This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
1. Ban's 'win' on the UN Security Council straw vote should be included, me thinks. 211.27.57.199 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Consider where you first found the source before listing or referring to it on ANY article in Wikipedia. A V12 ON THE ICE 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You know that isn't a reliable source, nor one that is credible for wikipedia. Obviously, this should be treated as vandalism, if you do not respond. Login to earth 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's avoid phrases like this:
We need to identify the people who have criticized him or expressed 'concern'. I think this is a guideline (see Wikipedia:Weasel words. -- Uncle Ed 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The page shows Ban ki-moon as the 8th Secretary-General. Actually, he was confirmed by acclamation by the General Assembly yesterday. The President of the Security Council for the month of October read the note (letter) from the Security Council, and the President of the General Assembly then asked the pertinent question, and without objection, Ban ki-moon was confirmed to take office for a term of five (5) years beginning 1 January 2007 as 8th Secretary-General of the UN.
These are subtleties in UN-style language, just for clarification purposes, and I too stand subject to any revision.
Richardjordan 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Richard Jordan
- Ban-ki moon is not an official part of, but is strongly backed by the Uri Party, namely by Prime Minister Han Myung Sook: Click here for Han Myung Sook's profile.
-Ban-ki moon in late 04: See here. Ban-ki moon commends soldiers for roles in Iraq War: See here.
69.170.64.188 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Craig
wank-you-very much for this great article wikipedia!
david slough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.90.172 ( talk) 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
One of the categories for this article is "Rockefeller family". How is he connected to them? The article does not explicitly say. Even if he is affiliated with the Rockefellers, I wonder if only blood and marriage relatives should be included. Slic e NY C (Talk) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't he written like "Ban Gimun", as that is the official Korean romanisation of his name? Why this conversion of his name into something easier to read for for-stupid-only-able-to-read-English-people used? Why the "-" between his given names? Wikipedia has to stick to standards, the article should be renamed. 亮HH 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not able to find any reference to his religious beliefs on the reference listed. Is there another reference that supports this claim? How ever it is better to have sth new.
Most likely Ban is not a Unificationist. The source that claim this solely depend on the fact that he confesses as a "non-denominational Christian", which is often a codeword for Unificationist. However, it is NOT always the case. And the claim that he's a unificationist came from one source.
But look at this: Some informed UN sources are concerned that Moon lists his religious affiliation as "non-denominational Christian," a code word often used by the "Moonies" for the Unification Church. [...] Although Ban Ki-moon and Sun Myung Moon are not related, some UN members may sense that there is something amiss about the Bush administration's strong support for the South Korean Foreign Minister given the close links between some Bush officials and the "Moonies."
It's still "alleged".
Added to that, Wayne Madsen is NOT a credible source. Here's one example.
In a correction, The Economist states that Mr. Ban is not a member of any church or religious group because he believes that faith is an individual matter. Please refer to http://economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8525903. Krballer 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please point out where in the asianews article it mentions his religious affiliation? I know someone earlier in this discussion mentioned it, as well it is cited as a source in the article for mentioning his alleged group without a Church ties, but I read the article and it does not mention anything concerning religion. Was the article edited or was it a mistake? And in response to the debate about "non-denominational Christians," this is a common word for churches that wish to preach a general protestant Christian message without getting tied down in the semantics of different denominations, and is in especially common use amongst international/multicultural churches (within the United States). At least it is where I come from, the American midwest. - Jaardon 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost half of this article consists of an endless list of all the journeys he has taken in his capacity as UN secratary general. Does this stuff really belong in an encyclopedic article? IMHO the article would be more valuable and user-friendly if one would simply delete the section "Official travel" 91.64.123.107 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
His name is confusing to most non-Koreans, and subject to several transliteration schemes. He already has a lot of redirects, and may deserve more. Please bear in mind that redirects from clueless misspellings are not endorsements of the cluelessness as "acceptable variants", and are a good thing unless it can be shown that they would never be used (and presumably exist as Rdrs only bcz they are someone's paranoid compulsive effort at guessing all conceivable mistakes).
As of 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC), in current order of display on his What-links-here (possibly order of creation):
Grouped roughly alphabetically:
In summary of this regrouped list, the Rdrs each differ from the current title in one or more of the following ways (ignoring the two lower-case-k rdrs, which are unlikely to appear in edits, and are fixed by the system when typed in the go/search box):
Note that in theory that offers us not much fewer than 3x2x2x3x5= 180 logical variations. (2x2 + 1)x2x3x5= 150, for those hungry for precision.) I commend to those more familiar with the subject matter the task of deciding which further Rdrs are needed. (I'm just here bcz neither of the first 2 spellings -- which are now Rdr titles -- that i tried got me to the article, and that left me wondering how well any needed Rdrs are represented.)
--
Jerzy•
t 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't find any source for him being metioned as an atheist. Most quotes list him as a non-denominational Christian. I will be removing Korean Atheists tag. 152.15.243.191 ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[4] [5] [6] Saintjust is Push POV Troll. he made this article in category of 'Term as Secretary-General'. He pick from 'Particularly critical news', mainly pick the criticism contents from source. and omitting other side of view.(POV) also It is not important news. It seems like he want make Ban Ki-moon image as Nepotism person. This contents is not proper article for UN Secretary-General's role. This Trivia news not suitable in category of 'Term as Secretary-General'. This article could be integrating other, or remove soon. 774townsclear 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're considering this information to be particular biased/poorly sourced wouldn't it be best to just remove it as it's regarding a living person? Stefanjcarney 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Section move to trivia section.
User:Appletrees and an anon IP user are persistent in placing a npov tag at the criticism section without clarifying exactly how the section is biased despite my request for clarification.
The tag was placed first by User:Juice8093 [10], who is quite possibly another sockpuppet of the banned vandal, Bason0/774townsclear (see the section above), with the peculiar English usage of his.
As far as Appletrees also insists on placing the tag there, he also has an obligation to clarefy his reasoning to do so. -- Saintjust ( talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is saintjust's another mistake because I simply relocated the tag with which several editors feel where it belongs to. Saintjust hasn't previously asked me anything on this article, but quickly assumed me as other anon. Saintjust is falsely accusing people on the other side of being a bannable person. This is not the first time he mistook me with others on another occasion. Saintjust's threating is considered to be disruptive and bad faith conduct per nom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ban_Ki-moon&curid=2346975&diff=180132058&oldid=180118862
I asked to you clarify on the disc page how exactly it is biased if you insist on placing the tag there. Refusing to engage in discussion to resolve the dispute is a bannable.
I feel offended by Saintjust's absurd threat and he is certainly not an authority but acts like that. Please don't demonize people who do not agree with your edits. Your violation WP:OWN, WP:Civility and WP:AGF are alarming. -- Appletrees ( talk) 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Saintjust, you're so you. You did make a mistake and then just strike into another alley. You should apologize to me for your rudeness and false assumption. I've been your faithful contributions on this article, but there were many editors to oppose your lengthy and POV versions. I still feel that the section holds trivial information to denounce him. I state my reason it's your turn to clarify your reason why you reverted my edit and then move the POV tag at the top as if the whole article has problems. I hope you wouldn't do the same thing to this article as you did to article, The Rape of Nanking.
Ah, I think we should include a news like Japanese persistently objected to Ban's election which is of course "sourced" and "widely well known information. You're a Japanese editor, so you can enhance the content by your Japanese ability. We can polish the controversy section by our cooperation.-- Appletrees ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2 POV tags? I removed one. What is the POV issue. Please let us focus on this and not on each other. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing the two images in the Diplomatic career section. Is this just my computer, or is there a problem on the article? Otebig ( talk) 03:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Secular is not a religion. It should still at least give a specification (e.g. Secular Christian). - Rosywounds ( talk) 05:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Some people are now playing tricks on this article. Please let it put into 'restricted to edit' article. 121.141.233.70 ( talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As someone that has closely followed the race, including speaking regularly with mission staff, I do not believe there is evidence that the Japanese delegation offered "no opinion" on the fourth straw poll. I would welcome information to the contrary, or ask that the accusation be removed. Tfleming 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
--
MSN Korea report: [18]
Chosun.com report: [19]
Mkhkoh 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only did Japan vote "no opinion" on the last straw pole, it was found that the one country that had been persistently voting against Korea was Japan. The articles explain that the Japanese were reasonably upset that South Korea opposed Japan's candidacy for Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council for historic reasons and that this vote was essentially a "political vendetta" (which, unfortunately for the Japanese, was leaked).
One of the articles also mentions a supposed 'online battle' between South Korean and Japanese netizens leading to "mutual accusations."
The leak story was also published by the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbun(読売新聞), where they referred to the leak on the vote as a "failure on the part of Japanese diplomacy." Also reported by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun(日本経済新聞). For reference here are some of the Japanese newspaper headlines related to the matter [20] Mkhkoh 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Western news sources (understandably) seem to have overlooked this "detail."
How was this 'leaked'? My korean is a bit rusty and I can't seem to find any english pages that even acknowledge this. If it's hearsay, I'd rather it be attributed as such instead of stated as fact. At the very least, I'd like to know what the Japanese article had to say. Not trying to be argumentative, I just want more details on this point. HiS oWn 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no such a thing "netizen" in Japan or anywhere else except for South Korea and China. :-) Most of the news source you mentioned were from South Korean media, which is not really trustabe for Korean matters in general. Japanese source you mentioned did not say what you expect. From western media, one opposed in the second vote was a middle east country and the third one was France.
I don't get what you are trying to say, unsigned discusser, by "and the third one was France". France never opposed Ban's nomination, as is evidenced by the fact that he is unanimously declared as the only candidate with no opposition from any of the permanent members of the Security Council. If France had opposed him, not only would the statement be false, but he would be out of the race, rather than the SG-designate. If you need further assurance, please refer to the rules of SG nomination, and the permanent membership of the SC. Terroiriste 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I just called for a citation for the sentence about Bolton claiming Japan abstained from the vote -- which is supposed to be in secret. At best it'll only ever be Bolton's suspicion, so I'm removing it. If someone is compelled to write it in again, please write of the reasoning here. Seijihyouronka ( talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Ki-moon the shortened form of Ban Ki-moon's name. I mean in the news they would call him Ban, but in real life, does his family call him Ban, or like in China they would call him Ki-moon. Got Comments? Sometimes1must 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Doktorbuk, there are c
ultural differences between the east and the west that easily explain your confusion. By and large, Western press follows and respects the eastern conventions mainly, so for a person you are not acquainted with intimately, or as mentioned above, a subordinate - thus Mao Ze Dong is called Mao, which is his family name, rather than Ze Dong. However, what I find bizarre about your confusion is that the practice is not confined to Eastern names, you don't see people refering to George W Bush as George, or Nikita Khruschev as Nikita. It's the nomenclature of respect. Terroiriste 08:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you guys all misunderstood Sometimes1must's quesion. Yes, Ban is his surname, Sometimes1must was asking whether friends or family call him "Ki-moon". As Chinese, "Koreans NEVER use first name alone to call older person". And Chinese will use the "given name"(名) to call a familiar person in a friendly way, such like Mao Zedong can be called Zedong but not Mao by his friends. I think the more proper way was call his Zi(字). Did Ban Ki-moon's family or friends call him "Ki-moon"?-- Keyi 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The following text seems like pointless trivia:
"The U.S. military troops in Korea were the first Americans whom Ban ever met.[3]"
Who was the first frenchman he ever met? What about the first chinese?
Either say why it's important that his first american was a soldier (maybe it has influenced his opinion of americans in general) or, it seems to me, delete the sentence. Pre1mjr ( talk) 10:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Fair enough, so this is a Korean name. However, why is it that articles on Japanese people (who adopt the same convention of Surname GivenName) like Taro Aso follow the English convention? Consistency please. 118.8.134.205 ( talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Today, Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, published information from a leaked report about Ban Ki-moon written by Norway's deputy director and ambassador in the Norwegian delegation to the UN, Mona Juul to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the classified report Juul presents harsh criticism of Ban stating that he is "not well suited" to lead the UN. He is described as "irresolute, invisible, powerless and short-tempered". She writes that he is struggling to assert leadership and has frequent temper tantrums, both conditions making him difficult to work with. The report was written one month ago as a routine assessment of the secretary general at mid-term. Juul writes that "in a time when the UN and multi-lateral solutions to global crises are more needed than ever, the absence of Ban and the UN is striking. Concrete issues mentioned in the report:
I have not been editing the present article, so I am unsure if and how this can be presented. Perhaps also the decision of how to present this will depend on how the global news media reports this story, which is too early to tell yet. __ meco ( talk) 08:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest adding Nations not 'united in action' at Copenhagen, U.N. chief says 99.155.150.177 ( talk) 07:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
far too many links here, some are just news articles which should be merged into the page. I've organized some, but more needs to go. Go ahead and edit this sections if you disagree. Lihaas ( talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think a pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article would be helpful. A lot of articles have them and a lot of people (like me) are totally unfamiliar with korean names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.165.187 ( talk) 04:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article edited by Japanese user Phoenix7777. [21] I removed its section. Because it is highly negative article by POV fork.
Ssyublyn ( talk) 14:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
More.. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints
Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. Enough said. Ssyublyn ( talk) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no single word of "Bias".
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
References
Recently published. No translation yet to my knowledge. Should be of some interest.
Accusativen hos Olsson ( talk) 00:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why? I understand why Ban's name is written in Korean in his infobox, but why Chinese as well? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Although the article should mention what a General Secretary does, and should explain why he was allowed to keep China out of the U. N. (the U. N. would be a good influence on China) and why he wanted to, this article was important and rather well written and short enough read in one sitting, and until I had read it, I thought the General Secretary was from some place like Ethiopia. It was well worth reading. – Chuck Marean 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a summarizing paragraph or two on Ahlenius' 50-page report, and UN's response to it... anyone have the time for it? -- Immer in Bewegung ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ban's age is 81 Korean, 80 Western. Should we put that in the infobox? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
is he the president of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.54 ( talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Under Ban's "reforms" has been a concerted effort to try and "contain" unfavorable press coverage." Clear editorializing. This point is unsupported and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.114.54.241 ( talk) 01:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Ban's place of birth is listed as "Chosen," which is Japanese name for Korea under Japanese Rule. This is an inappropriate naming for an English encyclopedia; virtually no current historical literature in English calls Korea during this period as "Chosen". Therefore, I will change this to "Korea," referring to the region rather than the country. --Hychu
Over the past several months that I've observed this article, I have noticed Ban's birthplace listed on the page as Korea, Korea under Japanese rule, Provisional Government of Korea, Korea conquered by Empire of Japan, etc.
If he has a doctorate, why is he not called Dr. Ban Ki-Moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.94.28 ( talk) 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This article looks like it may need an overhaul to keep FA status. The biggest issue is the lead, which was almost entirely deleted from the FA-approved version and as a result was badly incomplete. I've restored the 2007 version, but this is obviously out of date and will need further update. There's also sections tagged as needing citation and being outdated. There's also an awkward catchall "Controversy" section with no equivalent section containing positive evaluations of his generalship, raising POV issues. Lastly, there seem to a few individual-sentence paragraphs stuck in at one point or another; these should ideally be revised and integrated for flow.
I don't think I can get to many of these issues myself this week--I'm simultaneously trying to overhaul United Nations--but I thought I'd at least send up a warning flare that this one seems to be degrading. Thanks to all who have been working to slow or reverse the decline! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Should we include his Korean signature, found on his respective Korean Wikipedia page, in the infobox alongside his English one? WikiWinters ( talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed a sentence that said he had no religious preference. Besides being not true it could be considered a negative thing by some people. Steve Dufour 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I posted a topic for his real religion, which is the wrong way, against the word of God. Call me a bible thumper, I dont care. I will be laughing at you when the rapture hits. CobraT 02:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)
Shouldn't the Controversy section mention that this idiot has condemned Snowden's revelations as "misuse of digital communication" (NO, not WHAT he revealed, but THAT he revealed it), and thus he has shown himself to be a ridiculous puppet of US interests?
Under the Education part, why does it say "my mother met him in albany and had fifty babies with his grandfatther. If hes still alive??? umm oh and dont forget about his pet dog harry!" isn't that vandalism?
Please see the current edit. There appears to be a graphic comic at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.106.37 ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ban Ki-Moon is thought to be considering running for the Korean presidency in 2017. He has remained vague on his intentions, but I believe it would be relevant to mention it somewhere, especially since, if he where to run, he would be the front-runner and has good chances of winning the election. What do you think? [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimahrikku ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ban Ki-moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
1. Ban's 'win' on the UN Security Council straw vote should be included, me thinks. 211.27.57.199 11:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Consider where you first found the source before listing or referring to it on ANY article in Wikipedia. A V12 ON THE ICE 03:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
You know that isn't a reliable source, nor one that is credible for wikipedia. Obviously, this should be treated as vandalism, if you do not respond. Login to earth 20:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Let's avoid phrases like this:
We need to identify the people who have criticized him or expressed 'concern'. I think this is a guideline (see Wikipedia:Weasel words. -- Uncle Ed 15:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
The page shows Ban ki-moon as the 8th Secretary-General. Actually, he was confirmed by acclamation by the General Assembly yesterday. The President of the Security Council for the month of October read the note (letter) from the Security Council, and the President of the General Assembly then asked the pertinent question, and without objection, Ban ki-moon was confirmed to take office for a term of five (5) years beginning 1 January 2007 as 8th Secretary-General of the UN.
These are subtleties in UN-style language, just for clarification purposes, and I too stand subject to any revision.
Richardjordan 21:23, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Richard Jordan
- Ban-ki moon is not an official part of, but is strongly backed by the Uri Party, namely by Prime Minister Han Myung Sook: Click here for Han Myung Sook's profile.
-Ban-ki moon in late 04: See here. Ban-ki moon commends soldiers for roles in Iraq War: See here.
69.170.64.188 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Craig
wank-you-very much for this great article wikipedia!
david slough —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.90.172 ( talk) 23:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
One of the categories for this article is "Rockefeller family". How is he connected to them? The article does not explicitly say. Even if he is affiliated with the Rockefellers, I wonder if only blood and marriage relatives should be included. Slic e NY C (Talk) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't he written like "Ban Gimun", as that is the official Korean romanisation of his name? Why this conversion of his name into something easier to read for for-stupid-only-able-to-read-English-people used? Why the "-" between his given names? Wikipedia has to stick to standards, the article should be renamed. 亮HH 13:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I was not able to find any reference to his religious beliefs on the reference listed. Is there another reference that supports this claim? How ever it is better to have sth new.
Most likely Ban is not a Unificationist. The source that claim this solely depend on the fact that he confesses as a "non-denominational Christian", which is often a codeword for Unificationist. However, it is NOT always the case. And the claim that he's a unificationist came from one source.
But look at this: Some informed UN sources are concerned that Moon lists his religious affiliation as "non-denominational Christian," a code word often used by the "Moonies" for the Unification Church. [...] Although Ban Ki-moon and Sun Myung Moon are not related, some UN members may sense that there is something amiss about the Bush administration's strong support for the South Korean Foreign Minister given the close links between some Bush officials and the "Moonies."
It's still "alleged".
Added to that, Wayne Madsen is NOT a credible source. Here's one example.
In a correction, The Economist states that Mr. Ban is not a member of any church or religious group because he believes that faith is an individual matter. Please refer to http://economist.com/world/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8525903. Krballer 16:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please point out where in the asianews article it mentions his religious affiliation? I know someone earlier in this discussion mentioned it, as well it is cited as a source in the article for mentioning his alleged group without a Church ties, but I read the article and it does not mention anything concerning religion. Was the article edited or was it a mistake? And in response to the debate about "non-denominational Christians," this is a common word for churches that wish to preach a general protestant Christian message without getting tied down in the semantics of different denominations, and is in especially common use amongst international/multicultural churches (within the United States). At least it is where I come from, the American midwest. - Jaardon 23:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost half of this article consists of an endless list of all the journeys he has taken in his capacity as UN secratary general. Does this stuff really belong in an encyclopedic article? IMHO the article would be more valuable and user-friendly if one would simply delete the section "Official travel" 91.64.123.107 21:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
His name is confusing to most non-Koreans, and subject to several transliteration schemes. He already has a lot of redirects, and may deserve more. Please bear in mind that redirects from clueless misspellings are not endorsements of the cluelessness as "acceptable variants", and are a good thing unless it can be shown that they would never be used (and presumably exist as Rdrs only bcz they are someone's paranoid compulsive effort at guessing all conceivable mistakes).
As of 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC), in current order of display on his What-links-here (possibly order of creation):
Grouped roughly alphabetically:
In summary of this regrouped list, the Rdrs each differ from the current title in one or more of the following ways (ignoring the two lower-case-k rdrs, which are unlikely to appear in edits, and are fixed by the system when typed in the go/search box):
Note that in theory that offers us not much fewer than 3x2x2x3x5= 180 logical variations. (2x2 + 1)x2x3x5= 150, for those hungry for precision.) I commend to those more familiar with the subject matter the task of deciding which further Rdrs are needed. (I'm just here bcz neither of the first 2 spellings -- which are now Rdr titles -- that i tried got me to the article, and that left me wondering how well any needed Rdrs are represented.)
--
Jerzy•
t 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Can't find any source for him being metioned as an atheist. Most quotes list him as a non-denominational Christian. I will be removing Korean Atheists tag. 152.15.243.191 ( talk) 14:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
[4] [5] [6] Saintjust is Push POV Troll. he made this article in category of 'Term as Secretary-General'. He pick from 'Particularly critical news', mainly pick the criticism contents from source. and omitting other side of view.(POV) also It is not important news. It seems like he want make Ban Ki-moon image as Nepotism person. This contents is not proper article for UN Secretary-General's role. This Trivia news not suitable in category of 'Term as Secretary-General'. This article could be integrating other, or remove soon. 774townsclear 23:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
If we're considering this information to be particular biased/poorly sourced wouldn't it be best to just remove it as it's regarding a living person? Stefanjcarney 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Section move to trivia section.
User:Appletrees and an anon IP user are persistent in placing a npov tag at the criticism section without clarifying exactly how the section is biased despite my request for clarification.
The tag was placed first by User:Juice8093 [10], who is quite possibly another sockpuppet of the banned vandal, Bason0/774townsclear (see the section above), with the peculiar English usage of his.
As far as Appletrees also insists on placing the tag there, he also has an obligation to clarefy his reasoning to do so. -- Saintjust ( talk) 18:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
That is saintjust's another mistake because I simply relocated the tag with which several editors feel where it belongs to. Saintjust hasn't previously asked me anything on this article, but quickly assumed me as other anon. Saintjust is falsely accusing people on the other side of being a bannable person. This is not the first time he mistook me with others on another occasion. Saintjust's threating is considered to be disruptive and bad faith conduct per nom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ban_Ki-moon&curid=2346975&diff=180132058&oldid=180118862
I asked to you clarify on the disc page how exactly it is biased if you insist on placing the tag there. Refusing to engage in discussion to resolve the dispute is a bannable.
I feel offended by Saintjust's absurd threat and he is certainly not an authority but acts like that. Please don't demonize people who do not agree with your edits. Your violation WP:OWN, WP:Civility and WP:AGF are alarming. -- Appletrees ( talk) 19:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Saintjust, you're so you. You did make a mistake and then just strike into another alley. You should apologize to me for your rudeness and false assumption. I've been your faithful contributions on this article, but there were many editors to oppose your lengthy and POV versions. I still feel that the section holds trivial information to denounce him. I state my reason it's your turn to clarify your reason why you reverted my edit and then move the POV tag at the top as if the whole article has problems. I hope you wouldn't do the same thing to this article as you did to article, The Rape of Nanking.
Ah, I think we should include a news like Japanese persistently objected to Ban's election which is of course "sourced" and "widely well known information. You're a Japanese editor, so you can enhance the content by your Japanese ability. We can polish the controversy section by our cooperation.-- Appletrees ( talk) 21:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
2 POV tags? I removed one. What is the POV issue. Please let us focus on this and not on each other. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm having trouble seeing the two images in the Diplomatic career section. Is this just my computer, or is there a problem on the article? Otebig ( talk) 03:10, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Secular is not a religion. It should still at least give a specification (e.g. Secular Christian). - Rosywounds ( talk) 05:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Some people are now playing tricks on this article. Please let it put into 'restricted to edit' article. 121.141.233.70 ( talk) 07:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
As someone that has closely followed the race, including speaking regularly with mission staff, I do not believe there is evidence that the Japanese delegation offered "no opinion" on the fourth straw poll. I would welcome information to the contrary, or ask that the accusation be removed. Tfleming 01:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
--
MSN Korea report: [18]
Chosun.com report: [19]
Mkhkoh 15:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only did Japan vote "no opinion" on the last straw pole, it was found that the one country that had been persistently voting against Korea was Japan. The articles explain that the Japanese were reasonably upset that South Korea opposed Japan's candidacy for Permanent Membership of the UN Security Council for historic reasons and that this vote was essentially a "political vendetta" (which, unfortunately for the Japanese, was leaked).
One of the articles also mentions a supposed 'online battle' between South Korean and Japanese netizens leading to "mutual accusations."
The leak story was also published by the Japanese Yomiuri Shimbun(読売新聞), where they referred to the leak on the vote as a "failure on the part of Japanese diplomacy." Also reported by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun(日本経済新聞). For reference here are some of the Japanese newspaper headlines related to the matter [20] Mkhkoh 15:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Western news sources (understandably) seem to have overlooked this "detail."
How was this 'leaked'? My korean is a bit rusty and I can't seem to find any english pages that even acknowledge this. If it's hearsay, I'd rather it be attributed as such instead of stated as fact. At the very least, I'd like to know what the Japanese article had to say. Not trying to be argumentative, I just want more details on this point. HiS oWn 13:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no such a thing "netizen" in Japan or anywhere else except for South Korea and China. :-) Most of the news source you mentioned were from South Korean media, which is not really trustabe for Korean matters in general. Japanese source you mentioned did not say what you expect. From western media, one opposed in the second vote was a middle east country and the third one was France.
I don't get what you are trying to say, unsigned discusser, by "and the third one was France". France never opposed Ban's nomination, as is evidenced by the fact that he is unanimously declared as the only candidate with no opposition from any of the permanent members of the Security Council. If France had opposed him, not only would the statement be false, but he would be out of the race, rather than the SG-designate. If you need further assurance, please refer to the rules of SG nomination, and the permanent membership of the SC. Terroiriste 08:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I just called for a citation for the sentence about Bolton claiming Japan abstained from the vote -- which is supposed to be in secret. At best it'll only ever be Bolton's suspicion, so I'm removing it. If someone is compelled to write it in again, please write of the reasoning here. Seijihyouronka ( talk) 22:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Ki-moon the shortened form of Ban Ki-moon's name. I mean in the news they would call him Ban, but in real life, does his family call him Ban, or like in China they would call him Ki-moon. Got Comments? Sometimes1must 22:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Doktorbuk, there are c
ultural differences between the east and the west that easily explain your confusion. By and large, Western press follows and respects the eastern conventions mainly, so for a person you are not acquainted with intimately, or as mentioned above, a subordinate - thus Mao Ze Dong is called Mao, which is his family name, rather than Ze Dong. However, what I find bizarre about your confusion is that the practice is not confined to Eastern names, you don't see people refering to George W Bush as George, or Nikita Khruschev as Nikita. It's the nomenclature of respect. Terroiriste 08:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess you guys all misunderstood Sometimes1must's quesion. Yes, Ban is his surname, Sometimes1must was asking whether friends or family call him "Ki-moon". As Chinese, "Koreans NEVER use first name alone to call older person". And Chinese will use the "given name"(名) to call a familiar person in a friendly way, such like Mao Zedong can be called Zedong but not Mao by his friends. I think the more proper way was call his Zi(字). Did Ban Ki-moon's family or friends call him "Ki-moon"?-- Keyi 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The following text seems like pointless trivia:
"The U.S. military troops in Korea were the first Americans whom Ban ever met.[3]"
Who was the first frenchman he ever met? What about the first chinese?
Either say why it's important that his first american was a soldier (maybe it has influenced his opinion of americans in general) or, it seems to me, delete the sentence. Pre1mjr ( talk) 10:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Fair enough, so this is a Korean name. However, why is it that articles on Japanese people (who adopt the same convention of Surname GivenName) like Taro Aso follow the English convention? Consistency please. 118.8.134.205 ( talk) 14:07, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Today, Norway's largest newspaper, Aftenposten, published information from a leaked report about Ban Ki-moon written by Norway's deputy director and ambassador in the Norwegian delegation to the UN, Mona Juul to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In the classified report Juul presents harsh criticism of Ban stating that he is "not well suited" to lead the UN. He is described as "irresolute, invisible, powerless and short-tempered". She writes that he is struggling to assert leadership and has frequent temper tantrums, both conditions making him difficult to work with. The report was written one month ago as a routine assessment of the secretary general at mid-term. Juul writes that "in a time when the UN and multi-lateral solutions to global crises are more needed than ever, the absence of Ban and the UN is striking. Concrete issues mentioned in the report:
I have not been editing the present article, so I am unsure if and how this can be presented. Perhaps also the decision of how to present this will depend on how the global news media reports this story, which is too early to tell yet. __ meco ( talk) 08:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Suggest adding Nations not 'united in action' at Copenhagen, U.N. chief says 99.155.150.177 ( talk) 07:09, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
far too many links here, some are just news articles which should be merged into the page. I've organized some, but more needs to go. Go ahead and edit this sections if you disagree. Lihaas ( talk) 22:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I think a pronunciation guide at the beginning of the article would be helpful. A lot of articles have them and a lot of people (like me) are totally unfamiliar with korean names. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.126.165.187 ( talk) 04:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
The article edited by Japanese user Phoenix7777. [21] I removed its section. Because it is highly negative article by POV fork.
Ssyublyn ( talk) 14:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
More.. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints
Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints. Enough said. Ssyublyn ( talk) 15:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
There is no single word of "Bias".
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
References
Recently published. No translation yet to my knowledge. Should be of some interest.
Accusativen hos Olsson ( talk) 00:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why? I understand why Ban's name is written in Korean in his infobox, but why Chinese as well? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 07:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Although the article should mention what a General Secretary does, and should explain why he was allowed to keep China out of the U. N. (the U. N. would be a good influence on China) and why he wanted to, this article was important and rather well written and short enough read in one sitting, and until I had read it, I thought the General Secretary was from some place like Ethiopia. It was well worth reading. – Chuck Marean 03:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to add a summarizing paragraph or two on Ahlenius' 50-page report, and UN's response to it... anyone have the time for it? -- Immer in Bewegung ( talk) 22:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Ban's age is 81 Korean, 80 Western. Should we put that in the infobox? -- Uncle Ed ( talk) 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
is he the president of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.54 ( talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
"Under Ban's "reforms" has been a concerted effort to try and "contain" unfavorable press coverage." Clear editorializing. This point is unsupported and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.114.54.241 ( talk) 01:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently, Ban's place of birth is listed as "Chosen," which is Japanese name for Korea under Japanese Rule. This is an inappropriate naming for an English encyclopedia; virtually no current historical literature in English calls Korea during this period as "Chosen". Therefore, I will change this to "Korea," referring to the region rather than the country. --Hychu
Over the past several months that I've observed this article, I have noticed Ban's birthplace listed on the page as Korea, Korea under Japanese rule, Provisional Government of Korea, Korea conquered by Empire of Japan, etc.
If he has a doctorate, why is he not called Dr. Ban Ki-Moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.15.94.28 ( talk) 18:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
This article looks like it may need an overhaul to keep FA status. The biggest issue is the lead, which was almost entirely deleted from the FA-approved version and as a result was badly incomplete. I've restored the 2007 version, but this is obviously out of date and will need further update. There's also sections tagged as needing citation and being outdated. There's also an awkward catchall "Controversy" section with no equivalent section containing positive evaluations of his generalship, raising POV issues. Lastly, there seem to a few individual-sentence paragraphs stuck in at one point or another; these should ideally be revised and integrated for flow.
I don't think I can get to many of these issues myself this week--I'm simultaneously trying to overhaul United Nations--but I thought I'd at least send up a warning flare that this one seems to be degrading. Thanks to all who have been working to slow or reverse the decline! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 13:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Should we include his Korean signature, found on his respective Korean Wikipedia page, in the infobox alongside his English one? WikiWinters ( talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I removed a sentence that said he had no religious preference. Besides being not true it could be considered a negative thing by some people. Steve Dufour 06:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I posted a topic for his real religion, which is the wrong way, against the word of God. Call me a bible thumper, I dont care. I will be laughing at you when the rapture hits. CobraT 02:48, 20 December 2006 (CST)
Shouldn't the Controversy section mention that this idiot has condemned Snowden's revelations as "misuse of digital communication" (NO, not WHAT he revealed, but THAT he revealed it), and thus he has shown himself to be a ridiculous puppet of US interests?
Under the Education part, why does it say "my mother met him in albany and had fifty babies with his grandfatther. If hes still alive??? umm oh and dont forget about his pet dog harry!" isn't that vandalism?
Please see the current edit. There appears to be a graphic comic at the top of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.106.37 ( talk) 04:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
Ban Ki-Moon is thought to be considering running for the Korean presidency in 2017. He has remained vague on his intentions, but I believe it would be relevant to mention it somewhere, especially since, if he where to run, he would be the front-runner and has good chances of winning the election. What do you think? [1] [2] [3] [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimahrikku ( talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ban Ki-moon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)