Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)
Short description: Australian politician (born 1995)
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.This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.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 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
Fatima Payman is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles
This article was created or improved during the Around the World in 31 Days GA edit-a-thon hosted by the Women in Green project in October 2024. The editor(s) involved may be new; please assume good faith regarding their contributions before making changes.Women in GreenWikipedia:WikiProject Women in GreenTemplate:WikiProject Women in GreenWomen in Green articles
I have looked through , as was recommended to me by User: Y. Dongchen (advocate of script in infobox) and discovered that none of the major politicians (i.e. Dai Le, Jenny Leong, Mehreen Faruqi etc) feature native script in their infobox. I had already removed the script however a fellow editor had an issue with it so it would be better for the larger Fatima Payman editing community to give their opinion on this unique matter DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any definitive styling rule of whether to put the native names of people in infoboxes or the lede.
Hi, I would just like to note that it may be different styling in the Australian based articles as compared to the articles of overseas, as per the difference in WP:AUP. For example, all of the articles you had listed above that have it in the infobox, or both, are international articles, and not articles being overseen by WP:AUP. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 11:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply. I am not familiar with that Wikiproject and will take a look. Are you referring to different styling for some Australia-specific templates? The template used here is "officeholder". Y. Dongchen (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: So I did a few rough searches using PetScan. These are two biographies which I identified to be using "native_name". They are both written in the Australian political context and included in that Wikiproject.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Request due to objection from a contributor regarding my latest edit (as a non-extended-confirmed editor). See User_talk:Y._Dongchen.
What I think should be changed (format using {{textdiff}}):
−
Labor MP [[Anne Aly]], who had often disagreed with party positions regarding theGazaconflict, said in an interview that she did not agree with Payman's approach. ReferringtoPayman'sabstentiononLabor'sproposedamendmenttoaGreensmotioncallingfor[[InternationalrecognitionoftheStateofPalestine|recognitionofaPalestinianstate]],Alysaid "I choose to do things in a way I think will make a material difference on the ground to people in Palestine. Fatima chooses to do it her way". Paymansaidherchoice to abstainonLabor'samendmentand to vote for the final Greensmotion was consistent with Labor's platform whichendorsed a [[two-state solution]] and madePalestinianrecognition "an important priority". Aly said that Payman "could have voted for [theLabor amendment] if she held Labor values".
+
Labor MP [[Anne Aly]], who had often disagreed with party positions regarding Gaza, said in an interview that she did not agree with Payman's approach, commenting that "I choose to do things in a way I think will make a material difference on the ground to people in Palestine. Fatima chooses to do it her way". Aly pointed to Payman's abstention on the party's proposed amendment to the Greens motion. Payman had defended her choice to vote for the final motion without the amendment that recognition of a Palestinian state occur as part of a "just" peace process, saying it was consistent with Labor's platform endorsing a two-state solution and regarding recognition as "an important priority". Aly said that Payman "could have voted for [the amendment] if she held Labor values".
Why it should be changed:
Payman's votes in parliament and the motion for which she voted were already laid out in the preceding paragraphs. It is extraneous to re-emphasise the content of the Greens motion.
I think the existing passage is not a very faithful representation of the source. As much as I sympathise with and belong to the peace movement, it is not our role to minimise e.g. criticism of Payman that is present in a source. The essence of Aly's comments to ABC is about Payman stepping out of line with the party, which does not seem well-captured by the current formulation.
"Palestinian recognition" to "recognition of a Palestinian state": Labor's official position is ambiguous as to which entity shall ultimately constitute Palestine, so I think the latter is preferable to "Palestinian recognition".
The source says "... has herself often deviated from the party's line on the Gaza conflict ...".
The earlier paragraph does not mention a Greens motion. It says "On 25 June 2024, Payman crossed the floor to vote in favour of a resolution .... ". We would need to make clear that the motion came from the Greens. We could then drop the unnecessary "calling for recognition of a Palestinian state".
We should avoid the term "pointed to". It is similar to the term "pointed out" which is discouraged based on policy at WP:words to watch. I think "referring to" is better.
"two-state solution" and "recognition of a Palestinian state" should be wiki-linked.
I think we should avoid the phrase "defended her choice". The source says "has maintained her choice". In cases like these the most neutral term is "said" as mentioned in the policy linked above. So "Payman said her choice to abstain on Labor's amendment ... ".
The source does not mention "without the amendment that recognition of a Palestinian state occur as part of a "just" peace process" when reporting Payman's statement that her actions were consistent with Labor policy. A good way of covering the Labor amendment would be to say what it was and to say that Payman abstained when it was put to a vote.
We have included criticism of Payman from four Labor politicians, including the party leader. If this is not enough, we could mention that "Labor Party rules require all elected members to vote for the party's agreed position on all parliamentary matters, unless the caucus decides a free "conscience" vote is allowed", which is in the ABC source.