Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:08, 15 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 Archive 1 to Dec 10th

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)

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)

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)

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)

And what have I deleted besides the timeline? Nothing that no one else hasn't also removed more than once. The consensus is quite clear on the fact that the timeline doesn't belong. you're also now attempting to WP:OWN the article by matter of factly stating the timeline will stay after repeatedly threatening edit warring and with consensus clearly against it staying.--Crossmr 03:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? There is no consensus. The timeline stays because it is relevant and readers have found it helpful. You're the only person on this discussion vehemently opposed to it (and continuing to delete it). NEWSFLASH: One person does not make a "consensus". At the very least, you must admit it's a gray area. If it's a gray area, you don't take the initative to delete as if you own this article but, instead, should have an extensive discussion first. Any "edit warring" and "article owning" was initiated and perpeturated by yourself. --UCLARodent 06:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The consensus has been pointed out to you. I've linked you to the other discussion about the timeline where 5 editors indicated it was not an appropriate level of detail, the discussion here was started by another party who thought it was excessive, Rob also agreed it wasn't appropriate for the article, plus myself make 8, and crunch admitted that he didn't think in the long run the timeline should be kept. That is called consensus. They don't have to be posting every single day to be considered in the consensus. The only people who want it kept are yourself and casey. You've made no case for what the timeline adds that isn't already covered in the article.--Crossmr 14:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Timeline: Crossmr, please don't count me as part of your "consensus." I did not "agree" that the timeline "wasn't appropriate for the article." Rather, I indicated that I thought that the timeline was useful, but as a sort of compromise suggested moving the timeline to an article separate from this article. But you are now advocating deleting that separate timeline, too. If so, then I strongly support including the timeline here. I really don't see what your beef is. If you are looking for a brief, bland article that doesn't communicate much, then one could simply say, "James Kim was an editor for CNET who took some wrong turns and died as a result" and leave it at that. But it really is a mystery how an intelligent man and his family could simply drive - not hike or climb or do anything else we think of as possibly dangerous - but simply drive into a place and time where they are stranded for over a week and the father ends up dying as a result. Perhaps in a few years after someone has written the definitive book account of what happened, then this article can simply summarize that official account and provide a reference. But at least for now, the "facts" of what happened are so unclear that it is probably difficult to summarize the sequence of events objectively without POV. In this case, a timeline is perhaps the best way to do so without inserting POV, merely indicating the sequences of events that happened, or at least was reported to haave happed, carefully documented, and then allowing the reader to draw his or her own conclusions. At least that is my hope and I believe any other approach is close to useless or at least dishonest. --Rob Zako 14:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you not write: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. above. Seems pretty clear you did not see the appropriateness in keeping it in the article. Regardless, if you want to change your stance that is fine, There is still a clear majority in favour of not having the timeline in the article. The timeline does nothing but repeat what is already in the article. All the items covered in it are already covered between the 2 sections about his getting lost and dying. It adds nothing new and serves simply to extend the article.--Crossmr 15:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr. You are quite bending the facts in your favor here. Currently there is no concensus about having the timeline in main article. DmZ, Crunch, and you are against the timeline (only you strongly), UCLARodent, Casey, Rob Zako are for it (all of them strongly). You are even going that far as to argue with Rob Zako what HIS OWN opinion is - I think he is the best person to tell that. Sadly, I see you as attempter to own the article, not the other way around (as you are suggesting). My opinion is that as long as the article is chronologically unsorted, the timeline has good value. I take it as additional "graph" which helps better understand events, otherwise you must read the article and then sort it in your head. Plus some info is currently missing in rest of article, such as that it was that short cell phone ping which turned search activities into correct area, and information about weather. This story gives headache to lot of people trying to understand how that happened, and timeline helps to explain that in right order. Roman 16:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then you should read the reason Eskog cited for removal of the timeline. Beyond the editors here, we also have the editors who have commented on this related Afd Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Kim (timeline of death). Where fchd, Guy, Edison, Whpq, and Kchase all state that the timeline adds nothing and isn't an appropriate level of detail for the encyclopedia. I only questioned Rob because he had quite clearly said before that he didn't think it was appropriate to have the timeline in the article and then jumped on me when I repeated that in explaining the consensus. I said he was fine to change his mind but I could only go on what he had previously said. He can change his mind, but I can't read it. If the last comment he made on the matter was that he didn't think it was appropriate for the article that is all I can work with.--Crossmr 17:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr. Again you are bending ambigous facts into your favor. The Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Kim (timeline of death) was discussion about having Timeline as a separate article. As far I understand - it was not discussion about having Timeline in the James Kim article. Eskog and others, please leave your opinion about having Timeline in main article here, as it is not clear whether you are against Timeline in the main article also. (Well, since Eskog deleted timeline from main article I guess we can count him to Crossmr's side, but that still does not mean we have concensus about Timeline because we have four people (Crossmr, DmZ, Crunch, Eskog) against it and four (UCLARodent, Casey, Rob Zako, me) for it). BTW, I dont see Rob Zako changing his opinion, I interpret his first post the same way as he explained it to you in his other post, where you again chose to bend his first post into your favor. Roman 18:37, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Also if there is a fact missing, work it into the already 3 large sections we have about this incident. The ping was covered in several stories, so there is no reason it shouldn't be mentioned. There is also no reason a sentence with a link to a weather report on the day they got trapped couldn't be included. Adding 2 sentences is more effective than adding a new section of repetitive information.--Crossmr 18:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Viva la timeline! Casey69.85.140.227 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the timeline And please stop removing it. The timeline functions as a concise sequence of events to clearly inform the reader exactly what happened during this harrowing ordeal on a day-by-day basis. The public at large has demonstrated interest in the course of the events and there is absolutely no reason to remove it. Blacksun1942 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article isn't clear enough on its own to convey what happened, it may require cleanup.--Crossmr 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that article needs cleanup and I am trying to do it (slowly, as I don't have much time). I am for less detailed timeline - perhaps as a side-chart, similar to images (such as the James walking path picture lined in the article). Unfortunately it is hard for others to edit images, so having it as separate heading-section is I think currently the best option. I am also for spliting the article into two (as I already mentioned it on this discussion page), one titled "Kim Family Tragedy" (or better title if somebody suggests one), the second for "James Kim". Both articles should be interlinked. However so far I have only one negative "support" for that. Timeline would be much more appropriate on "Kim Family Tragedy" article, as it is really odd to have it on bio page. But since we don't have "Kim Family Tragedy" article, and James Kim is (sadly) best known for his family tragedy - I side with having Timeline on James' page. My personal opinion however is that timeline should be part of other (perhaps Snowbound with family) section, not as the main section itself. If the article is cleaned up really well then I might side with removing the timeline (sub)section. BTW, there is another section (Map and route controversy) which in my opinion deserves much more than timeline to be deleted or substantially reduced. Roman 18:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure a Kim Family tragedy article is really necessary. What is an article like that going to say that probably hasn't already been said on Wikinews? Personally I'm not a big fan of setting up articles specifically about news incidents like that, though I realize some people are.--Crossmr 20:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the three-revert rule applies to all parties in this editing dispute. (ESkog) 13:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

More accurate and clear to say it applies to each party individually: 3 reverts per editor, not three reverts for all editors combined. Edison 19:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Even more accurate and clear to say that 3RR is a limit not an entitlement, a single revert can be disruptive, and wikilawyering about precisely how many reverts who made in what period is right out. Bold, revert, discuss. One revert. OK? Guy (Help!) 20:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is clearly no "consensus" about the timeline. The discussion page for the timeline is actually a discussion about deleting the ENTIRE ARTICLE or to separate the timeline as its own article. Please read it carefully for yourself. It is NOT a discussion about the timeline by itself on the existing article: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Kim (timeline of death) Furthermore, as pointed out in the discussion above, there is no consensus about the timeline. In fact, most people above as expressed an interest in keeping it. The "consensus" referred by Crossmr consists only of himself and his repeated posts. --UCLARodent 20:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually as it was pointed out above, there were 4 for and 4 against taking in to account only people who have posted specifically in this discussion. There is no popular opinion for its inclusion.--Crossmr 21:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no popular opinion for its exclusion either. Sentiment is clearly running against you on this discussion. Why remove other people's hard work and discourage participation on Misplaced Pages by unilaterally deleting material when the 1) material is valid, 2) the material is relevant, 3) the material is within the guidelines specified by Misplaced Pages and 4) a consensus here agrees it should stay? What you are doing, and the dictatorial fashion in which you're doing it, is offending the open and democratic spirit of this website. --UCLARodent 21:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There was at the time the question was raised for its removal. It was infact 3 editors saying it shouldn't be there and only yourself saying it should stay, yet with a consensus clearly for its removal you repeatedly threatened edit warring and proceeded to edit war over the timeline repeatedly. Only after your repeated edit warring against consensus did anyone else even choose to support it. Even now its not a "popular" support of 5 to 4. Should 2 people show up and say they don't feel it belongs here I'll assume you'll have no problem letting it go?--Crossmr 21:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to read WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy.--Crossmr 21:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, what's this talk about "consensus" you keep repeating ad nauseum? The implication of "consensus" is to defer to majority opinion or to seek input from others, which you've been trying to do with this count on who's pro-timeline and who's anti-timeline. Now that popular opinion is running firmly against you, it's convenient that consensus isn't all that important suddenly. --UCLARodent 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Popular opinion is split down the middle at 5 a piece so it isn't "running against me". I also never said consensus wasn't important, I said wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is quite important, read all about it here WP:Consensus.--Crossmr 02:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The existence and length of this argument is conclusive proof that there is no consensus. Instead of this sterile argument, how about exploring compromises? Guy (Help!) 11:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hence why I had asked what was on the timeline that wasn't already in the article. I was given two items which I said could have been taken care of in 2 sentences. That includes all the information without needlessly duplicating it and making the article even longer.--Crossmr 14:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

but that still does not mean we have concensus about Timeline because we have four people (Crossmr, DmZ, Crunch, Eskog) against it and four (UCLARodent, Casey, Rob Zako, me) for it), I don't see this "popular" request you speak of. You might also read WP:ILIKEIT. Just because its useful doesn't mean it has any encyclopedic value or benefit to the article.--Crossmr 21:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll revert myself for now. I didn't see blacksun's comment where it was put in further up the discussion.--Crossmr 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm with those who say the original timeline was excessive and unhelpful. The level of detail in the timeline was vastly in excess of anything that could be justified by the objective significance of the subject. I would remind the "no consensus" camp that the onus is firmly on those seeking to include disputed content to achieve consensus for its inclusion. This is currently self-evidently absent. The new pruned version is less of a problem, but would still be better integrated into the narrative. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case, someone can wipe out the entire article to seek consensus before anything gets put up. As long as material is relevant, helpful and not redundant, it should be the onus of those who wants to exclude material to seek consensus first before removal. Because what you're saying is, we should burn books before there is general agreement it shouldn't be burnt. Now, is the timeline redudant? Some of it is. But 90% is new material not available elsewhere on the article. There are lots of Wiki articles with timelines, as I mentioned earlier in this discussion (including one that was voted Wiki Article of the Day). Timelines are, almost inherently, redundant. But it's helpful becuase it serves as a summary and gives readers a linear view and understanding of events --UCLARodent 01:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately that is not the way wikipedia works. Any disputed material requires a consensus for inclusion. As far as the material not being in the article, there were 2 items raised as not being in the article and I pointed out they could easily be covered with 2 sentences which is shorter than the timeline. In regards to the example you gave, its already been pointed out that those are not the same thing. One is a very high level timeline about an individual with many historic accomplishments, the other is a low level minutia delving day by day account of the last few days of an individuals life.--Crossmr 02:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

UCLARodent, that is an absurd statement and entirely unhelpful. Most of the article is not contended. If it were then for sure I would expect large chunks to be taken out and brought here for discussion. For context, this article is about 20% longer than that on Robert Hooke. Hooke invented the science of microscopy, coined the biological term "cell", quantified that gravity is an inverse-square law (by measurement, an incredible feat given that the tallest building available then was Westminster Abbey), established the library of the Royal Society, invented (among over 200 patents in his name) the anchor escapement, the spring clock and balance wheel, great circle navigation, the anemometer, the velocipede, the universal joint, the spirit level, the iris diaphragm, the sash window and the Gregorian telescope, did the mathematics for Boyle's Law (and built the vacuum pumps that allowed the law to be explored in the first place), was the first to study fossils and hypothesise that they were extinct species, first to report Jupiter's Red Spot and by observing it deduce that the planet rotated, first to report that Mars rotated, worked out the number of vibrations of each musical note (paving the way for Bach's even tempered tuning), observed Lunar craters, was the first to explain the shape of crystals in terms of the packing of their component parts, postulated a wave theory of light, rejected by Newton and not re-established until about 1820 by Fresnel, proposed to Newton the idea that planetary motion was a combination of linear and circular motion, devised Hooke's law of springs and stretching. He also designed The Monument and the dome of St Paul's Cathedral and conceived the gridiron plan which is the foundation of most American city street networks. How does James Kim's lifetime achievement stack up against that little lot, that we have an article of such size on Kim already and you want it bigger? Guy (Help!) 11:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not gonna read all that. I'm just gonna say, look at this section (the words in bold) and you'll see everyone who's expressed an interest in this subject belives the timeline should be KEEP. You're free to add, for the record, your opinion by bolding your view. But looking at the bolding, I don't see anyone who wants to DELETE. Therefore, there is strong argument to suggest most people think the timeline has merit --UCLARodent 20:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

So only people who post their viewpoint in bold should be counted? And you wanted to comment on my analyzing ambiguous facts. There isn't even the slightest requirement that people post their comments in bold to have their opinion heard. There isn't a remotely strong argument to suggest more people think the timeline has merit. As was pointed out before it is split down the middle with 5 aside and no one else has expressed an opinion since that point.--Crossmr 21:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is "overall or general agreement, with a small amount of dissent." If it's split about down the middle, then there is no consensus, is there? Tragic romance 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr's definition of consensus is whatever he thinks is correct. --UCLARodent 01:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep Timeline. Crossmr: I do not give you permission to tell me what my own opinions are. I believe the timeline has value, as I have explained repeatedly both here and in the discussion of the related article. Repeat: The timeline is appropriate. The only question in my mind is where it is appropriate (not if it is appropriate). Thus when I wrote on this page, "it is perhaps appropriate to delete this timeline from the main entry on James Kim" (and move it to a different article), I was not, repeat not, saying the timeline was inappropriate at all. I wasn't even saying it was inappropriate for this page. I said perhaps, as in "one could make an argument I would consider." Please don't twist my words to mean that I myself said that the timeline was not appropriate at all. But, sadly, you win, as I don't have time to argue with you. The death of James Kim was a tragedy. This isn't POV, this is fact, as a "tragedy" is a sequence of events with an unhappy ending, and surely you agree that the death of James Kim was an unhappy ending. What makes this sequence of events important is that the Kims appear to have been an ordinary family doing what ordinary families do on a Thanksgiving weekend. And it is a mystery of how an ordinary family came to an extraordinary end. The sequence of events (as we know them) just don't add up. Thus there are good people trying to understand and learn from this experience in order to help avoid similar experiences in the future. It might be that Misplaced Pages could help people understand this sequence of events by documenting what is know about what happened. A strength of Misplaced Pages is that it allows people to pool their knowledge, resulting in more than the sum of the parts. But what we have here is that the whole is less than the sum of the parts, as the parts are trying to cancel each other out. I have no interest in arguing about whether a timeline is appropriate, and certainly not whether the life and death of James Kim even merits an article in Misplaced Pages, which seems to me to be the underlying issue here. P.S. You should read Norman Maclean's Young Men and Fire, which is the story of how 14 smokejumpers died in the Mann Gulch fire of 1949. Today over fifty years later, the story is still gripping and relevant. And it is the timeline of that story, carefully reconstructed and told by a great writer, that brings the story to life. Good bye and good luck. --Rob Zako 05:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to tell you what your opinion was. I only made a statement about consensus based on the last comment you had made here which indicated to me that you realized the timeline wasn't encyclopedic. Once you came back and explained your comment I only provided the explanation of my interpretation to show how I reached that conclusion. There was no ill intent by my comment. While I'm sure that timeline makes for a great story in a gripping narrative, that is not our purpose here. Our purpose is to write an encyclopedic article about an individuals life touching on notable events and providing necessary background about him while maintaining WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The death was the most notable part of this man's life to the general public, however he had notability before this. The article is focused very heavily on the death and barely mentions this fact. This is a WP:NPOV issue covered by undue weight. Removing the timeline and covering the missing facts with a sentence or two helps restore the balance and not cause the article to basically look like a retelling of the news story in general with this mans name slapped on it.--Crossmr 05:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the record, Keep Timeline --UCLARodent 06:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the timeline
Please keep the timeline. It is helpful to get a picture of the events which occured, and the order. Paddad64 05:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The events which occurred are in the article and they're already in order.--Crossmr 05:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Elements of the Kim Tragedy

I believe this section should be added to the article.

Elements of the Kim Tragedy

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)

The photos were taken about a week after the Kim family had to stop the car due to the weather conditions. Paddad64 05:11, 15 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)

Blacksun, what is your source to say they were stuck in "several feet" of snow? Tragic romance 16:07, 13 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. It is a list of best practices from the Oregon DOT. Casey69.85.140.227 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. Your desire to introduce material into the article to speculate on things that may or may not have helped him and what he might have and might not have done and how that reflects on him. This isn't an article on winter survival.--Crossmr 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to include a list of facts titled "Elements of the Kim Tragedy." Casey69.85.140.227 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Of which that is not. I wasn't aware the Oregon DOT was part of the tragedy? What occurred has already been covered in the article. What didn't occur, and what he didn't do isn't part of the tragedy. As someone already pointed out we could talk all day about what he didn't do, its not relevant to the article.--Crossmr 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oregon DOT material will support the fact that Kim omitted several best practices which are relevant to the unique events surrounding Kim's death. Casey69.85.140.227 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It supports the fact that the Oregon DOT lists that as some winter safety tips. It doesn't support whatever speculation and conclusions you want to draw. Thats been explained to you several times and it doesn't need to be explained again.--Crossmr 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not speculation in that Kim omitted best practices as listed by the Oregon DOT. I grow weary of your continued obfuscation of this matter. Casey69.85.140.227 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of things he didn't do. He could have flied, he didn't do that. We could sit here all day listing things he didn't do. They're not relevant to the article. The incident has already been covered in excessive detail. A further list or section doesn't add anything to the article. People can already see what he did and didn't do.--Crossmr 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Failures to act can be just as important as actions! Casey69.85.140.227 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is up to the reader to make that decision on their own. The facts about what Kim did have been presented to the reader. I'll point you again to WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V.--Crossmr 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that a list of facts about a particular issue violates any of those policies. Casey69.85.140.227 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then try reading WP:OR again It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Misplaced Pages's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." You're attempting to formulate vaguely related facts in an attempt to paint a certain picture. Its been clear from your first post, and no matter how you try to word it, its quite obvious what you're attempting to do.--Crossmr 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I seek to include a list of facts that it is very easy to argue are very relevant to the Kim tragedy. Do you have facts that you would like to add? Casey69.85.140.227 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been shown the policy. What you want to put in the article violates the policy. There is nothing else to say on the matter.--Crossmr 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Certain people will not respond to this argument: An encyclopedia's purpose is to present the facts, and it is up to the reader to interpret those facts. "Facts" do not "call things into question." People call things into question, based on their perceptions and interpretations of facts.

Those who want to use this encyclopedia as a sounding-board for their own views, would perhaps be better utilizing a blog or a paid advertisement. Whether Kim made mistakes, is not up to us to decide and publish.

This discussion will never stop as long as certain people refuse to acknowledge the proper purpose of this encyclopedia. Tragic romance 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous versions of the section were flawed. A list of facts titled "Elements of the Kim Tragedy" seems quite free of flaws to me. Improvements to my desired section have been made. I believe that is the intent of the dicussion board. Ignore this discussion if you so desire. I will talk sense into Crossmr if it is that last thing I do! Casey69.85.140.227 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have thoroughly enjoyed this lively editorial discussion! Thanks to all. Casey69.85.140.227 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR is one of wikipedia's non-negotiable policies. If you do not wish to follow it take your analysis elsewhere. As someone else pointed out there is a great discussion going on over at some blog where they're analyzing it to death. Knock about his behaviour all you want there. Its not appropriate here.--Crossmr 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not done any original research. Casey69.85.140.227 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you the exact part of the policy in which your proposed section would violate. You're taking a fact from a government website and other facts and attempting to formulate a list or otherwise assemble them to, regardless of how you attempt to word it or make it appear, cast Kim in a negative light and call his actions into question. What he's done is already covered in the article and the section you propose serves no other purpose.--Crossmr 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am letting the facts speak for themselves. Previous versions of the section did not. Please add facts to the list if you want. Casey69.85.140.227 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts do speak for themselves. They're in the article. Nothing you propose to add is relevant to the article and adding it would be a violation of the policy listed above. I can't even begin to the count the times that has been explained to you and by the number of editors who've attempted to do so. Renaming the section doesn't change the nature of what you're proposing.--Crossmr 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your convenient version of the facts are in the article. Casey69.85.140.227 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If by convenient you mean facts which comply with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, yes they do. Which is how all articles are supposed to be on wikipedia. If that is an issue, I've already pointed out an appropriate outlet for you to put forth whatever conjecture and conclusions you wish to make or draw for people. If you wish to angle this issue to suit you, or fight the good fight for winter safety I wish you luck in finding an appropriate medium.--Crossmr 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a comfortable mind. Casey69.85.140.227 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You say you're "letting the facts speak for themselves." Fine. The facts are in the article, and they are there speaking for themselves. Nothing more needs to be added. Tragic romance 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You say the facts are in the article? Did you even consider that statement before you made it? Only three of the facts that I have repeatedly pointed to are in the article, and one is in a questionable location. It is hard for me to take you seriously. Crossmr made the same incorrect statement. You only want your convenient version of the facts represented. I am considering changing my handle to "The Incovenient Truth." Casey208.53.88.146 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What facts about James Kim do you think should be added to the article? Tragic romance 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Oregon DOT is in the business of publishing "survivalist material." I do think they publish best practices for driving in winter. Casey208.53.88.146 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll ask again, what facts about James Kim do you think should be added to the article? Has the Oregon DOT mentioned something about James Kim which you would like to include? Tragic romance 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it doesn't matter much whether a certain person "takes me seriously," when that person quietly refuses to answer the five to ten logical arguments and questions that have been presented to them. Tragic romance 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Casey, will you acknowledge that it is our job simply to present the facts, and let the reader decide whether Kim made mistakes, based on those facts? Simple answer please. Tragic romance 16:24, 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)

Here's a reliable source that refers to a mistake made by James Kim:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/07/MNGTMMQVKE1.DTL&hw=james+kim+mistake&sn=004&sc=264

In which it also says that that is a commmon mistake that a lot of people make. It is nothing unique to any mistake James Kim may or may not have made.--Crossmr 16:34, 14 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)

Unfortunately criticism is discouraged in this forum and in many cultures. People who have critized the war in Iraq have been called unpatriotic or traitors. In other countries critics are silenced, or sentenced to death. There is a lot of resistance to criticism among the editors of this artcicle, and there may be many reasons for this: respect for James Kim, legal considerations, hero worship or an upbringing in a culture where criticism isn't tolerated. In many European countries an article is not acceptable unless it contains some form of critical analysis. A properly sourced critical review is appropriate. On Misplaced Pages the criteria for a critical review can in some cases be very limiting, and hinders most criticism, while in other cases sourcing isn't demanded. No consistency. Since James Kim's actions have been criticized in numerous articles, blogs and forums, they have become part of the public debate surrounding his death. It's therefore relevant to point to the debate, even though the blogs may not have been written by Stanford University professors. Some of the blogs are very intelligent, and I would like too highlight 2 random links to illustrate this:

James Kim’s Mistakes Doomed Him - http://www.belch.com/~blog/2006/12/07/james-kims-mistakes-doomed-him/

James Kim Did Everything Wrong - http://adventurewatch.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/james-kim-did-everything-wrong/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Your editorializing notwithstanding, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. The only non-blog source that was provided was an editorial piece where the editor couldn't even really bring himself to outright criticize him. All criticism in any article must be appropriately sourced and relevant to the article per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Misplaced Pages has standards, blogs are not within those standards.--Crossmr 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages articles are not a forum for "public debate," and are under no obligation to acknowledge whether "public debate" is occurring. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the article is for facts only?

You mention "critical analysis." Is there "critical analysis" in the articles of Encyclopedia Brittanica?

Who is to perform this "critical analysis?" Misplaced Pages editors? We are not here to "analyze" the subjects we are writing about. And we are not obligated to include "viewpoints" from irrelevant sources no matter how many blogs and news reporters offer them. Tragic romance 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV opinions are acceptable when they are converted to facts. In this case a large part of the population says: "Mistakes were made". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

That is your opinion. You need to provide reliable sources that say that. To date the only source provided was an editorial opinion that couldn't really quite call it a mistake but just wonder a little bit about what happened. Read NPOV again under undue weight. Until there are reliable sources to show this as a non-trivial minority view point it doesn't belong in the article.--Crossmr 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your source, to say that "a large part of the population says...?" Tragic romance 16:57, 14 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)

I've re-added mentioning that he's of Korean descent. Why should this be hidden as if it is something shameful or inappropriate? Describing ethnicity is like detailing his education or professional endeavors. It's a vital component of one's background. I know removing ethnicity implies we're all one great American race. If that's your personal belief, that's honorable. But Misplaced Pages is about providing information, not advancing personal belief --UCLARodent 22:02, 15 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)

Maybe Kim should have had better sense than to drive 20 miles down a crushed rock Forest Service road in the winter. Without GPS. Jake b 16:20, 15 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)

BLM now is saying the lock was not cut. They left the gate open. Oregonian Article Headwes 16:30, 14 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)

do you see all anonymous users as irresponsible heathens out to destroy wikipedia or am i - someone who you previusly described as a troublemacker who made you ashamed to contribute - and 69.85.140.227 just special? see WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV. thank you 72.36.251.234 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't say you were a troublemaker. I asked if we had a "Troublemaker on the page?" This was due to your disdainful, careless, confrontational writing habits. In just one section you threatened to "make a point" and you "personally attacked" User:mstroek.. Another editor also added that your writing was like vandalism.

2. I am not ashamed to contribute. I was embarrassed to have my writing put in with the particular way you were writing at that point. Apparently you have cleaned it up, and I have no problem with your writing like this.

3. What was irresponsible above, was for the user to call into question another man's character (drug use, etc), when he knew there was no basis in fact. And my problem is not with anonymous posters. My problem is that the writer didn't sign with tildes, which is required whether you use a username or not.

I have no problem with you or any other individual here. It was the particular behavior that was against guidelines/ policy.Tragic romance 03:04, 14 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 don't think anyone's trying to turn it into a federal case. But he's right. The Talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article. It states right at the top that this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Nobody's going to confront you if you do make a few comments about the article's subject (and I myself have done that), but that's the exception, not the rule. So it isn't here for people to "express whatever editoralizing or theories they want."

Also, yes, people have the right to remain anonymous, but they are still required to sign their comments with tildes. Tragic romance 17:03, 13 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)

He left the road after walking along the road for more than 10 miles. So I don't think his initial intention was taking as-the-crow-flies path. He clearly did not know where he was. If he thought Galice was 4 miles away then after walking 10 miles he must have realized that he is somewhere else. But regardless of what he thought ..., when you are on road and somebody tells you that a town is 15 miles away - most of people think that what is talked about is along-the-road distance, not as-the-crow-flies distance. That is also clearly the case in this article's discussion, as couple of people here (Casey, Crossmr) discuss the mentioned 15 miles as it was along-the-road distance - which is just not true. Roman 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker. Is there any better/shorter term for as-the-crow-flies distance ? Roman 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. The message attempting to be conveyed is "direct overland route". It seems wikipedia has an article on it which could be inter-linked too As_the_crow_flies.--Crossmr 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the link, I used it in the article. Roman 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

... Driving back to retrace their path, they accidentally turn onto a spur road ...

I just saw this CNN footage, and also checked GoogleEarth. I just don't see how they could accidentally turn onto that spur road while backtracking. While driving downhill they would have to make about 160 degree uphill turn, I just don't see how you can do that accidentally. Look here. The spur road is the one which looks just as it was a main road at that intersection. My opinion is that they were backtracking much later after already taking that spur road.

BTW, I am pretty sure that if I was going from Galice to Agness in bad weather without GPS then I would do the same mistake and take that spur road first. It simpy looks like it is the main road at that point. In middle of that intersection where the road forks there is sign indicating direction to Agness. But since at that point the roads are almost parallel, the sign is quite confusing. Black Bar Lodge owner's family even painted additional huge "COAST" text with arrow written on the road pavement indicating which way the coast is, because they also found intersection so confusing. This sign is however quite useless during snow, because snow simply covers it Roman 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Donations and money

69.19.14.26 and 69.19.14.15 (which are registered to the same source) - I am going remove the statements you've added to "Early life and background" ("wealthy") and "Death" (CNET's donation link), because it feels like personal commentary and POV inclusion. I appreciate your editing to make the CNET statement more accurate, but it's still not entirely true. The address CNET provided was because third parties requested a way to contact the family through cards and other well-wishes, which is certainly not limited to money. Furthermore, what you posted to the talk page (which is no longer here) revealed that the reason you want to include this information is because you believe it's inappropriate and tacky for the family to receive donations, which is up for debate and doesn't belong in an objective encyclopedia article about James Kim. What his family did or did not do after his death has nothing to do with him, and finding ways to insert references to the Kims' supposed wealth is not improving the article. If you disagree, please post it here, but I just wanted to provide an explanation about the deletion. Cue the Strings 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be truthful here. A person's socioeconomic status is most certainly relevant to all aspects of a person's life. Why are you trying to hide the Kim family wealth? Is it because they are shamelessly trying to cash in on his death by holding fundraisers for the public to contribute money?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk • contribs) 05:02, December 14, 2006.

My point is that your approach to editing this article isn't from a neutral POV. It doesn't matter whether I agree with your opinion about the Kims or not - the reason you're putting this information in here is to make a point, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm not trying to "hide" the Kim family wealth because I disagree with your opinion, but I don't believe you've made a case for it belonging in the article for any reason other than your own suppositions. Anyway, the largest question is: does info about his socioeconomic status improve this article? Did it play an important role in James Kim's life? Was it immediately relevant to his death? For me, the answer to these questions is no. Unless you can provide a sound reason for including this info other than exposing "truth" to the public (which is what you've written in several of your edit summaries), this info doesn't seem to be pertinent. Cue the Strings 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for adding content to this article are irrelevant. You obviously are biased and I think you're a member of the Kim family circle of trust. The truth is that the Kim family is very wealthy. Even so, they are embarking on a major fundraising effort to capitalize and monetize the public's sympathy for the death of James. In my opinion, this is a disgusting and despicable act by the family and friends of the Kims. My opinions aside, the socioeconomic status and upbringing are at the core of a person's makeup and identity. The Kim family wealth is pertinent and relevant. It's staying in the article. You're not King of the James Kim Misplaced Pages article.

I don't have an opinion yet on whether statements about his family's wealth belong in the article, but you seem to be implying (very strongly) that the Kim family is asking for donations for themselves. As far as I've seen, they haven't stated clearly what the money will go to (and yes that is cause for concern). But their site says it may go to the girls' college fund or to reimburse the S+R effort. If that's the case -- and they're not taking the donations for themselves -- then will you recant your opinion as "loudly" as you've stated it? Tragic romance 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to www.jamesandkati.com Here are a few quotes: "We have set up "The James Kim Memorial Fund" through Bank of America. Donations to the paypal account above will be transferred to that account. Checks can be sent to either of the addresses listed below. Make checks payable to "The James Kim Memorial Fund"" and "James and Kati started two stores in San Francisco in the past couple of years. Helping to support these stores is a way that residents of San Francisco can help support the family. Doe is in the lower Haight and Church Street Apothecary is in Noe Valley." Obviously there is an aggressive attempt to solicit money from the general public for the benefit of the Kim family. Has the public been informed that the Kim family is wealthy and doesn't need money? There is a fundraiser being held tonight at The Endup in San Francisco as discussed here: http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/event/Kim-Family-Benefit-Endup-Thu-1214/san-francisco-ca/45f6db60-8547-4e1e-adf1-da1750bc10f2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.31 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I see nothing remotely aggressive about that. Seems like a standard statement made when people they set up a donation account after a tragedy.--Crossmr 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since your other edit to the same effect has just been removed, I hope it's been made clear by other sources that it's not just me who feels you're trying to push a POV. Status is one personal characteristic out of an endless number, and you're only going to find status/income level in biographies where it's found to be relevant. Please don't just say, "It's pertinent and relevant" - why is it relevant? Because the Kims have a "Make A Donation" button on their webpage? I'm not a member of the "Kim family circle of trust" (I'm not even sure what that means), nor have any particular interest in the family overall, but you're not helping your argument by accusing me of trying to control the article while you refuse to budge on your own edits, while adding personal attacks into your edit summaries. If you can make a case, please do so. Otherwise, it might be best to look at other people's rationales for why your other edits have been removed. Cue the Strings 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't seen it, IP 66.82.9.74 just put this in the article: "...the friends and family (...) attempted to capitalize and monetize the public's sorrow by ."

Thankfully it was promptly removed. Tragic romance 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam links to a site asking for money are extremely inappropriate and should be removed. Edison 14:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not it asks for money, it is THE site that friends and family set up and is appropriate as an external site. Just because a site has a donation link on it doesn't mean its spam.--Crossmr 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I maybe missed references and sources confirming that it is THE site family set up or approved. Anybody can claim to be friends of family collecting money for family. Anybody can create web site. Without family officially endorsing the site I would find the site highly suspicious. Crossmr, could you back up what you are saying by citing reliable sources ? Roman 15:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss all the initial news reports linking to the site? Here is one . Another . I recall reading more, but they're difficult to find in the shear mass of news stories about this now. Since most places linked to it in their early news stories they're not linking to it as much now. Were it some scam you can expect it would have exposed by now. A father who pays for private helicopters to search isn't going to sit quietly by while someone makes a buck of their disappearance. Nor would the media have accepted the statement coming from the website instead of going directly to her for a statement. With the volume of reliable sources linking to it as the site, there is no reason it shouldn't be listed. It doesn't have to be described as taking donations, it was originally descirbed as "ASite created by friends of the Kim family"--Crossmr 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is NO confirmation at all on your sources that the family endorses or agrees with site and the donations. I asked for sources on that (read my post again), not for how many web sites list link to the donation site in question. Most of your sources are just putting link to the donations site with no comment at all. They might just see that link somewhere and list it on their sites, just as they all initially picked information that Black Bar Lodge was a mile from Kims' car - which later turned incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong, but first source you listed, CNET, does not link donation site at all, which is strange considering James was their employee and they created numerous tribute articles for him. I also find strange that speculating about what father would or would not do come from you, after seeing all your posts here fighting others to delete/alter their posts because they don't conform to Wikipadia policies regarding reliable sources. And regarding what source would media accept ? ... oh please, don't let me start about that... I can too speculate that father's mind is currently involved with something else than re-wounding himself by being involved in news coverage about his just-deceased son. I also remember news sources (unreliable as they are) also saying that family does not wish to be contacted. So it is strange to see in the same time a site set up by "friends of family" accepting messages and donations for the family. Roman 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be confirmation that the family endorsed the site. There is no requirement that all external links about James Kim be endorsed by the family. The media said they don't want to be contacted after that statement was made on the site. The media accepted that as a statement coming from the family. CNET does indeed link to the site. Read the article again, look for this sentence Loved ones have also set up a Web site where the public can receive updates on the Kims and share their thoughts. and notice the underlying hyperlink and from the CNET front page they link to this: which gives a link to the jamesandkati.com website. So yes his place of work does link to it. As well both the site and the CNET site give the same address for the Kim Family.--Crossmr 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More specifically goto http://www.cnet.com/ and click on the link in the middle of the page entitled "How to help the James Kim family".--Crossmr 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the CNET link you provided above (thanks) - I changed my opinion to neutral regarding listing the donation/support site at this moment. I think it is still possible that family will later distance themselves from the donation site (for reasons listed in this discussion page or elsewhere). So if the link is put on the James' page then I would recommend note next to the link saying that family did not officially endorse the donation site yet. But my recommendation about the note is also neutral, so if the note is not there then I am not going to argue to put it there. Roman 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My objection above was to IP 66.82.9.74's unencyclopedic, accusatory POV writing, not to the external link. That site has been around since before the family was even found. It is run by a close friend of their family who has been involved from the beginning of the search. Tragic romance 16:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but Edison has now removed the link claiming its spam which is why I was pointing out that it is indeed a proper link because of the amount of reliable sources which link to it.--Crossmr 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The site has been vetted by James Kim's former employer. I'll be the first to admit, the site doesn't seem to offer much, but WP:EL "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "the James Kim official site," but it is the only site endorsed by his family as well as by his former employer, so I put the link back up. Tragic romance 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Doe, the luxury boutique store owned by Kati Kim, is now soliciting money for the "James Kim Memorial" fund. See for yourself here: http://www2.doe-sf.com/ It doesn't say what the money will be used for. However, Kati herself said this at http://kati.yelp.com: "Someday, I'm going to be a very rich woman with a very large Dwelled-out house. And, when I am, I'm going to buy up plenty of these rugs to adorn the floors of my lavish abode." I believe you Kati. I have no doubt whatsoever.

If you want to write that a memorial fund has been established, I think that's OK. But to say she's SOLICITING is inappropriate here. This article is about James Kim, not the activities of his wife. If you want to describe her activities, perhaps noting it in an article on Kati Kim would be more appropriate. --UCLARodent 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A man's wife is a reflection of himself. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

I have no problem with the truth. The issue afoot is relevancy. So what are you saying? If Kati lives another 50 years, should all of her activities be included on this James Kim article? If man and wife are the same, will you also be suggesting to merge the articles of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton? --UCLARodent 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim's wife is apparently attempting to exploit the public's sympathy by soliciting money from the public as a result of her husband's (James Kim) tragic death. There has been no mention of what this money will be used for (other than vague references to college fund for the kids for part of it) and there has been no mention of why the family is in need of money at this time. If you can't see how that's relevant, then you must be dumb as a post. I find it not only relevant but nauseating.

• 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