"

Re good faith: point taken. Mea culpa. So, can I suggest that, after the discussion about how difficult to define the terms have become, the article includes the observation that the terms under dispute are of major political advantage depending on who is using them about whom and who believes them about whom, and perhaps we could follow that with a list not only of historical figures that ""everyone agrees"" on, but a separate list of current, live, disputed, persons? To illustrate the observation in a most pointed, topical fashion? i.e. as examples of that very difficulty, rather than as ""authoritative"" inclusions?   "