This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Conservatism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. India: Maharashtra / Mumbai / Politics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Maharashtra (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Mumbai (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (assessed as High-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Politics: Political parties Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Discrimination B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: this probably needs to be a disambiguation page now

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin: Request to keep discussions open at-least for a week and provide references and citations before making major moves. Please re-open to the discussion. Thank you. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shiv_Sena#Clarification_on_Shiv_Sena_dispute for additional context. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot re-open a discussion closed by an admin, you can trying asking them. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2022, the Election Commission of India (ECI) recognized Eknath Shinde as the leader of the original Shiv Sena, granting his faction the party's name and the "bow and arrow" symbol. Consequently, no new party was created for Eknath Shinde; he inherited the existing Shiv Sena.^[1] Meanwhile, Uddhav Thackeray's faction was assigned a new name, 'Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray),' and a new symbol, the 'flaming torch' (mashaal). Therefore, it's appropriate to include the developments from 2022 onwards as a subsection within the existing Shiv Sena article, rather than creating a separate section. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 21:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be confusing for average readers and editors regarding the recent developments in the Shiv Sena party. To clarify the situation, I am sharing some key facts along with reliable references and citations to help others understand the main issue.

The split in the Shiv Sena resulted in two factions:

1. "Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena" led by Eknath Shinde (not to be confused with main Shiv Sena) and
2. "Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)" or "Shiv Sena UBT" led by Uddhav Thackeray.

This division was temporary as the courts and the Election Commission of India (ECI) were determining who should inherit the original Shiv Sena. Ultimately, Eknath Shinde's faction, Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena, received control of the original party, thereby resolving the dispute. Following this, Shiv Sena (UBT) emerged as an independent party with its own symbol and identity, distinct from the original Shiv Sena, as they lost their legal battle in front of the ECI and the courts.

As it was not a traditional party split, legal dispute was resolved by the Election Commission of India (ECI):

1. ECI granted Eknath Shinde's faction the original Shiv Sena name and "Bow and Arrow" symbol. ^[2] This also meant temporary "Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena" arrangement was merged into original party.
2. Uddhav Thackeray's group became a new party: "Shiv Sena (Uddhav Balasaheb Thackeray)" with "Flaming Torch" symbol.^[3]

Shinde's faction had majority support in legislative wing (76% vs 23.5%). Decision based on Supreme Court precedents emphasizing majority principle.^[4]

• Shinde retained original Shiv Sena identity and properties (i.e Shiv Sena). No new party was created, he simply inherited old Shiv Sena.^[5]
• Thackeray's faction is a new party, not a sub-party of Shiv Sena. i.e (Shiv Sena UBT)
• The dispute was resolved legally, not through a voluntary split.

I hope this provides some clarity and context --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is proposal to merge on talk page. Context: Currently, there are two separate pages—'Shiv Sena' and 'Shiv Sena (2022–Present)'—dedicated to the same political party. The party's leadership was disputed in 2022, but its existence remained unchanged. For additional clarity, please refer to the discussion on the talk page. I propose merging the 'Shiv Sena (2022–Present)' page into the main 'Shiv Sena' article, with developments post-2022 included as a subsection to provide a comprehensive historical narrative. Kindly have a look at the proposal --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 03:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna work. Even Godi media outlets call it "Shinde's Shiv Sena",[1][2] We are calling it "Shiv Sena (2022–Present)" which is more supportive of your point of view. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shiv Sena (2022–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:37, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Shiv Sena (2022–present) into Shiv Sena because they are the same party, as recognised by ECI. For precedent see Nationalist Congress Party. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 11:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. SS had split into SS(UBT) and BSS [Shiv Sena (2022–present)]. ECI gave the name and symbol to BSS later on and there is an ongoing court case on it. Both claim to be the "real Shiv Sena", this is taking sides in a dispute. NCP never officially split into two before Ajit Pawar was handed control of the party. MrMkG (talk) 03:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ongoing court case? All court cases have been resolved. The dispute is settled as far as most people are concerned. Just by naming the article Shiv Sena (2022–present) we are recognising it as the "real Shiv Sena". Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 07:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not been. Source (19 November 2024), quote: "the court battle is still going on". We are also distinguishing it from this Shiv Sena because RSes distinguish it by calling that one Shinde's Shiv Sena or Shinde faction, etc.

As far as I am concerning, we are naming it Shiv Sena (2022–present) because it's the current official name. If you think we are taking sides then you can start a discussion on that page to find a better name to disambiguate it. MrMkG (talk) 09:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We do not take much notice of official names. Regardless of the court proceedings or rulings, if we say or imply in the voice of Wikipedia that one of the parties is the real Shiv Sena then we are taking sides. This is tricky because readers cannot be expected to know our article naming standards.

So, the article naming policy is designed to avoid as far as possible such inferences being made.

Of course supporters of the various claimants want their favourite to be given the name by Wikipedia, and this includes the authors of reliable sources. Tricky indeed. Thus is an example of a source being reliable for some sorts of information but not others.

To cut to the chase, I think we want an article called Shiv Sena, and that the article needs to in some way cover all the uses of that name. A set index article is the obvious way of doing this, but may not be the best way. Andrewa (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting your position. Merging would be saying in the voice of Wikipedia that one of the parties is the real Shiv Sena. So why do you support merge?

This page is about the estwhile undivided Shiv Sena whose legacy both claim and Shiv Sena (2022–present) is one of the two parties, the other is Shiv Sena (UBT).

If we want a single page to cover all usages then it will have to be a disambiguation page. MrMkG (talk) 09:07, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it would not need to be a DAB. Why do you say that? Andrewa (talk) 20:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Per MrMkg's argument. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:04, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YMerge the two articles for Shiv Sena into one and Create a seperate article titled Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena for the party that existed during the split.

• Precedent 1: We don't have Twitter (post-2022) article, instead have a seperate article named Twitter under Elon Musk.
• Precedent 2: Congress (Indira) does not have a seperate article. As this was recognised by the ECU as original Inc.

Manasbose (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you want to merge the two articles, and then recreate one of them? Why would we do that? If there is agreement to cover the Shinde faction's future activity at this title, we can just do so. If we want that faction's page to exist at a different title, we can move it. There is no reason at all for the merger. This isn't even a POV issue: regardless of which faction you believe to be the genuine one, there is clearly enough material for a standalone page. This discussion is getting rather silly. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balasahebanchi Shiv Sena existed for a few months with its own seperate symbol, therefore a seperate page is needed.

While the two Shiv Sena pages with bow and arrow symbol needs to be merged. Manasbose (talk) 13:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to take a step back.

This is a common political problem when a party splits, and Wikipedia needs to avoid taking sides, and this can be very tricky. Because for example if as in this case one of the new parties has succeeded in the courts in acquiring the rights to the old name, that doesn't necessarily mean that under our naming policies the article on that party should receive this old name, much as their supporters might want it to.

The first step is to decide what the topics are that deserve their own articles. And names do come into this. If for example the old party name is now commonly applied to one of the new parties, then that raises the possibility that they are in a sense the same party and can be covered by a single article. We need to be careful not to assume this, as that supports this new party and is thus POV. But we also need to use this old name for the new party if that's what our naming policies indicate. To avoid this unnecessarily is also POV. Lots going on. Andrewa (talk) 10:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge. On reflection, this is IMO an improvement. We should not make perfect the enemy of good. Andrewa (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• An important question here is whether reliable sources treat the post-2022 version as its own entity, or whether they consider it a new partycontinuation. I haven't read enough to be certain. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC) (amending, this is what I meant to write). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They treat it as its own entity. They consider the party to have split and add distinguishing language for "Shiv Sena (2022–present)" like calling it Shinde's Shiv Sena or Shiv Sena (Shinde) or Shinde group/faction, etc to distinguish it from Shiv Sena (UBT) and the former Shiv Sena (either without any distinguishing addition or sometimes as "undivided").

  List of sources:–

• Source 1
• Source 2
• Source 3
• Source 4
• Source 5
• Source 6
• Source 7 (SS(UBT), Shinde faction and MNS are all considered offshoots)
• Source 8
• Source 9
• Source 10 (Marathi)

Shiv Sena had a splinter before in the 2000s too (called MNS) but MNS was seen as a sole offshoot. Distinguishing language was never used for the Shiv Sena then. It was considered that there was only one Shiv Sena and MNS was a new party. Unlike the present split.

@Vanamonde93 What do you think? MrMkG (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, for the moment based on the sources above. It's quite clear that the media are treating both factions as distinct, and we should therefore do the same. However, it's not unlikely that in the long term one or other of these will become the "primary" party once again, and would therefore need to be described in this article (under the "Shiv Sena" name with no qualifications). For some precedent, the page about the Indian National Congress describes a continuous history, but we have pages about the short-lived factions that existed in the late 1960s and 1970s, even the ones which were eventually recognized as the continuation of the parent party: see Indian National Congress (R), for instance. We should of course note which faction was granted the parent party's symbol and name, including in this article. It's also not unlikely that, even if we eventually need to do this merge, there will be enough content about the two factions to justify a standalone page for the period during which a primary party hadn't been recognized. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there was one shiv sena party before 2022, ECI has recognised eknath’s shiv sena as official shiv sena bcs they had majority of MLA’s but uddhav also claimed the same, so ECI spit it into two until it’s resolved as government was needed to be formed, and case is still on going, so there has to have 2022-present title, as original shivsena has been dissolved and two new parties have been formed. Here’s the Source for it Shubhamgawali1 (talk) 12:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Based on precedents. I haven't come across any political party page divided based on years of dispute. Other than that, there are set examples like the Indian National Congress, which shows how Wikipedia has consistently handled such situations. The main article for Indian National Congress remains the same, despite numerous leadership changes and splits. Instead of dividing the main article by years, there are separate pages for breakaway factions like:
  • Indian National Congress (U)
  • Indian National Congress (R)
  • Indian National Congress (Jagjivan)
  • Indian National Congress (Organisation)

There’s even a dedicated List of Indian National Congress breakaway parties to provide clarity. When a party splits or its leadership is disputed in court, the party doesn’t become defunct—it’s just contested. Like a property dispute, the party still exists. However, the current Shiv Sena article wrongly labels it as defunct.
For consistency, I support merging Shiv Sena (2022–Present) into Shiv Sena, with a clear mention in the lead section that the leadership is disputed and the matter is pending in court. This approach ensures clarity and aligns with existing practices on Wikipedia. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your evidence and your position are entirely contradictory. The Indian National Congress that exists today is the successor to the INC (R) and the later INC (I), both of which have their own pages, as you pointed out. If the Shinde faction of the Shiv Sena eventually begins to be treated as the continuation of the parent party - as is likely - we would still preserve Shiv Sena (2022–Present) as a standalone article about the faction, just at a different title. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some misunderstanding. My main point is about adding a year to the title, like Shiv Sena (2022–Present), which I find inconsistent with how political parties are named on Wikipedia. No single media source refers to it as "Shiv Sena (2022–Present)", which makes this naming even more questionable. The Indian National Congress (INC) is a good example—despite its splits and leadership disputes, there’s no INC (pre-1969) or INC (post-1969) article title. Instead, the main article reflects the party’s continuity, and separate pages exist only for truly distinct factions like Indian National Congress (R) or Indian National Congress (I). In the case of Shiv Sena, both factions claim to represent the original party founded in 1966. This makes it more appropriate to have one main article covering the party’s history, with the ongoing leadership dispute explained within it. If the factions eventually evolve into clearly distinct entities, separate articles with consistent naming conventions can be created. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 19:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good argument for renaming the article, but has no bearing at all on the merge proposal. There is considerable evidence showing that the media treat the two factions separately, especially for the substantial period of time during which neither could use the parent party's name and symbol. Even if Shinde's Shiv Sena eventually represents the parent party, its activities during the split are significant enough to maintain this spinoff. It is simply far too much detail for the parent article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AbhiSuryawanshi: I am sure not even a layman would agree with you. The Congress party founded in 1885 and presided by Mallikarjun Kharge is called "Indian National Congress" or just "Congress" even by the most partisan sources. Whereas Shiv Sena faction headed by Eknath Shinde is commonly called "Shinde's Shiv Sena" by the sources.[3][4] You can analysis the difference. - Ratnahastin (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wikipedia policy, we rely on reliable sources. Could you please provide any reliable source where the Shinde-led faction is explicitly identified as "Shiv Sena (2022–Present)"? --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are now changing the topic, Shiv Sena (2022-Present) is simply a disambiguation. I am going to have no problem with supporting renaming of "Shiv Sena (2022–Present)" to "Shinde's Shiv Sena" should anyone start one such request. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Shiv Sena (2022–present) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 11:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]