Talk:Chief Justice of Vishwamitra

Biased writing of section on tenure on Snyder

I will break this down into parts based on the original writing to explain its issues.

1. "Also faced criticism from within the government and opposition for involvement in biasness and delay in delivering justice including that from former loyal allies."

• Does not mention from who within the government or provide any source to such criticism's existence.
• Does not explain or provide any source for supposed biasness or who the "loyal allies" are.
• Provides no context to what justice what "delayed" or factual evidence as to why or how a delay occurred.

In summary, written in an intentionally vague way that provides no sense of scale, importance, or even factualness.

2. "Involved in several feuds with the Rashtradhyaksh including questioning of His Illustrious and Royal Majesty's authorities."

• No mention of feuds or what questioning of authorities took place.
• Severely lacking context on what effect it had on the term

As before, written in an intentionally inflammatory way to frame the subject as a type of loose cannon or destabilizing force within the government through their position.

3. "Superannuated upon completion of tenure on 15 February 2023 after being denied a second term by the Conference of Rulers and the government."

• A half true statement that frames it as though the subject sought another term and didn't have it granted to them, framing that is not used in any other section.
• Fails clearly explain that the subject did not seek a second term.

All of this information and writing frames the subject as an unwanted outcast due to their tenure as CJ, while not mentioning any other contextualizing details that would explain the context (some of which were added), such as:

• The "fueds" (Which I can only guess what they are referring to but I can at least say that they were surrounding this) being widely around the positions of anti-LGBTQ+ individuals holding positions within the government (Which would be relevant considering the mention of the subject as the first non-binary CJ and the mention of them removing Thomas Jacobs who was removed for similar reasons)
• The subject actively recommending punishments that would be carried out by others again (again assuming) their "loyal ally" of Liam
• The working assuming of the subject that the position was going to be abolished
• The Rashtradhyaksh asking if they wanted to seek an extension as CJ
• The Rashtradhyaksh seeking to have them recommend a successor
• The appointment of them as a member of Privy Council
• The removal of them and then them being requested again to rejoin this time as either President or Vice-President

All of these things, even if not all of them were to be added, would be relevant and even out the clear biasness against the subject. It would demonstrate that things were not as clear cut as "They were against everything the Rashtradhyaksh and government wanted". By showing that they were still a wanted member in affairs, even being appointed by the Rashtradhyaksh to the Privy Council, it would demonstrate clearly that they were not immediately an outcast due to their tenure as CJ. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 21:48, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

@Strubber: I will partially respond to you on your claims, the remaining will be responded later.

You may be wondering that if you did not seek a second term, how was it denied. You are right to say that you did not seek, but you are not aware of the fact that the tenure of the CJ was fixed for 8 months by 2015 constitutional amendment and then increased to a year in 2020. No judge can request to become CJ nor can a CJ request for an extension of their term. The decision lies solely with the appointing authority. In the case of extension, it is the Conference of Rulers and the Government. Since you failed to nominate a judge after the resignation of Lordship James Murray, there was no potential successor to you hence it was deliberated whether it would be a good decision to extend your term which was scheduled to expire in Feb'2023. The deliberations failed as the CoR and the Govt. denied any extension of your tenure. I hope this explains your case.

For your queries in No. 1: Please wait for publishing of minutes of the PC and the Government discussion. Which usually aren't made public, but in this case, they need to be made public.

Regarding the mention of first non-binary, please note or rather check yourself, the other articles. Whenever a person is the first be it in any case, first male, first female, first transgender, first openly gay, first from any religion, they are mentioned as a record or rather for trivia purposes. There is no harm to mention that you're the first non-binary individual to hold any position of high importance in the nation.

Why you're removed from the PC is well known to you. What are your accomplishments in the PC, even failing to take the oath of loyalty even after a month of serving? Regarding a request again, yes, we felt the individual in question (that is you) have changed and is likely to contribute to the PC this time.

Hope you got your responses. - Yours Oritsu  • Let's chat  • My contbs hehe! 13 July 2023, 14:26 IST

@Oritsu.me: None of this accurately responds to any concerns brought up. The language “denied a second term” is not used for any other individual and implies that a second term was requested. This is false and misleading to make it seem as though the subject wanted and then was refused an extension.

The biasness in 1 and even the factualness of it has been questioned by me multiple times and never substantiated, so it’s concerning that it’s only now being substantiated when challenged on the wiki. Even if documentation is provided, the other concerns still stand about the lack of contextualizing information, without which still makes the section biased against the subject.

There was no challenge against mentioning of being the first non-binary judge. There was defense that failing to mention the “feuds” being about anti-LGBTQ+ individuals serving in governing freely was relevant though due to this fact.

There was no question of why I was removed nor was it left dubious so I’m not sure what this argument even is. The point of its inclusion is to even out against the heavy bias against the subject. The section is written to make it seem like the subject was an unwanted and therefore excluded part of government when the truth is that even the person they “feuded” against still wanted them on his PC. Which, as I will reiterate, is also worth mentioning considering the powers of the CJ were then transferred to the PC.

This response focuses on the wrong aspects of the argument and argues things that either no one was arguing or that had little relevance. The wiki should be an unbiased source, not one used to represent individuals in whatever light was deemed fit. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 09:51, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Strubber: Kindly refer to the page history to check the new update. The text referring to your tenure as chief justice has been updated. I hope you find no bias in that. Kindly respond to what do you think. I don't want any further argument with the text or any other matter. - Yours Oritsu  • Let's chat  • My contbs hehe! 13 July 2023, 21:48 IST

@Oritsu.me: Yes I’d say it’s better as it doesn’t paint any party as negative which should be strived for. Thanks for working with me on this. 𝄞 Strubber ♫ Contributions ♩ 16:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)