Talk:Kofi Annan/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Kofi Annan's father

According to Canada Free Press, it is an outrage that we have removed material stating that Annan's father was a "a high ranking freemason". Well, I have news for them: we have a no original research rule. Unless a source is given, this info is staying OUT of the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 02:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for repeating what Judi McLeod already knows. We removed original research from her own biography last summer after she complained. The information dealt with her connection to Paul Fromm. A senior Wikipedia admin had personal knowledge of this himself. --Cyberboomer 22:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to Cyberboomer's post on my talk page

I'm probably the most suited sysop for the job of managing our official response to this. I am the Canadian press contact and the Canadian representative of the newly founded Communications Committee for the Wikimedia Foundation. Kofi Annan's article has never been deleted, so no edits are hidden. There is no possible way, within the confines of the MediaWiki software Wikipedia uses, that edits can be manually hidden, even by Jimmy Wales himself. -- user:zanimum

With the greatest of respect, that is not entirely true. If it is not yet active, there is at least on the drawing board a feature that would allow removal of individual revisions from the history. (I am not totally clear if it would merely change those revisions into "deleted edits" or remove them wholly from the database.) In any case it is a fact, which probably need not be advertised too much (or else even more people will clamour excision of material they freak out about), that by a somewhat complicated and AIUI unwieldy process one can "edit" the database itself directly, which has been done, in some *very special* cases, once in a blue moon. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 08:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But this has not been implemented in MediaWiki, at all, it's just in the development stages, yes? -- user:zanimum

I'm sure that the Paul Fromm history page linked to a page of deleted edits. It's not there any more. --Cyberboomer 20:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution

McLeod may have confused Wikipedia with this website --Cyberboomer 23:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe she confused us with William Shaw Cross' site, as that still mentions the Freemason theory. I'll cross post this response to the talk page, so we can all work on a response for me to send out to her, on behalf of the org. -- user:zanimum

I'm just thinking... Wikipedia wrote an article, William stole a paragraph and added a sentence, McLeod goes hunting for conspiracies, finds William's site, searches down where the content came from, finds Wikipedia, sees that the last sentence isn't there. -- user:zanimum

Bingo! Either that or she is genuinely confused. Maybe she read William's website first and some time later thought she had read the information on Wikipedia. Ask her if she has any dates or screenshots of the Wikipedia article containing the Freemason allegations. --Cyberboomer 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Also ask her where she supposedly heard that Kofi Annan had gotten information removed from his page. There's always the possibility that someone misinformed her, or that she's been the victim of another "Mel Gibson" style hoax. --Cyberboomer 20:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Macalester College

According to the UN biography, Kofi Annan attended Macalester College, not Hamline University, so the anonymous editors were correct when they changed that information. — TheKMan^talk 03:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we should be suspicious of the "20:49, 11 December 2006 66.147.146.90 (Talk) (→Education)" edit. It indicates that Mr. Annan "sold hot dogs as a vendor at the Macalester football games." It just doesn't quite add up and we have no citation. Can someone provide a reference or second a removal of this line? 6:25, 11, Dec 2006 -anonymous

Press reports: somebody edited Wikipedia

Freemasonry link to Kofi Annan's father disappears from Wikipedia Haakon 18:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm having trouble finding evidence that the mentioned information was ever in this article. I'll be taking a closer look. — TheKMan^talk 00:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I've left messages about this on TheKMan's talk page and senior administrator Mindspillage's talk page --Cyberboomer 01:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I have looked through all 542 revisions to this article, from the first on 03:06, 23 September 2001 to the last at 01:43, 8 February 2006. None of those revisions have any mention of the word "freemason". — TheKMan^talk 01:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

You deserve an award of some kind. :) --Cyberboomer 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

So did they just make it up? Or are they subtly referring to a different article? Haakon 11:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Read through the Canada Free Press article and then you can decide. --Cyberboomer 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Annan's father does not have an article on Wikipedia, and I do believe the article is stating that his "freemasonry" link was removed from this page. There was absolutely nothing to remove, because it was never added in the first place. I don't really see what the big fuss is anyway, it's not like this is about Kofi himself. — TheKMan^talk 19:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article's author Judi McLeod is unhappy with Wikipedia and is looking for any reason to attack us. --Cyberboomer 22:48, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There is another artical here stateing that Annan's father was a freemason. I have searched the internet several times for other articals (from more reliable sources) to back this up with no luck. I recall seeing the page in the history before the deletion of the freemason sentance. I don't know if its possible to remove parts of the history of the artical as well. At one point, i added the freemason part back in and then removed it again (about a min later) when i realised how unreliable my sources were. --Ethoen 24th March 2006 (GMT)

That is the same article we refer to below. Moreover the article's author claims it happened before this discussion began. --Cyberboomer 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The addition I made on the 25th February 2006 about Annan's father being a freemason (which i removed minuites later) has been deleted from the history. None of the archived pages for the 25th Feburary 2006 were done from my IP address or User name. I know that i added the sentance on the 25th because I also created an artical on that day about a band. I can only presume that someone has the power to remove archived pages, or I'm wrong. I hope i'm wrong. --Ethoen 24th March 2006 (GMT)

Wikipedia's Assume good faith policy is being tested now. If - and that's a big if - Wikipedia had a secret agenda to remove any mention of his father's freemason status, wouldn't someone have deleted this discussion long ago? --Cyberboomer 23:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

United Nations briefing mentions Wikipedia and Judi McLeod's Freemason "accusations"

"There was a report that a Wikipedia entry on Kofi Annan had recently been edited to take out reference to his father being a Freemason." --Cyberboomer 22:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Kofi Annan/Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason:

The lead section is not adequate - it needs to summarise the article's contents in a couple of paragraphs. Also, I do not think the one reference given is adequate to allow a reader to verify the content of the article. And I think 'quotes' sections are not good - wikiquote is the place for collections of quotes. Worldtraveller 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

POV?

It is very easy to get a bunch of negative quots about a politician who served for ten years at a responsible position as that of Annans. I would prefer if there is more attention for the character and political goals of Annan. On the television i heard about Annan that he is primarily concerned in making life better for all humans. He has sleepless nights about the disasters that occur frequently and tries his best to help everybody victim of disasters. Anan is focused at reforming the UN, so the UN is better prepared to make an end to poverty and war. I don't know much about him, to be honest, that is why i didn't edited this information on this page. This article is so negative about Annan that it is mean. Perhaps it could be that some of the allegations are true, but still Annan is a symbol for the things he stands for and he is our representative. The only person where the word our accounts to all people. Could it be possible to make this article more positive?--Daanschr 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Honors

While it is nice that the institutions listed have tried to make a gesture of gratitude for Annan's public service by bestowing the listed honors, the honors themselves are not substantive as to who he is or what he does, they are not uncommon, and it is unlikely Annan himself would define himself by these honors. The Nobel Peace Prize is of course a noteworthy exception as it is extremely rare and highly thought of -- and ironically it is not listed in this section although it is mentioned in another section of the article. I would nominate the honors section for removal.Badocter 12:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Quotations

Should the quotation section be merged with the wikiquote article? It is highly irregular to place quotations in an article, especially that many. Please discuss. Sfacets 06:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that 'quotations' sections are bad - the wikiquote project exists for collections of quotes. Worldtraveller 10:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Quotations about Kofi Annan" section seems especially unnecessary. FAL 01:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Some non-quotation material has been placed at the bottom of the quotations section - and it appears to contain an unreferenced, personal opinion attack on Kofi Annan's actions towards the Lebanon-Israel conflict. I've marked it as disputed neutrality, but I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to edit it correctly - I'd appreciate if someone could do this. 06:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it. Anyone who comes along inserting text like "this civil servant shows how one sided, clueless and corrupt he and the organization he represents truly are" into an article is going to have his edits reverted until he learns to follow Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy. —Stormie 10:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Name

It is curious that the name "Annan" should indicate that Kofi was the fourth child of his family when also his father and his mother have this name ...?! Who can help?

That's a good question. I think it is safe to assume that Annan has become a surname for his family, and it does no longer denotes the place in the family; therefore the article needs to be corrected. I found the following evidence:
(1) His father's name was indeed Henry Reginald Annan -- detailed in Time magazine;
(2) His son is Kojo Annan; and
(3) His brother is Kobina Annan, the Ghanaian ambassador to Morocco (as reported by The London Times). This brother, incidentally, has a son (Kofi Annan's nephew) who shares the same name Kobina Annan [1].

Kofi Annan has an older sister called Esi Quainoo [2] (or "Essie", in the Time article). So, if it happens that he is indeed the fourth child in his family, that would be just a coincidence. --HYC 07:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

US vs UN

American public opinion of Annan is not driven by attitudes about his reforms, of which most of the public in any country know little if anything about. Reforms of any kind are generally viewed as negative rather than positive in that their existence is a result of a problem or failing. In that regard it is not politically astute to label anything as a "reform" unless the problem situation clearly evolved under an opponent you have replaced -- it is much better to instead label it as an "initiative" as the latter term does not carry the negative connotation of the former.

What American opinion is driven by is perceived effectiveness and fairness in which regard the UN and Annan have achieved a monumental marketing failure. Public statements made by Annan and his subordinates need to be structured to elicit the desired effect from the public, not simply convey a set of facts or opinion -- the art of diplomacy is to be able to sugar coat an ugly but true statement so that your opponent will embrace your desired outcome rather than oppose it. The defeatest statement made by Mark Brown should never have been made in that light and was a serious tactical blunder. Given the emphasis on winning in American culture, a defeatest statement or attitude is rarely respected or embraced.Badocter 10:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note Brown's statement left his employer in a difficult situation as supporting Brown did inflame public opinion, however, not supporting the Brown would also have had repercussions in public opinion as it would be viewed as an act of disloyalty. Brown put his employer in a situation that would be embarrassing no matter what his response. Given his role as a diplomat and need to build trust, "disloyal" is not a term Annan can afford.Badocter 03:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

At the moment this article is too much biased. The American opinion has too much influence in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to have a worldwide majority point of view. America has 300 million inhabitants, the world has 6.5 billion. I think that the opinion of the third world countries should have more attention then the American opinion. I will certainly want to revert these edits. Even before your edits, this article was too much American biased.--Daanschr 09:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have removed the section about Brown because the fallout of that scandal is minor, it did not involve any law being broken, and again, it was a lose-lose situation for Annan once Brown made the statement. I have removed the section, as well as the list of speaking engagement honorary degrees awarded to him by almost exclusively American universities, which, as I said above are not substantive.Badocter 17:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

American public opinion is different from worldwide public opinion. Annan has to deal with different public opinions from around the world. The public opinion of most people in the world, supported by a majority of the countries in the UN is that the west is acting egoistic towards the underdeveloped countries. Annan is a supporter of the poor and defenseless people in the world, trying to make an end to war and poverty by state intervention and development of market economies. This article at the moment is too much focused on 'karaktermoord' (murder of character), while Wikipedia is supposed to have a NPOV, without a political bias. I will not accept your edits and am of the opinion that you are nearly a vandalist. I will add the edit war template on this article.--Daanschr 18:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

American public opinion may be different from worldwide opinion, but that single statement by Marc Brown is not what have brought it to that point. What he said ruffled a few feathers, but it did not involve anything anyone is claiming is illegal, and it is a not a causal factor of the situation, so in the big picture of Kofi Annan's career, how important is this scandal? I apologize for my draconian edit. Sorry about the mess.Badocter 19:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for misinterpreting your edits. I read about the remark of Brown on page 6 of my daily newspaper. I think there should be more attention in this article to what Annan tries to achieve instead of to some scandals he was involved in.--Daanschr 06:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Most of what is stated in the section is true but I do take issue with the accuracy of the following statement.

"Public opinion in the United States (especially Rush Limbaugh and Fox News), are very negative about Kofi Annan and his reforms."

Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are conservative media outlets. Their statements are not certainly not reflective of liberal Americans. Liberals and conservatives are about equal in number, with moderates tipping the balance. Public opinion among conservatives is generally negative toward Annan and the UN, however, this view is generally not held by liberals. "Public opinion among United States conservatives..." would be more accurate.

I agree with you.--Daanschr 20:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Then you recognize the attitude is of a subsection of the American population, which while significant is not the majority. Conservative factions exist in other countries too and to varying extremes and sizes (Vlaamse Belang in your southern neighbor comes to mind, I am unfortunately not familiar enough with Dutch politics to know a group by name in your home country). The situation with Marc Malloch Brown is a current events story that is already fading from the mainstream press, so I am not in agreement that this is notable in the long term with respect to Annan or the UN. The one citation you have provided is in Nederlands and at a pay site -- this is very little use on the English wikipedia entry on Annan. I stand by my original position that this section is not NPOV in any way and I still am of the opinion this section should be removed, but I will wait for some concensus to build and someone else to delete it since up to this point the debate has only been one on one so far.Badocter 04:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this article needs an aditional section about the policy of Kofi Annan to make an end to all poverty and hunger, the Millenium Development Goals. This section should have main attention instead of the scandals. I don't agree with you about the section of Malloch Brown. Instead of deletion, it should be brought into a broader section. I think the Iraq war should be prominent, because the UN was against it, but the USA and UK still went on with it.--Daanschr 20:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Vlaams Belang is not conservative, but a fascist, neo-nazi party allthough it is supported by a third of the Flemish population. I don't know much about Limbaugh and O'Reilly, but i guess they are less right-wing then Vlaams Belang. In the Netherlands, conservatism in the American sense of the word is small, but will become really large in the near future, mainly because of the anti-foreigner, white power sentiment which roams the whole of Europe.--Daanschr 07:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Fix this section please. I think the bias is pretty evident on both sides as-is.

In regard to the comments on Fox News, I would argue it is a moderate voice as opposed to the liberal CNN and BBC. 205.188.116.133 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Tannim205.188.116.133 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is his sister Atta too

Per Akan names, shouldn't she be Kakira (if she were first born) or alternatively shouldn't Annan be Atsú, Kakira or Akwetee instead of Atta (if he were first born) Nil Einne 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

On consideration, I guess the reason they have the the different middle names is when they're the same sex they need to differentiate between the two. So the two twins would be Kofi Atta Annan and Kofi Atsú/Kakira/Akwetee Annan if they were male. However when they're the opposite sex, one can be Kofi Atta Annan, the other Efua Atta Annan. The elder/younger differentiation is not needed and the Atta is simply use to distinguish them as twins Nil Einne 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Date of his speech.

Under the topic of UN vs. US, there is mention of him giving a speach on December 12, 2006. Where did he give this speach? Today, where I am (the Eastern Standard Time Zone) is December 11, 2006. So I read this as saying he gave a speach tomorrow. I know Wikipedia is fast, but is it that fast?--67.68.10.7 03:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite a few places would have been on December 12th when he gave his speech. However he gave his speech in the US so it was on December 11th. Nil Einne 10:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Freemason

Is that fact that his father may be a Freemason (see to do list) really that significant or of importantance with regards to Kofi Annan? The fact that it's so hard to verify suggests to me it's not Nil Einne 10:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. I've removed that from the "to-do" list — whether his father was a Freemason is hardly important to Annan's life or career. That reads like it was put in by someone with an axe to grind or a follower of "illuminati" conspiracy theories. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Brothels

An albiet quick skim of the article shows nothing about the seedy side of the UN running brothels in Africa. Even if Annan did not have his finger in the pie, he was in charge of the UN whan this happened. May we have some comments? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.10.127.58 (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

There is a lot of controversy regarding the UN all the time including under his tenure. The question is, was it notable enough? Nil Einne 10:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be like writing a section about the Haditha massacre on the George W Bush article. In other words, irrelevant to the article. --Merat 00:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Letter draft

Some members of Wikipedia, including myself, are intrigued with your acquisation that we removed content from Kofi Annan's biography.

In your article, you state that at one point Wikipedia mentioned Kofi Annan's father was a high-ranking freemason. You say we removed the information, hinting that Mr Annan or his office ordered us to do so. We've internally investigated your claims, and have turned up nothing to substansiate such allegations.

As of 8 February 2006, there were exactly 542 revisions to the article, since 23 September 2001. None of those revisions mention the word "freemason", let alone link Annan or his family to the secret society. Every edition of every article on Wikipedia is saved in this fashion, and no edit can be completely deleted or hidden from our database.

Unless you have a saved copy of our article, with this sentence about freemasonry in the Annan family, we must suspect that you either are trying to frame Wikipedia with yet another scandal, or are some how mistaken in your research, confusing us with other sources.

The most possible route of explaination is this: you visited William Shaw Cross' website, reading his assertation that Annan's father was a Freemason. You noticed similar sentences scattered throughout this section of his profile of Kofi, and assumed it was lifted from the similarly worded Wikipedia. Thus, you made the assumption that it was an excerpt from a previous version of Wikipedia's article, and the Freemason mention had since "flat out disappear"ed from our resource.

For sure, the answer would make for an intriguing story.

Nick Moreau Canadian Communications Officer The Wikimedia Foundation

How is this? -- user:zanimum

Yikes! Better change "acquisation" in the first sentence to accusation.

I would also change the fourth paragraph to something like this: Unless you have a saved copy of our article with this sentence about freemasonry in the Annan family, we must either question your motive or assume that you have made a serious mistake in your research, confusing us with other sources.

Also change the final sentence to "For sure, your answer will make an intriguing story."

I do appreciate the effort you're putting into this, Zanimum. Thanks! --Cyberboomer 20:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Still no reply from CFP. I sent yesterday. -- user:zanimum

Sent on the 12th, no postings on their letters section of anything since then. Perhaps by Monday I'll send a second, more direct and serious letter, not that the first wasn't serious. -- user:zanimum

McLeod was in Washington D.C. last week. I think you should phone her and find out if she actually received it. Her office is in Toronto. Day number (416) 977-0183 or after hours 416-690-9220. If you want to send a second letter, please post the draft here. Thanks for your tireless efforts. --Cyberboomer 22:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you checked all the vesrions of the "external link" sections ?

Has it never occured to you that a contribution you made did not apear. It occured to me enough times to know it is possible. Especially with all the server failures recently. But to claim that anaan is a freemason or not is a small issue compare to the frequest changes in articles such as Hamas - depends whn you look Hamas can be a terrorist organization, or a welfare organization, or both, or none of them. Do you think this is a serious way to write an encyclopedia?

Other articles suffer from the same insatbility. Other articles suffer from stability of wrong information or inuendos. For example in Nakba there is now a 2.5 years attempt to make the article NPOV. This effort fails again and again. So over all no one should be surprized if the ever changing nature of Wikipedia cause problems. The qustion is how to interduce stability into a system that is ever changing. Zeq 05:28, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon? CFP said that in our article, we said that Kofi's dad was a freemason. They did not say that we linked to an article that said Kofi's dad was a freemason. We never tried to make a contribution saying he was a freemason, as we do not have any trustworthy sources to back the fact up. What Hamas should be considered as is completely seperate. People with different views see Hamas as different things. However, whether someone is a member of the Freemasons is a straight-forward yes or no fact, that can be proven or not. End of story. -- user:zanimum

I've sent out a new (more direct) letter to CFP, on 4 March 2006. Should be interesting if they publish it. -- user:zanimum

Thank you for sending your letter to Canada Free Press.

We have recently set up a new blog to show all our letters--good and bad. (http://www.canadafreepress.com/letters/index.php)

Please feel free to see how other people feel about us and the topics we cover.

Again, thank you from Canada Free Press

I have reinserted your contributions to the Canada Free Press article re: CFP claims they publish all their letters. You were correct. --Cyberboomer 23:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for following up. Judi McLeod's libel against Wikipedia is spreading across the internet. This is very frustrating and upsetting. We have gone out of our way to address her concerns but she gives us no credit. Both HOTR and I have made sure that unproven assertions and inflammatory statements are quickly taken out of the article whenever they appear. I myself made it a priority recently to include positive details such as the journalism award McLeod won in 1983. And yet she calls us "wicked pedia". --Cyberboomer 00:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to please everyone in a truly democratic environment; the very flawed nature of a true democracy means that things are dictated by the absolutely lowest common denominator, in this case McLeod. Having read everything I can about her and what she does, it would seem that there is no pleasing her, she is a conspiracy theorist of the lowest form, and worst yet, has followers, so her fallacies are, in a sense, both legitimised and vindicated. I would do what people in real life do to such pesky and persistently annoying elements of society - ignore her. Terroiriste 10:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Darfur

Annan's previous incompetence in Rwanda can be compared with his present incompetenced in Darfur. We can see Annan gesticulations in Labanon (less than 2000 deaths, all told) and his total absence in Darfur (hundred of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and displaced persons). What is the UN doing to stop this situation? Nothing at all! But it is not a genocide, since the definition of genocide is through a vote at the Security Council, and some veto-owning countries refuse to call it so...... Alfredr 23:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

24.60.104.71 23:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)even if he is anti-israeli which I pretty sure he isnt, making the leap form anti-israeli to anti-semetic is way to far of a leap.

Alfredr, please please please study facts before making such comments. Darfur is a large region, which like the DRC problem, requires a large military presence to control. Where do you think the UN gets its peacekeeping forces from? I understand that there are many Americans who have bought into the whole fallacy that the UN is this big organisation with a huge army intent on taking ove the world, but I would hope that shining the light of knowledge on it would dispel that myth. Darfur is a result of a confluence of actions, including member states blocking action on Darfur due to the imminent resolution of the North-South treaty, for fear of it stealing the limelight or delaying resolution. Are you aware that the SG cannot act unilaterally? The UN is a collection of nations; if the SG or the DPKO is not given the troops or mandate to intervene, then they just quite simply CANNOT. And as for Genocide, the problem is that China refuses to recognise oppression of a rebelion as genocide as it would adversely affect their own human rights violations. As for Darfur, please read James Traub's account of the UN's involvement in Sudan, it will answer a lot of your questions and make you a better informed person as result. Terroiriste 11:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Incumbency

On the box thing, on the right hand side it says he's still incumbent, and in office, well this is not the case anymore so someone should change it.212.1.137.244 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Explanation for BoxingWear

Hello, BoxingWear - I can see that you mean well and have good intentions with your recent edits. However, it simply is not in accord with Wikipedia standards to write up your own personal evaluation of Mr. Annan (or any other figure). While there may be some "facts" sprinkled in there, it is nonetheless your personal summing up of things, and therefore amounts to Original Research. This is especially important when creating a new section that aims at dealing with his "Legacy" - iow, summing up his entire career. If there is to be such a section, it needs to be drawn from published evaluations of his career and legacy, and should reflect more than one POV.

As to the external link you added - there's no compelling reason for the Kofi Annan page to link to an article about Ban Ki-moon. However, you might want to take a look at the Ban Ki-moon page and see if it's needed there. I'm not advocating one way or the other, but at least there's a possible rationale for putting a link in that article. Hope this has been helpful. Cgingold 06:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanx, no, not my opininon, that was from internet, i changed few words out of fear of copyright violation, we need his legacy, this is not pov, that is a generally accepted statement, why don't you improve the legacy, but this man is now gone, so now... next step is legacy, do you agree, i believe most of us will!

[the above unsigned comment was added by User:BoxingWear , 22:22, January 22, 2007]

Hello again, BoxingWear - Please sign each of your comments by typing 4 tildes (~~~~), which automatically adds your linked username along with a time-stamp. Also, the standard practice on talk pages is for each editor to indent his/her newly added comments by typing one more colon (:) than was used for the preceeding comment. This makes it easier to distinguish adjoining comments. (I've already taken care of your last comment.) Whenever you start a new paragraph (by adding a line-space) you will need to type in those colons again (the same number each time).

Now, about your edits that I've reverted once again. I already explained why the Ban Ki-moon link doesn't belong here - please don't put it back. As for the proposed "Legacy" section, I have no objection to such a section in principle. But the paragraph you added was full of opinions -- even if they weren't your own -- and therefore, a citation is required, not optional. Moreover, simply changing a couple of words isn't really enough to eliminate the issue of copyright violation. And as I said above, it needs to be drawn from published evaluations of his career and legacy, and should reflect more than one POV. Please remember, this is an encyclopedia article, which means the contents are held to higher standards than a blog. This means that you need to locate high-quality sources -- especially for a "Legacy section" that evaluates an entire life and career.

If you need assistance in terms of learning how to contribute more fruitfully to Wikipedia, you might consider asking for a mentor. I know they exist, though I'm not sure how they're arranged -- but you should be able to find out by typing {{helpme}} on your personal talk page, along with your question (that works for any question you an need answer to).

Cgingold 13:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if you removed legacy, whtaver, but, do us all a favor, instead of giving poor excuses, why don't you write it and make it better? Boxingwear

Support for major change of this article

I would like to delete most of the information about the UN-controversies. The main issue for the UN should be the war in the Congo, which resulted in the most casualties in an armed conflict since the Second World War and novelty of breaking UN Secrurity Council agreements regarding the war on Yugoslavia and the war on Iraq. Furthermore, Annan should be noted for the Millenium project aimed on making poverty history. Of course, the information about Annan's son should have a prominent place in this article. If nobody reacts, then i will perform the changes on my own.--Daanschr 18:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The controversies should stay. The title should be changed. The events directly involed Annan. They were not merely events which ocurred while he held office. He took it upon himself to personally oversee the Oil for Food program for example. Then when it all goes south, we can't take it out of the article, saying that it didn't have anything to do with him. Also he personally vouched for, and many think tried to cover for, his friend in the sexual harassment allegation. Aaain, not just something that happened on his watch, bu something he was personally involved in... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.170.87 (talk)

It would be good to wait for other people to join this discussion, i know too little about it.--Daanschr 17:21, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

To me the section about the Oil for food inquiry smacks of POV and weasel words. The sentence "Some feel the results of this inquiry were politically motivated (paraphrase)" should not be there. Who are some, what are their reasons, assessing these reasons would all be fair game, but just to say some doesn't cut it. Some would say thunder is God bowling.

User Daanschr, your comment "Of course, the information about Annan's son should have a prominent place in this article." does not make much sense to me. If you read either of Kofi Annan's biographies, you will find plenty of evidence, both from conversations with him and his circle, as well as from the second Volcker report, that Kojo's actions were not known to Annan, including accounts from people with first hand experience of phone conversations between Annan and Kojo when Oil-for-Food first erupted. Kofi Annan had little to do with his son from his first marriage, especially after he remarried. I would agree however had you suggested that a link be put to Kojo's page where it is discussed at great length, including how Kojo used his father's name to be paid a retainer by Cotecna.

Unsigned user 71.116.170.87, your statement "He took it upon himself to personally oversee the Oil for Food program for example." shows an utter lack of research and knowledge about the facts and only exposes your ignorant bias. Kofi Annan did NOT personally oversee Oil-For-Food, and anyone who has studied the UN or the facts of Oil-for-Food could tell you that. It was first formulated by British and American diplomats as a stopgap solution to the crippling effects of sanctions on the Iraqi people. The programme itself was run by Iraqis, headed by Saddam Hussein, as he would accept no other authority over it than himself. It was overseen by the 611 Committee which operated by consensus with representatives of all 15 members of the Security Council, chaired by various people in the course of its existence, including Peter van Waldum from Holland between 1999 and 2000. The US Department of State was privy to each and every shipment of goods that entered as part of Oil-for-Food; in fact, they often held up shipments on grounds of dual-use items. The scandal involved payments to companies contracted to handle the shipments not the programme itself. Do you even know what the Oil-for-Food scandal is about? The only way that you could have possibly been confused is by knowing only part of the facts. The 661 Committee was intially placed under the management of the Secretariat Department, but in March 1997, before the time the allegations refer to, Kofi Annan passed all jurisdiction and management to the Office of the Iraq Programme, with Benon Sevan, a Cypriot diplomat at its head. It is Benon Sevan who was the target of the first Vockler Commission report, not Kofi Annan. It is only the sensationalist media outlets and Op-eds in the US that called it "Kofigate", a reflection on the isolationist and paranoid view that mainstream America had been fed under the Bush Administration - a view which you are obviously trying to perpetuate. Do your research before adding fuel to the fire, please. This is Wikipedia, it is based on facts. Terroiriste 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another controversary should be the U.N's failure to disarm Hezbollah according to U.N 1559 and also their complcity in allowing Hezbollah to fire from behind their positions.Kirin4 23:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Anti Semetism

There are many charges against Mr. Anan which demonstrate his clear antipathy toward Jewish people. In addition, Mr. Annan's failure in Rwanda--responsible for the ultimate death of 800,000 innocent people ought to be mentioned as a scandal as well. This has been the subject of articles in such prominent articles as the Wall Stree Journal.

The Rwandan issue is already in the article. Since nearly anyone who dares criticise Israel is accused of anti-semitism, perhaps you could find a reliable source which accuses Annan of anti-semitism rather then simply stating there are many charges? Nil Einne 11:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Many, many reliable sources noted Kofi Annan's anti-semetism. They find that his anti-semetic not because of his decidedly Anti-Israel posture, but because he reserves censure only to Israel--even when it protects itself from terrorists. This is a serious flaw--not merely on a moral level, obviously--and should be considered. DavidCharlesII 19:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you actually produce any of these 'many, many' sources for scrutiny? If not, what was the point of your post? You have given us nothing to 'consider'. Indisciplined 12:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean Kofi Annan only censures Israel and has never censured the United States, China etc? Funny then that his outgoing speech was about the need for the US to return to multilateralism Nil Einne 10:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

A censure is not the criticism of one man, in this case Kofi Annan talking about the US role in the world. A censure is the official condemnation of an act by either the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. Also no one made the claim that Kofi Annan only censures Israel, just that a large amount of UN censures are directed at Israel, with a much smaller number going out to the organizations that fight Israel, (including numerous Arab governments and terrorist organizations). To see more on this, just type UN israel censure into google and feel free to wade through the info if you'd like something to consider.

I'm not sure what you're suggesting for this article, but it's not appropriate to suggest that Annan is personally antisemitic because of the actions of the UN as a whole. That criticism would be better placed in an article about the UN, not its Secretary-General — unless you have evidence that the UN has become markedly more antisemitic under Annan's leadership. (And of course, there's the point that criticism or censure of Israel, even disproportionate criticism, isn't necessarily the same as antisemitism, although the two often go together.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again. I am a student of UN history and have particular interest in Kofi Annan's controversial two terms as SG, and I have never come across anything that he has ever said or written that could even remotely be construed as anti-semitic, that is, unless you are a Zionist who is unable to examine the complicated series of events surrounding the whole Israel-Arab conflict with dispassionate objectivity.

UN censure should be read as exactly what it is - the world deciding that something is not acceptable, not one man. It is true that the General Assembly has on many ocassions criticised and censured Israeli acts. That is not Kofi Annan speaking, but the world speaking. If anything, Kofi Annan has tried to put things in context and limit the seemingly uncontrolled censure of Israel by setting up a committee to discusss what constitutes terrorism specifically in the Israel-Arab context. He even lists it as one of the key objectives in his UN reform document. Uninformed, passion-driven statements like David CharlesII's should not be part of Wikipedia. Since when has the number of hits on a google search constituted consensus? Laughable! Terroiriste 11:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Although I think Annan like a couple of his fellow Global Elders is an anti-semite how about using the term Anti-Israel? He has a double standard about Hezbollah terroist attacks against a member state but feels Lebanon was blameless in their allowing them to launch fromtheir country.Kirin4 20:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Her is an example of Annan's bias against Israel. Should we add Israel bias to the main page?http://www.zoa.org/2006/08/zoa_condemns_un_1.htm Kirin4 20:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite a 15 day wait someone is objecting to posting Annan Anti-Israeli bais. Is the link above relliable.?Winterflyer 17:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Image

It has been a while since I did any news media and was only checking the spelling of Kofi's name but I am sure the picture, although slightly resembling the last UN secretary-general is not the same person. Is there going to be a film made staring Morgan Freeman as Kofi Annan? lol 84.9.37.170 16:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Errors

A new editor noted the following. I think it was intended more as a talk page comment than something in the text of the article so I've moved it here. --JayHenry (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are some significant factual errors and inconsistencies here relating to Fante and Akan. A Fante and an Ashanti are both from the Akan stock for an 'Akan' is a collective name which includes the tribal groups of which both Fante tribe and Ashanti tribe form a significant part. Twins are called 'ntafo' which renders roughly in English 'duo' or 'two' people born one after the other by the same mother - usually on the same day.

Nobel Prize icon

I notice that the Nobel Prize icon Template:Nobel icon has been added and removed a couple of times, and would like to point out a discussion at Template talk:Nobel icon#Consensus?. --Stormie (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Rwanda

Annan's inexplicable incompetence in Rwanda MUST be mentioned.

Annan's rôle in Rwanda/Burundi is very explicable. As is anything else on politix people actually delve into. His part -- and that of everyone else involved -- in this squalid, sordid warcrime, is covered in depth and in detail in the audio archives of the weekly University of Toronto CIUT radio show "The Taylor Report" (accessible live over the Internet on Mondays). This is an extremely important archive on what has been going on in Afrika and elsewhere over the recent neo-colonial period. Can't be recommended enuff. Needless to say, the facts revealed in the show's archives bear little resemblance to the official stories most people have bought-into.

Phil Taylor's site also contains the exposé "Colonialism dies hard" (Ça ne s'est pas passé comme ça à Kigali), published as a book in french and english, but available in full in english online.

Needless to say, I am no fan of Kofi Annan, or the entire UN bureaucracy which now wholly serves imperialist/neocolonial interests.

Better to call it the League of Nations. More accurate.

Pazouzou 15:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you agreeing that Annan was completely incompetent as is responsible for the death of nearly one million people? If so, this really should be put in. . . I think his anti-semetic slant is also clear in all his public proclomations.

DavidCharlesII 19:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, would you all kindly read the article before making suggestions? There is a bit on Rwanda there and as far as I can tell, it was there when you all made the above suggestions. If there are improvements to be made on the Rwanda section, kindly suggest them or make them yourself but please don't recommend we add something which is already there. As for the anti-semitism bit, see above... Nil Einne 11:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Article is incorrect in saying Annan's office did not respond to Dallaire's faxed warnings. Annan told Dallaire not to confiscate weapons which had been cached for use in the upcoming genocide, even though the weapons were in an area which the UN Mandate required Dallaire to keep weapons-free. Annan told Dallaire not to protect the informant who had revealed the genocide plot. Annan told Dallaire to inform the Rwandan president of the plot, even though the president was closely associated with the planners of the genocide.

From the Human Rights Watch report: "January 12: Dallaire received a response from Iqbal Riza, writing over the signature of Kofi Annan, head of peacekeeping operations, stating that the UNAMIR mandate did not permit the planned operation against the arms caches. Riza directed Dallaire to discuss Jean-Pierre’s information with Habyarimana and to inform the ambassadors of Belgium, France, and the U.S. He stated further that the U.N. could not offer protection to Jean-Pierre." [3].
From a PBS Frontline interview with Philip Gourevitch, author of the book "We Wish To Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed With Our Families": "The force commander presumes that it was okay to take action. And he says, 'Look, my mission, my rules are to go out there and to seize these illegal arms caches. (Kigali was supposed to be a weapons-free zone under the U.N. mandate.) I'm going to go out and seize these arms caches. I know they're there. I believe my informant. What I want to know is how to protect him. This man has come forward at tremendous risk to himself. (He believed that his informant [was] at risk.) Tell me how to do that.' And the U.N. said, 'We don't know how.'" [4]
From the National Security Archive's report "The US and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994": "In this notorious 'genocide fax' (originally published in The New Yorker), Gen. Dallaire warns UN peacekeeping officials—Maj. Gen. Maurice Baril, the military adviser to Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali, and Kofi Annan, who at the time was Under Secretary General for PKO (peacekeeping operations) and is now UN Secretary General—of the existence of arms caches, a plot to assassinate Belgian UN peacekeepers and Rwandan members of parliament, and the existence of lists of Tutsis to be killed. Dallaire informs New York of his intention to raid the caches, but foreshadowing later developments, Annan and DPKO official Iqbal Riza refuse the request, citing UNAMIR’s limited mandate. Instead, they order Dallaire to apprise the president of Rwanda of the informant’s allegations, despite the fact that the arms caches and assassination plan are the work of those close to the president." [5]

(preceeding comments added by user 68.167.204.132 at 09:51, 27 December 2006)

It should be mentioned, at least here in the discussion page, that the "unfortunate incident" in Rwanda is just another example of their collective efforts to disarm the public. Removing "small arms", such as their "small arms report" supports, helps to make people defenseless and allows big governments and terrorist-warlords to rule unchallenged. It is not funny how "sorry" these politicians are when the fingers start getting pointed towards them! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

circumstances surrounding election

I recall that Annan emerged as a candidate fairly late after other Secretary General choices proved impossible for all the veto-wielding security council members to agree on. I've also read that France initially vetoed his candidacy, but withdrew its opposition in subsequent rounds of voting. It'd be nice if someone who knows more about this (and has sources) could add some detail about how he was elected. --Delirium 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dunno but United Nations Secretary-General may interest you. SGs are always people mostly unknown and are often consensus candidates Nil Einne 20:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Annan was for the longest time, even during the first year of his tenure as SG, dubbed the "American candidate". THe issue was, in brief, the US wanting Boutros-Ghali out, and to win the African bloc, said they would support another African candidate. Annan had already proven a good pro-US candidate who understood that it was important to get in the US's good books, among other things, so that the American government would pay its more than $1 billion debt to the UN.

France had always been annoyed that the US was refusing to give its favoured SG, Boutros-Ghali a second term, and in fact held out until the very last minute. One of its problems was that it had been misled into believing that Annan was either unwilling to or unable to conduct himself fluently in "the Language of Moliere". This was proven later to be untrue in an article in Le Monde, as he is a fluent speaker of French and supports multi-lingualism. The final compromise came when it became obvious that the US and UK were united in their opposition to every other candidate in an attempt to use their vetoes to overpower the French opposition to Annan. One would think that when it comes to vetoes, two vetoes is no more powerful than one veto, but history would prove otherwise. US and UK pressure eventually strongarmed the French to accept a compromise. Annan agreed to give the French the post of head of the DPKO and the rest, as they say, is history. Terroiriste 11:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

To call Annan the US Candidate is an insult to the USA. WE have a constitution and we strive to help people in distress. Annan has repeatedly shown his distaste for freedom and democracy. Reference Rwanda and the small arms report and multiple other civil wars where he actively worked against protecting innocent people and prevented those innocents from the means of defense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowesR1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Doubt about pronunciation

/ˈkoʊfi ˈænən/ sounds very much like a pronunciation that a naive native speaker of (American) English would use if he/she doesn't know how to (or, as usual, simply can't) pronounce the name correctly. If this is indeed the case (I don't know), then this IPA transcription should be removed (and possibly replaced with a proper pronunciation that would be used by a native speaker of Kofi Annan's mother tongue). Yes, I did read the bit about rhyming with 'cannon', but that word can be pronounced in many ways depending on accent, and he might very well have referred only to the stressing (by using an approximation that can be communicated to English speakers even in writing). That doesn't mean that the very specific IPA transcription (not just a rough approximation, but a specific transcription using IPA), using sounds from American English, is correct.

Of course it's not wrong for an American to approximate the name using the sounds of American English, just as it's not wrong for a Russian or German to pronounce it using Russian or German sounds (though the latter two are usually less detached from a native pronunciation...). What is wrong is claiming that the one that's given above is the right pronunciation, as the article did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.48.113 (talk) 18:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

This page has been vandalised ? All I see is "Get the UN out of the US and get the US out of the UN." Pucao 21:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I set it back to the previous state. Pucao 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There's a million random pictures on this page. I'll do what I can, but someone needs to lock it. Papercrab 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Locking a page that's linked from the main page isn't usually recommended. See Wikipedia:Protection policy#Uses, which says:

Important Note: When a page is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is rarely appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

Sorry to the usual editors of this page, but there should be lots of folks helping out to clear up the mess. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"Kofi Atta Annan (pron.: /ˈkoʊfi ˈænən/; born 8 April 1938) is a Russian diplomat who served as the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, from 1 January 1997 to 31 December 2006. " This is what I am just reading as the first part of this article. Kofi Annan is certainly far from being a "Russian diplomat"! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh4000 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. It looks like the vandalism was added just today, and I have reverted it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for Semi-protection

The problem has now been taken care of. I made another request for Semi-protection, and this time it was swiftly granted. No more anonymous racist vandals! At last we can all breathe a lot easier as far as this page is concerned. :) Cgingold 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops I didnt realised he was on main page, I'm going to have to remove the block, I'll give you guys 10 mins or so to get on top things. Gnangarra 14:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought other concerned editors might like to see my followup exchange with admin Gnangarra, which I posted on his/her talk page:

== Kofi Annan Semi-protection ==

Hi, I see that you've reversed your decision to give Semi-protection to the Kofi Annan page. I was delighted and relieved (and I know I'm not alone!) when you came through with Semi-protection. As I mentioned in my requests, the page has been an ongoing magnet for racist vandalism -- which reflects very badly on Wikipedia.

Although it's linked to from the main page, it's not out of the question to give it Semi-protection -- as contrasted with locking it up completely. Even the statement re policy only says "It is rarely appropriate to protect pages in this case." Note that it doesn't say "never" -- and that was referring to FULL protection, in any event.

This page is crying out for Semi-protection to keep the pathetic anonymous vandals from continually posting their not-so-cute racist remarks, etc. Please... reconsider this, and restore Semi-protection ASAP. Not just to spare myself and the other concerned editors from a lot of pointless & unnecessary work, but also to protect WP from an undeserved reputation for racist comments in articles about people of African ancestry.

Cgingold 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The reply was on my talk page:

I've noticed the amount which was why I agreed, but after considering main page protection policy I reverted. That said its on my watchlist and i'll be around for another hour so if the vandalism starts up again I'll semi-protect and list at WP:AN with my reasonings. That said you may like to list there now with diffs showing the amount its getting, asking for discussion on whether its appropriate for semi protection. Gnangarra 15:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cgingold 16:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

SEMI-PROTECTION! Finally. It took three tries, but this time it's for real. Here's my followup request (from Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection):

Once again, I am requesting semi-protection for Kofi Annan, which is being subjected to continuing vandalism by multiple anonymous users. I understand that the general rule is to exempt pages that are linked to from the main page, but I believe an exception needs to be made for this page.

As I have said previously, it has been a magnet for ongoing vandalism -- often crudely racist in nature -- for months now. The most recent vulgarity was substituting a photograph of human testicles for the photo of Mr. Annan. Cute. Please protect this page -- for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation, and yes, to spare us conscientious editors from the ridiculous waste of our time that could better be spent on constructive editing. Thank you! Cgingold 01:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And here's what the admin said:

Semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. The policy refers to FA's only, so other items such as Kofi Annan usually can be protected without any problems. Nishkid64 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe that photo was a blessing in disguise...

Cgingold 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Family?

Normally, there is a section dedicated to family on pages relating to famous people, mentioning husband/wife, children, parents, siblings, and so on. Here, there is nothing. Does this man live in a personal vacuum?194.103.31.20 (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The article mentions his wives, the former and current one, but they have never been public figures. I recall reading a "holiday interview" in a daily here in Sweden about ten years ago; they had found him and his family out in the rustic coastal archipelago of Blekinge, where they'd spend some time every summer out of the ken of photographers and reporters; his wife would have found the place. The locals knew of course but were happy to help guard their privacy. ;) 83.254.151.33 (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Kofi Annan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Kofi Annan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kofi Annan. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 19:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Kofi Annan. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 14:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kofi Annan. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 03:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kofi Annan. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 11:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)