Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"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.[3].

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 ==

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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[edit]

  • 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. [1]

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 - [2] Prodigyhk (talk) 16:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Sharma, Brij Kishore (2007). Introduction to the Constitution of India. PHI Learning Pvt. Ltd. Source: [1] (accessed: Sat Dec 27, 2014)
  2. ^ Keer, Dhananjay (1995). Dr. Ambedkar: Life and Mission. Popular Prakashan. Source: [2] (accessed: Sat Dec 27, 2014)
[4] - [5]
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[edit]

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[edit]

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"[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

@Kautilya3: Ambedkar's whole book talks about Aryan invasions.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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".VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 22:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Here is the link [6]. 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 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.VictoriaGraysonTalk 16:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

No 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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)
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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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. —KuyaBriBriTalk 16:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Aryan Invasion theory Last line[edit]

'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[edit]

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[edit]

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 [7]. Capitals00 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Honorfic[edit]

@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)