Talk:James Kim: Difference between revisions
HagermanBot (talk | contribs) m Marked an unsigned comment by 71.106.198.158 |
|||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
With the exception of having recently died (which people do all the time, sadly) is there anything notable about him that would justify the existence of an article about him? Because last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather. No offense to his friends and family. -- [[User:Mattrixed|Mattrixed]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mattrixed|Talk]]</sup> 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
With the exception of having recently died (which people do all the time, sadly) is there anything notable about him that would justify the existence of an article about him? Because last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather. No offense to his friends and family. -- [[User:Mattrixed|Mattrixed]] <sup>[[User_talk:Mattrixed|Talk]]</sup> 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
||
: Your suggestion that this article needs to have its existence "justified" is so shockingly absurd that I have to wonder if it is some kind of sick joke. Furthermore, your statement that "Wikipedia is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather." is extremely offensive and very callous of you. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, first for suggesting that an event followed closely in every major news outlet by millions of people throughout America and beyond needs to "justify its existence as a Wikipedia article", and second for making such an abrasive and insensitive remark about Mr. Kim. [[User:Blacksun1942|Blacksun1942]] 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) |
|||
: * Are you daft? This was a '''major''' news event nationwide, and was indeed global news. Your rationale is moronic -- at best. |
: * Are you daft? This was a '''major''' news event nationwide, and was indeed global news. Your rationale is moronic -- at best. |
||
: He was an editor at CNet, host on a TV-show and has been mentioned about a hundred times several major news-outlets online and offline over the last several days? [[User:Mstroeck|mstroeck]] 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
: He was an editor at CNet, host on a TV-show and has been mentioned about a hundred times several major news-outlets online and offline over the last several days? [[User:Mstroeck|mstroeck]] 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:36, 7 December 2006
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the James Kim article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
Biography Stub‑class | |||||||
|
Man, I really hope the Kim family are alright, I've been following the story on Engadget, and it's really worrying news. Let's keep them in our prayers. Istrancis 22:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- u shuld subscribe to rss feed 4 amber alert and pray for eash of em 2. hear is rss i google,
- happy praying 72.36.251.234 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Missing? It sounds like they are just on vacation. How do we know they are actually missing?
Rest in Peace
Real Hero... He was a... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.57.178.179 (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
YES!!!!
His wife and daughter were found! but alas :( no JAmes Kim yet.... hope he is ok BrianEd 00:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Trackers Find James Kim's Pants
Should be mentioned. --72.136.188.23 23:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you tech community
I think the response from the CNET and tech community in general has been awesome-- people giving their prayers and offering tips its just great! Thank you. I remember the day I saw the article I went onto Wikipedia and thought about making his article, but "saved if for later" :-)
Thank god his family was found, and i have a gut feeling tonight may be a lucky one.
Thanks,
--Alegoo92 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the dubious tag added
Heres the source: http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6140705.html?tag=cnetfd.mt
--James Bond 06:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The line in the article "they kept the car engine running day and night to keep warm" suggests to me that they ran the engine constantly until it ran out of gas. In the video you linked, Sheriff Anderson says they were running the engine "during the day and at night." I don't interpret this to mean that they kept it running continuously, and my personal experience in these mountains tells me its not that cold up there. Headwes 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wire stories are saying it was run only at night. Fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The wire services are reporting different versions of certain events. For example, I keep reading that they were airlifted to the hospital, yet the sheriff states that they arrived by AMR ambulance. Do we have any reason to believe the wire services are better sources than the sheriff's department? Headwes 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it's that important to you, cite the claim to the Sheriff. Is this what we should be spending our time on? --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- I was the one who posted the dubious tag to start with. I did so because the article suggested they ran the engine constantly, which is almost certainly false. If not, it would be quite a huge error in judgement on the part of the Kims. You're right that whether they ran it during the day and night, or just at night, really doesn't matter--but, if we're going to mention that they ran it during a specific time, we might as well get it right. Headwes 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- If it's that important to you, cite the claim to the Sheriff. Is this what we should be spending our time on? --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- The wire services are reporting different versions of certain events. For example, I keep reading that they were airlifted to the hospital, yet the sheriff states that they arrived by AMR ambulance. Do we have any reason to believe the wire services are better sources than the sheriff's department? Headwes 07:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
- Wire stories are saying it was run only at night. Fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I just removed the "at night" part. They kept warm by running the engine--simple and to the point. Headwes 07:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Conflicting news stories
It's pretty irritating how breaking news stories always have discrepancies between sources. I understand that's largely because there is a chain of people relaying information, so quality is bound to degrade, and also things are not always as the first responders perceive it. But too much of it is simply carelessness in people's listening and speaking/writing.
Does it matter whether they ran the engine "day and night" or "during the day and during the night," or whether he agreed to -turn back- at 1:00pm or -be back- at 1:00pm? Yes, it does matter. Because all those details add up to create very different pictures of the situation and of the mindset/actions of the people invloved. Evaluations and conclusions will be made based on those reported details. The people invloved will be judged differently based on those details. Tragic romance 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Someone added this unencyclopedic sentence:
"Previously, few people ever heard of him, until he and his wife made a really stupid decision to drive a backcountry road in the wilderness in winter."
I am removing it. 72.43.143.117 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- it true, tho. look at silenced digg comments in dugg stories. ton of people not know james kim. o-so democratic digg try -2- hide this, but u can still click post. 72.36.251.234 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, James Kim is currently missing, but the words "stupid" and "backcountry" are not encyclopedic. 72.43.143.117 20:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone who has ever visited CNet more than a couple times knows will know who he is, by face if not by name. And anyway, here are a lot of notable individuals who are unknown to most people. -- Tim D 22:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
DEAD
According to www.kgw.com the guys body has been found. Sle 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The press conference about 10 minutes announced that they found his dead body. More information will be announced in the next couple of hours. --Daniel Schibuk 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
U.S. mainstream networks MSNBC and CNN are reporting that he is dead. Allison Stewart just asked her guest about exactly what caused his death. It is safe to say that he is deceased. Phillip J. Fry 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I have not checked the other messages regarding this; but, I would suspect that a cnet affiliate would have several examples of the latest gps &/or cellular &/or other transceivers.
{The cnet page includes "...stock options backdating that occurred between 1996 and 2003." Just odd.}
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 21:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
` Both CNET, CNN, and the BBC are reporting that his body has indeed been found. MakeDamnSure 21:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The trail of clothing found is a strong indicator of hypothermia :( Maybe a link to hypothermia on the page would be appropriate? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothermia)
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 21:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
What exactly were they doing?
This story gives me a headache: It's being treated as if it were normal to travel through remote winter passes with children in a laughably inadequate car. I have not heard anything about the cause of their being stranded. How remote is that area, and what were they doing there? Is this sort of thing common in the rural areas of the United States? mstroeck 21:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is a statistically rare event, but there's been quite a few similar ones over the years. The general story goes: A group is traveling between two urban areas, and takes a short-cut on a rarely used and unmaintained road through a remote area in bad weather. Car gets stuck. Group has little or no winter gear. One person walks off to get help anyway and usually dies. Several days later SAR team finds the rest of the group alive in the car.
- This story (with minor variations) shows up every year or two in my local paper. Usually doesn't make the national news. Toiyabe 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe James and his family were on their way to meet family for thanksgiving. They took a wrong turn and got lost. After trying to find their way back they skidded of the road where their car got stuck. -Diggnation4Life
I've added hypothermia.
Do you mean "were"?
I do advocate the tilde.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well, thank you for that helpful intermission. This being a wiki, you could just have edited the typo instead of annoying everyone. mstroeck 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Please, scribe your own comment. I rarely delete others' efforts; but, you've suggested it.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 23:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mstroeck, the explanation is that Northern California, Oregon, and the Pacific Northwest generally are experiencing huge gains in population. There's an increase in people living in urban areas, but (I think) a relatively stable rural population, as the agricultural/forestry economy moves to a tourist/vacation home economy. There are just more people traveling around like this nowadays, and the wilderness areas are just a hop away from the developed areas. That said, this is off-topic for this Talk page. Hopiakuta, please try to figure out what is wrong with your signature. --Dhartung | Talk 23:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This idiot was only a day's walk from the nearest town. Barring mental illness there is no excuse for his having died and left his family stranded over a week. I know you wikipedophiles autothink "tech geek=hero" but IF you're going to have an article on this utter debacle the fact that the car was stranded LESS THAN THIRTY MILES from the nearest town is pretty significant and bears mentioning. --jhudsui
So get in the article and mention it. I do agree with certain aspects of your point... For example, WHY??? would he get off the road? WHY??? would they sit there for over a week when they had roads to walk back on, the snow was not excessively deep, and the snow was even GONE at lower elevations. They knew they weren't that far in. And as far as having the children, they could have carried them or improvised a sled from the car's materials. There MAY be a reason, such as the wife being unable to walk for some reason. We don't know the facts yet. People were calling him an idiot when it was reported that he ditched his pants. Then we found out he had had two pairs. So until we know all the facts (or as many as we can get), it's probably premature to judge them. One thing I fear is that we will never know why he left the road. That's one of the worst things you can do.Tragic romance 06:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Is he notable?
With the exception of having recently died (which people do all the time, sadly) is there anything notable about him that would justify the existence of an article about him? Because last time I checked, Wikipedia is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather. No offense to his friends and family. -- Mattrixed Talk 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Your suggestion that this article needs to have its existence "justified" is so shockingly absurd that I have to wonder if it is some kind of sick joke. Furthermore, your statement that "Wikipedia is not a collection of otherwise non-notable people who have died in cold weather." is extremely offensive and very callous of you. I think you should be ashamed of yourself, first for suggesting that an event followed closely in every major news outlet by millions of people throughout America and beyond needs to "justify its existence as a Wikipedia article", and second for making such an abrasive and insensitive remark about Mr. Kim. Blacksun1942 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- * Are you daft? This was a major news event nationwide, and was indeed global news. Your rationale is moronic -- at best.
- He was an editor at CNet, host on a TV-show and has been mentioned about a hundred times several major news-outlets online and offline over the last several days? mstroeck 22:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm aware that he's been in the news, but is that enough to justify having his own article. Point in question: did this article exist before he was reported missing? From the history, the answer seems like "no". -- Mattrixed Talk 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, this article on Kim was created on September 1, 2004 and is linked on techtv. James Kim was a daily product reviewer and frequent guest host to many of the TechTV shows on national cable television over a span of years (around 2000 to 2005). The entire TechTV crew has a phenomenal fan following even though their cable channel was bought out by their competitor G4 channel and all shows were cancelled in 2005.Rugz 00:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- We have featured articles about individual Pokémon, for God's sake. There is zero reason to request deletion of this article. Capital letter Notability is de-facto not a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia, and hasn't been for quite a while. If it's interesting, it's here. There are many excellent, high-profile sources about this case, and it is highly likely to be mentioned in the future as an example of the dangers of remote areas and travel by car. mstroeck 22:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- ur so right. becuz wikipedia has pokemon article nothin shuld b deleted! not even Barry Bonds 714th home run. after all, we have individule pokemon article!!! u know wut? im gonna go mak article on Barry Bond's knee. it have lot written up on it. just do [search]. barry bonds knee more notable than any pokemon!!! 72.36.251.234 22:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- ps. go vote to keep Barry Bonds 714th home run!!! and dont forgot to vote to keep barry bonds knee when it get vote for deleted!!!! 72.36.251.234 23:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Easy with the nonsense, please! You're trying to equate a baseball and a body part with a person who is relatively well known. Did Mr. Kim happen to offend you at some point during his life? -- Tim D 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- i think mr. kim deserves a wikipedia article and i think it unfortunate he dead. however, i also think he given inordinate amount of attention on digg and that any "look at pokemon!" argument is stupid and need 2 b mocked as do those who make them. yes, mstroeck, ur stupid. there r plenty good reason 4 james kim article. yet despite all good reason, "look at pokemon!" is best u can do. u set urself up 4 strawman and r 2 dumb to realize it. lame 72.36.251.234 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Just a quick note: if you really want to be taken seriously, try to stop using letters and numbers in place of words. I'm not nit-picking - it's seriously a distraction. Also, what happens on Digg.com means little to nothing about what's discussed here. So just try to chill out a bit :) -- Tim D 23:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- i think mr. kim deserves a wikipedia article and i think it unfortunate he dead. however, i also think he given inordinate amount of attention on digg and that any "look at pokemon!" argument is stupid and need 2 b mocked as do those who make them. yes, mstroeck, ur stupid. there r plenty good reason 4 james kim article. yet despite all good reason, "look at pokemon!" is best u can do. u set urself up 4 strawman and r 2 dumb to realize it. lame 72.36.251.234 23:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Easy with the nonsense, please! You're trying to equate a baseball and a body part with a person who is relatively well known. Did Mr. Kim happen to offend you at some point during his life? -- Tim D 23:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- It makes no difference whether there was an article before this event came about. He's quite well-known in the tech world, but it looks like not much was known about him personally until his disappearance became public. So now that information is more out in the open, a meaningful article can exist. -- Tim D 22:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dear 72.36.251.234, let me inform you that there is zero tolerance for personal attacks and that the rest of your post is unconvincing and mean-spirited. As for James Kim, I second Dhartung's logic that he would have been notable as a CNET editor and television host, especially since we have pages for other CNET personalities. --Folksong 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- tell me - wut u think my argument is? do i argue 4 or against deletion? 72.36.251.234 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- It is so difficult to understand your Engrish first of all; now you are asking for us to decipher your intentions too?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.198.158 (talk) 06:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
- tell me - wut u think my argument is? do i argue 4 or against deletion? 72.36.251.234 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- Dear 72.36.251.234, let me inform you that there is zero tolerance for personal attacks and that the rest of your post is unconvincing and mean-spirited. As for James Kim, I second Dhartung's logic that he would have been notable as a CNET editor and television host, especially since we have pages for other CNET personalities. --Folksong 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'm aware that he's been in the news, but is that enough to justify having his own article. Point in question: did this article exist before he was reported missing? From the history, the answer seems like "no". -- Mattrixed Talk 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
On the page Richard_Ian_Cox, see:
Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571
Those incidents had occurred prior to cnet, when gps was not combined w/ cellular. The current incident is more than noteworthy; it's a scandal.
< http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0111225/combined#comment >.
Thank You.
[[ hopiakuta | [[ [[%c2%a1]] [[%c2%bf]] [[ %7e%7e%7e%7e ]] -]] 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- Mattrixed, I believe that he would have passed (if barely) an AFD before his death, because of his career which encompassed blogging, journalism, and cable television. That said, he's very much in the demographic that leaeds to Wikipedia's systematic bias. If someone feels strongly about it, nominate for deletion, but if that were me I'd be nice and wait until tomorrow. --Dhartung | Talk 23:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
- According to ABC News' report, rescuers might not have found his family in the car if it not for his tracks that they followed. So, although he died in the process of looking for help, he was successful in saving his family in the end. He was a hero of a father. He has a place here. Moonwalkerwiz 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree there should be an article about him, because of his notability. However, sentimental notions are not a justification for him "having a place here." This is an information repository, not a shrine for heroes. It is notability and relevance that qualify a subject to get an article.Tragic romance 05:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Vote for keep
I am creating a different section in order to separate my comment from the disorganization above. If someone cleans it up, feel free to move my comment into the previous section.
He was marginally notable before this incident, but now he is known the world over. Whether this is short-term notability is an issue for later. He has worldwide notability right now, and therefore there should be an article about him, in my understanding of Wikipedia policy.
Also, I agree that the grammar and tone of the above comments are unacceptable. Tragic romance 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- I find it says a lot about those editors who are suggesting this article be deleted, even on the day this poor fellow was found dead. How about going off and making a positive contribution to Wikipedia instead of pretending (to yourselves) that you are somehow helping with maintaining high quality standards on here. It almost sounds as if a few up there are jealous that this one guy is more notable and was able muster more bravery than you will squeeze out in your entire life. *rolls eyes
- I believe that this article should be kept. Veronica Belmont and other hosts from CNet have their own articles as do other hosts from the podcast "scene" (such as Amber MacArthur and Martin Sargent). I do believe, though, that the article should be "fleshed out" some with details about his life, not simply about his death. Just my two cents. --Gozel talk 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- i vote 4 keep. just because i attack and mock bad arguement no mean i attack or mock james kim. mayb that 2 complex 4 u. neway, cnet notable and so is james kim. keep. 72.36.251.234 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why this is even a discussion. Of course an article on an obviously notable person with tons of media coverage is not going to be deleted. --Delirium 02:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
- This is world-wide news. The story is very unusual. The article is very good. --JJay 02:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
"Searchers were able to come in direct contact with James Kim on December 5th, 2006. However, rescue workers were unable to lower a medic to James Kim's location. Rescuers frantically attempted to devise a method for rescuing Kim, but did not reach him in time" [8]
This makes it sound like they were in a helicopter dangling on a rope trying to grasp his hand at the instant hypothermia overcame him. In reality, he'd been dead for at least hours before his body was located.
Troublemaker on the page?
Regarding the edits from IP 72.36.251.234: I'm embarrassed even to have my sentences in the same section. "mayb that 2 complex 4 u. neway, cnet notable and so is james kim"
I realize this is a Talk page, not an article, so informality is fine. But that kind of writing is starkly out of sync with the spirit of Wikipedia. Not only is it in extreme disregard and disdain for the English language, it is also deliberately ungrammatical and confrontational.
In one section alone (above), this user threatens to "make a point" ["know wut? im gonna go mak article on Barry Bond's knee"], an also personally attacks someone ["yes, mstroeck, ur stupid"]. Tragic romance 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Rescuers were in direct contact with Kim on Tuesday???
I noticed that someone added this to the article with the following reference.
"Searchers were able to come in direct contact with James Kim on December 5th, 2006. However, rescue workers were unable to lower a medic to James Kim's location. Rescuers frantically attempted to devise a method for rescuing Kim, but did not reach him in time."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16079394/
The MSNBC article does indeed state that... "Searchers told NBC News that they located Kim on Tuesday and at one point they were able to make direct contact with him. They explored ways to lower a medic to the area, they said, but it was not immediately clear whether that attempt ultimately failed or was too late to save Kim.
Rescuers frantically tried to work out ways to reach Kim in the impassable snow-jammed area over the next hours, Anderson said, but they couldn’t make it in time."
However, I think that this could be dubious rumor-reporting on MSNBC's part, which is not uncommon in the aftermath of an event like this.
What makes me skeptical of the report is the fact that Anderson indicated that James Kim had not been found at Tuesday's press conferences, and also indicated the following morning, on Wednesday, that his whereabouts were still unknown, and that care packages would be dropped at several locations in the hopes that he might find them. It wasn't until around 3pm Wednesday that it was reported an unidentified body was found lying face down in the ground.
If Kim had been found Tuesday, and furthermore, if contact had been made with him, and a "frantic" effort made to rescue him, why didn't Anderson mention any of this at Wednesay morning's press conference? Surely he would have known about such an event.
This event hasn't been reported by ANY other news source, including television and print sources, and the MSNBC article is an early one. I'm not so sure this should be in the Wikipedia article stated as fact when it's not been verified by any other source that I know of.
If nobody has any objections, I'm going to add "According to an MSNBC article" to that bit of information. Blacksun1942 06:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)