Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/Subnational politicians

Are Italy and Spain federal entities?
The short answer is that Italy and Spain operate more like federal entities than unitary entities. The longer answer is that Italy and Spain aren't federal entities on paper, but have self-referred to themselves as "regional states" and operate as quasi-federal states. Since 1978, all Spanish regions (comunidades) have progressively requested and acquired autonomy from the unitary state, to the point that they are broadly all in the same category. In Italy, however, there are two types of regions: autonomous regions (regioni a statuto speciale, special status regions, namely Aosta Valley, Friuli Venezia Giulia, Sicily, Sardinia, and Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol) and ordinary regions (all the others), with special status regions having largely more autonomy than ordinary regions. In tiny Valle d'Aosta/Vallée d'Aoste, for example, the region can legislate on health, education, language, professional training, labor, and transportation. The biggest difference between ordinary regions and autonomous regions in Italy is with respect to taxation: the autonomous Trentino-Alto Adige/Südtirol only gives 6.4% of its regional GDP revenue to the Italian state, whereas the ordinary region Veneto gives 22.7% of its regional GDP to the Italian state. All Italian regions and all Spanish regions have legislative bodies and regional charters (statuto in Italy) that are akin to the ones in federal systems. There is a reason, however, why Italian and Spanish states are not fully considereded federal: "Neither the Italian nor the Spanish Constitution requires the direct participation of the regional entities in the process of adoption of constitutional amendments. Taking into account these differences, the majority of legal doctrine distinguishes Spain and Italy from the federal states and classes them together (even if the Spanish communities have more power than—at least—the ordinary Italian Regions) in the above-mentioned special category of regional states." What this means, in practice, is that Italian and Spanish regions operate similarly to the sub-units of other federal states, but they have no say on their degree of autonomy - it is made through political bargaining with the central state, since changes to the autonomy status do not legally require the consent of the regional parliament(s). In an extreme case, if it wanted to, the national parliament could remove the autonomy of the regions altogether. That's why Spain and Italy are considered "regional states".

How does this relate to WP:NPOL?
NPOL presumes notable Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. This also applies to people who have been elected to such offices but have not yet assumed them.

In the case of Italy and Spain, members of the regional assemblies and parliaments should be presumed notable, especially if we presume the members of the autonomous regional assemblies of France to be notable.


 * Pilaz (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi - I hope you don't mind, I reformatted your comment to allow replies to appear following the references.  I think it's correct to indicate that the autonomous regions of Aosta and Südtirol do stand in distinction.  One could also mention Corse.  I'm not at this point for or against adding them; I think it's worthwhile having a discussion (and hopefully others joining).  What I've proposed is that the relevant distinction for presumed notability is whether the subnational body has legislative power.  You write: " the region can legislate on health, education, language, professional training, labor, and transportation."  I'm not sure "legislate" is the right word here, a borough council in London can issue regulations on those matters, too.  It's the distinction between primary and subordinate legislation that is significant.  To put it another way, a London borough can make rules according to the powers given to it, but it cannot give itself power, whereas a legislature can. So, to me, we need to look not at the economic relationships (since they will always be completely inconsistent) but rather look at the powers vested in the subnational body we are interested in determining whether or not there is to be presumed notability.  Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback, and no worries for replying below the references. I agree on the need for broader discussion on this - I am myself not a huge fan of SNG expansion in general. I however think that the London borough comparison to an Italian ordinary or special region is misleading; an Italian region, per Article 117 of the Italian constitution, does not only have administrative powers like a London borough has, it also has legislative powers attributed by the Italian constitution: "The Regions have legislative powers in all subject matters that are not expressly covered by State legislation". The European Committee of the Regions, a EU consultative body, has a very good introduction on Italy's regional structure and about their competences. I looked through AfD precedents, and found three AfDs that dealt with Italian regional SUBPOLS, one closed as No consensus (Articles for deletion/Franco Fiorito) and two closed as Keep (Articles for deletion/Giuseppe Provenzano (Italian politician born, 1946); Articles for deletion/Luciano D'Alfonso). My personal position is that Italy and Spain should have a yellow checkmark due to their quasi-federalist weirdness, and the subnational presumed notability should get a green checkmark (since they have been members of federal or similar systems of government legislative bodies or of their executive branches). There are 20 Italian regions, so it's probably not worth linking every single one of them, like Regional Council of Aosta Valley. Pilaz (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Pilaz That's extremely helpful, thank you for finding the three AfD discussions, I'll add them. Without getting bogged down in us defining what Spain is, it appears to me that the overwhelming preponderance of academic discussion effectively treats Spain as a federal country (or at least a country with federal tendencies, like South Africa); clearly the political cleavages that exist within Spain amplify the notability of the regional institutions and their members. I'm less certain about Italy; in particular the failed 2016 referendum and the stalling of the 2001 constitutional changes suggest the decentralisation of political power is somewhat inert. More discussion of secondary sources would be useful (this looks especially useful). Again, I'm not necessarily opposed, I just feel we need a stronger basis in sourcing to classify the members of the Italian subnational assemblies as presumably notable. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've had a closer look at the three AfD. AS I understand, two are for people who were Presidents of the Regions, which following the 2001 Constitutional changes these positions were given directly-elected status. It makes sense that they satisfy NPOL, but crucially for us, they are not members of the regional assemblies (in essence their role is executive, not legislative), so does not add to our body of knowledge regarding notability for assembly members.  Funnily enough, the no consensus one (Franco Fiorito), I'd forgotten I participated in; my !vote for keep was based more on the basis of his crimes and the GNG. There's some tangential discussion regarding satisfying NPOL, enough to at least be useful for flagging.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * , could you let me know what remaining precisions you feel merit further discussion, so as to make my searches easier? Because I think I've laid out my argument extensively, but I'm happy to look for more sources to back it up. As for the two keep AfDs, Provenzano was elected as president of the region of Sicily in 1996, at a time when you had to be a member of the regional council to be elected president of the region (as you correctly note, a direct election was instituted in 2001 through constitutional changes). D'Alfonso was elected directly as president of the region in 2014, but he was also elected to the regional council (I think every ordinary region does that - see the it-wikipedia election page). At any rate, I don't think the executive/legislative debate is crucial, because they were both NSUBPOLS when the AfDs took place. Pilaz (talk) 14:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi. Just to make one thing clear - my intention was to elaborate specifically on a point in NPOL "members of legislative bodies at those levels.", ie I wanted to only focus on the legislatures/parliaments/assemblies and whether members of those bodies had presumed notability. I think it is important to keep those who hold executive power separate from this (perhaps in another year, I'll make a supplement for that!).

In terms of Italy, I think there's strong grounds to accord presumed notability to members of the Südtiroler Landtag and the Trentino Council (although not the combined regional assembly, although this simply combines the members of the two). My instinct says yes to Aosta, but I would want to look a bit more closely. I'm less certain about Sicily, Sardinia and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. These assemblies developed their autonomy relatively early in the Italian Republic, with major extensions in the 1970s for Südtirol and Trentino. For the rest of the country, there is no doubt that there have been attempts to decentralise/regionalise since the 1990s; but as far as I can see, most commentators regard these efforts as incomplete, if not a failure.

I do not think the sourcing supports an argument that there is an embedded quasi-federalism as in Spain or South Africa, and thus we should not in general accord presumed notability to members of the Italian regional assemblies. I think, however, we can add Trentino and Sudtirol, and explore further Aosta, Sicily, Sardinia and Friuli-Venezia Giulia. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Kenya
Again, many thanks for creating this: it's a very useful resource. I'll try to remember to leave a note here when I see an AfD that might merit a change to the table. The only one I can remember at the moment is Articles for deletion/Solomon Kinuthia: the table suggests that members of Kenyan county assemblies "may have presumed notability", but Kinuthia's article was resoundingly deleted on the theory that "County government is not a level of office that confers an automatic free pass of WP:NPOL". Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi @Extraordinary Writ, thank you for the AfD link, I will add it to the page, although, there's some misinformed comment within that discussion that's caught up on a misunderstanding of counties in the post-2010 Kenyan polity (counties are not the lowest tier). Contemporary informed discussion on the current Constitution leads me to remain somewhat agnostic (rather than opposed) on presumed notability; I'll add some sources to the table as counter-point to the AfD outcome. A few evidence-based test cases would be useful here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've added some references discussing the devolution of power in Kenya since 2010 and amended the text to reflect the AfD result. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Some points
First, in order to be an explanatory supplement of a policy, doesn't this have to gain consensus? If so, where did that come from? Second, I'd recommend some temporal restrictions at the least on presumed notability for some of these people/places. Plenty of state legislators in the US from before the 20th century are virtually unknown in RS aside form their names, lacking in SIGCOV. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)


 * @Indy beetle Hi. This was worked on over a period of around three months with multiple editor inputs.  The elaboration was signposted at the Notability (people) talk page.  I've notified editors/admins who I've seen frequent AfD debates on politicians. FWIW, the arrival of consensus for an explanatory supplement is a lot looser, in fact its status is akin to an essay, see WP:SUPPLEMENTAL.  That said, I'm completely supportive of further discussions, but in general my effort was designed to elaborate a specific meaning within NPOL.  In terms of restrictions on pre-20th Century US state politicians, it's hard to make a judgement off-hand, but I'm aware of editors involved in efforts to create articles on Reconstruction-era African-American state assembly representatives, so I'd probably be somewhat hesitant to go down a blanket time restriction there.  I wonder also, if a time restriction is to be applied, then should that not be to NPOL? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to add a further point about the structure of the document. It is meant to be evolving and reflect consensus as emerging from AfD. I don't believe there is any lack of consensus around the principle of elected members of subnational legislatures having presumed notability.  However, how extensively we *apply* that consensus is not defined, hence the point of this to allow us to record it.  There's going to be a whole set of very simple cases (US, Germany, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, Greenland etc) and some which are complicated (see discussion of Italy above) and others which are possibly unlikely.  An illustration of this latter point, ie whether the NSUBPOL principle of NPOL will apply universally: the community may decide to ignore presumed notability for members of the General Fono or for those of a federal micro-state, such as members of the Pohnpei State legislature.  But at this point, we don't have precedent, so this is meant to function akin to an outcomes document, populated over time with outcomes where the community accords and doesn't accord presumed notability to elected legislators at a subnational level.  Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

India
We may want to add a section or note about the notability of Autonomous District Councils in India - see the deletion discussion of Purna Chandra Jamatia. - Enos733 (talk) 17:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * , I have added it in as "may have presumed notability", as I don't think participation was high enough to be a definitive consensus, but there is at least a working consensus. Curbon7 (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Additions
@Curbon7 - many thanks for your recent additions, much appreciated. Some comments for discussion. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Barbuda: The Council is essentially a local government body, it's powers are administrative (s.18, Barbuda Local Government Act 1978), so no presumed notability for me.
 * Fiji: I'd be more inclined towards no presumed notability, there's some revenue raising facilities which sets the jurisdiction apart, but glancing at the legislation (Rotuma Act 1978), NB s.16) I don't see legislative (as opposed to administrative) power provisions.
 * Moldova: re Halk Topluşu, good spot, agree.
 * Sao Tome and Principe: regarding the Regional Assembly of Principe, agree with uncertain, probably lean towards presumed notability, there's three laws governing Principe's autonomy from 1994, 2010 and one passed in February 2022, but I've not had a chance to examine these.
 * Somalia: this appears to me similar to South Sudan, while asserting a federal polity, as far as I know is non-functional. Without functional subnational parliaments (Somaliland excepted) I'd argue we shouldn't accord presumed notability to a role which for practical purposes doesn't exist. I would suggest changing to a definitive no presumed notability (at this time, but subject to change).
 * Trinidad and Tobago: Appears to me the The Constitution (Amendment) (Tobago Self-Government) bill has not passed, which would seem to grant substantial legislative power.  But the current House of Assembly provisions appear somewhat more than Barbuda, nevertheless appear primarily administrative, so leaning towards no presumed notability, but need to look closer.


 * @Curbon7 courtesy ping for follow-up - thoughts on Fiji? I don't think there's enough to satisfy including Rotuma. Would you reconsider? Goldsztajn (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, meant to look at this sooner but forgot. I adjusted the entry to say "unlikely to have presumed notability" in the absence of a definitive testcase. Curbon7 (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Layman's terms
What does "Federal polity" mean in layman's terms? Federal executive branch heads?

What does "Subnational presumed notability" mean in layman's terms? Federal legislative branch members?

Is this essay factually accurate, i.e. there are a bunch of countries where WP:NPOL doesn't broadly apply to every federal secretary, federal congressperson, federal judge, state secretary, state assemblyperson, and state judge? – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you state the factual errors you see in it? — DaxServer (t · m · c) 21:45, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * At first glance, it seems that every red X in the table is an exception to WP:NPOL. Just want to double check that I am understanding correctly. As mentioned, I don't really understand the terms "federal polity" and "subnational presumed notability", so defining those would be a good start. – Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Novem Linguae - federal polity is another way of stating a federal political system, but just with less words. "What does "Subnational presumed notability" mean in layman's terms?" This column is simply indicating whether there are subnational bodies in that particular nation-state where presumed notability is accorded. "Is this essay factually accurate" This only applies to legislatures at subnational level, it has nothing to do with federal (ie national) levels. An "X" in the first column simply indicates whether the country operates a federal political system, an "X" in the second column indicates there are no subnational bodies where presumed notability can be accorded. Does that explain things? Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 09:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I've added a key at the top, let me know if that helps. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The key helps, thank you. What's a "federal political system"? What are the other types of systems? And are you saying that the state/province/oblast/etc. legislators of certain countries don't qualify under NPOL? Maybe my reading of NPOL was too simple, but I thought it was that all national legislators and all state legislators qualified, for all countries. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first paragraph of the Presumed notability of members of subnational parliaments (legislatures) section covers your questions pretty succinctly, with links. Curbon7 (talk) 08:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I find that paragraph a bit hard to parse. Its Flesch-Kincaid grade level is 21.3. I'll have to take a look at it when I have some time to sit down and study it and the topics it mentions. If this page is accurate, it means that WP:NPOL is way more complicated than I thought it was, so I want to get it right :) – Novem Linguae (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I started this page precisely because NPOL can be complicated! :) Especially once one moves away from the obvious cases (Canada, Germany, Australia, Switzerland, USA). It's not a public oriented-page, but a reference tool for editors working in this topic area. So to some extent it's inevitable that degrees of higher-level knowledge will be required. TBH, I look at some of the discussions related to wikipedia bots, and well, it might as well be klingon to me. Goldsztajn (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think to explain briefly, provincial politicians of federal states (states like the US, Russia, India, etc.) are presumed to be notable via WP:NPOL. Thus, for example, members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly and the Florida House of Representatives pass NPOL. In unitary states (states like the UK, France, Japan), provincial politicians are not presumed notable. Thus, for example, members of the Kent County Council and the Regional Council of Occitania do not automatically pass NPOL. However, there are exceptions to the latter in the form of devolved or autonomous provinces (such provinces include Scotland, Republika Srpska, Karakalpakstan, etc.). Thus, for example, despite the UK being a unitary state, members of the the Scottish Parliament are presumed to be notable via NPOL. I hope I explained that well! Curbon7 (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

I see the lead is back to being difficult to read. Ah well, I tried. I'd encourage you guys to try to see the intro to this essay from the perspective of someone that isn't familiar with jargon like "unitary", "polity", "subnational", "nation-state", "primary law-making powers", etc. Since I am in the minority here though I won't be making further edits myself. Happy editing. – Novem Linguae (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @Novem Linguae, you did state you were making a bold edit and I've responded to that by clarifying the points being discussed. However, I felt the bold edit included redundancies and made the text unnecessarily longer. Yes, this supplement uses "jargon", because that's unavoidable as we are engaged in a specialised discussion. I imagine given your areas of work that you see very little difficult to read in something you wrote here, because editors coming to that page will have levels of knowledge and understanding indicative of the subject.  I don't find what is written there easy to understand, I'd need to do some reasearch and read things (maybe a lot) before commenting.  I'd ask questions and respond to the answers I was given. Three different editors, myself included, have engaged with your questions and sought to explain the concepts and rationale behind this supplement. I'm happy to continue if you wish. Please propose changes and let's discuss. Kind regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Members of the Autonomous District Council
In India, there are some self governing council and WP:NSUBPOL says "Members of the Autonomous District Councils may have presumed notability." so what does this mean by "may".

If a person is member of Autonomous District Council so can his wikipedia article can be kept in a deletion discussion?

Like this ongoing discussion Articles for deletion/Kali Kumar Tongchangya and this deletion review Deletion review/Log/2023 February 27. All editors are welcomed to do comment in these discussions and review. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:40, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi @LordVoldemort728 - the reason it states "may" is that there has only been one AfD discussion specifically related to this issue. A single instance cannot constitute a global consensus (ie community-wide) on this particular issue.  If this particular discussion passes as keep, we are moving closer to consensus.  The main issue really revolves around whether or not the community accepts the ADCs as subnational parliaments.  Obviously, my position on the basis of sourcing is that the ADCs are subnational parliaments, but others in the community may disagree, interpreting the sourcing differently. Thanks for bringing attention to the the AfD discussion here. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * @Goldsztajn A new discussion has been opened. See Articles for deletion/Tuliram Ronghang (2nd nomination) ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Application of this list is problematic
Would just like to state here that any reliance on this list is problematic and further's Wikipedia's systemic bias toward the Anglosphere. Of all the pages documenting non-policy that get cited in AfD discussions, this one should be cited the least. Would TNT it if I could. Wish I could TNT it from every editor on this site's brain. Jack4576 (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * , : Would you like to explain how? This page's purpose is to be a supplementary essay explaining a provision of WP:NPOL. Ideally it wouldn't be used by itself as an argument at AfD, as that isn't really its purpose. Just because some editors misunderstand and misuse it does not proscribe the page. Curbon7 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I found the discussion in question; that editor was misapplying the page. Again, . Curbon7 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand the page was misapplied but please find my criticism below. My issue is with the premise of this page itself, not that it has been misapplied. I can't think of any conceivable useful purpose for this page in its current state. Jack4576 (talk) 12:31, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Look at the guidelines for the USA and Canada compared to that of nations in the global south. Plus all the Anglophone countries on here (except Jamaica, lol, wonder why?) have ticks; while most other non-english speaking nations have crosses for their federal/subnational notability.
 * I think as a supplementary essay it does more harm than good; I don't see how this page complies with WP:NPOL at all. (although admittedly it is a useful summary record of AfD's systemic biases, under the AfD precedents column)
 * I became aware that this after someone drew upon it in this AfD. (admittedly an AfD regarding an Anglophone politician). Jack4576 (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * , Please read the first paragraph of #Presumed notability and subnational politicians, carefully. This page is documenting what countries for which the provision of WP:NPOL applies to. That is, countries with a Federal system of governance (ex. US/Indian states), or with devolved/autonomous regions (ex. Scotland, Papua New Guinea). There is no explicit western/Anglo bias (though there may be an implicit one due to the legacy of colonialism/imperialism still affecting many nation's state structures, but we can't do anything about that). I'm linking a map to the side which shows all of the nations in the world which follow a Federal system of governance; as you'll note, a majority lie in the Global South. This map does not include countries with devolved/autonomous regions, so realistically, countries like Tanzania and South Africa and Azerbaijan would also be highlighted! This is for the assessment of subnational legislatures (like the Scottish Parliament or the Karnataka Legislative Assembly). Curbon7 (talk) 12:49, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * my point is that the content within the columns 'Subnational presumed notability' and 'subnational parliamentary body with presumed notability status' have ticks and crosses in an inconsistent manner.
 * Take Japan as an example, its inexplicable to me that there is an 'X' under 'Subnational presumed notability' for that country; given the prominence of prefectural politics in that country. Jack4576 (talk) 12:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding Japanese prefectures, please see Goldsztajn and Extraordinary Writ's comments at Articles for deletion/Asaki Akiyo. For subnational bodies, the important thing is that they have actual legislative powers, not merely administrative ones. With the JPN example, looking at Prefectures of Japan, we can see.
 * Sorry if I've been unable to convince you. Feel free to raise concerns at a higher venue if you feel this page is detrimental to the site. Curbon7 (talk) 13:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for engaging in good faith. I'm unconvinced by those comments in those AfDs, and also the reasoning provided. I do think the outcomes of those AfDs are quite problematic.
 * At this stage I'm not intending to raise this at another location, my motivation in writing the above here was to provide informal feedback of my own. Jack4576 (talk) 15:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Jack4576 Just now coming across this discussion. One of the main reasons I created this page was precisely because of systemic bias. NPOL accords presumed notability to subnational parliamentarians from federal systems - in this encyclopedia I can't say for certain the origin, but the effect was clear: every USA state politican was accorded notability. But I've frequently seen politicans from developing countries, especially South Asia, nominated for deletion despite being members of subnational parliaments. More than 40% of the world's population live in federal systems, and more than half of those are non-English speaking countries.  I genuinely cannot see how this reinforces systemic bias, rather it counters systemic bias by helping to establish the notability of a far wider range of politicians outside of the Anglo-sphere. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad to know of your motivations. I think far more of the nations on this list should have notability for sub-national politicians presumed; including for some unitary states Jack4576 (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This list does two things - on one hand it is a collection of outcomes from various AfDs, so I see it as an appendix to WP:POLOUTCOMES. So, if the community thinks that members of more sub-national legislatures should be afforded the presumption of notability, then that will be reflected in this list. And, before Goldsztajn put together this list, there were questions about whether a nation had a federal or unitary structure of government (recognizing that this is not necessarily a binary distinction). This list is accessible and easy to see at a glance whether a nation's political system is largely federal or largely unitary. - Enos733 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed addition?
I was thinking that we might want some language that differentiates legislators and other subnational officials that hold positions that are elected, from other subnational office holders. It does seem there is a difference - with legislators and other elected officials - and bureaucrats (especially below the cabinet/minister level). But I can see how this addition might dilute the topic. - Enos733 (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @Enos733 - I've tried to do this a little with the linked AfD discussions, where there's an indication if the discussion relates to the jurisdiction in general, rather than a legislator specifically. Ideally this list would have a second and third part covering executive and judiciary... In the short term, trying to add more linked discussions will help; I'll do another trawl through the archive. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 03:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Territory
Legislators in U.S. territories should be considered notable, following the same criteria and guidelines applicable to state legislative bodies. LuxembourgLover (talk) 21:32, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Why? Because I questioned the notability of Hector C. Haight, a member of the Utah Territorial Legislative Assembly who left that assembly 25 years before the territory was awarded statehood? As territories are not yet stable entities, their powers, responsibilities, number of inhabitants and democratic standards (voting etc.) can also vary widely. The Banner  talk 21:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * @LuxembourgLover@The Banner - this was an organised territory, its status like that of present day US Virgin Islands or Guam, so I would say that the presumed notability provision of NPOL applies. That said, it might be more appropriate given state of sourcing to have a redirect to list of members at 16th Utah Territorial Legislature. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2024 (UTC)