Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

"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.[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 (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)

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

[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

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 [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.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)