Talk:B. R. Ambedkar/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Laundry list of profession

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

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

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)

 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

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)

 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

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.

• 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

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

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

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.

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.

References

• 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)

Censoring Hindutva

@EdJohnston: Do you know why aman kumar goel asked you to lock this page. Now he or his fellows will come and censor anything that is critical of Hinduism or Hindutva with some random claims like Srijanx22 did with WP:SOAP. Please at the least keep watch of this page. Hope you will. Thousand head Ravan (talk) 04:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I have left a warning for your personal attacks on your talk page. Keep it in your mind.

You must familiarize yourself with WP:SOAP. Indeed, this page is not your or Ambedkar's soapbox that you are allowed to settle your scores with what you admittedly hate.[2] If you are going to dedicate large paragraphs to his comments on Hinduism, then you would need to do the same with his comments on every other religion per WP:BALANCE.

You are using unreliable sources such as openthemagazine/essays, dailyio, etc.

Your WP:OR is immense. "Ambedkar's writings showed that he was opposed to the concept of Hindu Rashtra" is your unsourced opinion. An article by a lawyer use the quote "Hindu Raj becomes a reality, it would undoubtedly be the greatest calamity for this nation", which N. Chakravartty describes as "warnings which Dr Ambedkar gave regarding the prospects before the Dalits and other oppressed" and others interpret it as criticism of Hindu elite. None of this clearly means "Hindu Rashtra".

It is a no-brainer that he was anti-Hindutva. But why do you have to dedicate a section for that? Where is the section for his opposition to subjects like Creation of Pakistan, Article 370, Continuation of Reservation, and others? Srijanx22 (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:Thousand head Ravan, User:Srijanx22 and User:Aman.kumar.goel. If there is disagreement about what belongs on this page you should follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 13:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston If anti-Ambedkar people dominate Wikipedia, then "truth" is only what they decide. And it will not lead to "justice" nor "neutrality". भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello User:भारतभूषण प्रकाश नरंदेकर. Wikipedia is not a venue for factions winning or losing. We are supposed to discuss our concerns so as to reach a compromise based on what reliable sources say. Rather than blame a group of people for the state of the article, it is better if you describe what ought to be changed and then give your evidence. When commenting on other editors, please stay away from personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Indian wikipedia is unfortunately a venue for factions with muslim, Dalit haters and proud Hindutva supporters on one side & lower caste people on the other side. See the archive talk page of 2020 Delhi riots for example and doxxing of a wiki editor by OpIndia. Thousand head Ravan (talk) 17:37, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

RfC about addition of Ambedhkar's views on Hindutva and religion

Should the paragraph of "Hindutva, Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Rashtra" be added under the "Views" section and the "Hinduism" merged with "Religion" section.? Thousand head Ravan (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Hindutva, Hindu Nationalism and Hindu Rashtra

Ambedkar's writings showed that he was opposed to the concept of Hindu Rashtra. In 1946, he labelled the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) as a dangerous entity. From his writing, Pakistan or Partition of India, he frequently commented on Hindu communal politics which statments such as the 'menace' of 'Hindu Raj'. In his book, What Congress and Gandhi have done to the untouchables, Ambedkar claims that organisations such as the Hindu Mahasabha were useless to deal with the social issue of caste and untouchability and their only purpose was to fight Muslims in Indian politics. He was consistent in his criticism against the Hindu nationalist organisations of their counterproductive tactics and sectarian politics. Hindutva organisations, according to Ambedkar's newspapers, had a habit of deliberately ignoring Dalit issues in order to keep going with Hindu unanimity. Ambedkar's newspaper Janata, pointed out in one of it's commentary that the Hindu nationalist politics are founded on sectarian ideals of "Brahminism" and anti-Muslim politics. In his 1945 book, Pakistan or Partition of India, he said that if "Hindu Raj becomes a reality, it would undoubtedly be the greatest calamity for this nation". He also said that Hindu Raj must be stopped at all costs.

Hinduism

“ I was born a Hindu because I had no control over this, but I shall not die a Hindu ” — B. R. Ambedkar

Ambedka argued that there was no hope for Untouchables to live a respected life within Hinduism. When Gandhi asked Ambedkar to endorse the Temple Entry Bill, he refused and said that he was disgusted by Hinduism and Hinduism's followers because they hold false ideals and live in a false social life. In 1935, he declared that, despite being born as a Hindu, he would not die as a Hindu. He said that Hinduism is a threat to freedom, equality, and community, regardless of what Hindus claim. He also criticized the High caste Hindus of having captured the state with their monopoly of education and wealth and excluding the lower caste Hindus from power, education and wealth and doing this as their goal in life. He also said that the High caste Hindus also intend to exclude Muslims from power as they did to lower caste Hindus.

The paragraphs discuss Ambedkar's views on Hindutva and religion. There is already a section devoted to his views on communism, so to bring Wikipedia:BALANCE I suggest to add the section on Hindutva. Ambedkar's religious statements focused primarily on Hinduism more so than other religions, so I suggest this be added in the "Religion" section since the content about Hinduism is small and to bring Wikipedia:BALANCE. Thousand head Ravan (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

P.S. I've solved the problems highlighted by another user about Original research (It is present in the cited reference) and removed daily.io and Open magazine as citations.Thousand head Ravan (talk) 17:48, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Comments

• I think that the suggested edits are useful - at least as a start. Ambedkar wrote extensively on caste - especially in Hinduism - and that being left out of the article would be weird. The section on Opposition to untouchability is good but does not go beyond 1930. Even in his speech Annihilation of Caste he specifically targets Hinduism even though he acknowledges the presence of caste in other religions. Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
• (Invited by the bot.) I don't have expertise here, but if that proposed addition is accurate it should certainly be in.North8000 (talk) 12:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• Your proposal fails WP:BALANCE you are talking of because it only targets Hindus but not other religion adherents. B. R. Ambedkar#Religion is fine enough as it provides same weight to his views about all religions he talked about. We don't have to provide excessive details. Similarly, Ambedkar never talked about "Hindu rashtra", he only talked about "Hindu Raj" i.e. rule by Hindus per scholarly sources. [3] Bringing up poor sources to counter the scholarly sources is WP:DE. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 10:18, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I would actually counter by saying that the current state of the section at least does not give proper WP:DUE to Hinduism - as that is in fact what Ambedkar wrote most extensively on when discussing caste. See his works like Riddles in Hinduism for instance, or even Annihilation of Caste where he goes into a lot more detail as to why he thinks that Hinduism is a problem vis-a-vis caste when compared to other religions which he acknowledges but ignores for the most part. Of course good scholarly sources should be used for expanding the section - not the primary sources. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 17:16, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

• No. I find this RfC to be failing WP:RFCBEFORE, having failed to answer the arguments provided by Srijanx22 sections above. --Yoonadue (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 June 2021

I wish to edit about water resource policy of Dr.Ambedkar.106.211.36.18 (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you.   melecie   t 13:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Dr. BR Ambedkar

Pronunciation is Incorrect. It should be /bʰiːm ɾɑːo ɾɑːmdʒiː əmbed̪kəɾ/ Nishānt Omm (talk) 15:59, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The pronunciation that you have provided in article is wrong according to English IPA Nishānt Omm (talk) 08:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2021

Please add this book in references https://books.google.co.in/books/about/A_Peerless_Gem.html?id=aVTYywEACAAJ&source=kp_book_description&redir_esc=y 02F1967 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:32, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Fixing citations

I tried fixing some of the URLs and expanded the bare URLs to complete citations. Still there are many that are inaccessible (I found a few while trying to expand the citations). These need to be fixed with new accessible links. Rasnaboy (talk) 06:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I fixed a few of the citations. Quite uncertain about whether my fix for the stamps citation is the best way of doing it. The dead url was to the search page of the website with the search query embedded. The website has modified how search queries work so for now I have simply used that url to "fix it" Special:Permalink/1039718536. This URL is also subject to change so we could link to each of the stamps mentioned as they seem to have more permanent urls. But then there are 9 of those on the website (2020 one seems to be missing) and it might be overkill to have so many citations. -Ujwal.Xankill3r (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

The IPA symbols for the pronunciation of B. R. Ambedkar's name are somewhat incorrect. I suggest that the proper letters are used, so that readers are aware of the right pronunciation.

Change " bhɪməɑo ɹæmdʒi ɑmbɛdkɑə " to " bʰimɾao ɾamd͡ʒi ambedkəɾ " SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The Marathi name of B. R. Ambedkar is भिमराव रामजी आंबेडकर, which by comparing to the pronunciation guide on Wikipedia, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:IPA/Marathi, shows the pronunciation as the one I gave before. SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 03:28, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021 (2)

The page name should be Dr. B. R. Ambedkar. Doctor is missing. 103.58.153.166 (talk) 21:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Not done: We don't use titles in article names ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 August 2021

Remove the Dalit word, modify it to Oppress and marginalized people/movement/community word.

I B.R Ambedkar never used Dalit word. 2001:F40:904:C60E:A579:D3F1:AC62:E5E5 (talk) 15:44, 26 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2021

Mohanish Ganta (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

him Ramji Ambedkar (IPA: [bhɪməɑo ɹæmdʒi ɑmbɛdkɑə]; 14 April 1891 – 6 December 1956), venerated as Babasaheb ([bʌbəsɑheb]), was an Indian jurist, economist, politician, and social reformer, who inspired the Dalit Buddhist movement and campaigned against social discrimination towards the untouchables (Dalits). He was British India's Minister of Labour in Viceroy's Executive Council, Chairman of the Constituent Drafting committee, independent India's first Minister of Law and Justice, and considered the chief architect of the Constitution of India.

Ambedkar was a prolific student, earning doctorates in economics from both Columbia University and the London School of Economics, gaining a reputation as a scholar for his research in law, economics and political science.[13] In his early career, he was an economist, professor, and lawyer. His later life was marked by his political activities; he became involved in campaigning and negotiations for India's independence, publishing journals, advocating political rights and social freedom for Dalits, and contributing significantly to the establishment of the state of India. In 1956, he converted to Buddhism, initiating mass conversions of Dalits.[14]

In 1990, the Bharat Ratna, India's highest civilian award, was posthumously conferred upon Ambedkar. Ambedkar's legacy includes numerous memorials and depictions in popular culture.

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. — IVORK _Talk 04:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 September 2021

Sidhrthkmr (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Religion added Sidhrthkmr (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — DaxServer (talk to me) 07:59, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding .Dr.B.R .Ambedkar Surname.

Sir, The false information is provided.Dr.BR Ambedkar surname or last name Ambedkar is his father Who kept it ,it's not the Brahmin teacher who gave that surname.Even if you check the records of the school of that time,no teacher with that name is found or was there in teaching staff. It's a false hood by hindu brahmical organisation to show that no one can grow up without a brahmin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.242.199.38 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)