Talk:Shiv Sena/Archive 1

Archive 1

Random header

I removed the following from the article because it seems very POV to me:

Shiv Sena members have supported the massacre of Christians, Jews, Muslims, homosexuals, moderate Hindus, and Dravidians

It was added by User:jj frap, who has a history of POV disputes. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:16, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Libel and Slander

Libel and slander against a vital political party in India gets editors banned here. I have removed all the nonsense in the article. It was highly pejorative of Marathas and can be construed as racist and ethnocentric. Please refrain from using wikipedia as a sandbox for expressing anti-maratha and anti-Hindu hatred. Calling them 'terrorists' and such is uncalled for, since no indictments or formal charges have been made against them. Violence against Jews? Was that for effect of false accusations of anti-semitism? Please, Shiv Sena is an open supporter of Israel and Thackeray an avid admirer of Zionism. Again, baseless accusations without proof from a nutjob leftist with a typical low-class education.(Pusyamitra Sunga 14:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

Name of the party

I know that the name originally refers to Chhatrapati Shivaji, but from what I've understood is that SS has started implying that their name refers to the deity Shiva when they've started to start branches in other Indian states. --Soman 18:34, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting question. Actually I've hear both views from Shiv sainiks myself. My perception is that the ShivSainiks with a religious view see themselves as the "Armies of the Lord Shiva". The ones with a more secular view see themselves as the armies of the Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaje Bhonsle. (Netaji 06:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Criminal Activites and Accusations

Shiv Sena is an Indian political party operating in a democratic country where the media and judiciary are vibrant. Accusations put up by a French source should not be featured in the main article let alone a reference link put up. If what has been said is true then the SS party leader would have been behind bars. This is as far away from a NPOV that we can get. The slant of the article is completely negative to the said political party and hence cannot be said to be NPOV. For instance, the article needs balance and does not present the Shiv Sena thinking behind any of its actions.

Are you seriously suggesting that criminal activities by political parties in India will result in Jail time for them? Shiv Sena has thrived on dividing people based on their location (South Indians), State (Biharis & UP), Language ( Gujaratis) and Religion (Muslims). Numerous riots have taken place in Bombay as a result of direct instigations by the Shiv Sena leaders. India might be a democratic country but it is totally mired by a corrupt dynasty where money not only talks but everyone is ready to listen to it when it does. Krishnanganesh (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Soman's edits

The user Soman is hell bent on adding what is written in LMD. Mere accusations should not be taken as proof. The SS chief is routinely accused of such activities but then so are ALL the politicians in India. I suggest you remove POV even if it is LMD's pov and not your own. and please discuss before writing such imp things in the article

??? But they are not presented as proofs, are they? What is presented is criticism, and the source of criticism is clearly provided. If you can provide text material that provides another viewpoint, it can also be referred to. However, there is a differntiation betwen if an opinion is published in a major reputed international journal or on an individual fringy blog somewhere.

Also, when Thackerey brought Arun Gawli to the dais of their rallies, how do you from your personal pov analyze that? I have little faith in Indian politicians in general, but Thackerey's record cannot just be whitewashed with reference to the general political culture. --Soman, the left-centric hell-bender 12:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Very nice soman but its better if you ref the LMD article as an external link, LMD or Times doesnt constitute fact, in a section titled criminal activities you mention facts and convictions not opinions however "reputed" the journal. You can simply state Arun gawli was present on the stage with him in a rally and give the reference where it is stated, but you can blindly say the things you have said, it has been said that CPI(m) was involved in the kerala sex-scandal cover-up, and in a journal too but I dont see you adding that to the wiki as a fact......

I understand your point, LMD ref can stay there ,but 'Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights' ??? how fringe is that, thats pure POV and you cannot deny that. The other refs were also vague it was said in 1998 by whom where, and what article were you ref to? Think carefully, dont push an agenda.

-The commie-pseudo-intellect seeker

First of all: Sign your posts. Secondly: I think that accusations, if properly referenced may be included in wikiarticles. Of course a great deal of caution is to be applied in this. Accusations mentioned in articles has to be significant for the party as an organization (and not just of individual members) and the inside the article the accusations has to be balanced to the rest of the content. For example, it would be both irrelevant and practically impossible to list every single Congress politician ever accused of corruption. However, it would be bizarre to leave out the Bofors scandal when talking about Congress or Rajiv Gandhi.

Now when it comes to SS it is highly relevant to mention the links to the underworld and the tendency of the party to engage in muscle-power politics. That doesn't make other politicians saints, but certainly Thackerey's leadership is markably different than that of mainstream politicians in India. SS once started its political activity by murders and fomenting communalism. Also concerning SS, its clear that criminal activities are not just coincidental or individual behaviour, its part and parcel of party strategy of constantly seeking confrontations. --Soman 07:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed you cant leave out imp details like bofors or muscle power, but be accurate and reliable, mention SS demanded south indians out of maharashtra, mention the board blackening incidents,even fire or valentine incidents are fine...but 'Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights accusations are hardly npov, give ref to the Samana articles urging such articles but the things you mentioned were pure "mirch masala". I hope you understand what I am trying to say.... and what signature?

While ome member of the shiv Sena can be a bit overzealous, why does this article focus exclusively on their flaws and none on their achievements as a legitimate political party. I'm sorry, but this article reeks of Islamist propaganda and anti-Hindu hatred. It still is POV.User:Subhash Bose

"The power of the Sena has come from its ability to create terror most of the times for the good and sometimes for the bad."

This sentence sucks. Even more so since all the examples that follow it are of the "bad" nature.

...In fact that whole section sucks.

Someone(preferably with a better grasp of the English language) really should rewrite this article.

Sources on "Statue desecration" riots

Makes very pretty pictures of Congress party's hypocrisy: Violent reaction towards Muslims protesting in Bhiwandi by even firing leading to two deaths; kid gloves for Shiv Sena terrorist attacking properties and lives! "Incestous bedfellows" leaps to the mind!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41866000/jpg/_41866578_shivafp2_203.jpg http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/5163288.stm http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060710/nat1.jpg http://www.tribuneindia.com/2006/20060710/main2.htm http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/Mirror/2006/7/10/2/7920062313931279200622587203/images/imgn1city_09.jpg http://www.mumbaimirror.com/nmirror/mmpaper.asp?sectid=2&articleid=7920062313931279200622587203# http://www.zeenews.com/articles.asp?aid=307745&sid=REG&ssid= http://www.cybernoon.com/DisplayArticle.asp?section=fromthepress&subsection=inbombay&xfile=July2006_inbombay_standard10184 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1722155.cms http://www.financialexpress.com/fe_full_story.php?content_id=133400 http://www.ndtv.com/homepage/gallery.asp?imgid=316&img=1 http://www.ndtv.com/images/APphotogallery/mumbairiots/1.jpg http://www.ndtv.com/images/APphotogallery/mumbairiots/2.jpg http://www.ndtv.com/images/APphotogallery/mumbairiots/3.jpg http://www.ndtv.com/images/APphotogallery/mumbairiots/4.jpg http://www.ndtv.com/images/APphotogallery/mumbairiots/5.jpg http://www.daijiworld.com/news/news_disp.asp?n_id=23830&n_tit=Mumbai%3A%20Defaced%20Statue%20of%20Thackeray's%20Wife%20Creates%20Tension

WikiSceptic 17:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm glad to see that some Congress members have brains. The Shic Sainiks had every right to protest the desecration of an important symbol of their party. I find it amusing that you attack them for this minor spat, yet I'm sure you rooted for the muslims when they rioted worldwide over the Jylliands-Posden (prob'ly wrong spelling) cartoons of Mohamed. (Pusyamitra Sunga 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

The Congress has brains only for malice. The Shiv Sena is the Bajrang Dal of the Congress; they only pretend to be enemies, but they are in fact one. "Important symbol" bollocks; both the Congress and Shiv Sena are nothing but lowbrow robbers who encroach on the public and impose on them. Build your memorials to Sanjay Gandhi and Meena Thugraj on your own properties, not state properties. What is the Janhit Morcha doing? They did good work getting the Courts to force the City to demolish illegal mosques, temples and churches encroaching on public land, but what about this Meena Thugraj temple?

And you only prove your own insanity when you maliciously pretend that I had rooted for the Muslims protesting the Jyllands-Posten cartoons. If you had any thing like a brain, you would have seen from my user page that I would be the last to do so. But you are only an arrogant, conceited hoodlum, whether on the streets or on the web. Your arrogance and courage only comes from your numbers, otherwise, alone, you are a coward. Here you have the Goan traitor Nicholas to back your play, besides others.

WikiSceptic 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

My,my. You have more chips on your shoulders than your Nazi pope. What a pity a maverick like you is all alone here. The fact remains that wikipedia is not about your personal POV. Neutrality is essential. Ahiv Sena is no more violent than, say the Stern Gang who were instrumental in making Israel one of the most powerful nations in the world. Plus, America iwas founded by these kinds of "Thugs", and now they practically own this whole planet! You're just scardy-scardy that the Shiv Sainiks will OWN THIS WHOLE GOSH-DARNED COUNTRY one day. And then we'll all have justice.Like I said, BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!(Netaji 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Debate over Shiv Sena Article

All right. Now that the article has been protected. I am prepared to debate with anyone who wants to do so about Shiv Sena. I challenge WikiSceptic , Anwar_saadat or anyone to engage me in civilized debate over this decisive organization, although I am highly skeptical this will happen. There is only so much anti-India and anti-Hindu hatred that I can take.(Pusyamitra Sunga 17:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC))

How do you debate with a stone-throwing, violent, fanatic Neanderthal thug? Thuggery and civilized debates are mutually exclusive! WikiSceptic 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA. I don't debate with people who worship with Nazi hitler-youth members like the Catholic pope either, so we're even(Netaji 05:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Who is this fanatic

This article is definitely very pro-ShivSena. Why are fanatics editing this article? Wikipedia is not a repository for party progpoganda. Shiv Sainiks, leave Wikipedia alone!

--Wikindian 19:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Pal, Wikipedia is a repository for Shiv Sena propaganda. Ask Mr. "Neutral" "Administrator" Nicholas, a Goan traitor busy licking it up for the Shiv Sainiks!!!!

This is what Mr. Quisling wrote:

Please do not push your POV. Call the Shiv Sena whatever you want on your personal blogs or forums, but here in wikipedia, respect the Neutral Point of View, and Cite credible sources. - Nichalp 17:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Neutral"? Calling a spade a spade is "POV"! I suppose that we must not call Hitler an Anti-Semite - that would be "POV"! I suppose we must not call the Molotov-Ribbentrop Treaty an act of hypocrisy - that would be "POV". What is NOT POV is whitewashing the criminal and terrorist activities of the Shiv Sena and its ilk and portraying these vermin as kindergarten kids on a harmless rumpus!!!

This shameless hypocrite Nicholas writes: Protection is not an endorsement of the current page version. Bloody hell, Nicholas and Pushyamitra Sunga are complicit, and Nicholas has deliberately protected Pushyamitra's castrated version of the page!!! Not an endorsement my foot!!!

Quit the dreamworld, pal!!!

Baap-re-baap! Hum to dar ke maare kaap rahe hain babu! BWAHAHAHA. I'm neither Marathi nor ShivSainik. I'm a Bengali Telu-Caste. So pity you sir!Oh, and I like Shiv Sena. Always good to see Indians with big HUGE STEEL BALLS!!! That's what they've got brother! And that's why you're afraid. Heh!Ad-Hominen attacks make you look even more like a child, brother.(Netaji 05:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

WikiSceptic 04:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Lets ban Pusyamitra Sunga

If there is a mechanism to ban Pusyamitra Sunga from editing, then I am in support of it. He seems to be a Shiv Sainik using Wikipedia for his propoganda. His presence is disgusting.

Too bad, I'm back. Can;t stop the truth mein Freund. Even your Allah/YHVH/Whoever said so. (Netaji 05:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

Allah? Now I am a Muslim? --Wikindian 02:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed ad-Hominem attack

Removed racist and insulting post by Wikisceptic (sceptic indeed). How'd you like it if somebody called your christian pope a Nazi for being part of the Hitler youth gang? Please don;t act like a 12 year old boy.(Netaji 05:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC))

The real Shiv Sena

It has been observed that some vested forces are trying to brand shiv sena as a terror outfit

Contrary to that Shiv Sena is a truly marvelous political party (the only part in India who has a firm mandate)and its leader is one of the most amazing persons to have ever participated in indian politics (hes a great orator no doubt about it).

If you need any information on this political party or require editing of some portions of this topic please feel free to contact me.

Shiv Sena is one of the most fanatic and destabilizing forces in the country. In the name of defending Indian culture, the Sena has often resorted to violent and criminal means. I don't support any political party that is based on the philosophy of violence for obtaining goals. --Wikindian 02:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Please keep your opinions outside the article. SS must be represented unbiasedly. I'll bet you tacitly support violent political - ahem - 'parties' like LeT, don't you?(Netaji 17:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC))

Let's remove the "neutrality disputed" template in the future

Once enough citations have accumulated in the future, we can safely take the "Neutrality disputed" template off. That assuming that bigots like Netaji stay away from Wikipedia and the far-far left elements stop branding Shiv Sena as Al-Qaeda. --Wikindian 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

After clean-up

I have added several references to the article, and the history section is now improved. I have deleted all chauvinistic statements in the Sena's favor or have changed the wording. However, the article does not flow well. --Wikindian 20:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased

No statements in the Sena's favor have been retained. Ergo, article is still biased. Plus, the European Solidaire ref is POV, because European Solidaire is the mouthpiece of a labour org ie left-wing.Netaji 21:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Even you are a mouthpiece of the Sena, then. Some of the achievements of the SS that you inserted were not backed by references. And please don't make subtle, chauvinistic, pro-SS changes to this article. --Wikindian 18:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have no political affiliation with SS. I am not a member of SS. You, on the other hand, have a clear bias against them. Only ONE of the achievements is not backed by a reference so I put citation tag on it. I'll get refs.Netaji 19:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not biased. Almost all of my contributions are backed up by references. I agree that the wording might be a little provocative, but I plan to change that in the future. --Wikindian 16:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Maratha bias?

"However, no indictments were made due to lack of evidence and allegations of anti-Maratha bias on the part of the jurist(s)."

Where is the reference for this? This is a sensitive statement, and I am deleting it because I suspect that it is another twisted contribution of the chauvinists. --Wikindian 16:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You call this a credible source?

Subhash, You are citing info from Saamna, Shiv Sena's propoganda mouthpiece. The source never explicity claims as to whether or not the Sena built 5 lakh new houses in Dharavi, so, I am leveling down your praise about this issue. Find some other source or I will delete the info all together in the near future. Same with the info on Shiv Sena apprehending criminals, the rediff article does not explicitly state the Sena's role even once. You are making inane assumptions. This is also a candidate for deletion. Again, the CAS reference, where are the contributions here? Did anything conclusive come out of this issue? This is not a credible reference, and therefore a candidate for deletion. Also, do cite the relevance of Shiv Sena's achievements, and whether they have made significant impact. Otherwise, all these are candidates for deletion also. Meanwhile, read this article on Frontline about the Sena's hippocrisy. --Wikindian 02:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And YOU are cting from a honkey-a** liberal rag like europe-solidaire. BAse your claims from a NON-PARTISAN source or THAT IS a candidate for deletion ALSO.Plus, I'm quoting from REDIFF, NOT SAAMNA!!!!!!!!!Netaji 04:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't start a bold letter war with someone like you. That article on the europe-solidaire was from Kashmir Times, if you even tried to look carefully (I am sure you did not, it was too de-chauvinizing I suppose). And that rediff article was borrowed from Saamnaa. I am deleting your useless contributions. --Wikindian 16:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Provide proof that the article is from saamna. You have no basis to prefer one news sorce over another.Netaji 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Go to that article and find it yourself one more time. AND, I WILL CONTINUE TO REVERT YOUR SILLY EDITS ABOUT SENA'S ACHIEVEMENTS WITH DUBIOUS SOURCES AGAIN AND AGAIN. WE NEED TO REACH A CONSENSUS ON THIS. PLEASE SUPPORT OR OPPOSE THE ACHIEVEMENTS SECTION.I am putting a warning template in that section.

AND I WILL CONTINUE TO REVERT YOUR SILLY EDITS OF SENA'S CONTROVERSIES WITH BIASED WORDING AND OVEREMPHASIS ON MINOR INCOIDENTS.EVERY POLITICAL PARTY IS ACCUSED OF CRIMINALITY, AND SS IS NO EXCEPTION. TO EMPHASIZE ON THAT TO A GREATER EXTENT THAN THEIR ACHEIVEMENTS IS NOT NEUTRAL!!!!!!Netaji 16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Biased? I changed wording of my contribs to make them more balanced. But all of your contributions are explicitly pro-Sena or defending the Sena. Your sources are dubious. So, your content doesn't deserve to remain in the article. --Wikindian 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The section I'm writing is 'achievements of the Sena' so it will show the good things they have done. There is no bias, and all claims are made inarticle.Netaji 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

YOUR SOURCES NEVER EXPLICITLY CITE YOUR FACTS IN THE ARTICLE. AND YOU DON'T CITE THEIR RELEVANCE AND IMPACT. THE MAJORITY OF THEM MIGHT JUST BE INSIGNIFICANT FACTS. I HAVE SAID THIS BEFORE, IS IT THAT HARD TO UNDERSTAND? WHY DID YOU REMOVE THE UNVERIFIABLE TAGS FROM THE ARTICLE?--Wikindian 17:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

BECAUSE IT IS VERIFIED THAT THACKERAY CLAIMED THEM. ONE MAY ADD THAT THE ACHIEVEMENTS ARE CLAIMS.MOST OF YOUR EDITS ARE FAIRLY INSIGNIFICANT ALSO (OTHER THAN BABRI MASJID RIOT)Netaji 17:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubious, Dubious source! Thackeray said this only once, that too very vaiguely and just to one reporter. Is this is his stance on every issue? Does he respond this way to every journalist probing the bhumiputra campaign? Find out other sources, or this section is going to be deleted. --Wikindian 17:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I WILL find other sources.Netaji 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's one more (urban development of slums like Dharavi)[1]

One of the biggest achievements of the Sena-BJP government was to raise construction density and encourage haphazard development of Mumbai’s suburbs by permitting the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). Much of this was done in the name of slum redevelopment.

Infrastructure

Consider another example. During the BJP-Sena rule, Mumbai built nearly 40 flyovers and the Mumbai-Pune Expressway by partially funding them through a cess on petrol and diesel. This is in addition to the tax levied by the central government for the golden quadrilateral project (that is why Mumbai pays the highest petrol and diesel charges in the country).

Netaji 17:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Subhash, Your claims are laughbable. This is an article attacking the BJP-Sena government, not defending it. How can you cite it as a reference for the achievements section? And the first quote actually degrades the Sena by stating that they encouraged haphazard development. Please find some accurate and relevant sources, not just one or two with a word or two here and there, that too quoted out of context. Find several.--Wikindian 21:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

It is precisely because it attacks the SS govt that the positive claims need mentioning, since it adds to their validity.Netaji 22:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That is nonsense, your source actually ends up contradicting your argument. --Wikindian 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted the info on CAS and the ambulance, because I could not understand whether these two things made a significant impact, or were they just minor facts inserted into the article with intentions of propoganda. --Wikindian 16:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thackeray's response against bhumiputra coverage

Subhash, That rediff article doesn't state Thackeray's views about the media coverage specifically of the bhumiputra campaign. I am planning to delete it soon. And please don't add silly trivia about SS any more. --Wikindian 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does. Please read the interview carefully (though I suspect you already have, and are just trying to blindside me):

Q.Is this a fight of local sons of the soil...

A.Why are you stressing on this? Do you want to jeopardise these projects? Some vested interests and politicians are afraid about their future if their implementation is successful. So they are trying to scuttle them.

Dude, do you think I'm stupid? I'm wise to youNetaji 16:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

How does that support Thackeray's statement against the media? --Wikindian 16:44, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll change it to 'vested interests and politicians' then.Netaji 16:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't belong in this article. And Thackeray must have said a million things like these. Will you mention each and every one of them? Cite statements that he has said consistently, and cite several sources. Otherwise, these are just pro-Sena propoganda, and candidates for deletion. We will end up in a cat and mouse game. --Wikindian 16:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dispute over the neutrality of the Controversial Activities Section

The fact remains that he said those things, and they're relevant to the subject at hand, so they belong there. YOUR Controversy section is anti-Sena propaganda. The goal is to be NEUTRAL.Netaji 16:57, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Son, its not MY section, it has contributions from other people too. I changed the wording to reflect accuracy. How much more neutral can you make it?--Wikindian 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My dear fellow, you're overemphaisizing minor incidents (other than Babri riot, that's major)Netaji 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Think again, all of those are serious and important incidences. Do you like to argue for the sake of arguing? --Wikindian 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Sez who? You? CAS implementation has SERIOUS local implications also.Netaji 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was refering to the Controversies section. All of these events received widespread media coverage when they happened. You know this. --Wikindian 17:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

No I do not. The coverage was big in local news and covered by liberal editorials hellbent on destroying India. I only saw one or two articles in accredited NATIONAL news sources, and ZERO on INTERNATIONAL NEWS sources. Big difference. But I have no objections to whittling down the details, although individual points should be kept (since they did, after all, happen)Netaji 21:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the international news service again. And make an effort to search for the info, don't just read the front page and say "Not here." Almost all of the incidents in the Controversies section are in the BBC. "Liberal editorials hellbent on destroying India": Why don't you look at what they actually argue for or against? I think you are the one who is deluded by the chauvinistic, blind Hindutva that is becoming popular nowdays. --Wikindian 21:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I HAVE read the coverage. They are backwater articles at best and, while they do deserve mention in this article, you overemphasize their importance by deliberate quote mining. You are the one who seems marred in the self-hatred and negationism that has plagued India since Independence, and Hindutva means to get rid of that and take India into the new millenium as a confident and progressive Hindu Rashtra.Netaji 22:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And kill off all Muslims? I never overemphasize the importance, these are all prominent events that received widespread coverage: the Valentine's day violence, the killing of the MLA, the recent statewide rampage, etc. I don't see how these are minor events. --Wikindian 22:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And treat muslims the same way they treat Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh. And I will say it one more time, the facts are overwmphasized.Netaji 22:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

That is a different issue which does not belong to this talk page. About your contributions: you still haven't stated their relevance (CAS system, ambulance). But first of all, you need to find better sources, and then state their relevance.--Wikindian 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made some changes to this section. Please take a look at it one more time. I am planning to remove the neutrality template tomorrow. --Wikindian 22:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The facts belong in this section. In order to maintain neutrality, the article must mention achievements as well as controversies.Netaji 23:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to improve this section even further for better balance. This might take a long time, even months. Please don't insert any more flagrant propoganda in this section at least. --Wikindian 23:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Slum development

You may dispute the veracity of slum development, but the article does not. I am paraphrasing from the cited article and, as sich, the claim is valid in the context of the article and wikipedia rules.Do not delete my work.You may references that dispute this claim, of course. This is entirely relevant to a Shiv Sena article.Netaji 21:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the sanity of Wikipedia rules, but I do know that your reference does not cite the eventual outcome of the Dharavi development even once. I mean, it never explicitly says that Shiv Sena developed Dharavi, Bal is just saying that "Sena plans to..." So, that source is irrelevant to your information. Find a more accurate source.--Wikindian 22:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it doesn't say 'claims to ' anywhere, I quote from TFA:

During the BJP-Sena rule, Mumbai built nearly 40 flyovers and the Mumbai-Pune Expressway by partially funding them through a cess on petrol and diesel

No 'claims' here, just FACTS.Netaji 22:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Go back and the read this section from the beginning. I am referring to the Dharavi slum development section. Read the messages carefully, at least. --Wikindian 22:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And YOU read the actual article as it is now. It says 'SS claims'. I do not have the time to read all of your confusing and garrulous rants.Netaji 22:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The dharavi claim carries greater importance than all other claims because Dharavi is serious issue of urban poverty in India and has a symbolic importance.Netaji 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

My rants? Your contributions are full of serious faults. It is for your own good that you should stay focussed on what is going on lest your propoganda be deleted from Wikipedia altogether. --Wikindian 22:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I will say it one more time. Your source is not credible. It never explicitly states as to what happened of the Dharavi development plan. Bal just says that Shiv Sena plans to redevelop Dharavi. So, symbolic importance is useless if the information itself is faulty. --Wikindian 22:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Dharavi developmental project is ongoing. Here is another third party source showing Shiv Sena's political involvement [2]

Mr Joshi (of SS) has promised to make Dharavi “shine”. Just before the elections, he got Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to launch “Mission Dharavi” which promises to turn the slum into an economic powerhouse.

The statement in the wikipedia article does say 'claim'. Plus, given the importance of Dharavi as a poverty issue, it bears mentioning.Netaji 22:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another article. This one is more critical of SS's efficacy in the Dharavi development, but it does mention that they essentially spearheaded it [3].

OK, now you need to replace your old source with a new one. And what about the Sucheta Dalal source? That one is also invalid, you need to find a source that matches your tone. And the Dawood and the CAS sources need to be changed also because they are not specific enough. I am planning to delete these two tomorrow unless you update your source.

I have found new sources, specifically an article from 'The Hindu' which EXPLICITLY ACCREDITS BJP-Shiv Sena for the infrastructural improvements in Mumbai.Now, of course, you will say "Everybody is a fascist" or something. Let the chest thumping begin....

Just don;t try to engage in a childish edit war, coz I'll winNetaji 06:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

THERAPY FOR THE CHAUVINISTS

I find it unfortunate that a few rhino-skinned Hindu chauvinists are wrecking articles on Hinduism in Wikipedia. The basic problem with them is that they are so distanced from the street reality and politics of India that they have carved fantastic dreams about Hindutva and the evilness of all Muslims in India. Everything is black and white for them. They have become so hooked to the propaganda that it is like drug-addiction. Anything that has the effect of neutralizing this addiction is dubbed as "liberal propaganda." So, they ignore most of the news sources today. Instead, they base their serpentine scholarship on blind pro-Hindu propaganda from dubious and extremist sources. And then, in all their holy fervor and righteousness, they infect articles such as this one with dysentric and jaundiced views. Anyone who seeks to neutralize their wild language becomes a terrorist-lover, Osama's right hand. The fact is that most politicians, including the all-mighty, fuerher-like Thackeray (who claims that he is a devotee of Lord Vitthala) have only one aim: to stay in power by making the puppett-population dance. And the fragile-brained chauvinists are the most agile puppets, it seems to me. So, PLEASE don't wreck this articles, and, if you think that you have this disease, consult the talk page before inserting any pro-blind-Hindutva propoganda. Thanks for your attention.--Wikindian 18:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic slurs and personal epithets won't work. I'll still netralize this article and make it NPOV, and I'll still correct your edits and revert any biased changes on your part. Whatever it takes.Netaji 19:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Who is talking to you? Do I mention your name here? Guilty conscience? --Wikindian 16:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Shifting gears to third person won;t help. The target of your attacks are eminently clear from earlier posts.Netaji 18:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

"rhino-skinned? Black, white, gray, green, yellow? Pick your colorBakaman%% 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does Wikindian always misspell p-r-o-p-A-g-a-n-d-a? Odd... Netaji 00:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, that DOES make a herculean difference in what I intended to say. How ape-like of me!--Wikindian 16:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Does it really matter? It's messages like the one by Wikindian above and by you on numerous occassions wreck dispute resolution. They are completely unrelated to the topic, stick to Shiv Sena. Subhash, don't call anyone who is anti-Hindutva a terrorist, that comes close to religious discrimination, and Wikindian, don't call anyone who is pro-Hindutva fundamentalist or fascist, because that gives Subhash some form of justification for his retaliations. You two need to cool down. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for intervening in this childish squabble. I have no desire to engage in a verbal testosterone-spewing contest with Wikindian. However, I should point out that he has repeatedly attacked me throughout various user and talk pages, and made threats and resorted to minced slurs , pejorative language and an intentionally patronizing tone that most people would find extremely gnawing. Religious discrimination? Is anti-Hinduism a religion? What about anti-Semitism, anti-Judaism or anti-Zionism (same things basically)? Are they also religions? Hmmmm? Should one not speak out against anti-Hinduism the sme way that one is expected to speak out against anti-Semitism (both of which have similar patterns of though, interestingly enough...)Netaji 09:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Your crimes are far more serious, Neta, calling someone Osama's commrade and calling someone rhino-skinned chauvinist are different matters. --Wikindian 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You three are missing the main point. What color is a rhino's skin?Bakaman%% 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Understand that phrase by yourself, I am not offering help. You must be American; you have a flair for looking at everything as relating to color of someone's skin. --Wikindian 03:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My friend it is YOU who is the product of a color-caste system.Netaji 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Bias again

Origins is biased against SS again. No real facts, just defamation.Netaji 04:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Read the references. --Wikindian 01:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will nanny you once again. I will work on this section personally like the Controversies section. I don't think you will ever want to remove the neutrality template unless I hail Thackeray as a saint. Till then, I am prepared for your objections. --Wikindian 01:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I will not remove the neut template until you tone down the section. By all means, keep the facts. Wikipedia is supposed to keep a BALANCED perspective. The section is an attack on SS. That is not your job here. The language in the section is unacceptable.

Thackeray is no saint. We don't need saints in India anymore. We need people with big huge steel balls who will lead us forward. Thackeray is India's Ariel Sharon.Netaji 01:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

There was more to the rise of SS than attacking terrorists and non-maharashtrians and you know it. People were sick with muslim gangs and prostitution rings and wanted someone who'd do something about it and SS championed on that (though their success in this area is questionable, you can mention that).Netaji 01:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Give me your credible source, I don't know any such thing. Now you will say, "the damn liberal media never tells the truth."--Wikindian 01:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Depends on the country...--D-Boy 23:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverting edits by Nobleeagle

Eagle, You have spoiled the article with your careless edits. I am reverting them. --Wikindian 18:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Iam watching the article. Try any monkey business and I'll just revert it back.Netaji 18:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Why are you so fond of getting blocked? --Wikindian 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal attack.Anything you can do I can do. Netaji 00:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Reversion because it doesn't fit your Point of View? I don't think that's how things work. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If he makes NPOV edits that are factually supported I don't have any problems with it, whether it makes SS look good or bad. Facts are facts. The phrase "monkey business" was chosen very carefully. It means "POV edits", not NPOV edits that don't slander and libel against SS. Wikindian should get a blog for that.Netaji 07:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Eagle's edits

Eagle,
I disagree with this statements:

"The Sena's ideology was originally based on the concepts of 'Bhumiputra' (Marathi for "Sons of Soil")and Hindutva or Hindu nationalism."

The Shiv Sena swears by this ideology even today. In 2003, Bal attacked people from UP.

Does Sena's manifesto swears by this ideology? The fact that some members of the Sena attacked UP'ites does not prove that all SS members share this ideology today. SS is a very decentralized party, particularly after this Bal-Raj feud thingie.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Thackeray himself attacked so-called UPites in 2003. Read this.--Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"The 'Bhumiputra' ideology refers to the SS's belief that Maharashtrians deserve more rights in Maharashtra than those of other ideologies."

This statement lacks logic. How can Maharashtrians deserve more rights that other ideologies.? And Bal wanted all non-Mahas out of Mumbai.

It may be illogical, but that was a belief shared by many Maharashtrian youth in urban areas. The statement does not endorse the belief, it merely states so.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

How can they deseve more rights than other ideologies? What is the logic here? Comparison between people and abstract concept? --Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC) "However, in recent times, the ideology has been dropped and the emphasis on Hindutva have been increased."

No, the ideology is very much there. Also, check the grammar.

Grammar will be corrected. Show in SS decrees or public issue statements that they subscribe to this ideology. Otherwise, it's your opinion that the ideology is there & is POV.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Already clarified--Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Well they used to, but Rediff's Know Your Party source has said that they have no largely given up the ideology. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"A large number of disgruntled Maharashtrian youth swelled the ranks of Shiv Sena, pulled towards Thackeray's charged slogans and oratory."

Most of them were also unemployed. I have references.

Show 'em.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Read this. It says

"Unemployed and frustrated youth especially found it easier to believe Shiv Sena propaganda rather than study and verify the facts." --Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Since its formation in 1966, the Shiv Sena has propagated some controversial ideologies, the Hindutva ideology is especially disliked by the Muslim and Christian groups of Mumbai. For this reason, the Sena has often clashed with such religious groups.

This is your personal opinion. Where is your source? And some controversial ideologies? Shiv Sena is inherently controversial.

That's YOUR personal opinion. Many of Shiv Sena's actions are controversial, but you haven;t established anything from their CURRENT ideology that supports your libel.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wait, where's the personal opinion? Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Some" does not do justice to the Sena. It is a highly controversial party. --Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Shiv Sainiks attacked movie theatres in Mumbai screening Fire, a controversial film based on a lesbian theme on the grounds that such films violated Hindu culture and ethos and were immoral for Hindus to watch."

How do you know that they thought it was immoral for Hindus to watch Fire? Where is the source?

I believe that Thackeray said so. I'll look for that reference.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

"The Sena is also believed to be involved in political violence in order to propagate its ideologies and attack opposing ideologies. For this reason, it has sometimes been described as an extremist right-wing group."

This is not a good intro to the para, it does not summarize the para properly. And you use "ideologies" a little too frequently.

Because ideology is central to SS.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, change the intro, don't revert all of my edits... Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, ideologies is abstract and vague. At least mention what these "ideologies" are along with credible references. --Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Shiv Sainiks blocked roads at Dadar in central Mumbai and damaged a police outpost." What's wrong with using the word irate?

Oh, didn't realise I removed that..readd it. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Although the Sena wasn't directly found guilty of inciting murder, there was some suspicion on involvement."

Source? Sounds like speculation.

So you're saying that there is no suspicion of Sena involvement? lol!Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I just rephrased what was there before...if there was no source then, the entire line should be deleted. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neta, I am not a ideologue like you, so, understand now? --Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless all these are addressed, I am planing to undo these edits in the next two days. --Wikindian 23:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm watching you again.Netaji 23:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe they have been addressed and please don't quickly revert edits that took me a while to make, especially when they do not break any Wikirules. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Neta, you can watch me as much as you want, that won't stop me. I will keep this article clean from your sourceless propaganda. --Wikindian 01:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite of the article

I hope its possible to find a consensus around the fact that the article as it is now does not live up to very high standards. 50% slander + 50% glorification does not equal that the article becomes neutral. POV-pushers on both sides needs to keep their heads clam, and the article needs to be rewritten with focus on the history of Shiv Sena and its role in Indian politics. a few notes:

My head is quite calm.It's the rest of me thats pissed at this terrible article.Netaji 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Because it tells the truth about the Sena? --Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

1. 'The Sena's ideology was originally based on the concepts of 'Bhumiputra' (Marathi for "Sons of Soil")and Hindutva or Hindu nationalism.' Is, in my understanding, incorrect. When SS was founded it was mainly focused on Bhumiputra issues. The Hindutva agenda came later, simultaneously with the rise of Hindutva politics in the Indian mainstream.

Yep. True. Though Hundutva dates back to Veer Savarkar.

They took up the Hindutva alcohol after their "bhumiputra" fart was no longer in demand.--Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

2. 'The 'Bhumiputra' ideology refers to the SS's belief that Maharashtrians deserve more rights in Maharashtra than those of other ideologies.' No need to include this in intro. Also its incorrect to state that its an issue of other ideologies.

Hadn't noticed that. Yeah, probably a typo on NobleEagle's part. No biggie. Can be fixed.Netaji 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Fix, or aggravate? I am already afraid. --Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

3. 'Shivsainik' needs to be explained. Most wiki readers are not familiar with Indian languages. 4. Front organizations should be listed in a separate chapter, not in intro.

5. The shifted focus from attacking South Indians to attacking North Indians needs to be explained by given background of demographic changed in Mumbai.

But with references.--Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

6. Articles on political parties do generally not have 'Achievements' chapters.

That was Neta "ji"'s much-talked-about genius. I am reviewing that section, and I will clear out a lot of garbage sooner or later.--Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

7. The 'Controversial activities' chapter needs to be rewritten, or perhaps better abolished and relevant details included in a history chapter. No need for listing of events, without putting those events into context.

--Soman 06:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

They were' in context. None of them are just random facts out there in the open. All of them are major events. --Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed on almost all points. I put in the 'Achievements' section to counterbalance the 'controversial' section which was there beforehand. I have added nothing but the facts and I have cited everything there. Please don't remove any of it, but rearrangement and rewording is necessary. However, I am by all means prepared to help rewrite it as you suggest if a certain anti-SS polemicist is willing to do so (though I doubt it).Netaji 06:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

No thank you, I don't want a disaster to occur. I will have to do a lot of work to undo your reality-blind Hindutva chauvinism.--Wikindian 01:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

No show for credible references again

The flyover achivement has many speculatory views, such as the subsequent infrastructural boom. The reference never mentions this. Same goes with the statement about how the achievements boosted Sena's popularity. While these might be true, currently there are no references. And because this is a highly controversial article, facts should never be inserted without proper backing by credible references. So, some parts of the flyover section deserve deletion in the very near future. --Wikindian 01:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim is from a highly credible source. As I'm sure you know, "The Hindu", contrary to it's name, is essentially a left-wing newspaper. If a left wing newspaper writes something in favor of NDA coalition then that must mean it's REEEEALLY important. to quote from TFA:

"While successive State governments have been guilty of neglecting Mumbai's transport problems, it was the erstwhile Shiv Sena-BJP government which drastically altered the course. By initiating a range of road schemes, it unequivocally opted for private, motorised transport in preference to public transport."

Wikipedia entry is essentially lifted from TFA, so it'd done and done and correct, so there. Don't waste everyone's time by making frivolous accusations. As to the rise in popularity, that is self evident to any Mumbaikar who's lived in the city for 15 years, but it can be backed up with refs. Btw if you start making frivolous deletes then I can easily find the same faults with your edits in "contoversies" section as you can find in "Achievements". You are not smarter than I am, and don't delude yourself with any false beliefs in intellectual superiority. Like I said, anything you can do, I can do. Netaji 01:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Good, now explain what TFA stands for.--Wikindian 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Huge error

Why are there section below the references section? Or is it just my browser? --Wikindian 01:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems that there is no easy way to fix this other than revert an older version before NobleEagle's edits. So, please be very careful whenever you edit the article, don't change the syntax in disastrous ways. Eagle can add his contributions later. --Wikindian 01:40, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the error.Netaji 01:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What?

Transfering the discrimination insertion in the Controversial section to the Achievements section. It does not belong there. --Wikindian 01:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Quotes from the party's flyers and manifestos are not dubious.Netaji 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is the statement that "Hindutva" is not liked by muslims and christians dubious? Muslims and Christians hate Hindus. Just listen to Lashkar-e-Toiba or Pat Robertson.Netaji 02:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is it in the "Controversies" section? --Wikindian 02:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing this part from the article, as promised earlier.--Wikindian 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal footnote

Actually, I was planning to wipe out this contribution from the article, because it is so dubious. But, I was compassionate enough to convert it into footnote. Now that I have noticed this, I am planning to remove this "contribution" from the face of this article for good.--Wikindian 02:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing this part from the article, as promised earlier.--Wikindian 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I am keeping this in there till there is agreement regarding the deletion of this info. Don't remove the disputed tag without using your head.--Wikindian 18:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Gone.--Wikindian 15:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Baseless content intended for propaganda again

The info on Thackeray accusing reporters of bias against the bhumiputra junk is baseless. He was just talking to one reporter, and that too in a very indirect manner. To interpret this as his stance against the entire media reeks of attempts to insert propaganda into this article. This is a very strong candidate for deletion in the near future.

Same goes with the incident in Varanasi. The blockquote deflects the reader's attention from the main point of the article, and is overemphasized. Nor does it clarify what Bal actually meant. And besides, this quote is not his stance. He said it in response to the demands of ouster of Maharshtrians in Varanasi. Finally, how does his statement on the diktats relate to the whole paragraph? It neither argues against an assertion made against the Sena earlier in the para, nor does it support some other assertion. In short, all this is baseless info. Maybe significant rewriting would make it tolerable, otherwise I don't see the point in leaving it in the article as it is right now. I am removing the nefarious blockquotes, for sure. --Wikindian 18:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Popularity on the rise?????

"These moves have been a crucial factor in its increasing popularity within India and the promises of further improvement have boosted the SS's campaigns."

Propaganda.

The Sena's popularity in on the decline. 3,500 members left it recently, along with Rane and other important leaders. Where is the reference in the rise of popularity?

Deletion required in near future. --Wikindian 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Careless reverts

Bakasuprman, why are you reverting information on the Sena article without discussion? All the information is consistent, I am reverting your edits. Wikindian 15:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Attack on Shiv Sena Overwhelming the article

The section is too big. Need to move it to a separate article with the same name ("Controvertial activities of Shiv Sena" or "Criticism of Shiv Sena") and summarized here.Netaji 05:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That was a nonsense move. If a party has that many controversial activities, then why not put them in their. We should try to be fair and balanced, but that does not mean that we should ignore facts. I am reverting that section back to the main article. Wikindian 15:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted back that section, and removed some repeated info. Please don't take such drastic moves without proper discussion. Wikindian 15:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikindian, that's how things work on Wikipedia, if a section is overwhelmingly long then you should move it. These actions are proof that both of you are simply pushing POV. People will read the main article with all the information if they need to. Just a summary will be fine here. If you guys can work out an NPOV summary, that is. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. Wikindian is the intransigent one here and constantly rsorts to insults and ad-hominem attacks.Netaji 07:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Overflowing with achievements

Whoever has contributed this, please explain with proper references:

The Shiv Sena has had many achievements during their Maha rule.

Otherwise, this is just speculation, and a candidate for deletion in the near future. Wikindian 15:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Consensus

Majority is myself, Netaji and Nobleeagle; that IS the consensus. Stop talking about consensus WikiIndian, it doesnt suit your flawed argument and your anti-Sena crusades.Bakaman _Bakatalk 15:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Really? Then why to mention the achievement section at all? Shouldn't the article be balanced? Lets create a separate article for the achievement section also. And why exactly my "anti-Sena crusades" flawed? Do I speculate about any of the facts like Netaji does when he states that the Sena's resume is full of glorious deeds? I pity the naivité of the blinded chauvinists!

Netaji had removed that section from this article becuase he thought that it made the Sena look too controversial. Well guess what, Sena is very controversial, not some glorious Shivaji party. Granted that the section casts a dark shadow on the Sena, but that does not mean that we should ignore the Sena's controversial activities. You are welcome to add more achievements if you have proper references to support them to "balance" the article. But if there are many more controversial activities than so called achievements, then that does not mean that you should totally purge an entire section from the article in the name of "balancing" the article. You can't just shut away the facts because it hurts your tender chauvinist sentiments. Why not cast the Sena in its true light? Is it fair to move all info on Hitler's demonic assualt on humanity to another article in the name of "balancing"? This is what is going on in the Shiv Sena article. Clearly this is the work of pro-Sena chauvinists, and they seem to have created a lobby for keeping the Sena's less glorious deeds out of the public spectrum. Maybe Bal pays them to do this, who knows? Without the controversies section, the article is thoroughly unbalanced. And no, there is no consensus, this section remains disputed. I am bringing back that section tomorrow. Wikindian 22:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Created separate article for achievements also. Will bring it back tomorrow, after bringing back the controversies section. Wikindian 22:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting neutrality disputed template tomorrow

The Origins section is no longer disputed, unless we take into account Neta's unsubstantiated and speculatory theory that the Sena was born out of a need to protect Mumbai's Hindus from local Muslim gangsters. So, I am planning to delete the POV template tomorrow. Wikindian 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleting neutrality template once again for the same reason. Wikindian 20:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the neutrality template in the Controversies section should also be deleted. This section is now balanced, and there are no "biased" judgements here. So, I am planning to delete this template after two days. Wikindian 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello Danianjan and thank you for your interest and contributions regarding this article. I'm afraid I have the following issues with the section that I feel conpromises the neutrality.

1. The statement below:

"Moreover, Thackeray threatened a number of local industrialists and businessmen with action unless they offered preferential employment to Maharashtrian people"

is not backed up by the supplied reference:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-1311115,prtpage-1.cms

In fact, the ref says that Industrialists were pleased with Thackerays allegedly Draconian tactics as it neutralizes unionbaji (or so implied).

2.Regarding the attack on ZeeTV, section should mention (from the cited ref) that Thackeray comdemned the skit as "obnoxious" (for the sake of neutrality).

3.Thackeray's claims of tempered stance should be expanded with background from the interview stated neutrally (means stated as "Thackeray said" etc.).

Thanks for your attention and have a nice day.Hkelkar 19:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Put both sections back

I have put both sections back because the move has caused controversy and it is that controversy that has further degraded this article. When a section can get very long then it is common to simply summarize it and then create another page for it. I don't know why Wikindian hates it because all it says is that the "Shiv Sena has seen so much controversy, we had to create a whole seperate page for it". But obviously Wikindian didn't see that and decided to move two paragraphs of achievements onto it's own stubbish page for no reason apart from pushing POV, for it is clear that you were pushing POV, otherwise you wouldn't have done such a thing.

The article is not too long, not over 32k yet, so I'm putting back both sections, but once the article expands it may be necessary to move some content into other pages. That is all. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Poor shape

Per my post on Talk:Bal_Thackeray#Poor_shape, I think that some partisan sources need to be used (such as saamna) to illustrate the Sena's perspective on events. Like I said on Talk:Bal Thackeray, despite our views on this matter, we should adhere to WP:RS and use sources like saamna as primary sources for Shiv Sena. To that end, I invite some good Marathi readers to assist in adequately sourcing from saamna.Hkelkar 00:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Sena's opinion are highly relevant. It would be highly interesting if there has any document from the Sena on the history of the party. --Soman 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Can't you get something off of saamna?Hkelkar 10:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV: Shiv Sena is a fascist party and wants to re-enact such crimes as the Holocaust, the Purges, the Cultural Revolution, the Killing fields, and Pinochet's (thank you God for killing that worthless fuck) stadium massacres. :D—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.230.50.212 (talk • contribs).

Plz do find citations for your useless rants. Btw spitting a mouthful of lies isnt the best way to change the article.Bakaman 00:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Do not revert edits without discussion

Bakasuprman, why are you reverting information on the Sena article without discussion? All the information is consistent, I am reverting your edits. Karthikcomplex 15:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

claims of benefit to maharashtrians

Quoting from the section However, the Sena has allegedly done little to solve the problem of unemployment facing a large proportion of Maharashtrian youth during its tenure, in contradiction to its ideological foundation of 'sons of the soil.'[29] I dont understand the contradiction here. Calling themselves son of the soil and not serving the people efficiently are two different things. Arent they? Unless, the text implies that the jobs were taken away by the migrants....Docku (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Threats for the Final match of ICC World Cup Cricket Tournament section has very bad english,meaningless,no reference,biased and personal view of writer

the line reads,"He killed a parrot which predicted that Pakistan would win the World Cup! He is mostly know hated in some parts of Pakistan and all of Pakistan" which i fail to understand completely..i can simply assume the writer wants to say that Shiv Sen promoyes hatred towards pakistan but iam not sure.So iam deleting this line — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raahulworld2004 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Not an Op-Ed

[4]This edit removed content with the editor saying it was an opinion piece, but it is an article. Please explain why it was removed? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Whole paragraph in lead about what some Balakrishna thinks about Shiv Sena is both WP:UNDUE and against WP:LEAD. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 09:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

How is it a violation of undue or lede? Is none of that content covered in the article? And why did you just not move it rather than excise it as you did? Also, what is a "Balakrishna" Darkness Shines (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I searched it. It was inserted in March 2012 by anon IP through this edit. That Balakrishna is Thane district Congress president, not enough notable to quote him in article and whole edit is irrelevant to the context of article. neo (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The article was written by S Balakrishnan, not a person called "Balakrishna" How exactly is the content in that article which is about Sena irrelevant in our article on SS? Darkness Shines (talk) 15:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fascist label an opinion -- not accurate

The "commonly called a fascist" assertion is opinion, although it references other works. There is little evidence that such an opinion is widely accepted. Therefore it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.121.140.212 (talk) 01:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources say they are fascist, so that will be staying. Darkness Shines (talk) 01:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources do not support the "commonly called" assertion, they are two sources that happen to use the word "fascist". Completely unjustified for a lead section, and moreover clearly violates the spirit of WP:WTA. The Shiv Sena's reputation for tolerance shines quite brightly in the text of the article without having to browbeat your POV in the lead section.Pectore^talk 01:26, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from removing sources and their content. Your comment Shiv Sena's reputation for tolerance shines quite brightly itself is POV. If you like to add source & content, do it without removing other sources. And try to maintain neutrality. Thanks.--AsceticRosé 03:23, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Not only was the "shines brightly" comment above sarcasm, but the edit of mine you reverted clearly added sources. "Do it without removing other sources" is idiotic advice. Using the word "fascist" violates certain Wikipolicies and the onus is on those claiming the Sena is "fascist" to demonstrate a consensus in reporting. My edit in calling the Sena "extremist" and "chauvinist" is both far more accurate and neutral.Pectore^talk 03:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you please tell us which certain Wikipolicies it violates, and how? And don't place blames on others. You started removing sources and its content because probably you don't like it. So you have to justify your step.--AsceticRosé 05:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

They are called fascist, and there are no shortage of sources which say so. To deny that is to deny reality. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

(deindent) There is a far clearer academic consensus over the terms extremist and chauvinist. There are multiple reliable sources that say the Sena resembles some aspects of fascism sure, but to claim that is a main label for the Sena is to deny reality. WP:WTA is quite clear that value-laden words are to be avoided, and that these sorts of terms are treated in-text rather than in the lead.Pectore^talk 02:21, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You are advancing meaningless points here. Therefore, I will try to make my final comment on this topic. As it is agreed that multiple reliable sources call Shiv Sena a fascist, it is quite okay in the lead, and your all other arguments are a case of I don't like it, which will not be granted because Wikipedia is not censored. -AsceticRosé 08:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Chauvinist and extremist are more widely used terms and reflective of academic consensus. Your canards of Censorship and accusations that I don't like the term are fallacious, as you are operating from a fringe viewpoint. With statements like "don't places blames on others" your comprehension of the English language and by extension Wikipolicy comes firmly into question. Here at Wikipedia, we strive for a neutral point of view where loaded terms are not used. Furthermore, you are pushing the point that "extremist" and "chauvinist" are positive descriptors; they are not, and as per WP:LEAD are actually backed up by material in the article.Pectore^talk 12:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Do not remove that again unless you get consensus, "While secularists often slap the label of "fascist" on the entire Hindu nationalist movement, Shiv Sena is one member of the Hindu revivalist family to which that appellation seems singularly appropriate" Mullahs on the Mainframe: Islam and Modernity Among the Daudi Bohras p275 "One of his colleagues, Abdul Aziz Sheikh, had earlier been arrested for an attempt on the life of the leader of a Mumbai-based Hindu-fascist group, the Shiv Sena." The Kashmir Question: Retrospect and Prospect p81 "The state government was then led by a Hindu fascist movement, the Shiv Sena" Topographies of Faith.: Religion in Urban Spaces p64 How many you want? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus to keep the term "fascist" in the article. I see two votes for inclusion and two against. Furthermore, the use of chauvinist isnt disputed. "The Swatantra Party collapsed but the Shiv Sena has remained as a highly chauvinist and sectarian political party" (Bagchi 2002:344), "SHIV SENA party has retained a focus on Marathi ethnic chauvinism and Hindu nationalism" (Long, Kaminski 2011:628), "The story originated with Ganapati idols in Mumbai soon after a regional Hindu chauvinist party, the Shiv Sena" (Rajagopal 2011:237). You still have no rational response to the concerns over WP:WTA nor have you demonstrated an academic consensus for fascism.Pectore^talk 13:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

They are described as fascist by multiple reliable academic sources, can you let me know which policy says I need prove an academic consensus to add reliably sourced content to an article? Darkness Shines (talk) 13:54, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reliable sources use chauvinist and extremist, academic sources do not agree on fascist, and WP:WTA states that attribution of this kind should occur within the text. Furthermore, as a lead is reflective of the article content, the article has no material on views on the Shiv Sena and therefore the lead shouldn't. Point me to a policy that allows a minority view to take precedence over academic consensus in the lead of the articlePectore^talk 00:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Which academic sources say they are not fascist then? If there are sources which say they do not agree with SS being a fascist organization lets see them. And just because they are also called chauvinist and extremist does not mean they are not fascist. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Recent revert

I just reverted the removal of a few kb of sourced content. Yes, those are "allegations;" but they are presented as such, not in Wikipedia's voice, and they are sourced. Therefore, simply blanking them without discussion isn't acceptable. If you have issues with the wording, please discuss them here; there is no deadline for this project. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sdmarathe, see Wikipedia is not censored and edit warring before removing any more sourced content. Comments like It says it is linked - where? Cite any court decisions? Also says commonly knows as - by whom? You or me? are simply silly and will not get you anywhere. Just see the above thread of discussion where another user tried to do the same in vain. -AsceticRosé 17:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello - Sorry about writing to your talk pages as opposed to the page's talk page. I do accept that I removed the entire sentence - but if you read the edit history - you can see that the allegations were presented as facts. It is in Wikipedia policy to mention allegations - as such - allegations. Contrary to your statement, they were NOT presented as allegations. The verbiage used was more in lines of statements of fact. You can not use terms like "directly linked" or "commonly known" = when they are allegations from one side of political spectrum to the other. I could in theory add a few more sentences that demean other point of view - and that is not the right thing to do. In my latest edit, I left all citations (however inflammatory and inaccurate they may be) - but have corrected the verbiage. I replaced terms like commonly known or directly linked - to "it has been alleged". Please respond to my talk before judging my edits - when in fact - the reversal of my edits in fact reinstated allegations as facts. By the way, I did those small changes I mentioned above before reading your comments on this page's talk page. If you would like me to revert - please let me know why you would think so. Thanks! --Sdmarathe (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Both your edits insert the word "alleged," which is not recommended as per WP:CLAIM. As for the changes themselves; we have no requirement for the sources to be neutral, only for them to be reliable. The Mehta source in the first case, and the HRW source in the second, are both eminently reliable. The second sentence, therefore, should be returned to its original form, because no scholarly sources contradict that claim. In the first case, your version is problematic, but the original text contained weasel words as well; so what I propose is "Scholars have referred to it as...etc." Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The recommendation advise not to use loaded terms. From what I read, those are allegations and not proven in any court. You can certainly cite non neutral sources - but then there is a responsibility to refer them in their words - not write words such as - "commonly known" or "directly linked". You could very well state that certain scholars have alleged and cite the source. Also, there are eminently reliable opinions on both sides - not to mention a big lack of any court decisions against Shiv Sena. just because there was no refutation of those scholarly claims - does not mean they are correct. they are to be treated as claims and not common knowledge. Similar claims on the opposite side have been made in Shiv Sena newspaper "Saamna" which is quite eminent as well (wide circulation) as well as writers that are eminent. By your logic, Articles written in Saamna are to be considered similarly sacrosanct. We have a responsibility to treat them what they are - articles and opinions. Not facts or common knowledge. --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thing the article talks about Shiv Sena and Jamaat e Islaami from Pakistan in the same breath as terror groups. Once again, Jamaat e Islaami wants everyone in Pakistan to be non secular and obey Sharia law and Shiv Sena wants Hindu nationalist India which still wants India to be secular (they are not advocating changing Indian constitution related to Secularism of India). This comparison is quite a reach in my opinion - but being a prudent observer, I will give a benefit of doubt - as long as article says it is "alleged". --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand; scholarly sources are reliable, and Saamna is not. Please read WP:RS. Our best possible information source is a scholarly article, followed by reliable newspapers (ie not party affiliated). Court verdicts do not count in any way, and the lack of verdicts against the Sena is utterly irrelevant. Also, please follow WP:INDENT. Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay - I think we are going in circles. Opinions that you think are reliable and relevant may not be what I treat them as such. What do you consider reliable newspaper and not count Saamna in them? I think Times of India is a fantastic newspaper but it is utterly partial against BJP and Shiv Sena. As a result, any article on them is likely biased and half of India does not trust that information either (did you know BJP earned majority in India)? it is a point of view - as evident by Rajdeep Sardesai - when he made a fool of himself by being biased in New York - negating his reliability. Sorry about the indentation! Lack of verdicts does mean something when you refer to it as a proven fact vs allegation. I have no problems referring to your statements and scholar articles - but lets present them as such. "Scholarly opinions" and not "facts"--Sdmarathe (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's argue about newspapers some other time, since they are not used here. When a piece of information is stated by multiple scholars, and not contradicted by any, Wikipedia presents it as fact. When there are contradictory reliable sources, we present them duly weighted. In the case of the changes you made, these conditions are satisfied, and the changes are POV. This is not about my opinion versus yours; Wikipedia considers some sources reliable, and others not, and if you wish to edit here you need to live with that. Neil, since you posted on my talk (thanks, btw) you're clearly aware of this discussion; what do you think? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have to be careful when you are discussing and commenting on inflammatory and sensitive articles. When there are scholarly "opinions" and not "facts" let's present them as such - opinions. Half of India agrees with you half of India agrees with me. It does not matter whether you and Ascetic Rose agree with me or not. I have reviewed version control - and I see you and Ascetic Rose clearly reverting any dissenting reverts from Dharmadhyaksha and other users. I propose you compromise like I did by allowing those provocative statements - but mark them as such - allegations or certain scholarly opinions --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

There are facts, found in the real world, that Shiv Sena has been linked directly with the 1970 communal violence... and It is commonly called an extremist and chauvinist party. None of these are false, and are supported by reliable sources. Wikipedia's task is to simply inform us of what is happening in real world. Whether we believe those or not is up to us. That being said, introducers like Some have alleged that it was linked with... and It is alleged by some to be an "extremist party' reduce those facts to mere speculations, especially when they are backed by reliable sources. Hence, they do not stand in an encyclopedic article. As for other objections, Vanamonde93 has described them above. -AsceticRosé 03:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks friend. I would add that "half of India" agreeing with you matters not a damn. This is Wikipedia, and reliable sources are all that matter; we don't care about popular sentiment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow - this looks like Vanamonde and Ascetic Rose have banded again - to override valid points raised - yet again. Carry on your bandwagon of hate - and keep your agenda of maligning without merit. Just goes to show how undemocratic and nit picking you are doing by selecting and displaying one (wrong I might add) view point over other. Do you mean to say court does not matter? Biased commentary on side does matter? The first comment you mention acknowledge allegations as allegations and then later disagree and continue with your routine of suppressing dissenting viewpoint even when it says allow with "allegations" verbiage. Now I get why everyone who discussed this with you gave up arguing.. --155.188.123.20 (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to login before signing. Oh by the way, where is your citation for 1970 Bhivandi? I figure you don't give a damn about it either since it is "well known" (to you and people that are of your view point I might add) --Sdmarathe (talk) 21:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't be naive. Nobody is saying court does not matter. However, everything is not taken to court, and court is not everything. Court does not decide everything of the world. As for Wikipedia, once again to remind you, we go by source guided by other policies. Do not change the sourced statements as per your sweet will, and do not attack other editors. -AsceticRosé 01:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well - you can not put statements like commonly known or directly linked - without ANY public acceptance or court order. You have to use verbiage such as alleged or blamed or referred - which is what I was advocating. Yes - at first I did remove the entire statement out. However everything since then I can level similar allegations against you. And I have been rather accommodating to your statements. Note the final changes made so far - you have reverted all my changes - with your nit picked references to biased articles. That is quite hypocritical. Personal attacks attacks were never meant before a suspicious pattern of nit picking was observed. Sdmarathe (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Where is there a policy that says what you are saying? Actually, I have to go a little further than AsceticRose here; court judgements, per WP:RS, are not reliable for anything but the judgement itself; scholarly sources are the gold standard of sourcing. If you disagree, I suggest you stop edti-warring, and take your view to some other forum, such as an RfC, or DRN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Looks like you are a new contributor to Wikipedia. Welcome! Please take your time to get used to Wikipedia editing and learning how it works. Going through the links that have been posted on your talk page, as well as the links the other users have given here, would be a good start. Please note that Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and we are not investigative journalists. Neither is it a court of law. All we do is to compile and summarize the information that appears in "reliable sources" (and that is a technical term, you need to understand what it means by reading that page). If you disagree with the information, you need to find other reliable sources that support your point of view and add them. You cannot simply remove content that sourced from reliable sources, no matter how much you disagree with them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Once again @Vanamonde93: and @Kautilya3: - the reverts were made by both me and @AsceticRose: and @Vanamonde93: - and am I the only one that is visible? @Vanamonde93: continued to revert my changes while talk was ongoing without a consensus. How am I the only one edit warring? Also Kautilya3: I agreed to keeping the content - but clarified the verbiage. I changed it to say that Shiv Sena was alleged or blamed for the said incidents since it was not found to be root cause of the said incidents that were mentioned. An allegation or charge that is levied against it is as such until it is proven. you can not term it as "Directly linked" which implies guilt proven. No such proof was found. also @Vanamonde93: your scholarly sources are opinion pieces - potentially quite biased. Please Stop pretending they are gold standards. I actually found one of your own comments that says sources are opinion pieces and the ones cited fall under similar criteria. Also, your first comment acknowledged that they were allegations (see the top of this talk page). now how is it that all of a sudden those allegations are facts? @AsceticRose: says "these are real world facts - Shiv Sena is a terror group directly linked with Bhivandi attacks." Directly linked implies proven guilt which is not present. Common knowledge and real world facts - would indicate there is no God but @AsceticRose: you would argue otherwise, isn't that correct? So one must tread carefully, while discussing such things and be respectful of one another.... Sdmarathe (talk) 23:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe:, no you are not the only one to blame. Vanamonde93 is clearly edit warr'ing by reverting you 5 times already. You both have been warned. I see your latest edits, reverted by Vanamonde93, are small harmless and perhaps emotional, but I would WP:AGF there and see if I can read the sources. --AmritasyaPutra^T 01:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: - thank you. I would appreciate if you would please go through the talk history (time permitting) and my arguments for making the changes. especially the last change that Vanamonde93 reverted. I would also like your opinion on Shiv Sena being a terror group - not even the Govt of India has noted Shiv Sena as such. It is a vital regional political party for crying out loud. I agree Shiv Sena is a right wing Hindu nationalist (it did have quite a few Muslim members- this being a Marathi pride party in its beginning). But to call it is terror group or directly implicated in a riot - is a stretch. I do agree some of its members played a role once riots started - so did all other religious groups when they did. That is not to say I agree with a lot of Shiv Sena policies, but to call the whole group a terror group, based on viewpoint from one side of political or religious spectrum, is quite a stretch. I am an atheist myself - so I do not pretend to support Shiv Sena just because of them being Hindu right wing group --Sdmarathe (talk) 02:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe:, See WP:LABEL. Wikipedia goes by WP:RS so if multiple reliable source make such an extreme statement it is justified to put it in. I am doing a general cleanup here. All can collaborate here instead of a edit warring on the article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra:- i agree with your cleanup page. thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: When you are deadlocked in a debate with a group of editors, you can formulate a specific question and invite other people to comment. Please see wp:diff to find out how to talk about specific edits that you have made. When a contentious issue is being debated, a certain amount of "edit warring" is inevitable. But it would be useful if you can state that you understand the points that [[User:Vanamonde93] and User:AsceticRose have made, which are all valid by Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia policy doesn't say that the sources have to be neutral, only that they have to be reliable. If there are biased sources, hopefully there will be other sources that are unbiased or biased in the opposite way and, so, we can talk about all viewpoints. (If all reliable sources say only one thing, then you have to start wondering whether they are in fact telling the truth. But that is your personal choice. Nothing to do with Wikipedia.) If you think a source is not reliable, you can question it. If it doesn't support what our article says, you can question it too. So, please open a new section for each issue you would like to raise, and I can invite other people to come and give you their opinion. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 06:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Kautilya3: - I have read the articles that were cited - and they were all opinion pieces or commentary - in no way that relates as reliable peer reviewed sources. As such they are to be taken with a grain of salt. When I see comments made by my opposition that anything printed in Sangh parivar is de jure unreliable I would have to question the logic behind deciding reliability as well. Since I am a newbie here, please enlighten me as to how to authenticate the veracity of opinion pieces. I am certainly not going to trust blindly the cited opinion pieces or commentary as reliable sources. If you read my comments, I have in fact agreed on everything eventually giving the citations a benefit of doubt - as long as it is specified as an allegation. In fact vanamonde93 agrees that they are allegations in the first statement of this talk page. Pardon anything I said if that offends anyone - but I feel bitterness was exuded from both sides in this discussion - which I wish we will keep it to a minimum. I also commend you and @AmritasyaPutra: for being a voice of reason on this talk page and helping me keep the discussions civil :-) . Cheers! --Sdmarathe (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: Yes, anything printed in a Sangh Parivar publication would not be considered a reliable source. This doesn't mean that they are unreliable in the normal sense. It just means that we can't use it as a reliable source. Reliable sources have to be "third party" sources, i.e., not attached to the organisations mentioned in the article or their opponents (e.g., Congress party). Academic sources are always considered reliable sources, because academic publications go through a peer reviewing process. I suggest you go slow with this and take up issue by issue, each in a separate section of this talk page. Please cite the diff of the edit that is under debate, and the sources that have been used or unused for that issue. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Hindu extremist was redundant, either keep extremist or Hindu extremist, I kept extremist and removed Hindu extremist, because the later term was just fascist. Lead is pretty improper, not saying that it has misleading information, but they should highlight the rest of the article. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Shiv Sena and All India MIM

I was just comparing Shiv Sena and All India MIM - and to me both are right wing organizations advocating opposite philosophy. One is right wing Hindu the other is right wing Muslim. There are court cases, convictions, academic and media reports against both. However, as I see on Wikipedia, Shiv Sena is listed as a right wing (and even a terror group under description) and all India MIM as Islamic (at one point listed as secular - source was party's website - which is hardly reliable source. at another point it was listed as right wing). I think it is biased editing. I see similar evidence in the citations listed on both pages - but somehow edit warring has landed it to where it is - and now all India MIM page is locked! I believe we ought to be impartial and term both these parties as they are. "Hardline Right wing" organizations no more no less. Inviting comments from @Bladesmulti:, @Kautilya3:, @AmritasyaPutra:, @Vanamonde93:, --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Please feel free to put the AIMIM page on your watch list and complain about it on its talk page. Personally, the branding of left-right etc that we put on the infobox doesn't matter much. Rather the article's content has to substantiate whatever it is we want to say. Also, to me, "Islamic" is stronger and more specific than "right wing". Kautilya3 (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to ping us in every post. We have these pages on our watch list. You need to ping us only when you need our urgent attention! Kautilya3 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

haha - sorry about the ping Kautilya3 ! I am still getting used to these edits. Anyhow, I am not sure Islamic can be equated to terror term that is devised for Shiv Sena. I would say they be named either as Islamic/Hindutva or RightWingHindu/RightWingMuslim. Neither justifies terror branding. I have nothing against All India MIM. But I feel both have gotten equal good/bad baggage and they are portrayed vastly different in Wikipedia. Cheers! --Sdmarathe (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Right wing, Isalmic etc. have to do with the political idealogy, whereas the 'terror' label has to do with the actions. I don't know the details. You need to check the sources and see if the claims are valid or not. We just reproduce what the sources say (at least in theory). Kautilya3 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Copy-edit of the entire article

As mentioned earlier I have tried to cleanup the article here. The article was in very bad shape (countless Further reading and See Also entries to say the least). Kautilya3 and Sdmarathe also have taken a look and find no concerns with it. Other editors vanamonde93 and AsceticRose have also been pinged on the cleanup talk page requesting their inputs. You are welcome to provide your inputs on the copy-edit improvements there or here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 12:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

We have a good progress. AsceticRose, Kautilya3, Sdmarathe and AmritasyaPutra discussed and made several improvements. I will be waiting a few days for any further improvements/discussion and then copying it in the article, along with the corresponding discussion transcluded the discussion below. @Bladesmulti, Karan Kamath, and Utcursch: ping few other recent editors on this article. --AmritasyaPutra^T 21:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I will copy it to the article shortly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 04:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

@AsceticRose, Kautilya3, and Sdmarathe: I have copied[5] it to the article. Thanks for your participation and comments in the cleanup! --AmritasyaPutra^T 10:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

For once I have no major issues; that was a job well done. I would suggest shortening a couple of the section titles because they are a bit wordy at present, but that is more preference than anything else. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! It was a bare-minimum cleanup and reference improvement. Yes, some section names can be shortened, I wanted to call it done while no major change to the content has happened. Weight, due, and such things were deliberately overlooked to complete it quickly! Please go ahead with further changes in article space directly. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion of cleanup discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

AmritasyaPutra- i agree with your edits so far on this cleanup page. thanks Sdmarathe (talk) 02:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Sdmarathe: you/Anyone may also edit, I am done with simple cleanup for now, I will revisit after a gap to look at it in better perspective. I must appreciate you being very calm in the discussion. Avoid edit war in future, you do not have to edit war to prove any point even when another editor is edit warring. WP is recreational activity and should not be turned into a battleground. Advance your argument firmly but do not get involved personally/emotionally. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and AsceticRose: please feel free to directly edit this page. --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@AmritasyaPutra: thanks for your advice! Of course being a newbie has its baggage :-) --Sdmarathe (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to all/myself, these changes 1 in article space need to be copied here. --AmritasyaPutra^T 18:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

copied relevant comment by Kautilya3 here[6]: I looked at it on the Diwali night. I didn't see any major need for copy-editing either in the public version or your version.

Thanks for copy-edit. Two observations: a) In section "Alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party", it reads The party ruled the state in coalition with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from 1995–99. Was it Shiv Sena who was the main party? As far as I know, BJP was the main party, and Shiv Sena was in coalition. In that case, it should read The party was in coalition with the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which formed government in 1995/1996. b) This sentence mentions 1995, but the table below says a Lik Shava election was held in 1996. Which one is correct?

The section "Formation of Maharashtra Navnirman Sena" basically deals with a party split. Hence, its name should be something like that. -AsceticRosé 16:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks AsceticRose, I only attempted to do basic bare minimum cleanup assuming all the content is referenced. You are right about both points! I have made changes as recommended by you. diff --AmritasyaPutra^T 16:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have pulled in recent change[7] to the article in this cleanup[8] like noted before[9]. I changed cquote to quotation as per the note on their usage page [10]. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

AsceticRose thanks for the meticulous cleanup. --AmritasyaPutra^T 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did a pass of copy-editing. On the whole, it is a pretty poor article. Shiv Sena is a political party (or at least most of us think so). So, its political trajectory needs to be described. The article isn't even sure when it came to power (1995 or 1996?) and how it got to that stage. The BMC wins were long before the capture of the State Government, but the article says nothing about it. Given how many sources there are for this subject, it is quite incredible that people didn't find enough interesting material to put here. The electoral performance table is the worst I have seen, mixing up all different elections and constituencies. The whole thing basically reads like a stub article that grew by fits. The splitting of the sections that you people seem to have done made it worse, by removing the logical structure of the article. I put things into back into sections. Some people don't like the word "Controversies" but I don't know what else to call them. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kautilya3. I completely agree with you that the article is very poorly written, unfortunately I do not have the time or energy to research and improve on the actual content but with your major copyedit the readability has definitely improved. Your pointers are very apt and if addressed I am sure we can take it up for good article also. Cheers friend! --AmritasyaPutra^T 19:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, we do what we can. Hopefully Sdmarathe will have time to improve the article. Cheers, Kautilya3 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

In my recollection, the party came to power in Maharashtra in 1995 (1995-1999) and not 1996. Also locally in Maharashtra, Shiv Sena was a bigger party that was in alliance with BJP nationally (NDA). Manohar Joshi was Shiv Sena CM and Gopinath Munde was BJP deputy [11] [12] I just corrected/referenced those Wiki pages and will correct here accordingly. --Sdmarathe (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Sdmarathe, I noticed that some of the reference have partially incorrect syntax, I will fix them when you are done. Keep in mind that this is only simple and minimal copy-edit, Your resolution of {{citation needed}}, {{who}} tags are admirable. Gentle reminder to all: do not add any new content (not that anyone has, just reminding). --AmritasyaPutra^T 03:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I have fixed/resolved 7 suspicious/dead links without changing content. There are 19 links to eci.gov.in with "connection issues" (assume them dead) for the tabular data. --AmritasyaPutra^T 07:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Shiv Sena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304140933/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1996/Vol_I_LS_96.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1996/Vol_I_LS_96.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304115353/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1998/Vol_I_LS_98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304123521/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1999/Vol_I_LS_99.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090304134828/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_2004/Vol_I_LS_2004.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_2004/Vol_I_LS_2004.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV issues

This article seems to be more focus on "negative" side of Shiv Sena.

• "It has been seen by some as a terror group". This article needs attribution. Does Shiv Sena is UN recognised terror group or India/US recognised terror group that should be mentioned. Because we mention such things while writing someone as "terrorist group". If it is opinion of any individual then it can be removed or can be given attribution to it. More specifically if it is not government recognised terrorist group then it does not deserve place in lead and it is WP:UNDUE.

• Article gives UNDUE weight to some incidences in "controversy" section. Actually section named "controversy" should not be in any neutral article, those things should be merged in article overall in different sections.

• There are many claims and sources regarding "social work" of this organization. Special section can be created saying some major notable activities of orgnization.--Human3015^TALK  21:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• To take your points in order; no, we give no primacy to government sources; in fact scholarly sources are more weighty. The phrase is definitely used by multiple such sources; but attribution would be helpful.

• The controversy section is, if anything, far too short; but you're right, it is poorly written (anti-Pakistan agenda...) and ideally needs to be integrated.

• A list of activities is going to be undue for the same reason as a controversy section; figuring out due weight in a separate section is difficult. Unless of course we create a single section for both "social work" and any controversial protests it has taken part in. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Shiv Sena/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Mr. Goldstein Orwell, May I ask why you have removed every single authentic and very well cited edits? Every single edit I did was cited, supported, and consistent with the reports of the highly reputable and the largest Indian newspapers (among others, the Times of India and the Hindu) and BBC. You can click on every single link to verify that my edits were consistent with the historical news reports. My edits are necessary because they play a vital role in balancing, otherwise highly inaccurate, distorted and biased views. I would also like to know the exact words that might have violated your policies, so I can use the vocabulary consistent with your policies. Thanks

Last edited at 00:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 15:47, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Shiv Sena. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080911071350/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS_71.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1971/Vol_I_LS_71.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080911071412/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/Vol_I_LS_91.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1991/Vol_I_LS_91.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable language

The article needs to be edited for unacceptable language, for example the use of the word "fuckwit". I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the content, but I would want to challenge the neutrality of the tone used throughout the first part of the article. Geoff Powers (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Vandalism reverted. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on Shiv Sena. 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/20080911065054/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1980/Vol_I_LS_80.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911065014/http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/StatisticalReports/LS_1989/Vol_I_LS_89.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911065331/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1989/Statistical_Report_Goa_1989.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1989/Statistical_Report_Goa_1989.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911071414/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1993/Stat_rep_93_MP.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1993/Stat_rep_93_MP.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911065008/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1996/StatisticalReport_HR96.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1996/StatisticalReport_HR96.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911071401/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1997/StatiscialReport_PU97.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1997/StatiscialReport_PU97.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911071352/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1998/StatisticalReport_DEL98.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1998/StatisticalReport_DEL98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911071441/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1998/StatisticalReport_HP98.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1998/StatisticalReport_HP98.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911065334/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1999/StatisticalReportof_Goa_99.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_1999/StatisticalReportof_Goa_99.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080911071419/http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_2000/STAT_REPORT_OR_LA_2000.pdf to http://www.eci.gov.in/SR_KeyHighLights/SE_2000/STAT_REPORT_OR_LA_2000.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090210131949/http://archive.eci.gov.in/SE2001/pollupd/ac/candlwc/s11/s11shsacnst.htm to http://archive.eci.gov.in/SE2001/pollupd/ac/candlwc/s11/s11shsacnst.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 04:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

what part is disputed?

I do not have much interest in Politics (especially Indian) and do not like the tactics of shivsena that defames all marathi people - but what part is disputed? Thanks-Acharya63 (talk) 06:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Deleted the stale POV tag. Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2020

At the end of "Alliance with BJP" section, include:

After the 2019 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election results, Shiv Sena declined to support BJP for the government formation demanding an equal share in the power and withdrew from National Democratic Alliance. Hardeepasrani (talk) 20:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hardeepasrani:  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Can I Log In (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Can I Log In: I'm new to Wikipedia as a contributor so correct me when I'm wrong. This should serve as a reliable source as there's an entire article on Wikipedia about the 2019_Maharashtra_political_crisis.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardeepasrani (talk • contribs) 2020-03-01 12:38 (UTC)

@Hardeepasrani: You edit requst has been answered by someone else. Wikipedia can be edit by anyone. Sometimes, things that do not follow wikipedia policies can slip by unnoticed. Sources you want to cite on wikipedia should be secondary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, but you can still use 'em. The issue with using wikipedia as a source is that there is a lack of accuracy and fact-checking, and therefore, are not reliable. For more info on this subject, see WP:WPNOTRS To reply, copy and paste this: {{SUBST:replyto|[[User:Can I Log In|Can I Log In]]}} ([[User talk|talk]]) 00:25, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

 Done It's a good suggested edit since it is a major change in the party's relations; I've used slightly different text, but conveyed the same information. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Scainder (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) shivsena flag

Flag is incorrect Scainder (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Why is it incorrect? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

How come its not marked as an Islamophobic party? that is such a large part of political programme 45.44.224.14 (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2020 (UTC) https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/shiv-sena-caa-mns-raj-thackeray-1639986-2020-01-25

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Indian Election Symbol Bow And Arrow.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:24, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Plzzz remove the terms like right; far right; hindutva; hindu frm shiv sena wiki page bcoz now they are only puppets of sonia sena and ncp which are frm far left and do only and only mulla politics They have emerged as a big enemies for hindus Uddhav jaisi naazayaz nikkaami nakara suaar ki jhaat jaisi aulaad kahin nahi dekhi

Plzzz remove the terms like right; far right; hindutva; hindu frm shiv sena wiki page bcoz now they are only puppets of sonia sena and ncp which are frm far left and do only and only mulla politics They have emerged as a big enemies for hindus Uddhav jaisi naazayaz nikkaami nakara suaar ki jhaat jaisi aulaad kahin nahi dekhi

Plzzz remove the terms like right; far right; hindutva; hindu frm shiv sena wiki page bcoz now they are only puppets of sonia sena and ncp which are frm far left and do only and only mulla politics They have emerged as a big enemies for hindus Uddhav jaisi naazayaz nikkaami nakara suaar ki jhaat jaisi aulaad kahin nahi dekhi

Plzzz remove the terms like right; far right; hindutva; hindu frm shiv sena wiki page bcoz now they are only puppets of sonia sena and ncp which are frm far left and do only and only mulla politics They have emerged as a big enemies for hindus Uddhav jaisi naazayaz nikkaami nakara suaar ki jhaat jaisi aulaad kahin nahi dekhi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.212.158.233 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

During the 2018 Maharashtra Council election and the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, many candidates fielded by Shiv Sena had criminal records or had criminal charges pending against them. Harryjames125 (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

References

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "sadquotes.in" doesn't appear to be a reliable source. See WP:RS for what constitutes a reliable source, and WP:RSP for some examples. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Indian Election Symbol Bow And Arrow.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:34, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2021

Please add File:Logo of Shiv Sena.svg as logo in the infobox of this article.119.160.119.67 (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Sena Bhavan into Shiv Sena

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was Merge. Venkat TL (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Article is not notable in itself Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

• Support per nom--MeraHBharat (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Support as article is single-sourced and non-notable. YttriumShrew (talk) 20:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support because subject is not notable and article is a stub. FactCheck105 (talk) 21:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New Page

Should a new page with the title 'Shivsena (Rebel)' be created after suspension of Sindhe and the rebel MLAs? (Don't count me as a mere IP account. Do have a registered account myself). Please co-operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.142.81.1 (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Add information about the 2022 rebellion

Kindly include information about the 2022 rebellion, rebels and the government formation with BJP on this page in short. Anyone who wants to know more in detail can be redirected to the page 2022 Maharashtra political crisis TheOneRiding (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

BJP alliance

Later in March 2020, BJP admitted deceiving Shiv Sena by not keeping its pre-poll promise of equal power sharing including Chief Minister (CM)'s post. The Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar while speaking in a debate in the state assembly stated, "We did deceive the Shiv Sena".

References

This content is relevant to the article. please dont remove. Venkat TL (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

See the entire discussion at Talk:2022_Maharashtra_political_crisis#Undue_and_subjective_addition. Bypassing WP:BRD under the guise of "Add content from the cited reference" in completely unacceptable. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

2 things should be clear to you.

(1) There is no such consensus to not add it there. Discussion is not over.

(2) Whatever may be the final consensus at the end of the discussion need not apply to all pages of wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 09:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

1)You need to read WP:ONUS. 2) When the exact same topic is under discussion at a related page with much higher participation and you clearly know of it, you are still reinstating content for the fourth time against consensus. Do not repeat this. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@CapnJackSp I have waited for a week patiently for you to think of a reason and respond. You have not replied hence WP:BRD was set once again. The scope of both pages are different, What is your objection for adding it here. Venkat TL (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

You need to stop pretending as if this strange claim from you wasn't already debunked here. You also need to stop with what is obvious to anyone. Your WP:OR starting with the sentence that "BJP admitted..." as if there was a unanimous statement from BJP but one politician. Even then you provided wrong translation and very small cherrypicked 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) 17:52, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

First of all you need to mind your language. Second you need to click and read the source. Nothing has been debunked just I dont like it type comments. --Venkat TL (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Venkat TL (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Why I am not supposed to mention your WP:OR and mistranslation over which you have been already notified earlier?[13] Let me repeat my 1st most comment on this issue which I made 2 weeks ago[14] because I don't want onlookers to think that you haven't been already told about this before: "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"." Dympies (talk) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What is WP:OR in this quote? Venkat TL (talk) 07:57, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC about BJP minister's statement on ditching Shiv Sena

Should the section on Alliance with the Bharatiya Janata Party, include the line below as shown in Special:Diff/1096769877. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Later in March 2020, BJP admitted deceiving Shiv Sena by not keeping its pre-poll promise of equal power sharing including Chief Minister's post. The Former Finance Minister and senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar while speaking in a debate in the state assembly stated, "We did deceive the Shiv Sena".

References

Background

There was a pre-election agreement on power sharing between BJP and Shiv Sena. After election, differences erupted and Shiv Sena accused BJP of not holding its side of the deal. The BJP - Shiv Sena alliance broke after this.

Quote from the source

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)".

- "Mumbai: Sudhir Mungantiwar is candid, says BJP deceived Shiv Sena". Free Press Journal.

Mungantiwar on Thursday made a startling acknowledgmentin the Maharashtra Assembly, saying his party had "ditched" the one-time ally Shiv Sena and termed it as a "mistake" which will be rectified one day. [...] Looking towards the treasury benches, Mungantiwar said the "chief ministeris your friend for three months, but our relationsdate back 30 years ago", highlighting the long- standing BJP-Sena ties. To which, some membersfrom the treasury benches commented "still you ditched them". "Yes, we ditched the Shiv Sena, but don'ttry to take advantage of our mistake. One day we will rectifyit," said Mungantiwar.

"BJP "ditched" Shiv Sena, it was a "mistake": Mungantiwar". Business Standard India. Press Trust of India. 12 March 2020.

Former State finance minister and senior Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Sudhir Munganitwar created a flutter in the Assembly on Thursday by accepting that his party had “fooled” Shiv Sena in the power game after the 2019 Assembly elections. [...] Looking towards the treasury benches, Mr. Mungantiwar said the “chief minister is your friend for three months, but our relation dates back 30 years,” highlighting the long- standing BJP-Sena ties. To this, some members from the treasury benches commented “still you ditched them”. “Yes, we ditched the Shiv Sena, but don’t try to take advantage of our mistake. One day we will rectify it,” said Mr. Mungantiwar.

Deshpande, Alok (12 March 2020). "Ditching Shiv Sena was a mistake: Mungantiwar". The Hindu.

“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,"

- Vyas, Sharad (26 October 2019). "Maharashtra Assembly election 2019: Sena's MLAs-elect seek BJP's written promise". The Hindu.

Survey

• Support The content is reliably sourced and crucial for proper understanding of the topic. There was a pre-election agreement, One side reneged on the promise after election. Both blamed each other, later BJP Minister admitted on the floor of the assembly. So this is a crucial piece of information, an admission. Strangely due to POV reasons, this relevant information is being prevented from adding into the article by throwing all kinds of tantrums and ad hominem to stonewall. This is being done to the detriment of the article and reader, forcing me to start this RfC. Venkat TL (talk) 11:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
• It seems like this might be a "lost in translation" situation according to Talk:2022_Maharashtra_political_crisis#Undue_and_subjective_addition. Further, I have no idea what CM stands for so that should be spelled out. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 17:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

CM means Chief Minister, the head of the executive in the provincial government of the state of Maharashtra. If there is anything more you need clarification, please ask.Venkat TL (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: No opinion on whether to include this, but if it is included, it should be attributed only to Mungantiwar. The source doesn't indicate that this was an official statement issued by the party; it looks like it was Mungantiwar speaking off the cuff. Maybe Later in March 2020, former finance minister and senior BJP leader Sudhir Mungantiwar said that BJP had deceived Shiv Sena by not keeping its pre-poll promise of equal power sharing including Chief Minister's post. Again, I'm neutral on whether to include, but if it is included, I think this phrasing would be better than what's proposed above. Over at Talk:2022 Maharashtra political crisis#Undue and subjective addition, some users have argued that "deceived" is a mistranslation; I'm not equipped to weigh in on that. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger I have no objection if his name is added a second time as you have proposed. Venkat TL (talk) 07:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:OR starting with the sentence that "BJP admitted..." as if there was a unanimous statement from BJP but one politician. Even then you provided wrong translation and very small cherrypicked quote 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"." It is best not to include this. Dympies (talk) 11:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose - Per WP:UNDUE. It hasn't been described why this quote is important. Even if the issue over translation was resolved, which I don't see ever happened, we should avoid labeling one person's view as that of entire party. Also per WP:NOTNEWS, I don't support addition of this single statement that isn't getting frequent coverage. D4iNa4 (talk) 12:38, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
• Undecided (leaning oppose) (Summoned by bot) – Can you provide a couple of other independent sources that say that, 1) deception was involved, and that, 2) BJP owns the statement? If yes to both, I'd switch to support. Mathglot (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Factions of Shiv Sena

Shiv Sena has two faction therefor two separate page should be created Het666 (talk) 06:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Het666 Status quo should be maintained till final order is passed by ECI. Dhruv edits (talk) 07:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2022

The end date of MVA should be edited IamLegendWarrior (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2022 (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. 3mi1y (talk) 08:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Use of Past Tense to describe Shiv Sena is incorrect given that the matter is pending before both EC and SC

Both Summary and Description in this article use Past Tense to describe Shiv Sena, meaning that it is defunct. e.g. "Shiv Sena was a". Also, the Summary and Description state that "The party subsequently split in two". Both are factually incorrect given that

• the matter of legality of Shinde Government is pending before SC and
• the matter of status of party membership of 18 members of Shinde Group is pending before SC and
• the matter of Shiv Sena Election Symbol is pending before EC

Shiv Sena as of today is not defunct, but the question of ownership of party Symbol and that of legal successor are being decided by relevant authorities.

If EC decides that the Symbol belongs to one of the two factions, it cannot be said that the party split in two. Correct description for that case would be that a number of sitting MPs / members left the party. Members / MPs leaving Shiv Sena has happened twice in history of Shiv Sena - first with Chagan Bhujbal, and then with Narayan Rane. Those instances have never been described by anyone as "splits".

Also, while summary initially uses past tense, last sentence is in present tense - "The party draws its strength from the support". How can a defunct party "draws" support?

Summary should be rewritten in present tense, with an acknowledgement of proceedings before SC and EC.

Nonentity683 (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

President Eknath Shinde?

Shinde did not announced himself as ',Shiv Sena president ', then why some editors writing this?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 10:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Can someone write section about its Idiolgy?

How over the years it changed its Idiolgy?Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done! Thanks for the suggestion. Kindly have a look at - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shiv_Sena#Ideology_shifts. Please feel free to make any necessary changes. AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 22:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Why not mentioned this party revolved around one family?

Its Shiva Sena supremo or Shiva Sena pramukh post was unconstitutional per ECI. Bal Thackeray operated it like anarchist.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2023

plz allow me to make changes to make better readability of this page Arpitmalik832 (talk) 16:18, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Lightoil (talk) 03:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Cm Ekanath Shinde is not a party president

Ekanath shinde is chief leader. He is not a party president. As per records of the news. 103.29.209.171 (talk) 03:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

This article has become a propaganda piece.

I've found so many typos. Plus whoever edited this article has deliberately trying to feed selective information for propaganda purpose. Entire category and title have been created to feed a narrative. Totally biased. 103.186.197.202 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Then make fixes, as long as they are reliably sourced. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 18:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

@Moops the IP can not do that as the page is semi protected. Lightoil (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ah right. I didn't check that. — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 13:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Pices Missing

History section have no mention of Manohar Joshi and Narayan Rane time as cm, what they did, what caused their resign. The party was involved in Ram janmabhoomi movement, no mention? Bomb blast was held at Shiv sena bhavan, who did it no mention? How Shiva Sena helped Sanjay Dutt on his alleged involvement in 1993 Blast, he visited Matoshri? Why Raj Thackeray deserted this party? ECI's declared that Bal Thackeray's post Shiva Sena Pramukh was unconstitutional. How this party ruled by just one family, they didn't allowed other to be Shiva Sena pramukh or president? Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena into Shiv Sena

Election commission has announced that Shinde faction of Shivsena will retain the the name and bow and arrow symbol of the Balasaheb Thackeray-founded party. So I think we should merge Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena with main Shiv Sena.Here is the link (https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/eknath-shinde-flaunts-shiv-sena-s-symbol-on-twitter-after-poll-panel-s-order/ar-AA17Cok3?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=64ef75d10cd34060990c6ce7ab6f1cac).

Extended content

I ask all users of Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian politics, @AKS.9955: @AnkurWiki: AusLondonder (talk · contribs) Capankajsmilyo (talk · contribs) @Chennai Super Kings Lover: Chomskywala (talk · contribs) @DaxServer: @Dhruv edits: Dwaipayanc (talk · contribs) Dshrm (talk · contribs) Fitindia (talk · contribs) @Fylindfotberserk: Ganeshk (talk · contribs) GarvitKaushik8 (talk · contribs) Gfosankar (talk · contribs) Gopaalan (talk · contribs) gppande (talk · contribs) Gsingh (talk · contribs) Gurubrahma (talk · contribs) Het666 (talk · contribs) IJohnKennady (talk · contribs) jonathansammy (talk · contribs) Jaywardhan009 (talk · contribs) Lesenwriter (talk · contribs) mahensingha (talk · contribs) Master purav (talk · contribs) Maswimelleu (talk · contribs) MohitSingh (talk · contribs) MPGuy2824 (talk · contribs) Nahtrav (talk · contribs) @Ok123l: @Rohitsetthachok: PQR01 (talk · contribs) pratap555 (talk · contribs) Prong$31 (talk · contribs) Puck42 (talk · contribs) Repto79456‬ (talk · contribs) Royroydeb (talk · contribs) Rufyrosh (talk · contribs) Salilb (talk · contribs) Semanticz0 (talk · contribs) Shakya2007 (talk · contribs) Shivashree (talk · contribs) Shyamsunder (talk · contribs) @Venkat TL: Xoocit (talk · contribs) to give their valuable opinions whether to merge it or not.

XYZ 250706 (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@XYZ 250706: I wouldn't recommend that you ping tens of people in posts. Instead, you could have created the thread here, and then added a link to the thread, on the Indian politics Wikiproject's talk page. That way people who are interested in the topic will respond. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

@MPGuy2824 Actually I copied the name list from another discussion. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait for the SC's verdict to come. Then it can be decided. Shakya2007 (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, We should wait until Supreme court's verdict come.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose, As the Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray) has filled petition in Supreme Court of India, We should wait till supreme court order. Thank You Chennai Super Kings Lover (talk)
• Oppose: Supreme Court's verdict regarding disqualification of BSS MPs and MLAs is still pending. Also Uddhav Thackeray is expected to challenge ECI order in the Supreme Court. 1 Dhruv edits (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - Shivsena split into two parties in 2022. It's a historical fact. And this history must be maintained. Santosh 10:18, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose The current decision has been challenged in the SC and we are supposed to wait for the verdict.456legend(talk) 10:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose Supreme court verdict is pending.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)