Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 12

1695:, for which I believe the person is notable solely for being an election denier and being an activist about that, and there is some other biographical information available etc. so it is reasonable to have an article for the person. There are not usually articles about U.S. county clerks, but this person is covered in national and international news repeatedly for being one of the salient election deniers in the United States, and an activist, and it is of international importance that they and other election deniers in the U.S. were running for election to positions like Colorado secretary of state where they would oversee elections. Yes, I would include them in a list-article about election deniers. But this is a counter-example to the point that "if someone is only notable for denying an election, I'd say they're not notable enough for an article"; this person does and should have an article and they are effectively only notable for denying elections including the 2020 U.S. presidential election and at least one more election, their own primary election for position of Colorado secretary of state. -- 1965:

attaching a negative label to individuals taking one position in one debate, and as if you think you know my political beliefs on anything, which I dare say you do not. Rather, I am a Wikipedian developing Knowledge (XXG) who happened to encounter what I considered to be a clear logical gap as a technical matter, prompted by someone else identifying an article as being not adequately categorized. I don't happen to work much on biographical articles or bio-related categories (or really categories in general), but I am not afraid to step into areas out of my main focus on historic sites when I happen to know there is a logical gap that should be addressed. I have on occasion done all sorts of weird technical things like creating or modifying obscure templates, etc., where i knew nothing to start but it seemed Knowledge (XXG) needed it.

1985:. I moved that article to make way for disambiguation showing Tina Peters the county clerk as a redlink which would no longer be embarrassing... it would simply be acknowledging that Knowledge (XXG) did not have an article yet. But the supporting bluelink was deleted and/or the disambiguation was otherwise challenged, and no one else did anything constructive to avoid restoration of the embarrassing situation, and I hesitantly started into developing a factual article. Which was eventually labelled as not adequately categorized, so I got brought into creating the relevant categories. 1861:(about a Democrat candidate for Governor of the U.S. state for Georgia) where it was kind of surprising that they apparently engage in election denial by any reasonable definition, even if it may be a "rhetorical" thing (as has been discussed at that article's talk page), but in that case it is not salient in coverage of the person and the term apparently is not a "defining characteristic". The category was removed from that page, and it should be removed in other cases where election denier is not a defining characteristic. 1427:, who I added to the category, because in searching Knowledge (XXG) for term "election denier" etc., it turned out that is well supported that she, a prominent Democrat, has repeatedly been claiming (falsely) to be the victim of a stolen election. It is arguably just a "rhetorical" (per the WSJ) thing for her, and maybe she is not well enough known for being an election denier to be included in the category, if the definition is tightened. But she clearly has engaged in election denial, IMHO. See discussion ongoing at 1463:

characteristic" for the subject. In the case of Abrams, it appears that it is not a "defining characteristic". The definition for the category has been clarified to require it to be a defining characteristic, and the category has been removed from Abrams' article, and that case is not "borderline" by any argument any more. The borders are defined in the category. If the borders need to be refined further, that should be done I suppose by consensus discussion at the Talk page of the category. --

1946:

and Knowledge (XXG) tacking on 'conspiracy theorist' to its definition won't make it so. Furthermore, the apparent need for the qualifier 'American' seems further evidence that this category was created for one express purpose - to attach a negative label to individuals taking one specific position in one specific debate. That is simply unencyclopaedic. And, if articles are reporting the views of such individuals accurately, entirely unnecessary. Present the evidence, in appropriate places, and

1278:, where people hold unreasonable beliefs contrary to reality. It is an objective thing to say that believing in a flat earth is a belief in something false, and it is objective to identify public advocates of flat earth beliefs as being "flat-earthers" or whatever would be the term. Likewise for persons publicly advocating proven-to-be-false stolen election conspiracy theories. By the way, I am not usually a categorizer of bio articles, but I contributed to the development of the 1865:

some editors disagree about the application of the category in some cases but without identifying which are those cases. It is not necessary or appropriate to delete the category to address those however. I do suggest that I and perhaps other participants here be notified of individual talk page discussions that may be opened to address any such cases. However, I believe this response fully addresses any concerns, and deletion of the category is not appropriate. --

1288:

for being election deniers, who are very public in their advocacy of known-to-be-false conspiracy theory. This is something that can be objectively determined (i.e. by sourced material in the person's article), and it can be a "defining feature" of a person. Tightening up a definition of the term would be okay, but it is or can be a completely objective category (if limited to the completely clear cases). Please consider the current members of the category:

1382:

so with specifics. For whom is this an incorrect descriptor? If you merely think that it is slanderous to say anyone is an election denier, no matter what, and Knowledge (XXG) should avoid ever identifying some trait that is arguably negative about anyone...then yes all those articles are in violation of BLP policy and need to be scrubbed of their significant truthful verified content. But it is unreasonable to take such an extreme position. --

2563:. The boundaries of England have not changed significantly since it was unified over 1000 years ago. There was subsequently a boundary adjustment when Cumberland was included (c.900 years ago) and certain areas of Welsh marcher lordships were incorporated into English counties in 1536-42, but both these are before the period when there was much emigration. I expect that there is a parallel Welsh category; if not there should be. 1129:

and shouldn't be imposing its collective judgment of biographical subjects. If an individual's denial of anything (anything at all) merits discussion in a biography, discuss it, in the biography. Citing appropriate sources. Let the readers decide for themselves how they classify people, if they consider such exercises worthy of the effort. Let them decide on evidence presented, not contributors' arbitrary sorting-boxes.

2703: 959: 85: 66: 1737:, who added (sourced) election denial info and the category. My additions were based on searching in Knowledge (XXG) and more broadly on the term on the internet, before I understood the category should be limited to where it is defining. I'll leave in the sourced statement, but remove the category there now, and explain at its Talk page. -- 1964:

Okay thank you for responding I guess, and I guess you and I have to agree to disagree. I think complaining about a "wall of text" which I interpret to mean that others should dismiss what I wrote as "TLDR" is unfortunate. And I do not at all accept your suggestion that I personally have purpose of

1843:

1. Concern hat the term "election denier" would be defined in a silly way to include cases where it is or was rational for persons to disagree with an election outcome because in fact an election had truly been stolen, or it was otherwise reasonable to dispute the election. As opposed to cases where

1396:

You definition of 'objectivity' differs from mine. Not least because I can't see how a category lacking any clear inclusion criteria can possibly be objective. And from the description above, it would appear that even if the criteria were laid down, and agreed to be 'objective', the category would be

1381:

is an election denier. That is what he is known for, I think more than for being a pillow salesman. Go ahead, consider the articles for each of these. It is certainly possible to identify these persons, and probably some more, as election deniers. If you disagree for one or two or all, please say

1945:

I have already stated my objections. As have other people. We are under no obligation to engage in endless discussions over the matter. Though I will add that 'Fascist' is a description of a specific ideology - originally a self-description. 'Alt-right' likewise. 'Election denial' isn't an ideology,

1848:

only that an election has been inaccurate, and the falsehood has been disproven in reliable sources. I revised the description of the category to make it more clear than it already was that this is only for cases where election denial is a proven-to-be-false conspiracy theory. If the wording needs

1557:

This category is a BLP nightmare based on its indistinct inclusion criteria. Bennie Thompson is not an "election denier" based on what he did in 2004. Nor is Stacey Abrams. There's a difference between full on denying you lost versus pointing out the systemic iniquities, like, for instance, when the

1149:

No one is suggesting arbitrary sorting boxes. It is likely that readers interested in one person who is notable and primarily known as an election denier would be interested in others; a category like this provides a sensible navigation purpose linking articles that have unquestionable support for

1128:

per nom. And I'd add that there doesn't seem to have been any attempt to document any sort of criteria for inclusion. Probably because doing so would reveal just how inherently subjective the exercise is. Knowledge (XXG) presents itself as an encyclopaedia, not a database of 'people we don't like',

1864:

With these clarifications, then, the category is valid by all arguments/concerns that have been raised. It is fine and good to have discussion at the Talk pages of individual articles, I suppose, about where the categorization is fair or not. If i am not mistaken, above there are statements that

1287:

Sure, Knowledge (XXG) needs to be careful using a category like this... it can't be a subjective assessment of what people believe, especially not based just on someone having expressed a doubt in an election outcome once or twice. The category has to be limited to people who are explicitly known

1246:

article. I could not immediately find a dictionary definition of the term, I suppose because it is a relatively new term, but it is clearly in general usage now and it clearly is a thing, a type of conspiracy theory. And it also is clear when the term "election denier" is applied repeatedly to

1856:

3. Concern that the category might not be a defining characteristic of the subject of an article. I admit that I did not myself understand the general requirement that possibly negative categories about persons usually needs to meet this requirement when I created the category. However, I have

1462:

It would be borderline depending on the definition for the category, say whether it is for all articles where the subject is proven by reliable sources to be an activist and conspiracy theorist on election denial, or whether there should be a further requirement that the term must be a "defining

1852:

2. Concern that the category may not be valid because it is subjective or otherwise difficult to determine, related to it being about persons' beliefs. Well, that is addressed by the category being limited to cases where the person is an _activist_ about election denial, i.e. they are publicly

1416:

article; she is known for denying that election but also notably denied/denies the result of the Colorado state Republican primary election for the position of Colorado Secretary of State (that she ran for). And the broader category (of denying more than just the 2020 presidential election)

1930:

Which seems like a reasonable way to express the kind of limitation needed here, too, so fine, I am now applying a statement with wording like that to this category. Respectfully but seriously, I don't understand what is a reasonable remaining objection; saying the equivalent of "I am not

1770:, which I had seen in the article, is characterizing the person first off as a "trump backed election denier" and there is other sourcing/coverage of the person counter-factually disputing the 2022 presidential election. It may arguably meet the "defining characteristic" criterion. -- 1411:

I think the term, as it has emerged into general usage, clearly applies to more than just the 2020 U.S. presidential election. If a person is known for being a denier of just that, there is a narrower category which applies. But I came to this topic area from having developed the

1893:

Thanks, sort of, but honestly what is your objection? You seemed to object that it was not well enough defined, and now it is better defined. If it is still not well enough defined for your taste, what would satisfy you? Knowledge (XXG) does have negative categories like

2619:(3 of the 4 subcategories only have one article in them anyway), as suggested by others. I've never ever heard of England being referred to as the "Kingdom of England" and the whole concept here seems to be a Knowledge (XXG) construction to describe England before 1707. 1675:

I checked a few of the names currently present in the category (not all), and found recent articles by highly reliable sources (NYT, WP) that either made no mention of election denial, or only made one in passing towards the end. The "defining" criteria do not seem met.

2409:(or before 1707). With the exception of American categories the content of each subcat is very thin, so that I am not sure that the split is useful. There were few emigrants to any place before 1603 or whether a category for 1707-76 would be useful. A merger to 1834:. I created the category because it seemed to be needed to adequately categorize certain articles about election deniers, which otherwise were criticized for not being adequately categorized. The term is arguable a negative one, like other categories such as 2083:, was primaried based solely on her opposition to the "election fraud" lie and her serving on the J6 committee. Perhaps the category could be renamed to be more specifically aimed at denial of the Biden election, if that would alleviate some concerns. 1580:

Its inclusion criteria have been tightened up. It should be limited to those for whom it is a defining characteristic, and where they are effectively an activist on the topic, which is explicitly allowed in the definition of wp:OPINIONCAT.

243:

is not a convincing argument here. And my motivation for this is not censorship; I have no objection to you or anyone else expressing their support for this slogan on your userbox, only to the existence of a category grouping said users.

1982:

I am often embarrassed by Knowledge (XXG)'s treatment of new topics in the news, where the topic is redirected inapppropriately and/or an AFD is instantly opened and arriving readers see internal wrangling instead of simple and factual

1690:

I see no objection stated for any specific current member of the category, though perhaps some could arguably be dropped (but that is not reason to delete the category). To make this discussion more tangible, how about the case of

248:

may well be a candidate for deletion for the same reason, but I encountered this category when looking at newly-created user categories. This misunderstanding seems to take root in practically every user category nomination I make.

1656:, of advocating clearly proven-to-be-false allegations of election fraud. Cases like 2022 annexation referendums clearly do not apply. So this !vote and others should be dismissed from contributing to any decision here, IMHO. -- 1154:. Yes, of course some readers could potentially "decide for themselves" that either category is not fair for a given person or organization, and then the process forward would be to raise that at the Talk page of the article. -- 2016:

Since 2020, this has become a defining characteristic for much of the American far-right, to the point where they actively seek and court the label to attract voters. Marjorie Taylor Greene includes it on her campaign website,

1763:, with no source, and with no coverage of that assertion in the article. I presume that there was some 2004 incident which could be factually mentioned in the article, but the term would not become a "defining characteristic". 1853:

advocating election denial, not just that there is some evidence that they are not satisfied with an election outcome. The use of possibly negative categories related to beliefs is allowed for the case of outright activists.

221:

which groups users by advocacy of a position (feminist position) is appropriate, but when the same position manifests in a specific motto, it deemed to be an inappropriate position! I think our colleagues have forgotten that

1503:

The list of examples is not convincing. Most people in the list are politicians who are likely to have an opinion about every political subject matter and we are not going to categorize them based on all of their opinions.

604:

Are there pro-illegal immigration activists? The name is misleading. Moreover, the vast majority of those included are politicians who hold anti-immigrant/immigration opinions and, as such, this should be deleted as an

1282:, and then saw it tagged as "inadequately categorized", and I saw that the main reason for Peters being a notable person is that she is an explicit election denier, and hence there is a need for this category to exist. 1914:

is not a valid reason"; my point is that similarly negative categories are manageable--it is not impossible to manage a category like this--responding to someone who said something like "this would be a nightmare to

1809:(and again, those that weren't, likely aren't notable for an article in the first place). Since these are BLPs I'm always on the side of caution; I'm otherwise mostly an inclusionist and less meticulous about policy. 1838:, but that does not mean it is not proper to apply the category in full consistency with Knowledge (XXG) policies and practices. The objections above seem to have two or three concerns only, which are now addressed: 1210:", because presumably that was actually a stolen election. Then those people obviously do not meet the definition of election denier. So IMHO all the above !votes should be entirely dismissed as ill-informed. -- 2032: 1972:, I think I came into this area because I saw "Tina Peters" in the news and I looked her up on 24 June to learn more about her myself, only to find that the term was given exclusively to article now at 1857:

modified the description of the category to make it clear it should only be applied to cases where it is a defining characteristic of the person. I had myself applied the category to the article

1206:

article, and I contributed in that, going with a common sense definition of the terms in common usage now). For example, one commenter states that "every sane person denies the legitimacy of the

1672:

Agree with all points; if someone is only notable for denying an election, I'd say they're not notable enough for an article, and should be merged into the main article on 2020 election denial.

2710: 966: 92: 73: 42: 37: 1987:

So AndyTheGrump, you obviously don't have to change your supposition about me based on what I say, but I honestly do wish you would see your way to apologizing for making that supposition.

3480:

in Pennsylvania. On a more general note, Knowledge (XXG) does not only provide information about the present but also about history, so not everything that seems dated needs updating.

1716:

The people I feel don't belong are: Darren Bailey, Dan Cox, Bennie Thompson (that's a pretty egregious one, I don't believe the term "denier" has ever been applied to him by a WP:RS).

271:

And your argument is not convincing to me! You are trying to delete the category containing owners of an opinion and simultaneously claim this is not censorship! If you want to delete

2452:- would this name not confuse the issue of Wales, which was part of the Kingdom of England, but is not part of "England (not otherwise specified) before 1707" in most people's minds? 1617: 1069: 2079:

for these people, thus this is a specific objection to the nomination rationale. A longtime party member with a solid conservative voting record, who aligned with President Trump

1374:, though the body of the article does not call her a denier". If the article does not support usage of the descriptor, then the category should not be applied, obviously, IMHO. 398:

Why does everyone always misunderstand my motivation for nominating user categories for deletion as censorship? It's not; instead it's an effort to enforce my understanding of

4510:

nominated category as well as all "Moroccon" categories before the 19th century. Using "Morocco" for earlier periods is anachronistic, as is the case with Algerian/Tunisian.

2413:

is also a possibility. Changes is governmental arrangements within the British Isles in 1603, 1707, 1801, and 1922 did not change the underlying ethnicity of the English.

812:. The naming is incomprehensible which is what we should focus on in CFD. Individual biography articles can be added or removed as appropriate outside this nomination. - 1632:

should be procedurally added to this discussion, on the same rationale deletion proponents have raised above, to prevent loophole exploiting or sidestepping consensus.

1767: 2057:

Whether they embrace this opinion or not is not relevant, it is still just an opinion, and politicians usually have an opinion about dozens of political issues.

465:, on the basis it's a collection of unexplained adjectives (though I could hazard a guess at a couple of things it's alluding to). At least categories such as 2231: 1903: 583: 3439: 466: 403: 360: 339: 311: 2036: 2025: 1978:

I was embarrassed that Knowledge (XXG) was serving readers so poorly by not even acknowledging the existence of this obviously notable person in the news

21: 3453:

Do records even exist any longer? Maybe. But this category's dated description would be better off renamed: Category:Music producers from Pennsylvania

2338:" category for a country whose boundaries are no longer reflected in any contemporary administrative entity, but that's not the case with England. -- 3797: 2286: 2267: 2255: 2022: 3014: 2243: 1899: 1628: 575: 17: 3086: 2352: 1652:

It was already clear, now should be clearer, that the category is NOT AT ALL and NEVER WAS intended for cases other than clear situations of

1490:

per nom. This election is vague are it would be hard to determine categorization. Overall, this category is not improving this encyclopedia.

1080:). Additionally, I'm personally not really sure this category even makes sense. For instance, every sane person denies the legitimacy of the 3230: 3182: 3134: 2825: 2813: 2801: 2789: 2785: 2777: 2176: 284: 223: 2235: 566: 2271: 2259: 625: 4248: 4236: 3785: 3194: 1907: 1318: 862: 832: 809: 709: 646: 3206: 3258: 3246: 3234: 3222: 3210: 3198: 3186: 3174: 3162: 3150: 3138: 3126: 3114: 3102: 3090: 3078: 3066: 3054: 3042: 3030: 3018: 280: 2809: 3653: 2200: 165: 3689: 173: 4023: 3146: 2773: 2560: 2428: 2406: 363:

is not based on editors' personal opinions, it is only based on their willingness to contribute to Knowledge (XXG) on the topic.

4244: 3725: 3713: 3665: 3443: 3050: 2333:? England is not a "former country"; it just became a non-sovereign country. The boundaries of England did not change after the 1420:

But sure, refinement of the category name, and its definition, is reasonable, and then which members clearly belong will change.

4439: 4011: 3773: 3761: 3701: 3677: 3038: 2481: 1370:

in the category, but I see this one was noted elsewhere (at some BLP board?) as having been "recently added to the category by

276: 156: 4232: 4047: 3749: 1805:

I'm not convinced the category is defining for the others; quite a few were notable before their election denial, which fails

737:

Are those already in this category actual writers about illegal immigration or are they mainly activists who write polemics?--

2821: 1919: 1207: 1081: 1039: 4447: 3999: 3737: 3122: 3170: 2326: 2247: 2219: 2196: 4430: 3801: 3789: 3777: 3765: 3753: 3741: 3729: 3717: 3705: 3693: 3681: 3669: 3657: 3062: 1047: 272: 245: 218: 2797: 2639: 2583: 2522: 1532:

As only one of them has been striked, I still do not agree. The number of articles that will be left over after striking

774: 681: 428: 240: 4051: 4039: 4035: 4027: 4015: 4003: 3074: 1895: 1835: 1491: 1030: 620:

If kept, purge and remove all politicians, as politicians are not activists. The first article that seems a good fit is

4539: 4519: 4502: 4480: 4421: 4390: 4362: 4340: 4323: 4303: 4286: 4267: 4224: 4193: 4165: 4143: 4126: 4106: 4089: 4070: 3991: 3960: 3932: 3912: 3893: 3876: 3856: 3839: 3820: 3645: 3614: 3586: 3566: 3549: 3514: 3489: 3462: 3431: 3400: 3372: 3350: 3333: 3313: 3296: 3277: 3242: 3006: 2975: 2947: 2925: 2908: 2880: 2863: 2844: 2765: 2734: 2687: 2665: 2628: 2603: 2572: 2542: 2511: 2493: 2461: 2440: 2422: 2393: 2375: 2357: 2317: 2298: 2183: 2144: 2116: 2092: 2066: 2048: 1998: 1959: 1940: 1888: 1874: 1818: 1779: 1746: 1704: 1685: 1665: 1641: 1590: 1575: 1545: 1527: 1513: 1498: 1472: 1457: 1440: 1406: 1391: 1256: 1237: 1219: 1186: 1163: 1138: 1120: 1097: 1021: 990: 943: 919: 893: 878: 845: 821: 794: 759: 741: 730: 716: 701: 670: 653: 637: 613: 557: 526: 498: 478: 453: 415: 393: 372: 355: 323: 296: 258: 235: 207: 147: 116: 3540: 3026: 2080: 1733:, first, I concur that the article does not support "election denier" being a defining characteristic. It was i, in 1620:. Nobody who belongs in an encyclopedia gets in an encyclopedia for denying or disputing an election. Also, I think 721:

Beware that not all non-politicians are activists, there are also writers among them. That should at least be split.

3254: 3218: 3158: 3098: 1755:

does not appear to belong, and the category was already removed from their article. The category had been added in

4494: 4471:, there was not anything like Morocco in the 7th century. The category only contains an Umayyad general/governour. 4332: 4315: 4299: 4135: 4118: 4102: 3885: 3868: 3852: 3562: 3342: 3325: 3309: 3110: 2917: 2900: 2876: 2657: 2616: 2556: 2410: 2330: 2223: 2160: 1973: 1151: 915: 817: 226:! You cannot discriminate between positions only upon the words and consider whatever you want as inappropriate.-- 3473: 2348: 2502:

I have now inserted "if renamed" as I am not against a merge either, provided the subcategories are merged too.

2171: 1928:. This category will not include those with similar extremist ideologies, unless also referred to by this term. 1692: 1622: 1413: 1334: 1279: 1609: 1397:

misnamed, since it is clearly intended to restrict 'denial' to one specific result, in one specific election.

283:

too! All of these categories contain a position about something! Of course that will be a concrete example of

1950:

how they chose categorise the subjects of such articles. Leave telling people how to think to the Fascists...

3544: 2568: 2418: 2313: 1114: 1070:

Knowledge (XXG):Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Who_belongs_in_Category:American_election_deniers?

389: 1601: 1559: 1073: 606: 4476: 4328:

Now listed. Where they are all from one town, I list them in the town article rather than the district. –

4282: 4085: 3835: 3485: 3292: 2859: 2507: 2489: 2371: 2062: 1955: 1884: 1541: 1509: 1453: 1402: 1233: 1182: 1134: 874: 755: 726: 633: 368: 319: 4535: 4515: 4491: 4386: 4358: 4329: 4312: 4295: 4189: 4161: 4132: 4115: 4098: 3956: 3928: 3882: 3865: 3848: 3610: 3582: 3558: 3396: 3368: 3339: 3322: 3305: 2971: 2943: 2914: 2897: 2872: 2730: 2683: 2654: 2140: 2112: 2028: 1717: 1637: 1339: 986: 939: 911: 852: 813: 522: 494: 112: 1721: 4263: 4066: 3816: 3458: 3273: 2840: 2436: 2389: 2339: 2294: 1879:

Nothing in that wall of text convinces me in the slightest that this category is at all appropriate.

1319:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/17/politics/kari-lake-donald-trump-election-denialism-playbook/index.html

1199: 666: 343: 335: 399: 2711:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:London Fire Brigade officers

2453: 2337:, so why the need for the split? I can see the case for an "Emigrants from <former country: --> 2166: 1713:, and arguably meets all three of its criteria. Not all criteria need to be met for BLP1E to apply. 891: 843: 93:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Parishes of Europe / America

1806: 1605: 1563: 1077: 4416: 4219: 3986: 3640: 3426: 3001: 2760: 2598: 2564: 2537: 2457: 2414: 2309: 2088: 2044: 1760: 1571: 1518:

Right. For some persons it is a defining characteristic however, and it should apply for them. --

1428: 1371: 1109: 1016: 789: 696: 552: 448: 385: 142: 2366:

That is a fair question. But if we merge this category, we should also merge the subcategories.

1710: 4534:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4472: 4357:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4278: 4160:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4081: 3927:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3831: 3581:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3481: 3367:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3288: 2942:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2855: 2682:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2503: 2485: 2367: 2334: 2111:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2058: 1994: 1969: 1951: 1936: 1880: 1870: 1845: 1775: 1757:

this edit with summary "Thompson voted to overturn the 2004 election and remains unapologetic"

1742: 1700: 1661: 1653: 1586: 1537: 1523: 1505: 1468: 1449: 1436: 1398: 1387: 1275: 1252: 1243: 1229: 1215: 1203: 1178: 1159: 1130: 1093: 938:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

870: 751: 722: 629: 493:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

364: 315: 74:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Bangladeshi Sufi saints

4407: 4385:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4210: 4188:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3977: 3955:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3631: 3609:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

3417: 3395:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2992: 2970:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2751: 2729:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

2139:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

1007: 985:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

543: 521:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

195: 133: 111:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's

4511: 1633: 1304: 410: 253: 202: 2477: 1911: 967:

Knowledge (XXG):Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 20#Category:Ghaznavid historians

4259: 4062: 3908: 3812: 3536: 3510: 3502: 3454: 3269: 2891: 2836: 2624: 2432: 2385: 2380:

Didn’t England cease to exist under that title when it combined with Scotland to form the

2290: 1814: 1752: 1681: 1345: 1271: 1195: 662: 474: 351: 292: 231: 384:

Down with censorship. Might need to he renamed to "Wikipedians interested in Foo stuff".

1989:

If not, no further reply needed, and I am not especially offended anyhow, I will say. --

3498: 1329: 884: 856: 836: 747: 3522:

Nominate the entire scheme if you think it should be renamed, not just one category. ―

1072:, where people noted that this cat seems to be categorising people by their opinions ( 869:. The remaining articles do not fit and therefore the category should now be deleted. 661:

all politicians instead of deleting, as there are non-politicians in this category. —

4411: 4214: 3981: 3635: 3421: 2996: 2755: 2593: 2532: 2084: 2040: 1858: 1849:

to be further changed to make that even more clear, then that can and should be done.

1730: 1567: 1558:

guy overseeing the election is your opponent. But that's beyond the point. This is a

1445:

You say that Adams is a 'borderline example'. Where are these 'borders' to be found?

1424: 1367: 1299: 1292: 1011: 784: 691: 547: 443: 137: 1990: 1932: 1866: 1771: 1738: 1696: 1657: 1582: 1519: 1464: 1432: 1383: 1378: 1324: 1248: 1211: 1155: 1089: 2431:

is the best option suggested so far - and indeed the subcategories should follow.

1150:

the characteristic being reliable and valid, as is the case for other topics like

2021:. Election denialism is also used as a litmus test in Republican party primaries 708:

I would support purging politicians and merging the remainder into a less pointy-

1352: 866: 738: 713: 650: 610: 407: 250: 199: 3904: 3523: 3506: 2620: 1810: 1677: 470: 347: 288: 227: 4294:

with no objection to recreating any that get to 5+ articles in the future. -

4097:

with no objection to recreating any that get to 5+ articles in the future. -

3847:

with no objection to recreating any that get to 5+ articles in the future. -

3304:

with no objection to recreating any that get to 5+ articles in the future. -

2871:

with no objection to recreating any that get to 5+ articles in the future. -

1925: 1314: 1228:

The 'definition' you cite is Knowledge (XXG)'s own, and entirely unsourced.

4379: