Talk:James Kim

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Unilaterally? Like claiming only editors who bold their opinion matter? . 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)
thread_title:  Timeline/Timed Narrative Hybrid 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation Cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Disputed Background at TechTV 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Missing info in ''Death'' section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree, looks good.--Crossmr 16:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I see...

message: 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)
thread_title:  Photo Copyright Tags 

message: 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)
thread_title: Hmm. Improvement.

message: 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)
thread_title: Later edit

message: Substituted at 19:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  The Most Comprehensive Account of the Events