Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group.
 

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Buddhism (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Buddhism, an attempt to promote better coordination, content distribution, and cross-referencing between pages dealing with Buddhism. Please participate by editing the article B. R. Ambedkar, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

This article has comments here.

This article has an assessment summary page.

/Archive 1

Laundry list of profession[edit]

Indopug has shortened the professions, from "jurist, politician, philosopher, anthropologist, historian and economist" to "lawyer, politician and academic". However, according to 115., it is not the laundry list, I would like them to explain that why they think so. We cannot list every single profession, and Ambedkar was really a economist, philosopher, or even a historian, but the word "academic" includes that all. Bladesmulti (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bladestalk those words were already there before you edited it. There must have been some agreement before you made the changes. But as everything requires some amount of discussion so its okay.

I agree with you bladestalk that he was all. The word academic can be used for a school teacher. Moreover AMBEDKAR was the FIRST LAW MINISTER OF HIS COUNTRY The word lawyer should not be used...that's quite low. A person will not dream that he was all when he comes to wikipedia. He is also the "Chief architect of Indian constitution" as he was the chairman of Drafting committee. Proffessor Amartya sen called him that "HE IS HIS FATHER in economics." Barack Obama praised Ambedkar in Indian parliament saying that we must draw inspiration from a Dalit (Untouchable)who lifted himself up. So yes it should be mentioned. Similiar things are found on other wikipedia pages such as of Brentrand Russell.

Word academic does not mention specific things. Infact No one is going to dream it. It has to be mentioned. So reverting back the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.55.237 (talk) 11:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Academic is a appropriate word for everything that you have described above. When you talk about agreement, you must know that in last 2-3 days, 2 editors(including me) have removed the list of professions. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
IP, I don't think there is any disagreement among us. Ambedkar is definitely a polymath who achieved a lot of things in many fields. The question is whether to list all these professions in the first sentence itself. This makes the sentence become far too long, like a shopping list. This is poor writing, especially since the first sentence should be a short and simple summary of the man. The details will come in the rest of the lead.—indopug (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
The intro section is short enough that if expanding upon specifics of his areas of impact is necessary, it can be done there. But cramming all of those details into the lead sentence makes the sentence essentially incomprehensible for a casual reading and in a detailed reading it reads like a joke (that is missing its punchline).-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok .. Indopug what you say is true....but expand it ... i hope you will do it. I am just removing the world lawer with jurist. Improve it as you like. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.242.17.97 (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I ask you to register on wikipedia, if you want to contribute on this project. About 3 people have agreed that we should avoid inserting laundry list of professions on lead. Ambedkar was also a freedom fighter, civil servant, etc, will you add it? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
"Laundry list", oh come on Blades, a little bit more respect! Only the person himself is entitled to use such terms, if he wants to relativize (is that a "z"?) his accomplishments; others should avoid it. That being said: "He passed his M.A. exam in June 1915, majoring in Economics, with Sociology, History, Philosophy and Anthropology as other subjects of study." So, those were his majors; for which study did he receive a master's degree? Ãnd yes, three editors have objected against summing up all those accomplishements, so they shouldn't be inserted again. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Word academic is not appropriate over here. Earlier complete list was more proper and defining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.21.126.77 (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected[edit]

I've semi-protected this page as a result of sockpuppet activity in violation of WP:SOCK. This should not be seen as my advocating for any particular version of the page; my request is that everyone stick to editing from only one account, and discuss disputes here rather than edit warring. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

Recently found out that following text from his page is deleted. "Jurist, politician, philosopher, anthropologist, historian and economist"

and instead is currently replaced by "Indian lawyer, politician and academic"

A kind request to restore the original text as it suits best for Dr.Ambedkar. There are various references to prove each of these diverse qualities of his. He solely wrote the Constitution of India and was a Minister of Law. He had sound knowledge of History and anthropology. The Nobel prize winner Economist Mr.Amartyasen mentions Dr.Ambedkar as his Father in Economy. A1prashant (talk) 17:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done see the discussion above. the consensus is to be concise in the lead sentence per WP:LEAD. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: It is likely we have a sock/meatpuppet problem emerging here with possible off-wiki coordination or sleeper accounts, since several editors have abruptly come to this article with a keen interest in this particular part of the lead, usually after having been inactive for a year or more. See Premknutsford (talk · contribs), Siddheart (talk · contribs), A1prashant (talk · contribs), and other related IPs. This comment on my Talk page implies off-wiki coordination. Please ping me or another administrator if others appear. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014[edit]

Recently found out that following text from his page is deleted. "Jurist, politician, philosopher, anthropologist, historian and economist" and instead is currently replaced by "Indian lawyer, politician and academic" A kind request to restore the original text as it suits best for Dr.Ambedkar. There are various references to prove each of these diverse qualities of his. He solely wrote the Constitution of India and was a Minister of Law. He had sound knowledge of History and anthropology. The Nobel prize winner Economist Mr.Amartyasen mentions Dr.Ambedkar as his Father in Economy. A1prashant (talk) 18:18, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done See your request above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2014[edit]

Would you please add this external link to your page?: B.R. Ambedkar materials in the South Asian American Digital Archive (SAADA) It is correspondence between B.R. Ambedkar and W.E.B. DuBois. Grace saada (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Only two texts? Too little, I'm afraid. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Table of his writings removed without any Proper Justification.[edit]

  • First Law minister of India - Dr.Ambedkar . (Is Indian Lawyer a better name?) It should be Jurist.
  • Father of Indian Constitution (Largest Indian Democracy) - Dr. Ambedkar . (Is this line to be removed?)
  • Philosopher - He wrote several books on Buddhism such as Buddha or Karl Marx, Buddha and his Dhamma etc., Riddles in Hinduism etc. (Words were removed)
  • Barack Obama praised him when he came to India. Noble Prize Winner Amartya Sen calls him his father in Economics. (Economist)
  • The Table concering his writings and speeches were removed without any proper justification. Please dont revert those changes. * Why am I in trouble as you mentioned? Your's sincerely. Sid Siddheart (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Siddheart (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no need for such a long list of positive qualifications; it looks like [[W{:PUFFERY]]. He doesn't need it. The fact that he stood up for the Dalits speaks for itself. Let greatness being shown by simplicity, not by inflation.
And the "trouble": simply disregarding policies doesn't work here. Please take care. Remember what the Buddha said: don't be ruled by passion; be ruled by wisdom and self-restraint. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Its the state of complete dis attachment to the wordly pleasures. Would Buddha say you to edit wikipedia ? hahaha...Nice to to know. By the way a hearty thanks for your attachment shown to me. :P Have a good day. :) Siddheart (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a way to communicate the Buddha's teachings, yes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Lead[edit]

Lead sentence comments: IMO Ambedkar is remembered as a Dalit leader and secondly as the chief architect of the Indian Constitution (law minister of India). We are only concentrating on his first role; similar to a definition in encyclopedias related to Buddhism, Religion or while commenting on untouchability; examples [1] IMO, as a general purpose encyclopedia, we should include both in the lead

  • Britannica "Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar, (born April 14, 1891, Mhow, India—died December 6, 1956, New Delhi), leader of the Dalits (Scheduled Castes; formerly called untouchables) and law minister of thegovernment of India (1947–51)."
  • Encyclopedia of India "Dr. Bhimrao RamjiAmbedkar (1891-1956), independent India's first law minister, was a leader, scholar, and activist of the “depressed classes,” or untouchables, who are now known as Dalits"
  • Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Redtigerxyz Talk 16:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

So, you suggest to remove the remark on the constitution from the lead? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
No! I think he means the lead sentence should introduce Ambedkar as Dalit Buddhist movement's staunchest activist and revivalist and as the main architect of constitution. That way both his major roles get equal weightage. And I agree with that. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
And that's what's in the lead now, isn't it? I tried to do justice to his role and influence, and the importance he's got for Dalits, without the unnecessary "puffery" - you only need to inflate someone if you're not sure; in this case, imo, that's totally unnecessary. The man and his deeds speak for themself. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Its in the lead but needs to be in the lead sentence or para. I have rearranged some stuff there now. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It's good, I guess. I hope it's also acceptable for members and sympathisants of the Dalit-movement. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

@Akhil Bharathan, I agree with User:TheRedPenOfDoom: "the lead is a summary of the important parts of the body (of text) - you have removed the only content from the body therefore it cannot be one of the most important." JimRenge (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Akhil Bharathan, the lead is a summary of major points in the body of text. The sentence you added is not a major point in the body of text. Please stop edit warring. JimRenge (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What if it is covered in the body too? Will it be okay then User:JimRenge  ?Akhil.bharathan (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Addition of content to the lead should conform to WP:LEAD. JimRenge (talk) 06:58, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

User:JimRenge I am of the view that the sentence should be in lead and that is already covered in the rest of his body related to Buddhism. Thanks.Akhil.bharathan (talk) 11:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014[edit]

Children :- Yashwant Ambedkar 120.62.193.50 (talk) 10:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article. - Arjayay (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing Dalai Lama Quote.[edit]

User:Joshua Jonathan, You have the problem about adding a qoute from the Bank Balance of Mr.Dalai Lama. Why is it you want to remove it. PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR REASONS over HERE. Mosesben (talk) 10:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I already did in the edit-summary: are we going to add very thing anyone has ever said about Ambedkar? You added the following:

His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama said “Dr. Ambedkar, the creator of Indian Constitution, spread awareness about the religion in 1956. Today, we need to understand the real meaning of Buddha, Buddhism,” he said.[1]

References
  1. ^ http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/dalai-lama-ambedkar-spread-awareness-on-buddhism-in-india/article1472413.ece
  • What's the relevance of the Dalai Lama in regard to Ambedkar?
  • "Dr. Ambedkar [...] spread awareness about the religion in 1956" - so what?
  • "Today, we need to understand the real meaning of Buddha, Buddhism" - what's the relevance of this remark to this Wiki-article? Leave this sentence out, and what's left is the previous sentence.
Conclusion: non-encyclopedic WP:PEACOCK. You don't need this puffery over Ambedkar to be a valuable human being. You are okay, just as you are, no matter what some of your fellow Indians may think about this. Let them simmer in their misplaced feelings of superiority. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

It is very ridiculous to know such a user like you User:Joshua Jonathan that you don't find any revelance of the quotation of Mr.Dalai Lama to Dr. Ambedkar. And regarding your personal attack on me, I don't care what you think. A Rinpoche came in Nagpur and Dalits revered him like a God. The quote is relevant as it is from a News Paper. Good Bye!!! I am removing the quote.Mosesben (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with Joshua Jonathan. The quote adds nothing to the article. Wikipedia:V#Verifiability_does_not_guarantee_inclusion -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Dougweller (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Siddheart Dougweller (talk) 20:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

"Laundry list" (again)[edit]

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.[2].

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)