Talk:Kennedy Graham

This page is about an active 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. Because of this, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Politics and Government / Science and Academia 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 This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance). New Zealand: Politics Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

There seems to be a bit of a battle right now, on whether or not the picture of a signature should be included.

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources, and looking at the discussion in Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 12#Proposal to delete signature parameter...in this specific case, I don't see any compelling need for the signature to be in the article - so, I suggest we leave it off.

Any discussions below, thanks.  Chzz  ►  00:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I saw the revert-skirmish after my revert of the non-edit-summary removal. I've got a few thoughts on this, as well as a couple of other sig-removals from other IPs. The scan of this sig came from an email newsletter sent out by the subject, so it's clearly already "out there". That said, in general I tend to respect the wishes of the subject in BLP-related things, so I have no problem with removing it if the subject prefers it. I think the editor who is saying he is an employee needs to verify that via email to OTRS though. I'm also checking on the copyright status of this image, since it came from an email (The image license says it is public domain). Arakunem^Talk 00:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more link of interest; Commons:When to use the PD-signature_tag.

Reading through that previous debate on the topic - and noting the manner in which it was no consensus - I wonder if we should re-table the debate, appropriately re-worded; I would suggest, perhaps, a) removing the paramenter from the documentation page of the template - thus leaving it in there for all the existing ones, and not worrying about that whole mess. And adding a note on the topic in BLP policy; something along the lines of, "If the signature has been widely publicised, then it may be appropriate to add it within an article, if it adds encyclopaedic value - for example, if a logo was based on it, or it is particularly stylized. But, in the vast majority of biographic articles, the signature should not be included." - Erm. This needs wording better. But, it's an idea.  Chzz  ►  00:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to support that, along the lines of a notability standard for signatures. (e.g. Barak Obama's is probably notable, and odds of someone getting a credit card in his name from forging his sig are pretty low.) Arakunem^Talk 00:37, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Fetchcomms has restored the sig, pending the user verifying via OTRS, with instructions left. Arakunem^Talk 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aggression is not a crime, and cannot be - due to the term being far too wide to cover purely criminal behavior. It would be like having the "crime" of anger. Moreover the bill would have made "aggression" a crime, rather than "outlawed the crime of aggression". That is like saying that a bill outlawed the crime of murder, rather than making murder a crime — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalcourtier (talk • contribs) 03:20, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this bill was intended to forbid waging War of aggression, designating such attempts as crimes in domestic law. Seryo93 (talk) 08:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]