Talk:Jim Yong Kim

Edits
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)

Photo removed?
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)

Insufficient references
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)

Someone put up a picture of Kim Jong Il?? Rude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.48.202 (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement template removed/Citations one left/Unbalanced one added
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 (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)

Only a nominee; not selected yet: Reversed change to infobox
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)

Time at Dartmouth/Dartmouth College (2009-Present): POV/OR problems
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)

Joe of Ham continues to add un-cited, critical material to the article in attempts to purposely unbalance the section on Dartmouth. Dswislow (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Joe of Ham is continuing to add bias to the section about Kim's Dartmouth experience. When other editors have removed his comments, he has re-posted them, often with factual errors. His editing is clearly biased, as his first edit listed only negative materials, mainly of stories that don't mention Kim personally. Dswislow (talk) 04:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

As another example, Joe of Ham has posted a report several times which quotes crime enforcement statistics from Dartmouth, representing the results as a "41% increase in liquor law violations" (e.g. 01:56, 11 March 2012) and saying "the number of sexual assaults at Dartmouth per year has increase by 120% since his inauguration" (e.g. 04:32, 24 March 2012). In fact, the report (available here: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~security/information/clery-act/dartmouth_2011_annual_cleary_report_september.pdf) says that liquor law arrests increased (2008: 77, 2009: 123, 2010: 134), indicating an increase in enforcement, not necessarily an increase in violation. The report also lists the number of reported forcible sexual assaults (2008: 23, 2009: 10, 2010: 22), again indicating only increases in reported instances and only from 2009 to 2010. The numbers certainly do not indicate a per year percentage increase (if anything, it's a decrease with an average per year between 2009-10 of 16, lower than 2008). Regardless, the number from 2010 is almost exactly the same as 2008, and there are too few in total to draw any substantive conclusions -- certainly no conclusions about Jim Yong Kim, who isn't mentioned. Dswislow (talk) 06:46, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

To address other issues from the Politico article linked below: Controversies surrounding the college budget have been addressed specifically in the new page (probably more than necessary). The citation referring to the safety of river docks didn't mention Kim (another editor noticed this, see editing history). No citation about refusing to attend a debate. The Politico article notes that there are no references online to a $30,000 coffee machine. Crime statistics are addressed above. The hotel renovation numbers are inaccurate, with the initial estimate being $21.5 million, not $6 million, as noted in the original citation, which again didn't mention any involvement by Kim. The hazing scandal is mentioned in the current Wikipedia entry, although "failure to address" is a clear falsehood. According to citations, Kim established a task force on hazing, worked specifically on binge drinking, and made numerous public statements about the event. Dswislow (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Politico
Jim Yong Kim Wikipedia page scrubbed. Scrubbed, or just looked at closely and improved? User:Fred Bauder Talk 04:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Refer to the above section on Dartmouth. Improved is more like it. I've been fighting this guy all day. Can a moderator resolve this issue somehow? I'm new to this... User:Dswislow Talk 06:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I've warned him on his talk page. Please email me using Wikipedia mail if edit warring continues. User:Fred Bauder Talk 12:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * To your initial question, Fred Bauder: I thought for a moment I'd found the "IP address" editor and the "before and after" edits Pol. had looked at. And I did find one "sort of similiar" one here and (again and out; second and last try) here. Just a removal of the "Controversies" paragraph.


 * Having looked a little bit, now, (after intro'g my looking here), the puzzling element of the Pol. article has become starker. For the "after" to have occurred, not just the "Controversies" paragraph would have had to have been removed but also, under Career, the Partners in Health section before Past endeavors and the Recent work section after Past endeavors would have had to have been removed. That's a pretty complicated and sort of a nonsensical scrubbing. (The one I identified just above here was "sensical" if also unacceptable. I used the Contents box here for this sections analysis.)


 * Finally, really, to your question: some macro-scrubbing like I identified and maybe like Pol. said it identified did go on. (Each of the two I identified were posted for a minute or two before being reversed.) But also, as you are clearly aware by your above intervention, there's been the more line-by-line battle over what to include and what to exclude. To me, a "part-time" editor of this article over these couple of days, the cumulative effect of some of that normal process has been to scrub the article some. The "controversies" section has been overly trimmed -- of details, particularly -- than I think I'd like to see. In short, it has been looked at closely, yes, but maybe not improved. I'm not informed or frankly interested enough, probably, to carry that feeling any further now, in the article itself; but I think in light of the outside attention, spelling out the process and distinction a little may be helpful. Hope so.


 * Thanks. Swliv (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I think, especially at the beginning of this 'debate', the preference was toward removing the controversy section because there wasn't much information about other aspects of Kim career yet on the article. Having a disproportionately large section on controversial issues during a two-year tenure at Dartmouth, in the midst of a 20+ year career, would have skewed the article. The reason I started writing and adding to the other sections is so that we could justify keeping the controversy section, with appropriate context of the rest of Kim's career. More can definitely still be done! Thanks so much for you help. I'm new here as an editor, and have been enjoying this process. Dswislow (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: Imbalance template removed; security report+
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)


 * Thanks, Swliv! I think I agree with all of your input. Dswislow (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

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

James?
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)
 * 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)
 * Yes, but assuming it's Americanized, is his official first name James or Jim? Lesgles (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Why bother?Phd8511 (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
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)

External links modified
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)

Personal life
Hasn't Dr. Kim said that he practices a vegan diet? He told me that when he headed our department at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, before he moved on to become the 17th president of Dartmouth College. I cannot find external verification of that claim from reliable sources. MaynardClark (talk)

NChip -> MuscleandBrawn
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)