Talk:James Kim

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 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)

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 Wikipedia. --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 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)

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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia: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)^(Talk) 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: 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)

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 Wikipedia by unilaterally deleting material when the 1) material is valid, 2) the material is relevant, 3) the material is within the guidelines specified by Wikipedia 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)

UCLARodent, that has to be just about the most wilfully obtuse argument on this page. If there was general agreement for inclusion, this discussion wouldn't even exist! Of course if you ignore everyone who wants it out, there is agrement to keep it in, but that doesn't actually help much does it? So. It would look better as prose, I think, and should be worked into the main body of the article right after we've reduced it in length by about 50%. The term "fancruft" has been applied here, and it certainly looks accurate right now. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the current version, the timeline has been integrated into the narrative. Its reduced the size of the article from 29k to 17k along with a few other tidying up things. which is a fairly good reduction to start with.--Crossmr 18:26, 17 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 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)

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)

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 think it's pretty clear from the response on this Talk Page that there is enough support to return the timeline which was already a part of the page in the weeks following Kim's death. The contents of the timeline can then be improved. 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. This article is a good example of where this is the case. Rugz 19:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

You're seeing that where? The most recent discussion was below with the straw-poll where there wasn't any clear support for its inclusion. It was very clearly 6 opposed and 4 in favour of it. Thats hardly a clear case for its inclusion. There may be a need to archive the old discussion here and reference it and start a new discussion as trying to have a conversation in the middle of this could get fairly unwieldy.--Crossmr 19:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Timeline/Timed Narrative Hybrid

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)

If it is possible to convey important information 1) without needlessly repeating information and 2) making clear the sequence of events, that would be good. But a straight narrative is confusing and hard to follow. Crossmr, as a sign of good faith, how about you take a stab at doing what you suggest so others can see what it looks like? I'd suggest that you start with the "Snowbound with family" section and break it up so that each day has its own paragraph, for example, starting as you suggest with the words "On Saturday, November 25..." Challenge: There are actually two interwoven sequence of events - 1) what the Kims did and 2) what the searchers did - and how they do or don't match up is relevant. I am not sure how to handle this well, but maybe for each day first say what the Kims did and then say what the searchers did, with a separate paragraph for each. --Rob Zako 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with a day taking more than paragraph. I'm sure there are some days which won't get entries, and there are other days where more occured that might require more than one paragraph to convey what happened. There was concern expressed earlier that some people found it hard to follow. I posted here first before even attempting it because this is a hotly debated section. I wanted to see if it was even a remote chance of acceptance before I make that kind of a change. Some might require re-writing, some might require a simple re-arranging of text and breaking up of paragraphs, let me see what I can do.--Crossmr 08:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Your integration of the timeline into the narrative looks like a good start (and you work fast). I might not have time to get back to this for a couple of days. If you have the time and inclination, you might go over the timeline that UCLARodent has been pushing and make sure that the details and references contained therein are included in the main narrative. You might also do this for my more recent version of the timeline, as I added some additional details. It may be that the narrative already includes these details and references, as I don't have time now to cross check. In any case, I will circle back when I have time. If you can do that, then maybe that will satisfy. Lastly, I hear that The Oregonian plans to publish a story on Sunday, December 17, 2006, which might be the most complete investigative story on what happened to the Kims. If so, this should help resolve some uncertainties and speculations. Thanks. --Rob Zako 08:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've tightened it up a bit more, and included all the information, except his speculated death date from the original timeline. I also removed some redundant text from further down in the article. and cleaned up the OR that was tagged. Whether or not various maps recommended a route is kind of a moot point since they didn't use them to figure out how to travel. I'll check the other timeline and see if there is anything to be moved in from there.--Crossmr 08:49, 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.

Its not our job to add commentary on missed opportunities or demonstrate them. That is POV. The job is to write a factual article and if someone wants to draw a conclusion from it on what was missed, not missed, should have done, shouldn't have done, that is their perogative. As such we've currently got a format that someone from both sides has agreed works well to keep things separated in a daily timeline without adding repetitive bulk to the article.--Crossmr 16:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Using that logic, a timeline is the most factual way to present the information. A timeline is a list of facts demonstrating a sequence without commentary or POV. Your narrative approach is less factual and forces the reader to spend more time contemplating the facts, rather than easy reference. Therefore, the Kim dissapearance and death is best presented as a timeline, without corresponding storylike narrative. Furthermore you cannot claim that consensus has been reached to remove the timeline when clearly it has not. Rugz 18:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Nor was their consensus for its inclusion, which is why a compromise was reached between the two sides. A timeline while potentially useful in certain situations isn't much to read. If you wanted to go with that logic there are several hundreds of thousands of articles which should be stripped of their content and replaced with timelines. Obviously that hasn't happened and isn't likely to occur. The fact of it is that the timeline was an undue weight issue. As someone else pointed out an individual who was more notable that James Kim had a smaller article. The repetitive nature of the timeline served no purpose in this article, and all information from it has been integrated in a timeline-based manner to ensure an individual can easily see the flow of time and what occurred on each day.--Crossmr 19:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, your action of converting the timeline into a narrative and labelling it a "compromise" does not make it a comprimise, especially since the action removes the timeline. You have not demonstrated that a consensus has been reached to remove the timeline. Since the facts are best understood in the form of a timeline it should be used instead of a narrative. Rugz 19:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Then look above. Rob Zako who was arguing for the timeline suggested I go ahead with the idea. Tragic Romance who had taken no position on the timeline comment that he thought the article looked better as it is now. That is a compromise. No one here has demonstrated a clear consensus for its inclusion in the first place. The action I performed reformatted the section and removed duplicate material. The timeline was duplicate material. I do not believe the facts are best understood in a timeline manner. There is a timeline still present in the external links. The google map contains a timeline of the material. If necessary it could be linked as path and timeline for those who want a timeline. The timeline that was present was essentially a duplication of that.--Crossmr 19:26, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

To be clear about what I meant, I wrote: "Crossmr, as a sign of good faith, how about you take a stab at doing what you suggest so others can see what it looks like?" I appreciate that Crossmr has done so. That said, my suggestion was for Crossmr to give others a concrete idea of the approach he prefers. I have not yet necessarily made up my mind if the narrative version, the timeline version or perhaps both is the best approach. As such, given that I at least have not made up my mind, others should be careful to refrain from asserting there is a "consensus." But, at least for now, I think it makes sense to add content to the current narrative, striving to get the facts, their sequence, and documenting references all in place. Once the content is more complete, there may still be a discussion about the best way to present the facts to make them clear. --Rob Zako 19:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the external link to reflect the fact that it has a timeline. Since such a timeline is available for linking, its not usually appropriate to duplicate that in the article. Should we start getting some traffic from RfC and peer review, I think you'll find that in the past and continuing onward the community has not been in favour of articles which are long without much reason. Since the timeline really just duplicates existing content in another form, and we have a reliable outside source (I think that timeline was taken from a newspaper from the looks of it) which contains that same information in that same format, there just isn't a benefit there. It might be okay to work that timeline link into the snowbound section somehow so that its more apparent to the reader that it does exist.--Crossmr 20:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

And what looks so ridiculous and unprofessional about it? Its actually not that different from the previous version, other then an extra couple of paragraph breaks to define the days and making sure each paragraph starts with the date, which really only consisted of changing the the date from being the 2nd thing mentioned to the first thing. Other than that two or three points from the timeline which weren't in the narrative were incorporated into it. Such small changes should neither make it look ridiculous and unprofessional. For the record I found the timeline to make it look rather unprofessional because it was focusing on repetitive minutia. I'll also remind you that wikipedia isn't a democracy and consensus is formed on debate, not a vote. We currently have an open RfC and Peer review. Arbitrators won't even get involved until those have run to conclusion.--Crossmr 07:47, 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.wiki.x.io/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)

Unilaterally? Like claiming only editors who bold their opinion matter? [1]. Try reading what it says again: A survey isn't binding in forcing anyone to agree to your consensus. It also recommends you have a look at the linked article to see why discussion is better than voting. These are also only suggested dispute resolution paths. Though it also recommends mediation before arbitration. Arbitration is a last resort dispute resolution process, I don't think you realize how slow it is. Were you to submit it now, they'd deny it because the RfC nor Peer review are finished and there has been no attempt at mediation. Once thats complete, the posting would goto arbitration committee and they'd decide first if they'd even take the case. Assuming they took it it would go through an evidence gathering process. It would very likely be somewhere around the end of March at the earliest that we'd get a conclusion to the process. By then the article probably wouldn't even resemble anything that it does now and you'd find it to be a moot point anyway. I've been through arbcom before, so I'm familiar with the process and how long it can take and some of the decisions they've made on cases they'll even take. I think the real question is why the timeline is so important? Its duplicate content. It needlessly lengthens the article, and the timeline that was wanted for inclusion is basically a carbon copy of a timeline in an external link from a reliable source. The text has be reformatted in really a minor way to make sure that information is broken up by day so that it can easily be skimmed or referenced. The days aren't overly long so searching them or following them shouldn't be long or difficult. This isn't some massive 80,000 word essay on James Kim that would benefit from such a summary. Your cited example of an article as to why a timeline was a good idea doesn't remotely relate to or support the use of it in this article. I haven't seen a single compelling reason as to what possible benefit a timeline could really give this article.--Crossmr 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a time line would be really unnecessary. 71.109.117.113 07:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll on inclusion of timeline

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)

It should be noted that the timeline was first added on December 8th in assumed good faith. It was later reverted without consensus. This "straw pole" is changing the context of the issue in order to shape the desired outcome. The debate should be on removal of existing material, not including material that has been removed without consensus. Rugz 02:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The debate is what it is. There was no consensus for it being kept and an initial consensus for its removal until UCLARodent threatened unending edit war. This version was put forth as a compromise which doesn't really add very much new content and is simply a slight reformatting of existing content. The debate is over which is preferred since there wasn't a consensus either way on the timeline.--Crossmr 03:05, 18 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)

Comment: Actually, it isn't "part of the story." It's an editor's after-the-fact formatting of the story. (Tragic Romance wrote this on Revision as of 18:14, 17 December 2006 (edit) (undo)), and I shall answer below.GordonWatts 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was indeed "formatting" added by an editor later, but the timeline (facts) are (also) a part of the story, and a timeline looks good from an appearance point of view; I think maybe it would be OK to have the chronological account in both paragraph AND time-line format, but then again, it might be redundant and repetitive.GordonWatts 20:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment/Clarification on my vote above I think a timeline would improve the appearance, but it is not absolutely necessary if you all keep the "Snowbound with family" section in the page. Indeed, Terri Schiavo's article probably has a separate time-line page, I seem to recall, but in Kim's case, it would not hurt to duplicate it if you all like -his article is so small that a paragraph account AND a bullet-point time-line would both be ok -my opinion only. I still support a time-line, no matter the other paragraph -I'm an "inclusionist," so I think both are OK to remain. I still support the time-line. GordonWatts 20:27, 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)

Just for clarification then, you're supporting the timeline seen here [4] in the timeline section to replace the existing snowbound with family section since you're against duplication?--Crossmr 17:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you chose to ask me this. I support the full article text being in order of a timeline, not a timeline within a timeline. That article appears to recover things in another timeline. I certainly don't support something that could be added into the order the article is in at the moment. However I'd be up for a graphic that said something similar, but a bit less wordy.--I'll bring the food 17:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, then if I read what you just said correctly, you oppose the timeline in question? The straw poll is on the inclusion of the timeline I linked you to. But you support the current snowbound section written in a timeline fashion?--Crossmr 17:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Lol i do feel stupid now.

"After it was found that they used their credit card at a Denny's restaurant in the area,"

And then in the timeline-within-a-timeline:

"The Kim family leaves a Denny's restaurant in Roseburg, Oregon and get back on Interstate 5."

That is duplication. The timeline that was removed should be written into the snowbound section but it should not be in its own section, i support that. I have supported one thing which has made us all think I support another. I do not support a timeline in a timeline, the article is already a timeline, I would not support a story within a story, this is wikipedia, not a James Bond novel.--I'll bring the food 17:53, 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)

Further Comment - I also should mention that Crossmr's external link to a timeline on another site is not sufficient. That link may not be permanent and the data may be lost. Wikipedia should be where the simple facts reside. Rugz 21:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What about a timeline in a graphic form? Could make a nice thin strip graphic down the right hand side displaying the events in sequential order, maybe with photos of the places they stopped off at, the denny's diner etc?--I'll bring the food 19:30, 18 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)

So then as long as the narrative has all the relevant facts in sequence you'd support that without the additional timeline? Can you point to a part of the narrative that isn't in sequential format? Would you prefer if snowbound and death were merged to a single section with the dates around his death presented first and the few bits of information laid out after?--Crossmr 06:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It could be that if narrative was better edited I would support it without timeline. However, I like previous (about two days old) version of article-with timeline better than the curent version. Regarding other questions, I think narrative is currently is sequential order. However it's current version is missing important facts, I think it is important to mention distance to closest town (30 miles, or about 35 miles following the road which James initially took). I cannot think about anything more important that that in a story about a car stuck in a remote area, I don't get it why that information was removed. Information about weather should be also included, it is equally important. Plus that they drived 22 miles on logging road seems as significant fact to me. The current narrative is less readable for me than it's previous version (with timeline), I think it is fixable but sorry - I currently don't have suggestions as I currently don't have much time to spend here. Regarding the Death section, I agree that it requires cleanup as well, I think parts of it should move into the Snowbound section, few things can be deleted, and Death section should fit into one or two paragraps. Again sorry to not give you specifics (for the same reason I mentioned before). Good luck guys finding compromise, words and the right format, I might join the discussion in couple of days again ... Roman 06:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I would certainly prefer it that way. I've re-added info on the mobile phone network picking up the phone. I've removed the company name tho, as i believe it maybe covert advertising.--I'll bring the food 19:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about covert advertising. I believe the authorities made a point of thanking them for tracking it down, which was a major step in rescuing them. Do you have any thoughts on a merge of death and snow bound? take out the header, change the next 2 paragraphs to start with days and list what they did, rather than talking about them in somewhat vague terms?--Crossmr 21:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you should restore the page to it's full text with timeline before the radical deletions were made -- deletions which were made without consensus. Then we can work on improving it. As per the the Behaviorial Editing Policies Wikipedia:List_of_policies of Wikipedia which states "Avoid deleting information wherever possible." The spirit of making radical deletions without consensus is dangerous to Wikipedia's founding principles. Whereas making radical additions are not. I think we should refrain from editing the current narrative until the issue of timeline deletion without consensus has been resolved. Rugz 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was never consensus for its inclusion in the first place. You keep claiming there was no consensus, but as its already been pointed out to you there was an initial consensus of 3 to 1 in favour of its removal which stood for 2 days before anyone else weighed in on it and after several "behaviour editing policy" violations by UCLARodent (edit warring and threatening unending edit warring until it was kept).--Crossmr 04:46, 19 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.

Citation Cleanup

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)

My only concerned is the branding on the maps, I find it takes a bit away from it. The other page does seem to include all the same information as well, old and new location of car, paths, lodge while I look at it, is there any significant covered in the layoutscene link that isn't covered in the keyhole.com site?--Crossmr 15:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose not. My concern was that the layoutscene site looked better and seemed to give a clearer view of everything. Also it has more angles (11 pages I think) than just the bird's eye view, showing what the terrain was like. Seems like the viewer has to scrutinize the maps on the keyhole site. However, there is more info on the keyhole site. I do have a concern with the layoutscene site, and I don't know if it's just my browser, but when I hit the back button it just refreshes the page. No way to BACK out of it. One thing I noticed on the Google Map on the keyhole site, it seems like their location marker for the car is off. In aerial photos, it looks like the car is right in the intersection. Tragic romance 16:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I find that first picture on layoutscene to be a bit off. Its like a stretched texture which doesn't show anything the next 2 clearer pictures already show. As for the positions of the final car, it looks like to me, the number 2 on the keyhole map is in the same place as the yellow pin on the layoutscene map. But it is a little hard to tell because of rotation and because the layoutscene one has the pin near the top. I guess its a matter of deciding just what level of detail we want to present with the maps. It does appear that in subsequent images, they haven't updated to the new position of the car.--Crossmr 16:31, 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)

Disputed Background at TechTV

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)

The advocates which called for deletion of James Kim were doing so primarily on the grounds that he was not notable before death. It has been demonstrated that he was a known television personality with TechTV (seen in over 70 countries reaching 43 million households) prior to his job writing online reviews at CNET. Since there is very little information available about his years at TechTV, the YouTube clips of Kim on TechTV provide the reader with background which is sparsely available at the moment. As we are waiting for more of Kim's biography to surface (surely it will) this is vital information to his background and should be included as an External Link on his Wiki page. His TechTV background may be sparse because 1.) the televsion channel which was on the air for 6 years no longer exists (it is now G4 but all tech shows are gone as well as show notes), 2.) Wikipedia did not exist at the time the shows were popular and viewers at the time did not have the opportunity to compile information, and 3.) those who knew him have not yet publicly discussed the details of his TechTV background. For instance, we know that he was known affectionately as a TechTV "Lab Rat" and reviewed electronic gadgets for TechTV Labs for a number of years, and at one time was Senior Tech Analyst. But, we do not yet know the years he was employed there or the extent of his contribution to TechTV. It is a topic awaiting for further information to surface. Rugz 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah okay. Have you considered using archive.org? The techTV website lives on through it, and its been noted as acceptable to linking to content which no longer exists. I'm looking now to see if there is some information on him through it.--Crossmr 19:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

From my memory of the days of TechTV, Kim did appear on Fresh Gear and The Screensavers occassionally, but he was always on Call for Help. He was on it rather often. As for collecting information on him, perhaps emailing Leo Laporte, Chris Pirillo, or other Call for Help/TechTV personalities could provide some information on his role behind the scenes.--2ltben 07:38, 3 February 2007 (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.

Missing info in Death section

Third paragraph in James Kim#Death reads:

"On Wednesday, December 6 at 12:03pm, within hours of Oregon officials announcing their intentions to drop care packages along with a letter from Kim's father,[16][17] Lying on his back in one to two feet of water, he was fully clothed"...

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)

I fixed it. There was a malformed ref tag, I'd forgotten the/ at the end which hid some text.--Crossmr 16:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I see...

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.

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.. 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 . 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.. 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 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. The signal was emitted when the Kim family's cell phone received a text message.--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)

It does mention the cell phone. However as it was it sounded very much like an advert for the company. I also trimmed down extraneous detail on the roads travelled.--I'll bring the food 16:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree, looks good.--Crossmr 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

References

Photo Copyright Tags

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.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_17

Hmm. Improvement.

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)

• Ironic that during his 15 minutes of fame (well expired now), all these posters were arguing that the article should be kept BECAUSE of his career.... that he was more well known for his career than for his death. I think the naysayers have been vindicated by the pathetic nature of the career section.

Inflammatory comment removed. ~ trialsanderrors 23:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletionism debate deleted

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)

Actually it was deleted by an administrator first [6] as "rm harassing, unproductive thread, not useful towards improving the article (please see WP guidelines on talk pages, thanks" or do you want to conveniently leave that out to continue to the harassment?--Crossmr 15:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I deleted the thread because it consisted predominantly of harassment. Please read the guidelines on talk pages. This isn't about censorship, it's standard Wikipedia practice. It's only possible to collaborate over the long term when you treat other people respectfully, even if you disagree with them. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Antandrus, look at the source of the problem: It's one single "editor" by the name of Crossmr. Don't you think perhaps where a number of people have a problem with the edits of a single editor, maybe just maybe that editor should examine their actions and ask why they are pissing multiple people off? Why do you pass it off on "disgruntled" users, when clearly there is a problem with a specific editor by the name of Crossmr? It's not "harassment", it's trying to bring attention to a problem editor who seems to have shitty people skills. Maybe you should talk to Crossmr and stop "harassing" people that are simply annoyed that he feels it is his right to act like God.

Crossmr consistenly leaves negative comments on other people's talk pages. When they remove his abusive comments, he threatens to have them banned (YES! BANNED!). But I placed the following comment on his talk page, and he continues to delete it! Double standard? Many would think so...

Maybe Crossmr should not be removing large portions of discussion with no discussion. Improper, irresponsible, arrogant, and just plain wrong. Crossmr is guilty of this over many articles. I guess if you disagree with Crossmr, your opinion / position / comments / discussion just don't count.

Yes, Crossmr's entire "MO" consists of double standards, that's why he pisses so many people off! 24.116.200.178 21:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It is within Wiki founding principles that deletions should be the last resort. We should be improving pages, not engaging in deletion warfare. Crossmr has deleted entire sections of the James Kim article without consensus, further has engaged in suppression of content in the James Kim Talk page with he/she does not agree with, or in order to shape the outcome of a straw pole vote. Upon further examination it is also clear that Crossmr has a history of deletions on other pages as well, including his/her own Talk page which consistently shows hiding content which reveals he/she engages in deletion warfare over a span of years. This post cannot be classified as harassment, it is clear summation of fact which can be checked. Further, Crossmr's series of actions have hindered the spirit of editors to freely contribute to the James Kim page for fear that any contributions made will be deleted and/or reverted or spark further debate about Crossmr. Crossmr has been a destructive editor on the James Kim page since the creation of the article. Rugz 19:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're a lot more diplomatic than me, Rugz, what you've said is spot-on. 24.116.200.178 21:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on Crossmr one way or another (contrary to your assertion that he's discouraged others from editing), but I can't see how this constant back-and-forth about the talk page is productive for the article. There doesn't seem to be any warfare going on except here, and it's not even about the actual content of the James Kim page. Are there currently any points of contention about this article that should be resolved? If so, consider opening up the debate and making it about that. -Cue the Strings 19:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You're so right, this discussion no longer has much to do with James Kim. It has been taken to a number of other more appropriate places, but the editor Crossmr has consistenly deleted them all. If no one sees the conflict, it doesn't exist. Right, Crossmr? 24.116.200.178 21:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Improving pages includes deletion of some material and rewording of other. When they refer to deletion being the last resort, that is of entire articles. There is nothing in the wikipedia founding principals that says anyone can add anything they want to an article and have it remain in the article forever, or even 5 minutes, or 3 seconds. All material does have to abide by WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and other policies and if it doesn't, it can and will be removed by any editor. You been engaging in personal attacks for months without actually raising any valid discussion, I highly recommend you have another look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--Crossmr 01:39, 22 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)

Later edit

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)

Assessment comment

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)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/state/16172128.htmḸ
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930040642/http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1165467322304590.xml&coll=7 to http://www.oregonlive.com/metro/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1165467322304590.xml&coll=7
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061212121819/http://www.mercurynews.com:80/mld/mercurynews/16187541.htm to http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16187541.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pacificcouncil.org/interior.aspx?pageID=About&subID=31&itemID=7995
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205215559/http://www.oregonlive.com:80/newslogs/oregonian/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_oregonian_news/archives/2006_12.html to http://www.oregonlive.com/newslogs/oregonian/index.ssf?/mtlogs/olive_oregonian_news/archives/2006_12.html#211894
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/1606-2-6140674.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/1606-2-6141132.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/James-Kim-died-of-hypothermia,-autopsy-reveals/2100-1028_3-6141886.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/missing_family
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205102608/http://www.flashalert.net:80/news.html%3Fid%3D1002 to http://www.flashalert.net/news.html?id=1002
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070223052155/http://www.mailtribune.com:80/archive/2007/0119/local/stories/kati_excerpts.htm to http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2007/0119/local/stories/kati_excerpts.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070218/ap_on_re_us/missing_family
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.com.com/How
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/1606-2-6140674.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.cnet.com/2100-1028_3-6141211.html?part=rss&tag=2547-1_3-0-5&subj=news

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070504050829/http://www.doe-sf.com/index.php to http://www.doe-sf.com/index.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061209031621/http://www.cnettv.com/9710-1_53-25121.html to http://www.cnettv.com/9710-1_53-25121.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071014004947/http://www.jameskimtechfound.org/ to http://www.jameskimtechfound.org/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

How Dangerous BLM Rd 34-8-36 (NF-23/Bear Camp Road) is.

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)

The Most Comprehensive Account of the Events

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)