India: Maharashtra / Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance).

Politics Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

@Venkat TL: Explain why you want to repeatedly insert the phrase when none of your sources that you have tried to use here even come close to supporting the statement. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was just weeks before voting in the national elections, which began in the second week of April. Devendra Fadnavis, then Maharashtra chief minister, placed a call at 2am to BJP president Amit Shah, now the home minister, after a frustrating round of discussions, the BJP functionary said. “What if the alliance breaks down?” Fadnavis asked Shah, who, according to the leader cited above, was very clear in his stand. Shah told Fadnavis that the chief minister’s post was not up for rotation and the BJP would accept it if it were the end of the alliance.^[1]

In 2022, during a party meeting, Uddhav Thackeray explained his move to pull out of NDA to join UPA. "We supported the BJP wholeheartedly to enable them to fulfill their national ambitions. The understanding was they will go national while we will lead in Maharashtra. But we were betrayed and attempts were made to destroy us in our home. So we had to hit back". Thackeray accused BJP of dumping its allies according to its political convenience. He said, "BJP doesn't mean Hindutva. I stand by my comment that Shiv Sena had wasted 25 years in alliance with BJP"^[2]

References

So this is reliably cited by HT. If your problem is the word "promise" then I am open to using agreement or any other synonym. Dont remove relevant content. Venkat TL (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lines you have cited show that there was no commitment from the BJP side for sharing by a 50:50 formula. When the source writes, "Shah told Fadnavis that the chief minister’s post was not up for rotation and the BJP would accept it if it were the end of the alliance", how can you so blatantly misrepresent as "The BJP agreed"? This is clear disruptive editing. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you understand "it" refers to in the line " the BJP would accept it if it were the end of the alliance." Venkat TL (talk) 20:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The breakdown of the alliance, what else? The English used is very clear. “What if the alliance breaks down?” Fadnavis asked Shah, who, according to the leader cited above, was very clear in his stand. Shah told Fadnavis that the chief minister’s post was not up for rotation and the BJP would accept it if it were the end of the alliance. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BJP didn’t keep its promise to share CM post with Sena, offered same to Ajit Pawar: Raut Venkat TL (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now replace it with what your replied above and you will find that it does not make any sense. Clearly he is referring to CM post by it. Please ask anyone else. I cant teach you English here. Another source. Shiv Sena wants equal power-sharing promise in writing from BJP Venkat TL (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect here. Does the sentence make any sense if you say shah told him to agree to CM post? "CM post is NOT UP FOR ROTATION. The BJP would accept it if it were the end of the alliance." The English is extremely clear here, that the CM post was not up for rotation and if this stand meant the end of the alliance, then the BJP was fine with it.

I would also appreciate if you kept the snarky comments to a minimum and focussed on the issue at hand. When you are making a mistake, it is not the best idea to tell someone I cant teach you English here.

Also, the second link that you provided clearly has next to nothing about what BJP promised. The only relevant part about that is a claim from one guy (MLA) about what a second guy (Uddhav) claimed. I am reminding you again, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is disruptive behaviour.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CapnJackSp Please post on WP:3O Venkat TL (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

“The meeting quorum agreed as per what Amit Shah ji [BJP president] had promised under the 50:50 formula, both allies should get a chance to run the government for two-and-a-half years each. The Shiv Sena must also have a Chief Minister of its own. Party president Uddhav ji should get this assurance in writing from the BJP," https://www.thehindu.com/elections/maharashtra-assembly/senas-mlas-elect-seek-bjps-written-promise/article61970240.ece

Venkat TL (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In a rare admission of guilt the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) for the first time has openly admitted that it has deceived Shiv Sena by not keeping pre-poll promise of equal sharing of power including CM's post in Maharashtra after the assembly results. Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar made the admission in the state assembly while speaking in a debate in the state assembly.We did deceive the Shiv Sena. However, you (Shiv Sena) benefited because of BJP's mistake (and formed the government joining hands with NCP and Congress).https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-sudhir-mungantiwar-is-candid-says-bjp-deceived-shiv-sena

Venkat TL (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The number 40 was not independently verifiable.^[1][1]

the number 40 is just his claim. showm me which news site has independently verified his claim, and I will agree to remove this. It is important to show this. Venkat TL (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you had read my edit summary, you would know that I had pointed to the The Hindu source. The article clearly notes 40 MLAs, not once, but twice. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are repeating the claims of the rebel MLA. Please point me to the line that says the claims have been independently verified. Venkat TL (talk) 20:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, Hindu states it as fact, not as claims. "Mr. Shinde and the 39 others — most are Shiv Sena MLAs, a few are independents....." ,"Soon after 40 Maharashtra MLAs led by Shiv Sena leader and Minister Eknath Shinde were escorted to a luxury hotel in Guwahati on Wednesday morning....". Where are these "claims"? Just because one new source has not been able to verify something does not mean it is unverified. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did Hindu Journo verify his claim? where does it say? Call it shoddy journalism or whatever you will. They are parroting the claims. BBC is right that it is not verified yet. Venkat TL (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you disputing that the Hindu is a RS? Take it to RSN if you want to dispute. BBC nowhere says "No one could verify". Their only claim is that they could not independently verify the claim. You are being unnecessarily difficult here. If Hindu acknowledges that he has 40, then we take it to be 40.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BBC is a RS, and wikipedia will cover what BBC says. No one else said they verified. So it cannot be removed. Please feel free to take this dispute to RSN Venkat TL (talk) 21:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say that BBC is not RS? If The Hindu was just repeating his claim then they would have mentioned that. You can't use your own analysis to dispute a reliable source. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the Hindu is considered a RS, then if it states something as a fact, then there is no need for mentioning independent verifiability separately.

So when the source says

"Soon after 40 Maharashtra MLAs led by Shiv Sena leader and Minister Eknath Shinde were escorted..."

"Mr. Shinde and the 39 others — most are Shiv Sena MLAs, a few are independents – flew in from Surat..."

It states a fact. >>> Extorc.talk 04:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest move the statement On 22 June, Sinde said that he had moved 40 legislators to Guwahati, Assam. The number 40 was not independently verifiable." to On 22 June, Shinde and the 40 legislators moved to Guwahati, Assam. >>> Extorc.talk 06:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Venkat TL: Since you made this addition also on Shiv Sena and 2019 Maharashtra political crisis I am starting the discussion here since this is the page I believe that actually triggered this addition from you.

The quotation from the BJP politician is clearly WP:UNDUE. It will only invite the inclusion of more opinions from all sides. I also add that the translation is highly subjective because The Hindu translated it as "Yes, we ditched the Shiv Sena, but don’t try to take advantage of our mistake. One day we will rectify it." Everyone knows that "ditched" is not the same as "deceived". Either way, we can use neutral sources to summarize what happened but the current version of "Background" probably need no further inclusion of this incident. Dympies (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is totally DUE, just because you dont like what he said, does not make it undue. It does not work that way. Venkat TL (talk) 06:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]