Talk:Cockroach Janta Party

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2026

Hi,

We need to update the official website on CJP, i couldn't find the Party website on Wiki page.

This is the official Website of CJP - https://www.cockroachjantaparty.org/

and also if we can add official social handles of CJP that would be good because now days lots of fake pages we can see on intenet that claim that they are real page something like i saw today (https://cjpmember.in/) this page seems real because of the url and CJP they have membership program so it may possible this page can trick people to put there credentials. this is just one you can find lot of fake website that pretending as real CJP websites.

Adding CJP website on Wiki page may help users to find real result.

Thank you Iamtokib (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

It had been there before being unilaterally removed. I have restored it to the infobox. Einsof (talk) 11:57, 12 August 2026 (UTC)

add protesters community platform for reference https://www.cjpprotesters.org backlink with https://wwwcockroachjantaparty.org Vjha.career (talk) 11:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

CJP Website is visible now

Thank You. Iamtokib (talk) 07:44, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

(Re)creation of Abhijeet Dipke (activist)

Here's the merge discussion so you don't have to scroll up. I'm inexperienced and don't want to apply a WP:G4 where it might be inappropriate, but one could argue that the "new" article is substantially identical to the old one. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 19:12, 19 August 2026 (UTC)

See also Talk:Abhijeet Dipke (activist). In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 06:47, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Revert

Hello @Vulnerable yet spunky, I have removed one of your edits. First of all, you failed to explain why you were removing an important part of the article. Editors expect a summary from you on the article's talk page or in the edit summary when making such significant changes. You wrote minor ce, while removing very important parts. Apart from that, you added claims that were not found in the source. Please keep in mind for next time: add only information that the source contains, and leave an edit summary for non-minor changes like this one. Morris (talk with this worm) 02:19, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

The information you claim I removed is this. You list everyone's name and what every individual said, I kept it trim and summarized what is said. It's a common trope in India related wiki articles to list quotes like they think wikipedia articles are some sorta movie, or name-and-shame or promote individuals by taking their names, this makes articles legitimately unreadable. The paragraph on AAP funding claims, fair enough, I mistook that as external funding, so I had removed it based on WP:UNDUE. My bad. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

> Apart from that, you added claims that were not found in the source.

Also can you please mention which? I added at two refs and I don't see anything changed as of now, I think you can at least mention. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 09:57, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Note that the statement currently attributed to Murthy is apparently a paraphrase or inference by The New Indian Express, and he does not directly name the AAP in the source. I will adjust the text presently. Einsof (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

That's very fair, thanks for jumping in, I really appreciate it. I'll trust other editors care enough to work whatever issue OP had. I edit wiki sporadically when I'm in the ADHD thingamabob, so I cannot waste my time and mood defending small-small things.

Although I've thought a bit more about the edit pointed out by this particular user and I recommend deciding if BS Murthy's AAP CJP funding conspiracy theory violates Wikipedia:UNDUE or/and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view but that's just a suggestion. I can't also find any info on BS Murthy upon googling either, its apparently a generic name so the individual isn't notable afaik and so this is against the spirit of the (unofficial) essay Wikipedia:Criticism also. I don't really care whichever way this turns out, I'll log out and try chilling for a while. Vulnerable yet spunky (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I also have wondered if it is undue, but I don't have a synoptic view of the commentary on the CJP and thus don't want to mess with it. Compiling more sources would be good, but also it may be worth advertising on WP:INB for someone who is knowledgeable about the backstory here to rework that part of the article. Einsof (talk) 22:46, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and asked on WT:INB. Einsof (talk) 23:03, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

First of all, you definitely need to calm down with your emotions. It's helpful if you want to stay here longer.

I think you can at least mention. — There was a sentence you added, and it's this: Several commentators and public figures on either side have drawn parallels to the 2011 Indian anti-corruption movement, describing it as a major outlet for youth anger against corruption and rot in the system, although critics have questioned the long-term viability of the movement. I tried my best, but I could not find any text that supports "public figures on either side have drawn parallels". Anyway, this is not my main focus, as I was focused on bringing back that specific section which you removed. That particular section was about criticism. How do you think it's unnecessary to include comments made by analysts and scholars? I also find your edit history kind of interesting. Most of your edits involve large amounts of content removal, and it's strange for a novice editor to make such large removals. I have not yet reviewed your edits, but I will as soon as I get some time. Morris (talk with this worm) 14:10, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

VYS, I'll point out that the edit in question was really very complicated, and touched an awful lot of the article. When you do that, you make it difficult for other editors to tell what exactly it is that you changed. In the future, please break up your edits into smaller ones that do less; that lets other editors focus on each aspect of your changes one at a time. Not that I'm accusing you of anything, but it is a "common trope" on all of Wikipedia for people who want to make a change that should be controversial to hide the change among lots of others in the same revision. It's also very easy to accidentally make a bad change as part of a larger, sprawling edit. I assume that your intentions are good, but it is disrespectful of the time (and mood) of others to make the quality of your edits hard to verify. In solidarity, Autoinvective (🗨︎ 𓅬) 23:09, 24 August 2026 (UTC)