Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis

Repeated addition of "promise"
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)


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

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

Undue and subjective addition
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)


 * 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)
 * Can you stop assuming bad faith? The editor came up with correct concerns about WP:UNDUE and you can't wriggle out by accusing them of "you don't like what he said". Focus only on content if you can. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Totally due and relevant quote from a minister was removed just because the editor did not like what was said. This is reliably sourced, if you want to discuss copy edits or rephrasing without changing the meaning of the word, I am all ears. This user is here for redaction without sufficient reasons. Follow WP:DR. Venkat TL (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you understand that your comments clearly violate WP:HARASSMENT since you are assuming bad faith even after being warned not to? Both editors above are clearly following WP:DR while you are violating WP:BATTLE. >>> Extorc . talk  07:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Clearly as stated in the RS, the content is due, where it is discussing the 2019 crisis straight from the BJP minister in the floor of the assembly. Venkat TL (talk) 07:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why you are ignoring The Hindu source cited right above using the word "ditched" and that "Everyone knows that "ditched" is not the same as "deceived"? There are many contradictory views such as Fadnavis own statement in 2019, and I don't think we need to open the door for the paragraph that would include only views of politicians. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * +1. I note that Venkat TL has restored the problem paragraph at Shiv Sena and 2019 Maharashtra political crisis by personally attacking me on edit summaries and without resolving the dispute. Dympies (talk) 07:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * So what is your proposal? Add ditched in quotes? Venkat TL (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Proposal is to restore the section to its last form before you introduced all the stuff about "promises" and "claims". It was well-sourced and accurate prior to your changes.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Why do you wish to make this page a one sided BJP POV? what is the good reason to drop this eye opening admission of guilt? Look I am open to any reasonable paraphrase of the word deceive ditched etc, What I will not agree with is to remove this entirely. How would you like to continue this WP:DR? Venkat TL (talk) 08:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You are again assuming bad faith. I am telling you that we have got enough coverage about these events that we really don't need any further "claims" or "views". I haven't even removed your addition of the views that emerged recently but if you are going to include them on other sections like background then it will only worsen the quality of the article. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Statements and views here is completely UNDUE. Even if they "Ditched" Shiv Sena, still it is undue. >>> Extorc . talk  09:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Entire crisis was due to this "ditching" of Shiv Sena by BJP, how can you claim it is undue? Venkat TL (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @CapnJackSp @Dympies How would you like to proceed with the WP:DR Venkat TL (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all see the note I left on your talk page and secondly I think there is no reasonable dispute for the reasons already discussed above. Dympies (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What you think is your opinion, and not necessarily a WP:CONSENSUS. Please answer my question above. Venkat TL (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Not my opinion but obvious to anyone who can see your WP:OR starting with the sentence that "BJP admitted..." as if there was a unanimous statement from BJP but one politician and even then you provided wrong translation and very small quote. To say that you don't want to accept consensus against this POV pushing is not gonna make sense but only waste more time. Dympies (talk) 09:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Dympies That is not my statement, did you read the linked reliable source? Please quote from the reliable source below. How would you like to proceed with the WP:DR? Venkat TL (talk) 10:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No one talked about your "statement" but your "WP:OR" and presentation of a mistranslation by showing only half quote. You can try any content-related method written on WP:DR but it will only waste time because of the problems with the content discussed above. Dympies (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The number 40 was not independently verifiable
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 It states a fact. >>>  Extorc . talk  04:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Support. Obvious, stated in RS. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Different RS have published different numbers. Almost all of them are claimed and unverified. The issue being discussed on this page is that these numbers are unverified from independent media. BBC has pointed this and that is why it is important to mention that this figures are claimed figures and not independently verified. I asked if there is any source that verified the claimed numbers, and so far I have not seen any. Venkat TL (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Hindu says 40 are there. If you say multiple RS give multiple numbers, then give another RS that gives a different number (not claims by this and that, you will need a statement of fact by an RS). Keep in mind that BBC is not the only RS, and if we have information from a reliable source, we will use it. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * BBC is not the only RS here. If The Hindu states a fact and BBC cant confirm it, then its BBCs short-coming and not The Hindu's fault. >>> Extorc . talk  10:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it is amusing to see that even the rebel leader himself is using the words such as "nearly" when referring to the unverified number of MLAs, but here we have users armed with some abbreviation links who think they know better than him. Venkat TL (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we or do we not have a source which states that 40 MLAs were moved from Surat to Guwahati? Moreover the "Nearly" you cite is particularly talking about Shiv Sena MLAs, he states that he has more than 50 total MLAs, which would automatically verify that he has 40. Because 40 < 50 and he has at least 50. And meanwhile, don't forget that NDTV quotes him, so this is his claim and Hindu states it as a fact. >>> Extorc . talk  15:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You know, I have one final nail for the coffin if you have any doubts left. NDTV A-non godi media source  reports that  No claim, No unverified number. In front of your eyes to count, or to refer to the source which states 42. So lets end this and now lets change the article from On 22 June, Sinde said that he had moved 40 legislators to Guwahati, Assam. The number 40 was not independently verifiable. to On 23 June, Shinde flew 42MLAs from Surat to Guwahati, Assam and later on 23 June, released their video in which they shout slogans for Shinde. >>>  Extorc . talk  15:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc did you really understand what my concern is? can you please repeat it just to make sure you got it right? Venkat TL (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea sure, your concern is :- 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. [The Hindu is] repeating the claims of the rebel MLA They are parroting the claims BBC has pointed this and that is why it is important to mention that this figures are claimed figures and not independently verified. >>> Extorc . talk  16:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to quote, I know what I said, I was asking what you understood. In any case, my concern here is that Wikipedia article should not be making definite claims that X no. MLAs have rebelled. But instead it should say Person E claims to have support of around X Number of MLAs. adding that the figure is not independently verified. Just on this page you have thrown different number 40, 32, 36, 42 it is obvious that there is no definite number. All these numbers should be reported in the article with attributions. But you seem to be sticking to 40 and showing as though it is one definite number, when it is not the case. Venkat TL (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Venkat TL I have provided you the exact number. 42. >>> Extorc . talk  05:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Venkat TL, my concern here is that Wikipedia article should not be making definite claims that X no. MLAs have rebelled - I understand that, but is BBC the only source we can use, and is it that if a claim cannot be verified by BBC, then any other source cannot state the facts? Just on this page you have thrown different number 40, 32, 36, 42 it is obvious that there is no definite number. - The article uses the following numbers : 11 (initial MLAs moved from Mumbai to Surat.), 37(number of MLAs required to avoid disqualification under Anti-Defection laws), 40 (number of MLAs moved from Surat to Guwahati). So, Please stay at the issue at hand, Did 40 MLAs move from Surat to Guwahati or not? BBC says that this claim is unverifiable. The Hindu states [40] as a fact. NDTV states that Shinde has 42 MLAs in Guwahati which he moved from Surat on 22. All these numbers should be reported in the article with attributions. - Everything I say is supported by RS. Hindu, NDTV are both RS. >>>  Extorc . talk  10:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc, In these edits Once again you are adding the "Claimed number of MLAs" into the article as exact number without disclaimers or attributions in Wikipedia voice, this is wrong and a violation of WP:NPOV. Venkat TL (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In these edits, there are no claims involved. These are confirmed by the RS. >>> Extorc . talk  18:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Number of MLAs that allegedly signed No confidence letter is not 40
Number of MLAs that allegedly signed No confidence letter is not 40

yet you guys will fight tooth and nail writing walls of text to only mention an unverified number and remove any clarification that it is unverified claim Sent From "Anonymous Email", Motion Against Deputy Speaker Rejected Venkat TL (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are making a reference to the above thread, then that topic is different, there you have been provided a source which states it as a fact that 40 MLAs were moved from Surat to Guwahati. >>>  Extorc . talk  13:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

POV issues: Pro BJP and Anti-Shiv Sena, anti MVA Godi media bias
I have tagged this page for POV and update. As discussed and demonstrated with links and examples in the threads above it is clear that this page is only being updated whatever BJP and Godi Media are propagating. So many updates are happening on daily basis for example https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/maharashtra-political-crisis-amid-shiv-sena-vs-sena-tussle-uddhav-thackerays-big-meeting-today-10-facts-3098769 But the article is only getting updates when it suits one party's POV. Venkat TL (talk) 12:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)



These links above are just a few examples of glaring lack in content in this article that I found. --Venkat TL (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Kindly suggest what exact updates are you wanting to add. Any speculative additions like "is likely to send" will be removed. >>> Extorc . talk  12:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please explain, which Godi Media sources and BJP mouthpeices are present in the article to support the claim "only being updated whatever BJP and Godi Media are propagating". >>> Extorc . talk  12:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There are so many major plot points that is missing from this wikipedia article that it will be a long list. Just go through the links I posted above and these links below and then compare it with what this article is narrating.

Venkat TL (talk) 14:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody has stopped you from updating the article. You can propose content here if you don't want to make edit yourself. Dympies (talk) 05:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * read the threads above, dont remove the tags without resolving issues and consensus on talk page. Another link.

--Venkat TL (talk) 07:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Every single argument of yours was responded. Just because you are not willing to get along with consensus doesn't mean you need to respond with frivolous tagging. Dympies (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, nobody has stopped you from adding any updates. I have updated the article with information related to events on 24th June. The POV tag was completely unnecessary. I have removed it, please don't add it frivolously again. >>> Extorc . talk  11:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Extorc The tags are added for those issues to be resolved. Although it has improved but I still see the updates and information from Shiv Sena, from the links listed above have not been added. The weight issues still remain. Please update them and reach consensus before removing the POV tags. Venkat TL (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Would you like to explain me the reason for the POV tag? The issues you raise are related to Updates, for which tag is already there. >>> Extorc . talk  11:54, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Extorc, There are several remaining issues, one being, The dispute discussed at also needs to be resolved before POV tag can be removed. second is the number of rebel MLAs, those numbers need to be added. I will start new threads for other  issues below. Venkat TL (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing clarity. >>> Extorc . talk  12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I still don't see where is the "POV" issue or missing updates. These tags are unnecessarily misleading the readers. Dympies (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Which Airport
@Venkat TL, I can see that On 24 June, Thackeray said about the rebelling MLAs, "NDTV has shown you what happened at the airport...They don't have two-third numbers, so they will be disqualified. They are depending on the BJP". was added to the article. This is sourced using the content you claimed you are not being allowed to add to the article. But it is crucial to contextualize. Which airport are you talking about, there is no mention of an airport on the entire article. If you fail to contextualize this, I would be removing that content until that can be achieved because this is highly confusing of an average user. >>> Extorc . talk  10:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The cite you are looking for is already added at the end of the statement, i.e, ref name="NDTV Showed"
 * context and the airport name is there in the cited news article. Venkat TL (talk) 11:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Kindly add the context you find in the source to the article. >>> Extorc . talk  11:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

POV issue BJP leaders were present in hotel
The Wikipedia article mentions that Sarma denied having knowledge of Shinde, and at the same time skips the crucial reporting about the presence of BJP leaders including Sarma. The following in the form of summary, needs to be added into the article.

Venkat TL (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Weight issue: Article does not mention the position of MVA partners
Weight issue: Article does not mention the position of MVA partners, reading the article gives an impression that SHS has separated from MVA, but there are clear statements on the contrary that is missing in the article. Venkat TL (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I have a recommendation for you @Venkat TL. Try WP:BRD. Add what you think is relevant and can be reliably sourced. If anyone disagrees or thinks that the addition need changes will either revert you or take you to a discussion on the talk page. It is much more efficient. It doesn't require creation of such sections. >>> Extorc . talk  12:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * These are not the only issues, they are some of the most glaring issues. There are many more, but they give you an idea of what is lacking Venkat TL (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * gives an impression that SHS has separated from MVA - Impression? >>> Extorc . talk  14:32, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we can add Meanwhile, MVA leaders like Mallikarjun Kharge swore to keep MVA together >>> Extorc . talk  14:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Overuse of commas
All editors please use less number of commas in the article. I see unnecessary use of commas. Debjyoti Gorai  (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @Debjyoti Gorai how did you find it was me? Can you please provide diff while making such claims? Venkat TL (talk) 18:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Debjyoti Gorai Although I have made a few edits on this page, the article was not created by me and most of the content was by other users. Venkat TL (talk) 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok.  Debjyoti Gorai   (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the talk section civil
To all people who see this please keep the talk section civil. Restrain uses of political words like Godi and Lutyens media here. It may cause some editors inflamed and distort or vandalise the article from both sides. Also refrain from using any inflammatory words, sentences, speeches here. I request editors write from a third point of view siding with none i.e. neutral. And keep the quality of the article good. Debjyoti Gorai  (talk) 18:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

IP Vandalism
@Extorc you restored wrong version. This vandalism diff still remains. Venkat TL (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'm confused. >>> Extorc . talk  18:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Let the protection comes and the IP 103.108.73.198 is blocked first, then we would clean the article.  Debjyoti Gorai   (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Debjyoti Gorai no such privilege exists for vandals. Fix the vandalism on the spot. Venkat TL (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks the IP has been blocked.  Debjyoti Gorai   (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

40 crores?
@Venkat TL, I believe that the 40 crore per lawmaker mention in the lead is UNDUE. We already have a shiv sena leader making accusations on the BJP in the lead. We don't have to mention it twice, do we? We can make one mention and then keep this 40 crore thingy int he Crisis section as a detail? Pinging @CapnJackSp @Dympies. >>> Extorc . talk  13:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It is very important information and the rootcause. I dont see any reason why this should be removed from the lead. Proper attribution ha been given and it is reliably sourced. The reliable sources are reporting this in headlines and here you are asking to remove from the lead.
 * Venkat TL (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Which root cause are you talking about? In the 3 citations you have shared, 2 of them present this as an accusation and one of them presents it as a statement in Saamnaa, Shiv Sena mouthpeice... >>> Extorc . talk  13:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am quoting Quint and NDTV. If they verify and publish something it is considered reliable. Please Read this RSN thread about similar case to understand the community consensus in such cases. Venkat TL (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not disputing the reliability of the content added. I am saying that the content added is an accusation, one of which already exists in the lead given by Sanjay Raut. Why are we then adding another accusation made by Shivsena leaders in the lead? The Sanjay Raut statement was enough said. >>> Extorc . talk  15:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have problem with the line, or do you have problem with adding it in lead? Please read WP:LEAD once before replying. Venkat TL (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Remove from lead. This concerns BLP and shouldn't be on lead at all. If this were to be included on article body it needs to be treated as allegation and be properly attributed as well. Dympies (talk) 23:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Completely undue. Accusations flung casually against political rivals may deserve a line in the article, but they cannot be featured prominently in the lead. Would also point out discrepancies between the claims, Raut saying 40 crore and a Shiv Sena leader saying 50 crore.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * CapnJackSp it is obvious that you have not read the refs. 40 crore for every MLA, while one of them was offered 50 crore. Now please check the source before making a reply. Venkat TL (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If "40 crore for every MLA" was a correct figure then why did one of them contradicts this claim by saying that he was offered 50 crores? I also think it needs to stay out of lead since it is just an accusation and not a fact. Dympies (talk) 17:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Dympies did you understand my last comment? please read it again and let me know what you understood of it. Venkat TL (talk) 09:05, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I am sorry that you are not getting the reply you are looking for. Dympies (talk) 09:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Article title is dubious?
The similar situation case in happening now with NCP but the article is named as 2023 NCP Split, then why this article shouldn't be name as 2022 Shiv Sena split? Tesla car owner (talk) 07:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)