Talk:Jim Yong Kim

message: I edited out the part about his being listed by US News as one of America's Best Leaders, because I checked the reference and it doesn't hold up. Started a references section, and may add some extra references and information here and there when I find them. --Mistsrider (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Apparently someone removed the longstanding photo of Kim that was linked on this page. If anyone has the time/means to upload a new one, it would be a great compliment to the article.—DMCer™ 22:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo removed? 

message: Most of the sections have no references. This article may require a tag requesting references. Previous contributers, please provide. User:HopsonRoad 13:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insufficient references 

message: I haven't reviewed the whole article but in the wake of today's news I did a good bit of citework, as I call it (naked urls a lot here), and there certainly seemed a good bit of independent (school paper; one Boston Globe) coverage on non-flattering "real" news about Kim's tenure at Dartmouth. I'm open to reinstatement of the template with explanation of specifics but feel for me, to the extent I got to know the article, it was too strong and not warranted. I had also seen, and have added an Ext. Link to, the CRose interview, so feel I had a little independent view, not that those are notably hard-digging i'views necessarily.  18:03
I went back to see if the citations template seemed warranted still and even tried to connect some of the early-career section to the Harvard External Link but it was more than I could do now. And several large paragraphs do remain unfootnoted; so for me the template stood.
In addition, when I looked at the content of the Dartmouth section, where a chunk of my citework had been done, I saw it was all criticism; no summary of accomplishments, initiatives, his point of view on issues. Maybe the sources themselves could be better mined. In the meantime, it seemed the "may be unbalanced" template made a lot of sense. 
Comments of course invited here, partic. if changes are contemplated or made on the subjects I've addressed, because it is a timely in-the-news subject (Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons). Thank you. 18:20
Rapidly evolving article. Unbalanced template is gone; but the paragraph looks to have been substantially balanced. Swliv (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertisement template removed/Citations one left/Unbalanced one added 

message: My current involvement is to reverse any mention of World Bank in infobox (upper right with pic). No easy way I know of to register "nominee"; the "incumbent" and "start date ... June 30, 2012" were both dramatically misleading, so had to go. I looked at template:infobox nominee but it didn't seem to work better, so I cut it back. Also, as far as anything I've seen, he's still at Dartmouth until appointed by WB board at least; so no "end date" to Dartmouth tenure. This is a perennial problem; hope we don't have repeated efforts to appoint him before it's official. Swliv (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Only a nominee; not selected yet: Reversed change to infobox 

message: A lot of the negative material about Kim's time at Dartmouth consisted of stories about the university in general with no mention of Kim personally.  I've removed them as WP:SYN violations..  Grover cleveland (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Time at Dartmouth/Dartmouth College (2009-Present):  POV/OR problems

message: I've been involved since soon after the announcement; have tried to outline situation from my POV above; haven't been in deep; am quite interested in Politico feedback; have just done another bits-and-pieces edit including the two title issues of this section.
On the imbalance template, I saw and noted it was removed above. It had reappeared, and clearly the broader subject has been much debated and fought, this afternoon when I returned. I've taken it back out. It seems the controversies (a) have in fact been scrubbed quite a bit though I'm not going to argue the merits here, now and (b) have, as when I saw the removal above, been offset by a supra-section of the whole administration tenure. Further, I made the controversies section a sub-section of the Dartmouth section, which seemed to make more sense. 
On the security report: I don't know why the increased incidences of assault and drinking need be removed even though (from what I've scanned of intra-Wiki controv. on these issues, here) it may be more enforcement rather than more occurrences. But leaving that aside, I thought the security report was a relevant primary source. So I reinserted it as source for just "increased attention"+- to the issues in what (otherwise) had become a straight Kim-fixing-things bit.
I am some puzzled by the specifics of the Politico piece and hope to work on it more. I also think it's a good, outside notice of how "the process" of Wiki (a) doesn't get particularly attentive coverage but (b) there's a responsibility to extra-Wiki standards, if you will, and sensitivity is warranted. ... To keep it real general for the while. Cheers. 
And! On the recent removal of the "references needed" template: That's a credit to all who've worked on this. The removal was now appropriate (without still, for my part, having reviewed the article in much detail; I just see footnotes all the way down the page ... and have the gut feel they're probably pretty reasonable). Congratulations! 
A final: The $30,000 coffee machine is instructive (see Politico article). It had been slipped in to the section footnoted to the security report. I haven't tracked down "by whom" but Politico caught it. Extra-Wiki standards alert always (on top of course of intra-Wiki standards, which of course were also breached). Swliv (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Swliv! I think I agree with all of your input. Dswislow (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update: Imbalance template removed; security report+ 

message: Isn't the section too large? The other two nominees' pages do not even have a section as large as that  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phd8511 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, given the process (like it or not), Kim will almost certainly become president of the World Bank, so there has been significantly more coverage of his nomination. If you feel that the other candidates deserve more recognition on their own pages, you should definitely add more information. But saying that information should be removed from this page because there isn't enough on the other candidates' pages seems pretty ridiculous to me. Dswislow (talk 02:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with you. "given the process (like it or not), Kim will almost certainly become president of the World Bank" Wikipedia thne is supporting him in the nomination. I'll end it since I never get any Wikipedia argument my way.Phd8511 (talk) 02:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'd argue that Wikipedia is then doing its best to reflect reality by understanding the context of situations. Further, that phrase you quote was not meant as a statement of support, but to explain the fact that "there has been significantly more coverage of his nomination." That said, you'll notice that regardless of the fact that it is more or less certain that Kim will become president of the World Bank, that statement does not appear in the article. No one is preventing you or others from adding information to the other candidates' pages. In fact, everyone would definitely welcome it. In my opinion, removing information is not the answer. I'd welcome others. Dswislow (talk 03:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

text: You and others have just made it pro-Kim.Phd8511 (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Bank Nomination 

message: I gather from the hangul that his Korean name is Yong, so I assume Jim is his English name. I am wondering if his official name is James, but I can't find anything in a short search. Lesgles (talk) 15:24, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It must be Americanised after living in theUS for many years. Korean names are usually  surname x-z. He doesn't seem to have that format.Phd8511 (talk) 15:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but assuming it's Americanized, is his official first name James or Jim? Lesgles (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother?Phd8511 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  James? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jim Yong Kim. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130520065755/http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/new_search/YIBW_showSearchArticle_New.aspx?contents_id=AKR20120324001600085 to http://app.yonhapnews.co.kr/YNA/Basic/article/new_search/YIBW_showSearchArticle_New.aspx?contents_id=AKR20120324001600085
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Jim Yong Kim. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060413194108/http://www.pih.org/index.html to http://www.pih.org/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081021014137/http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=154 to http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/buniverse/videos/view/?id=154
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is this an important or necessary point to make in the article? http://www.nchip.org/ indeed 'rebranded' but is it a legitimate reference for this article?  MaynardClark (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: NChip -> MuscleandBrawn