"== Family Life == 
 Would somebody write on Ambedkars family life? Who was his wife? Did he have children? What happened to them all? Did they play any role in his life? Was he circumsized? Those who know more about it please write it. 

 Why does ""Ambedkar"" in search redirect to the disambiguation page and not to B.R.Ambedkar page?     

 Babasaheb is a term of veneration, and Google searches make clear it does not also happen to be his name.  Even Jesus Christ is only a redirect to Jesus, and IMO the only reason we have to put up with Mahatma Gandhi as a title is that ignorant Westerners would get confused and probably think M.K. Gandhi was one of Sonia Gandhi's kids. 

 As a whole, the article is sufficiently hagiographic, and defensive about his qualifications, that it IMO compromises its accessibility and probably ends up preaching to the choir.  The repeated use of ""Depressed Classes"" without a link or definition is another symptom of this.  The wording ""intended to be treated as human beings"", an exaggerated POV slogan of resentment rather than conveying any objective information about the (shocking) grounds for resentment is yet another. 

 (This article is IMO presently headed for being gutted because of its unencyclopedicity.  I also hate to see wasted effort, but personally (not as an editor) i feel the most unfortunate aspect of that is that a more encyclopedic article would be more effective in recruiting public opinion to his cause than this one will be.) 

  09:23, 2004 May 19 (UTC) 

 : Completely agree about Babasaheb, but I couldn't see how to alter the existing title of the stub. This needs to get done. My original article was I think NPOV, but I hadn't looked at it for a while. It's a bit difficult to keep the Ambedkarite faction in check, if that's what it is. Please be bold and re-edit as you wish.   

 : Agree on the article being full of POV stuff and non-encyclopaedic. Not sure if I agree on a move to change the title. It's hard to believe Mahatma Gandhi is the only such article (with a term of veneration in the title). How about Mother Teresa? Of course, I'm not even getting into royalty, Christian saints and the like. IMO, the reason is that Agnes Gonxha Bojaxhiu is known worldwide as Mother Teresa. And if Babasaheb Ambedkar is more popular (on Google, say) than Bhimrao Ambedkar, why not stick with the current title?  |hahahaha 
 I added this article, early this UTC day, to Cleanup, noting that the change of title needs (if loss of history is to be avoided) action by a sysop. 

 Mother Teresa is indeed another good example. FWIW, i am less bothered by her, royalty and the ancient saints and saint-equivalents of all traditions, for distinct reasons: 
 * Mother T, and the monarchs of more than a few generations vintage, have other names, but virtually everything about them that we still care about was done in interaction with people who had stopped even thinking of them by their original names.  And while Mother and King do have ""venerative force"", if you will, they are also definite functional roles as well, diluting that problematic effect IMO. 
 * Saint George and Sri Krishna are figures that i assume to have no verifiable history, but more importantly, whether they do or not really only matters to the people who venerate them: their bios are IMO pseudo-bios whose substance is philosophical rather than historical, and i would, for instance, have no strong objection to Sri Krishna as a title, especially since i am aware of historical figures with names like Krishna Menon and (hmm...) Ramakrishna (?). 
 * Altho there are plenty of official saints with some verifiable history, some of them not only are usually called ""St. ..."", but also can't be clearly identified without the word.  (Francis of Assisi is as well recognized as St. Francis of Assisi, and i am pleased that the non-PoV version is the article title.  But, for instance St. Lawrence may be necessary; IMO e.g. Lawrence of the gridiron would be silly and less effective.) 

 As to the suggestion of keeping the title of veneration in this article's title, 
 # My brief Google test was impressionistic, but ""Babasaheb"" certainly was not the overwhelming choice, and Web pages with may be less common than without it; 
 # Even if it is/were overwhelming, i think it is clear that that would be because people whose PoV makes them venerate him are disproportionately interested in him and creating more pages.   
 # IMO it is a fact that the term is widely but not universally used, and that it is