Talk:Ranjan Gogoi

Allegations of sexual harassment

Since the subject of the article has been in the news today concerning allegations of sexual harassment against him, there have been two attempts to include the allegations into the article, which have been reverted — [1] (unsourced), [2] – as per WP:BLPVIO, WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM. These inclusion of this content must be discussed on the talk page before it is added to the biography article in accordance with Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons and the Arbitration Committee's ruling in WP:ARBBLP#Biographies of living persons, as highlighted below:

Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so. In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." This means, among other things, that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

— Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Every newspaper has multiple pages of editorials by very senior jurists and SC lawyers. Gogoi has asked media houses to gag themselves but women's rights movement is too strong in India to care about such gag orders by a judge in his own case. Why should Wikipedia be gagged? It is not as though somebody searching for Gogoi today would find a dirty little secret about him through Wikipedia. Hundreds of articles have already been written on it. Also, check Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination.--Trickipaedia (talk) 09:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, Trickipaedia. Since you have been around on this project for a while, I'm assuming you should know that Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopedia, and by definition, a conservative project. Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons require that editors remain particularly careful while editing, and pay special attention to ensuring that we get the article right, specially when it concerns living people.

Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

I have also quoted a relevant ruling by the Arbitration Committee above that requires when the appropriateness of some content pertaining to a living person is disputed, then the content must be removed from the biography until there is consensus to re-include it again. Therefore, you are requested to revert yourself and remove the disputed content until there is consensus here on the talk page that would justify inclusion of the allegations. Please note that this is official policy, and is not optional. Wikipedia is also not a newspaper, and we are under no special obligation or pressure to remain up-to-date when BLP-related content issues have not been conclusively resolved on the talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

RSS shouldn't interfere Wikipedia too. 2409:4064:985:2CC3:0:0:F94:58B0 (talk) 06:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Allegation of sexual harassment

It has already been published by other magazine. A fair presentation including version of chief justice and supreme court registry should also be included. Soniriteshkumar (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Charges and it's denial as it is should be included Publication of charges is important Soniriteshkumar (talk) 11:31, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

@Soniriteshkumar: Thanks for your comment on the talk page. The inclusion of this content is currently disputed under Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. The story is still developing and details continue to emerge. In this regard, there is concern that the added text places undue weight on a recent event, which cannot be shown to have had a historical impact on the subject of the biography. Therefore, we must wait for more editors to weigh in on the issue to decide whether the allegations ought to be included, and if there is consensus for that, then they must also comment on how the allegations should be represented on the biographical article. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 11:49, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

The allegations should be included in the page. It is significant since all mainstream news agencies had reported. I am not sure if wikipedia got any censor notice from the secretary general of the supreme court not to include the allegations. Because in all other cases, the allegations are included without citing Recentism.Blessidekhlab (talk) 05:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored but editors are expected to take particular care while writing content related to biographies of living persons. Editors must ensure that there is no undue harm caused to the subjects of our articles. There is no rush to include the allegations in the article as of now. Please allow for long-standing contributors to participate on the talk page discussion and decide if the content ought to be included, and in what shape and form. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 06:46, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

For your reference, I have started a discussion on the NPOV noticeboard regarding this issue: WP:NPOVN#Ranjan Gogoi and sexual harassment allegations; WP:UNDUE concerns. I have also notified WP:BLPN. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 09:07, 21 April 2019 (UTC) 09:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

• @Oshawott 12: I noticed that you edited the article to remove unreferenced portions from the article. Could you please see the relevant discussion here and on WP:NPOVN, where another commenter agrees that the allegations of sexual harassment be excluded due to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE (also, WP:BLPBALANCE) issues referred here? In this context, please also see relevant Arbitration Committee ruling quoted above. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

  Great, thank you. I will not add any more changes after this. Thanks! Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 00:18, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think an unsubstantiated allegation by one person has a place in a BLP. we lose nothing by waiting until this becomes a formal charge, or blows up into a bigger crisis. We are not a tabloid newspaper that has to print every salacious scandal to attract readers.Slatersteven (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Affidavit is neither a complaint nor an F.I.R for putting law into motion. Therefore , contravention of common jurisprudence thing i.e judging for own cause does not apply on the CJI . These appear to be some wiki editor's own view point which must not find place in the article. Therefore the contents needs to be removed. If the affidavit is in public domain , the name of the woman has to be revealed since she herself must have done so. Otherwise the Wiki may be made party to a defamation cognizance. Therefore such content based on private declaration must be removed from wiki article however seems relevant . Rakesh log (talk) 18:33, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

I note that the WP:UNDUE concern remains unaddressed, and therefore I have removed the mention of allegations from the biographical page. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Allegations probably have not been taken cognizance yet by the Supreme court since it is in the form of an affidavit. Also Supreme Court ( i.e. any of the Judges) may not take cognizance at all. Matter is recordable in wiki with due weightage under separate section if police or a magisterial court takes action as per law in which case it becomes an event in public domain concerning the public figure. Until then, the incident, since significant at its nascent stage may be recorded in life events & career in same wordings as in a quality reference. Rakesh log (talk) 15:27, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Article now includes latest developments adequately referenced.

The contentious material if adequately referenced can remain on page and should not be removed provided that multiple viewpoints are given respective space.Renewbo (talk) 12:11, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

As of now, there exists consensus to exclude the contentious material per WP:UNDUE. Please do not revert these changes unless you secure consensus through discussion over here. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 16:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I have protected the page (extended confirmed access) for a period of 1 month due to ongoing BLP violations. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Issue addressed regarding Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Neutrality requires listening to all existing point of views. Don't remove content unnecessarily as it meet wiki guidelines of being properely referenced and verifiable by multiple independent sources.

Balancing different views and not outright removal of content should be the approach. Cooperation expected.

Also Note :Many siting and retired judges have taken note of this incident. This must also be included in subsequent revisions.

When the section Allegations of Sexual Harassment is adequately sourced and properly referenced, why it's been repeatedly removed citing reasons like 'no consensus to include' and 'defamatory'. Even two retired judges of the Supreme Court have criticised the way the case was handled. It appears prejudice has made its way into Wikipedia too. Seeker 03:56, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Journey To The Chief Justice

Justice Ranjan Gogoi is an incumbent judge of the Supreme Court of India who was appointed on 23 April 2012 and will have a tenure of over seven years there. Gogoi started his practice at the Gauhati High Court of which he was made a Permanent Judge on February 28, 2001. He was transferred to the Punjab and Haryana High Court on September 9, 2010, and became Chief Justice there on February 12, 2011. His father Keshab Chandra Gogoi was the former chief minister of the Indian state Assam. Osama Razi (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Judge in his own case, secret judgement, altered statement, media gag order

Why is it not mentioned that he was a judge in his own case and that the judgement is a secret so big that its copy was not given to the complainant? Also, the complainant alleged that the statement she gave was not what was used in the proceedings? Why is it not mentioned that Gogoi issued a gag order preventing the media from reporting the case? --Trickipaedia (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)