Talk:B. R. Ambedkar

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for comment on infobox image change[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is unanimous consensus that File:Colorised Ambedkar.png should not be used, and that the current image (File:Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar.jpg) should remain. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 16:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The present image may not be the best image we have of Ambedkar. It is unusually close-up for a portrait and is of side profile. If we agree to change the image, then this I feel is a good candidate. Consider taking part in the consensus.

This is a colorised image out of a public domain image that was already available on Commons. I don't know if this info is important but the colourisation happened online from the website
Appu (talk) 16:01, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) – The relevant pages here are: Wikipedia:Image use policy (in particular, WP:IMGCONTENT), and the guideline Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images (especially MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE), and ideally any decision to keep or change the image should be based on them. I don't agree with the description above that the current image is a side profile (it's more like 3/4). The fact that the proposed image has been artificially manipulated means it may not represent reality but a colorising editor's preference. Based on MOS:LEADIMAGE which says, "Lead images should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" and the fact that the colorised image is not natural, I oppose changing the image. (Even if it were not colorised, I would still oppose the change, as I believe the current image is a better quality representation.) Mathglot (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Appu, just a procedural note: this Rfc lacks an Rfc question at the top. Please read WP:RFCBEFORE about preparing for an Rfc, and WP:RFCNEUTRAL about writing the Rfc question. In my opinion, the Rfc should start with a simple question, such as: "Should the current image of Ambedkar at the top of the article be replaced with File:Colorised Ambedkar.png?". Your argumentation in favor of one position or the other goes in a separate comment beneath the neutral statement that opens the Rfc, usually as a bullet item and the word Support or Oppose in bold font. Don't worry, you're still pretty new and you can't be expected to know everything right away, but just try to keep it in mind for next time. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) – @Appu: In addition to above concerns, which I share to some degree, can you please provide evidence that the photo is licensed under a compatible license? The source image is public domain, but colourisation by is likely to be a transformative work, which would put the colourised version under new term of copyright. Based on an (admittedly) casual look at the service's website, I was unable to ascertain that images produced by the service are licensed under a compatible license. Melmann 21:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Melmann, good point. I added a question about this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. Mathglot (talk) 02:40, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose (Summoned by bot) apart from any copyright issues which MAY apply, it's a poor image and inferior to the current B+W photo. Pincrete (talk) 05:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Current image is fine. I really don't see any reason to change it, especially with a picture that doesn't actually look as good as the current one. PraiseVivec (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Okay with the current image. Sea Ane (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose - Current image is way better. Peter Ormond 💬 15:24, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Wouldn't be correct transcription of the name Bhimrav … ? Regards, —Mykhal (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for change in IPA transliteration of 'Babasaheb'[edit]

The IPA transliteration given for Babasaheb is incorrect. The word is written in Marathi as well as Sanskrit as बाबासाहेब, which when converted to Latin script through ISO 15919, results in 'Bābāsāheb', and when compared with Help:IPA/Sanskrit, gives the correct IPA transliteration as [baːbaːsaːɦeb].

Therefore I request that [bʌbəsɑheb] be changed to [baːbaːsaːɦeb]. Thank you SomePacifisticGuy (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central Provinces[edit]

@Fowler&fowler: The text of the article says: Ambedkar was born on 14 April 1891 in the town and military cantonment of Mhow (now officially known as Dr Ambedkar Nagar) in the Central Provinces (now in Madhya Pradesh).[1]


  1. ^ Jaffrelot, Christophe (2005). Ambedkar and Untouchability: Fighting the Indian Caste System. New York: Columbia University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-231-13602-1.

The source cited for this does not mention that it was in Central Provinces. The source says: Bhim Rao Ambedkar was born on April 14, 1891 in Mhow, a garrison town close to Indore–the capital of a princely state of the same name which was to be incorporated into the province of Madhya Bharat (contemporary Madhya Pradesh) after independence. Please can you make a suitable correction.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The latter is correct, but sidesteps the Central India Agency question. Indore State was a part of the Central India Agency, commonly just called "Central India," just as Jaipur State was a part of Rajputana Agency, commonly called "Rajputana," or Porbandar a part of Kathiawar Agency; all the "Agencies" were groupings of princely states, which the British oversaw with residents. "Madhya Bharata" was the name given to Central India during the period of the Dominion of India (from 1947 to 1950, and probably for some time thereafter until Madhya Pradesh came into being which incorporated both Central Provinces and Central India and maybe a few other small political units. You may view its map in Dominion_of_India#Dominion_Constitution_and_Government. Mhow on the other hand was a British garrison town in a princely state. I'll check if it had any independent existence outside of CIA; if it did, it might explain why Jaffrelot is resorting to that circumlocution. Thank you. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Census of India, 1891, the year Ambedkar's birth, mentions Central India and Mhow in paragraphs 14 and 15 in volume 1, Intro, published 1890, page 177. This is not a reliable source but gives a feel for that time, at least in the official document. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:11, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the enumeration, published 1892, says on page 22], that Mhow (cantonment), Indore State, Central India, increased in population by 4.5K from the previous census of 1881. I wonder if baby Bhimrao was counted in it. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, (I was going to remove that [Central Provinces] though went per article body) but agencies have not been added in infoboxes and with other details such as district et al are just WP:OVERLINKING (all of which were recently added). Reduced them from infobox per MOS and removed the mention of Province from body. Gotitbro (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2022[edit]

Add the category "Category:Marathi people" as Dr. BR Ambedkar had Marathi heritage as mentioned in article GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--Krutarth (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2022[edit]

He was a social reformer ,activist (talk) 13:04, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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) 13:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

School segregation[edit]

In early life section, it says They were not allowed to sit inside the class. In his book Waiting for Visa, he says For instance, I knew that in the school I could not sit in the midst of my class students according to my rank but that I was to sit in a corner by myself. This suggests that he was allowed inside the class but had to sit in corner.

Either the sentence can be removed, since the line before it mentions untouchable children were segregated, or rewritten that Ambedkar was made sit in corner by himself.--Krutarth (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He's been hagiographed to death and unlike Gandhi he was a grandiose figure; it is hard to know what the truth was. He was after all the recipient of an elite education (Elphinstone Bombay, Columbia, LSE); the discrimination was very likely not so extreme as have deprived him of an education altogether which was the case with most Dalits, even the very talented ones. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:15, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But, regardless, being a Dalit in late 19th-century early 20th-century India, he had to have experienced discrimination, perhaps even a more humiliating kind than one of merely having sit outside the classroom. Dalits are still discriminated against in manifold ways. Will look for sources. Thanks for posting. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 23 March 2022[edit]

Change "literary translation" to "literal translation" in the intro. Jānis Barbans (talk) 17:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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. I don't see that prose in this article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2022[edit]

Under the section about the LSE, could we add a link to his LSE student file, which you can freely download from here? That PDF link is presented on this page, in case that is a better link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Politicscurator (talkcontribs) 09:25, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Politicscurator: We can't really add it to the article main body, as it is a primary source. I am delighted to add it to the external links. I read much of that file and was impressed by how highly his professors rated him. A man of considerable genius he certainly was, one in a million. Thank you for posting this and for the link. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 09:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wonderful, thank you! Politicscurator (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 April 2022[edit]

Bharataratn Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Mr. Jyoshil (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Instead of B. R. Ambedkar use Bharataratn Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Mr. Jyoshil (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: We don't use titles in article names. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 24 October 2022[edit]

The local description of this page is Former minister of law and justic in india But it should be 'The Father of Indian Constitution'. Please do this change. Shreyas143 (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Greatest Indian Shreyas143 (talk) 01:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]