Talk:Qazi Faez Isa

Bias
This is biased. 3catsmumu (talk) 09:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Razia nawaz 39.49.189.85 (talk) 02:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Na insafi tazlel haq py kabza
sir g 6sal at tazlel ki ja rhi hy insaf chahta hon 03022836477 223.123.7.14 (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Why was the intra-party case ruling controversial
- Please don't remove cited content that actually sheds light on why a ruling is placed under controversies. The existence of a main article does not preclude the relevant context from a controversy mentioned in WP:BLP. In fact it falls in the purview of WP:BLPCOI. You can expand on the content, but you cannot separate a judge from their judgements. A judge's biography is documented in their judgements. Wiki.0hlic (talk)  19:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I believe that a judge's biography should only cover the judgment and its immediate implications, without delving into additional details about the verdict or public opinions on it. Such specifics can be appropriately addressed in an article dedicated to the case itself. Including opinions about the verdict in a judge's biography would necessitate outlining all the points from the verdict explaining why the judges ruled as they did, thus negating the purpose of having a separate article. Additionally, since a verdict is typically delivered by a bench consisting of multiple judges, it does not solely belong to one individual. Therefore, any further elaboration should be reserved for the case article instead of biography article dedicated to the judge. Sheriff &#124; ☎ 911 &#124; 20:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @SheriffIsInTown - Judges are not infallible beings who only have matter-of-fact BLPs. They can make mistakes and get embroiled in controversy like any other living person. Sanitizing their biography of observer reactions to a judge's contentious decisions is like going with a particular POV that is clearly not WP:NPOV. Furthermore, in a bench, there is a primary decision-maker and those who assent to/dissent with it. Isa was the primary decision-maker as well as the author of the verdict for the case in point. Wiki.0hlic (talk)  10:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)