Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis: Difference between revisions

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]

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]