarji says they were Aryans belonging to the Kshatriya class". I would have appreciated you statement if you can give the exact reference to the above statement. What ever, you should remember that Gouthama Buddha the founder of Buddhism is a Kshatriya.

Conversion back to Buddhism

Dear editior 61.8.139.218, I'm not surprised with you edit summary that is "@Ranjithsutari - you read the book Who Were the Shudras?, Ambedkarji says they were Aryans belonging to the Kshatriya class". I would have appreciated you statement if you can give the exact reference to the above statement. What ever, you should remember that Gouthama Buddha the founder of Buddhism is a Kshatriya. --Ranjithsutari (talk) 16:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hungary

Slightly extended the Hungary section with a link to the jaibhim.hu site. Any improvements on the 'reference' representation welcome, I'm still a relative Wikipedia rookie Erikdr (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link. That site doesn't appear to meet wikipedia's reliable source guidelines. More importantly, it doesn't directly support anything in the text. It wouldn't qualify as an external link because it isn't actually about Ambedkar. I left the link you added with the free download of the out of print book, however. If you have any questions about how reliable sources or links work, I'd be happy to answer them. If it's about this page specifically, leave the message here, or, if about policies/guidelines in general, on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, it's basically a site about the movement inspired by Ambedkar. I _do_ however find that it's useful for information (as reference or external link, I'm not too familiar with the difference between those two groups) on the Ambedkarite/Dalit movement, and now added it to the 'Dalit Buddhism' page. Curious what would be objections on posting it there, but that's for that other Discussion page...

Erikdr (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the key is that Wikipedia doesn't allow links just because they are "useful". In fact, our criteria for external links is very high, limiting external links to only the most necessary links for specific topics, and they generally have to be created by known authorities, or be the official links ofthe article's subject. As an encyclopedia, our job is not just to provide any links that might be helpful, but only those that are strictly necessary for completing an encyclopedic coverage of a subject. References are only used to support specific information covered in the text. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

'Missions' OR 'Up Against Slavery'

Editor Qwyrxian, I'm comfortable with any of the title, as both the titles are suggested by me. I can't figure-out, why you can't understand the latter title, whereas it is similar to the previous section title 'Fight against untouchability'. I think there should be a new article with the title "Missions of Babasaheb" to write in detail about the various "institutions & Ideas" given by him. As this article is a Biography, 'Up Against Slavery' will be better. -Ranjithsutari (talk) 11:25, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Is "Up Against Slavery" the title of one of his movements? Or a book he wrote? If not, it's a non-neutral, non-encyclopedic title. It's not really accurate to call this a "biography"--that is, it's not a book designed to interest the reader, show off parts of Ambedkar's life, paint a story about him, etc. Rather, it must be a neutral, encyclopedic recounting of his life as shown in reliable sources. As for another article, it's unlikely to be appropriate. Unless Ambedkar's philosophy has been the study of significant critical inquiry such that it is a field all its own, it is more appropriate to include here. If there is such a body of work, creating a new article is questionable, and really only needed if including it here would overwhelm this article. For example, there is no article Philosophy of Plato (it's all contained in Plato), though there is an article Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. Do you already have sources in mind? Note that this this cannot be based primarily on articles/books written by Ambedkar himself--creating that type of article would be a form of original research. Perhaps a good way to get started would be for you to to make a draft article in a sandbox in your user space. I can help show you how to do that if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Clean up

There is a lot of unsourced information in this article, and a fair amount of it has been tagged for at least a few months as being in need of citations. I am going to read up a bit on the subject myself but, please, if you have any reliable sources for the uncited stuff then can you make an effort to introduce them? I am quite likely to clear out anything that is not easily sourced. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't want to start a new section for this, but I've deleted the single added sentence in the first paragraph which referred to Dr. Ambedkar being conferred the "Greatest Indian" after Mahatma Gandhi award by CNN-IBN. Several reasons for that. Firstly, the entire notion of "Greatest" is backward. Secondly, it's not an official government conferral, but a TV channel poll - weak demographic spectrum (of respondents), no free choice of persons, etc. all come to mind making the entire exercise ridiculous. Above ALL that, in line with good writing practices, we ought to maintain chronology of awards, or list most eminent awards in the FIRST paragraph. The man is a Bharat Ratna! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.237.156.211 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

At first I reverted you to re-add it, but, thinking about what you write here, it should remain out of the lead. I do think that it's relevant enough to probably include somewhere, but you are correct it's not so important that it should be right at the beginning. Qwyrxian (talk)

Added section on second marriage.

Added section on second marriage of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar, noting the fact that his second wife was born into a Brahmin family and later converted to Buddhism along with him. 98.180.212.101 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)joy

I've reverted it because no sources were provided. Feel free to re-add if you cite reliable sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I've re-added the section providing references. Also, I have changed the wording to provide a proper context, and continuity in flow from the previous section. Also provided the reference to his second wife in the info box of the article, and mentioned that his second wife also converted to Buddhism along with him in the section 'Conversion to Buddhism'. After the above change, I felt that the fact that she 'died a buddhist' was redundant and hence made a modification to that line in the section 'Death'.98.180.212.101 (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)joy

Women were having no caste , no religion, their caste and religion would the same as the men they marry.......No need of the any evidence for her conversion to Mahar or Buddhism. ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.151.3 (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

At some places, the tone of the article seems to be conflicting with the "neutral point of view". Below, I point out few instances that stuck in my mind:

• "He was also in the need for a companion in his old age", appears to be a writer's own perception.
• "He chose to marry the Saraswat Brahmin Dr. Sharada Kabir", it seems like Saraswat Brahmin are pariah, and Ambedkar did some alms-deed by marrying her.
• "the 2nd day of his 56th year, at his residence No. 1, Hardinge Avenue, New Delhi", no words for this.
• "The marriage was celebrated under the Civil Marriages Act by the Deputy Commissioner of Delhi. The New York Times described the marriage as more significant than the wedding of a royalty to a commoner. She adopted the name Savita. She took care of him for the rest of his life", copyrigt violation.
• "Dadar Chowpatty is also known as CHAITYA-BHOOMI", unnecessarily using capital letters for emphasis.
• Almost unsourced paragraph in the "Death" section about institutions after him.
• "Legacy", which is actually already tagged with OR, is almost an equivocating section.
• "Dr. Ambedkar's very name became a sign of victory of the down-trodden and long-exploited", too much POV?
• "Dr. Ambedkar's portrait can be found gracing the front of the Great Britain Hotel at 447 Church St, Richmond, Victoria, Australia", having a portrait on a webpage doesn't verify the stated claim.

Article really needs additional references for verification and work on multiple sections (Second marriage, Legacy, Death, In popular culture, etc). — Bill william compton^Talk 13:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Section on Attitudes towards Hinduism and Hindu Nationalism

I added a section on "Attitudes towards Hinduism and Hindu Nationalism", with quotes and proper attribution. But User:Sitush deleted it - calling it "quote mining". Given that I think that I provided an accurate summary of Ambedkar's position on Hinduism and Hindu Nationalism, I could not understand the objection please clarify. vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 16:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

It was your opinion of an accurate summary, and it used primary sources, as the edit summary for my revert explained. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, you are not qualified to synthesise Ambedkar's many works in order to produce a summary. Find some secondary sources that discuss his attitude to those subjects, cite them and cut down on the number of quotations used. - Sitush (talk) 16:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Will this article on a web portal serve as a valid secondary source? vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. Right at the top, the site appears to be officially promoting books published by Gyan, and that in itself suggests poor editorial control/judgment. No-one in their right mind cites or promotes that publisher. In my opinion, books are preferable to websites for this type of thing. - Sitush (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not understand this reference to 'Gyan' as a publisher. That page lists a variety of articles appearing in a variety of media - including Indian Express, Outlook etc.. Can you please review and precisely state your objection to using the article mentioned? I can say something like: "Aravindan Neelakandan, a noted author and social worker in his own right, summarized Amebdkar's stance on Hinduism and Hindu Nationalism as follows .. " (Even if you don't like certain books, publishers and authors, they are nonetheless citeworthy, right?) vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 17:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Just because something is published does not make it citeworthy. Take a look at WP:RS. - Sitush (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Gyan Books is on the list of mirrors and forks. The front page of WP:MF specifically says "Mirrors and forks are not reliable sources and may not be listed as external links in articles." JanetteDoe (talk) 18:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Vishvas vasuki, does the word "Gyan" have a more general meaning? Eg: "notes" or "things worth reading"? You are correct that the page is in fact a series of links to articles. I am still not convinced about the site as a source: the title, the blog-y look and suchlike make me a little suspicious, and I haven't come across it in a year of more of pretty intensive work on India-related articles. What do we know about the site's publisher? - Sitush (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Gyan here means exactly "notes" or "things worth reading" - it doesn't pertain to Gyan Publishing House or its mirrors. So let me understand the objections: The website does not appear to be a reliable source to you. (That you did not come across it may just be due to its relative novelty and your own ideological exposure. Within my own friend circle it is widely followed - you can look at its Facebook page for example.) But, unless you dispute the fact that Aravindan Neelakandan did infact write the article, and that it expresses a 'significant minority view', you must acceed that there is a way of incorporating its sythesis of Ambedkar's position in the article, right? Please clarify precisely what prevents me from using it. vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 18:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Its relative novelty" may be a justifiable cause for concern, given my fairly wide exposure to English-language Indian sources. I am sure that the website of, say, the English Defence League is "widely followed" by a group of friends, especially since there is a high chance that those friends are like-minded, but that doesn't mean we should use it. It is also not usually the case that we try to find a way of incorporating a source but rather that we reflect a source. Let's wait and see what others think about it, since my main contention is that there is surely something out there in book form & that may well be superior both in analysis and reliability. I have a gut feeling that things are a bit more complicated than this article portrays, and since it already relies too heavily on self-published hagiographies etc then it would be really useful to identify some top class independent works. - Sitush (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Great minds think alike; I hadn't realized those sections were new additions, and was going to comment on them, but just didn't get time. I think another way of putting what Sitush is saying is that this article should not have a large selection of quotations from Abedkar; in fact, it should only have a very few that are extremely well known (at least within the relevant disciplines). Instead, this article should be about what other, reliable sources have said about Ambedkar. It is totally appropriate for us to summarize Ambedkar's philosophy/positions; but we should not do that by looking at what he himself is said (because doing that invariably involves original research) but rather what others have already said. As for the specific source in question, I don't have time to check it right now, but Sitush is usually correct in his evaluation of sources; however, in a continued dispute, try WP:RSN. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

@Sitush: What "self published hagiographies" are you talking about? Also, one of my questions is unanswered: Is the lack of your familiarity with this particular source a deal-breaker - Does it not suffice to satisfy ourselves that a relevant person (Aravindan) has stated such-and-such summary of Ambedkar's position. @Qwyrxian: Thanks for the tip. vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 23:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Added an indent to your last msg - hope that you do not mind. Is it a deal-breaker? Of course not. We work on consensus and my view is just one of many possible opinions. I am also not outright against the thing, merely seeking more information regarding it before I form an opinion. Put it this way, I would be much happier if the same content had appeared in, say, The Hindu but I am not entirely against your source. We would have to bear in mind that Aravindan is just one person and that a newspaper-ish "op-ed" is rarely the place where a scholar espouses things in the manner that they would usually prefer or, indeed, their peers would prefer. Has Aravindan not written any scholarly journal articles or books on the subject, for example? Has anyone else?

As far as hagiographies go, much of the article seems to rely on content produced by people or organisations that have a close connection to Ambedkar or his legacy. This is rarely a good way to obtain a neutral article. I think that this & the excessive quotations etc was the bit that Qwyrxian was referring to with their "great minds" comment, but their mind is greater than mine and I will not presume to read it! - Sitush (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Very well then, thanks for your inputs. I have added Aravindan's summary of Ambedkar's position to the article. Let's see what others think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishvas vasuki (talk • contribs) 01:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. Please revert that entry until we know more about the source. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok - I have requested others to weigh in. vishvAs Iyengar vAsuki (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

As per the verdict delivered here, the source I refer to is indeed a reliable source. It is relevant and needs to be quoted to put the following in perspective:

The Hindu Civilisation ... is a diabolical contrivance to suppress and enslave humanity. Its proper name would be infamy. What else can be said of a civilisation which has produced a mass of people ... who are treated as an entity beyond human intercourse and whose mere touch is enough to cause pollution?

.

I feel that you have completely misrepresented the "verdict" with your edit and even in your comment above., I am also very concerned that you may have also introduced a copyright violation. Thus, I have reverted it for now. I want to find a copy of that source. - Sitush (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Francis Pritchett source

Quite a bit of this article uses the timeline produced by Francis Pritchett. He is an academic but the website that is used as a source is very poor in design etc. Design is, of course, not a necessity for informational quality etc. However, he clearly has an interest in the subject and I wonder if he has published "proper" works to which we could refer rather than this timeline. I could search GBooks/WorldCat etc but since it is just about my bedtime, I thought that I'd just drop a line or five here for now. Anyone? - Sitush (talk) 00:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Law Minister

What period was he in the office of Law ministry. What was the actions he took during this period?

Removing POV

I feel that this article no longer has POV. Therefore I intend to remove the tag. If there is any reason for it to be called POV. Please post them systematically below this comment. If no adequate reply is provided the POV tag will be removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs) 14:22, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeatedly removing maintenance tags without providing any rationale beyond "I say so" is disruptive, and will lead to your being blocked again. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:21, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I will be going off-wiki soon and will not be around for a couple of days. I'll respond on my return - please give me a nudge if I should forget. - Sitush (talk) 19:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why is it tagged as POV. I am calling for a discussion on the issue. Please put up reasons for maintaining the POV tag systematically. Both users who commented on the issue are not doing that. Please put up the rationale for why this page as a whole is tagged POV. Be reasonable, when asked to engage in discussion do so. Please don't make Threats reagrding blocking user from the wikipage even before user performs action which violates wikipedia editing policy. Abo (talk) 17:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Leave it in place until there can be some discussion; I'm not going to opine, as I'd rather help out in my role as an administrator, I just wanted to make sure you got the message. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not taking any side, will facilitate healthy discussion wherever possible.Talk page comment of user . — Bill william comptonTalk Time stamped 13:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC) at Talk:B._R._Ambedkar#NPOV_dispute do state a list of reasons for NPOV dispute. Mahitgar (talk) 14:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Aside from that post, there are others above that remain unresolved and suggest possible POV. Of those, the Pritchett stuff is a major sticking point: we need to dig around, and hopefully find books to replace it. In addition, sources such as the Ambedkar Foundation and the Minority Rights Group have potential problems and should ideally be replaced. - Sitush (talk) 15:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Ambedkar Foundation was established by the Government of India under the of the Ministry of Welfare (now Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment), I dont believe there exists any reason to doubt such an institution. Adequate citations are given in the columbia.edu site itself for the timeline produced by Francis Pritchett. It is surprising that users did not question the sources such as "website of Maharashtra Navanirman Sena". Adding to that, list of reasons for NPOV dispute in Talk:B._R._Ambedkar#NPOV_dispute are no more valid as these issues has been solved. Please read the article in present form. Abo (talk) 09:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yours are not valid arguments. For example, the query does not concern the official status of the Foundation but rather whether it is independent of the subject, which is a fundamental requirement of our reliable sources policy. There are plenty of dubious sources in this article, only some of which have been highlighted: that all have not been listed does not obviate from the POV claim. It desperately needs reliable sources, and the position of Pritchett still needs to be clarified because he is used a lot here. - Sitush (talk) 11:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Adequate citations are given in the columbia.edu site itself for the timeline produced by Francis Pritchett. Ambedkar Foundation was established by the Government of India to research and publish the works of Dr.B. R. Ambedkar, I fail to understand why should this make this instituton unrealiable. If there are dubious sources in this article please state them below so that other users will be able to know where to look for fault. It is surprising that users did not question the sources such as "website of Maharashtra Navanirman Sena". It would be better that in one post users put all that which makes this article POV systematically rather than putting vague statements like " There are plenty of dubious sources in this article, only some of which have been highlighted". It would help all users if we deal in specific matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akhil.bharathan (talk • contribs) 14:28, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, since you will not accept that the Foundation is a poor source because it lacks independence, there is little point in me wasting my time listing the others. Read the past threads on this page. - Sitush (talk) 14:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Explain how it lacks independence.Abo (talk) 14:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

A body that is established with the purpose of disseminating information etc regarding the subject of a Wikipedia article is, by definition, not an independent source. It is reliable as a source for statements about itself but not about the subject. You will see variations on that last sentence scattered all over the reliable sources noticeboard. - Sitush (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

additional resources & GA status

I think we need to focus how we can bring additional quality resources and information to the article and improve the same towards direction to bring it to Good Artical status on encyclopedic article scale.

• For confirmation about timeline we will need to study and refer to timeline by author "चांगदेव भवानराव खैरमोडे" .But his books I suppose are not available online.
  • Another good source I could find online at google books is this one

Mahitgar (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your second source appears to have a pretty close connection to Ambedkar, per his potted biography. If you are going to start using Marathi books then you'll have to bear in mind WP:NOENG, although there is no requirement that sources are available online. However, I would be surprised if we need to use any non-English sources to fettle an article such as this. - Sitush (talk) 04:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Death and In Popular Culture

I believe that many informations provided in the section Death were those which should be placed in section In Popular Culture ideally.Akhil Bharathan (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

History TV and CNN-IBN Poll

Result of History TV and CNN-IBN poll was given in the introduction of the article which I believe is not desirable. History TV and CNN-IBN poll does not have much national or international reputation. I would add that Ambedkar was the recipient of bharat ratna which is not mentioned in the introduction, there is a Ambedkar chair in Columbia law school both of these garners more recognition and reputation that History TV and CNN-IBN. I would also point out that this information is provided in the section 'Death' which I believe is also not desirable. So I propose to remove the relevant sentences from both introduction part and from section 'Death' and to include it in the section named 'Legacy'. Please put up your consent below. If you like to place objection please provide reason too. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Legacy - Namantar Andolan

Dear everyone,

Mentioning Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University in Legacy section without Namantar Andolan is incomplete. Many Dalits sacrificed their lives to name this university after Ambedkar's name. So it is very much relevant with concerned to legacy. I believe, writing a line on it would make this section complete. Please let me know if anyone disagrees with it. Please let me know your thoughts on it.

Many thanks. Bhooshan NPY (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Your contribution included a lot of sources and the issue is covered in the linked article. That violence occurred is unfortunate but if we mention every instance of violence that has resulted from people upholding or opposing Ambedkar's views then this will become an extremely long article. - Sitush (talk) 12:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sitush,

Firstly, I take opportunity to thank you for your kind contribution on Namantar Andolan. You are very much aware how important it is to mention here, under Legacy section, on this page. I already said you “writing a line on it would make this section complete.” Let's make a short sentence for this page under Legacy section.

“Dalits sacrificed their lives to rename Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University after Ambedker’s name.” OK??

I believe any mentioned source would work for above sentence.

Out of interest, please have a look on Namantar Shahid Smarak as well.

Many thanks. Bhooshan NPY (talk) 18:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Dear everyone,

Please let me know if anyone disagrees with above quoted sentence with concerned to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University. Please share your thoughts as well. Many thanks. Bhooshan NPY (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Poor contribution

I really do not understand the purpose of this edi, which reinstates poor phrasing and doesn't appear to add anything of great import to the lead. Comments? - Sitush (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Role in Economic Planning and Development

(copy of addition redacted)

It has been observed that, these article deleted by Qwyrxian and Sitush several times, they state that, this article violating copyrights, Appealing the administrative group please look into this. as these Qwyrxian and Sitush discouraging to write an article which having all the requisite reference and it was written to meet the Wikipedia guidelines, I am requesting the administrative group, if find non-compliance with Wikipedia policy, one can surely edit this article as per Wikipedia guideline. but persistent deletion of the article is not accepted. Please encourage the people to write authentic information with valid reference ,if require edit according to wikipedia guidelines. Thanks

--Premknutsford25(t)

First, 2 practical matters: new threads go at the bottom of talk pages, so I moved this here. Second, you don't need to copy that information again here--it's all available in the article history.

Okay, why did we remove it. First of all, the phasing is very close to this book. It's not identical, but it's close enough that it can't be kept in the article.

Second, there are other problems. This theory that Ambedkar was some great economist is just one person's theory. It's not important enough (see WP:UNDUE, a key part of WP:NPOV) to include in this article. Furthermore, some of the info duplicates stuff already in the article (or you duplicated it yourself, I'm not sure which; I'd have to look back more carefully to be sure). Finally, the addition was not always neutral, a strict requirement; rather, it's purpose seemed to be to praise Ambedkar, rather than simply write factually about his life. Now, it is possible that some portion of what you attempted to add is worth keeping, but we need to trim it down only to what is important and well sourced. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

at USER Qwyrxian, 1) As you agree it not copy and paste, According to you it's close enough. But if you see in Neutral point of view, it seem that, there is one line “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” exactly taken from http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=fermnQunyX4C&pg=PA328&lpg=PA328&dq=Ambedkar+was+instrumental+in+promoting+for+irrigation,+hydro-power,+navigation+and+flood+control,+Which+later+set+in+motion+several+multi-purpose+proj&source=bl&ots=JhJAIdVTHi&sig=H0R8p_Qd6eKSynmEIT0U78sCtMY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Rdg6UsW0K4mZ0QWi1YGAAw&ved=0CEgQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Ambedkar%20was%20instrumental%20in%20promoting%20for%20irrigation%2C%20hydro-power%2C%20navigation%20and%20flood%20control%2C%20Which%20later%20set%20in%20motion%20several%20multi-purpose%20proj&f=false this book, but here this quote was mentioned in "" as per wikipedia guideline. So your answer is not acceptable.

2)According to you 'theory that Ambedkar was some great economist is just one person's theory'. I don't understand, why don't you want accept the truth. Please google it, will come to know, whether it just one person's theory. for proof, please visit ( http://archive.mises.org/16519/ambedkar-the-forgotten-free-market-economist/ ,http://sabhlokcity.com/2011/04/b-r-ambedkar-a-great-indian-classical-liberal/,http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/blogs/southasiamasala/2011/07/01/bhimrao-ramji-ambedkar-the-forgotten-free-market-economist/ , http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ambedkar-as-a-market-friendly-economist/1/253867.html ,http://www.uni-mysore.ac.in/assets/Ambedkar-Centre-University-Website.pdf , http://www.ssmrae.com/admin/images/7d5370343c544b144b6e6a691c7c2745.pdf ,http://www.osmania.ac.in/mwg-internal/de5fs23hu73ds/progress?id=r2UsobsMN3 ), Please try to be neutral rather than centric person. 3)About your allegation that it's purpose seemed to be to praise Ambedkar, rather than simply write factually about his life. If some person doing good for nation, humanity, equalities, social justice. and to represent it as the way it is, I only put the actual things which some centric point people don't want to let the know about some scholar. Requesting you, try to be neutral. If some one did good then good if bad then bad, accept the truth and carry on. Things should be neutral. 4)you also took objection by saying that 'some of the info duplicates stuff already in the article', please see carefully, where is the duplication. what ever provided that was related to relevant work. 5)lastly , i am regret to say that, your point is not neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Premknutsford25 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Those sources are useless; some are deadlinks, the rest are not reliable or are simply talking about the same economists' opinion. Find me some other economists who think Ambedkar should be remembered as an economist, then we can start to consider inclusion.

And you didn't write neutrally. If you don't understand this, I don't know how to help you, and I don't know how you can contribute to Wikipedia. You got a little better as you went along, but your version was still rife with non-neutral statements. Please review WP:NPOV. Also, when you do that, you'll notice that it doesn't even make sense to say "your point is not neutral"; NPOV is something we talk about with reference to article content, not to talk page discussions. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the claim of his being the most highly-educated Indian economist actually has much significance anyway. He was not primarily an economist, he gave up on the subject, and India has at least one Nobel Prize winner in it (Amartya Sen). That Ambedkar was a well-educated person is already stated in the article and it may be that some people consider him to be a polymath ... but "most highly-educated" doesn't really add to our knowledge of the man and I can quite well believe that there are others who have double PhDs etc but whose general notability is such that they don't even have an article on Wikipedia. Double PhDs are not unusual - I was taught by two such people myself, as well as by two Nobel winners. - Sitush (talk) 09:37, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The correct sentence that we lost in edit warring was "According to Narendra Jadhav, Principal Adviser and Chief Economist of Reserve Bank of India,source "Ambedkar was most educated economist of India. source". I think we have lost word "India".

@Qwyrxian:, After reading all the sources contributed by Editor Premknutsford25 I feel that some sources are useful for the article.I agree few were useless. We should look for the useful sources and we should copyedit it.Blueyarn (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Qwyrxian said "It's not identical, but it's close enough that it can't be kept in the article.". Not just 'it's close enough'. Dougweller (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Request to add sections to article

I would like to contribute to this article with following authentic information, If anyone having any concern with this article, please discuss , so that we can contribute the article as per Wikipedia policy.

updated draft request to add sections to article I'm collapsing this to keep the talk page easier to read.

(==Role in Economic Planning == A leading economist Narendra Jadhav said that,“Ambedkar is the highest educated Indian economist of all times.”. "He was the first Indian who had done Ph.D. in economics from outside the country." Ambedkar contributed on post war economic development plan of India is considerably very high and profound particularly in field of humanity, equality, social justice along with economic planning, water resource and electric power development. Member of Planning commission and National advisory council asserted that, Ambedkar made special provision for the finance commission every five years in the Constitution. Finance commissions of India refer "Evolution of Provincial Finances in British India" for all the reports, which was Ambedkar's Ph.D Dissertation at Columbia University. ==Role in water resource and power planning ==) “In 1942-46 he(Ambedkar) created for the first time a department of power at the national level. The present Central Electricity Authority owes its existence to Dr. Ambedkar”. Ambedkar, the then member-in charge of power and work in the Viceroy’s cabinet, and under his leadership water resource and power planning was formulated. In 1945, under the chairmanship of B. R. Ambedkar, the then Member of Labour, Government of India established two technical organization which were known as 1) Central Waterways, Irrigation and Navigation commission and 2) Central Technical power Board, today it is known as Central water commission and Central Electricity Authority respectively. “Ambedkar advocated, the concept of 'River Valley Authority' to manage the Inter-state river valley projects.” Under his leadership Government adopted a resolution to set up the Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) which is based on Tennessee Valley Corporation (TVC) in march 1948. Ambedkar hoped that “waged work in modern industry” would help to liberate the depressed class from their rural poverty and his intent for promoting such Inter-state river valley project will offer opportunity for the generation of cheap hydro-electric power, This project set the foundation for other project such as Bhakra Nangal, Damodar Valley, Mahanadi, Sone and Tungabhadra river projects. " Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is substantial and gives strength to Indian economy. In recent ,It has been observed that ,National Water Policy (2001) draft is based on inter basin transfer of water which was suggested by Ambedkar around 50 yrs ago.

Neutral point of administrators is highly appreciated.(Persuading friends or acquaintances to create accounts for the purpose of supporting one side of a dispute (usually called meatpuppetry)) Premknutsford25 (talk) 10:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In addition to hatting the above, which I already said you don't need to put here, I had to change your section title; if the section title is so long, it makes it impossible to leave an edit summary.

Additionally, I would like you to immediately strike your comment about meatpuppetry above. It's clearly targeted at Sitush, Dougweller, and myself, and it's simply ludicrous. Not only to I live about half a world away from the two of them, I've never met either one. Just because 3 different people happen to disagree with you doesn't make us meatpuppets; it might just, you know, make you wrong. Qwyrxian (talk)

at Qwyrxian :-), if you observe this article and the one you are referring, there is some changes, and these are those changes which i applied after getting suggestion from Administrator like you. so Please don't delete this article. This is the latest and updated draft, would like to discuss this draft rather than the one you are referring. About meatpuppetry, you are free to think, no comment on this. But requesting everyone, please take neutral stand on this updated article and please let me know your concern as i am trying to match with Wikipedia policy for contributing.Premknutsford25 (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@Premknutsford25: Can you please see {{cite book}} for citing the references for B. R. Ambedkar article? can you cite page number details for academic books and all other information for your above contribution? Blueyarn (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

@Blueyarn: thanks Blueyarn, I updated draft and provided citation as per wikipedia policy, Please suggest, if you found any thing wrong against Wikipedia policy.Premknutsford25 (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

First of all, don't add stuff to the article pretending like you have consensus when you don't. Second, your new version had a number of exteme problems. You can't just put quotations in without any explanation--who said it, who's opinion it is, etc. Second, we haven't established the "leading economist" claim as anything other than the opinion of one single person, and that's unlikely to be enough to meet WP:DUE. Third, your whole prose was a terrible violation of WP:NPOV. Please read that policy, and incorporate it into your writing. As someone said above, there may be something valuable in your writing, but if you're unable to do it, you're going to have to wait until someone has the time to wade through your problematic prose and work out what's actually worth keeping underneath. I'll try, but expect it to take a week or more. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: let me answer your allegation. if you don't agree ,it doesn't mean it don't have consensus.I am here to contribute Wikipedia by adhering the Wikipedia policy not your opinion.Second, Thanks for your suggestion, now edited with reference, now there is no WP:DUE policy violation. Third allegation, will discuss your this allegation on help to understand,whether is it really violating WP:NPOV.Premknutsford25 (talk) 09:25, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

You don't have consensus because I and another editor disagree with the inclusion of this info, and one other editor has said that there may be something useful in the underlying info, but not supported your actual text. Since you are the only one of four people supporting inclusion of this text, and since parts of it flat out violate proper writing, you can't add it. Now, you are, of course, welcome to seek dispute resolution if you think your version is fine, instead of waiting for me to try to help by reading the sources, but you can't just re-add the text to the article.

Here are some quick specific concerns:

• You still haven't applied WP:RS; if you had, you would know that wiki.answers can never be a reliable source.
• I don't think that Prathipati Abraham's memoirs constitute a reliable source for the claims you had them attached; for instance, I don't think that he's qualifed to state that it was Ambedkar's leadership which lead to the formation of the DVC (as opposed, for example, to it being attributed to other people or to a collective mindset or whatever).
• worldhistoryconnected is not a reliable source.
• "Contribution of these projects to Indian economy is considerably very high and gives strength to Indian economy." is very much non-neutral.

There may be other concerns (for instance, I want to read that file held at Sussex, because the statement it's linked to is non-neutral, so it needs to be very explicit and probably phrased differently to include that claim). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian:Please read What counts as a reliable source. it clearly says that ,

   the type of the work (some examples include a document, an article, or a book)

   the creator of the work (for example, the writer)

   the publisher of the work (for example, Oxford University Press).

For here the type of work is book, Creator of the work (Prathipati Abraham is Non-Executive Independent Director of Gvk Power and Infrastructure Ltd. As a member of Indian Administrative Service he served in capacities at the Centre and State Governments. He is the Former Secretary Ministry of Power, Govt. of India. He held responsible executive positions in Centre and State Governments. He functioned as Chairman, Maharashtra State Electricity Board and he was the first Chairman of the State Electricity Board in the country. He was a United Nations Industrial Development Organisation Fellow on Industrial Development. He retired as Member, Union Public Service Commission.) and ISBN and publisher also provided. That mean Prathipati Abraham qualify to state that it was Ambedkar leadership which lead to the formation of the DVC.

worldhistoryconnected is a reliable source. (WHC is free worldwide. It is published by the University of Illinois Press, and its institutional home is Hawaii Pacific University). Qwyrxian without proper study please don't comment. Premknutsford25 (talk) 13:43, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian:Experience administrator also said that ,these are reliable source (you may visit teahouse). Let me clear you few points. No body took objection on this 'updated article' other than you , your allegation saying non reliable is wrong. I should say thank you for your some suggestion. there would not any problem, if i add this updated draft on the main article. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 15:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: and @Blueyarn: Thanks both of you to participate on this updated draft discussion. Requesting both of the users to suggest any further improvement, if require. Neutral point of suggestion is highly appreciated from both of the user. Once receive your valuable suggestion (if require , will correct accordingly ), will update the main draft with this updated info. Thanks Premknutsford25 (talk) 08:47, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• Prathipati Abraham and worldhistoryconnected can be added back. They are reliable sources.
• Work on your previous edits [ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=573621863&oldid=573618417#Contribution_for_women_empowerment] Contribution for women empowerment and Vision For Modern India. They have many useful sources.Blueyarn (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Before we get to the empowerment, let's first deal with this. I agree after further looking that worldhistoryconnected is a reliable source. I do not agree that Abraham is. As far as I can tell that book is basically a personal memoir, and is not independently fact-checked, and is basically just Abraham's opinions of what happened. While he was a member of the government, I don't consider him to be an independent expert. Effectively, he's a WP:PRIMARY source, and thus we can only use him for strict claims of fact that require absolutely no interpretation. Any claim that Ambedkar did something "special" or "unique" will need to be verified by an independent source.

Back on the leading claim, we need something more than that one economist's opinion to include the "most educated economist" claim. Just because one person said something does not mean it is a widely accepted opinion, enough to meet WP:DUE. Yes, it's reported in a number of places, but those are all just reporting on what this one economist said. We need to see evidence that a number of different economists (or historians, or whatever) also support this position.

Finally, the whole organizational scheme (both in the proposed and existing sections) is simply wrong. We shouldn't have a whole bunch of sections titled "Role in X". We need to have a coherent biography; probably a lot of these sections should be combined, and put in terms of what Ambedkar actually did in relation to the various positions he held. We also need to take care to separate those things which are core to Ambedkar's biography from things that he may have taken a position on but which didn't play an important part in his life. We're not here to record every good (or bad) thing he did--we're here to focus on those things that scholars have consistently found to be most important.

My apologies if I'm either repeating or if I'm forgetting something you've already said; while I looked at some aspects of the new draft, I didn't go back and re-read everything we've already discussed, as I'm still pressed for time, and I wanted to get something down here without making you all wait forever. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @Blueyarn: and @Qwyrxian:, yes i will work on Contribution for women empowerment and Vision For Modern India. Qwyrxian please refer your previous comment. Please study properly .... earlier you had said this, we haven't established the "leading economist" claim as anything other than the opinion of one single person, and that's unlikely to be enough to meet WP:DUE . My dear friend, please take a proper rest and comment. We clearly mentioned a statement of leading economist as per WP policy. If you like to verify the degree and honor received by Ambedkar, please take a look at it. Please try to be a neutral person.

About Prathipati Abraham. Experience administrator also said that , that book can be treat as reliable sources. https://www.sussex.ac.uk/webteam/gateway/file.php?name=damming-the-mahanadi-river-the-emergence-of-multi-purpose-river-valley-development-in-india-dsouza.pdf&site=253 this url also support Prathipati Abraham. Authors is regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject. This is well enough to meet WP policy.

We're not here to record every good (or bad) thing he did--we're here to focus on those things that scholars have consistently found to be most important. Contribution to Nation and humanity can be consider as most important aspect. Dear user, please try to be neutral. Premknutsford25 (talk) 12:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm being quite neutral. I do not believe that one person's opinion, even if he is a famous economist, is sufficient to make so dramatic a claim as you wish to include. In fact, my whole point is that adding that claim would violate our rules on neutrality. On the Abraham, I still do not consider it to be a reliable source for the specific facts you wish to cite to it. Note that no source is just automatically reliable for everything; when we consider what you wish to cite, I consider it not to meet WP:RS.

Since at this point we seem to be simply repeating ourselves, I'm going to go ahead and briefly summarize this on WP:DRN; perhaps with outside input we can come to some sort of consensus. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

@Qwyrxian: you don't believe one person opinion, but in wikipedia, such a reference is in most of the articles and acceptable. your centric view won't allow you to recognize it. who bother about your opinion, as leading economist opinion is considerable not yours. Again on Abraham, see teahouse discuss, this book can be consider as reliable source. Well as people around the world use WP as a source of information. We need to present it in systematic and clear away by making "Role in X ". It's your way of thinking not allowing to see truth. sorry nobody can help you, it's only you to help yourself to accept the truth. Premknutsford25 (talk) 13:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's discuss this at the DRN. As for the "Role of" to be honest, all of that needs to be changed--that's not how we organize biographical articles; I'm just trying to stop it from getting worse. As for "the truth", you're merely putting forward your opinion as well. And finally, please don't think that advice given at the TeaHouse is in any way binding, or even useful for that matter. They're good people, trying to advise new editors, but they don't have any special authority, they're not even necessarily very experienced, and they don't know all of the details of this specific circumstance. You may want to notify the editor who gave you that advice about the WP:DRN discussion so that they can provide some input there as well. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

Recent changes - notably, to the "Role in economic planning" section - are extremely poor both in phrasing and content. I cannot see all of the sources but I think we're looking at a complete rewrite there. Does anyone have any suggestions regarding how best to do it? I gather that the discussion at WP:DRN did not really terminate in a useful manner. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You can improve phrasing. You should see those research journal citations for improving the article. Blueyarn (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Blueyarn, No where barack obama has called Ambedkar a "father of modern india", that's why i removed it once again. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Bladesmulti is correct--neither source contains the claims that the article made. In any event, it was just a one-off speech by Obama in which he mentioned a large number of different important Indians, and mentioning it here clearly violates WP:UNDUE. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:B. R. Ambedkar/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

===B.R.Ambedkar=== Those people who made previous request for peer review didnt take note of review made by me and were absent for a long gap,so I updated article on my own to a substantial amount.Made more balanced ,diluted POVs wherever possible. I would request one more peer review to bring article to F.A. level Mahitgar 08:38, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 08:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:06, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

"Ambedkar in Hungary"

Greeting! Very grateful thanks for the help. Dr. Ambedkar would like to edit entries in addition to the Hungarian aspects. The Hungarian Wikipedia article what we have created. We understand and appreciate the advice. Now we abbreviated in the text and have been provided with an external reference. Here is the text :

Outside India, during the late 1990s, some Hungarian Romani people drew parallels between their own situation and that of the downtrodden people in India. Inspired by Ambedkar, they started to convert to Buddhism. The European Buddhist Union granted the Ambedkar follower Buddhists Gypsy organization membership in 2011.( http://europeanbuddhism.org/members/jai-bhim-network/ ) The Buddhist Roma also founded a secondary school in Sajókaza, Alsózsolca and Miskolc by the name of Dr Ambedkar School. (https://thebuddhistcentre.com/triratna/jobs/dr-ambedkar-school-hungary-seeks-new-manager) (https://thebuddhistcentre.com/tags/jai-bhim-network ) (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-features/tp-sundaymagazine/ambedkar-in-hungary/article662028.ece ) ( http://www.countercurrents.org/attri221109.htm ) (http://www.jaibhim.hu/a-roma-and-dalit-joint-project-in-hungary/ ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RyNNX-DInE ) (https://jangamashwin.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/ambedkarite-buddhism-5/ ) (http://www.wiseattention.org/blog/2011/11/29/gypsy-buddhists/ ) (http://www.badurfoundation.org/project-details/dr-ambedkar-school ) (http://www.jdc.org/womens-history-month/more.html ) (http://europeanbuddhism.org/news/jai-bhim-new-documentary-dvd-exit-from-the-home-of-poverty/ ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-I6H30bi3A ) (http://www.ambedkar.eu/ ) ( http://www.jaibhim.hu/ )

The Roma living in Moldava-nad-Bodvou in Slovakia have set up an Ambedkar follower organisation called Chakra under the direction of renowned human rights activist Milan ’Igor’ Hudák.( http://www.csakra.eu/ ) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-4yM-oluoI ) (http://cronkitenews.azpbs.org/2016/05/09/its-hard-to-be-a-gypsy-in-my-town/ ) (http://spectator.sme.sk/c/20057775/al-jazeera-film-focuses-on-abused-roma-mans-quest-to-become-a-teacher.html )

On April 14, 2016, by courtesy of the Indian Council for Cultural Relations (ICCR) His Excellency, Rahul Chhabra, India's ambassador in Hungary donated a bust of Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar to Dr. Ambedkar School at Sajókaza.( https://drambedkarbooks.com/2016/04/15/first-dr-ambedkar-statue-installed-at-the-heart-of-europe-hungary/dr-ambedkar-school-at-sajokaza-hungary/ )( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx2qDA7_Sq0 )( http://www.indianembassy.hu/?p=130676 )

What is your opinion? Thank you very much for your kindness! Friendship: Ambedkar school Hungary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Ámbédkar Iskola (talk • contribs) 11:28, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

"Laundry list" (again)

Ambedkar's contribution to the society is noteworthy. I have added jurist, politician, social reformer and a scholar. I don't think there should be a problem now.Akhil Bharathan (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

So, you read the talkpage, and then you concluded there's no problem when you ignore the discussions here? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the discussion. That's why I commented over here. I sense that there is a negative discrimination going on with the page of Dr.Ambedkar. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Akhil, this "laundry list" has been thouroughly discussed before; there's a concensus to keep the lead short. If you think it's "no problem" this discussion, you're wrong. And if you "sense that there is a negative discrimination going on", then you're using the wrong kind of arguments, by making personal attacks. Please refrain from such "tactics".

If you want to re-insert this laundry list, you'll have to gain concensus first. Otherwise, you're edit-warring. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User: Joshua Jonathan, How are you? When did I make a personal attack on someone? If you think I made I ask for forgiveness, By the way ,Why you call it a laundry list? There were 6 words for defining him first of all. Now there are three. What is the problem if there are 4? They are not 6 Atleast (2 less). Akhil Bharathan (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of discrimination are inappropriate. You should be very careful with such accusations. The problem with four, or more, has also already been explained: it's WP:PUFFERY. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

User: Joshua Jonathan Go to Karl Marx page, you will find the same things. I don't see any problem with that. Atleast you can give me a hand over here too. Akhil Bharathan (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Akhil.bharathan, I want to retain my ability to take administrative action, so my comments here are restricted to conduct. There has been a lot of socking on this article. There has also been a lot of material added to promote the subject. As an administrator, your conduct has been disruptive. I just left you an edit warring notice on your talk page. I agree with Joshua that your accusations constitute personal attacks, essentially accusing other editors that if they disagree with your opinion of the subject they are "discriminating" against him. You're coming very close to being blocked. I'd back off if I were you and restrict yourself to civil discussion on the talk page. Your edits to the article do not appear to be neutral or encyclopedic.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that User: Bbb23 and I am not changing anything this time in the first sentence (laundry list). So my last edit was not against the consensus. Thank-you. Moreover I wasn't intended to hurt someone by making a personal attack I however do sense that calling someone's profession as a laundry list is not good. At-least we should have some respect before calling a list of profession as a laundry list. We are not giving our clothes for washing to someone so that it can be called as a a laundry list. That's what hurts me User:Bbb23. You can see the meaning of laundry list over here.[24].

Meaning of Laundry list- laundry list>>>>>>>>>>> "Laundry list" refers to a list of characteristics or items that are generally considered to be mundane or distasteful. Items on the list tend to pile up, just like dirty laundry. (Urban Dictionary).

Moreover this can also be sensed as a personal attack to Dr.Ambedkar. User:Bbb23 as an admin it is your responsibility to remove this word "laundry list". Thankyou.

At Wikipedia it's also just a "nickname" for lists like this one. No offense intended. In contrast, you reverted again, while saying you did not. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I meant that I have not changed the list from 3 to 4 or 3 to 6? That's what I meant. May the peace be with you. Akhil Bharathan (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Just take a break now; one more revert, and you'll probably be blocked. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:48, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

i don't understand why you are not adding the word economist to one of his descriptions?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutvickpedamkar (talk • contribs) 18:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Rutvickpedamkar, the lead section already contains the following text: "Ambedkar was a prolific student, earning a law degree and various doctorates from Columbia University and the London School of Economics, and gained a reputation as a scholar for his research in law, economics and political science. In his early career he was an economist, professor, and lawyer."

I don't understand why you insist to repeat the fact in a Summary. JimRenge (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@ JimRenge Yes it is true you mentioned him an economist but it only sounds like he only took a degree of economics whereas Dr.Ambedkar was one of the foremost economic thinker in his times see <http://www.academia.edu/3222795/Dr._B.R.Ambedkar_As_an_Economist> I am only suggesting to write Economist on his summary because he was !! He had made worthwhile contributions towards our economy even in his drafting of constitution phase. If his contribution would had been negligible i wouldn't be so adamant but the truth is the truth he was an economist . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rutvickpedamkar (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

To add Economist in summary would be appropriate, As the RBI is based on his guidlines, working style and outlook which is presented in his book "The problem of the Rupee" a great contribution for indian Monetary Policy!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shekhar.ate (talk • contribs) 08:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes he was mainly an economist. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bladesmulti,@Rutvickpedamkar,@JimRenge To all users i would like to bring to your notice a very sinister pattern in this page.And the behavior of creator of this page is very suspicious.He is threatening me of sanctions when i asked him for the proofs and quotes from the books of Dr. Ambedkar.It all started with last line of Opposition Aryan invasion theory section.Below is the conversation.

== ARBIPA saanctions alert ==

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Kautilya3 (talk) 10:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

How is this Arbitration committee which can impose sanctions on topic of India,pakistan and Afghanistan is involved in Dr. Ambedkar Page?Ohh you are threatening me i guess..hahaha..great job mr.kautilya3.You have no arguments against my statements then accept that you are appropriating Dr. Ambedkar's thoughts.Udairatna (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Poona Pact

• planning to include the following text. Request editors to review and advice if any errors.

→On 25 September 1932, the agreement known as Poona Pact was signed between Dr. Ambedkar (on behalf of the depressed classes among Hindus) and Madan Mohan Malaviya(on behalf of the other Hindus). The agreement gave reserved seats for the depressed classes in the Provisional legislatures, within the general electorate and not by creating a separate electroate. The Due to the pact, the depressed class received 148 seats in the legislature, instead of the 71 as allocated in the Communal Award earlier proposed by the British Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald. The text uses the term "Depressed Classes" to denote Untouchables among Hindus who were later called Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes under India Act 1935, and the later Indian Constitution of 1950.

Prodigyhk (talk) 15:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

• Planning to remove this.

→Fearing a communal reprisal and genocidal acts against untouchables, Ambedkar was forced into agreeing with Gandhi -- I am not able to find any reliable books that concur with this magazine article cited for this. When reading about this part of history, it is clear that Ambedkar agreed not out of any kind of fear, nor was he forced into it. Ambedkar agreed only after very detailed discussions and negotiations. Please read chapter "Truce" from page 206 from the book Dhananjay Keer's book on Ambedkar here - Prodigyhk (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

References

[25] - [26]

Above proposal seems to correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

have now modified.Prodigyhk (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Add more books written by B.R Ambedkar

Hi! So,I was watching that the written novels and speeches lacks his contributions. I have tried 5 books with some with their references. I suggest you add some more and write something about them also!Thank You.Komchi (User talk:Komchi|talk]]) 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Added Google's commemorative doodle

Hi everyone, I have added information on the commemorative google doodle of 14th April in the popular culture section Notthebestusername (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Waiting for a visa"

Hi everyone, The current wiki on Waiting for a Visa by Dr. Ambedkar is rather short - too short to credit it having a separate page. There are 2 options - a) Merge it with this article on Dr. Ambedkar OR b) Expand the existing page for Waiting for a Visa

Which option do you feel is better? Notthebestusername (talk) 13:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC) (Note: I have just expanded the article on Waiting for a visa. if you feel option b is better, could you please help further expand the article?)

@Notthebestusername: -b .--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Requested Move

I request this page to be moved to Dr. B. R. Ambedkar .--Aryan ^from हि है (talk) 04:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Kautilya3's reversion

@Kautilya3: Ambedkar's whole book talks about Aryan invasions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps so. But Aryan migrations are not "Aryan invasions." Please read this article: Sharma, Arvind. "Dr. BR Ambedkar on the Aryan invasion and the emergence of the caste system in India." Journal of the American Academy of Religion 73.3 (2005): 843-870. I can send you a copy if you can't access it. - Kautilya3 (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fine. Then restore this version, which you probably didn't even notice, without the hyperlinks.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:54, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• You don't even have consensus for your recent addition and why you are adding it in lead and that too in very first para? Ambedkar has his some views on hundreds of issues, adding "thought" of our choice in very first para of lead is just POV pushing. Even creating separate section for "Aryan theory" is undue here. It can be added in any other relevant section.--Human3015 ^TALK  21:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambedkar was a vehement opponent of Aryan invasion theory. If you whitewash that, you are violating NPOV.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I agree that it is premature to put it in the lead. These views are possibly important, because they argued against the prevalent views of Phule, Periyar etc., all of whom bought the "Aryan race theory." But we should expand the section first and explain what Ambedkar's views were. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ambedkar uses the phrase "the theory of the migration of the Aryans".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, according to Arvind Sharma, Ambedkar disagreed that Aryans came from elsewhere. You can cite him and say that, but you also need to add that Sharma points out that this view has no currency in modern scholarship. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Send me the paper.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the link [27]. It says "full text free" to me. If you can't get it, then please send me email via my User page, and I can send it to you. - Kautilya3 (talk) 22:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Victoria: I am not whitewashing anything. You said on my talk page that "lead should summarize article". But not all thoughts can be added in lead. Even current lead itself don't summarize Ambedkar's opposition to article 370, his views on Islam and many other things which are in body of article. Giving undue weight to our favorite thought is something against NPOV. Article has sections like "Opposition to Untouchability" etc. Such sections are relevant because all of his life he opposed untouchability. But creating section for "Opposition to Aryan theory" is very awkward. He has so many thesis and thoughts and creating a section for a single thought he wrote somewhere is really undue. At least create section for his book "Who were Shudras" and in that section we can write some other thoughts along with thoughts on Aryan Theory.--Human3015 ^TALK  22:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes you are whitewashing, as you typically do with your drive by editing. Ambedkar was a major opponent of Aryan invasion as established by scholarly sources such as Bryant and Sharma.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are not reading my comments. I am not opposing anything, you just have to write it in proper way. You are just giving undue weight to it by mentioning it in introductory lines in lead and creating separate section for it. --Human3015 ^TALK  22:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is whitewashing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

With this logic, in all articles on Wikipedia whatever not written in lead and don't have separate section in body will get whitewashed, so we should make separate section for each line in article so that it will not get washed.--Human3015 ^TALK  22:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You just renamed the section. Bryant doesn't present the material this way. Bryant presents it as about Ambedkar being a vehement opponent of Aryan migration.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Renaming section name will give more chance to expand this article. There is no section for "Philosophy" so at least we can add some more thoughts in this renamed section. Or we can create section on philosophy and can add many things. But creating section like "opposition to Aryan theory" is really not up to the standards of Wikipedia.--Human3015 ^TALK  22:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Basically, you are preventing people from adding additional material regarding Aryan invasions.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:01, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Victoria, I think you don't want any fruitful discussion. I have not even touched your contribution in body of the article. You are very experienced editor, you should know how we name sections. Ideally, there should be philosophy section and we should write these things in that section. You should stop blaming me, and try to expand section using info from the book "Who were the Shudras".--Human3015 ^TALK  23:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Who were the Shudras? is not a scholarly source. You cannot cite it directly.
• You have to use scholars such as Bryant or Sharma.
• I want to add additional info from Sharma, which you are preventing.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Obviously I was not talking about citing "who were the shudras" directly, I was talking about we should add info based on that book by using independent sources. I have read "Who were the Shudras" long time ago and that book does talk something beyond "Aryan theories". We should neutrally mention Ambedkar's thoughts in that book. We should mention all things either "we like it" or "don't like it".--Human3015 ^TALK  23:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3 just emailed me Sharma's paper on Ambedkar's opposition to Aryan invasion theory. I want to add those views. You are preventing this.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

How I am preventing you? You can read my comments above, I am requesting you to expand that section in balanced way. --Human3015 ^TALK  23:37, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

The info won't be limited to Who were the Sudras?. Hence your section rename is incorrect.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Then we can rename section to "Philosophy", that will be better and will have more chance for expansion.--Human3015 ^TALK  23:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with philosophy. It has to do with the history of the Aryan invasion theory.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Then why you are adding it in this article? There are other relevant articles to write about "Aryan Invasion Theory".--Human3015 ^TALK  23:55, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Because its Ambedkar's views.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 23:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is a quick summary of what is in the Arvind Sharma article (writing from memory):

• Ambedkar disagreed that there was a race of "Aryans" and one of "Dravidians," very perceptive for that time.
• He disagreed that there was an "invasion" by people called Aryans. The evidence from Rigveda points to no more than occasional "riots," in his view.
• He disagreed that the Vedic Aryans came to India from elsewhere. (Thus no "migration" either.)
• He believed that Shudras were also Vedic Aryans, but they conflicted with Brahmins and invited their wrath as a result.

Sharma discusses all these views and evaluates them in the light of modern research. Other than the migration issue, almost all that Ambedkar has said has checked out. That is quite remarkable. Ambedkar was a genius. @VG, please fee free to discuss all these views in the section. You can change the section title appropriately. - Kautilya3 (talk) 00:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

So, the emphasis seems to be on 'Shudras were not different from Aryans.' When mentioning the IAmt, it should be made clear that Ambedkar called it an "invasion" theory. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. Did not read the article before. It seems that Ambedkar's view was both inclusive and exclusive in nature like Picodella. Ghatus (talk) 11:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Kautilya3, I will add info and change the section title as you requested.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on B. R. Ambedkar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130228082043/http://www.aygrt.net:80/publishArticles/651.pdf to http://www.aygrt.net/publishArticles/651.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B. R. Ambedkar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511104514/http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/facts.htm to http://parliamentofindia.nic.in/ls/debates/facts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141008191615/http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1951/VOL_1_51_LS.PDF to http://eci.nic.in/eci_main/StatisticalReports/LS_1951/VOL_1_51_LS.PDF

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on B. R. Ambedkar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150402153753/http://www.freepressjournal.in/the-constitution-of-india-role-of-dr-b-r-ambedkar/ to http://www.freepressjournal.in/the-constitution-of-india-role-of-dr-b-r-ambedkar/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510041016/https://www.manase.org/en/maharashtra.php?mid=68&smid=23&pmid=1&id=857 to http://www.manase.org/en/maharashtra.php?mid=68&smid=23&pmid=1&id=857
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://india.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/6710.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090203050409/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/03/20/fea31.html to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2005/03/20/fea31.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120818081809/http://www.maharashtrapoliticalparties.com/prakash-ambedkar.html to http://www.maharashtrapoliticalparties.com/prakash-ambedkar.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060505044856/http://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/html/bharat.htm to http://ambedkarfoundation.nic.in/html/bharat.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120903094347/http://atrocitynews.com/2007/05/05/ambedkar-my-father-in-economics-dr-amartya-sen/ to http://atrocitynews.com/2007/05/05/ambedkar-my-father-in-economics-dr-amartya-sen/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130719163239/http://www.up-tourism.com/destination/lucknow/other_attraction.htm to http://www.up-tourism.com/destination/lucknow/other_attraction.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Title

I want that title to be changed to Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar and Not B R Ambekdar becasue the intial letter makes it look as B R A and it creates adult joke — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prokcr1990 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC) (copied from my talk page JimRenge (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC))

I have no idea what is the WP:COMMONNAME in this case. JimRenge (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar": ca. 97,000 hits
• "B.R. Ambedkar": ca. 414,000 hits.

First time ever I heard someone associate his name with a bra. And then, so what? As the Buddha said (paraphrased): 'how shall we think of this shit-filled body, which decays' etc. Some mind-cleaning left to be done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:20, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

His name is always respected how so ever it is written, and not at all associated with any such above given crap. One finds exceptional sick minds every where that does not make them right and one needs to remember they are exceptions and not the rule.

User could have made plain request for change of title and could have avoided base less propositions.

If one refers to archives of this talk page one will find that change of name issue has been discussed couple of time.

Change of name can be discussed many more times. But please do come with a clean slate so that people feel at ease even to discuss.

Mahitgar (talk) 14:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the risk that wp readers will associate BR Ambedkar with bra is extremely low. I see no need to change the title. JimRenge (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Too many images

Aside from the many other problems with this article, does anyone else think that there are too many images? We do have a Commons category. - Sitush (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

And still more are being added. - Sitush (talk) 10:11, 11 August 201 7 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are too many pictures in this article. ‎Dagduba lokhande, please stop adding more pictures without WP:consensus. JimRenge (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I have removed some images. (MOS:SANDWICH) JimRenge (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Navayana

We say In 1956 he converted to Navayana (Neo-Buddhist)... in the lead. There has been a lot of ill-advised pov-pushing going on with this navayana stuff of late. If you believe Navayana, Ambedkar created the thing and, as such, I would find the word convert a little odd. I'm also suspicious that we link Neo-Buddhist in parentheses - if they're synonymous then they should be a single article but I'm not convinced they are indeed the same thing.

My problem is, this is drifting into religious territory where my knowledge is not great. My gut is usually right, though, so let's see what other people think and, if necessary, tweak things. - Sitush (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

The Dalit Buddhist movement is one of several neobuddhist movements (Navayana). Several of the buddhist New Religious movements (Japanese New Religions) and organizations like Triratna Buddhist Community have been described as neobuddhist. There appears to be some overlap with organizations mentioned in Buddhist modernism. Perhaps Navayana should be moved to Neobuddhism? The statement that BR Ambedkar converted to his own version of Buddhism sounds strange. JimRenge (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

‎Joshua Jonathan, ‎Ms Sarah Welch, what do you think? JimRenge (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, though I think (feel) that "Navayana (Neo-Buddhist)" is somewhat odd, c.q. non-neutral. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

@JimRenge: It has been a while since I last reviewed Ambedkar's views on Buddhism. He wrote The Buddha and His Dhamma, which was published after his death. Unusual it is, and Navayana Buddhism indeed is a term used for it in reliable sources. Ambedkar considered Buddha's Four sights, Four Noble Truths and other traditional beliefs / doctrines as deeply flawed, absurd or pessimistic. So, he created his own variant version. You can find a decent review of Ambedkar's Buddhism variant in Chapter 24 of Routledge Handbook of Contemporary India edited by Knut A. Jacobsen.

With that backdrop, our articles in this space are indeed fluff, POV-pushing, or as JJ politely puts it "Navayana (Neo-Buddhist) is somewhat odd"! The Navayana article is weak, very weak (it should, for example, discuss Ambedkar's belief that there were four major problems in Buddha's Buddhism, and then describe what he presumed his Navayana Buddhism solved).

Your comment on 'several neobuddhist movements' is spot on. Buddhist modernism has been referred to as Neo-Buddhism, for example. Either merge it or have a separate Neo-Buddhism article with summary style of the various neobuddhist movements. In the Navayana article (or as a section if retitled into Neo-Buddhism), we should add more substance, Ambedkar's criticism of traditional Buddhism, and details of what is Navayana and how is it different from mainstream Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism. Sitush and you are right on the oddness of 'converted to Navayana'. We should mention that he announced his intent to leave Hinduism and adopt Buddhism in 1935 (?, pl check), and some twenty years later he did. The event, if my memory serves right, was attended by many Dalits and the event has been called a conversion ceremony in RS, fwiw, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 14:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on B. R. Ambedkar. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130905070936/http://www.kashmir-information.com/ConvertedKashmir/Chapter26.html to http://www.kashmir-information.com/ConvertedKashmir/Chapter26.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130228060022/http://drnarendrajadhav.info/drnjadhav_web_files/Published%20papers/Dr%20Ambedkar%20Philosophy.pdf to http://drnarendrajadhav.info/drnjadhav_web_files/Published%20papers/Dr%20Ambedkar%20Philosophy.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 December 2017

117.241.199.125 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)and was a son of a railway worker

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion theory Last line

'Please remove that last line in Aryan invasion theory',Dr.Ambedkar never and nowhere concluded that India was Homeland to Aryans.This is purely appropriation of Dr.Ambedkar thoughts and disservice to a great man.Firstly i would like to request all of you to read that book Who were the Shudras?,that book was not at all meant to answer whether Aryans were from india or outsiders but it dealt with origin of Shudras which he concluded Shudras were themselves Aryans.In his whole book he drew parallel between Zend Avesta's Dahakas and dasas. So maybe he was indicating migration of Aryans from Iran or nearby places. Ambedkar concluded that Shudras were Ayans themselves which was the only motto of that book,nothing else.
I would like to request you humbly to place this section below his important movements like Poona pact because it creates doubt in mind of many Indians that you have some sinister motive to highlight his views on Aryan Invasion than anything else.Why aren't you going chronologically?,he wrote this book in 1946 right?.
And on Arvind Sharma's views i would take it as Appropriation of Dr.Ambedkar. Many people have tried it and still doing it. Why can't you cite his original books & original text from book of Dr. Ambedkar?.If anywhere he had written that India was homeland to Aryan, i would take my comment back,otherwise i m here to challenge you.But on wikipedia you should behave responsibly bcoz you r providing information to billions,so nothing should be inaccurate whether it is written deliberately or in-deliberately. I request you to remove those last lines from Aryan invasion theory section and that external link from Arvind sharma whoever he is.He is not authority on Dr. Ambedkar's thoughts Udairatna (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Bold text

Udairatna, i haven't written anything in this article, but if you want to start a new discussion, why don't you start a new section below? If you insert text like this, no-one will notice.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Farang Rak Tham: Sorry,its my mistake.But the matter is serious and i want to bring this matter to everyone's notice.There are numerous mistakes in this article and it shows that person who has created this page have pre concieveed notions on Ambedkar or trying to appropriate Dr. B R Ambedkar's views.First mistake is-name written everywhere is Ambedkar,not B.R. Ambedkar or Bhimrao.When you write somebody's name you don't call him by his surname,you should write his first name first.Why is it so?.In India,we always use first name to call a person not his surname as it is usually indication of caste.If you call Dr. Pranab Mukherjee as Mukherjee ,nobody will recognise him and it sounds disrespectful too.Then comes the issue of placing of Aryan invasion theory at top of Poona pact.He wrote that book in 1946,why can't he write events chronologically?

Udairatna (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@kautilya3: Plz reply to my queries.Lets not make it personal.Do it for the masses who want knowledge from this page.

• Plz read the book instead of quoting other authors.Nobody is authority on his subject except his own written books.

Plz read book Who were the shudras?.Do not quote 3rd party and other writers what they understood of Ambedkar. Dr. Ambedkar thoughts should not be appropriated.Nowhere Ambedkar said: 1)Nowhere Ambedkar disagreed that Aryans and Dravidians were not different.He himself quoted that there were two type of Aryan race.On pg-103 chapter -5-Aryans against Aryans:- "All students of the Vedas know that there are really two Vedas: (1) the Rig Veda and (2) the Atharva Veda. The Sama Veda and the Yajur Veda are merely different forms of the Rig Veda. All students of the Vedas know that the Atharva Veda was not recognised by the Brahmins as sacred as the Rig Veda for a long time. Why was such a distinction made? Why was the Rig Veda regarded as sacred? Why was the Atharva Veda treated as vulgar? The answer, I like to suggest, is that the two belonged to two different races of Aryans and it is only when they had become one that the Atharva Veda came to be regarded on a par with the Rig Veda."

2)Yes he disagreed that there was Aryan Invasion.So its correct because no evidence of Invasion was found and there is no difference in races at present.He rebutted Aryan invasion theory scientifically by taking in account facial index and cephalic index.And Rig veda only gives detail about pre vedic age,nothing about Indus valley so be careful before extrapolating or manufacturing something of your own.Whatever he wrote just present it.

3)He did not disagreed anywhere in his book that Aryans did not came from outside.Instead he drew parallel between Zend Avesta's Dahakas and Dasas sugggesting there might have been migration from Iran or nearby place.

4)Yes he believed that Shudras were also Aryans & they were believer of different religion. And also he suggested that Untouchables and tribals are different from Aryans(Non-Aryans),which he concluded in his part 2 of this book- Who were the Untouchables and how they became?

I want reply to my queries or you can just take down those lines from that Aryan invasion theory section. Udairatna (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Bold text

Wikipedia depends on what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say. Your assessment of the Ambedkar's book would be considered original research and does not count. If Ambedkar did accept a foreign origin of the Aryans, you should be able to find a reliable SECONDARY source that says so. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Kautilya3: Follow reason rather than ur preconcieved notions.This world confined Dr. Ambedkar as Dalit leader till now,not anymore. Plz write and ammend logically.

Mistakes in Wikipedia page There are numerous mistakes in this article and it shows that person who has created this page have pre concieved notions on Dr.Ambedkar or trying to appropriate Dr. B R Ambedkar's views.First mistake is-name written everywhere is Ambedkar,not B.R. Ambedkar or Bhimrao or Dr. Ambedkar.When you write somebody's name you don't call him by his surname,you should write his first name first.Why is it so?.In India,we always use first name to call a person not his surname as it is usually indication of caste.If you call Dr. Pranab Mukherjee as Mukherjee ,nobody will recognise him and it sounds disrespectful too.Then comes the issue of placing of Aryan invasion theory at top of Poona pact.He wrote that book in 1946,why can't you write events chronologically?

Now coming to your argument of reliable sources.I want to ask you who is more reliable?.B.R.Ambedkar's book are more reliable or Arvind Sharma's interpretation of Who were the shudras?.Arvind Sharma paper is not even available on Wikipedia.The external link which you have quoted is not even accessible for free.Before secondary sources comes Primary source which is here is Dr. Ambedkar's book-Who were the Shudras?.I have personally read all his books and I request you to remove those lines or show me where in Who were the Shudras book, Dr. Ambedkar has written India was homeland to Aryans?.The main purpose of that book was to search origin of Shudras,not home of Aryans.He did rebutted Aryan invasion theory but he never said there was no migration.It was clear from my previous quoted comments in italics that he accepted 2 races of Aryans.One who believed in Rigveda and other in Atharvaveda. And why should i have to find secondary source if i have the primary source, which is his own book. Dr.Ambedkar's purpose of writing that book was to find origin of Shudras and not Origin of Aryans.He did rebutted Aryan Invasion theory but never said there was no migration.And why are you quoting only Who were the Shudras?Why can't you read and quote Who were the Untouchables?.B.R Ambedkar in that book did wrote about Dravidians and similarity between Untouchables and Naga Kings.
Plz reply by quoting his book not Arvind Sharma article or take down those last lines in Aryan Invasion theory
Udairatna (talk) 08:45, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Dear kautilya3, for your surprise i read rules of wikipedia .So thanks to you for making my arguments more strong.I asked you to quote Dr. Ambdkar's books but you never quoted him and gave me crap that whatever i said was my own assessment of his works but i did quoted it from his Book but you can't.So it wasn't my own original research. It was purely his words.As per rules of Original Research-
"Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.[1] This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented."
Definition of primary source in wikipedia rules:
The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:

The piece of work itself (the article, book)(I quoted it in italics and asked you for same)
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)

So it clearly shows that primary source(Dr. Ambedkar's writings & speeches) which is already published is far more authentic than secondary source(Arvind Sharma research) Udairatna (talk) 13:58, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I said above: Wikipedia depends on what reliable WP:SECONDARY sources say. Your assessment of the Ambedkar's book would be considered original research and does not count.

Ambedkar's book is a WP:PRIMARY source. You are claiming that you have better knowledge/understanding of that source than a reliable source, Arvind Sharma, a respected academic at a world-ranking University. That is not the way to make arguments on Wikipedia. You need to provide reliable WP:SECONDARY sources that support your claim. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Joshua Jonathan for additional input. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@kautilya3:plz dont make ur own rules and dont manipulate original rules.Wikipedia rules clearly says that "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic".
Second is verifiability and
third is No Original research.
Now coming to the definition of Primary source which in ourcases Dr. Ambedkar books.As per wikipedia links which you only shared,"Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. Primary sources may or may not be independent or third-party sources. An account of a traffic incident written by a witness is a primary source of information about the event; similarly, a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment. Historical documents such as diaries are primary sources. So hope you will understand it and wont act as owner ofthis page.All wikipedia articles are written through concensus.
Udairatna (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

@kautilya3: You are misleading people over here. We should write whatever Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar wrote in his books, because that is the primary source. And Arvind Sharma is no authority on Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar. We must quote the respected person himself not some unknown author.
Sonamankush 10:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Udairatna, Sonamankush, we have to follow Wikipedias policies and guidelines. There is no consensus for the removal of reliably sourced content (Sharma) or the change of Ambedkars name. JimRenge (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I have been asked to look into this as an uninvolved administrator. Administrators do not decide content but we do assist with pointing out relevant policies and guidelines. In this situation: WP:PRIMARY - "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:06, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Partition

I find the article lacking on any mention of his views of Partition. I believe this is important as he was a major leader of India afterwards and was the chairman of the drafting committee. It is important to understand his views on Partition to get a complete understanding of why and how it happened.

Maybe a few quotes from his 1945 book 'Pakistan, or the Partition of India' should suffice.

In his 1945 book Pakistan, or The Partition of India, Indian statesman and Buddhist Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar wrote a sub-chapter titled "If Muslims truly and deeply desire Pakistan, their choice ought to be accepted". He asserted that, if the Muslims were bent on the creation of Pakistan, the demand should be conceded in the interest of the safety of India. He asks whether Muslims in the army could be trusted to defend India in the event of Muslims invading India or in the case of a Muslim rebellion. "[W]hom would the Indian Muslims in the army side with?" he questioned. According to him, the assumption that Hindus and Muslims could live under one state if they were distinct nations was but "an empty sermon, a mad project, to which no sane man would agree". - Quote from the Two Nation Theory Article. Jojobaheinz (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I added a paragraph in the Political career section. Please note that we are not allowed to interpret WP:PRIMARY sources on Wikipedia, or to cherry-pick quotations from them. (I hope Ambedkar went to Brigadier Mohammad Usman's funeral and changed his mind about Indian Muslims in the army.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2018

Remove section, "opposition to aryan invasion theory", it was only related to Shudra. he had to say Shudra are part of aryan race. That does not mean he opposed aryan invasion theory. Dr. Ambedkar clearly mentioned in his writings, "India is a mixture of Aryans, Dravidians, Mongolians and Scythians", i have added two references for same. please check below references,

http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/28174/12/12_chapter%207.pdf http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00ambedkar/txt_ambedkar_castes.html Wagh12 (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done. This attributes it to "According to well-known ethnologists", and read page 31 of [28]. Capitals00 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Honorfic

@Sitush: I seen you reverted my edits for adding babasaheb in honorific. Can you give a brief explanation of your edit? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 18:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I already did - WP:NCIN. But since you are here, please note that I am also reverting a lot of other edits by you that relate to Ambedkar or the Ambedkar movement. I wonder if perhaps you are running before you can walk because a lot of this stuff has been discussed on multiple past occasions. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Removed this undue description of an honorific. Capitals00 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

If this is so than y does it seems to appear on Mahatma Gandhi article? --✝iѵɛɳ२२४०^{†ลℓк †๏ мэ} 04:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

That's a good article and "Mahatma Gandhi" is a WP:COMMONNAME, that's why. While this person is more commonly known as "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar" or "B.R. Ambedkar", that's why a description about his honorific is WP:UNDUE. Capitals00 (talk) 04:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 August 2018

Change #cite_note-62 to modified #cite_note-62, because 120.58.93.179 (talk) 03:58, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 21:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

My deleted edits

1 & 2

These edits seem important in "legacy" and "in popular culture". Because in this I had included the following:

• His statues
• Jai Bhim - greeting used by Ambedkarites
• Statue of Equality- World's tallest statue of Ambedkar
• Dr. Ambedkar Vastu Sangralay - in Chicholi village
• Student's Day - official day, declared by Government of Maharashtra
• Knowledge Day - official day, declared by Government of Maharashtra

If there are any errors in my sentence framing please make necessary changes as these are important to support the points which are mentioned above. Thank you for understanding. --Vijay bramhane (talk) 09:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

"After losing the 1951 elections as a Scheduled Castes Federation candidate by his little-known former assistant and Congress Candidate [[Narayan Sadoba Kajrolkar|Narayan Sadoba Kajrolka]]<span style="color:green"r, who polled 1,38,137 votes compared to Ambedkar's 1,23,576 votes. He may have changed his views about communism. During an interview given to the BBC in 1953, he said that Communism can work as an alternative to democracy."

A tag was added and extra alphabet was inserted as "r", it should be enclosed within the wikiling to avoid confusion and fix errors. It was added by @IndianHistoryEnthusiast: by this edit. Requesting a fix for the same.. 182.58.237.78 (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. I was trying to add the wiki link through the visual editor. May not have selected the complete name. I am new here. Thanks for the correction.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Just realised @Oshwah: removed the entire hyperlink. I have added the hyperlink correctly this time.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 16:29, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

IndianHistoryEnthusiast - Oh damn... sorry about that! I thought that the edit that added the letter was a mistake or something, so I responded to this request by simply undoing that edit. That was my mistake and I apologize, as well as thank you for fixing it. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: Stop changing my edit without contributing here on the talk page. Ambedkar said, "I Donot believe in communism", where is the scope of interpretation here?117.247.133.211 (talk) 07:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC) IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 07:46, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019

Please change "Ambedkar sought Gandhi's help to get a berth in Nehru's cabinet in independent India. Despite Gandhi's differences with Ambedkar, Gandhiji persuaded a reluctant Nehru to make Ambedkar a minister. But Ambedkar continued to criticize the Congress party and Nehru asked him to resign. Ambedkar had to resign in September 1951" to

Ambedkar was great learned man and because of his contribution towards social upliftment of the deprived classes,he was included in the First Cabinet of Independent India under then Prime Minister Nehru. Dr.Ambedkar made significant contribution in formulation of many important laws as Law Minister.However when Dr.Ambedkar formulated Hindu Code Bill and made a provision to grant property rights to girls and women in the bill, the move was considered too advanced by the then Government. The society then was more stereotype patriarchal society. The country and the government was not ready for fear of backlash from fundamentalist forces. Since womens rights and upliftment were very dear to Dr.Ambedkar mind,he chose to resign from the Govt.

because the information given is false and meant to degrade the great man Dr.Ambedkar. 1)Dr.Ambedkar never asked Nehru for cabinet berth. 2)Dr.Ambedkar was not asked by Nehru to resign.He resigned on his own because of single reason of Hindu code Bill

<http://zeenews.india.com/news/india/ambedkar-resigned-as-law-minister-from-nehrus-cabinet-when-govt-refused-to-back-hindu-code-bill_1850749.html> <https://www.thehindu.com/2001/09/29/stories/10291045.htm > <https://ambedkarism.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/dr-ambedkars-resignation-speech/>

vijay kumar 08:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC) vijay kumar 08:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. The proposed text violates WP:NPOV. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2019

Hi, the name itself is wrong. Malicious people have added his father's name "Ramji" as his middle name when the fact is he never used that in his name at all. Puneetauchil (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 23:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Communism

Regarding this revert, using primary sources is rarely a good idea. I do understand the edit summary but the problem is that people's opinions often change over time, so unless you have read everything that Ambedkar wrote etc, everywhere, there is no way you can state this or anything else as a simplistic fact. We should prefer secondary sources. - Sitush (talk) 07:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I have mentioned all direct quotes he has said in his collected works about communism. These are very straightforward statements, without any room for interpretation. Unless you have any evidence to show his views are different, don't make edits to the page.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

You cannot tell me what to do, nor can you expect me to prove a negative. I'm not even sure why the thing needs a separate section but, regardless, I'm still unhappy about you using solely primary sources and think that if this was a significant aspect of his life/thought then secondary sources would cover it. Let's see what other people think. - Sitush (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

There's no need to get offended. I have given clear evidence about his views on the subject and you come up with a condescending "unless you have read everything that Ambedkar wrote etc, everywhere". You're trying to disregard a complete book he wrote on that topic. Instead of adding any value to it, you're removing important information from the page, with zero knowledge of the subject. I will wait for others to comment.IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And your happiness or a lack of it doesn't concern me..IndianHistoryEnthusiast (talk) 08:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Can you point to any secondary sources that discuss his dislike of Communism? Let me give you a tip while I am here: most people editing in the Indic sphere on Wikipedia who have the words truth or history in their username end up being blocked or topic banned. The correlation is quite remarkable and I would be pleasantly surprised if that is not the ultimate outcome for you given your aggression. Is there any reason why you are so aggressive? - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Even a single sentence based on this secondary source would be better than a bunch of cherrypicked quotes from the primary sources. - Sitush (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

IndianHistoryEnthusiast, a description of Ambedkar´s political views should be based on independent, reliable secondary sources. The best sources available will be academic books and peer-reviewed articles in academic journals. Newspapers and popular books are second choice. Self-published sources, activist websites, blogs and personal websites are generally not appropriate. Reliable sources about Ambedkars political views, communism included, do exist. Example: Rajasekharia, A. M.; Jayaraj, Hemalata (1991). Political Philosophy of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. The Indian Journal of Political Science 52 (3), 357-375 [29]. JimRenge (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Article 370

Dalit scholar Pratik Tembhurne has challenged the authenticity of the quote attributed to Dr. Ambedkar on article 370 claiming that there is no authenticated source and it contradicts stated and authenticated views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.197.197 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

References

I would like that quote be deleted as Ambedkar never said these words. The only (documented) time (10th October 1951) Dr Ambedkar spoke about Kashmir issue was when he was giving a statement in explanation of his resignation that one can find in BAWS, Vol. 14 part (2) starting from page 1317. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0Bzj5De7gaTEYbHRKTE1JR0VUOFU/view

Check out also debunking the fake quote claim http://velivada.com/2019/08/05/what-ambedkar-had-really-said-about-kashmir-issue/

Why this quote is still here without any proof?

This para is erroneous and misleading. Needs to be deleted immediately. Please refer the following link which has proved that the said quote belongs to someone else and not Dr. Ambedkar. "https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/venkaiah-naidu-attributed-fake-anti-article-370-quote-to-ambedkar" Please delet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soonilrajguru (talk • contribs) 19:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2019

It is Educate Agitate and Organise. Not Educate Organise and Agitate. Vijay B Khandagale (talk) 01:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The Hindustan Times mentions it like you do (in passing), this blog post of unknown reliability discusses that some use EAO and some EOA but doesn't mention which is the original. Vijay, do you have any reliables sources to add for this sentence? – Þjarkur (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

It is there in Dr. Ambedkar Life and Mission by Dhananjaya Keer. First Edition page 351. Vijay B Khandagale (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

​Great, thanks for that! I have added the source and made the change. – Þjarkur (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Ambedkar 2015 cover of India.jpg
• Unique painting of the Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Buddha in the shop at Chaitya Bhoomi 29.jpg

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Article 370

===Did Dr. Baba sahib Ambedkar was in Opposition to Article 370=== There is no definite proof from the books and letters that suggest Ambedkar opposed Article 370 of the Constitution of India, which granted a special status to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, and which was included against his wishes. Balraj Madhok who was a RSS functionary reportedly said, Ambedkar had clearly told the Kashmiri leader, Sheikh Abdullah: "You wish India should protect your borders, she should build roads in your area, she should supply you food grains, and Kashmir should get equal status as India. But Government of India should have only limited powers and Indian people should have no rights in Kashmir. To give consent to this proposal, would be a treacherous thing against the interests of India and I, as the Law Minister of India, will never do it." Then Sheikh Abdullah approached Nehru, who directed him to Gopal Swami Ayyangar, who in turn approached Sardar Patel, saying Nehru had promised Sheikh Abdullah the special status. Patel got the Article passed while Nehru was on a foreign tour. On the day the article came up for discussion, Ambedkar did not reply to questions on it but did participate on other articles. All arguments were done by Krishna Swami Ayyangar. -- Gurukull (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

References

 Done. I have moved the dubious quote out of the body into a footnote, because it is poorly sourced. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Johnrameshkhan, I don't think deleting the material as you did is appropriate. The fact is that we have no evidence one way or other, whereas the newsmedia are full of references to it: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. As per WP:NPOV, Wikipedia should describe debates rather than engage in them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 17:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Kautilya3, My view is that the topic - Ambedkar's views on Article 370 is too minor an issue to be included in the main page. Whether the quote is true or not is immaterial. Also the only purpose it is being inserted in this article, I feel is only to mislead people.- Johnrameshkhan (talk) 11:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I think we differ on the importance of the issue. As the architect of the Indian constitution, Ambedkar's views on the ambivalent position of Kashmir in the constitution are certainly noteworthy. Since the views are clearly attributed, I don't see how it is misleading the people. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2019

Please delete this. It is an unsubstantiated lie that finds no reference anywhere in any official writings of Dr. Ambedkar. --> His Devrukhe Brahmin teacher, Krishna Keshav Ambedkar, changed his surname from "Ambadawekar" to his own surname "Ambedkar" in school records. AbbakkaHypatia (talk) 09:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: There are several reliable sources supporting this statement. --Trialpears (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merger of Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar (1966 book) into B. R. Ambedkar

insufficient separate notability DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment: I don´t know why we should even mention the existence of this Marathi book in the B. R. Ambedkar article. The game of the Ambedkarite activists is shoehorning as many articles about Ambedkar into wikipedia as possible. (see also List of things named after B. R. Ambedkar). Try AfD ... JimRenge (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Too trivial to be mentioned in this article. --regentspark (comment) 19:23, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree: This is one of the best books on B. R. Ambedkar. Many articles like this book are available on Wikipedia. See Category:Biographies about politicians and Category:Biographies by subject. Therefore, the article should not be merged. It can be further enriched in the future. Mahi914101 (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This may be a good biography but the article needs to comply with Wikipedia:Notability (books). JimRenge (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Ambedkar - the God

He never wanted the reservation system to stay unaltered. He did suggest a review after every 10 years. The politicians keep ignoring that fact for political mileage.

Can somebody add that facet of Babasaheb Ambedkar Ji?

Also, I am bothered by the way the press projects him. They have segregated some people as Ambedkarites. Every Indian is an Ambedkarite as long as they follow his principles.

Atul Kaushal 23:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

58,800+ bytes removed

To do wrong with good intentions. About 59,000 bytes removed at a time. This has caused many mistakes in the article to be reproduced. The article's infobox and the intro also got worse.

@John B123:

116.72.233.32 (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Babasaheb never opposed the Aryan invasion theory

He said " He recognise 3 great saints as his mentors, namely Lord Buddha, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, Sant Kabir. His mentor, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule, gave the theory about Aryan invasion. Babasaheb was following the path shown by his mentors only Kattadchamarsofworld (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Sources, please. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Restore Ambedkar stamps

Hello @Materialscientist: please restore Ambedkar postage stamps. [35]. 2409:4042:2195:40E2:0:0:153B:D8A5 (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 10:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove my text

@QueerEcofeminist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&oldid=968982061

Please do not remove the text because it is not Good Faith edits. I have added text with references in the article. This is how the texts of Bhagat Singh and Swami Vivekananda are structured. I'm new here, cooperate with me and I'm sorry if anything went wrong. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy and JimRenge:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/968999972

This article is about Maharashtra. The text I added here has been deleted, however the same writing is in the pages of Bhagat Singh and Swami Vivekananda. I request you and others to cooperate in order to save the text. Thank you. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@RegentsPark: thank you.भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर:, You might want to read this discussion before adding any more photos as references. QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 16:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@QueerEcofeminist:, You are abusing on Wikipedia. I did not use the photos/ images as the sources, however you promoted it and removed many reliable parliamentary (LokSabha & RajyaSabha) sources from the articles. See again this discussion. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 10:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

* @भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर:, I ain't enemy of anyone here to abuse or do something nasty here, So I will be happy if you do not use such words for me again.

* You have been suggested to have a look at WP:UNDUE in the same discussion.

* Hopefully you will discuss before making any changes in the articles now onwards and it's not needed to ping me you can ping others too and seek help from others too. thanks QueerEcofeminist ^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 14:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Krishnaji Keshav Ambedkar

@RegentsPark: Hello, in fact I have not changed the content but restored. While doing this I just added new sources. This content had changed a few days ago. Please see these edits [36] [37] [38]. Please restore my edit. Thank you. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. I was removing the livehistory citation because it is not a WP:RS but, I guess, the others are ok. I've restored your edits and manually removed the livehistory citation. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:07, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Overemphasis on certain views of Ambedkar

Ambedkar did a lot of things in his life, but his opposition to the Aryan Invasion theory was not the most prominent. Therefore why should it be given its own section? Like other social and political leaders he should be given a "Views" section where all these can be hashed out. Included in this can be his views on Hinduism, British colonialism, Pakistan, and other topics that he discussed. This should definitely be done ASAP. Other sections, such as "opposition to Article 370" and "support for Uniform Civil Code" are given somewhat undue importance. It seems to be that the emphasis on these specific opinions of Ambedkar are meant to support the BJP/RSS views on Ambedkar and not portray all his views: which include some very critical ideas about Hindutva and Hindu Rashtra. This is why a "Views" section is needed now. Currently, the article doesn't do a good job of making his views clear on anything. Not enough information is given on the concrete steps he took to achieve his goals, and not enough is said of his views, which is important since it is the core of Ambedkarite philosophy and has had influence on our society today. Is someone willing to help fix this? Maybe @Sitush: or @Heba Aisha: could help? C1MM (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Statues

I have created a “Statues” subsection in the article that contains information about two statues that are 125 feet high. Since these statues are over 100 feet high, I have included a brief description of them in the subsection. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020

Indian Naitonal Congress 104.35.254.90 (talk) 07:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Asartea ^{Trick | Treat} 07:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you dont know the obvious then maybe you should pass these types of actions by regardless how often you review them?104.35.254.90 (talk) 08:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020 (2)

Indian Naitonal Congress 104.35.254.90 (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. -ink&fables «talk» 08:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020 (3)

Indian Naitonal Congress 104.35.254.90 (talk) 09:06, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Fixed, in the future please word your requests on the form: "There is a typo in the text. Please change "Naitonal" to "National". It was not clear at all at first what you were referring to. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2020 (4)

Indian National Congress 104.35.254.90 (talk) 16:18, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Drafting India's Constitution

I have added some content to the section. The history of Ambedkar's entry into the Constituent Assembly (his constituencies) is not yet included in the article, please help to add it to the article. Sukeshani (talk) 07:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

reverted puffery and flattery language ??

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao and RegentsPark:

Please check this edit, many wrong changes have been made in it, in which small corrections, references and major content have also been removed. User:Srijanx22 has removed more than 10 users changes. This user has given the reason "reverted puffery and flattery language", but it does not apply to all removed edits. This work is absolutely inappropriate, so please add it again in the article. The user has made a false accusation against me for executing this work, which will be answered on that page. This article needs to be improved, but such edits keep the article in poor condition again. -- भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 07:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

गहराई is a fraud.

गहराई is a fraud in wikipedia. He said he removed too much sources but he also removed many content also. Please block him and undo it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=994596040. Th3skyman7 (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

गहराई is a fraud

गहराई is a fraud in wikipedia. He said he removed too much sources but he also removed many content also. Please block him and undo it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B._R._Ambedkar&diff=994596040 Th3skyman7 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit per WP:BRD, but please try to use kinder words when referring to other editors. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thjarkur There are many words written in the article which are not related to an article like a section on statues.गहराई (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

That a subject has many statues of him seems quite relevant to me, compare Abraham_Lincoln#Memory_and_memorials. – Thjarkur (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Thjarkur I have also removed many unsourced sources and extra citations in the article.गहराई (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Please see this edit. Repeatedly large text is being removed from the article. The reason (WP:BRD) you initially gave to add text to the article is now given to delete the text.

In the article, they have been continuously deleting edits of many users without giving a proper reason and without consensus. "Puffery and flattering language" is not an acceptable reason. Removing wiki page links, spelling corrections, references / sources, content, categories, external links, templates, statues information, other correct information, etc., are not all "puffery and flattery languages". But, some users have consistently deleted a large text. No text should be removed without the consensus of the wiki community. Please do add it again. Thank you. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 19:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes your version can be easily described as "puffery and flattering language" ("wise constitutional expert", "Ambedkar was a scholar of many subjects", etc.) The article does not need more templates, external links. It has enough. Similarly, your sections like statues and addtion of large number of external links is also WP:UNDUE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 07:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Aman Kumar Goel

No, this is not a puffery version. But I have made the changes you suggested. I've changed "wise constitutional expert" to "notable constitutional expert"; and "Ambedkar was a scholar of many subjects" to "Ambedkar was a polymath".

Why do you think that there should not be any external link in this article? Why do you want to remove some of the templates related to Ambedkar as well? Both of these are needed in the article.

Below are some articles and the number of external links present in them.

• B. R. Ambedkar has 11 external links
• Martin Luther King Jr. has 11 external links
• Mahatma Gandhi has 10 external links
• Nelson Mandela has 14 external links
• Abraham Lincoln has 19 external links
• Winston Churchill has 38 external links

If there are additional references in the "statues section", then it should be reduced, but not all statues section should be removed.

भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

See WP:OSE and resolve the problem of those other pages instead of mimicking their patten here. What I said above was simply a short summary of the problems within your edits and you haven't addressed that why we need a "Statues" section at all. Given two other editors (Srijanx22, QueerEcofeminist) other than me have reverted your edits, you need to stop hurrying up to restore your version and instead try methods laid out at WP:DR. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit per WP:BRD. I do not agree with all three of you. Even before, you three have troubled me with a sock puppet case. And here I do not think that your role is neutral. Therefore, any action on this needs to be taken only by the consent of the community or administrators. You must not decide on this alone. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Constant edit warring to restore your POV version is contrary to WP:BRD. Which part of "BRD" agrees with you? Read WP:FOC and focus only on addressing the issues with your content here. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• @1990'sguy: how did you sure that you have removed all data are the puffery and flattery data? Only others are doing this, so you assumed it (removing content) was right?
• I was seeking the consent of the wiki community or any admin in this case to be fairness. Because it would have led to an impartial investigation of which data is deleable and which data is not. However, both good and bad data were removed from the article. Deleting important data from the article without any scrutiny was, I think, just a dictatorial act [sorry].
• Puffery and flattery language was only in "drafting india's constitution" section, it needed improvement. But other than that, many other worthy content / data was removed from the article. This content was added by User:Sukeshni, not by me. (@Joshua Jonathan: Please understand this one point. I object to the removal of the other content. Was the rest of the contents removed apart from the drafting constitution text? Is it right to remove the rest of the content other than the content of drafting India's constitution section?)
• Did you know that Ambedkar's second wife Savita Ambedkar died in Mumbai, not Delhi? Even though the references are attached in the article itself, you restored the wrong death (Delhi) place without checking it!
• The three statues of Ambedkar, which are more than 150 feet high, aren't notable? You can find information about Lincoln's statues in the Abraham Lincoln article, but you want to remove about three of Ambedkar's statues !! User:Þjarkur wrote above: That a subject has many statues of him seems quite relevant to me, compare Abraham_Lincoln#Memory_and_memorials.
• The Infobox has a photo of Ambedkar aged 57+, taken after 1948, but you have again written that photo as "Young Ambedkar's Photo" !!
• How did the 11 "external links" in Ambedkar's article also go wrong?!
• Will you tell me which religion was founded by Ambedkar? Because you added the "category:Founders of religions" to the article!
• Ambedkar's name is in the templates of "template:Buddhism topics" and "template:Social democracy", but you removed these templates in the article! According to you, these are puffery and flattery language!?
• The sentence at the beginning of the article ...while also supporting the rights of women and labour has been in the article since before 2013.
• You removed all the information about his death memorial "Chaitya Bhoomi". Now what was the problem with that?
• Only the wrong type is happening here. What the few users will say is the east direction!!! I'd be happy if you made sure all the data you were deleting was incorrect. But since 3 users deleting the data, you also deleted it.
• Almost all the text about the constitution was taken out.
• Many small and big changes like this have been removed.
• @Sitush: I have seen your edits here, you are contributing neutrally. Please check this deleted data and make sure that all text in it was removable.

भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

No more ELs. No need of a section about statue either since almost all notable leaders of his time have statues across India. He founded Dalit Buddhist movement, that's why the category was warranted. The sentence "while also supporting the rights of women..." was added very recently[39] and is getting removed since. Why we need to write more about constitution? Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 15:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

You have given incorrect information. The sentence "while also supporting the rights of women..." has been included in the article since before 2016 (see). And this sentence was deleted on 18 December 2019 (see). And here it is just re-added.

The Dalit Buddhist movement is a Buddhist movement, not a religion. "Navayana" is a Buddhist sect, founded by Ambedkar, so I had added "category:founders of Buddhist sects". But you removed it.

And what improvements will you make to the article? It is clear that your intention is to damage Ambedkar related articles. An example of this can be seen in the history of the Ambedkar family article. भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation and citations for it

I was checking other high vitality + quality articles on people for how best to add pronunciation with citations. Most articles seem to be getting their pronunciations from dictionary.com, see Gandhi for example. However the pronunciation on that website and therefore their IPA for the pronunciation are just plain wrong. Check the pronunciation of Ambedkar and Bhimrao Ramji here [40]. The current IPA in the article seems to be correct though, or at least more correct than the dictionary.com version. Are there any other good sources for confirming the IPA of the pronunciation that can be used? Alternatively I have also seen high vitality + quality articles on people that do include a pronunciation but don't necessarily give a citation for it. For instance Ashoka has a citation for the Brahmi spelling but not for the pronunciation. Perhaps that's the correct manner of handling this? Native Marathi speakers could help here. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Administrators, please check it out

Large and important parts of the article are being removed repeatedly, and the reason for this is also not correct for all the parts. I have reverted the edit per WP:BRD.

This is not a puffery version so wiki community consensus is required to remove any text from it. Now, again user:Aman.kumar.goel had removed the edits of several users without giving a "proper" reason and without common "consent". Removing references/ sources, content/text, categories, external links, templates, statues info, wiki page links, spelling corrections, recently added works, other corrected info etc., are not all "puffery language or version". Constantly you have deleted a large text. No text should be deleted without the common consent of the wiki community.

Administrators, please check it out and stop this issue.

discussion

भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:BRD means Bold, Revert, Discuss. Not Revert, Revert, Revert, Discuss, Revert, Discuss, Revert. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 06:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I have glossed over the removed text, and I also have the impression that there is puffery in it: 'the greatest', 'the most', et cetera. I haven't dived into the details; it may be worth to split-out the contested parts, and aks for opinions per part. Which will be quite a job... But, for a starter:

B. R. Ambedkar was a notable constitutional expert, he had studied the constitutions of about 60 countries. Ambedkar is recognised as the "Father of the Constitution of India".

References

Ambedkar had the most effective and decisive role in presenting the Constitution as a guiding document for Indian society. Members of the Indian Constituent Assembly also accepted it and various scholars also recognized it in one way or the other. Nehru's autobiographer Michael Brecher considered Ambedkar the architect of the Indian Constitution and underlined his role as a field general in the framing of the Constitution.

References

The fine obituary speech for Ambedkar that the then prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru delivered in the Lok Sabha on 6 December 1956 further reinforced the widespread designation of Ambedkar as architect. Nehru had said, "He is often spoken of as one of the architects of our Constitution. There is no doubt that no one took greater care and trouble over Constitution-making than Dr. Ambedkar."

References

That goes toward hagiography, not biography... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:49, 29 January 2021 (UTC)