Jump to content

Talk:Ban Ki-moon/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Secretary General

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)

TO RANDOM USERS

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)

Nelson NYC, please do add that link in the page again. specifically, Will UN HIRE another crook?

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)

Naming the critics

Let's avoid phrases like this:

  • has been criticized
  • concern has been expressed

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)

Concerning some inaccuracies re the confirmation of Ban ki-moon as Secretary-General designate

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

wish list

  • "He paid off the other countries with grand pianos and such like to assume the title of Secretary General of the United Nations." I assume that this is a joke. It needs to be given a source or it should be removed.
  • political affiliation?

- 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.

  • role in notable incidents of 04-05?

-Ban-ki moon in late 04: See here. Ban-ki moon commends soldiers for roles in Iraq War: See here.

  • he is openly running for SG of the UN. See holbrooke, washington post.

69.170.64.188 01:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Craig

thanks

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. SliceNYC (Talk) 17:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Have removed it for now; if someone wants to add some content to the article explaining how he is connected to the Rockefellers (assuming he is), we could consider the merits of a category.-- Visviva 10:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Name

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)

Although the spelling does have clear English influences, it's the official one used by the UN in English, French and Spanish -- not just English. (See [1], [2] and [3]). If the English speaking world has an accepted spelling that is used more often than the Revised Romanization, it is the one that we use throughout the article, though we still mention the standard romanizations in the name template (as in the Syngman Rhee and Roh Mu-hyun articles). This is outlined in the manual of style. --Calcwatch 18:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reference #1 non-denominational Christian?

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.

The "Personal" section has been subject to a lot of strange anon activity... there was a reference listed, namely this one, which identifies Ban as a member of the "group without church" or "churchless movement," aka mugyohoe (무교회). The Wikipedia article on this interesting East Asian movement, popularized in Korea by Ham Seok-heon and others, is oddly located at the Japanese name thereof, which made the paragraph somewhat convoluted. I had added some background information on the group's development in Korea; all of this was removed and replaced by an unreferenced statement that Ban has no religious preference -- that in turn was removed per policy, leaving us with no information at all. I'm not sure where to go from here; I can't find anything in Korean or English that supports the statement in the Asianews article, so perhaps it is better to leave religion out unless a more definitive source can be found. -- Visviva 08:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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.

If he's a Unificationist, how come no one mentioned it when he became a South Korea government minister? If true, this would have made him the highest-ranking Unificationist in governement anywhere. The U.S. has 3 state legislators who are definitely members, and the State Departemnt has Josette Shiner, whose "membership" is not clear (all we know for sure is that she was a managing editor of the the UC-owned Washington Times).
Perhaps the confusion arose over the Korean naming system. The two relevant men are:
  1. Moon, Sun Myung (or in Western order Sun Myung Moon
  2. Ban, Ki Moon (Western order Ki Moon Ban).
One of the articles cited above refered to Mr. Ban by the family name "Moon" even though the word moon is the part of his given name. It's as silly as referring to Tommy Lee Jones as Mr. Lee! :-) --Uncle Ed 21:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I am a Korean and there is ABSOLUTELY NO allegation toward Ban relating to unification church in Korea. If he had any connection to the unification church, he wouldn't be a Korean foreign minister at the first place. Because roughly 50% of Koreans are christian and they wouldn't condone moonies to become a foreign minister. I think this is simply caused by mistranslation. --Crmtm 15:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have never noticed a Korean name with the two given names written together with a hyphen. Mostly it's three distinct words; Kim Jung Il for instance. Is this an effort to downplay the "Moon" part? Steve Dufour 03:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC) p.s. Nice to bump into you again Ed. And thanks for your contributions Crmtm.
It's quite common, and is (all other things being equal) the preferred format on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Korean). See Category:Korean people for numerous examples: Chun Doo-hwan, Go Im-pyo, etc. -- Visviva 08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Steve Dufour 15:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

Official travel

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)

I agree. Diplomatic visits are not generally notable and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If a specific trip is notable for some reason, we can mention it in the appropriate section of his biography.
Ban's only been in office for a few months and this section takes up nearly half the article — imagine what it will look like in a couple of years. Sideshow Bob Roberts 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think it's appropriate for the article either. Even though it probably is verifiable, the list will grow to be enormous. If referenced, I would support it as its own list, but my guess is that I'd be shouting into a chasm of deletionists if it went to AFD. --JayHenry 03:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Redirect survey

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):

  1. Ban Gimun
  2. Ban Gi-mun
  3. Ban Gi Mun
  4. Pan Kimun
  5. Pan Ki-mun
  6. Pan Ki Mun
  7. Ban Ki Moon (16 current lks via this Rdr)
  8. Ban Ki-Moon (24 current lks via this Rdr)
  9. Ban Kimoon
  10. Ki-moon
  11. Ban Ki Mun
  12. Ban Ki-mun
  13. Ban ki moon
  14. Ban ki mun
  15. Ki Moon Ban (1 current lk, from a talk pg, via this Rdr)
  16. Pan Jiwen
  17. Ban Kee Mun
  18. Ban Kee Moon

Grouped roughly alphabetically:

  1. Ban Gi Mun
  2. Ban Gi-mun
  3. Ban Gimun
  4. Ban Kee Moon
  5. Ban Kee Mun
  6. Ban ki moon
  7. Ban Ki Moon (16 current lks via this Rdr)
  8. Ban Ki-moon (NOT a Rdr, but current bio title)
  9. Ban Ki-Moon (24 current lks via this Rdr)
  10. Ban ki mun
  11. Ban Ki Mun
  12. Ban Ki-mun
  13. Ban Kimoon
  14. Ki Moon Ban (1 current lk, from a talk pg, via this Rdr)
  15. Ki-moon
  16. Pan Jiwen
  17. Pan Ki Mun
  18. Pan Ki-mun
  19. Pan Kimun

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):

  1. Role of surname
    1. Given name preceding surname, or
    2. Given name following surname, or
    3. Given name without surname
  2. Consonant transliteration
    1. With B: K vs. G ..., or
    2. With P: K and M vs. J and W
  3. Transliteration of given name's first vowel
    1. i or
    2. ee
  4. Transliteration of given name's second vowel
    1. oo or
    2. u or
    3. e
  5. Punctuation between given name's syllables
    1. None
    2. Space and lower case
    3. Space and upper case
    4. Hyphen and lower case
    5. Hyphen and upper case

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)

I've added {{Koralt}} to the top of this section to generate the list of redirects on the right. Looking at the list of Korean family names, it seems that "Bahn" or "Pahn" are also acceptable spellings of his name, so perhaps that is something to consider as well. I honestly couldn't say how many (if any) of these redlinks would be necessary as redirects though. PC78 10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh... I'd always hoped that someone would manage to get some use-value out of that template. I share your skepticism -- surely this is one Korean name that most people know the official spelling of -- but then again, redirects are cheap. -- Visviva 15:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheist?

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)

Miscellanea contents is not suitable for category in 'Term as Secretary-General'

[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)

The description is sufficiently sourced.[7] User:774townsclear is currently under the examination of possible sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bason0. --Saintjust 00:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I Quiet to say, I'm not sock puppets. i found your edit, and revert it. and your comment is irrelevant to this. you did not mentioned your POV edit. mainly pick the criticism contents from source. and omitting other side of view.(POV) you just push me as sock puppets. is that all? 774townsclear 00:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
also your comment is not suitable is this page. go to user's talk page. 774townsclear 00:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I was not suggesting that it wasn't referenced correctly just that if people had an issue with it we needed to be clear what we were going to do about. Stefanjcarney 09:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The accusation of favoritism in Ban's UN staff appointment is a legitimate one as it was reported by news media, and it concerns his credibility as the UN Secretary-General. Dismissing it as a "trivia" is utterly ridiculous. That's like putting every criticism of George W. Bush in a little trivia section. --Saintjust 10:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Whatever you may think of the criticism, if it exists it deserves to be here, you cannot put it under trivia. Stefanjcarney 10:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
it is not criticism matter.
1. POV matter. mainly pick the criticism contents from source. and omitting other side of view.(POV)
for example, his first edit [8] omitting later part from WP news article. only pick negative content from source. His edit was intentionally make Ban Ki-moon as Nepotism person.
2. His omitting by intention. He deleted other side of view and fill negative contents from previous edit. [9] He deleted interview of Ban, deleted Philippines case and deleted Donald P. Gregg reference.
3. It is not suitable for included in 'Term as Secretary-General' category. This article could be integrating other, or remove.774townsclear 12:25, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
As I see it what you added did not belong in the article. That was a reference to Kofi Annan and his son. I understand you think that lightens the criticizm of Ban Ki-Moon but it doesn't, it just means they are both Nepotistic. This is not a page on the Secretary General but rather a page on Ki-Moon and it is a criticizm levelled at him. It should therefore be included on his biographical page. By all means, add a comment mentioning that this criticizm was made of Kofi Annan and link it up to his page but you should not have such a large reference to it on Ban Ki-Moons page. It should be in 'Term as Secretary-General because it was a criticizm that was made during and about his term as Secretary-General. At worst it should be included in a 'critcisms' section under the section 'term of secretary-general'. Stefanjcarney 15:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The section has been renamed from "Trivia" to "Criticism" as per reasoning stated above.
User:774townsclear with whom I have been arguing over this section was indef. blocked from editing Wikipedia on December 1, 2007. --Saintjust 19:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Section move to trivia section.

  • POV Section. pick from 'Particularly critical news', mainly pick the criticism contents from source. and omitting other side of view.(POV)
  • This content is not proper article for UN Secretary-General's role. This Trivia news not suitable in category of 'Term as Secretary-General'.
  • This content could be integrating other, or remove soon. 774townsclear 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

POV tag at the criticism 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)

Saintjust's absurd threat

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/w/index.php?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)

User:Appletrees placed again the pov tag that I removed earlier, with an edit summmary "you can't delete {{POV}} tag on your own." [11] I have no idea what he meant by "on your own" here, but since he supports the version of the article with the pov tag and keeps reverting to it, he should have a good reason of his own to do so.
It doesn't matter whatever reasons User:Juice8093 or the anon IP user had for their placement of the tag. Appletrees is responsibele for his own edit, nothing more, nothing less. It's none of his business to revert the article for other users anyway. I don't care whoever is placing the pov tag again and again. Every one of "you" who keep placing the tag has an obligation to justify your own edit.
If Appletrees (or anybody else for that matter) wants to keep the article at the version that he supports, then he should come to this discussion page, clarify exactly how the placement of the pov tag is legitimate, and engange in discussion with me to resolve the dispute. Otherwise his edit can't stay. Neither can Juice8093's nor the anon IP user's as far as they do not provide good reasons to defend their edits on this discussion page.
If Appletrees keeps reverting my edits while refusing to engage in discussion to resolve the dispute, then that will constitute an edit warring: "A content revert is an intentional reversal of the changes made in good faith by another editor, rather than improving upon the edit or working with the editor to resolve the dispute; it is not to be taken lightly. Editors who continue to edit war after proper education, warnings, and blocks on the matter degrade the community and the encyclopedia, and may lose their editing privileges indefinitely." --Saintjust (talk) 19:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Again, Saintjust, your absurd threatening continues You need to apologise to me for your rudeness and threats. It is non of you business whether I agree with prior editors' opinions or not. I weight my thought to their edits not you. You can't accept or want to hear that your edit has problems on POV issue. You truly act like a privileged person to which nobody gives the right or anything. That kind of misbehaviors are found in your edits and you are of course, violating rules of community and by which, you can explain why you keep doing like that. You haven't asked me to involve in a discussion at all but falsely accuse me of being a bannable editor by your own rule. You haven't made any kind of prior discussion when you made a controversial edits, but demand prior discussion when others object to your bold moves. Those editors who consistently violate WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY are eventually forced to be out of Wikipedia. You must be forgetting Wikipedia's spirit and abusing rules. --Appletrees (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I asked you to clarify your rational for the plcement of the pov tag and engage in discussion to resolve the content dispute. Whatever rationals that Juice8093 or the anon IP user may have for their placement of the tag are not a concern here. As far as you also endorse the same version of the article (viz. the version with the pov tag) and keep reverting the article to it, you should be able to justify the edit on your own. Your edit is your responsibility. Don't shift the responsibility onto others by saying "I simply relocated the tag with which several editors feel where it belongs to." If you can't justify your edit, it can't stay. Simple as that. --Saintjust (talk) 23:27, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Saintjust, please don't lie any more. Your behavioral pattern is so typical. You didn't ask me to clarify my reason to restore your removing POV tag on the controversy section which you almost made by yourself. You asked the anon before me and then you falsely assumed me that you has asked me to go to this talk page? You made several threat to me. I believe that kind of immature and disruptive behaviors are not to be condoned for Wikipedia. You're obviously violating community rules. You still owe me a suitable apology and clarify your reason why you reverted my edit and then move the POV tag at the top as if the whole article has problems. --Appletrees (talk) 20:53, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  1. Are you willing to engage in dicussion with me to resolve the content dispute?
  2. If yes, then please provide your rational for the placement of the pov tag that is the very cause of the current content dispute. --Saintjust (talk) 21:22, 27 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)

Please clarify on exactly how the issue of favoritism is "trivial" and is causing a "pov" problem to the article.
I think that this issue is important and merits reference on Wikipedia as it has been reported by news media such as Washington Post among others, and it's one of the recurrent problems of the U.N.:
  • "According to Americans employed at UN organizations, a key barrier to American representation across the five UN agencies we reviewed was the lack of transparent human resource management practices.... [S]ome Americans at each of the agencies, except IAEA, said that "cronyism" exists and that certain individuals only hire their fellow nationals.... [T]he UN Secretary-General also acknowledged in a report to the General Assembly that management systems, including human resources, lacked transparency." [12]
  • "The hiring of nationals from one's own country is a delicate subject at the United Nations. The U.N. Charter requires that officials take no instructions from their governments. But, like Ban, many top U.N. officials owe their jobs to support from their governments, and they sometimes remain involved in their country's political life. Previous U.N. chiefs -- including Kurt Waldheim of Austria, Javier Perez de Cuellar of Peru and Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt -- brought small teams of trusted aides or clerical workers from their country's Foreign Ministry." [13]
  • "Problems of Staff Appointment According to Equitable Geographical Distribution.... UN member governments attach great importance to having a fair proportion of their nationals employed in the Secretariat. The 1962 General Assembly recommended that in applying the principle of equitable geographical distribution, the Secretary-General should take into account members' financial contributions to the UN, the respective populations of the member countries, the relative importance of posts at different levels, and the need for a more balanced regional composition of the staff at the director level." www.nationsencyclopedia.com/United-Nations/The-Secretariat-STRUCTURE-AND-COMPOSITION-OF-THE-SECRETARIAT.html
This isn't a new issue to the U.N. --Saintjust (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Tag

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)

Okay, this is a Featured Article, and I think we all agree it's an important subject. Let's not destabilize the article to the point that it loses its featured status. Now, first, do we think it's NPOV to include a section called "criticism"? I'm not saying that we should not include the information. But rather than give the section an opinionated heading, perhaps the first step toward neutrality would be adding this information to the section about Ban's appointments. Does that seem like a reasonable step to everyone? --JayHenry (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, the criticism section was originally a subsection "Favoritism in appointment," existing right after the subsection "Cabinet" that writes about appointments, and under the big section "Term as Secretary-General." I think that's more appropriate than having an independent criticism section and segregating all criticisms in there.
The subsection "Favoritism in appointment" was moved to the current position by User:774townsclear, who also renamed the subsection to "Trivia." 774townsclear is a sockpuppet of User:Bason0, an indef. banned vandal, and no longer active. See #Miscellanea contents is not suitable for category in 'Term as Secretary-General'. --Saintjust (talk) 03:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image Problem?

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??

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)

Agreed. And actually, this has been discussed before, and Ban's situation is more complicated than this. "Secular" isn't the full story and it would be best not to include this field in the infobox, and just to mention it in the body of the text. I.e. he has declined to identify with a religion, but has also never accepted the classification of secular. I have removed per what I feel is the previous consensus. --JayHenry (talk) 08:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism prevention

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)

Hopefully the people experimenting with the article will eventually see the futility of vandalism and will some day realize that it's significantly more rewarding to be productive contributors! --JayHenry (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Note on Japanese delegation

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)

--

October 5th report: [14] [15]

October 6th report: [16] [17]

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)

Ban or Ki-moon?

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)

Not sure I understand the question, but Ban Ki-moon is a standard Korean name, so "Ban" is the family name and "Ki-moon" is his personal name. -- Visviva 23:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Koreans use first name to call their friends or subordinates. Koreans NEVER use first name alone to call older person. It could be regarded as an insult. You can use whole name to call a person but should be attached with 'Ssi(Mr,Miss or Mrs.)', 'Yang(Miss)' or official position name. When refering someone in official position, last name alone is more frequently used. examples: Roh Daetongryung(president Roh) Ban Yaegyobu-janggwan (foreign minister Ban) Kim Gyosu (professor Kim) --Crmtm 19:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I will never understand Korean and Chinese names. I take it from the comma in the article that, to Western eyes, his "surname" is Ban, but this is the first-name by which he is known in the west...? :confused smiley: doktorb wordsdeeds 17:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The closest thing he he has to a first name in the E uropean sense is Ki-moon. However as should be obvious, it's not his first name in the normal Korean order. This is one of the reasons why the term first name should be avoided in an international context in preference to the more inclusive and more accurate term given name Nil Einne 19:52, 1 January 2007 (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'm just waiting for standup comics to call him "Banky Moon" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.219.181.153 (talk) 07:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC).
You're right but do note that when you refer to East, you're only referring to East Asians. Other Asians have different naming conventions. Malays for example generally follow similar conventions to Arabs and don't usually have surnames (family names) as such. They are therefore usually referred to by their given names. Thais largely do have surnames but as it's AFAIK a fairly recent evolution, it's still the norm to refer to them by their given name, so for example Thaksin Shinawatra is Thaksin not Shinawatra. Indonesian's vary. Some follow the Arab convention but others have surnames. Whatever the case, whether they're referred to by their surnames or given names seem to vary. Nil Einne 19:58, 1 January 2007 (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)

First Americans

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)

It's included because it was his first significant encounter with the foreign -- it was a watershed moment in his young life -- such that (in the next sentence) he made English the focus of his studies, (in the next paragraph) traveled to meet John Kennedy, became a diplomat, went to graduate school in the United States, (in the next section) became Director General of American Affairs, and later (the reason he has a biography here) became Secretary-General of the entire United Nations. They are identified as American soldiers for the simple fact that this is who they were. It adds context to his place and time; a child who witnessed the Korean War. If they'd been French train engineers, or Australian doctors, I would have said that. There's neither trivia, nor hidden commentary here, just the way his life happened. (And if the story of the first Frenchmen he ever met is particularly significant and memorable, please do add it!) --JayHenry (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I would like to change it to say something like the first Western people he met. I'm sure he met Japanese and maybe Chinese people in his childhood. I will try something. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Japanese names

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)

Actually Japanese names are more like European names, a family name and a given name, while Korean names are more like Chinese names, a family name and a two part given name. Hence it is easier to put a Japanese name into English. Notice how easily Japanese words can enter the English language, while Chinese (and Korean) words always sound foreign. Steve Dufour (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
The order of Japanese names is definitely not like for "European" names. Also, Chinese names mostly do not have two parts, and even so I'm not sure it would prove that Chinese and Korean names "always sound foreign", unlike Japanese names. I think that's highly subjective. 123.225.17.152 (talk) 11:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I, for one, fail to see how the ease of pronouncing Japanese names has anything to do with the relative ease of integration of the Japanese language into English (if that is even true). Japanese doesn't sound as foreign because the Western world is more familiar with Japanese culture than that of any other Asian countries. Marksspite2 (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Please, let us avoid some kind of Japan versus Korea dispute.  Asking for consistency between different languages strikes me strange, as they have different histories. The most important point is that Wikipedia is following common English convention for his name. See the BBC and the UN website, they follow the "Ban Ki-moon" convention. Taro Aso does indeed reverse his name in English as compared to his Japanese site. I cannot explain the reasons why, but feel that we should follow convention, and leave this article unchanged. —fudoreaper (talk) 01:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Damaging assessment in leaked report

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:

  • In conection with the finance crisis Ban has not been able to make UN the most important arena, and that this "vacuum" has been filled by the G20 group.
  • On the environment arena "The UN is struggling to be relevant" and Juul also writes that "Ban's voice on behalf of the poor has barely registered."
  • Ban's handling of political crises is also not his strong force the report asserts, and Juul describes Ban's trip to Burma as "a shining example" of his absent "leadership and ability to come through on behalf of the world organization." Ban's figure during the trip to war torn Sri Lanka in May Juul describes as that of a "powerless observer" whose "moral voice and authority has remained absent."
  • Sources:
    • Solholm, Rolleiv (August 19, 2009). "UN Secretary General criticised". The Norway Post. Retrieved August 19, 2009.
    • Rønneberg, Kristoffer (August 19, 2009). "Sviende norsk refs av FN-sjefen". Aftenposten (in Norwegian). Retrieved August 19, 2009.

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)

Picked up here:
__meco (talk) 11:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggest adding Nations not 'united in action' at Copenhagen, U.N. chief says

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 removed a dead link and an article behind a signup wall. I also removed the subheadings since they tend to attract linkfarms. ThemFromSpace 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

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)

Criticism section

The article edited by Japanese user Phoenix7777.[21] I removed its section. Because it is highly negative article by POV fork.

Wikipedia must strive for a neutral point of view and verifiability in general and in regards to the reception and/or positive and negative criticism of article's topics. Negative criticism is not held to a higher standard from other content, with the exception of legal concerns associated with biographies of living persons.
Just as in most cases the existence of an article seems to inherently promote its topic, "Criticism of ...." articles/sections would seem to inherently advocate the critics' negative point of view. In this case they would be POV forks.

Ssyublyn (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

More.. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons

Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies:
  • Neutral point of view (NPOV)
  • Verifiability (V)
  • No original research (NOR)

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)

Bias

During the ROKS Cheonan sinking saga, he took the unusual step of demanding action against North Korea for the alleged sinking of a vessel from his country. This move was perceived as unusual because it was rare for any Secretary General—and particularly Ban Ki Moon—to comment on the Security Council taking action on a particular issue. The office tended to be extremely deferential to the Security Council.[1]
  1. This is not disinterested tone.
  2. The source (undispatch.com) highly regarded as POV and own objective view. Very subjective.
  3. Author Mark Leon Goldberg's single opinion is not regard as WP:RS, WP:NPOV. Original Research and POV.
Full text
"It is sort of rare for a Secretary General — and Ban Ki Moon in particular — to say that the Security Council should take action on a particular issue. (The M.O. tends to be extreme deference to the Security Council.) So it was fairly notable that this morning, in reference to North Korea’s alleged sinking of a South Korean naval ship, that Ban told press: “I’m confident that the council, in fulfilling its responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, will take measures appropriate to the gravity of the situation.” Meanwhile, Japan, the United States, and South Korea are all on board with Security Council action of some sort. The big variable right now is China, where Hillary Clinton happens to be visiting. So far, the Chinese are non-committal, but watch to see if Hillary Clinton can help change some minds in Beijing before she leaves. "[22]

There is no single word of "Bias".

The source is not reliable sources. No scohlarship. Likely Author's own view.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

"but do not assert the opinions themselves"Ssyublyn (([User talk:Ssyublyn|talk]]) 15:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Ban Ki Moon Joins The North Korea-Security Council Debate". UN Dispatch. Retrieved 2010-05-25.

Mr Chance—New book on Ban Ki-moon co-authored by Inga-Britt Ahlenius, former OIOS Under-Secretary-General

Recently published. No translation yet to my knowledge. Should be of some interest.

Niklas Ekdal with Inga-Britt Ahlenius:
Mr Chance – FN:s förfall under Ban Ki-moon [Mr Chance—the UN:s decay under Ban Ki-moon].
Stockholm 2011. ISBN 978-91-7337-271-8.
http://libris.kb.se/bib/12076687
http://www.brombergs.se/1100/1100.asp?id=3896

Accusativen hos Olsson (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Chinese name?

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)

This is a good question. I'm not sure, but i think that Korean people use 'chinese' characters when writing their name in formal situations. Japanese people are similar, though they use chinese characters all the time. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can answer, but i thought i'd share. Cheers — fudoreaper (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks I haven't gotten any other answer and taking a cursory glance at other Korean articles (e.g. the articles from President of South Korea), I see that they all have Hanja names. On the other hand, Kim Jong-il does not. Oh well. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
The reason why Kim Jong-il does not use hanja with his Korean name would be because the DPRK (i.e. North Korea) has an official policy of distancing its version of the Korean language away from any perceived dependence on Chinese, which includes greatly limiting the use of hanja (initially the policy was meant to eliminate the use of hanja, but as it became evident that this was not feasible, as far as I can tell, the DPRK seems to have settled with merely limiting their use). As for any clarification on why Koreans also use Chinese characters in the writing of some names and such - I'll try my best to keep my explanation short; suffice it to say that before Hangul, the Korean written language, was invented in the 1400s AD, Koreans used Chinese characters (with marks/"pseudo-characters" unique to Korean, much like how Japanese is still written today, except that many "pseudo-characters" are now full kanji characters that are distinctly Japanese and have no direct parallel in Chinese) for written expression. While the Chinese characters were first used to spell out/approximate Korean person and place names, Korean names devised later also incorporated the meanings of these characters (whose origin was Chinese) into the names themselves. For instance, the Chinese characters for the Korean kingdom of Silla, 新羅, are merely Chinese characters whose combined pronunciation approximated the native Korean pronunciation the closest (these are the standardized characters that were to be used, which would be required for official transmissions with other nations - other combinations of Chinese characters, all somewhat approximating the native Korean name of Silla, were also used until somewhat late in that kingdom's development; the standardization occurred in 503 AD). In contrast, most modern Korean names (of people), while standardized to the "family name + given name" format, are actually Korean pronunciations of the Chinese characters used in the names, which is really a result of the adaptation of some aspects of Chinese culture into Korean - another term for it could be sinicization (older Korean family names are not so, however; the hanja for family names such as Kim/Gim, Yi/Lee/Rhee, Park/Bak, Choi/Chwe, and so on are also actually Chinese characters that approximate the Korean name, which implies that their origins predate any sinicization of Korean kingdoms). This specific phenomenon - the local pronunciation of the Chinese characters used to express some concept, which then largely supplanted the native term for the concept - is not unique to Korean, and is the direct reason why spoken Korean and Japanese have a larger-than-expected number of cognates (the two that I can think of immediately are the words for "promise" and "ready/prepared", which sound like "yak-soak" and "joon-bi" in both Korean and Japanese, and probably used to have native words to express those concepts). In addition, the standard part of place names (e.g. such-and-such "mountain" or "island") are Korean transliterations of the Chinese characters for those names; for instance, mountains in Korean are typically referred to as "san" (산 in Hangeul), which is the Korean pronunciation of the Chinese character for mountain (山). Hope that makes some sense.Ecthelion83 (talk) 12:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
A better reference for the context of the use of apparently Chinese characters in written Korean is probably the hanja article, specifically the section on hanja in personal and place names. It (the article as a whole, not the referred-to sections) also goes into more detail on the DPRK policy regarding hanja.Ecthelion83 (talk) 13:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

It’s only a paper moon?

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)

Hi Chuck, thanks for your kind words about the article. There's a little more about what a Secretary-General does in the article United Nations Secretary-General but I agree that improvement is still needed. Also, it's actually Taiwan, rather than Mainland China, that's not allowed in the United Nations. In order to be selected as Secretary-General one needs the approval of Beijing, and they're unlikely to approve a candidate who would recognize Taiwan. I think only the United Nations General Assembly really has the ability to change this, but in practical terms it's unlikely to happen because mainland China has so much economic power, not to mention nuclear weapons. --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It's outside the Secretary-General's authority to either recognize or deny recognition to Taiwan. That's for the General Assembly to decide. 24.214.230.66 (talk) 06:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Ahlenius report summary

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)

Korean age and Western age

Ban's age is 81 Korean, 80 Western. Should we put that in the infobox? --Uncle Ed (talk) 05:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On his birthday (Western style, June 13th), he'll turn 68: only 1 year less than his Korean age. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Use the "western" age; that's how most articles do it. I have yet to see a Wikipedia article that uses the East Asian age method. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ban moon

is he the president of the world? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.229.157.54 (talk) 11:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sort of. He's the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which is somewhat like the "president" of the world, but not exactly. Good question. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

unsupported editorializing

"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)

Agreed. Wikipedia editing guidelines state not to use quotation marks as a questioning of the validity or legitimacy of the quoted text. Clear violation. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Place of Birth

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

Thanks for changing "Chōsen" to "Korea." That's a great change. Since Ban was born toward the end of Japanese rule, let's leave "Korea" as you have it and have "Korea" link to the article "Korea under Japanese rule," which will show readers what time period Ban born in. Thanks again for your input! Sincerely, Doksuri (talk) 08:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I think it should be mentioned about a place, not those days sovereign of the state in this kind of articles including him. Of course, current version that is already linked that period of Korea also not so bad.--Historiographer (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
The explanation for birth_place paramter given in Template:Infobox person/doc is: "Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state." The inclusion of the sovereign state seems in line with the people infobox template usage. --Kusunose 07:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
I concur, moreover, this fact (that Ban was born in the Empire of Japan) is really important: it means that he had held Japanese citizenship and, possibly, had Japanese name. Elmor (talk) 20:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Many other articles of Koreans born during the Imperial Japanese period have it listed as "Japanese Korea". Usually, they have the present-day locale listed underneath, such as (now Seoul, South Korea), or (now Pyongyang, North Korea). I am considering changing his birthplace in accordance with this, as the country of South Korea did not exist during the time he was born. Likewise, for Americans born before the Declaration of Independence was signed, it has their birthplace listed as the British colonial province that governed the locale at the time. Makes no sense to have his birthplace listed as South Korea, when the country didn't even exist at the time. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: To clarify, Wikipedia lists birthplaces as they existed at the time. No doubt this may cause some controversy among some people. If you see birthplaces that list a place that didn't exist at the time, please change it. Also list the present-day place in parenthesis and small text below it. Thank you. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Birthplace - what should be used?

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.

As Korea was a Japanese colony in 1944, the year Ban was born, and since the Japanese readings of Korean place-names were in common usage then in world maps and atlases, I have accordingly used the Japanese readings of the county and province of his birth, and linked Korea to the pages on Korea under Japanese rule and Empire of Japan; I have added a note for the present-day nomenclature of his birthplace and political status of his home country (South Korea).
I have noted that this is commonly done on Wikipedia, in cases where the individual concerned was born in a state or under a government which no longer exists (Austro-Hungarian Empire, Kingdom of Mysore, British Raj, etc.) I would still however appreciate any constructive feedback on this edit. Aumnamahashiva (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
Many other articles of Koreans born during the Imperial Japanese period have it listed as "Japanese Korea". Usually, they have the present-day locale listed underneath, such as (now Seoul, South Korea), or (now Pyongyang, North Korea). I am considering changing his birthplace in accordance with this, as the country of South Korea did not exist during the time he was born. Likewise, for Americans born before the Declaration of Independence was signed, it has their birthplace listed as the British colonial province that governed the locale at the time. Makes no sense to have his birthplace listed as South Korea, when the country didn't even exist at the time. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
EDIT: To clarify, Wikipedia lists birthplaces as they existed at the time. No doubt this may cause some controversy among some people. If you see birthplaces that list a place that didn't exist at the time, please change it. Also list the present-day place in parenthesis and small text below it. Thank you. Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Doctor of Laws

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)

Lead and other FA criteria issues

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)

Korean signature

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)

His religion

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)

His Real Religion

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)

Comments regarding Snowden case

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?

You should have inserted that since long, as you have the source. I do not. 88.130.1.241 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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)

Presidential Bid ?

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

  1. ^ http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/06/116_207881.html
  2. ^ http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2016/06/116_206736.html
  3. ^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/30/does-plodding-un-chief-ban-ki-moon-have-his-eye-on-becoming-sout/
  4. ^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-05-22/un-chief-ban-nudged-toward-s-korea-presidency-by-polls-legend

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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ban_Ki-moon/Archive_1&oldid=1156879784"