Talk:Rajya Sabha/Archive 1
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
House of Lords
In terms of the History of the Rajya Sabha was there not once an upper house consisting of maharajas &c? - a sort of House of Lords?
Avalon 21:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No, the upper house was called Council of State. Although a type of privy council existed during the British Raj it was called Chamber of Princes but it was not an upper house. It merely served as an executive board of advisors to the Viceroy of India.
— Hemant DabralTalk 09:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Member Composition
I see that numbers have been stacked up according to alliances... somethings are wrong(parties supporting UPA from outside). I think its better to have numbers partywise... what say guys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prateekramachandra (talk • contribs) 06:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Bengali
http://bn.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E0%A6%B0%E0%A6%BE%E0%A6%9C%E0%A7%8D%E0%A6%AF%E0%A6%B8%E0%A6%AD%E0%A6%BE Can somebody please link to the Bengali version from the English?
upper limit 250
as per schedule 4 total numbers are 233 and 12 nominated it makes it 245 then why it is said that number of seats in rajya sabha is 250.
kindly clarify
Achalmeena (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
defacto veto power?
The article is vague on how voting happens when the two houses sit together, but if I understand it, each member gets one vote. In this edit I changed the article so instead of describing this as 'veto' power by the lower house, it is merely 'greater' power for the lower house.
It is easy to imagine legislation that barely passes the lower house, but is overwhelmingly opposed in the upper house. In this case, the upper house would prevail in a joint sitting. So describing the situation as 'veto' power isn't really right.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:House of the People (India) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Number of elected members 233 or 234 ?
The number of elected members should be 233 and the number of nominated members should be 12 (source). However some tables in the article add up to 234 elected members? --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 19:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Footnote
Could someone add a footnote to the 'Membership by party' section, mentioning that 2 nominated members, Navjot Singh Sidhu and Subramanian Swamy have accpeted the BJP whip, and count towards the BJP? Ranban282 (talk) 10:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Territories
Do the members appointed by the President, since they are not members with respect to any particular Union State, have any particular responsibility toward the interests of the residents of Union Territories, since these persons otherwise have no one looking to their interests in the upper chamber? 2600:1004:B16C:7721:A407:3104:73B4:C7A1 (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Rajya Sabha. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209173947/http://rstv.nic.in/rstv/aboutus.asp to http://rstv.nic.in/rstv/aboutus.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090419165814/http://164.100.24.167:8080/members/StatewiseList.asp to http://164.100.24.167:8080/members/StatewiseList.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
TERM
The Rajya Sabha is not subject to dissolution. It has a permanent body,but one third of it's members retire after every second year.There after fresh elections are announced for the seats vacated at the begining of the third year. Each member enjoys a six-year term and is eligible for re-elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.77.162.143 (talk) 10:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
important
i want this page to be made harder to edit. please help me secure this page Rajya Sabha as it is the upper house of the nation India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karan.jr.Singh (talk • contribs) 19:46, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
= Users Persistently distorting the constitution of political Alliances, especially
Remove the Powers section of the article
The entire article has a lot of information but cites no real information. The unref section template is used. However, I think it is better if we find actual sources and add them in or remove the section entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijeetviswa (talk • contribs) 07:12, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
Adding BJD,TRS, YSRCP, BSP, NPF,SDF IN NDA
This edit request to Rajya Sabha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
45.127.91.107 (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2020 (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. Cannolis (talk) 06:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2020
This edit request to Rajya Sabha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Kanhaiyaa Ganu (talk) 07:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
BJD, TRS,YSRCP in NDA Kanhaiyaa Ganu (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Hii Kanhaiyaa Ganu (talk) 07:07, 23 June 2020 (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. JTP (talk • contribs) 07:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 July 2020
This edit request to Rajya Sabha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
43.231.135.11 (talk) 10:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Add NPF & SDF IN NDA
- Not done. Please be more specific as to which section to add information and what exactly to add. ◢ Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2021
This edit request to Rajya Sabha has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
"Footnotes ^† Includes 8 nominated members taking the BJP whip" It is highly offensive comment against "President of India" who nominate these members. 2405:201:4008:9079:185:FC4A:4104:6C75 (talk) 13:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
- Not done Please what you think it should be changed to? Also explain why you think it is offensive? -- DaxServer (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
House of Elders
@Rpd2002:, your edits have been reverted as you have not provided any explanation for the removal of well-sourced content. Please provide an explanation for said removal of content. Do not make any further reverts until this discussion ends. Any further reverts will constitute an edit war. Per WP:BRD, after an edit is reverted, the status quo should remain while a discussion is started. Rockcodder (talk) 08:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)