This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
James Kim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | James Kim received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
I am in favor of the timeline and find it to be very informative. Casey 69.85.140.227 04:46, 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)
I think the timeline has value. But as Wikipedia 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)
Several editors here Wikipedia: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)
Please note that the three-revert rule applies to all parties in this editing dispute. ( ESkog)( Talk) 13:55, 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: Wikipedia: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)
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)
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 Wikipedia could help people understand this sequence of events by documenting what is know about what happened. A strength of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
This timeline is now growing to an even more unencyclopedic level. As its been stated there has been no consensus for its inclusion to begin with. Extending it and making it larger and putting even more focus on it does not benefit this article.-- Crossmr 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a thought on formatting so that it would be easy to see what happened on a day by day basis without the need to add length to the article by needlessly repeating information. A couple of paragraphs start with "On the morning off..." or "On..." and start with a day. What if the two sections were re-written to reflect a timed narrative. So that the first paragraph starts with "On November 25th..." and covers everything that happened that day. Then the next paragraph would start with the 26th, etc. Only writing about which days actually had something happen on them. This would make them easy to follow, a reader should be able to realize that from the Time it says On day xxx until that changes to the next day all happened on that day. It should be easy to skim and keep track of the timeline like that without bloating the article.-- Crossmr 07:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP timeline -- It is the most clear way to demonstrate missed opportunities in the sequence of events.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rugz ( talk • contribs) 15:31, December 16, 2006.
I appreciate the hard work many of you have done to incorporate the timeline into a new format. But frankly, being away from Wikipedia and seeing the article for the first time in several days, this article looks downright ridiculous and unprofessional. Let's have a vote to determine if there is consensus on the old timeline or this new version. I don't want to get into an edit war again but if we cannot decide, I will call in arbitrators and settle this once and for all. -- UCLARodent 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, return old timeline. -- UCLARodent 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly hope this peer review process will settle things because I WILL call in Arbitrators. According to this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Further_dispute_resolution), it says we have to "conduct a survey" to judge consensus. Now, do you want to abide by the official process and participate in the survey or would you prefer to act unilaterally? -- UCLARodent 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a time line would be really unnecessary. 71.109.117.113 07:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is full of endless discussion on the issue of a timeline, with no clear compromise and no obvious resolution to the dispute. One part of the dispute is over whether there is consensus, and which way it leans. Despite its shortcomings, it is common where this is a problem to take a straw poll of editors' opinions. This is not a vote, but a quick and dirty way of judging consensus for an issue. Please put a bulleted support or oppose to express your stance on the inclusion of the timeline. At your option, you could also include an extremely brief (one sentence) explanation, or perhaps just indicate "per my arguments expressed above." I will publish this to neutral forums. Thanks!-- Kchase T 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarification This straw poll is to determine support for the timeline found in this version [2] and whether its inclusion is warranted in addition to or in replacement of this Snowbound with family version found here [3].-- Crossmr 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - A timeline is a helpful organizational tool that permits readers to see events in a linear fashion and can display information with fewer words than paragraph formating. -- UCLARodent 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support -I don't edit much more, so my vote may not count for much, but after I looked at the Village Pump for help with MY problem, I saw a request for input here: You all have chosen a difficult topic, but the time-line, no matter how contentious or difficult, is part of the story, and I think it needs to stay; (If you were against the time-line, sorry -no intention to offend you. :-) GordonWatts 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Material is already covered in the existing section in a linear fashion, needlessly adds length to the article, timeline requested is already present in an external source.-- Crossmr 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support OPPOSE - HOWEVER please do not operate on a straw poll alone. This helps decide which way the wind is flowing, but it should not dictate the direction of the boat. We should use this to somewhat adapt Wiki's position, we should not use this to dictate it. Material should be covered once in introduction if important and once in an appropriate timeline <retrospective addition-> "fashion" in the article. Let's be clear. This is the only timeline I support. Do not say things twice or more otherwise. It is needless replication.--
I'll bring the food
17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Now that the article has been cleaned up and put in clear, chronological order right in the narrative, what's the use of an additional "timeline?" Tragic romance 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it adds anything to the prose already there.-- Kchase T 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - the narrative form is fine, and the AfD consensus seems to me to indicate that there are more than just those here who feel that the timeline is a bit much. ( ESkog)( Talk) 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support use of timeline instead of text narrative. A timeline is the most factual way to present the complex sequential information. A timeline is a list of facts demonstrating a sequence without commentary or POV. The narrative approach is less factual and forces the reader to spend more time contemplating the facts, rather than easy reference. Therefore, the 7 day Kim dissapearance and death is best presented as a timeline, without corresponding storylike narrative. Charts, graphs, tables, and lists are all common on Wikipedia and are used in instances where it is the best representation of the material. I DO NOT support using both narrative and timeline together repeating the same facts. Rugz 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support use of timeline. The narrative is going to get simplified in future and important facts are going to be deleted in future, just as it happened with recent I'll bring the food edits (removed what kind of 13 miles distance it is, removed 30 miles along the road distance to Galice info, removed when phone ping was recorded by phone company - (which means that search and rescue could focus on correct area much sooner).I'll bring the food seem to care more that article is short than the article should give explanations to the story). Until the narrative is cleaned up into sequential mentioning of all important events (does not have to be brief) - I will support additional (brief) timeline. I use Wikipedia to get clear understanding of topics with relevant facts, I don't (currently) get that in this article's narrative. Roman 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Uh. I oppose the time line and stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.117.113 ( talk • contribs) 08:26, December 26, 2006.
The citations need to be cleaned up a bit. There is a way to label a citation so that you can link a point to it again without the need to create a new entry in the cit table. I've noticed there are some duplicates in there, so if someone gets a chance before I do, it would be great if those could be cleaned up so that can shrink that list down its a bit large right now.-- Crossmr 09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the article is looking a LOT better. And hopefully this resolves the timeline dispute. Tragic romance 10:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Crossmr, what would you think of putting the following link back in the article? You are correct that it doesn't need more than one set of maps, but this one looked by far the best. (This link was formerly called "James Kim's Path.")
Google Earth view of area Detailed Google Earth layouts showing location of car, paths, lodge, etc.
Tragic romance
10:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the citations, I found the way to use a citation more than once without needlessly repeating it, see Wikipedia:Footnotes For using the name= field in the ref section. Saves you from repeating the full cite, and it saves it from cites becoming listed 2 or 3 times down below. If any material is being added which uses an existing citation please use this field to save on duplication.-- Crossmr 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What dispute about his background at TechTV is being proven with the youtube links? If they're being used a citation for something they should be cited, not merely listed as an external link.-- Crossmr 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find out about this until months after it happened, 'cause I don't pay attention when stuff about missing people is on the news. He was on TechTV a lot and seemed like a really cool and smart guy, so fucking sad that that shit happened to him and his family.
Third paragraph in James Kim#Death reads:
I'd edit it myself, but I'm not quite sure what it is supposed to say. I assume something to do with finding Kim's body. -- Willscrlt 06:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
With this much conversation on the timeline it is hard to see who is for and against.
I reccomend an evil straw poll. Do not take the results as the given course of action, merely use them to understand how your position weighs up.
Sorting by timeline allows the article to be free from organisational POV and stops events which an editor considers more important from being placed at the top because of that editor's/editor's group of cyber-cohorts own personal opinion on the matter. But equal weight should be given to all James Kim's notable life. Perhaps more detail could be added to his family life to add balance. A timeline should not have a day by day focus of the events leading to body discovery however, that is too much detail. Remember whilst his death is somewhat movie scriptish (in fact i've seen a film with this plot), we should not over focus on media texts as sources unless you can add balance.-- I'll bring the food 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
One section could easily be cut down to this: On Saturday, November 25, 2006 Kim, his wife Kati, and two daughters, Penelope and Sabine were traveling home from Portland, Oregon to San Francisco, California. After missing a turnoff in Oregon, they turned into Bear Camp Road. While traveling on Bear Camp Road in southwest Oregon, they took a wrong turn onto a logging road. The road is normally blocked by a locked metal gate during that time of year. However, an internal investigation by the Bureau of Land Management revealed that the agency failed to block the road. [1]
Around 2:00 AM, the family stopped due to snow and bad weather. The Kims survived for several days in their car, keeping it warm by running the engine. When their 2005 Saab 9-2X station wagon ran out of gas, they began burning dried wood, magazines and car tires to stay warm.
On November 30, co-workers of Kim filed a missing persons report with the San Francisco Police Department. [2]. After it was found that the Kims used their credit card at a local restaurant, search and rescue teams looked for the family along the many coastal highways from Southern Oregon's Curry County to Roseburg, Oregon in Douglas County. Friends of Kim, many in the technology and entertainment industries, raised public awareness of the disappearance and requested help finding the family.
On December 2, James set out to look for help, wearing tennis shoes, a jacket, and light clothing. He believed the nearest town (Galice) was located four miles away after studying a map with his wife [3]. The distance to Galice was actually 13 miles. He promised to turn back at 1 p.m. if he failed to find anyone, but he did not. [4]. On December 3, the authorities put about 80 searchers on the ground in addition to three privately hired helicopters, a sheriff's helicopter and an Oregon State Police airplane.
At 1:45 PM on December 4, Kati Kim and her two children were found alive by John Rachor, a helicopter pilot. Rachor reported that he was led to the scene after seeing human footprints in the snow, which belonged to James Kim. Rachor then radioed the Kim family position to others. The three were then rescued, airlifted out of the area and transferred by AMR ambulance [5] to Three Rivers Community Hospital in Grants Pass. They were only successfully found because the cell phone signal previously picked up by Edge Wireless narrowed down their location. [6] The signal was emitted when the Kim family's cell phone received a text message. [7]-- I'll bring the food 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
A straw poll has been opened above if you would like to weigh in and help us get an idea of consensus. I'm not sure I understand your comment above. You recommend cutting down a section to that, but the current snowbound section is essentially that plus maybe 1 or 2 sentences. I think the only thing you didn't include was the cell phone ping. It was requested that be integrated from the timeline because the authorities credit that with narrowing down the search area to find them.-- Crossmr 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I've tried to update the copyright tags for the main photo of James. Could someone else verify that I've done it correctly? Yavoh 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people seem to be quite vindictive about photos, even when they include valid rationale. When someone spends a lot of time trying to do it right, keeping in mind that Wiki policy is very unclear, it goes against Wiki principles not to assume good faith, even if you're labeled as an Administrator. There is no excuse for rude brainless behavior no matter who you are. Rugz 12:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please everyone help with the James Kim photos' fair use rationale before they are deleted once again. It is a constant struggle to understand what these Wiki deletionists want before they are satisfied. What happened to assume good faith? Rugz 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There is now a speedy deletion discussion about James Kim images at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_17
I'm impressed with the work done here. Keep at it! And fill in that career section!-- I'll bring the food ( Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Inflammatory comment removed. ~ trialsanderrors 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As you can see by this previous version of James Kim Talk [ [5]] an important debate about content being deleted by Crossmr has now been deleted by Crossmr. Let it be abundantly obvious to everyone. Rugz 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Uncivil comment by IP editor removed This is an article talk page. Discuss the content, not the contributor. ~ trialsanderrors 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the article to generally tighten it up, and to make it sound more like an encyclopedia article and less like a testimonial, thereby more fully conforming with Wikipedia's neutrality "pillar." I also added mention of Spencer Kim's Washington Post op-ed piece that criticized various gov't entities. I no longer think the "proseline" warning is appropriate, but I didn't know how to remove it. I would also make one comment, and that is that I think the Kims are of dubious notability and might not rate an article at all. I'm saying that only in passing; for purposes of the edit, I accept the article's existence as a fact of life. Pwok 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the POV statement in the 'Death' section that James had removed his clothing and discarded it along the way "likely as signals to searchers". With the Coroner pronouncing James' death being due to Hypothermia, and with one of the symptoms of Hypothermia being paradoxical undressing, it is more likely that James removed his clothing because he thought he was hot and not because he was trying to signal any would-be rescuers. That one, single Oregon official believed James discarded his clothes as "little signs" is irrelevant, especially when that one opinion is contradicted by scientific facts & evidence quoted both here on Wikipedia and referenced within the pages of New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426002.600-the-word-paradoxical-undressing.html Kwazimoto69 ( talk) 17:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Kim/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I rated this as a 'Start' because the article fails to discuss Kim's notable career. In that sense, it's a stub. I don't understand WPBio's assessment. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on James Kim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James Kim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to understand just how Dangerous the Road can be. 2604:2D80:B581:1000:AD8F:ED57:DFD9:A5B9 ( talk) 01:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia prohibits original research, a policy with both strengths and weaknesses. The policy screens out unfounded speculation, but it lends too much credibility to media accounts that aren't documented or factual. As an example of the weakness, the article repeats an unfounded claim by CBS News that the surviving Kims were found because a cellphone ping was a supposedly critical breakthrough that led searchers to their car. That was simply not true. Mrs. Kim and the two children were found by a private helicopter pilot in an area where people had been searching for 36 hours before any cellphone data was reported to anyone.
The article also understates the number of warnings that the Kims disregarded (eight) before wandering onto the logging road where they ended up. And it does not address the contradictions between statements made by Kati Kim in an ABC News 20/20 retrospective broadcast in February 2011 and statements she'd made to investigative authorities after she and her chidren were rescued in December 2006. Also, the article never mentioned a comprehensive report by the Oregon State Sheriffs Association released in January 2007.
Because of the prohibition on original research, the most comprehensive report about the events is never mentioned in the article. This is understandable, yet anyone who's interested can find it by going to the Wayback Machine. Look for kimtragedy(dot)info there. It includes the author's opinions, and thus cannot be cited here. Still, it really does tell the story, with links to evidence. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:A2:AEE7:A46A:A574 ( talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
James Kim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | James Kim received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 12, 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
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)
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 Wikipedia 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)
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)
I am in favor of the timeline and find it to be very informative. Casey 69.85.140.227 04:46, 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)
I think the timeline has value. But as Wikipedia 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)
Several editors here Wikipedia: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)
Please note that the three-revert rule applies to all parties in this editing dispute. ( ESkog)( Talk) 13:55, 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: Wikipedia: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)
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)
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 Wikipedia could help people understand this sequence of events by documenting what is know about what happened. A strength of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)
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)
This timeline is now growing to an even more unencyclopedic level. As its been stated there has been no consensus for its inclusion to begin with. Extending it and making it larger and putting even more focus on it does not benefit this article.-- Crossmr 06:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I had a thought on formatting so that it would be easy to see what happened on a day by day basis without the need to add length to the article by needlessly repeating information. A couple of paragraphs start with "On the morning off..." or "On..." and start with a day. What if the two sections were re-written to reflect a timed narrative. So that the first paragraph starts with "On November 25th..." and covers everything that happened that day. Then the next paragraph would start with the 26th, etc. Only writing about which days actually had something happen on them. This would make them easy to follow, a reader should be able to realize that from the Time it says On day xxx until that changes to the next day all happened on that day. It should be easy to skim and keep track of the timeline like that without bloating the article.-- Crossmr 07:17, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
KEEP timeline -- It is the most clear way to demonstrate missed opportunities in the sequence of events.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rugz ( talk • contribs) 15:31, December 16, 2006.
I appreciate the hard work many of you have done to incorporate the timeline into a new format. But frankly, being away from Wikipedia and seeing the article for the first time in several days, this article looks downright ridiculous and unprofessional. Let's have a vote to determine if there is consensus on the old timeline or this new version. I don't want to get into an edit war again but if we cannot decide, I will call in arbitrators and settle this once and for all. -- UCLARodent 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
For the record, return old timeline. -- UCLARodent 07:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I certainly hope this peer review process will settle things because I WILL call in Arbitrators. According to this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes#Further_dispute_resolution), it says we have to "conduct a survey" to judge consensus. Now, do you want to abide by the official process and participate in the survey or would you prefer to act unilaterally? -- UCLARodent 07:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I think a time line would be really unnecessary. 71.109.117.113 07:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This talk page is full of endless discussion on the issue of a timeline, with no clear compromise and no obvious resolution to the dispute. One part of the dispute is over whether there is consensus, and which way it leans. Despite its shortcomings, it is common where this is a problem to take a straw poll of editors' opinions. This is not a vote, but a quick and dirty way of judging consensus for an issue. Please put a bulleted support or oppose to express your stance on the inclusion of the timeline. At your option, you could also include an extremely brief (one sentence) explanation, or perhaps just indicate "per my arguments expressed above." I will publish this to neutral forums. Thanks!-- Kchase T 09:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Clarification This straw poll is to determine support for the timeline found in this version [2] and whether its inclusion is warranted in addition to or in replacement of this Snowbound with family version found here [3].-- Crossmr 17:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support - A timeline is a helpful organizational tool that permits readers to see events in a linear fashion and can display information with fewer words than paragraph formating. -- UCLARodent 09:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support -I don't edit much more, so my vote may not count for much, but after I looked at the Village Pump for help with MY problem, I saw a request for input here: You all have chosen a difficult topic, but the time-line, no matter how contentious or difficult, is part of the story, and I think it needs to stay; (If you were against the time-line, sorry -no intention to offend you. :-) GordonWatts 11:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Material is already covered in the existing section in a linear fashion, needlessly adds length to the article, timeline requested is already present in an external source.-- Crossmr 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support OPPOSE - HOWEVER please do not operate on a straw poll alone. This helps decide which way the wind is flowing, but it should not dictate the direction of the boat. We should use this to somewhat adapt Wiki's position, we should not use this to dictate it. Material should be covered once in introduction if important and once in an appropriate timeline <retrospective addition-> "fashion" in the article. Let's be clear. This is the only timeline I support. Do not say things twice or more otherwise. It is needless replication.--
I'll bring the food
17:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Now that the article has been cleaned up and put in clear, chronological order right in the narrative, what's the use of an additional "timeline?" Tragic romance 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think it adds anything to the prose already there.-- Kchase T 19:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - the narrative form is fine, and the AfD consensus seems to me to indicate that there are more than just those here who feel that the timeline is a bit much. ( ESkog)( Talk) 20:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support use of timeline instead of text narrative. A timeline is the most factual way to present the complex sequential information. A timeline is a list of facts demonstrating a sequence without commentary or POV. The narrative approach is less factual and forces the reader to spend more time contemplating the facts, rather than easy reference. Therefore, the 7 day Kim dissapearance and death is best presented as a timeline, without corresponding storylike narrative. Charts, graphs, tables, and lists are all common on Wikipedia and are used in instances where it is the best representation of the material. I DO NOT support using both narrative and timeline together repeating the same facts. Rugz 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Support use of timeline. The narrative is going to get simplified in future and important facts are going to be deleted in future, just as it happened with recent I'll bring the food edits (removed what kind of 13 miles distance it is, removed 30 miles along the road distance to Galice info, removed when phone ping was recorded by phone company - (which means that search and rescue could focus on correct area much sooner).I'll bring the food seem to care more that article is short than the article should give explanations to the story). Until the narrative is cleaned up into sequential mentioning of all important events (does not have to be brief) - I will support additional (brief) timeline. I use Wikipedia to get clear understanding of topics with relevant facts, I don't (currently) get that in this article's narrative. Roman 06:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Uh. I oppose the time line and stuff. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.109.117.113 ( talk • contribs) 08:26, December 26, 2006.
The citations need to be cleaned up a bit. There is a way to label a citation so that you can link a point to it again without the need to create a new entry in the cit table. I've noticed there are some duplicates in there, so if someone gets a chance before I do, it would be great if those could be cleaned up so that can shrink that list down its a bit large right now.-- Crossmr 09:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, the article is looking a LOT better. And hopefully this resolves the timeline dispute. Tragic romance 10:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Crossmr, what would you think of putting the following link back in the article? You are correct that it doesn't need more than one set of maps, but this one looked by far the best. (This link was formerly called "James Kim's Path.")
Google Earth view of area Detailed Google Earth layouts showing location of car, paths, lodge, etc.
Tragic romance
10:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
In regards to the citations, I found the way to use a citation more than once without needlessly repeating it, see Wikipedia:Footnotes For using the name= field in the ref section. Saves you from repeating the full cite, and it saves it from cites becoming listed 2 or 3 times down below. If any material is being added which uses an existing citation please use this field to save on duplication.-- Crossmr 16:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
What dispute about his background at TechTV is being proven with the youtube links? If they're being used a citation for something they should be cited, not merely listed as an external link.-- Crossmr 16:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I didn't find out about this until months after it happened, 'cause I don't pay attention when stuff about missing people is on the news. He was on TechTV a lot and seemed like a really cool and smart guy, so fucking sad that that shit happened to him and his family.
Third paragraph in James Kim#Death reads:
I'd edit it myself, but I'm not quite sure what it is supposed to say. I assume something to do with finding Kim's body. -- Willscrlt 06:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
With this much conversation on the timeline it is hard to see who is for and against.
I reccomend an evil straw poll. Do not take the results as the given course of action, merely use them to understand how your position weighs up.
Sorting by timeline allows the article to be free from organisational POV and stops events which an editor considers more important from being placed at the top because of that editor's/editor's group of cyber-cohorts own personal opinion on the matter. But equal weight should be given to all James Kim's notable life. Perhaps more detail could be added to his family life to add balance. A timeline should not have a day by day focus of the events leading to body discovery however, that is too much detail. Remember whilst his death is somewhat movie scriptish (in fact i've seen a film with this plot), we should not over focus on media texts as sources unless you can add balance.-- I'll bring the food 16:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
One section could easily be cut down to this: On Saturday, November 25, 2006 Kim, his wife Kati, and two daughters, Penelope and Sabine were traveling home from Portland, Oregon to San Francisco, California. After missing a turnoff in Oregon, they turned into Bear Camp Road. While traveling on Bear Camp Road in southwest Oregon, they took a wrong turn onto a logging road. The road is normally blocked by a locked metal gate during that time of year. However, an internal investigation by the Bureau of Land Management revealed that the agency failed to block the road. [1]
Around 2:00 AM, the family stopped due to snow and bad weather. The Kims survived for several days in their car, keeping it warm by running the engine. When their 2005 Saab 9-2X station wagon ran out of gas, they began burning dried wood, magazines and car tires to stay warm.
On November 30, co-workers of Kim filed a missing persons report with the San Francisco Police Department. [2]. After it was found that the Kims used their credit card at a local restaurant, search and rescue teams looked for the family along the many coastal highways from Southern Oregon's Curry County to Roseburg, Oregon in Douglas County. Friends of Kim, many in the technology and entertainment industries, raised public awareness of the disappearance and requested help finding the family.
On December 2, James set out to look for help, wearing tennis shoes, a jacket, and light clothing. He believed the nearest town (Galice) was located four miles away after studying a map with his wife [3]. The distance to Galice was actually 13 miles. He promised to turn back at 1 p.m. if he failed to find anyone, but he did not. [4]. On December 3, the authorities put about 80 searchers on the ground in addition to three privately hired helicopters, a sheriff's helicopter and an Oregon State Police airplane.
At 1:45 PM on December 4, Kati Kim and her two children were found alive by John Rachor, a helicopter pilot. Rachor reported that he was led to the scene after seeing human footprints in the snow, which belonged to James Kim. Rachor then radioed the Kim family position to others. The three were then rescued, airlifted out of the area and transferred by AMR ambulance [5] to Three Rivers Community Hospital in Grants Pass. They were only successfully found because the cell phone signal previously picked up by Edge Wireless narrowed down their location. [6] The signal was emitted when the Kim family's cell phone received a text message. [7]-- I'll bring the food 16:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
A straw poll has been opened above if you would like to weigh in and help us get an idea of consensus. I'm not sure I understand your comment above. You recommend cutting down a section to that, but the current snowbound section is essentially that plus maybe 1 or 2 sentences. I think the only thing you didn't include was the cell phone ping. It was requested that be integrated from the timeline because the authorities credit that with narrowing down the search area to find them.-- Crossmr 16:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
I've tried to update the copyright tags for the main photo of James. Could someone else verify that I've done it correctly? Yavoh 03:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people seem to be quite vindictive about photos, even when they include valid rationale. When someone spends a lot of time trying to do it right, keeping in mind that Wiki policy is very unclear, it goes against Wiki principles not to assume good faith, even if you're labeled as an Administrator. There is no excuse for rude brainless behavior no matter who you are. Rugz 12:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Please everyone help with the James Kim photos' fair use rationale before they are deleted once again. It is a constant struggle to understand what these Wiki deletionists want before they are satisfied. What happened to assume good faith? Rugz 18:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There is now a speedy deletion discussion about James Kim images at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_17
I'm impressed with the work done here. Keep at it! And fill in that career section!-- I'll bring the food ( Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 23:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Inflammatory comment removed. ~ trialsanderrors 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
As you can see by this previous version of James Kim Talk [ [5]] an important debate about content being deleted by Crossmr has now been deleted by Crossmr. Let it be abundantly obvious to everyone. Rugz 10:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Uncivil comment by IP editor removed This is an article talk page. Discuss the content, not the contributor. ~ trialsanderrors 23:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I edited the article to generally tighten it up, and to make it sound more like an encyclopedia article and less like a testimonial, thereby more fully conforming with Wikipedia's neutrality "pillar." I also added mention of Spencer Kim's Washington Post op-ed piece that criticized various gov't entities. I no longer think the "proseline" warning is appropriate, but I didn't know how to remove it. I would also make one comment, and that is that I think the Kims are of dubious notability and might not rate an article at all. I'm saying that only in passing; for purposes of the edit, I accept the article's existence as a fact of life. Pwok 23:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the POV statement in the 'Death' section that James had removed his clothing and discarded it along the way "likely as signals to searchers". With the Coroner pronouncing James' death being due to Hypothermia, and with one of the symptoms of Hypothermia being paradoxical undressing, it is more likely that James removed his clothing because he thought he was hot and not because he was trying to signal any would-be rescuers. That one, single Oregon official believed James discarded his clothes as "little signs" is irrelevant, especially when that one opinion is contradicted by scientific facts & evidence quoted both here on Wikipedia and referenced within the pages of New Scientist: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19426002.600-the-word-paradoxical-undressing.html Kwazimoto69 ( talk) 17:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:James Kim/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.
I rated this as a 'Start' because the article fails to discuss Kim's notable career. In that sense, it's a stub. I don't understand WPBio's assessment. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC) |
Last edited at 22:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 15 external links on James Kim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on James Kim. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
We need to understand just how Dangerous the Road can be. 2604:2D80:B581:1000:AD8F:ED57:DFD9:A5B9 ( talk) 01:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia prohibits original research, a policy with both strengths and weaknesses. The policy screens out unfounded speculation, but it lends too much credibility to media accounts that aren't documented or factual. As an example of the weakness, the article repeats an unfounded claim by CBS News that the surviving Kims were found because a cellphone ping was a supposedly critical breakthrough that led searchers to their car. That was simply not true. Mrs. Kim and the two children were found by a private helicopter pilot in an area where people had been searching for 36 hours before any cellphone data was reported to anyone.
The article also understates the number of warnings that the Kims disregarded (eight) before wandering onto the logging road where they ended up. And it does not address the contradictions between statements made by Kati Kim in an ABC News 20/20 retrospective broadcast in February 2011 and statements she'd made to investigative authorities after she and her chidren were rescued in December 2006. Also, the article never mentioned a comprehensive report by the Oregon State Sheriffs Association released in January 2007.
Because of the prohibition on original research, the most comprehensive report about the events is never mentioned in the article. This is understandable, yet anyone who's interested can find it by going to the Wayback Machine. Look for kimtragedy(dot)info there. It includes the author's opinions, and thus cannot be cited here. Still, it really does tell the story, with links to evidence. 2605:59C8:47E:4210:A2:AEE7:A46A:A574 ( talk) 19:01, 23 December 2022 (UTC)