This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
"Edit War On Justice KM Joseph's Wikipedia Page, Editing Restrictions Imposed". Verdictum. March 30, 2023. Retrieved March 31, 2023. Yesterday evening, the Wikipedia page of Justice KM Joseph was edited to add the sentence, Justice KM Joseph is a judge of the Supreme Court of India "nick named as smiling Judge for smiling at genocide call against Hindu Brahmins on the court floor". The screenshot of the edited page was then shared on social media. The additions were then removed through multiple edits and the editing of the page has now been restricted by imposing a "semi-protection" status to prevent "disruption or vandalism from new or unregistered users"
Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion
As this page was edited anonymously but Arunkum41466 did a tremendous job of reverting it back asap. The Edit if there may be in the light of the facts; should be under a new section "controversy".
Arunkum41466 kindly do the honours if you may. Vis14620 (talk) 19:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Good work, but I don't think it will stop untill either this page be protected or the incident be documented in this page. I vote for the truth. Just add a controversy section, list the incident and be done with it. I've checked from different sources and the incident did happen. But I don't know how to edit Wikipedia so it won't get deleted. Yoshi24517 can you do it?? Vis14620 (talk) 05:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion
There should be a controversy section in this article as various controversies did happen with the particular person. There are also various legitimate sources to back this. I also vote for a "CONTROVERSIES" section as @Vis14620. SatyaAmarRahe (talk) 08:49, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
please note that this person is not a celebrity but a member of judiciary and language must confirm to the honourable status of Indian judiciary at all costs. And most of the leading news outlets are avoiding these controversies for obvious reasons.
There are sources but I'm not sure if all those sources qualify as reliable as Wikipedia have some source bias of it's own. No offense, but that's proven multiple times.
I hope these news articles are enough to create Controversy section, after all the hardwork of our fellow editors to keep this wiki page free from vandalism; they deserve this much recognition. And mind it, no offensive language should be used for any member of judiciary and if possible don't mention there was an offensive hashtag trending in Twitter after this alleged incident of smiling on genocide call of Hindu Brahmin community . Vis14620 (talk) 02:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've expunged the hate speech section you added in the BLP as overblown. The sources cited were either routine coverage of court proceedings or right wing trolling websites that apparently took umbrage at the exchange and weaved a narrative around it for consumption of their ecochamber but which is of no consequence to Wikipedia. If and when reliable sources critique it, we can revisit this. MBlaze Lightning (talk) 09:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I added it because of edit warring and talk page rquests and I have mentioned in the edit summary that I've not verified the sources. Mixmon (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
