Talk:Dalit Buddhist movement

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cyberbot II (talk | contribs) at 13:11, 28 February 2016 (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 13:11, 28 February 2016 by Cyberbot II (talk | contribs) (Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

India C‑class Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in May 2012.

Buddhism C‑class Low‑importance

	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. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more details on the projects.BuddhismWikipedia:WikiProject BuddhismTemplate:WikiProject BuddhismBuddhism
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on October 14, 2011.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalit Buddhist movement article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (`~~~~`). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dalit Buddhist movement article.

Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~).
New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Talk page guidelines

Archives: 1

Moved to Buddhism in modern India

I've moved the article to Buddhism in modern India. I hope this will end the move war. User:Hkelkar and User:AMbroodEY were justified in moving the article to "Dalit Buddhist movement", because currently the article talks only about Ambedkar and his followers. I will add some information about others. I also request User:Pkulkarni to remain civil and not make remarks such as "People involved in violence are Hindus Or low-caste-Hindus they are not BUDDHISTS", "Anti-Indians" etc. Thanks. Oh, by the way, I'm neither Hindu nor Buddhist. utcursch | talk 14:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to fix all the doube redirects. I'm not doing it again. The one who moves the page is supposed to do it. —Hanuman Das 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Utcursch, you archived discussions that had comments from earlier today. Could you please clean this up?—Nat Krause 14:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think any of the comments made on December 6, 2006 are of much interest. They include User:Hkelkar's reasons for move. And some comments by User:Pkulkarni such as "riots in India are laid by low-caste-Hindus", "change your BuddhistPhobia", "Anti-Indians are reverting article". I don't think these are worth discussing. I will move them here, if somebody wants me to. utcursch | talk 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with utcursch, it was a good decision. If the comments are going to be reintroduced, they should be refactored. Addhoc 15:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Utcursh, but dont we already HAVE an article on Buddhism in India? अमेय आर्यन DaBrood 17:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is too large to fit in Buddhism in India. Besides, merging will only make Buddhism in India controversial. utcursch | talk 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not have any personal quarrel with anybody. But the name Buddhism in modern India is proper. Because India got independance since 1947 and we also became one country. The Buddhist conversion Movement initiated by Dr. Ambedkar is in 1956. So the title is proper. We can put link in Buddhism in India for Buddhism in modern India. Pkulkarni 18:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The link already exists at Buddhism_in_India#Modern_revival. utcursch | talk 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Buddhism in modern India" should include information on Ladakh, Sikkim, Tawang, Tibetan exiles, etc. Is this the plan?—Nat Krause 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

At some point, we've got to do away with the first sentence. These are a variety of movements that all started for a variety of reasons. I've no intention or desire to cut Dr. Ambedkar out of the picture by my statement, but merely to suggest that has a bit more scope.

The movement started by Dr. Ambedkar will be a specific and important part of this article, and as a relatively current event, will probably be expanded on in the near future.

At some point, we've got to discuss the term "Neo-Buddhism". Not only is it widely used in news sources, but it's also used in books as well. In order to draw the average reader to this article, the term must be used at some point. HOWEVER, that does not mean that we should label the movement and people as such without quotes where-ever possible. I refer you to the first paragraph of the article on Cults as an example.

Which brings me to my next, somewhat painful, suggestion. We have to specifically discuss Dr. Ambedkar's movement and the assertion by some that it is a Cult. We have to carefully examine what that word means, and how people are using it in this situation. If this is going to be a truly credible article, we've got to cover the bases.

I invite anyone who is concerned or alarmed about my comments to discuss it first on my talk page, then we can bring it here when we've worked things out (particularly if you have concerns about my intentions with these statements). In the interest of getting things done quickly and well, I believe this would be the best thing.

Thanks everyone for your hard work. NinaEliza 20:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Krause regarding the scope of this article, if this is going to be about all forms of Buddhism that exist within the borders of modern India. There is a similar issue with Tibetan Buddhism, which is currently about the tradition, but has a redirect from Buddhism in Tibet. Also, I agree with NinaEliza regarding inclusion of the term Neo-Buddhism. Addhoc 22:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's basically only one kind of Buddhism in Tibet. Not so in India.—Nat Krause 22:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with you folks, will expand the article to include information about non-Ambedkarite Buddhists as well. utcursch | talk 04:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay. But, why? Why not just have an article about the Ambedkar movement? The so-called "Neo-Buddhists" and the various Tibetanesque groups have almost nothing to do with each other.—Nat Krause 04:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course, we could have both.NinaEliza 05:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

~~I wonder whether Dalit Buddhist users will ever agree to an article on "Ambedkarite Buddhism" or "Dalit Buddhism". That's the reason this move war started.~~ Now that Pkulkarni (talk · contribs) and his/her socks have been blocked, I believe that we can have some constructive discussion here. These users were the ones who were opposed to a title such as "Ambedkarite Buddhism" or "Dalit Buddhist movement". And other users were opposed to a title like "Indian Buddhist revival". That's why I moved the article to Buddhism in modern India, hoping that it would put a stop to the revert war. If nobody has a problem now, I propose this: Merge the content related to non-Ambedkarite Buddhism to Buddhism in India and move this article to "Dalit Buddhist movement". Any objections or better suggestions? utcursch | talk 12:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I have objection. The dalit term is not an official term in any country. The Hindus are converting to Buddhism irrespective of particular Hindu caste. So the name dalit is absolute false. Indianbuddhist 12:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

---

First thought: It is a fact that many if not most conversions to Buddhism in modern India are conversions by dalits, and the term dalit is WIDELY used. I run into it all the time. Objecting to it because it's not official is beside the point.

Second thought: I do see the problem in distinguishing between a Jat converting to Buddhism and a dalit converting. If they're joining the same organization, then no distinctions should be made between them based on caste, which they have both rejected.

Third thought: ARE they joining the same organization? It seems from the article that there are MANY Buddhist movements in India, including the Ambedkharite movements. Throwing a grab bag of organizations together as one "movement" seems to mis-state the case.

How about moving most of the content to Buddhism in modern India? We could have a history section, listing all the people and "movements" involved, and a contemporary section that would list organizations and viharas. I would also want to see some information on how Buddhism is actually practiced by the supposed millions of followers. Home altars? Festivals? Marriage and funeral ceremonies? Seminaries? Daily prayers and meditation? Pilgrimages to shrines? Financial support of institutions? The impression I get from the article is that people "convert" as a political gesture, in mass ceremonies, and then don't practice at all. I would very much like to be proved wrong here, as I am a Buddhist and I'd like to know that I have dharma brothers and sisters in India. I'm not speaking from the viewpoint of an angry Hindu criticizing the dalits as traitors.

The rest of the information, that is specifically Ambedkharite, could perhaps be relocated to Ambedkharite organizations or some such title, without distinguishing between political and religious organizations. Zora 21:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

In reality Buddhism (in India and elsewhere) is represented by his holiness the Dalai Lama, a much more respected figure (everywhere) than Udit Raj, Athawale Ramdas Bandu, and Kancha Ilaiah.Baka man 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely it's not up to you, or us, to say who should represent Indian Buddhists. If some self-described Buddhists follow a certain figure, we report that. If others follow someone else, we report that. It's as you were to say, "Hey, listen up Christians, I have declared the POPE your new leader." Zora 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I follow Nichiren. I respect the Dalai Lama, but he has nothing to do with my Faith. There are something like 20 million followers (or more) of Nichiren alone. NinaEliza 00:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, NinaEiliza, is right; the Dalai Lama is widely respected, but he can hardly claim to speak for all Buddhists.

Zora, thanks for your comments. What are the various Buddhist movements in India that you're referring to, though?—Nat Krause 00:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the name of this article going to be changed by dropping "Dalit"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.75.200.7 (talk • contribs)

As pointed out above, this article is not about Buddhism in India (which includes non-Dalits as well). There is a separate article about that: Buddhism in India. This article is about a specific topic, which is different from Tibetan Buddhism followed in parts of North India, or other schools of Buddhism. utcursch | talk 13:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry

User:Pkulkarni has been blocked for one month for running these sockpuppet or meatpuppet accounts, as confirmed by User:Dmcdevit :

User:P K aya Kulkarni has also been blocked as a suspected case. Thought of dropping a note here, as all these accounts have been involved in edit/move wars related to this article. utcursch | talk 12:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure the info is much appreciated by everyone involved, including myself.NinaEliza 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's good to know. By the way, if you ever run into User:Dhammapal, please don't confuse him with the sockpuppet, User:Dhammafriend.—Nat Krause 02:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Title Change

I believe there is scattered consenus to change the title of this article to "Neo-Buddhism". However, I don't have time at the minute to write a descriptive paragraph that would explain the term. In the interest of having an article that makes sense, I think we should keep the title as it is, until we can agree on some definitive statement. More later. NinaEliza 18:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Buddhism already redirects to Dalit Buddhist movement. utcursch | talk 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's good to have some discussion going about the scope of this article. I think having an article specifically about the Ambedkarite movement sounds pretty good. On the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with the scope that this article originally had: about the overall resurgence of Buddhism in mainstream Indian society (as opposed to Tibetan-related groups in the north who have lately become Indian citizens).—Nat Krause 02:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I put that stuff (Anagarika Dharmapala etc.) in the Buddhism in India article, which is quite small in size and needs expansion. utcursch | talk 16:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Neo-Buddhism is definitely a more appropriate term, and so is Ambedkarite movement. Dalit Buddhist Movement sounds more "Buddhist" than this movement actually is. deeptrivia (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Even Elst says it's Buddhism, where are you getting this? Arrow740 17:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

I've rewritten the article. The diff is here. In my opinon, there is no original research now. So, I've removed both {{Cleanup-rewrite}} and {{Original research}} tags. Please feel free to put them back, if you've any issues. Thanks. utcursch | talk 04:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the re-write, it looks like a viable article now. I appreciate your effort.

On a side note, I'm afraid that I can do no more than to check occasionally on the page. It's not that I no longer care, but frankly it's accumulated to much "baggage" for me at this time. I don't, however, abandon the hope that I can contribute to it at a later date.NinaEliza 04:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is strange

It is very strange to know that BuddhistIndian account was blocked. I am very much surprised to know that it has been awarded as sockpuppet of somebody .. On what basis u did it? I am writing from a cybercafe. So any Indian Buddhist who tries to write will be braded as sockpuppet?? Coz most of the people share same views. The Hindu users are more interested to vandalise the articles with warped views. What is dalit buddhist movement?? Dalit is a vague term Hindu Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes are Hindus only.

There are some anti-Buddhist admisnistrators does it mean they can block very Indian Buddhists as sock puppet because everybody will write similar views. In the above discussion how many Indian Buddhists are involved to brand Indian Buddhists as Dalits?? Indianbuddhist 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Anagarik Dhammapala

The Anagarik Dhammapala Never started Dalit Movement. Dalit Movement was started by a poet Namdeo Dhasal who was born in Hindu Untouchable community. Now-a-days they are legally colled as Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes Indianbuddhist 12:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to see even talk pages are reverted

Hello, guys ..why are u reverting talk pages? Britzzz 20:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

More socks

Dmcdevit ran a checkuser and discovered more socks of Pkulkarni. I am in the process of blocking all of them and adding appropriate templates.

Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 10:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, just to note that was the result of my check. :-) Dmcdevit·t 10:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have indef-blocked Pkulkarni. Comments are welcome here. - Aksi_great (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Krishnak12 is also most probably one of his socks. utcursch | talk 11:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Krishnak12's IP is from a different country than Pkulkarni. It may be possible that it is an open proxy. Till Dmcdevit checks the IP with other checkusers we will have to go by his editing habits. - Aksi_great (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Weareclever, it looks to me like you've been spamming several talk pages. In fact, your user contributions show a surprising number of spammed on my own watchlist. Please stop. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 17:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was referring to ] • contribs • logs) 17:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Double sorry - getting used to my new and improved watchlist - I should really be using the current revision button more often. Thanks to everyone for handling the situation. NinaEliza (talk • contribs • logs) 17:47, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

International involvement

I have moved that section entirely to Buddhism in India, because it did not have much to do with the Dalit Buddhist Movement, but were about Buddhism in general. deeptrivia (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Rumpelstiltskin's edits

R has been inserting some extremely POV material. A newspaper article extremely contemptuous of Dalit conversions is touted as a "non-partisan" source, and there's now a section denying that Maharashtrian upper castes ever oppressed Dalits -- supported by one ambiguous line in a newspaper article.

It's late here but I'll see if I can do a rewrite tomorrow. The article might benefit from a clearer division into neutral material accepted by all, then opinions from supporters of the conversions, and finally opinions from opponents of conversions. Zora 09:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you are here also. Well, I could say that Gail Omdevt (who holds Hindus in absolute and unequivoal contempt) is an extremely POV material and cited as a "non-partisan" source. That's like citing Kevin B. MacDonald on articles on Judeo-Christianity. Not wrong but need balancing.See, for instance, his section on

Christianity_and_antisemitism#Kevin_MacDonald.27s_theory_of_Christian_anti-Semitism. You seem to have an interesting pattern of double standard against Hindus, just like Talk:Partition of India. Rumpelstiltskin223 09:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

His sources seem legit.--D-Boy 04:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I second Rumpelstiltskin... especially as a Maharashtrian i find it obnoxious that the class 'a' Hinduphobe like Gail Omvedt is used a non-neutral source. Her rants against Marathas and Brahmins have earned her infamy in Maharashtra. Having said that, claiming that Maharashtrian upper castes never opressed the Dalits is nothing but far from truth. But the intesity of casteism in modern day Maharashtra is an another matter altogether. Amey Aryan DaBrood 14:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

While Gail Omvedt does much to remain a controversial Ambedkar scholar, there are numerous other academics that provide complimentary or parallel critiques of the Ambedkar Movement. Key among these scholars are Elanor Zelliot, (see, From Untouchable to Dalit: Essays on the Ambedkar Movement. New Delhi: Manohar. 1996. or , Dr. Babasahed Ambedkar and the Untouchable Movement. New Delhi: Blumoon Books, 2004.), K. C. Yadav, (From Periphery to Center Stage, Ambedkar, Ambedkarism & Dalit Future. New Delhi: Manohar, 2000.)and Christophe Jaffrelot (Dr. Ambedkar and Untouchability: Analyzing and fighting Caste. Delhi: Permanent Black, 2005.) to name a few. They do not always agree but it's academics, and as someone entering the field I realize that disagreement is part of the game. Often, the most controversial aspect of Omvedts research it not her apparent antagonism towards high caste Hindus, but her application of historical materialism to the sub-field, an application of which she is hardly alone. Her academic work is concise and clear. Attempts to show that Ambedkar's Buddhist conversion can not be presented in isolation from his social and political movement, developing the academic tradition laid out by Zelliot. Ahir, another cited source, often focuses on the religious aspect of Ambedkar's conversion to the detriment of the social and political aspects of the Buddhist conversion. While there is certainly a religious aspect to Ambedkar's conversion, it would be remiss to ignore the socio-political ramifications of the conversion and it's place within the larger political movement of Ambedkar. Be careful of attempts to undermine the role of Ambedkar because of the apparent unpopularity of a single academic to the public, who is quite respected in academia. --Julesinman 09:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)-

All that being said, the section stating "It must be noted that earlier there wasn't much friction between upper caste Hindus and Dalits in the Marathi society, although sporadic incidents of discrimination have been recorded. Especially, the Marathas, who comprise close to half the Maharashtrian population have had good relations with Marathi-speaking Dalits. Indeed, the person who helped Ambedkar pursue higher studies was Shahu Maharaj, a Maratha prince. However, there has been a history of animosity between lower caste Marathi Hindus like OBCs (which include such castes as Kunbis, Malis and Telis) and Dalits. In fact, the Kherlanji Massacre was wrongly attributed by many to forward caste Maharashtrians, when it was perpetrated by a few members of the OBC Kunbi community." is inaccurate. It makes a broad generalization from a single news source about a specific incident without looking at the broader history of the region or the current political alliances. Elanor Zelliot provided an excellent history of the Mahar caste and its subservient role in village life in Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar and the Untouchable Movement(Bluemoon books: Delhi, 2004). Oppression need not mean physical violence, but can also be negation of personal rights by restricting or proscribing the mobility of a specific group and placing that group at the beck and call of higher castes, a proscription that the Mahar faced and has been well documented. Since this section is based on a news source and has only one, rather week, primary source citation to back it up the paragraph on the relationship between the Marathi and the Mahar reeks of POV. Further, only the point about the violence in Khairlanji is corroborated by the source. the remaining is unsubstantiated and not backup up by the academic discourse. This edit needs to be removed as it stinks of political agenda and not sound historical judgement.--Julesinman 19:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I am now willing to participate

In my RfC response I stated that I would leave indefinitely until something was done about people like Dhammafriend, Holybrahmin, etc. Now that they are gone. I would like to announce that I am willing to work towards bettering this topic Thegreyanomaly 03:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The Neo Buddhist movement is a political movement. It's far from what the Buddha taught whos aim was to leave society in search for ones self. Neo Buddhists movement is built upon hate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthseeker81 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste" :
- Omvedt, Gail. Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. 3rd ed. London/New Delhi/Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003. pages: 2, 3-7, 8, 14-15, 19, 240, 266, 271
- Omvedt, Gail. Buddhism in India : Challenging Brahmanism and Caste. 3rd ed. London/New Delhi/Thousand Oaks: Sage, 2003. pages: 8

DumZiBoT (talk) 10:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Character of the movment

Is the Dalit Buddhist movement primarily a lay movement, or are they supporting monks and nuns?Sylvain1972 (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

TBMSG

Tried to add something about this Ambedkarite group, feel free to give more external references or make it even more balanced and factual. With a few revisions already. If someone above my (relatively rookie) Wiki skills would be so kind to start with, or help in, making headwords for the at least three 'Karuna Trusts'I found (one in UK linked with TBMSG, one in Kerala doing local medical work and the third in Sri Lanka) and then a disambiguation page on top of it? Headwords/topics themselves would remain quite basic, but it would help Misplaced Pages to show the audience at least that there is confusion possible...

--Erikdr (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Also added the link to 'Jai Bhim Hungary', which _is_ about untouchable Buddhism but in this case for Romani untouchables inspired by Ambedkar. It was not really wanted in the Bhimrao Ambedkar topic (that does mention Hungary) which makes some sense as Hungary is kind of 2nd generation derivation from his ideas.

Erikdr (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Link Rot: 2590 years of Buddhism

The website that it links to no longer exists. I found an article with the same name (http://www.thisismyanmar.com/nibbana/2589year.htm), but I'm not sure if it's the same. Moses.hetfield (talk) 02:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)Moses.hetfield

Moved paragraph

Moved Vishweshateerta's critique one section higher, to 'criticism', where it IMHO belongs far better than under 'distinctive interpretation' Erikdr (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Dalit Christian conversion

Is there a page on this parallel phenomenon amongst Dalits in India? It should also merit a mention in this article.

I get the impression that it is not as well organised as the mass Buddhist conversions, but somewhat better funded.-MacRùsgail (talk) 15:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Dalits and karma

The section "Distinctive interpretation" contains the following sentence:

"Ambedkar's followers do not believe that a person's conditions at birth are the result of previous karma."

As source it gives Queen, Christopher S. and Sallie B. King: Engaged Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia: NY 1996: 47ff. u.A. This sentemce seems to be incorrect; it is the result of an edit from 16:07, 14 October 2011, when the word "unfortunate" was removed: "a person's unfortunate conditions at birth". Unfortunately, I can't access p.48 of that source, but at page 47 it says:

"Human suffering (the first noble truth in traditional accounts) is not chiefly caused by the sufferer's ignorance and cravings (the second truth) he held, but by social exploitation and and material poverty - the cruelty of others."

I'll make some changes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So where does it mentions "previous karma" that you added? Here "previous Karma" can be misinterpreted as "karma of previous birth". Better you should remove word "previous karma" if source accessible to you does not mention it.--Human3015 05:13, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Sharp! Good point; thanks. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Edits by Terabar

As highlighted on User:Terabar's talk page, he seems to be removing the material that he don't like by labeling it as copyright violation, and he his continously adding a false estimate of "300,000" converts. He should consider studying WP:CV and Misplaced Pages:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations that allow such small quotations, in place of falsely establishing that there is some violation. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Before making false allegation just have a look at this Copyright Disclaimer. . You are blindly adding Copyright content. Perhaps you need to read Misplaced Pages policies. Misplaced Pages:FAQ/Copyright And Misplaced Pages:Quotations#Recommended_use_of_quotations does not say to add Copyrighted Quotes. So stop edit warring. Terabar (talk) 11:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no copyright violation here, unless quote is very big like 300 words or even 150 words. This one is hardly 89 words, and highlights something relevant to the subject and cannot be done without quoting. D4iNa4 (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Don't make your own rules on Misplaced Pages. I won't repeat myself as I am not in the habit of wasting my time. Just read my first reply. Terabar (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Your reply or your misrepresentation of policy is not saying anywhere that small quotes are not allowed to be used on wikipedia. Instead they say "Quotations are a very well known and widely used form of fair use and fair dealing and are explicitly allowed under the Berne convention." Nor you have cited a source for your made up estimate of "300,000" converts. Makes it clear that you are trying to disrupt article by whitewashing it with false information and misrepresentation of policy. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this article needs too much of improvement. How a quote of "Sri Vishweshateertha Swamiji" is relevant here? Who is he? Is he a Sociologist? Only a reliable Sociologist can comment on condition of Dalits after conversion and effect of conversion on them and that should be mentioned in article. A Hindu priest will obviously criticize people who are leaving Hindu religion, mentioning his comments in "criticism of conversion" is just WP:UNDUE as I see in this edit. And why words like "Sri" and "Swamiji" used here I don't know. Opinion of any political or religious leader should not be mentioned here, that is just a news item. I think mentioning opinion of BSP leader is also not worth here. If we really want to improve quality of this article then we should stick to sociologists. --Human3015 19:13, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That's like saying that we should not mention Ambedkar on any Hindu-related articles or notable that has conflict with the subject. Since this person is a notable figure his statement has been used by a reliable source accordingly, we are just doing the same, I have removed the quote and removed hoax estimate again, Terabar has again misinterpreted the source, but this time a new one. I have added a new academic source too.Capitals00 (talk) 05:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

There is no need to lie on this issue. I have reverted you because you are simply lying over here by saying that it is a misrepresention of source.

The Source clearly says "Tens of thousands gathered at Mahalaxmi Race Course in Mumbai on Sunday to commemorate the 50th anniversary of B.R. Ambedkar's conversion to Buddhism. More than 1 lakh Dalits and tribal Hindus embraced the Buddhist faith in what is considered the largest mass conversion in the country.....Around 4 lakh people attended the rally organised by the Republican Party of India to declare their support for this conversion on the golden jubilee year of Babasaheb Ambedkar's conversion to Buddhism (Bauddha Dhamma Deeksha)." Its not called Misrepresentation of source at all. Terabar (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

None of the source says that "300,000" converted. Source says " Sunday witnessed nearly 1 lakh people from tiny pockets of Maharashtra come together for a mass religious conversion rally", and "Around 4 lakh people attended the rally organised", not that 4 lakh people converted to Buddhism. Another source mentions "The fact is that the majority were already Buddhists and were merely following the Buddhist tradition of reaffirming their vows. The actual number of the new believers is supposed to be around 300."

You haven't provided a reason to remove the fact that Buddhists converts are still having no certificates. Also stop changing headings of the section that was started by me. Capitals00 (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The source which you are pointing towards is of the year 2007 and we are talking about of year 2006 and not 2007. The conversion which took place in year 2007 is more than 1 Lakh. according to a leading newspaper, The Hindu . And the conversion which took place in the year 2006 is about 30 Lakh.according to the 1st leading newspaper in India, Times of India. We can add both the contents and sources as it is from the finest sources in the country, India. Now don't make any more excuses. What do you say User: Human3015 ? Terabar (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dalit Buddhist movement. 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 to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Dalit Buddhist movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706213221/http://www.censusindiamaps.net/page/Religion_WhizMap1/housemap.htm to http://www.censusindiamaps.net/page/Religion_WhizMap1/housemap.htm
Added archive {newarchive} to http://acjp.sts.winisp.net/default.aspx
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070928153627/http://www.ambedkarmission.org/default_home.htm to http://www.ambedkarmission.org/default_home.htm
Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20041103093420/http://www.karuna.org:80/ to http://www.karuna.org/

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

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.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Categories: