Talk:Kennedy Graham

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

Per Biographies of living persons, and looking at the discussion in Template talk:Infobox officeholder/Archive 12...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)
 * 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)


 * One more link of interest; 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)
 * 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)
 * Additionally, Fetchcomms has restored the sig, pending the user verifying via OTRS, with instructions left. Arakunem Talk 00:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"Crime" of aggression
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)
 * 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)