Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:37, 13 December 2006

Biography: Arts and Entertainment B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Template:TrollWarning

Date of Death

Deputy State Medical Examiner Dr. James Olson, who did the autopsy, told The Oregonian it was an "educated guess" that Kim likely died two days after leaving his family, based on the condition of the body. he was found on Wednesday which means he probably died on monday—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.83.238 (talk • contribs) 00:25, December 9, 2006.

GPS and Snow Tires

Being a tech writer, I thought he would have had a GPS.

Also, their car, the SAAB 9-2X is a All-Wheel drive car - unless the snow was very very deep it shouldn't have gotten stuck? I wonder if they had snow tires on... If the snow was that deep, I wonder why they continued to drive...

In anycase, very sad.

Coolspot 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing

Missing? It sounds like they are just on vacation. How do we know they are actually missing?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.231.67 (talk • contribs) 11:41, December 4, 2006.

YES!!!!

His wife and daughter were found! but alas :( no JAmes Kim yet.... hope he is ok BrianEd 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Trackers Find James Kim's Pants

Should be mentioned. --72.136.188.23 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you tech community

I think the response from the CNET and tech community in general has been awesome-- people giving their prayers and offering tips its just great! Thank you. I remember the day I saw the article I went onto Misplaced Pages and thought about making his article, but "saved if for later" :-)

Thank god his family was found, and i have a gut feeling tonight may be a lucky one.

Thanks,

--Alegoo92 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the dubious tag added

Heres the source: http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6140705.html?tag=cnetfd.mt

--James Bond 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The line in the article "they kept the car engine running day and night to keep warm" suggests to me that they ran the engine constantly until it ran out of gas. In the video you linked, Sheriff Anderson says they were running the engine "during the day and at night." I don't interpret this to mean that they kept it running continuously, and my personal experience in these mountains tells me its not that cold up there. Headwes 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Wire stories are saying it was run only at night. Fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The wire services are reporting different versions of certain events. For example, I keep reading that they were airlifted to the hospital, yet the sheriff states that they arrived by AMR ambulance. Do we have any reason to believe the wire services are better sources than the sheriff's department? Headwes 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's that important to you, cite the claim to the Sheriff. Is this what we should be spending our time on? --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I was the one who posted the dubious tag to start with. I did so because the article suggested they ran the engine constantly, which is almost certainly false. If not, it would be quite a huge error in judgement on the part of the Kims. You're right that whether they ran it during the day and night, or just at night, really doesn't matter--but, if we're going to mention that they ran it during a specific time, we might as well get it right. Headwes 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I just removed the "at night" part. They kept warm by running the engine--simple and to the point. Headwes 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Headwes, the dude died from freakin' hypothermia. How is that not that cold? It's the Pacific Northwest, famous for it's rain and cold!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.107.131 (talk • contribs) 03:16, December 8, 2006.

Oregon is hardly famous for its cold--especially not that area. Its near the coast, right near the southern border with California, and the elevations are typically under 4000 feet. My point was that it wouldn't be so cold that they would need to run the car continuously to stay warm, as the article previously implied. In Portland, I'm Headwes 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Conflicting news stories

It's pretty irritating how breaking news stories always have discrepancies between sources. I understand that's largely because there is a chain of people relaying information, so quality is bound to degrade, and also things are not always as the first responders perceive it. But too much of it is simply carelessness in people's listening and speaking/writing.

Does it matter whether they ran the engine "day and night" or "during the day and during the night," or whether he agreed to -turn back- at 1:00pm or -be back- at 1:00pm? Yes, it does matter. Because all those details add up to create very different pictures of the situation and of the mindset/actions of the people invloved. Evaluations and conclusions will be made based on those reported details. The people invloved will be judged differently based on those details. Tragic romance 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I work in the media (writing for a radio news wire) in San Francisco, and they were running the engine sporadically, when the tempatures "went below freezing."—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.107.131 (talk • contribs) 03:14, December 8, 2006.

Vandalism

Someone added this unencyclopedic sentence:

"Previously, few people ever heard of him, until he and his wife made a really stupid decision to drive a backcountry road in the wilderness in winter."

I am removing it. 72.43.143.117 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

it true, tho. look at silenced digg comments in dugg stories. ton of people not know james kim. o-so democratic digg try -2- hide this, but u can still click post. 72.36.251.234 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, James Kim is currently missing, but the words "stupid" and "backcountry" are not encyclopedic. 72.43.143.117 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has ever visited CNet more than a couple times knows will know who he is, by face if not by name. And anyway, here are a lot of notable individuals who are unknown to most people. -- Tim D 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

DEAD

According to www.kgw.com the guys body has been found. Sle 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The press conference about 10 minutes announced that they found his dead body. More information will be announced in the next couple of hours. --Daniel Schibuk 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

U.S. mainstream networks MSNBC and CNN are reporting that he is dead. Allison Stewart just asked her guest about exactly what caused his death. It is safe to say that he is deceased. Phillip J. Fry 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not checked the other messages regarding this; but, I would suspect that a cnet affiliate would have several examples of the latest gps &/or cellular &/or other transceivers.

{The cnet page includes "...stock options backdating that occurred between 1996 and 2003." Just odd.}

Thank You.

hopiakuta- 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Both CNET, CNN, and the BBC are reporting that his body has indeed been found. MakeDamnSure 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The trail of clothing found is a strong indicator of hypothermia :( Maybe a link to hypothermia on the page would be appropriate? (http://en.wikipedia.org/Hypothermia)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.172.211 (talk • contribs) 21:31, December 6, 2006.

What exactly were they doing?

This story gives me a headache: It's being treated as if it were normal to travel through remote winter passes with children in a laughably inadequate car. I have not heard anything about the cause of their being stranded. How remote is that area, and what were they doing there? Is this sort of thing common in the rural areas of the United States? mstroeck 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a statistically rare event, but there's been quite a few similar ones over the years. The general story goes: A group is traveling between two urban areas, and takes a short-cut on a rarely used and unmaintained road through a remote area in bad weather. Car gets stuck. Group has little or no winter gear. One person walks off to get help anyway and usually dies. Several days later SAR team finds the rest of the group alive in the car.

This story (with minor variations) shows up every year or two in my local paper. Usually doesn't make the national news. Toiyabe 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe James and his family were on their way to meet family for thanksgiving. They took a wrong turn and got lost. After trying to find their way back they skidded of the road where their car got stuck. -Diggnation4Life

I can't find the article I read it on (I think it was CNN) but apparently the road they were driving on is closed during the winter, but the map they were using did not have that warning such as other maps do. A1ecks 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added hypothermia.

Do you mean "were"?

I do advocate the tilde.

Thank You.

hopiakuta 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for that helpful intermission. This being a wiki, you could just have edited the typo instead of annoying everyone. mstroeck 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please, scribe your own comment. I rarely delete others' efforts; but, you've suggested it.

hopiakuta 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mstroeck, the explanation is that Northern California, Oregon, and the Pacific Northwest generally are experiencing huge gains in population. There's an increase in people living in urban areas, but (I think) a relatively stable rural population, as the agricultural/forestry economy moves to a tourist/vacation home economy. There are just more people traveling around like this nowadays, and the wilderness areas are just a hop away from the developed areas. That said, this is off-topic for this Talk page. Hopiakuta, please try to figure out what is wrong with your signature. --Dhartung | Talk 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So get in the article and mention it. I do agree with certain aspects of your point... For example, WHY??? would he get off the road? WHY??? would they sit there for over a week when they had roads to walk back on, the snow was not excessively deep, and the snow was even GONE at lower elevations. They knew they weren't that far in. And as far as having the children, they could have carried them or improvised a sled from the car's materials. There MAY be a reason, such as the wife being unable to walk for some reason. We don't know the facts yet. People were calling him an idiot when it was reported that he ditched his pants. Then we found out he had had two pairs. So until we know all the facts (or as many as we can get), it's probably premature to judge them. One thing I fear is that we will never know why he left the road. That's one of the worst things you can do.Tragic romance 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't encourage people to add uncited opinion. If there are reliable sources stating that he could have successfully walked out that is one thing. Most survival advice that I have seen says that the mistake he made was leaving the car (aside from ending up on a snowed-in mountain road in the first place). The clothes removal is a well-known symptom of late-stage hypothermia, so he was not acting rationally at that time -- in fact, he was very nearly clinically dead. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Their car's distance from the town of Merlin, OR isn't my opinion, it's a matter of fact. Include it and let the reader draw their own conclusions. -jhudsui —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.33.18.2 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

They obviously were not prepared for winter travel, no emergency kit, not even blankets, which is always big mistake. As for the map, you should always prepare for bad weather and an alternate route, they came during a time of bad storms, I was in it too in the Pacific Northwest. If you get lost and you go to a remote road that has not been plowed you should turn around. A day or two wait in a hotel or a longer way back is a better alternative. If you do get stuck, leaving the car is also a big mistake. I would think even then that he could of tried to walk back the way they came, why go into the wilderness? But it is hard to fault a guy who's last mission was to save his family, what a sad story for all. I only hope that this story will save lives in the future for being very careful and most importantly prepared.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs) 22:46, December 7, 2006.

I realize this isn't really supposed to be on the Talk page, but would you sit in your car with your family, day after day, for a week or more, when you had perfectly acceptable roads to walk out on, and were only a day's walk from civilization? Considering (as far as you know) that no one knows you are there, so there won't be a search in the area? The only "big mistake" about leaving the car, is that he waited until he was weak and desperate, and no longer able to face the trek with full vigor. I feel bad for him, but it stems from listening to "authority", and depending on others to save you. Save yourself. Tragic romance 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Is he notable?

With the exception of having recently died (which people do all the time, sadly) is there anything notable about him that would justify the existence of an article about him? Because last time I checked, Misplaced Pages is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather. No offense to his friends and family. -- Mattrixed 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your suggestion that this article needs to have its existence "justified" is so shockingly absurd that I have to wonder if it is some kind of sick joke. Furthermore, your statement that "Misplaced Pages is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather." is extremely offensive and very callous of you. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, first for suggesting that an event followed closely in every major news outlet by millions of people throughout America and beyond needs to "justify its existence as a Misplaced Pages article", and second for making such an abrasive and insensitive remark about Mr. Kim. Blacksun1942 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

* Are you daft? This was a major news event nationwide, and was indeed global news. Your rationale is moronic -- at best. (unsigned comment)

He was an editor at CNet, host on a TV-show and has been mentioned about a hundred times several major news-outlets online and offline over the last several days? mstroeck 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware that he's been in the news, but is that enough to justify having his own article. Point in question: did this article exist before he was reported missing? From the history, the answer seems like "no". -- Mattrixed 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this article on Kim was created on September 1, 2004 and is linked on techtv. James Kim was a daily product reviewer and frequent guest host to many of the TechTV shows on national cable television over a span of years (around 2000 to 2005). The entire TechTV crew has a phenomenal fan following even though their cable channel was bought out by their competitor G4 channel and all shows were cancelled in 2005.Rugz 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that it's relevant to the merits of the article at hand, but the article was actually a redirect to Kim Se Hwang until 02 December--after the deceased Mr. Kim was already reported missing. Matt Gies 09:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

We have featured articles about individual Pokémon, for God's sake. There is zero reason to request deletion of this article. Capital letter Notability is de-facto not a requirement for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, and hasn't been for quite a while. If it's interesting, it's here. There are many excellent, high-profile sources about this case, and it is highly likely to be mentioned in the future as an example of the dangers of remote areas and travel by car. mstroeck 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ur so right. becuz wikipedia has pokemon article nothin shuld b deleted! not even Barry Bonds 714th home run. after all, we have individule pokemon article!!! u know wut? im gonna go mak article on Barry Bond's knee. it have lot written up on it. just do . barry bonds knee more notable than any pokemon!!! 72.36.251.234 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

ps. go vote to keep Barry Bonds 714th home run!!! and dont forgot to vote to keep barry bonds knee when it get vote for deleted!!!! 72.36.251.234 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Easy with the nonsense, please! You're trying to equate a baseball and a body part with a person who is relatively well known. Did Mr. Kim happen to offend you at some point during his life? -- Tim D 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

i think mr. kim deserves a wikipedia article and i think it unfortunate he dead. however, i also think he given inordinate amount of attention on digg and that any "look at pokemon!" argument is stupid and need 2 b mocked as do those who make them. yes, mstroeck, ur stupid. there r plenty good reason 4 james kim article. yet despite all good reason, "look at pokemon!" is best u can do. u set urself up 4 strawman and r 2 dumb to realize it. lame 72.36.251.234 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note: if you really want to be taken seriously, try to stop using letters and numbers in place of words. I'm not nit-picking - it's seriously a distraction. Also, what happens on Digg.com means little to nothing about what's discussed here. So just try to chill out a bit :) -- Tim D 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It makes no difference whether there was an article before this event came about. He's quite well-known in the tech world, but it looks like not much was known about him personally until his disappearance became public. So now that information is more out in the open, a meaningful article can exist. -- Tim D 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear 72.36.251.234, let me inform you that there is zero tolerance for personal attacks and that the rest of your post is unconvincing and mean-spirited. As for James Kim, I second Dhartung's logic that he would have been notable as a CNET editor and television host, especially since we have pages for other CNET personalities. --Folksong 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

tell me - wut u think my argument is? do i argue 4 or against deletion? 72.36.251.234 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It is so difficult to understand your Engrish first of all; now you are asking for us to decipher your intentions too?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.198.158 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

if u dont understand my intentions, wut business do u have commenting on them? other then to say "i dont understand u" or "dont use abbreviations"? 72.36.251.234 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous, you could at least make an effort to make your posts more readable. Regarding Pokémon: I see no need to shy away from that argument just because some people --among them very obviously you-- are unable to understand its implications. It is not an argument against articles on Pokémon, but an argument against systemic bias. You do not have to agree, but in my world a real-life journalist, TV-host and entrepreneur who gets killed in an incredibly freak way and who is reported on by by practically every major news outlet in the US is more notable and interesting than Bulbasaur by a wide margin. If we let people write elaborate dissertations on Pokémon, we need to let people who care about technology journalism, wilderness safety and the media's reaction on such cases do the same. Nothing is to be gained from knowledge about Bulbasaur. Studying this case and the mistakes that were made might be a very interesting lesson for many people. Deleting this would be utterly ridiculous in light of the other things that are tolerated or even welcomed on Misplaced Pages. mstroeck 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

your "studying this case and the mistakes that were made might be a very interesting lesson for many people" point is a good one, however, your "deleting this would be utterly ridiculous in light of the other things that are tolerated or even welcomed on Misplaced Pages" point is still just as bad now as it was the last time you made it. articles should be able to stand on there own merit - not on Bublasaurs merit. really, your last point is Nothing more than a childish protest over Bulbasaur having an article. Stomp you feet, mstroeck. 72.36.251.234 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

While you may have intended one thing by drawing that comparison between a Pokemon character and James Kim, another assumption emerges from your argument and that is that you subscribe to the notion of notability as a proper means to measure the validity of a Misplaced Pages article. The comparison itself raises the question of why a Pokemon character--a question I don't care to go into. All I can say is that though your statement is not as acerbic as Mattrixed's claim (which started this whole thread), it still trivializes the man and reveals that for someone who aligns himself against systemic bias, you sure know how to practice it.71.102.189.76 10:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Could you elaborate? I do not see how this discussion could possibly "trivialize" the man. There is nothing more trivial than a man dying, it happens tens of thousands of times every day, and almost every single case is as tragic as this one for the family of the deceased. The purpose of this discussion is not to mock James Kim or his family, but to establish whether or not Misplaced Pages should have an article on him. mstroeck 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me begin with a question: how often have you found yourself considering in discussion whether or not a person carries with him sufficient notability to warrant having an article on him on Misplaced Pages? If you can link to other articles where this may have happened, I'd be more than happy to retract my statement. But then again, I don't think a retraction is needed seeing as how from what you just said about how "There is nothing more trivial than a man dying", you confirmed what I had said above.71.102.189.76 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To answer your question: About a hundred times here on Misplaced Pages. Still, I do not see what you are getting at. Could you please just state in simple and unambiguous terms what your issue with this discussion is? Your cryptic pseudo-eloquence is not helping anybody. Do you realize I am arguing for keeping this article? mstroeck 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this is the first time I've seen an article contested on grounds of notability. I knew there was a page on it, but once I saw the article for James Kim, I was shocked -- shocked to see that he has been given special attention as to whether or not he is notable whereas others who have garnered a comparable attention from the press and otherwise have articles written about them without so much as a hint of doubt. And in even entertaining the idea that he is not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article and by somehow attempting to prove that he is indeed worthy (by comparing him to Pokemon, no less), you slot yourself as being not really for the article, but in the face of the facts provided, grudgingly for it. Moreover, the whole gesture becomes corrupt with charity and suggests your own position as a legitimate authority who can sort out reasons as to why or why not he may be notable enough--which is strange given that at one point you seem to disavow notability as a sound way to decide whether to keep or delete an article. I would say that at least the others who object to this article's validity are somewhat honest, though to them I ask whether they go around making it a point to go to articles they couldn't care less about and bring up objections to their significance. Even the notability page defines the criteria outlined therein as guidelines. To decide whether or not an article stays based on these guidelines shows little respect to the communities/person is a way to preserve systemic bias, which I remind you is defined by speaking as someone who "(1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, (9) is from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor." It could very well be a cultural difference since I am from the U.S. where certain protocols of respect are met when discussing the recently deceased. In which case, I apologize and have no right to impose my own privilege upon you. 71.102.189.76 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have never seen an article contested on grounds of notability, you can't have been around very long... That happens a few dozen times a week. Apart from that, I wrote: "You do not have to agree, but in my world a real-life journalist, TV-host and entrepreneur who gets killed in an incredibly freak way and who is reported on by by practically every major news outlet in the US is more notable and interesting than Bulbasaur by a wide margin." Your point is what, exactly? Are you aware of the fact that rhetorical comparisons can inherently be wildly in favor of one of the options, to the point of ridiculing the other? I was expressing an opinion, which is all I can do in this matter, and my opinion seems to be exactly the same as yours: Mr. Kim certainly should have an article here. In my personal opinion, nobody has said anything inappropriate regarding Mr. Kim in this discussion thread, even though he made some very bad decisions that could have easily killed his family, which needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms. But well, I guess I'll just have to bow to my culturally privileged co-editor's opinion on what is appropriate when discussing the recently deceased... mstroeck 17:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simple: wikipedia asks for donations and on the same token james kim stuff bloatens the system.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.0.214.127 (talk • contribs) 10:04, December 11, 2006.

On the page Richard_Ian_Cox, see:

• Snowbound: The Jim and Jennifer Stolpa Story (1994) (TV)
• Alive: The Miracle of the Andes (1993)

Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

cannibalism

cannibal

Those incidents had occurred prior to cnet, when gps was not combined w/ cellular. The current incident is more than noteworthy; it's a scandal.

< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0111225/combined#comment >.

Thank You.

hopiakuta 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mattrixed, I believe that he would have passed (if barely) an AFD before his death, because of his career which encompassed blogging, journalism, and cable television. That said, he's very much in the demographic that leaeds to Misplaced Pages's systematic bias. If someone feels strongly about it, nominate for deletion, but if that were me I'd be nice and wait until tomorrow. --Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

According to ABC News' report, rescuers might not have found his family in the car if it not for his tracks that they followed. So, although he died in the process of looking for help, he was successful in saving his family in the end. He was a hero of a father. He has a place here. Moonwalkerwiz 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree there should be an article about him, because of his notability. However, sentimental notions are not a justification for him "having a place here." This is an information repository, not a shrine for heroes. It is notability and relevance that qualify a subject to get an article.Tragic romance 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Tragic romance is correct. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial, no matter how admirable the actions of someone. (In this case there are many critics as well.) Kim is notable because of his career, not because of his death. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Deaths are also encyclopedic, if they are themselves notable. Kim's death may not rise to the level of the assassination of John F Kennedy in deserving an entire article in its own right, but it's certainly generated enough mainstream media coverage to be worth summarizing here. --Delirium 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

If he did not have an article before he died, I don't think his death should be the reason for one. I am very sadded by his death and for his family, yet this does not merit an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Does this guy then not deserve his own article, since he wasn't notable before he died? Headwes 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's boggling how "notability" is being given the weight of discussion as it is here. I don't recall a panel on this when Daniel Pearl, also a journalist (though of a different stripe and of a different...nm), won himself a Misplaced Pages article. 71.102.189.76 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Natalee Holloway article should be deleted if notability prior to death is a necessary condition of having a Misplaced Pages article. She literally was a typical high school student/graduate until her death, with no claim to fame whatsoever. James Kim, on the other hand, was known by a large percentage of the former TechTV audience, and by the C|Net audience. KyleGoetz 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote for keep

I am creating a different section in order to separate my comment from the disorganization above. If someone cleans it up, feel free to move my comment into the previous section.

He was marginally notable before this incident, but now he is known the world over. Whether this is short-term notability is an issue for later. He has worldwide notability right now, and therefore there should be an article about him, in my understanding of Misplaced Pages policy.

Also, I agree that the grammar and tone of the above comments are unacceptable. Tragic romance 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• I find it says a lot about those editors who are suggesting this article be deleted, even on the day this poor fellow was found dead. How about going off and making a positive contribution to Misplaced Pages instead of pretending (to yourselves) that you are somehow helping with maintaining high quality standards on here. It almost sounds as if a few up there are jealous that this one guy is more notable and was able muster more bravery than you will squeeze out in your entire life. *rolls eyes

• I believe that this article should be kept. Veronica Belmont and other hosts from CNet have their own articles as do other hosts from the podcast "scene" (such as Amber MacArthur and Martin Sargent). I do believe, though, that the article should be "fleshed out" some with details about his life, not simply about his death. Just my two cents. --Gozel 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• i vote 4 keep. just because i attack and mock bad arguement no mean i attack or mock james kim. mayb that 2 complex 4 u. neway, cnet notable and so is james kim. keep. 72.36.251.234 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this is even a discussion. Of course an article on an obviously notable person with tons of media coverage is not going to be deleted. --Delirium 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This is world-wide news. The story is very unusual. The article is very good. --JJay 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Searchers were able to come in direct contact with James Kim on December 5th, 2006. However, rescue workers were unable to lower a medic to James Kim's location. Rescuers frantically attempted to devise a method for rescuing Kim, but did not reach him in time"

This makes it sound like they were in a helicopter dangling on a rope trying to grasp his hand at the instant hypothermia overcame him. In reality, he'd been dead for at least hours before his body was located.

• Vote for Keep - I had James Kim on my radar for articles to start even before his untimely death. Just goes to show that people are there and gone before you know it. There is no good reason that Mr. Kim should not have an article. --Borisborf 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

• Understanding that Misplaced Pages is not a memorial site, I think James Kim would have passed WP:BIO whether the incident that led to his death happened or not. Crunch 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

SFGate: A FAMILY’S TRAGEDY / GRIPPING STORY: It was tracked by millions: "On a day when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations on how to change course in America's 3-year-old war, many more Americans preferred Wednesday to track the minute-by-minute developments in the search for San Francisco father James Kim in the Oregon woods." --Michael Geary 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't creating this section to try to get voting started. By titling it "Vote for keep," I wasn't suggesting that others vote. I simply meant I vote for keep. Next time I'll use different wording. Sorry if that caused any confusion.Tragic romance 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Troublemaker on the page?

Regarding the edits from IP 72.36.251.234: I'm embarrassed even to have my sentences in the same section. "mayb that 2 complex 4 u. neway, cnet notable and so is james kim"

I realize this is a Talk page, not an article, so informality is fine. But that kind of writing is starkly out of sync with the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Not only is it in extreme disregard and disdain for the English language, it is also deliberately ungrammatical and confrontational.

In one section alone (above), this user threatens to "make a point" , and also personally attacks someone . Tragic romance 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

That kind of writing should be considered vandalism and dealt with accordingly. No need to suffer fools here. —Quicksilver 19:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article ?

I think the article should be split into two. One about the tragedy and the search party which captured nationwide media attention. I think having nationwide media attention about anything for a week is reason good enough to have article about. The second article (perhaps much shorter one) could be about James Kim - I think since he was main "actor" in the story it justifies separate article existence. Roman 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that's necessary. What article could not be looked at that way?Tragic romance 06:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Rescuers were in direct contact with Kim on Tuesday???

I noticed that someone added this to the article with the following reference.

"Searchers were able to come in direct contact with James Kim on December 5th, 2006. However, rescue workers were unable to lower a medic to James Kim's location. Rescuers frantically attempted to devise a method for rescuing Kim, but did not reach him in time."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16079394/

The MSNBC article does indeed state that... "Searchers told NBC News that they located Kim on Tuesday and at one point they were able to make direct contact with him. They explored ways to lower a medic to the area, they said, but it was not immediately clear whether that attempt ultimately failed or was too late to save Kim.

Rescuers frantically tried to work out ways to reach Kim in the impassable snow-jammed area over the next hours, Anderson said, but they couldn’t make it in time."

However, I think that this could be dubious rumor-reporting on MSNBC's part, which is not uncommon in the aftermath of an event like this.

What makes me skeptical of the report is the fact that Anderson indicated that James Kim had not been found at Tuesday's press conferences, and also indicated the following morning, on Wednesday, that his whereabouts were still unknown, and that care packages would be dropped at several locations in the hopes that he might find them. It wasn't until around 3pm Wednesday that it was reported an unidentified body was found lying face down in the ground.

If Kim had been found Tuesday, and furthermore, if contact had been made with him, and a "frantic" effort made to rescue him, why didn't Anderson mention any of this at Wednesay morning's press conference? Surely he would have known about such an event.

Most of all, this contradicts the paragraph DIRECTLY ABOVE IT, in which search and rescue officials went over the results of search efforts the previous day, tuesday, finding items of his clothing, but not Mr. Kim himself.

This event hasn't been reported by ANY other news source, including television and print sources, and the MSNBC article is an early one. I'm not so sure this should be in the Misplaced Pages article stated as fact when it's not been verified by any other source that I know of.

If nobody has any objections, I'm going to add "According to an MSNBC article" to that bit of information. Blacksun1942 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've answered this elsewhere, but it's my opinion that "direct contact" is search-and-rescue jargon indicating they located his body but were unable to determine his status. They don't say they communicated, and would have if they did, e.g. "he waved at rescuers" or some such. Most of the reports were much more circumspect, saying they were going to invesigate "another item" related to Kim. They were careful because they did not know if he were alive or dead until reaching him. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear Camp Road

Is here. Looks like he would have been ok if he stayed on the yellow route. 128.138.207.44 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The pilot who found the Kims noted that it was quite common for visitors to bear right instead left by mistake. :-( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Eric Fuqua and Noah Pugsley

I would recommend changing cite 5 from the article currently reference to this one: http://wjz.com/topstories/topstories_story_340152429.html as unlike the current citation, this article actually gives the names of the people who saved the lives of Kati and her children. It's debatable whether they should be named in the article here or not, but I think it's pretty unquestionable that the citation for the line mentioning them should link to an article that actually gives their names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.33.18.2 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Coordinates

Do we have any references that show the coordinates of where the car was found, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There are coordinates somewhere, but the external link "James Kim's path" does an excellent job showing where everything was.Tragic romance 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear Camp Road

In the "Maps Controversy" section, the article states that "The programs reportedly listed Bear Camp Road, where the Kims got stuck, as the most efficient shortcut".

The route between Merlin and Agness is shown on Google Maps as Galice Rd to BLM-34-8-36 to NF-23 (segments listed east to west, in the direction of their travel). If they missed the turn-off from BLM-34-8-36 onto NF-23 (i.e. stayed on BLM-34-8-36) , that would take them directly to where they got stuck - the intersection of BLM-34-8-36 and the road leading to Black Bar.

Does anybody know which of these segments (if any) is known as "Bear Camp Road"? Toiyabe 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Check this out:

It's my impression that to locals (as opposed to Google Maps), "Bear Camp Road" is pretty much the same thing as NF-23. Many of the forest service roads aren't even on Topozone, but I take it that a road can have a forest service designation *and* be known by another name, and need not be the same designation its entire length. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, that sounds reasonable. Except, if the through route is "Bear Camp Road" (i.e. the road they should have been on), then they didn't get stuck on Bear Camp Road as the article states. Toiyabe 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! Maps reference

I removed the map comparisons as edited in by Yeahsoo. The tone was informal, the text contained several grammatical errors, and I didn't see how dissecting the route was relevant to James Kim himself. If anyone has objections, please post them here. Cue the Strings 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanna Police

I'm just about positive this quote is inaccurate: "They thought the Hanna police was just about four miles away, when in reality, it was probably more like 15 miles away..James thought he could reach it in a couple of hours ... he was trying to get to a road, to flag down some help."

I'm pretty sure they said "the town of Galice" rather than the "hanna police". The fox article does say hanna police, but I think it's wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.41.105 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

I noticed this earlier as well, and I believe you are right. I'm a local to the area and that's the only thing that really makes sense... Might be best if we can find an accurate quote from a different source. --Kameron 08:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline?

I find the timeline excessive. In as little as a month, when the novelty and sadness of this incident has worn off, this timeline will seem odd and irrelevant to the article at hand. I guess this is always a danger when dealing with articles related to breaking news.-Dmz5 07:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I find the whole article excessive, right down to the footnotes. I don't mean to offend anyone who has worked on this, but it seems a tad morbid to pore in such detail over every aspect of his death.--Dmz5 08:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, his death is relevant and should be the focus of this article. James Kim will go down in history not because of being on CNET or his fascinating childhood but the morbid and unfortunate way in which he died. --UCLARodent 08:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the timeline is good for now. It contains only eight items (right now). Maybe later it won't be necessary.Tragic romance 10:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the timeline is at all necessary to this article. The article already focuses heavily on his death, and that section isn't really encyclopedic. That is more something left to a news story. We are not news reporters. We're encyclopedia writers there is a difference. Which is why there is a wikinews site.--Crossmr 16:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. But as we've seen in Misplaced Pages with all news story that garner a lot of attention, there tends to be a lot of information overload. As the story calms down, we can clean it up in a more disciplined manner. Crunch 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to keep information in an article because the story is currently on going. If you don't feel the information would be relevant in the article in 6 months, its not relevant now. We link to wikinews already, as well as several other news stories. So keeping that kind of information has no real place now, or in 6 months or 5 years from now.--Crossmr 20:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I was in favor of the timeline because it helps the reader understand the events more clearly. However if it really is unencyclopedic, and shouldn't be here, then I can see the point. However, what is the difference between having a chart or graph which aids understanding, and having a timeline for that purpose? Tragic romance 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What's so unencyclopedic about a timeline? What? There are no timelines in an encyclopedia? --UCLARodent 05:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the time line doesn't really add anything to article that isn't already covered in the multitude of news links to external sites and links to wikinews. Covering that single aspect of his life in that level of detail is unnecessary and doesn't benefit the article. We've already got 2 large sections dealing with what happened, so increasing its length with a time line isn't necessary or beneficial. --Crossmr 06:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This article on Demosthenes was selected as a Wiki Article of the Day for December 3rd. This distingushed article, lauded by the Wiki community, has a timeline which repeats information earlier in the article. So again, let me ask again: what's so unencyclopedic about a timeline? --UCLARodent 10:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The Demosthenes article does not have a timeline of his last days of living, so you are comparing apples to oranges Adkinsjm 16:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so a timeline can be useful under the correct circumstances. Thanks for beginning to come around to my point-of-view. Because earlier, people were opposed to any timeline at all saying it was "unencyclopedic". Perhaps if we expand the timeline to incorporate Kim's entire life, it will win over any lingering opposition? --UCLARodent 06:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is unnecessary. A timeline of his entire life, wouldn't cover the detail level of the current timeline, and Kim doesn't approach the notability level or numerous accomplishments of Demosthenes to warrant a timeline in the article devoted to his entire life. A life long timeline would only mention his death, not the detail in which this one is.--Crossmr 00:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its also a timeline in with the sources of his entire life which makes note of notable events. It doesn't go into the minutia of a few days of his life. A completely different thing. I've already explained the problem with this timeline. The sections on the event leading up to his death and what happened when he died is already quite long. It doesn't need to be made longer by a timeline.--Crossmr 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of the timeline and find it to be very informative. Casey69.85.140.227 04:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

How so? There are already 3 large sections in the article devoted to the incident. Another incident adds nothing that isn't already covered.--Crossmr 04:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The timeline includes concise and detailed information regarding the most notable period of his life. Casey69.85.140.227 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Which is already present in the article. Repeating it doesn't add anything to the article.--Crossmr 05:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Not in a such a concise format. If a user does not find the timeline useful, it is simple to skim past that section. Casey69.85.140.227 05:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That isn't the way it works on wikipedia. We don't bloat articles to gargantuan sizes to repeat the same information in several formats in hopes that the reader finds that one special format that is perfect for them. Repeating information in an article unnecessarily isn't appropriate. It doesn't benefit the article or the encyclopedia. The article is nowhere near the size that a timeline would be appropriate, and when it reached such a size and detail a timeline of that fine level of detail wouldn't be appropriate either.--Crossmr 05:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Gargantuan? Please. Casey69.85.140.227 06:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Timeline returns. You remove it, I return it. Simple. So it's futile to remove it. It's useful and there's no reason not to have it. Anyone who thinks this article's length is "gargantuan" should read some truly gargantuan articles on Misplaced Pages. --UCLARodent 09:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

And you've got no reason to return it. Its not anymore useful than the existing information in the article. Threatening edit warring to get your way on wikipedia will not get you far. No one has demonstrated why this is actually anymore useful than the first time its written in the article. The information is covered, and this adds nothing. It doesn't belong here.--Crossmr 14:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the timeline, although I have no opinion on whether it belongs in the article. Not to encourage the strife, but I thought this was pretty darn funny: "to repeat the same information in several formats in hopes that the reader finds that one special format that is perfect for them."Tragic romance 10:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its great in a news story. We know they love to do those second by second time-lines during a slow part of the story to have something to talk about. However the article doesn't approach the length that a timeline would be useful, and as I said. If it ever does, the timeline wouldn't be that detailed. It would be an overview like the one in the article cited above. If the article ever reaches that size and a timeline overview of his life would be beneficial to the article, I'll support its inclusion.--Crossmr 14:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the timeline has value. But as Misplaced Pages is intended to contain encyclopedic information, it is perhaps appropriate to delete this timeline from the main entry on James Kim. Nevertheless, I am creating a side entry to present the timeline of the events leading to his death and to serve as a central location for people working to reconstruct those events. --Rob Zako 18:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You'll have a problem with that. From the start "tragedy" is POV, and there is no indication that it needs its own article here. There is a wikinews site which is more appropriate to that kind of article.--Crossmr 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It isn't intended as a POV. I am changing the name of the side entry to "James Kim (timeline of death)" to avoid POV. The intent is to provide a place to structure the constructive and careful analysis currently occurring on Joe Duck's web site. --Rob Zako 19:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a blog and isn't a reliable source. Basing an article off of discussion on that blog is going to result in its deletion. If you'd like to continue his discussion, I'd recommend keeping it on his blog.--Crossmr 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are right and the intent isn't to maintain a blog on Misplaced Pages. The intent is to provide a central location, an encyclopedia if you will, of facts and alleged facts about the events leading to Kim's death. Think of this as a compromise between those who didn't want to see a timeline as part of the main report and those who think that fleshing out the timeline, while perhaps not appropriate for an article summarizing the life and death of James Kim, nevertheless has value and can be objective. --Rob Zako 19:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no compromise on WP:V on wikipedia, its actually in the policy. The fact that you're calling them "alleged" facts is a clear indication that the article doesn't belong here. Unsourced speculation is completely unacceptable on wikipedia. See WP:NOT. Any facts that are relevant to his life and death will be included in this article and people can draw their own conclusions from them. As far as a timeline goes, its meaningless on its own, and adds nothing to this article. Creating another article to contain it would again be unnecessary.--Crossmr 19:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It is a fact that new stories reported that Kati Kim said the Kims took the right road, encountered a rock, and then backed up and took the wrong road. Having this objective information is helpful in understanding what happened. But whether Kati Kim's memory is accurate and whether that is in fact what happened is less clear. The difference between fact and uncertainly is not so clear in this case. And I would not be so sure that everything posted on the main acticle is factually true. Crossmr, as far as I know, you aren't the owner of Misplaced Pages. If some people want to share encyclopedic information off to the side and that does not interest you, then don't waste your time visiting that page. But please don't frustrate the efforts of others to document in detail, as completely and objectively as one can, what happened. Thank you. --Rob Zako 20:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been addressed on the AfD for the article you created.--Crossmr 20:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Several editors here Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/James_Kim_(timeline_of_death) have expressed that the timeline delves into a level of detail which is beyond the encyclopedia which echoed what several different editors have said here. Continually inserting content in the face of a building consensus isn't going to build support for your point of view. If you've got a legitimate reason to include the timeline, make the case. Otherwise your threats of edit warring and continuing to do so are going to lose all assumption of good faith.--Crossmr 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The case for the timeline has already been made several times here and many people have found it useful. The timeline will return. --UCLARodent 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually only 2 editors agreed it was appropriate to the article while 8 did not. If you notice only yourself and casey the IP thought it was useful in the article, Tragic was neither here nor there on it, and even the individual who moved it to another article agreed it shouldn't be here. Everyone else and 5 editors from the other page don't think its appropriate. You're adding material against consensus. There has been no case made for it.--Crossmr 02:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Items are being deleted by yourself before you supposedly got "consensus". Not just the timeline but other parts of the article. So any claims to be acting under the color of consensus is laughable. If you spend as much time building real consensus and less time pressing the delete button, perhaps we can take your thoughts more seriously. In the meantime, the timeline stays. --UCLARodent 03:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Facts that could call into question the actions of Kim

I believe this section should be added to the article.

Facts that could call into question the actions of Kim

1. Neglected to notify anyone of the new route the family planned to take. Kim had never taken this route before. (Mentioned in several news pieces)

2. Neglected to venture into the Siskyou Mountains with a full tank of gas. The Kims could not have possibly used a full tank of gas to drive the 15 miles from Galice to where there car was found.

The Kims did not get low on gas; they were forced to stop the car due to the intense and dangerous weather conditions (which at one point forced James Kim to stick his head out of the window in order to see while driving). Noting the amount of gas they had in their tank is irrelevant as it was not connected to their predicament. Blacksun1942 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The photos of their vehicle show barely a trace of snow near it. At least one account states that they stayed in place in order to avoid running out of gas.Casey69.85.140.227 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Drove past three signs warning that the road can be impassable in winter. (Mentioned in CNN piece)

It is possible that James was unable to see the warning signs due to poor visibility in the hazardous weather; at one point, James was forced to stick his head out of the window to see while driving because the weather conditions were so bad. Blacksun1942 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you have likely never traveled in this area, I will explain. The signs are at low elevation where it very, very rarely snows. The route the Kims were taking took them to high elevation where it does snow. For someone who lived in the area for 30 years, namely my father, the notion that the signs were not visible is absurd!! Additionally, whether he saw them or not, he did drive directly past them. Casey69.85.140.227 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Left the 99.8% paved Bear Camp road for a gated and unpaved logging road. The unpaved road should have alerted Kim that he had strayed off course. (I have traveled this road many times and it is only unpaved in one short 100yard section)

With the roads covered in snow and visibility very poor, it is possible the Kims were unaware they had moved onto an unpaved road, or that they feared getting stuck in the snow if they reversed and turned back. Blacksun1942 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Neglected to do much recon during the 9 days the family waited. Down the road in the other direction was Black Bar logde. (mentioned by CNN)

It has now been ascertained that the lodge was 6 miles away - also the news reports do not mention the existence of any signs on the road that advise of how far away the lodge was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.109.139 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

What is your source for this info? This conflicts with a CNN article. Casey69.85.140.227 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is - link--Mutley 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Kim left the road and headed into a rugged drainage that lead into the Wild and Scenic Section of the Rogue River that has no road along it and few lodges. (Verifiable from map and CNN)--Casey 208.53.89.41 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim in fact backtracked roughly 10.25 miles along the road, which was covered in thick snow at the time. Kim had been malnourished and without adequate shelter for about a week and was desperate to find help for his family, likely acting under the assumption that their lives were in his hands. I speculate that after traveling 10.25 miles along the road and hearing no other vehicles, he decided to follow the Big Windy Creek in the correct assumption that it would lead him to a river where he might have a better chance of finding help. Unfortunately for James, the creek area was more treacherous than he probably initially believed, and he quickly entered the first stages of hypothermia as evidenced by his shedding of clothes. Ironically, the last half mile of the creek was impassible, and James would not have made it to the river even if he had survived. After choosing to spend the night in the creek area, he was probably already suffering from hypothermia-related confusion and even delusion. Kim had absolutely no way of knowing whether the river had a road or how busy it would be, and after traveling back along a desolate road for over 10 miles, he felt the river would be his best bet; remember, his primary goal was to find help for his wife and children. Blacksun1942 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this being of benefit to the article at all.--Crossmr 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some reason for feeling that way Crossmr? If I was a person researching disasters such as this one, I would be interested how such a disaster could occur just a mile from a lodge and just 15 miles from the town of Galice? Casey Corliss 208.53.89.41 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

i think it is a matter of how you frame the content and tone i suppose. we are humans after all. bottom line for me is that whatever you are proposing should cohere with the article.Chensiyuan 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone is very matter of fact. The authorities are being polite in the interest of protecting the family. The reality is that Kim put himself and family at great risk. He made at least six major mistakes in my opinion. Casey 208.53.89.41 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats your opinion and unfortunately on wikipedia, we're not terribly interested in putting individuals opinions into the article, regardless of who they are. Whether its you, me or someone else. That falls under WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You may feel he made 6 major mistakes. I may feel he made none. Its irrelevant. Unless you can provide a reliable source WP:RS that can be verified WP:V it can't even be considered for inclusion into the article.--Crossmr 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The six items are all factual and do not contain my opinion. We could call the section Contorversy over Kim's Mistakes. I think most of humanity would consider it to be a mistake if you die one mile from a lodge stocked with food.

No, most of humanity would consider it "IRONIC" not a "MISTAKE"; it seems you should look up the definition of the word "mistake". Black Bar Lodge was not one mile away, it was seven miles away (see reference #18). The Kims had no way of knowing that Black Bar Lodge even existed and the owner of lodge said that the Big Windy Creek area was "unfamiliar" to him, and didn't recognize it as being near his lodge. There is so far no indication whatsoever that there was any signage regarding Black Bar Lodge anywhere along the Kims' route. Blacksun1942 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No they're not factual. I've illustrated below where your opinion comes in to play. Any statement regarding anything needs to be verifiable and you can't provide a reliable source to back up your claims. You can interpret a fact to try and make your claim, but as I said before, that interpretation is your opinion, and without a reliable source to back it up as a criticism held by more than a minority point of view you will need reliable sources.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By using that word "neglect" you're asserting an opinion. The article is about what did happen, not what didn't happen. We could write quite a list of things they didn't do. By your standards, we could say they "Neglected to carry a satellite phone," or they "Neglected to take a five pound bag of Cheez-Its." It is a fact they didn't have a five pound bag of Cheez-Its in the car, isn't it? Headwes 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your own perceived interpretation of the word neglect. The statements are simply stating that Kim did not do certain things. If you want to change it to "Kim did not do...." that is fine. Casey69.85.140.227 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you support the inclusion of the fact that they neglected to take a five pound bag of Cheez-Its? Headwes 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you support the inclusion of the fact that since Kim had to drive backwards with the door open that it would have been impossible for him to use his brain? Casey69.85.140.227 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if my Cheez-It fact is included. Headwes 10:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if the couple of these items which have sources are deemed absolutely necessary, they can be added to the narrative; but framing them under a section called "mistakes" is inherently POV and, in my opinion, not in the best taste.--Dmz5 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how relevant any of these are, lets go through them though:

1.How many people actually do this? especially if you're not expecting trouble. Not many.

2.Editors opinion and "guess" on how much gas they went up with. That says it all. We're not interested in "guesses".

3.This one is possible. But no idea what he was thinking. Maybe his wife encouraged him. Who knows. Impossible to verify the reason for continuing to drive.

4. Covered in snow, might not have been able to tell. Could have been dark by the time they realized it and we're stuck.

5.You can't possibly know at this point what he did and didn't do for sure. Unverifiable and opinion.

6.No idea why he did that. Could have been delirious by that point. Or could have misread the map thinking that cutting across whatever area he was at would get him to a road faster.

About the only relevant thing here is the fact that there were signs saying that the raod may be blocked. The rest is all opinion and conjecture.--Crossmr 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to above

1. Kims failure to notify anyone of the route he was taking is a factual event. Maybe people don't do this in San Francisco, but you should if you plan to 4x4 across the Siskyou Mountains in winter.

The Kims did not decide to 4x4 across the Siskyou Mountains in winter. As his been widely reported, they missed a vital turn to remain on the main road (away from the mountans) and instead ended up heading towards the state forest; weather conditions and poor visibility likely had something to do with that. Blacksun1942 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2. The Kims only traveled 15 miles from a town before they were low on gas. They could not have possibly had a full tank of gas when leaving Galice. Articles I have read said that they stayed put because they were low on gas.

There is no such article because they did NOT stay put because they were low on gas; the weather conditions made visibility virtually zero and the Kims made the voluntary choice to stop the car where they were rather than continue to drive in the hazardous conditions and possibly become more lost; they stayed for the night in the hopes that the weather would improve the next day, but the next morning they awoke to find the vehicle buried in several feet of snow. All of the most recent articles state this. And anyway, obviously they had plenty of gas because they were able to leave the engine running to provide warmth for several days. Blacksun1942 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Possible? It is already stated in the main article and I have seen the signs myself, because unlike seemingly anyone else here, I am very familiar with this area!

4. Anyone who has driven on roads in this area will confirm that it will be quite obvious to your gluteous maximus when you have left the paved road. Anyone paying attention could have determined they had left the paved Bear Camp Rd for an unpaved logging road, especially if they were concerned at all about getting lost.

5. Clearly, if he had done much recon he would have found Black Bar lodge which was just a mile down the road. He did not find Black Bar lodge, so he obviously did not walk so much as a mile down the road in that direction. How is that speculation?

Black Bar Lodge was not one mile away, it was seven miles away, and it was not "down the road", it was across the river. Blacksun1942 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Kim's map did not show any road running along the Rogue River because there is no road along the river in that area. Why leave a road for a designated Wild area? Casey Corliss208.53.89.41 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They missed a vital turn and did not intend to travel on an unpaved wilderness road. Blacksun1942 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And these are still your opinion. You have no reliable source to verify how much gas is in the tank, where he looked around before setting out, what his motivation was for continuing to drive past the sign, or where he thought he was on the road and his state of mind when he left the road. Just because a sign is there, doesn't give you license to speculate on why he drove by the sign. Just because a lodge was a mile away in the other direction doesn't give you license to speculate on where he looked before heading out. Go back and read the policies I linked above, because you're still missing what they say.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to believe these are my opinions. One more time;

1. It is a fact that Kim did not notify family of the route he was taking.

2. It is factual that you cannot get low on gas after only 15 miles if you started with a full tank. It is a fact that Kim had to drive within a half a mile of the Galice Resort to get on the road they traveled. He could have gotten gas at Galice if he cared at all. It is also a fact that they had to drive through Merlin which is just another 12 miles away. They could have gotten gas there.

But they were stuck because they were snowbound (not because they ran out of gas)--Mutley 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The route to Black Bar lodge was not covered in snow. If they had more gas they could have discovered that. casey69.85.140.227 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, they did NOT run out of gas; the amount of gas they had in their tank is irrelevant. James stopped the car due to the severe weather which eventually made driving impossible; they stopped overnight and the next morning the car had been stuck in several feet of snow. Obviously they had plenty of gas in the car because they were able to leave the engine running for several days to provide warmth. Blacksun1942 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea how much gas they had. You weren't in the car and only have a vague statement in an article to go on. Hence the opinion and speculation.--Crossmr 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

3. It is a fact Kim drove directly past at least three warning signs that are below the snow line.

It has been stated several times that visibility was so poor, James was forced to stick his head out of the window at one point or open the driver side door to see; it is entirely possible he could not see the signs. Blacksun1942 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

4. It is a fact Kim left the paved Bear Camp Rd and entered an unpaved logging road.

Due to the heavy snowfall and snow on the ground, it is possible the Kims were unaware that they had entered an unpaved road. Blacksun1942 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because some one had cut the locks--Mutley 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Becuase he was not paying attention. Casey69.85.140.227 02:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you weren't in the car. You don't know what he was paying attention to and what he wasn't. Once again your opinion and your speculation which isn't appropriate here.--Crossmr 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the door is open, does that mean you go into the bank and rob it? No. Because a gate is open, does that mean you ignore an obvious change in road condition and kill yourself? Casey69.85.140.227 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

5. It is a fact that Kim did not find the Black Bar Lodge which was only a mile from the car.

new reports say that it was actually 7 miles away (check news.google)--Mutley 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He was seven miles away, and Kim was not looking for Black Bar Lodge because he could not have known of its existence. Blacksun1942 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6. It is a fact that Kim left the road for the wilderness.

All of these details have appeared in news articles or are obvious from a map. How anyone could conclude that those things did not contribute to his demise, and hence are mistakes, is beyond me. If someone wants to take the time to site the CNN articles, I would appreciate the help.--Casey Corliss208.53.89.41 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And its your opinion that those were mistakes he made, and that you're going to interpret them to mean what you want. Its a fact he left the road. You interpret that as an intentional mistake he made. You have no idea if he was already delirious at that point. Its a fact that he didn't find the lodge. That doesn't mean he didn't cover all the other ground around there and missed the lodge. You assume because he didn't find the lodge he did nothing. You have no idea and can't cite a reliable source for that. As I said before, and I'll say again, a fact doesn't give you license to speculate on how that fact came in to being or what lead up to the fact, or what went on around the fact. Unless you can provide a reliable source for how much gas was in their tank, why they drove by the warning signs, why they drove off the road, why he didn't find the lodge, and what his state of mind was when he left the road, its all your opinion on why those things occurred. You'd also need to demonstrate that a criticism of his actions is not a point of view held by small minority.--Crossmr 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You believe Kim was delirious after walking 5 miles on a road in the daylight? Please explain. You believe he made it 5 miles down an extremely rugged drainage while delirious? Please explain. News accounts clearly state that Kim walked in the opposite direction of the lodge. I would be happy with calling the section "Facts that call into question Kim's behavior." I believe there is a entire body of survival literature that will support my viewpoint. We could list the final revised set of facts. Also, I do not hear many besides yourself questioning these facts. Casey Corliss69.85.140.227 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim walked 10.25-10.5 miles on a road thick with snow after roughly one week of little to no nourishment and only the car as shelter; he then walked 5.5 miles through a heavily wooded area along a treacherous creek pass. The official autopsy report stated he died of hypothermia and the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsy stated he likely died within 48 hours of leaving the car. Here is the hypothermia article; since the autopsy confirms he died of hypothermia, why do you refuse to acknowledge that he obviously would have suffered from the symptoms of hypothermia (which include confusion, incoherent irrational behavior, sluggish thinking, amnesia, or even delusions)? Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Kims knew of the existence of the lodge at all, and in fact the owner of the lodge has been quoted as saying he was unfamiliar with the Big Windy Creek area and unaware that it was near his lodge (see reference #18) Blacksun1942 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, just getting facts straight, the road was not "thick with snow" by the time Kim starting walking out. By all accounts, including video tape from the scene, the snow that fell on November 26-27 had melted by the time Kim left on foot to find help on December 2. There was still snow in the shaded wooded areas after he left the road and it was muddy enough on the road that he left footprints, but "thick with snow" is a gross exageration. I agree with all other of your points, including that he was likely suffering from confusion as a result of hypothermia. Crunch 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I agree with Crossmr. It's unfortunate because I believe Kim DID make several mistakes, and I think those mistakes should be acknowledged. However, he is correct that the article is for facts, not for the interpretation of those facts. If the facts you mention, Casey, are in the article, then it falls to the reader to decide whether Kim made mistakes.

Does that mean we can never have a section on the mistakes he made?

No. But until we have SOURCES, we don't really have a right to label them mistakes.

Yes-- it does seem obvious that Kim made several mistakes, and you make excellent points, all of which I agree with. But it seeming obvious to us, is not the same as it being established by reliable sources.

You are absolutely right -- your interpretations make complete sense. But articles aren't written based on what "makes sense" or even on what is right. They are written on what is SOURCED. And until we have sources identifying Kim's actions as mistakes, it would be our opinion to label them mistakes.

I do think there are other ways to get your info in the article though. Just don't arbitrarily label it a mistake. Ask yourself, "Could some reasonable person disagree with this? Is there a possibility that this isn't true?" If so, then that's your clue that it's an opinion or interpretation, not a sourced fact.

Best of luck. Tragic romance 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already agreed not to call these actions mistakes. We can call the section "Facts that call into question the actions of Kim." Please consider this. Casey69.85.140.227 04:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you call them. They've been considered, and they're trivial details which are not relevant to the article. This an article about this entire man's life, and shouldn't focus unduly on the few days around when he died since he had notability outside of that. Going into minuscule detail about how much gas he possibly had in the tank and whether or not you think that is questionable or otherwise is irrelevant. Again, I'm going to point you to WP:NPOV. Have a look under undue weight: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.. You've not even established that this view point is anything but this.--Crossmr 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a few steps back. I have now agreed to call the section "Facts that could call into question the actions of Kim." I believe that title is unbiased. It is not questioning Kim's actions, it is simply stating that they could be called into question. I have agreed to use a version of the list that removes any hint of personal opinion, if there ever was one. So I do not see how there would be a viewpoint expressed. And even if there was a viewpoint expressed, only several people have commented on this matter. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with statistics, but that is called a small sample size. Hence, inferring that my opinion is a minority is absurd. The version of this section that I now want to use contains no viewpoint and even if it did you have no basis for labeling that viewpoint as the minority opinion. I believe your viewpoint is the minority opinion. Prove that it is not!! Additionally, the only reason Kim has an article on Misplaced Pages is because of interest in the unusual events surrounding his death. My section would elaborate on those unusual events. Casey69.85.140.227 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll repeat this again. It is not our place to speculate on the validity of someone's actions unless a non-trivial minority views it as such and reliable sources can be provided for that speculation. It doesn't matter what you call it, it won't be included. The simple fact that you want to include it contains viewpoint. It means that those items are being labelled as something that could possibly maybe might have been a mistake by Kim. Proving the opposite viewpoint isn't hard. The numerous news agencies and tributes that have been created by his co-workers and other clearly speak to the viewpoint that he was a hero and didn't make a mistake. If you want to speculate on the validity of his actions, go start a blog. Misplaced Pages isn't the place for it.--Crossmr 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable and prudent

I think this discussion can be resolved by looking at the legal precedence. During legal arguments, there is a precept where the actions of a person are compared to what a "reasonable and prudent" person would do. It would have been reasonable and prudent to scout the area where you are stuck (and hence find the lodge). It would have been reasonable to have a full take of gas, to not drive out a mountain road in the snow or ignore the signs that state the road could be blocked. I think the "mistakes" are important so the readers of this article will be aware how the Kims got stuck in this situation and to prevent it from happening again. Using the "reasonable and prudent" argument, someone can determine if actions were mistakes F00d0g22 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal precedence has no bearing on this article. What has precedence is WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NOT none of which allowed for speculation on behalf of editors without reliable sources to show that it comes from a non-trivial viewpoint and that its actually being speculated about.--Crossmr 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I still have to side with Crossmr. "Legal precedent" has nothing to do with W. Policy. And he's also right that the very inclusion of a "mistakes" section requires a viewpoint.

I still think a "mistakes" section could be included, but only if it's a result of signifigant sources, not a result of an editor's interpretations.

Seems that whether Kim was right or not, is relevant information. However why can't we just present the facts and let the reader judge those facts?Tragic romance 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about calling it a "mistakes" section anymore. We are calling it "Facts that could call into question the actions of Kim." The facts are listed below

1. It is a fact that Kim did not notify family of the route he was taking.

2. It is factual that you cannot get low on gas after only 15 miles if you started with a full tank. It is a fact that Kim had to drive within a half a mile of the Galice Resort to get on the road they traveled. He could have gotten gas at Galice if he cared at all. It is also a fact that they had to drive through Merlin which is just another 12 miles away. They could have gotten gas there.

3. It is a fact Kim drove directly past at least three warning signs that are below the snow line.

4. It is a fact Kim left the paved Bear Camp Rd and entered an unpaved logging road.

5. It is a fact that Kim did not find the Black Bar Lodge which was only a mile from the car.

6. It is a fact that Kim left the road for the wilderness.

Casey69.85.140.227 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

and as far as I know, the facts have already been presented. The mention of signs, location of the lodge, where he walked and when, etc. If someone wants to interpret those as maybe possible could-be, you never know mistakes they can do so. We're not here to present them as such for them.--Crossmr 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears new info has come to light which invalidates fact number 5. That is fine. Good for Kim. Two more facts have already come to me. A new fact is that Kim continued driving once they encountered snow. A second fact is that by traversing near the creek, Kim was more likely to get wet which would hasten his demise. Casey69.85.140.227 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you call them mistakes, allude to them as mistakes, imply they're mistakes, or otherwise. That type of list, without proper sourcing isn't appropriate in this article or any other article on wikipedia. This has been explained several times to you, and as someone else has pointed out up above, you were wrong on another point or two as well. As I said. If you want to speculate on his actions and whether or not they were questionable, mistakes, etc. find somewhere else to do it, this isn't the place.--Crossmr 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good! Because I am not alluding to them as mistakes. They are facts that could call into question the actions of Kim. And I wasn't wrong on any information--CNN was! Please stop trying to evoke some sort of authority because you have no basis to do that. Additionally, if you are that concerned about sourcing, take a look at the main article. A good deal of it is not sourced. Casey69.85.140.227 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with a source for something in the article, address it. Claiming a missing source as a reason to allow your unsourced opinion into the article doesn't get it in. Whether your outright call it a mistake, or imply its a mistake by saying something like "facts that call into question his actions", its still POV and not acceptable. That kind of statement implies there was something wrong with the actions and that there is a non-trivial POV which believes that as well, which I've seen no evidence that there is. If the facts are relevant they will be in the article and readers can draw their own conclusions, wikipedia is not here to draw those kinds of conclusions for them. As I've already pointed out several of those facts are already in the article as it is, organizing them into a list and labeling them with some sort of point of view isn't appropriate.--Crossmr 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are showing your bias by being very concerned about my sourcing, but much less about the sourcing of the main aritcle. Casey69.85.140.227 02:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've got appropriate sourcing as per the policy please provide it. Otherwise find another medium to make your point. This isn't the place. This particular discussion is about the material you want included and isn't about other material. I've told if you have an issue with other material address it in a new topic or place fact tags on the material you don't think is properly sourced.--Crossmr 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord. The whole of the above could have been avoided simply by having a single sentence i the article that points to survival skills or something. There is bound to be a Misplaced Pages article that covers most of the points raised above. Other relevant articles include Distress signal, Duct tape alert (OK, maybe not - I thought it was how to signal for rescue using duct tape - it appears to be how to seal your home against the CBR aspect of CBRN preparedness), and Hiking. Just point to the article and leave it at that. Have some respect for the dead man's family. Carcharoth 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The most important one is compass, for God's sake. The road they eventually got stuck on went in the wrong direction for miles, without them noticing... mstroeck 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that someone would learn from his death. A family was trapped on the same road a year before. I would have hoped that Kim would have had more respect for his family. Casey69.85.140.227 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.85.140.227 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Which has no place in this article. If you want to educate people about winter safety feel free to do so, this isn't the medium for it.--Crossmr 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I think you are correct, educating people has no place in an encyclopedia. Casey69.85.140.227 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I said educating people about winter safety has no place in an article about James Kim. No more than a paragraph about how to grow potatoes, or the latest pokemon character. Educating people about winter safety belongs in a winter safety/survival article, or if you want to give specific instructions on what to do in survival situations have a look at some of the wikibook websites where instruction manuals (which a survival guide is) is more appropriate.--Crossmr 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Several articles about James Kim includes survival tips including CNN articles. Survival experts have been discussing the James Kim case and published articles about how his death could have been avoided. It's therefore very much part of the public debate around James Kim's death, and should therefore be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Those were news articles. This isn't a news article. Its an encyclopedia article, perhaps that is where the confusion comes in. News articles often have vaguely related information in them to fill them out depending on who's writing them and how long it needs to be. I've seen articles which end with a paragraph about a barely related case from a year or two ago, or an article written for an american audience, which doesn't mention money but mentions something going on in Canada end with "$1.21 Canadian equals $1.00 US.". That doesn't mean an encyclopedia article about that item should include a breakdown of US/Canadian trade relations.--Crossmr 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sources are news artickles, or news organizations. Why is one article about James Kim from CNN ok, but a similar article from MSNBC not. I suggest being consistent when it comes to using news articles. If news articles were not used as sources most of the James Kim article would have to be deleted. Just take a look at the references section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk • contribs) 17:21, December 11, 2006.

Casey, I can understand your urge to "get the truth out there." But I still think that if the facts have been presented, it is up to the reader, or a qualified source, to interpret those facts as mistakes. Is it really an encyclopedia's job to "call people's actions into question?"Again, if the facts have been presented, why can't we just let the reader decide whether his actions should be called into question?Tragic romance 07:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also very much against adding this section. The list of things James Kim didn't do that day is infinite. For example, he probably didn't pick up a hitchhiker, didn't get abducted by Martians, didn't finish a cross-stitch picture of his great-aunt Myrna, didn't cut down any trees around the car, etc. At that point, our determination of which of these things belong in the article and which ones don't is entirely POV, absent an external reliable source making the statement that these are the things that Kim needed to do to stay alive. Our speculation is totally irrelevant here. (ESkog) 12:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental attribution error

OK, I have made a breakthrough. I believe this section should be titled "Elements of the Kim tragedy." I think few would argue that it was not a tragedy and it is hard to argue that the five items were not at least "elements" of the tragedy. Casey69.85.140.227 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Casey: here's a source for you:CNN article discusses the missed warning signs:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/griffin.oregon/ F00d0g22 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't made any breakthrough. The section is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. Its been repeatedly stated its not appropriate for the article. What has happened has already been covered in as much detail as is necessary to convey what happened. If people want to draw conclusions from the facts that are in the article they can do so. We are not here to organize it into a list for them.--Crossmr 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a Criticism section IF

(1) the criticism is from someone qualified to make that criticism (eg, Oregon State Police, established survival expert, Kati Kim (because she saw firsthand)), not from an editorializing reporter or self-styled "survival expert" somewhere on the internet

(2) the criticism is clearly a criticism -- not just "We don't understand why he..." or "He took a gamble and lost." or "He'd still be alive today if he..."

(3) there is enough criticism to justify a whole section. One or two criticisms is not a section. (Although if properly sourced they could go elsewhere in the article.)

Personally I believe Kim made some really stupid mistakes. I am not protecting James Kim. I am protecting Misplaced Pages, and I think there needs to be more of an acknowledgement from others, that we are here to record facts, not add our interpretations to those facts.

It is a fact that Kim stayed in the car til he was weakened and desperate. It is a fact that they didn't walk back out on the road they came up. It is a fact he left the road he was walking on. But is it a fact that those things were mistakes? Or is that our belief and interpretation?Tragic romance 10:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found an Oregon DOT webpage that will serve as a great source as to what are best winter driving practices. It is at . Among other practices, it encourages-

1. Telling a friend where you are going.
2. Ensuring your vehicle is stocked with a full tank of gas.
3. Not blazing a trail on unplowed roads.

Also, it encourages taking a set of tire chains. Kim's failure to do this could also be included as an element of the tragedy. (The list did not encourage taking a 5 lb. bag of Cheez-Its.) Casey69.85.140.227 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Still not appropriate to the article. You can find all the safety information you want, its not relevant.--Crossmr 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That information is absolutely relevant to the unique events surrounding Kim's death. Casey69.85.140.227 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No its not. And you've been told that by several people repeatedly. If you want to speculate on things he could have done do it elsewhere, wikipedia is not the place for it.--Crossmr 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no speculation involved. Casey69.85.140.227 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I would like to suggest a section named criticism as part of the main James Kim article. Some may be against such a section, others may not like it. However a criticism section is a WikipediA tradition whether the article is about Madonna, Ronald Reagan, George Bush or Prem Rawat. A criticism section seems to be the preferred Wikepedia term rather than "mistakes", or "questioning the actions of Kim".

This section is not a blog with all the personal opinions of the contributors, but rather a summary of the criticism of his actions based on "reliable" sources similar to the sources used for any other content in the article. Sources such as CNET, San Jose Mercury News, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Oregonian etc. are therefore all valid references.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk • contribs) 00:47, December 12, 2006.

Which we've discussed to death and found not to be appropriate to the article. Not all articles have criticism sections, and as of yet, there has been no reliably sourced criticism. Only an editors interpretation of what a reliable source said to call it criticism.--Crossmr 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reliably sourced criticism. CNN article discusses the missed warning signs:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/griffin.oregon/ F00d0g22 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The video on this link is very informative.--203.214.75.116 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

For the fourth of fifth time I'll point to WP:NPOV and the section on undue weight. A single individual speculating in a behind the scenes post, doesn't make a non-trivial point of view. He doesn't really criticize so much as he says "We're wondering why they did it". He coyly dances around the issue of calling it a mistake. He speculates that on his trip up in there that he's not sure how one could make that trip without beginning to wonder, but hindsight is always 20/20. This isn't exactly a damning criticism of James Kim's behaviour.--Crossmr 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a Criticism section IF

(1) the criticism is from someone qualified to make that criticism (eg, Oregon State Police, established survival expert, Kati Kim (because she saw firsthand)), not from an editorializing reporter or self-styled "survival expert" somewhere on the internet

(2) the criticism is clearly a criticism -- not just "We don't understand why he..." or "He took a gamble and lost." or "He'd still be alive today if he..."

(3) there is enough criticism to justify a whole section. One or two criticisms is not a section. (Although if properly sourced they could go elsewhere in the article.)

Personally I believe Kim made some really stupid mistakes. I am not protecting James Kim. I am protecting Misplaced Pages, and I think there needs to be more of an acknowledgement from others, that we are here to record facts, not add our interpretations to those facts.

It is a fact that Kim stayed in the car til he was weakened and desperate. It is a fact that they didn't walk back out on the road they came up. It is a fact he left the road he was walking on. But is it a fact that those things were mistakes? Or is that our belief and interpretation?Tragic romance 10:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lessons learned from the James Kim tragedy

Lessons learned from the James Kim tragedy is discussed in several articles by CNN, survival experts and others (see http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=43) . According to Dough Ritter it makes sense to discuss how death can be averted in such circumstances, and survival tips have been part of the public debate surrounding James Kim's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk • contribs) 06:53, December 11, 2006.

Hallelujah! Casey69.85.140.227 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The mistakes made during this tragic event has also become part of the public debate. In Google I get 1,460,000 references to pages that contain all of the words James, Kim and mistakes. The sources include news organisations, blogs and respected survival forums. Example sources include San Jose Mercury, CNET, CraigsList, CNN, The New York Times etc. Not all of the 1,460,000 seem to be sources that I have previously come across.

Actually properly searched with "James Kim" mistakes you don't get 1.4 million hits. You get less than a third of that, and the first few hits are all blog posts which are not reliable sources on wikipedia. You're free to speculate all you wish, just not here on wikipedia. For the next couple pages almost every reference to the word mistake comes from a user comment on a story. These are also not reliable sources.--Crossmr 19:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I registered for editing so that I could add this comment, hoping that there would be a "lessons learned" section to this discussion. This event has troubled me a lot since its tragic ending, as there is one part of it that could have been avoided if some "tribal knowledge" that is apparently lost would have been know to the Kims. I was really bothered that the Kims had to resort to burning their tires, as that provides only a limited fire, and can be quite dangerous (if the pressure is not let out of the tires first).

I have read a lot of the reports, and the "experts" information about the lessons to be learned from the Kim's experiences, and none of them mention a common fuel in the Pacific Northwest forests--pitch wood. The Native Americans know of this, as do loggers and the outdoors people of times past. But it has been lost on this generation. The fir (especially Douglas fir) and some pine species leave behind when they die a stump, and that stump has spires of resin-impregnated wood. This pitch wood is not apparent to anyone unless you know about it, but these stumps have these spires which resist the decay process. They are readily available to anyone who can look for them, and can provide a fire in any weather so long as the fire can be shielded from wind and rain during the starting phase. It only requires a match or lighter, and a fire can be started in any weather.

Find the pitch wood spire, break it off, splinter some of the larger pieces into smaller ones, then use a knife (or a rock), to break it into small shavings or finely differentiated fibers. These shavings and fibers cannot absorb water. You can keep them submerged in water, then shake them off and start a fire. Build a teepee of this wood, use smaller pieces with the shavings under it, and light it. The resulting fire will burn hot for quite a while. Add more pitchwood as needed, and then start gathering the dry, dead branches from the lower part of a fir or pine tree, and feed them into it. In this manner, a fire can be started in the worst weather around (but shield the fire from wind and rain with your body when you begin with the match or lighter).

My Dad, Donald E. Ratliff, Sr., wrote a book in the 1960s titled Map, Compass and Compfire which is still available through Amazon.com. He would have wanted as many people as possible to know of this technique of starting a fire in the Pacific Northwest. To be best equipped, Dad had a list of things to take with you too, which of course included a map (a good, contour map if possible) and compass, matches in a waterproof container, and I would add a sheet of plastic (makes a waterproof roof for a shelter). --John C. Ratliff 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with James Kim? No offense (seriously), but that belongs on an article about survival. Not an article about what James Kim was known for. The bottom line is that we are creating an encyclopedia about the facts, not about our beliefs and interpretations of those facts. If some acceptable sources start identifying mistakes that specifically James Kim made, then it's possible it could be included. Even then the subject of this article is what James Kim was and did. Not what we feel he could have been or could have done. Welcome to Misplaced Pages by the way. Tragic romance 09:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that James Kim died surrounded by fuel that he could have used to not only help his family out with, but probably would have had an influence on his decision to go for help. That is the fact I wanted to bring out in this conversation. At the time of his departure from the family car, the family was in an untenable situation, one that had to be changed. If this situation was changed by the knowledge of how to build a fire in these circumstances, my feeling is that would have changed James Kim's decision to leave. A fire would also probably have been seen by the National Guard helicopter that overflew the area with heat-detecting sensors earlier too, and the smoke from a fire could have helped them be seen earlied during daylight. This knowledge could have changed the circumstances enough to save James Kim's life, in my opinion. That's why it is relavant here, in this discussion. I did not put it into the story line for the reasons that you mentioned, Tragic romance. Thanks for the welcome to Wikigedia.--John C. Ratliff 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lessons Learned" is such a subjective topic that I don't see how it fits into an encyclopedia entry, other than to promote Mr. Ratliff's book. Crunch 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have not made anything off Dad's book for years, and I was surprised that it is still offered for sale on Amazon. In reading the materials around putting information into Misplaced Pages, it was mentioned that there needs to be a published source for any information. This is my source. I could have simply said that this is "tribal knowledge" of loggers and foresters in Oregon, but that would not be acceptable as a source for Misplaced Pages. Dad's book was published in 1964, and lost money ever since. It is not a mainstream book, and can be bought used from several sources for a few dollars. My Mom was very unhappy about Dad spending so much time on the book, and money, and when I approached the family about updating it about ten years ago, she was again most unhappy. This book was a sore spot for her. So please don't say I was trying to promote the book; you can get it very cheaply, and it is no financial advantage for me or the family. Just below this text box is the following text, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." That is what I was trying to do. Again, this is in the discussion area, and not in the text of the article on James Kim. People come here to find information, and will read the text. If one person finds out about using this fuel, and has a similar situation occur, it will have been worth the effort.--John C. Ratliff 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome to Misplaced Pages. I enjoyed what you had to say about pitch wood. Thank you very much. Hanako 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia, but there are restrictions on the content of each page. Material in the article should directly relate to the subject, posts on the talk page should directly relate to the improvement of the article. While its relevant to mention what he did while trapped, its not relevant to include general sections about survival skills. This isn't an article on survival skills, or is it a place to speculate on the outcome had he done "x" or not done "y". There is a wikibooks website where you can write instruction manuals on survival skills all day long if you're interested in sharing that information.--Crossmr 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article serves any purpose other than a memorial or part of "Big stories of December 2006" it would be to educate others so they might remember what they read and survive in the same situation. A link to an article like "Winter survival tips for motorists" would be great: tell someone your travel plans, have a full tank of gas, carry food and blankets, stay with the vehicle, avoid dodgy roads, etc. In this article, it would be appropriate to quote someone like a state police spokesman or other expert outlining what they did right and what they did wrong, as would be true for anyone article about shipwrecked sailors, planecrash survivors or even the Donner Party. Edison 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should be constrained to what James Kim did and was. Not what he "could have" been or done. If people want to hear judgments on his decisions, they can get that somewhere else. If they want survival tips, there are plenty of sources for that. This article is for facts about James Kim, not for judgments, speculation, and winter survival tips. Tragic romance 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Nationality information

I'm seeing James Kim's nationality information repeatedly removed and re-added with dispute as to its relevance in this article. Per WP:MOSBIO, I believe this should be present. Any opinions? --Kameron 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

yes an individual's nationality would be relevant and should be included.--Crossmr 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the article, but not in the introductory sentences. Tragic romance 02:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a source demonstrating that he was not born in the United States we should assume he is "American" and NOT "Korean American" in the opening sentence 64.111.46.44 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the majority of second-generation immigrants identify themselves as x-American, and that that classification is not limited to those who were born in another country. I also think that the nationality is a simple two-word fact, and that it doesn't detract from the article in any way. Why shouldn't it be included? It may not be relevant to the event, but it's part of his biographical information. --Cue the Strings 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included, since it is a signifigant fact about him. However, it isn't a fundamental part of this story, and therefore it should be mentioned in the body of the article, not in the first two sentences.Tragic romance 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember this article is about James Kim as a whole, not just about the few days leading up to his death. He had plenty of notability from TechTV and CNET.--Crossmr 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is again an example of Americans mixing ethnicity with nationality. James Kim was an American. His ethnicity was Korean-American. This story would be just as strong without mentioning the ethnicity as it is with it, but it adds a dimension to the story of Americans coming together to try to save this family.John C. Ratliff 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John. James Kim was an American citizen born in Kentucky; he was not an immigrant, his nationality was "American". He was born to parents of Korean descent (his father's name "Spencer" leads to believe his parents were born in America as well) and could be ethnically identified as "Korean-American" but his nationality was "American". Blacksun1942 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim's father, Spencer H. Kim, was born in Korea in 1946 and came to the US in 1963 to go to college. I'm not sure of the origin of the name "Spencer" nor do I know anything about his mother. Crunch 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Many Asian people take random names of a list upon moving to North America. I once asked a chinese instructor I had about this as he had chosen the name William and his daughter had chosen Grace. There was no significance to them, they simply picked a name they liked.--Crossmr 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As to finding out the "origin of the name 'Spencer'", I don't see how this tidbit of trivia will contribute to the larger scope of this article and frankly, it gives a lot more attention to the issue of his nationality and ethnicity than this article really calls for -- not to mention its way of satisfying this peculiar curiosity and fascination non-_(Asians/Koreans)___ may have for _(Asians/Koreans)_.128.111.97.125 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd urge us to refrain from speculating about the origin of Spencer Kim's name based on anecdotal evidence of what "many Asian people" do or on one report of what a Chinese person you know did. Let's stick to facts. Crunch 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't providing that as anything other than anecdotal comment. You said you weren't aware of where the name originated. I don't think the origin of his father's american name is relevant to the article anyway, I was just letting you know where those names sometimes originate from. Incase you were unaware that that was a practice.--Crossmr 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...yet you fail to address your use of the phrase "many Asian people", which clearly is a breach of encyclopedic protocol. Well put, Crunch (although he did sort of report a "fact"). 128.111.97.125 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the article, this is the talk page. I'm not required to provide a reliable source for every statement I make on the talk page. I was in no way attempting to add that material to the article at all.--Crossmr 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

and if you'd like a source for changing, here it mentions asians being encouraged to change their names for database reasons . and our own article on Given name talks about Asians doing so, but its in disparate need of a citation. Here is a citation stating that it is "often" done and this (INS has since restructed their site, not sure where this is located on the new site) about immigrants changing their name--Crossmr 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this article. I hope God will bless you in some way, and poor James, he will be missed. BrianEd 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think God should save his blessings for the Kim family 72.36.251.234 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe God should have saved James Kim instead of blessing us for writing about it. --UCLARodent 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cut the lock

It may be important to note that authorities are looking for the person who cut the lock on Bear camp road--Mutley 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

if this were an article about that section of road, perhaps.--Crossmr 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr, I don't understand your comment - they wouldn't have been stranded at all if the lock wasn't cut!--203.214.109.139 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that the lock was cut is relevant to what happened. The incident is done now and the police are looking for who cut the lock, that isn't relevant to what happened. Its something that happened after the fact in the area. If they pave that tiny stretch of road next summer, or post bigger signs, neither are relevant to an article about James Kim. They're relevant to an article about that road. I believe its already been mentioned that the lock was cut, that is about as far as the relevance extends there.--Crossmr 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant to what happened. If police find who cut the lock, that information should obviously be included in the article as that individual would bear some indirect responsibility in James Kim's death. Blacksun1942 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Was there any signage on the road saying how far away the black bar lodge was? (probably not)--203.214.109.139 23:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Someone above mentioned that it was just discovered it was 6 miles away, not 1 mile away. They also said they hadn't read if there were signs saying that or not.--Crossmr 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If his death is encyclopedic, then the causes of it are encyclopedic, such as someone cutting a lock which led to their winding up where they did. Edison 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the lock was cut is in the article. The personal history and on-going life story of the lock are not relevant.The lock is but a small part in the makeup of this person's life. Delving into minutia surrounding the lock adds nothing to an article about James Kim.--Crossmr 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Umbrella

Did Kati really attach reflective tape to her umbrella that she waved to attract the attention of helicopters? It's stated as such in the article but I have not read a source. People don't normally have reflective tape in their car. This is an interesting tidbit of info. Hanako 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it's interesting that sources are careful in their wording, to indicate that she was waving this umbrella "when she was found." They don't indicate that this is what got her spotted. It probably isn't what got her spotted. Tragic romance 07:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The car was probably the bigger target to see, but the human eye is very sensitive to motion. The waving of the umbrella would be an unnatural motion and an unnatural color, and could very well have aided Katie in being spotted. If there was reflective tape on the umbrella, that also would have helped to attract attention. As one who has been on searches from helicopters, I can say that any unnatural motion or color will attract attention, as will flashes of light.John C. Ratliff 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no disagreement with that. But in this case, every source I've read has worded it in a way that comes short of saying that that's what got her spotted. Not that it even matters. I just like the exact truth to be known, rather than the overblown, dramatized story we often get from the media.Tragic romance 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as the helicopter pilot apparently spotted James Kim's footprints, and that is what he was following when he spotted Katie. But the motion of the umbrella probably did catch his eye when he did finally spot the family.--John C. Ratliff 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we verify/clarify the footprints issue? From my reading, it appears that the helicopter pilot was following the tire tracks of the car, and coincidentally also found his footprints. Kati and the kids would almost certainly also have been found since the tire tracks were the major feature being followed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.55.52.4 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The distinction seems to be whether the umbrella, which is more recently reported to have been pink in color, had reflective designs already on it or if Kati Kim applied reflective tape to it after they became stranded as a way to attract searchers in helicopters. Also, I wonder if there were reflective markings or tape, if that would have been that significant during daylight hours. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it was a bright fluorescent pink umbrella not an umbrella with relective tape applied to attract searchers. But I'm only guessing and we may have to wait for further news to confirm or deny this. Crunch 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to talk about half this stuff if there weren't so much sloppy, speculative journalism out there.Tragic romance 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Tragic romance. And it's not just speculative journalism but it seems to be a need on the part of the media and the public to take an already dramatic story and super-dramatize it. So it's not good enough that Kati was waving an umbrella. It has to be an umbrella on which she had applied reflective tape! And it's not good enough that James ended up not far from where he started -- he was only a MILE away! (turned out later to be wrong). Crunch 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The reported serial burning of all 5 tires should have been a great signal to rescuers. The lack of a maintained bonfire was a detriment to being spotted, when there were planes up. Edison 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell phone

They were only successfully located because a signal transmitted from the family's cell phone had been picked up by a cellular tower. The signal was emitted when the Kim family's cell phone received a text message.

If they had a cell phone, why they didn't just call 911? --Urod 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are you for real? After all you've read about their resourcefulness, you think they didn't try to call 911? lol Hanako 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They tried to use the cell phone but couldn't get a signal. The "ping" that hit that tower was just a blip. They didn't have sufficient signal to make a real call, and probably didn't even know that text message had caused their phone to ping the distant tower. Tragic romance 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell phones work on direct line-of-sight, and in the hills and mountains, getting a direct line-of-sight is problematic. The best way to do it is to climb to the highest point, and hope that there is not something between your phone and the tower at that point. This is why the reporters rely upon satallite phones, as they have a position overhead which would allow communications almost anywhere. But a cellular network based upon ground-based towers is problematic in rugged areas of the Pacific Northwest. Apparently, in the case of the Kim's cell phone, the signal for the text message was repeatedly sent out, and at one point in their travels they hit a place where they were in direct line-of-sight with the tower at the instant that the message was repeated to their phone, and the tower received a "hit" signal from the phone. That was probably as the Kim's car crested a ridge in the Coast Mountains, but they would be unable to determine where they were when that happened unless they were looking at the phone when it happened.John C. Ratliff 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One mile, seven miles

Can we get the sources for both sides of this? Some are saying one, some are saying seven, lets provide the relevant stories here. It may be that the one comes from an earlier story which didn't have all the information.--Crossmr 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See reference #18; there was an initial map error. James in fact traveled a total of 16 miles, not 10. He was roughly 7 miles from Black Bar Lodge which was on the other side of the river. The owner of the lodge is quoted in the article (reference 18) as saying he was unfamiliar with the Big Windy Creek area and unaware that his lodge was nearby. Blacksun1942 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"one mile away" was always incorrect (even in earlier reports) as it referred to as the crow flies which is inaccurate - they should be using "along the road" distances and you can tell by looking at any of the maps that it was it was a very winding road. --203.214.75.116 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion beyond his death

This article needs some expansion beyond his death. He was notable as a TV personality and as a CNET editor. We've focused heavily on his death because this is the most recent and freshest incident involving him. Many of the sources already used for this article can be used to source information about his career prior to his death.--Crossmr 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It needs to discuss the fact that according to Kati Kim at http://kati.yelp.com, that James' ex-girlfriend was a "tweaker". Now this raises a lot of questions such as what exactly is a tweaker (as I understand it, that term refers to a meth addict). Was James a drug user? Was he using drugs at the time he was driving on Bear Camp Road?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.82 (talk • contribs) 01:43, December 12, 2006.

Will you please sign your posts?? Every time you don't sign your posts, someone else has to come along and note what your IP address is. It's quite simple to sign your posts, and it's a necessary part of Misplaced Pages dialogue. Put four tildes -- ~ ~ ~ ~ -- after your post, only don't put any spaces between them, and your IP address (or username, if you ever choose to register) will appear. It's incredibly difficult to keep track of conversations of which you're a part since you don't sign your posts. Moncrief 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't remotely relevant to the article. If you've got an agenda, take it somewhere else, this isn't the place.--Crossmr 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr's agenda includes objecting to anything other than hero-worship of Kim. Casey69.85.140.227 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Crossmr has an agenda. To me, that was irresponsible to come on here posing such unfounded questions, and then further to not sign it. Any time I've seen Crossmr objecting to something, it was due to lack of sources, improper formatting, or irrelevance.Tragic romance 09:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If folks think this article is too centered around Kim's death, then stop wasting time complaining and start spending time writing (about his life)! The unfortunate and sordid truth is, the reason this article is so death-centric is because his life is notable for how he died, less for how he lived. --UCLARodent 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, trying to write more about his life in an attempt to "balance" the article, will likely lead to inclusion of less and less notable material. He's notable mainly for the events surrounding his death, and the article will reflect that. Tragic romance 11:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Had this article been started before his death it likely would have been easier to find some information on him. Now because of all the news stories google is flooded with those and references to them, that find other sources for his work on TechTV, and as a CNET editor becomes more difficult. I posted in the hopes that someone else editing here might have been familiar with some of those sources before the death. While he may not have been as notable for those, there was notability there. With a couple of sources it hopefully shouldn't be hard to get a paragraph on both of TechTV and CNET.--Crossmr 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "tragic and sordid" that he is known mostly to the public for how he died? Those strongly POV words from a Misplaced Pages editor give me pause, though at least it's good that they are here on the discussion page and nowhere near the article. It is a FACT that he is known -- to the average person -- due to the circumstances of his disappearance and death. Whether or not this is "tragic" or "sordid" is irrelevant to us as Misplaced Pages editors.

Uh, because it's "tragid and sordid" for any innocent family man to die by hypothermia and starvation. --UCLARodent 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're clear on the intent of Misplaced Pages. It isn't up to us to editorialize on the tragedy of any person's death, whether that person be -- to think of the two first examples that come to mind -- John F. Kennedy, John Lennon, or James Kim. And I was responding to the use of those words in relation to the fact that he is known to the public mostly for his death, not for the death itself (nor though should those words be used to editorialize about his death in the article). Those are strongly POV words and they simply don't belong in an article. If you're unclear on why that's the case, I hope you'll familiarize yourself with Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy and compare the articles here with those found on a blog or at a memorial site. Clearly we're all human and can sympathize with the circumstances of his death and the pain his family feels. If you want to express that grief though, a Misplaced Pages article is not the place. Moncrief 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any editoralizing on the article. And if there is, it should be deleted. This discussion page isn't the article, therefore, people can express whatever editoralizing or theories they want here. --UCLARodent 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if people don't want to sign their posts, so what? Just ignore it. People have the right to remain anonymous. --UCLARodent 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is not a place for theories or editorializing. It's a place for discussing the article, which it's agreed upon will be built using Misplaced Pages guidelines that don't include unsourced "theories" and editorializing. If you want to editorialize and express your grief, I am sure there are lots of places online to do that. I'll let my comments stand at that. Moncrief 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is filled with editoralizing and theories. Big deal. Don't turn this into a federal case. --UCLARodent 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to what else Crossmr has been posting, but not signing posts is a major annoyance. Signed posts at the very least make it easy to follow the discussion and see where one person's comment ends and another person's takes up. If someone, Moncreif, me or anyone else, has to interject a reminder in the middle of a discussion to get people's attention, so be it. It's not irrelevant. Crunch 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr was responding to the unsigned poster with his/her "relevance" comment, not to my request. Moncrief 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Distance to Galice 15 miles ?

I checked on Google Earth, shortest (straight-line point to point) distance from their car to Galice is about 12.5 miles. However, this distance would be relevant to the story only if Kims could fly. When I am measuring shortest along-the-road-distance to Galice (which is I guess the quickest way how human can get there on foot) I am getting distance of more than 30 miles. I think this along-the-road distance (probably more precisely measured than I did it) should be stated in the article instead of 15 miles distance quoted from "authorities". Saying that in reality distance to Galice was 15 miles is very misleading because Kims could not possibly get to Galice by walking 15 miles. This just shows how sloppy media reporting is and how questionable is using news reports as "reliable sources". Roman 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with regard to the relevance of the as-the-crow-flies distance to the nearest town, because ostensibly Mr. Kim, as he left the road and entered the rough terrain that would prove his undoing, thought that there was a roadless route to (some) town that would be quicker. Of course the distance by road is worth noting as well, since that would have been the best route. Matt Gies 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Low-importance biography (arts and entertainment) articles
• Arts and entertainment work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles