Talk:Constitution of India

Conflicting articles.

Article 75(5) makes a minister 'eligible' to vote, while article 88 makes them 'ineligible' to vote inside the parliament. 49.37.96.186 (talk) 15:29, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@49.37.96.186 No, they are not conflicting. 75(5) must have meant (while being discussed) that a minister should 'become eligible' to be a member of the house (i.e. in terms of age, office of profit etc.), so it doesn't entitle them to be eligible to vote. Voting in meant only for the elected members. Though in practice, elected members are selected as ministers, which makes the situation appear to be conflicting. Riteze (talk) 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding more of a Ambedkar's concluding Speech

Hello everyone,

I have been trying to add more of B.R. Ambedkar’s concluding speech in the Constituent Assembly to the article to ensure historical accuracy. Currently, only part of his speech is included, which I believe gives an incomplete picture. My addition is a direct transcription of his actual words, and I think it adds important context, particularly regarding how he credited different people involved in the Constitution's drafting. However, there has been disagreement about the length of the addition. I would like to hear from other editors on how we can include this additional speech in a way that maintains the article’s balance.

Thank you! Callmehelper (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LONGQUOTE. Too many or too long quotes are a copyright concern and should be avoided. Nobody (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey Yo !

Thank you for pointing out WP:LONGQUOTE. I understand the need to avoid overly long quotes for readability and copyright concerns. However, I'd like to emphasize that the quote I included from Ambedkar’s concluding speech isn't just an arbitrary selection—it's a key part of the historical record, especially given Ambedkar’s central role in drafting the Constitution. His speech is often misrepresented or minimized when only the acknowledgment of B.N. Rau is mentioned, which can lead to an incomplete understanding of his broader message and contribution.

In this case, Ambedkar’s speech is from 1949, so it's likely in the public domain and shouldn't present a copyright issue. Moreover, limiting his speech to one or two lines fails to capture the depth of his concluding remarks, which extend beyond mere credit to B.N. Rau. Ambedkar's reflections on the future of the Constitution and the role of the more people and political parties in its implementation are crucial and deserve to be represented more fully.

That said, I agree that we should avoid unnecessary length. I am open to finding a middle ground where we include a more concise yet substantial portion of his speech. This way, we maintain historical accuracy and ensure that Ambedkar’s broader points are not overlooked, while still adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines for brevity.

Would you be open to discussing how we could best summarize the additional portions of Ambedkar’s speech to avoid WP:LONGQUOTE while ensuring that key points are not left out? Callmehelper (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

The quick fix would be to move it to the Help:Footnotes by adding it to the references |quote= parameter and summarise the important parts in the article. If the speech is not copyrighted, it could also be added to Wikisource. Nobody (talk) 09:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey

Thank you for your responding regarding the concluding speech. I’m curious about the reasoning behind focusing solely on B.N. Rau for credit. Ambedkar explicitly acknowledged multiple contributors in his speech, so why should we highlight just one individual? This could unintentionally minimize the efforts of others who played a vital role in drafting the Constitution.

Even it would be fair if article should be like what Ambedkar said about B N Rau then it would perfectly make sense.

But just giving credit to B N Rau and calling it a Concluding Speech of Ambedkar is not only disrespect other members but also Ambedkar himself along with historical Accuracy.

Instead, it might be more appropriate to frame the speech around Ambedkar’s vision for the future of the Constitution. By doing so, we can present a more comprehensive view that reflects his thoughts on justice, equality, and the responsibilities of citizens, rather than narrowing the focus to one name. This part of ambedkar speech is better to be called as the concluding speech of Ambedkar.

I would appreciate your thoughts on this perspective. Callmehelper (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

It should be possible to remove that quote and summarise it. For example: In his concluding speech in the constituent assembly on 25 November 1949, B. R. Ambedkar gave credit to several people who were involved in the drafting of the constitution, including [add notable names here]. Nobody (talk) 12:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Also remember that it still needs to be written neutral. frame the speech around Ambedkar’s vision for the future of the Constitution doesn't sound neutral to me. Nobody (talk) 12:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

hi.

Thank you for your feedback. There’s a concern with only crediting individuals in Ambedkar’s concluding speech, as he mentions around 15 to 20 names. It’s difficult to decide which names are more important without having biasness, and doing all name one by one also create a longer paragraph but also doing so would risk of losing the essence of what Ambedkar wants to conveying in his speech. The focus of his concluding remarks was not just giving credit, but discussing the future of the Constitution, how political parties might use it for good or bad purposes, and the broader vision he had for India’s governance. Callmehelper (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

it doesn't matter it looks neutral or one sided view as long as it's his original words to words lines of his original speech . I am not adding any quotes. It's all a in a speech and that too in a continuation without changing the alphabets.

Although I am not getting what's the problem with my previous additional content . It has both the credit part and also some important aspect of constitution and future like how a party can use in a good way or in a bad way.

One point I want to make here also that this is the article of constitution of India, so people visit here definately want to read to some speech of ambedkar as what's his views on constitution as he regards as a father of Indian constitution. Also there is nothing like any issue of copyright. So I don't think any problems comes.

Although in B N Rau wikipedia it is mentioned about him what ambedkar said about him. Here is what actually constitution mean for ambedkar would be better to involved as a concluding speech.

Simply I am saying is what I added earlier is highly accurate with historical accuracy and it involves all the crux of that speech.

I hope you ultimately got my point.

Let me know what's now you think. Callmehelper (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

There are some policies and guidelines that help in this case. For which names to include, we normally focus on add those that have articles about them. If none have, then we don't add any names. Also remember that there is no section about the future of the Constitution in the article. Adding only something said by B. R. Ambedkar would be UNDUE. While this article is about the constitution it's not about B. R. Ambedkar. Some things are better at B. R. Ambedkar#Drafting of India's Constitution then here. Also it doesn't matter it looks neutral or one sided view as long as it's his original words is not how we do things here, Neutral written is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. If people want his speech they should look at his article (which is already linked 5 times in this one) first. Nobody (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

How written just one name b n Rau is neutral ?

Just remove the whole part would be better than just crediting just one name clearly seen not a neutral side of ambedkar speech.

There is clearly written what ambedkar said I'm his concluding speech- it simply means that just to mention one name B N Rau?

Better if happened in a way that what ambedkar said about B N Rau in concluding speech and credit to B N Rau is completely make sense. Callmehelper (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding only notable names is neutral, be it 1, 5 or 10 doesn't matter. In fact removing it, even tho it's notable, would make it biased against B. N. Rau. Nobody (talk) 14:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

Change the "The original 1950 constitution is preserved in a nitrogen-filled case at the Old Parliament House in New Delhi." to "The original 1950 constitution is preserved in a helium-filled case at the Old Parliament House in New Delhi." 2406:8800:9014:E810:3D9F:AAC4:DB81:7D2B (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Confirm with latest amendment & actual appendix please

till 2023 there were 106 amendments in the Indian Constitution Adv Aakash Laxmi Narayan Shinde (talk) 11:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)