Talk:James Kim/Archive 1

Date of Death
Deputy State Medical Examiner Dr. James Olson, who did the autopsy, told The Oregonian it was an "educated guess" that Kim likely died two days after leaving his family, based on the condition of the body. he was found on Wednesday which means he probably died on monday —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.83.238 (talk • contribs).

GPS and Snow Tires
Being a tech writer, I thought he would have had a GPS.

Also, their car, the SAAB 9-2X is a All-Wheel drive car - unless the snow was very very deep it shouldn't have gotten stuck? I wonder if they had snow tires on... If the snow was that deep, I wonder why they continued to drive...

In anycase, very sad.

Coolspot 06:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Missing
Missing? It sounds like they are just on vacation. How do we know they are actually missing? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.111.231.67 (talk • contribs).

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)

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)

Headwes, the dude died from freakin' hypothermia. How is that not that cold? It's the Pacific Northwest, famous for it's rain and cold! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.107.131 (talk • contribs).
 * Oregon is hardly famous for its cold--especially not that area. Its near the coast, right near the southern border with California, and the elevations are typically under 4000 feet. My point was that it wouldn't be so cold that they would need to run the car continuously to stay warm, as the article previously implied. In Portland, I'm Headwes 06:51, 8 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)

Hey, I work in the media (writing for a radio news wire) in San Francisco, and they were running the engine sporadically, when the tempatures "went below freezing." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.135.107.131 (talk • contribs).

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- 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) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.108.172.211 (talk • contribs).

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. ( unsigned comment )


 * 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)
 * Not that it's relevant to the merits of the article at hand, but the article was actually a redirect to Kim Se Hwang until 02 December--after the deceased Mr. Kim was already reported missing. Matt Gies 09:06, 9 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 [|google 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)
 * 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).
 * if u dont understand my intentions, wut business do u have commenting on them? other then to say "i dont understand u" or "dont use abbreviations"? 72.36.251.234 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Anonymous, you could at least make an effort to make your posts more readable. Regarding Pokémon: I see no need to shy away from that argument just because some people --among them very obviously you-- are unable to understand its implications. It is not an argument against articles on Pokémon, but an argument against systemic bias. You do not have to agree, but in my world a real-life journalist, TV-host and entrepreneur who gets killed in an incredibly freak way and who is reported on by by practically every major news outlet in the US is more notable and interesting than Bulbasaur by a wide margin. If we let people write elaborate dissertations on Pokémon, we need to let people who care about technology journalism, wilderness safety and the media's reaction on such cases do the same. Nothing is to be gained from knowledge about Bulbasaur. Studying this case and the mistakes that were made might be a very interesting lesson for many people. Deleting this would be utterly ridiculous in light of the other things that are tolerated or even welcomed on Wikipedia. mstroeck 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * your "studying this case and the mistakes that were made might be a very interesting lesson for many people" point is a good one, however, your "deleting this would be utterly ridiculous in light of the other things that are tolerated or even welcomed on Wikipedia" point is still just as bad now as it was the last time you made it. articles should be able to stand on there own merit - not on Bublasaurs merit.  really, your last point is Nothing more than a childish protest over Bulbasaur having an article.  Stomp you feet, mstroeck. 72.36.251.234 17:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While you may have intended one thing by drawing that comparison between a Pokemon character and James Kim, another assumption emerges from your argument and that is that you subscribe to the notion of notability as a proper means to measure the validity of a Wikipedia article. The comparison itself raises the question of why a Pokemon character--a question I don't care to go into.  All I can say is that though your statement is not as acerbic as Mattrixed's claim (which started this whole thread), it still trivializes the man and reveals that for someone who aligns himself against systemic bias, you sure know how to practice it.71.102.189.76 10:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. Could you elaborate? I do not see how this discussion could possibly "trivialize" the man. There is nothing more trivial than a man dying, it happens tens of thousands of times every day, and almost every single case is as tragic as this one for the family of the deceased. The purpose of this discussion is not to mock James Kim or his family, but to establish whether or not Wikipedia should have an article on him. mstroeck 11:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me begin with a question: how often have you found yourself considering in discussion whether or not a person carries with him sufficient notability to warrant having an article on him on Wikipedia? If you can link to other articles where this may have happened, I'd be more than happy to retract my statement.  But then again, I don't think a retraction is needed seeing as how from what you just said about how "There is nothing more trivial than a man dying", you confirmed what I had said above.71.102.189.76 12:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * To answer your question: About a hundred times here on Wikipedia. Still, I do not see what you are getting at. Could you please just state in simple and unambiguous terms what your issue with this discussion is? Your cryptic pseudo-eloquence is not helping anybody. Do you realize I am arguing for keeping this article? mstroeck 14:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, this is the first time I've seen an article contested on grounds of notability. I knew there was a page on it, but once I saw the article for James Kim, I was shocked -- shocked to see that he has been given special attention as to whether or not he is notable whereas others who have garnered a comparable attention from the press and otherwise have articles written about them without so much as a hint of doubt.  And in even entertaining the idea that he is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article and by somehow attempting to prove that he is indeed worthy (by comparing him to Pokemon, no less), you slot yourself as being not really for the article, but in the face of the facts provided, grudgingly for it.  Moreover, the whole gesture becomes corrupt with charity and suggests your own position as a legitimate authority who can sort out reasons as to why or why not he may be notable enough--which is strange given that at one point you seem to disavow notability as a sound way to decide whether to keep or delete an article.  I would say that at least the others who object to this article's validity are somewhat honest, though to them I ask whether they go around making it a point to go to articles they couldn't care less about and bring up objections to their significance.  Even the notability page defines the criteria outlined therein as guidelines.  To decide whether or not an article stays based on these guidelines shows little respect to the communities/person is a way to preserve systemic bias, which I remind you is defined by speaking as someone who "(1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks English to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged 15-49, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, (9) is from the Northern Hemisphere, and (10) is more likely to be employed in intellectual pursuits than in practical skills or physical labor."  It could very well be a cultural difference since I am from the U.S. where certain protocols of respect are met when discussing the recently deceased.  In which case, I apologize and have no right to impose my own privilege upon you.  71.102.189.76 15:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you have never seen an article contested on grounds of notability, you can't have been around very long... That happens a few dozen times a week. Apart from that, I wrote: "You do not have to agree, but in my world a real-life journalist, TV-host and entrepreneur who gets killed in an incredibly freak way and who is reported on by by practically every major news outlet in the US is more notable and interesting than Bulbasaur by a wide margin." Your point is what, exactly? Are you aware of the fact that rhetorical comparisons can inherently be wildly in favor of one of the options, to the point of ridiculing the other? I was expressing an opinion, which is all I can do in this matter, and my opinion seems to be exactly the same as yours: Mr. Kim certainly should have an article here. In my personal opinion, nobody has said anything inappropriate regarding Mr. Kim in this discussion thread, even though he made some very bad decisions that could have easily killed his family, which needs to be pointed out in no uncertain terms. But well, I guess I'll just have to bow to my culturally privileged co-editor's opinion on what is appropriate when discussing the recently deceased... mstroeck 17:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem is simple: wikipedia asks for donations and on the same token james kim stuff bloatens the system. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.0.214.127 (talk • contribs).

On the page Richard_Ian_Cox, see:


 * Snowbound: The Jim and Jennifer Stolpa Story (1994) (TV)
 * Alive: The Miracle of the Andes (1993)

Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571

cannibalism

cannibal

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 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)


 * Tragic romance is correct. Wikipedia is not a memorial, no matter how admirable the actions of someone. (In this case there are many critics as well.) Kim is notable because of his career, not because of his death. --Dhartung | Talk 06:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Deaths are also encyclopedic, if they are themselves notable. Kim's death may not rise to the level of the assassination of John F Kennedy in deserving an entire article in its own right, but it's certainly generated enough mainstream media coverage to be worth summarizing here. --Delirium 06:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If he did not have an article before he died, I don't think his death should be the reason for one. I am very sadded by his death and for his family, yet this does not merit an article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Does this guy then not deserve his own article, since he wasn't notable before he died? Headwes 06:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It's boggling how "notability" is being given the weight of discussion as it is here. I don't recall a panel on this when Daniel Pearl, also a journalist (though of a different stripe and of a different...nm), won himself a Wikipedia article. 71.102.189.76 10:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Natalee Holloway article should be deleted if notability prior to death is a necessary condition of having a Wikipedia article. She literally was a typical high school student/graduate until her death, with no claim to fame whatsoever. James Kim, on the other hand, was known by a large percentage of the former TechTV audience, and by the C|Net audience. KyleGoetz 09:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Vote for keep
Please note: This is not a formal discussion for deleting or keeping the article. See Articles for Deletion. You do not need to vote.

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.


 * Vote for Keep - I had James Kim on my radar for articles to start even before his untimely death. Just goes to show that people are there and gone before you know it. There is no good reason that Mr. Kim should not have an article. --Borisborf 02:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Understanding that Wikipedia is not a memorial site, I think James Kim would have passed WP:BIO whether the incident that led to his death happened or not. Crunch 12:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

SFGate: A FAMILY’S TRAGEDY / GRIPPING STORY: It was tracked by millions: "On a day when the Iraq Study Group unveiled its recommendations on how to change course in America's 3-year-old war, many more Americans preferred Wednesday to track the minute-by-minute developments in the search for San Francisco father James Kim in the Oregon woods." --Michael Geary 06:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, I wasn't creating this section to try to get voting started. By titling it "Vote for keep," I wasn't suggesting that others vote. I simply meant I vote for keep. Next time I'll use different wording. Sorry if that caused any confusion.Tragic romance 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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"], and also personally attacks someone ["yes, mstroeck, ur stupid"]. Tragic romance 04:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That kind of writing should be considered vandalism and dealt with accordingly. No need to suffer fools here. &mdash;QuicksilverT @ 19:08, 9 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.

Most of all, this contradicts the paragraph DIRECTLY ABOVE IT, in which search and rescue officials went over the results of search efforts the previous day, tuesday, finding items of his clothing, but not Mr. Kim himself.

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)


 * I've answered this elsewhere, but it's my opinion that "direct contact" is search-and-rescue jargon indicating they located his body but were unable to determine his status. They don't say they communicated, and would have if they did, e.g. "he waved at rescuers" or some such. Most of the reports were much more circumspect, saying they were going to invesigate "another item" related to Kim. They were careful because they did not know if he were alive or dead until reaching him. --Dhartung | Talk 06:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Bear Camp Road
Is here. Looks like he would have been ok if he stayed on the yellow route. 128.138.207.44 08:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The pilot who found the Kims noted that it was quite common for visitors to bear right instead left by mistake. :-( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 19:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Eric Fuqua and Noah Pugsley
I would recommend changing cite 5 from the article currently reference to this one: http://wjz.com/topstories/topstories_story_340152429.html as unlike the current citation, this article actually gives the names of the people who saved the lives of Kati and her children. It's debatable whether they should be named in the article here or not, but I think it's pretty unquestionable that the citation for the line mentioning them should link to an article that actually gives their names. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.33.18.2 (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Bear Camp Road
In the "Maps Controversy" section, the article states that "The programs reportedly listed Bear Camp Road, where the Kims got stuck, as the most efficient shortcut".

The route between Merlin and Agness is shown on Google Maps as Galice Rd to BLM-34-8-36 to NF-23 (segments listed east to west, in the direction of their travel). If they missed the turn-off from BLM-34-8-36 onto NF-23 (i.e. stayed on BLM-34-8-36), that would take them directly to where they got stuck - the intersection of BLM-34-8-36 and the road leading to Black Bar.

Does anybody know which of these segments (if any) is known as "Bear Camp Road"? Toiyabe 20:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Check this out:


 * It's my impression that to locals (as opposed to Google Maps), "Bear Camp Road" is pretty much the same thing as NF-23. Many of the forest service roads aren't even on Topozone, but I take it that a road can have a forest service designation *and* be known by another name, and need not be the same designation its entire length. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, that sounds reasonable. Except, if the through route is "Bear Camp Road" (i.e. the road they should have been on), then they didn't get stuck on Bear Camp Road as the article states.  Toiyabe 22:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yahoo! Maps reference
I removed the map comparisons as edited in by Yeahsoo. The tone was informal, the text contained several grammatical errors, and I didn't see how dissecting the route was relevant to James Kim himself. If anyone has objections, please post them here. Cue the Strings 00:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hanna Police
I'm just about positive this quote is inaccurate: "They [James and Kati] thought the Hanna police was just about four miles away, when in reality, it was probably more like 15 miles away..James thought he could reach it in a couple of hours ... he was trying to get to a road, to flag down some help." [7]

I'm pretty sure they said "the town of Galice" rather than the "hanna police". The fox article does say hanna police, but I think it's wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.41.105 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * I noticed this earlier as well, and I believe you are right. I'm a local to the area and that's the only thing that really makes sense...  Might be best if we can find an accurate quote from a different source. --Kameron 08:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)