Talk:James Kim/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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 can't find the article I read it on (I think it was CNN) but apparently the road they were driving on is closed during the winter, but the map they were using did not have that warning such as other maps do. A1ecks 20:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added hypothermia.

Do you mean "were"?

I do advocate the tilde.

Thank You.

hopiakuta 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 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)

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)

Please don't encourage people to add uncited opinion. If there are reliable sources stating that he could have successfully walked out that is one thing. Most survival advice that I have seen says that the mistake he made was leaving the car (aside from ending up on a snowed-in mountain road in the first place). The clothes removal is a well-known symptom of late-stage hypothermia, so he was not acting rationally at that time -- in fact, he was very nearly clinically dead. --Dhartung | Talk 07:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Their car's distance from the town of Merlin, OR isn't my opinion, it's a matter of fact. Include it and let the reader draw their own conclusions. -jhudsui —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.33.18.2 (talk) 18:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

They obviously were not prepared for winter travel, no emergency kit, not even blankets, which is always big mistake. As for the map, you should always prepare for bad weather and an alternate route, they came during a time of bad storms, I was in it too in the Pacific Northwest. If you get lost and you go to a remote road that has not been plowed you should turn around. A day or two wait in a hotel or a longer way back is a better alternative. If you do get stuck, leaving the car is also a big mistake. I would think even then that he could of tried to walk back the way they came, why go into the wilderness? But it is hard to fault a guy who's last mission was to save his family, what a sad story for all. I only hope that this story will save lives in the future for being very careful and most importantly prepared.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.167.255.231 (talk • contribs) 22:46, December 7, 2006.

I realize this isn't really supposed to be on the Talk page, but would you sit in your car with your family, day after day, for a week or more, when you had perfectly acceptable roads to walk out on, and were only a day's walk from civilization? Considering (as far as you know) that no one knows you are there, so there won't be a search in the area? The only "big mistake" about leaving the car, is that he waited until he was weak and desperate, and no longer able to face the trek with full vigor. I feel bad for him, but it stems from listening to "authority", and depending on others to save you. Save yourself. [He was a day's walk from civ. for crying out loud.] Tragic romance 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article ?

I think the article should be split into two. One about the tragedy and the search party which captured nationwide media attention. I think having nationwide media attention about anything for a week is reason good enough to have article about. The second article (perhaps much shorter one) could be about James Kim - I think since he was main "actor" in the story it justifies separate article existence. Roman 05:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why that's necessary. What article could not be looked at that way?Tragic romance 06:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Do we have any references that show the coordinates of where the car was found, etc.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.45.72.26 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

There are coordinates somewhere, but the external link "James Kim's path" does an excellent job showing where everything was.Tragic romance 06:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Elements of the Kim Tragedy

I believe this section should be added to the article.

Elements of the Kim Tragedy

1. Neglected to notify anyone of the new route the family planned to take. Kim had never taken this route before. (Mentioned in several news pieces)

2. Neglected to venture into the Siskyou Mountains with a full tank of gas. The Kims could not have possibly used a full tank of gas to drive the 15 miles from Galice to where there car was found.

The Kims did not get low on gas; they were forced to stop the car due to the intense and dangerous weather conditions (which at one point forced James Kim to stick his head out of the window in order to see while driving). Noting the amount of gas they had in their tank is irrelevant as it was not connected to their predicament. Blacksun1942 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The photos of their vehicle show barely a trace of snow near it. At least one account states that they stayed in place in order to avoid running out of gas.Casey69.85.140.227 02:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The photos were taken about a week after the Kim family had to stop the car due to the weather conditions. Paddad64 05:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Drove past three signs warning that the road can be impassable in winter. (Mentioned in CNN piece)

It is possible that James was unable to see the warning signs due to poor visibility in the hazardous weather; at one point, James was forced to stick his head out of the window to see while driving because the weather conditions were so bad. Blacksun1942 20:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Since you have likely never traveled in this area, I will explain. The signs are at low elevation where it very, very rarely snows. The route the Kims were taking took them to high elevation where it does snow. For someone who lived in the area for 30 years, namely my father, the notion that the signs were not visible is absurd!! Additionally, whether he saw them or not, he did drive directly past them. Casey69.85.140.227 05:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

4. Left the 99.8% paved Bear Camp road for a gated and unpaved logging road. The unpaved road should have alerted Kim that he had strayed off course. (I have traveled this road many times and it is only unpaved in one short 100yard section)

With the roads covered in snow and visibility very poor, it is possible the Kims were unaware they had moved onto an unpaved road, or that they feared getting stuck in the snow if they reversed and turned back. Blacksun1942 20:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

5. Neglected to do much recon during the 9 days the family waited. Down the road in the other direction was Black Bar logde. (mentioned by CNN)

It has now been ascertained that the lodge was 6 miles away - also the news reports do not mention the existence of any signs on the road that advise of how far away the lodge was. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.109.139 (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

What is your source for this info? This conflicts with a CNN article. Casey69.85.140.227 00:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is - link--Mutley 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Kim left the road and headed into a rugged drainage that lead into the Wild and Scenic Section of the Rogue River that has no road along it and few lodges. (Verifiable from map and CNN)--Casey 208.53.89.41 17:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim in fact backtracked roughly 10.25 miles along the road, which was covered in thick snow at the time. Kim had been malnourished and without adequate shelter for about a week and was desperate to find help for his family, likely acting under the assumption that their lives were in his hands. I speculate that after traveling 10.25 miles along the road and hearing no other vehicles, he decided to follow the Big Windy Creek in the correct assumption that it would lead him to a river where he might have a better chance of finding help. Unfortunately for James, the creek area was more treacherous than he probably initially believed, and he quickly entered the first stages of hypothermia as evidenced by his shedding of clothes. Ironically, the last half mile of the creek was impassible, and James would not have made it to the river even if he had survived. After choosing to spend the night in the creek area, he was probably already suffering from hypothermia-related confusion and even delusion. Kim had absolutely no way of knowing whether the river had a road or how busy it would be, and after traveling back along a desolate road for over 10 miles, he felt the river would be his best bet; remember, his primary goal was to find help for his wife and children. Blacksun1942 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see this being of benefit to the article at all.--Crossmr 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have some reason for feeling that way Crossmr? If I was a person researching disasters such as this one, I would be interested how such a disaster could occur just a mile from a lodge and just 15 miles from the town of Galice? Casey Corliss 208.53.89.41 17:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

i think it is a matter of how you frame the content and tone i suppose. we are humans after all. bottom line for me is that whatever you are proposing should cohere with the article.Chensiyuan 17:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the tone is very matter of fact. The authorities are being polite in the interest of protecting the family. The reality is that Kim put himself and family at great risk. He made at least six major mistakes in my opinion. Casey 208.53.89.41 17:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats your opinion and unfortunately on wikipedia, we're not terribly interested in putting individuals opinions into the article, regardless of who they are. Whether its you, me or someone else. That falls under WP:NPOV and WP:OR. You may feel he made 6 major mistakes. I may feel he made none. Its irrelevant. Unless you can provide a reliable source WP:RS that can be verified WP:V it can't even be considered for inclusion into the article.--Crossmr 18:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The six items are all factual and do not contain my opinion. We could call the section Contorversy over Kim's Mistakes. I think most of humanity would consider it to be a mistake if you die one mile from a lodge stocked with food.

No, most of humanity would consider it "IRONIC" not a "MISTAKE"; it seems you should look up the definition of the word "mistake". Black Bar Lodge was not one mile away, it was seven miles away (see reference #18). The Kims had no way of knowing that Black Bar Lodge even existed and the owner of lodge said that the Big Windy Creek area was "unfamiliar" to him, and didn't recognize it as being near his lodge. There is so far no indication whatsoever that there was any signage regarding Black Bar Lodge anywhere along the Kims' route. Blacksun1942 19:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No they're not factual. I've illustrated below where your opinion comes in to play. Any statement regarding anything needs to be verifiable and you can't provide a reliable source to back up your claims. You can interpret a fact to try and make your claim, but as I said before, that interpretation is your opinion, and without a reliable source to back it up as a criticism held by more than a minority point of view you will need reliable sources.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

By using that word "neglect" you're asserting an opinion. The article is about what did happen, not what didn't happen. We could write quite a list of things they didn't do. By your standards, we could say they "Neglected to carry a satellite phone," or they "Neglected to take a five pound bag of Cheez-Its." It is a fact they didn't have a five pound bag of Cheez-Its in the car, isn't it? Headwes 10:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

That is your own perceived interpretation of the word neglect. The statements are simply stating that Kim did not do certain things. If you want to change it to "Kim did not do...." that is fine. Casey69.85.140.227 00:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you support the inclusion of the fact that they neglected to take a five pound bag of Cheez-Its? Headwes 19:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Will you support the inclusion of the fact that since Kim had to drive backwards with the door open that it would have been impossible for him to use his brain? Casey69.85.140.227 05:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Only if my Cheez-It fact is included. Headwes 10:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps if the couple of these items which have sources are deemed absolutely necessary, they can be added to the narrative; but framing them under a section called "mistakes" is inherently POV and, in my opinion, not in the best taste.--Dmz5 18:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how relevant any of these are, lets go through them though:

1.How many people actually do this? especially if you're not expecting trouble. Not many.

2.Editors opinion and "guess" on how much gas they went up with. That says it all. We're not interested in "guesses".

3.This one is possible. But no idea what he was thinking. Maybe his wife encouraged him. Who knows. Impossible to verify the reason for continuing to drive.

4. Covered in snow, might not have been able to tell. Could have been dark by the time they realized it and we're stuck.

5.You can't possibly know at this point what he did and didn't do for sure. Unverifiable and opinion.

6.No idea why he did that. Could have been delirious by that point. Or could have misread the map thinking that cutting across whatever area he was at would get him to a road faster.

About the only relevant thing here is the fact that there were signs saying that the raod may be blocked. The rest is all opinion and conjecture.--Crossmr 18:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Response to above

1. Kims failure to notify anyone of the route he was taking is a factual event. Maybe people don't do this in San Francisco, but you should if you plan to 4x4 across the Siskyou Mountains in winter.

The Kims did not decide to 4x4 across the Siskyou Mountains in winter. As his been widely reported, they missed a vital turn to remain on the main road (away from the mountans) and instead ended up heading towards the state forest; weather conditions and poor visibility likely had something to do with that. Blacksun1942 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

2. The Kims only traveled 15 miles from a town before they were low on gas. They could not have possibly had a full tank of gas when leaving Galice. Articles I have read said that they stayed put because they were low on gas.

There is no such article because they did NOT stay put because they were low on gas; the weather conditions made visibility virtually zero and the Kims made the voluntary choice to stop the car where they were rather than continue to drive in the hazardous conditions and possibly become more lost; they stayed for the night in the hopes that the weather would improve the next day, but the next morning they awoke to find the vehicle buried in several feet of snow. All of the most recent articles state this. And anyway, obviously they had plenty of gas because they were able to leave the engine running to provide warmth for several days. Blacksun1942 20:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

3. Possible? It is already stated in the main article and I have seen the signs myself, because unlike seemingly anyone else here, I am very familiar with this area!

4. Anyone who has driven on roads in this area will confirm that it will be quite obvious to your gluteous maximus when you have left the paved road. Anyone paying attention could have determined they had left the paved Bear Camp Rd for an unpaved logging road, especially if they were concerned at all about getting lost.

5. Clearly, if he had done much recon he would have found Black Bar lodge which was just a mile down the road. He did not find Black Bar lodge, so he obviously did not walk so much as a mile down the road in that direction. How is that speculation?

Black Bar Lodge was not one mile away, it was seven miles away, and it was not "down the road", it was across the river. Blacksun1942 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6. Kim's map did not show any road running along the Rogue River because there is no road along the river in that area. Why leave a road for a designated Wild area? Casey Corliss208.53.89.41 19:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

They missed a vital turn and did not intend to travel on an unpaved wilderness road. Blacksun1942 20:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And these are still your opinion. You have no reliable source to verify how much gas is in the tank, where he looked around before setting out, what his motivation was for continuing to drive past the sign, or where he thought he was on the road and his state of mind when he left the road. Just because a sign is there, doesn't give you license to speculate on why he drove by the sign. Just because a lodge was a mile away in the other direction doesn't give you license to speculate on where he looked before heading out. Go back and read the policies I linked above, because you're still missing what they say.--Crossmr 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You want to believe these are my opinions. One more time;

1. It is a fact that Kim did not notify family of the route he was taking.

2. It is factual that you cannot get low on gas after only 15 miles if you started with a full tank. It is a fact that Kim had to drive within a half a mile of the Galice Resort to get on the road they traveled. He could have gotten gas at Galice if he cared at all. It is also a fact that they had to drive through Merlin which is just another 12 miles away. They could have gotten gas there.

But they were stuck because they were snowbound (not because they ran out of gas)--Mutley 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The route to Black Bar lodge was not covered in snow. If they had more gas they could have discovered that. casey69.85.140.227 02:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, they did NOT run out of gas; the amount of gas they had in their tank is irrelevant. James stopped the car due to the severe weather which eventually made driving impossible; they stopped overnight and the next morning the car had been stuck in several feet of snow. Obviously they had plenty of gas in the car because they were able to leave the engine running for several days to provide warmth. Blacksun1942 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea how much gas they had. You weren't in the car and only have a vague statement in an article to go on. Hence the opinion and speculation.--Crossmr 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Blacksun, what is your source to say they were stuck in "several feet" of snow? Tragic romance 16:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

3. It is a fact Kim drove directly past at least three warning signs that are below the snow line.

It has been stated several times that visibility was so poor, James was forced to stick his head out of the window at one point or open the driver side door to see; it is entirely possible he could not see the signs. Blacksun1942 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

4. It is a fact Kim left the paved Bear Camp Rd and entered an unpaved logging road.

Due to the heavy snowfall and snow on the ground, it is possible the Kims were unaware that they had entered an unpaved road. Blacksun1942 20:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because some one had cut the locks--Mutley 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Becuase he was not paying attention. Casey69.85.140.227 02:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you weren't in the car. You don't know what he was paying attention to and what he wasn't. Once again your opinion and your speculation which isn't appropriate here.--Crossmr 02:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because the door is open, does that mean you go into the bank and rob it? No. Because a gate is open, does that mean you ignore an obvious change in road condition and kill yourself? Casey69.85.140.227 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

5. It is a fact that Kim did not find the Black Bar Lodge which was only a mile from the car.

new reports say that it was actually 7 miles away (check news.google)--Mutley 01:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

He was seven miles away, and Kim was not looking for Black Bar Lodge because he could not have known of its existence. Blacksun1942 19:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

6. It is a fact that Kim left the road for the wilderness.

All of these details have appeared in news articles or are obvious from a map. How anyone could conclude that those things did not contribute to his demise, and hence are mistakes, is beyond me. If someone wants to take the time to site the CNN articles, I would appreciate the help.--Casey Corliss208.53.89.41 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

And its your opinion that those were mistakes he made, and that you're going to interpret them to mean what you want. Its a fact he left the road. You interpret that as an intentional mistake he made. You have no idea if he was already delirious at that point. Its a fact that he didn't find the lodge. That doesn't mean he didn't cover all the other ground around there and missed the lodge. You assume because he didn't find the lodge he did nothing. You have no idea and can't cite a reliable source for that. As I said before, and I'll say again, a fact doesn't give you license to speculate on how that fact came in to being or what lead up to the fact, or what went on around the fact. Unless you can provide a reliable source for how much gas was in their tank, why they drove by the warning signs, why they drove off the road, why he didn't find the lodge, and what his state of mind was when he left the road, its all your opinion on why those things occurred. You'd also need to demonstrate that a criticism of his actions is not a point of view held by small minority.--Crossmr 23:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You believe Kim was delirious after walking 5 miles on a road in the daylight? Please explain. You believe he made it 5 miles down an extremely rugged drainage while delirious? Please explain. News accounts clearly state that Kim walked in the opposite direction of the lodge. I would be happy with calling the section "Facts that call into question Kim's behavior." I believe there is a entire body of survival literature that will support my viewpoint. We could list the final revised set of facts. Also, I do not hear many besides yourself questioning these facts. Casey Corliss69.85.140.227 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Kim walked 10.25-10.5 miles on a road thick with snow after roughly one week of little to no nourishment and only the car as shelter; he then walked 5.5 miles through a heavily wooded area along a treacherous creek pass. The official autopsy report stated he died of hypothermia and the deputy medical examiner who performed the autopsy stated he likely died within 48 hours of leaving the car. Here is the hypothermia article; since the autopsy confirms he died of hypothermia, why do you refuse to acknowledge that he obviously would have suffered from the symptoms of hypothermia (which include confusion, incoherent irrational behavior, sluggish thinking, amnesia, or even delusions)? Once again, there is absolutely no evidence that the Kims knew of the existence of the lodge at all, and in fact the owner of the lodge has been quoted as saying he was unfamiliar with the Big Windy Creek area and unaware that it was near his lodge (see reference #18) Blacksun1942 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, just getting facts straight, the road was not "thick with snow" by the time Kim starting walking out. By all accounts, including video tape from the scene, the snow that fell on November 26-27 had melted by the time Kim left on foot to find help on December 2. There was still snow in the shaded wooded areas after he left the road and it was muddy enough on the road that he left footprints, but "thick with snow" is a gross exageration. I agree with all other of your points, including that he was likely suffering from confusion as a result of hypothermia. Crunch 14:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately I agree with Crossmr. It's unfortunate because I believe Kim DID make several mistakes, and I think those mistakes should be acknowledged. However, he is correct that the article is for facts, not for the interpretation of those facts. If the facts you mention, Casey, are in the article, then it falls to the reader to decide whether Kim made mistakes.

Does that mean we can never have a section on the mistakes he made?

No. But until we have SOURCES, we don't really have a right to label them mistakes.

Yes-- it does seem obvious that Kim made several mistakes, and you make excellent points, all of which I agree with. But it seeming obvious to us, is not the same as it being established by reliable sources.

You are absolutely right -- your interpretations make complete sense. But articles aren't written based on what "makes sense" or even on what is right. They are written on what is SOURCED. And until we have sources identifying Kim's actions as mistakes, it would be our opinion to label them mistakes.

I do think there are other ways to get your info in the article though. Just don't arbitrarily label it a mistake. Ask yourself, "Could some reasonable person disagree with this? Is there a possibility that this isn't true?" If so, then that's your clue that it's an opinion or interpretation, not a sourced fact.

Best of luck. Tragic romance 04:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have already agreed not to call these actions mistakes. We can call the section "Facts that call into question the actions of Kim." Please consider this. Casey69.85.140.227 04:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you call them. They've been considered, and they're trivial details which are not relevant to the article. This an article about this entire man's life, and shouldn't focus unduly on the few days around when he died since he had notability outside of that. Going into minuscule detail about how much gas he possibly had in the tank and whether or not you think that is questionable or otherwise is irrelevant. Again, I'm going to point you to WP:NPOV. Have a look under undue weight: If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.. You've not even established that this view point is anything but this.--Crossmr 06:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's take a few steps back. I have now agreed to call the section "Facts that could call into question the actions of Kim." I believe that title is unbiased. It is not questioning Kim's actions, it is simply stating that they could be called into question. I have agreed to use a version of the list that removes any hint of personal opinion, if there ever was one. So I do not see how there would be a viewpoint expressed. And even if there was a viewpoint expressed, only several people have commented on this matter. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with statistics, but that is called a small sample size. Hence, inferring that my opinion is a minority is absurd. The version of this section that I now want to use contains no viewpoint and even if it did you have no basis for labeling that viewpoint as the minority opinion. I believe your viewpoint is the minority opinion. Prove that it is not!! Additionally, the only reason Kim has an article on Wikipedia is because of interest in the unusual events surrounding his death. My section would elaborate on those unusual events. Casey69.85.140.227 18:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll repeat this again. It is not our place to speculate on the validity of someone's actions unless a non-trivial minority views it as such and reliable sources can be provided for that speculation. It doesn't matter what you call it, it won't be included. The simple fact that you want to include it contains viewpoint. It means that those items are being labelled as something that could possibly maybe might have been a mistake by Kim. Proving the opposite viewpoint isn't hard. The numerous news agencies and tributes that have been created by his co-workers and other clearly speak to the viewpoint that he was a hero and didn't make a mistake. If you want to speculate on the validity of his actions, go start a blog. Wikipedia isn't the place for it.--Crossmr 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable and prudent

I think this discussion can be resolved by looking at the legal precedence. During legal arguments, there is a precept where the actions of a person are compared to what a "reasonable and prudent" person would do. It would have been reasonable and prudent to scout the area where you are stuck (and hence find the lodge). It would have been reasonable to have a full take of gas, to not drive out a mountain road in the snow or ignore the signs that state the road could be blocked. I think the "mistakes" are important so the readers of this article will be aware how the Kims got stuck in this situation and to prevent it from happening again. Using the "reasonable and prudent" argument, someone can determine if actions were mistakes F00d0g22 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Legal precedence has no bearing on this article. What has precedence is WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS and WP:NOT none of which allowed for speculation on behalf of editors without reliable sources to show that it comes from a non-trivial viewpoint and that its actually being speculated about.--Crossmr 23:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I still have to side with Crossmr. "Legal precedent" has nothing to do with W. Policy. And he's also right that the very inclusion of a "mistakes" section requires a viewpoint.

I still think a "mistakes" section could be included, but only if it's a result of signifigant sources, not a result of an editor's interpretations.

Seems that whether Kim was right or not, is relevant information. However why can't we just present the facts and let the reader judge those facts?Tragic romance 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

We are not talking about calling it a "mistakes" section anymore. We are calling it "Facts that could call into question the actions of Kim." The facts are listed below

1. It is a fact that Kim did not notify family of the route he was taking.

2. It is factual that you cannot get low on gas after only 15 miles if you started with a full tank. It is a fact that Kim had to drive within a half a mile of the Galice Resort to get on the road they traveled. He could have gotten gas at Galice if he cared at all. It is also a fact that they had to drive through Merlin which is just another 12 miles away. They could have gotten gas there.

3. It is a fact Kim drove directly past at least three warning signs that are below the snow line.

4. It is a fact Kim left the paved Bear Camp Rd and entered an unpaved logging road.

5. It is a fact that Kim did not find the Black Bar Lodge which was only a mile from the car.

6. It is a fact that Kim left the road for the wilderness.

Casey69.85.140.227 23:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

and as far as I know, the facts have already been presented. The mention of signs, location of the lodge, where he walked and when, etc. If someone wants to interpret those as maybe possible could-be, you never know mistakes they can do so. We're not here to present them as such for them.--Crossmr 23:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It appears new info has come to light which invalidates fact number 5. That is fine. Good for Kim. Two more facts have already come to me. A new fact is that Kim continued driving once they encountered snow. A second fact is that by traversing near the creek, Kim was more likely to get wet which would hasten his demise. Casey69.85.140.227 00:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you call them mistakes, allude to them as mistakes, imply they're mistakes, or otherwise. That type of list, without proper sourcing isn't appropriate in this article or any other article on wikipedia. This has been explained several times to you, and as someone else has pointed out up above, you were wrong on another point or two as well. As I said. If you want to speculate on his actions and whether or not they were questionable, mistakes, etc. find somewhere else to do it, this isn't the place.--Crossmr 01:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Good! Because I am not alluding to them as mistakes. They are facts that could call into question the actions of Kim. And I wasn't wrong on any information--CNN was! Please stop trying to evoke some sort of authority because you have no basis to do that. Additionally, if you are that concerned about sourcing, take a look at the main article. A good deal of it is not sourced. Casey69.85.140.227 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've got a problem with a source for something in the article, address it. Claiming a missing source as a reason to allow your unsourced opinion into the article doesn't get it in. Whether your outright call it a mistake, or imply its a mistake by saying something like "facts that call into question his actions", its still POV and not acceptable. That kind of statement implies there was something wrong with the actions and that there is a non-trivial POV which believes that as well, which I've seen no evidence that there is. If the facts are relevant they will be in the article and readers can draw their own conclusions, wikipedia is not here to draw those kinds of conclusions for them. As I've already pointed out several of those facts are already in the article as it is, organizing them into a list and labeling them with some sort of point of view isn't appropriate.--Crossmr 02:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

You are showing your bias by being very concerned about my sourcing, but much less about the sourcing of the main aritcle. Casey69.85.140.227 02:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If you've got appropriate sourcing as per the policy please provide it. Otherwise find another medium to make your point. This isn't the place. This particular discussion is about the material you want included and isn't about other material. I've told if you have an issue with other material address it in a new topic or place fact tags on the material you don't think is properly sourced.--Crossmr 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear Lord. The whole of the above could have been avoided simply by having a single sentence i the article that points to survival skills or something. There is bound to be a Wikipedia article that covers most of the points raised above. Other relevant articles include Distress signal, Duct tape alert (OK, maybe not - I thought it was how to signal for rescue using duct tape - it appears to be how to seal your home against the CBR aspect of CBRN preparedness), and Hiking. Just point to the article and leave it at that. Have some respect for the dead man's family. Carcharoth 03:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The most important one is compass, for God's sake. The road they eventually got stuck on went in the wrong direction for miles, without them noticing... mstroeck 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I would hope that someone would learn from his death. A family was trapped on the same road a year before. I would have hoped that Kim would have had more respect for his family. Casey69.85.140.227 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.85.140.227 (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Which has no place in this article. If you want to educate people about winter safety feel free to do so, this isn't the medium for it.--Crossmr 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Geez, I think you are correct, educating people has no place in an encyclopedia. Casey69.85.140.227 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No. I said educating people about winter safety has no place in an article about James Kim. No more than a paragraph about how to grow potatoes, or the latest pokemon character. Educating people about winter safety belongs in a winter safety/survival article, or if you want to give specific instructions on what to do in survival situations have a look at some of the wikibook websites where instruction manuals (which a survival guide is) is more appropriate.--Crossmr 03:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Several articles about James Kim includes survival tips including CNN articles. Survival experts have been discussing the James Kim case and published articles about how his death could have been avoided. It's therefore very much part of the public debate around James Kim's death, and should therefore be mentioned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk) 07:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

Those were news articles. This isn't a news article. Its an encyclopedia article, perhaps that is where the confusion comes in. News articles often have vaguely related information in them to fill them out depending on who's writing them and how long it needs to be. I've seen articles which end with a paragraph about a barely related case from a year or two ago, or an article written for an american audience, which doesn't mention money but mentions something going on in Canada end with "$1.21 Canadian equals $1.00 US.". That doesn't mean an encyclopedia article about that item should include a breakdown of US/Canadian trade relations.--Crossmr 14:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the sources are news artickles, or news organizations. Why is one article about James Kim from CNN ok, but a similar article from MSNBC not. I suggest being consistent when it comes to using news articles. If news articles were not used as sources most of the James Kim article would have to be deleted. Just take a look at the references section.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk • contribs) 17:21, December 11, 2006.

Casey, I can understand your urge to "get the truth out there." But I still think that if the facts have been presented, it is up to the reader, or a qualified source, to interpret those facts as mistakes. Is it really an encyclopedia's job to "call people's actions into question?"Again, if the facts have been presented, why can't we just let the reader decide whether his actions should be called into question?Tragic romance 07:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I am also very much against adding this section. The list of things James Kim didn't do that day is infinite. For example, he probably didn't pick up a hitchhiker, didn't get abducted by Martians, didn't finish a cross-stitch picture of his great-aunt Myrna, didn't cut down any trees around the car, etc. At that point, our determination of which of these things belong in the article and which ones don't is entirely POV, absent an external reliable source making the statement that these are the things that Kim needed to do to stay alive. Our speculation is totally irrelevant here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fundamental attribution error

OK, I have made a breakthrough. I believe this section should be titled "Elements of the Kim tragedy." I think few would argue that it was not a tragedy and it is hard to argue that the five items were not at least "elements" of the tragedy. Casey69.85.140.227 02:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Casey: here's a source for you:CNN article discusses the missed warning signs:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/griffin.oregon/ F00d0g22 02:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You haven't made any breakthrough. The section is unnecessary and adds nothing to the article. Its been repeatedly stated its not appropriate for the article. What has happened has already been covered in as much detail as is necessary to convey what happened. If people want to draw conclusions from the facts that are in the article they can do so. We are not here to organize it into a list for them.--Crossmr 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a Criticism section IF

(1) the criticism is from someone qualified to make that criticism (eg, Oregon State Police, established survival expert, Kati Kim (because she saw firsthand)), not from an editorializing reporter or self-styled "survival expert" somewhere on the internet

(2) the criticism is clearly a criticism -- not just "We don't understand why he..." or "He took a gamble and lost." or "He'd still be alive today if he..." [He'd still be alive today if he hadn't gone on vacation. That doesn't mean it was wrong.]

(3) there is enough criticism to justify a whole section. One or two criticisms is not a section. (Although if properly sourced they could go elsewhere in the article.)

Personally I believe Kim made some really stupid mistakes. I am not protecting James Kim. I am protecting Wikipedia, and I think there needs to be more of an acknowledgement from others, that we are here to record facts, not add our interpretations to those facts.

It is a fact that Kim stayed in the car til he was weakened and desperate. It is a fact that they didn't walk back out on the road they came up. It is a fact he left the road he was walking on. But is it a fact that those things were mistakes? Or is that our belief and interpretation?Tragic romance 10:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I have found an Oregon DOT webpage that will serve as a great source as to what are best winter driving practices. It is at [1]. Among other practices, it encourages-

1. Telling a friend where you are going.
2. Ensuring your vehicle is stocked with a full tank of gas.
3. Not blazing a trail on unplowed roads.

Also, it encourages taking a set of tire chains. Kim's failure to do this could also be included as an element of the tragedy. (The list did not encourage taking a 5 lb. bag of Cheez-Its.) Casey69.85.140.227 02:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Still not appropriate to the article. You can find all the safety information you want, its not relevant.--Crossmr 03:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That information is absolutely relevant to the unique events surrounding Kim's death. Casey69.85.140.227 03:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No its not. And you've been told that by several people repeatedly. If you want to speculate on things he could have done do it elsewhere, wikipedia is not the place for it.--Crossmr 03:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no speculation involved. It is a list of best practices from the Oregon DOT. Casey69.85.140.227 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is. Your desire to introduce material into the article to speculate on things that may or may not have helped him and what he might have and might not have done and how that reflects on him. This isn't an article on winter survival.--Crossmr 03:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I want to include a list of facts titled "Elements of the Kim Tragedy." Casey69.85.140.227 03:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Of which that is not. I wasn't aware the Oregon DOT was part of the tragedy? What occurred has already been covered in the article. What didn't occur, and what he didn't do isn't part of the tragedy. As someone already pointed out we could talk all day about what he didn't do, its not relevant to the article.--Crossmr 03:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The Oregon DOT material will support the fact that Kim omitted several best practices which are relevant to the unique events surrounding Kim's death. Casey69.85.140.227 03:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No it doesn't. It supports the fact that the Oregon DOT lists that as some winter safety tips. It doesn't support whatever speculation and conclusions you want to draw. Thats been explained to you several times and it doesn't need to be explained again.--Crossmr 04:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There is not speculation in that Kim omitted best practices as listed by the Oregon DOT. I grow weary of your continued obfuscation of this matter. Casey69.85.140.227 04:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of things he didn't do. He could have flied, he didn't do that. We could sit here all day listing things he didn't do. They're not relevant to the article. The incident has already been covered in excessive detail. A further list or section doesn't add anything to the article. People can already see what he did and didn't do.--Crossmr 04:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Failures to act can be just as important as actions! Casey69.85.140.227 04:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

That is up to the reader to make that decision on their own. The facts about what Kim did have been presented to the reader. I'll point you again to WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V.--Crossmr 04:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that a list of facts about a particular issue violates any of those policies. Casey69.85.140.227 04:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Then try reading WP:OR again It includes unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories, or any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or which, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation." You're attempting to formulate vaguely related facts in an attempt to paint a certain picture. Its been clear from your first post, and no matter how you try to word it, its quite obvious what you're attempting to do.--Crossmr 04:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I seek to include a list of facts that it is very easy to argue are very relevant to the Kim tragedy. Do you have facts that you would like to add? Casey69.85.140.227 04:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You've been shown the policy. What you want to put in the article violates the policy. There is nothing else to say on the matter.--Crossmr 04:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Certain people will not respond to this argument: An encyclopedia's purpose is to present the facts, and it is up to the reader to interpret those facts. "Facts" do not "call things into question." People call things into question, based on their perceptions and interpretations of facts.

Those who want to use this encyclopedia as a sounding-board for their own views, would perhaps be better utilizing a blog or a paid advertisement. Whether Kim made mistakes, is not up to us to decide and publish.

This discussion will never stop as long as certain people refuse to acknowledge the proper purpose of this encyclopedia. Tragic romance 04:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Previous versions of the section were flawed. A list of facts titled "Elements of the Kim Tragedy" seems quite free of flaws to me. Improvements to my desired section have been made. I believe that is the intent of the dicussion board. Ignore this discussion if you so desire. I will talk sense into Crossmr if it is that last thing I do! Casey69.85.140.227 04:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have thoroughly enjoyed this lively editorial discussion! Thanks to all. Casey69.85.140.227 04:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:OR is one of wikipedia's non-negotiable policies. If you do not wish to follow it take your analysis elsewhere. As someone else pointed out there is a great discussion going on over at some blog where they're analyzing it to death. Knock about his behaviour all you want there. Its not appropriate here.--Crossmr 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have not done any original research. Casey69.85.140.227 05:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've shown you the exact part of the policy in which your proposed section would violate. You're taking a fact from a government website and other facts and attempting to formulate a list or otherwise assemble them to, regardless of how you attempt to word it or make it appear, cast Kim in a negative light and call his actions into question. What he's done is already covered in the article and the section you propose serves no other purpose.--Crossmr 05:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am letting the facts speak for themselves. Previous versions of the section did not. Please add facts to the list if you want. Casey69.85.140.227 05:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The facts do speak for themselves. They're in the article. Nothing you propose to add is relevant to the article and adding it would be a violation of the policy listed above. I can't even begin to the count the times that has been explained to you and by the number of editors who've attempted to do so. Renaming the section doesn't change the nature of what you're proposing.--Crossmr 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Your convenient version of the facts are in the article. Casey69.85.140.227 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If by convenient you mean facts which comply with WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:V and WP:RS, yes they do. Which is how all articles are supposed to be on wikipedia. If that is an issue, I've already pointed out an appropriate outlet for you to put forth whatever conjecture and conclusions you wish to make or draw for people. If you wish to angle this issue to suit you, or fight the good fight for winter safety I wish you luck in finding an appropriate medium.--Crossmr 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You have a comfortable mind. Casey69.85.140.227 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You say you're "letting the facts speak for themselves." Fine. The facts are in the article, and they are there speaking for themselves. Nothing more needs to be added. Tragic romance 16:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

You say the facts are in the article? Did you even consider that statement before you made it? Only three of the facts that I have repeatedly pointed to are in the article, and one is in a questionable location. It is hard for me to take you seriously. Crossmr made the same incorrect statement. You only want your convenient version of the facts represented. I am considering changing my handle to "The Incovenient Truth." Casey208.53.88.146 05:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What facts about James Kim do you think should be added to the article? [Not "opinions/interpretations of his actions," not "relevant survivalist material," but facts about what James Kim did and was.] Tragic romance 10:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Oregon DOT is in the business of publishing "survivalist material." I do think they publish best practices for driving in winter. Casey208.53.88.146 15:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'll ask again, what facts about James Kim do you think should be added to the article? Has the Oregon DOT mentioned something about James Kim which you would like to include? Tragic romance 16:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, it doesn't matter much whether a certain person "takes me seriously," when that person quietly refuses to answer the five to ten logical arguments and questions that have been presented to them. Tragic romance 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Casey, will you acknowledge that it is our job simply to present the facts, and let the reader decide whether Kim made mistakes, based on those facts? Simple answer please. Tragic romance 16:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

I would like to suggest a section named criticism as part of the main James Kim article. Some may be against such a section, others may not like it. However a criticism section is a WikipediA tradition whether the article is about Madonna, Ronald Reagan, George Bush or Prem Rawat. A criticism section seems to be the preferred Wikepedia term rather than "mistakes", or "questioning the actions of Kim".

This section is not a blog with all the personal opinions of the contributors, but rather a summary of the criticism of his actions based on "reliable" sources similar to the sources used for any other content in the article. Sources such as CNET, San Jose Mercury News, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The Oregonian etc. are therefore all valid references.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk • contribs) 00:47, December 12, 2006.

Which we've discussed to death and found not to be appropriate to the article. Not all articles have criticism sections, and as of yet, there has been no reliably sourced criticism. Only an editors interpretation of what a reliable source said to call it criticism.--Crossmr 01:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reliably sourced criticism. CNN article discusses the missed warning signs:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/11/griffin.oregon/ F00d0g22 02:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The video on this link is very informative.--203.214.75.116 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a reliable source that refers to a mistake made by James Kim:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/12/07/MNGTMMQVKE1.DTL&hw=james+kim+mistake&sn=004&sc=264

In which it also says that that is a commmon mistake that a lot of people make. It is nothing unique to any mistake James Kim may or may not have made.--Crossmr 16:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

For the fourth of fifth time I'll point to WP:NPOV and the section on undue weight. A single individual speculating in a behind the scenes post, doesn't make a non-trivial point of view. He doesn't really criticize so much as he says "We're wondering why they did it". He coyly dances around the issue of calling it a mistake. He speculates that on his trip up in there that he's not sure how one could make that trip without beginning to wonder, but hindsight is always 20/20. This isn't exactly a damning criticism of James Kim's behaviour.--Crossmr 04:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in favor of a Criticism section IF

(1) the criticism is from someone qualified to make that criticism (eg, Oregon State Police, established survival expert, Kati Kim (because she saw firsthand)), not from an editorializing reporter or self-styled "survival expert" somewhere on the internet

(2) the criticism is clearly a criticism -- not just "We don't understand why he..." or "He took a gamble and lost." or "He'd still be alive today if he..." [He'd still be alive today if he hadn't gone on vacation. That doesn't mean it was wrong.]

(3) there is enough criticism to justify a whole section. One or two criticisms is not a section. (Although if properly sourced they could go elsewhere in the article.)

Personally I believe Kim made some really stupid mistakes. I am not protecting James Kim. I am protecting Wikipedia, and I think there needs to be more of an acknowledgement from others, that we are here to record facts, not add our interpretations to those facts.

It is a fact that Kim stayed in the car til he was weakened and desperate. It is a fact that they didn't walk back out on the road they came up. It is a fact he left the road he was walking on. But is it a fact that those things were mistakes? Or is that our belief and interpretation?Tragic romance 10:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lessons learned from the James Kim tragedy

Lessons learned from the James Kim tragedy is discussed in several articles by CNN, survival experts and others (see http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=43) . According to Dough Ritter it makes sense to discuss how death can be averted in such circumstances, and survival tips have been part of the public debate surrounding James Kim's death.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk • contribs) 06:53, December 11, 2006.

Hallelujah! Casey69.85.140.227 14:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The mistakes made during this tragic event has also become part of the public debate. In Google I get 1,460,000 references to pages that contain all of the words James, Kim and mistakes. The sources include news organisations, blogs and respected survival forums. Example sources include San Jose Mercury, CNET, CraigsList, CNN, The New York Times etc. Not all of the 1,460,000 seem to be sources that I have previously come across.

Actually properly searched with "James Kim" mistakes you don't get 1.4 million hits[2]. You get less than a third of that, and the first few hits are all blog posts which are not reliable sources on wikipedia. You're free to speculate all you wish, just not here on wikipedia. For the next couple pages almost every reference to the word mistake comes from a user comment on a story. These are also not reliable sources.--Crossmr 19:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I registered for editing so that I could add this comment, hoping that there would be a "lessons learned" section to this discussion. This event has troubled me a lot since its tragic ending, as there is one part of it that could have been avoided if some "tribal knowledge" that is apparently lost would have been know to the Kims. I was really bothered that the Kims had to resort to burning their tires, as that provides only a limited fire, and can be quite dangerous (if the pressure is not let out of the tires first).

I have read a lot of the reports, and the "experts" information about the lessons to be learned from the Kim's experiences, and none of them mention a common fuel in the Pacific Northwest forests--pitch wood. The Native Americans know of this, as do loggers and the outdoors people of times past. But it has been lost on this generation. The fir (especially Douglas fir) and some pine species leave behind when they die a stump, and that stump has spires of resin-impregnated wood. This pitch wood is not apparent to anyone unless you know about it, but these stumps have these spires which resist the decay process. They are readily available to anyone who can look for them, and can provide a fire in any weather so long as the fire can be shielded from wind and rain during the starting phase. It only requires a match or lighter, and a fire can be started in any weather.

Find the pitch wood spire, break it off, splinter some of the larger pieces into smaller ones, then use a knife (or a rock), to break it into small shavings or finely differentiated fibers. These shavings and fibers cannot absorb water. You can keep them submerged in water, then shake them off and start a fire. Build a teepee of this wood, use smaller pieces with the shavings under it, and light it. The resulting fire will burn hot for quite a while. Add more pitchwood as needed, and then start gathering the dry, dead branches from the lower part of a fir or pine tree, and feed them into it. In this manner, a fire can be started in the worst weather around (but shield the fire from wind and rain with your body when you begin with the match or lighter).

My Dad, Donald E. Ratliff, Sr., wrote a book in the 1960s titled Map, Compass and Compfire which is still available through Amazon.com. He would have wanted as many people as possible to know of this technique of starting a fire in the Pacific Northwest. To be best equipped, Dad had a list of things to take with you too, which of course included a map (a good, contour map if possible) and compass, matches in a waterproof container, and I would add a sheet of plastic (makes a waterproof roof for a shelter). --John C. Ratliff 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

And what does any of this have to do with James Kim? No offense (seriously), but that belongs on an article about survival. Not an article about what James Kim was known for. The bottom line is that we are creating an encyclopedia about the facts, not about our beliefs and interpretations of those facts. If some acceptable sources start identifying mistakes that specifically James Kim made, then it's possible it could be included. Even then the subject of this article is what James Kim was and did. Not what we feel he could have been or could have done. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. Tragic romance 09:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that James Kim died surrounded by fuel that he could have used to not only help his family out with, but probably would have had an influence on his decision to go for help. That is the fact I wanted to bring out in this conversation. At the time of his departure from the family car, the family was in an untenable situation, one that had to be changed. If this situation was changed by the knowledge of how to build a fire in these circumstances, my feeling is that would have changed James Kim's decision to leave. A fire would also probably have been seen by the National Guard helicopter that overflew the area with heat-detecting sensors earlier too, and the smoke from a fire could have helped them be seen earlied during daylight. This knowledge could have changed the circumstances enough to save James Kim's life, in my opinion. That's why it is relavant here, in this discussion. I did not put it into the story line for the reasons that you mentioned, Tragic romance. Thanks for the welcome to Wikigedia.--John C. Ratliff 13:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"Lessons Learned" is such a subjective topic that I don't see how it fits into an encyclopedia entry, other than to promote Mr. Ratliff's book. Crunch 14:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, we have not made anything off Dad's book for years, and I was surprised that it is still offered for sale on Amazon. In reading the materials around putting information into Wikipedia, it was mentioned that there needs to be a published source for any information. This is my source. I could have simply said that this is "tribal knowledge" of loggers and foresters in Oregon, but that would not be acceptable as a source for Wikipedia. Dad's book was published in 1964, and lost money ever since. It is not a mainstream book, and can be bought used from several sources for a few dollars. My Mom was very unhappy about Dad spending so much time on the book, and money, and when I approached the family about updating it about ten years ago, she was again most unhappy. This book was a sore spot for her. So please don't say I was trying to promote the book; you can get it very cheaply, and it is no financial advantage for me or the family. Just below this text box is the following text, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." That is what I was trying to do. Again, this is in the discussion area, and not in the text of the article on James Kim. People come here to find information, and will read the text. If one person finds out about using this fuel, and has a similar situation occur, it will have been worth the effort.--John C. Ratliff 17:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia. I enjoyed what you had to say about pitch wood. Thank you very much. Hanako 17:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Its an encyclopedia, but there are restrictions on the content of each page. Material in the article should directly relate to the subject, posts on the talk page should directly relate to the improvement of the article. While its relevant to mention what he did while trapped, its not relevant to include general sections about survival skills. This isn't an article on survival skills, or is it a place to speculate on the outcome had he done "x" or not done "y". There is a wikibooks website where you can write instruction manuals on survival skills all day long if you're interested in sharing that information.--Crossmr 18:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

If the article serves any purpose other than a memorial or part of "Big stories of December 2006" it would be to educate others so they might remember what they read and survive in the same situation. A link to an article like "Winter survival tips for motorists" would be great: tell someone your travel plans, have a full tank of gas, carry food and blankets, stay with the vehicle, avoid dodgy roads, etc. In this article, it would be appropriate to quote someone like a state police spokesman or other expert outlining what they did right and what they did wrong, as would be true for anyone article about shipwrecked sailors, planecrash survivors or even the Donner Party. Edison 20:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The article should be constrained to what James Kim did and was. Not what he "could have" been or done. If people want to hear judgments on his decisions, they can get that somewhere else. If they want survival tips, there are plenty of sources for that. This article is for facts about James Kim, not for judgments, speculation, and winter survival tips. Tragic romance 02:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately criticism is discouraged in this forum and in many cultures. People who have critized the war in Iraq have been called unpatriotic or traitors. In other countries critics are silenced, or sentenced to death. There is a lot of resistance to criticism among the editors of this artcicle, and there may be many reasons for this: respect for James Kim, legal considerations, hero worship or an upbringing in a culture where criticism isn't tolerated. In many European countries an article is not acceptable unless it contains some form of critical analysis. A properly sourced critical review is appropriate. On Wikipedia the criteria for a critical review can in some cases be very limiting, and hinders most criticism, while in other cases sourcing isn't demanded. No consistency. Since James Kim's actions have been criticized in numerous articles, blogs and forums, they have become part of the public debate surrounding his death. It's therefore relevant to point to the debate, even though the blogs may not have been written by Stanford University professors. Some of the blogs are very intelligent, and I would like too highlight 2 random links to illustrate this:

James Kim’s Mistakes Doomed Him - http://www.belch.com/~blog/2006/12/07/james-kims-mistakes-doomed-him/

James Kim Did Everything Wrong - http://adventurewatch.wordpress.com/2006/12/09/james-kim-did-everything-wrong/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk) 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Your editorializing notwithstanding, blogs and forums are not reliable sources. The only non-blog source that was provided was an editorial piece where the editor couldn't even really bring himself to outright criticize him. All criticism in any article must be appropriately sourced and relevant to the article per WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. Wikipedia has standards, blogs are not within those standards.--Crossmr 05:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not a forum for "public debate," and are under no obligation to acknowledge whether "public debate" is occurring. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that the article is for facts only?

You mention "critical analysis." Is there "critical analysis" in the articles of Encyclopedia Brittanica?

Who is to perform this "critical analysis?" Wikipedia editors? We are not here to "analyze" the subjects we are writing about. And we are not obligated to include "viewpoints" from irrelevant sources no matter how many blogs and news reporters offer them. Tragic romance 16:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

According to WP:NPOV opinions are acceptable when they are converted to facts. In this case a large part of the population says: "Mistakes were made". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.6.50.52 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

That is your opinion. You need to provide reliable sources that say that. To date the only source provided was an editorial opinion that couldn't really quite call it a mistake but just wonder a little bit about what happened. Read NPOV again under undue weight. Until there are reliable sources to show this as a non-trivial minority view point it doesn't belong in the article.--Crossmr 16:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What is your source, to say that "a large part of the population says...?" [And google hits on "'James Kim' + mistakes" is not a 'source.'] Tragic romance 16:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this article. I hope God will bless you in some way, and poor James, he will be missed. BrianEd 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think God should save his blessings for the Kim family 72.36.251.234 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe God should have saved James Kim instead of blessing us for writing about it. --UCLARodent 06:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Who cut the lock

It may be important to note that authorities are looking for the person who cut the lock on Bear camp road--Mutley 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

if this were an article about that section of road, perhaps.--Crossmr 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr, I don't understand your comment - they wouldn't have been stranded at all if the lock wasn't cut!--203.214.109.139 23:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

And the fact that the lock was cut is relevant to what happened. The incident is done now and the police are looking for who cut the lock, that isn't relevant to what happened. Its something that happened after the fact in the area. If they pave that tiny stretch of road next summer, or post bigger signs, neither are relevant to an article about James Kim. They're relevant to an article about that road. I believe its already been mentioned that the lock was cut, that is about as far as the relevance extends there.--Crossmr 23:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant to what happened. If police find who cut the lock, that information should obviously be included in the article as that individual would bear some indirect responsibility in James Kim's death. Blacksun1942 19:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Was there any signage on the road saying how far away the black bar lodge was? (probably not)--203.214.109.139 23:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea. Someone above mentioned that it was just discovered it was 6 miles away, not 1 mile away. They also said they hadn't read if there were signs saying that or not.--Crossmr 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If his death is encyclopedic, then the causes of it are encyclopedic, such as someone cutting a lock which led to their winding up where they did. Edison 20:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The fact that the lock was cut is in the article. The personal history and on-going life story of the lock are not relevant.The lock is but a small part in the makeup of this person's life. Delving into minutia surrounding the lock adds nothing to an article about James Kim.--Crossmr 20:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

BLM now is saying the lock was not cut. They left the gate open. Oregonian Article Headwes 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Umbrella

Did Kati really attach reflective tape to her umbrella that she waved to attract the attention of helicopters? It's stated as such in the article but I have not read a source. People don't normally have reflective tape in their car. This is an interesting tidbit of info. Hanako 02:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Also it's interesting that sources are careful in their wording, to indicate that she was waving this umbrella "when she was found." They don't indicate that this is what got her spotted. It probably isn't what got her spotted. Tragic romance 07:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The car was probably the bigger target to see, but the human eye is very sensitive to motion. The waving of the umbrella would be an unnatural motion and an unnatural color, and could very well have aided Katie in being spotted. If there was reflective tape on the umbrella, that also would have helped to attract attention. As one who has been on searches from helicopters, I can say that any unnatural motion or color will attract attention, as will flashes of light.John C. Ratliff 17:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, no disagreement with that. But in this case, every source I've read has worded it in a way that comes short of saying that that's what got her spotted. Not that it even matters. I just like the exact truth to be known, rather than the overblown, dramatized story we often get from the media.Tragic romance 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, as the helicopter pilot apparently spotted James Kim's footprints, and that is what he was following when he spotted Katie. But the motion of the umbrella probably did catch his eye when he did finally spot the family.--John C. Ratliff 13:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Could we verify/clarify the footprints issue? From my reading, it appears that the helicopter pilot was following the tire tracks of the car, and coincidentally also found his footprints. Kati and the kids would almost certainly also have been found since the tire tracks were the major feature being followed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.55.52.4 (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

The distinction seems to be whether the umbrella, which is more recently reported to have been pink in color, had reflective designs already on it or if Kati Kim applied reflective tape to it after they became stranded as a way to attract searchers in helicopters. Also, I wonder if there were reflective markings or tape, if that would have been that significant during daylight hours. My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it was a bright fluorescent pink umbrella not an umbrella with relective tape applied to attract searchers. But I'm only guessing and we may have to wait for further news to confirm or deny this. Crunch 14:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

We wouldn't have to talk about half this stuff if there weren't so much sloppy, speculative journalism out there.Tragic romance 15:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, Tragic romance. And it's not just speculative journalism but it seems to be a need on the part of the media and the public to take an already dramatic story and super-dramatize it. So it's not good enough that Kati was waving an umbrella. It has to be an umbrella on which she had applied reflective tape! And it's not good enough that James ended up not far from where he started -- he was only a MILE away! (turned out later to be wrong). Crunch 15:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The reported serial burning of all 5 tires should have been a great signal to rescuers. The lack of a maintained bonfire was a detriment to being spotted, when there were planes up. Edison 20:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell phone

They were only successfully located because a signal transmitted from the family's cell phone had been picked up by a cellular tower.[7] The signal was emitted when the Kim family's cell phone received a text message.[8]

If they had a cell phone, why they didn't just call 911? --Urod 12:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Are you for real? After all you've read about their resourcefulness, you think they didn't try to call 911? lol Hanako 19:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

They tried to use the cell phone but couldn't get a signal. The "ping" that hit that tower was just a blip. They didn't have sufficient signal to make a real call, and probably didn't even know that text message had caused their phone to ping the distant tower. Tragic romance 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell phones work on direct line-of-sight, and in the hills and mountains, getting a direct line-of-sight is problematic. The best way to do it is to climb to the highest point, and hope that there is not something between your phone and the tower at that point. This is why the reporters rely upon satallite phones, as they have a position overhead which would allow communications almost anywhere. But a cellular network based upon ground-based towers is problematic in rugged areas of the Pacific Northwest. Apparently, in the case of the Kim's cell phone, the signal for the text message was repeatedly sent out, and at one point in their travels they hit a place where they were in direct line-of-sight with the tower at the instant that the message was repeated to their phone, and the tower received a "hit" signal from the phone. That was probably as the Kim's car crested a ridge in the Coast Mountains, but they would be unable to determine where they were when that happened unless they were looking at the phone when it happened.John C. Ratliff 17:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

One mile, seven miles

Can we get the sources for both sides of this? Some are saying one, some are saying seven, lets provide the relevant stories here. It may be that the one comes from an earlier story which didn't have all the information.--Crossmr 19:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

See reference #18; there was an initial map error. James in fact traveled a total of 16 miles, not 10. He was roughly 7 miles from Black Bar Lodge which was on the other side of the river. The owner of the lodge is quoted in the article (reference 18) as saying he was unfamiliar with the Big Windy Creek area and unaware that his lodge was nearby. Blacksun1942 20:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

"one mile away" was always incorrect (even in earlier reports) as it referred to as the crow flies which is inaccurate - they should be using "along the road" distances and you can tell by looking at any of the maps that it was it was a very winding road. --203.214.75.116 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion beyond his death

This article needs some expansion beyond his death. He was notable as a TV personality and as a CNET editor. We've focused heavily on his death because this is the most recent and freshest incident involving him. Many of the sources already used for this article can be used to source information about his career prior to his death.--Crossmr 01:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It needs to discuss the fact that according to Kati Kim at http://kati.yelp.com, that James' ex-girlfriend was a "tweaker". Now this raises a lot of questions such as what exactly is a tweaker (as I understand it, that term refers to a meth addict). Was James a drug user? Was he using drugs at the time he was driving on Bear Camp Road?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.82 (talk • contribs) 01:43, December 12, 2006.

Will you please sign your posts?? Every time you don't sign your posts, someone else has to come along and note what your IP address is. It's quite simple to sign your posts, and it's a necessary part of Wikipedia dialogue. Put four tildes -- ~ ~ ~ ~ -- after your post, only don't put any spaces between them, and your IP address (or username, if you ever choose to register) will appear. It's incredibly difficult to keep track of conversations of which you're a part since you don't sign your posts. Moncrief 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't remotely relevant to the article. If you've got an agenda, take it somewhere else, this isn't the place.--Crossmr 04:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr's agenda includes objecting to anything other than hero-worship of Kim. Casey69.85.140.227 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Crossmr has an agenda. To me, that was irresponsible to come on here posing such unfounded questions, and then further to not sign it. Any time I've seen Crossmr objecting to something, it was due to lack of sources, improper formatting, or irrelevance.Tragic romance 09:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

do you see all anonymous users as irresponsible heathens out to destroy wikipedia or am i - someone who you previusly described as a troublemacker who made you ashamed to contribute - and 69.85.140.227 just special? see WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV. thank you 72.36.251.234 23:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. I didn't say you were a troublemaker. I asked if we had a "Troublemaker on the page?" This was due to your disdainful, careless, confrontational writing habits. In just one section you threatened to "make a point" and you "personally attacked" User:mstroek.. Another editor also added that your writing was like vandalism.

2. I am not ashamed to contribute. I was embarrassed to have my writing put in with the particular way you were writing at that point. Apparently you have cleaned it up, and I have no problem with your writing like this.

3. What was irresponsible above, was for the user to call into question another man's character (drug use, etc), when he knew there was no basis in fact. And my problem is not with anonymous posters. My problem is that the writer didn't sign with tildes, which is required whether you use a username or not.

I have no problem with you or any other individual here. It was the particular behavior that was against guidelines/ policy.Tragic romance 03:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

If folks think this article is too centered around Kim's death, then stop wasting time complaining and start spending time writing (about his life)! The unfortunate and sordid truth is, the reason this article is so death-centric is because his life is notable for how he died, less for how he lived. --UCLARodent 11:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact, trying to write more about his life in an attempt to "balance" the article, will likely lead to inclusion of less and less notable material. He's notable mainly for the events surrounding his death, and the article will reflect that. Tragic romance 11:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Had this article been started before his death it likely would have been easier to find some information on him. Now because of all the news stories google is flooded with those and references to them, that find other sources for his work on TechTV, and as a CNET editor becomes more difficult. I posted in the hopes that someone else editing here might have been familiar with some of those sources before the death. While he may not have been as notable for those, there was notability there. With a couple of sources it hopefully shouldn't be hard to get a paragraph on both of TechTV and CNET.--Crossmr 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is it "tragic and sordid" that he is known mostly to the public for how he died? Those strongly POV words from a Wikipedia editor give me pause, though at least it's good that they are here on the discussion page and nowhere near the article. It is a FACT that he is known -- to the average person -- due to the circumstances of his disappearance and death. Whether or not this is "tragic" or "sordid" is irrelevant to us as Wikipedia editors.

Uh, because it's "tragid and sordid" for any innocent family man to die by hypothermia and starvation. --UCLARodent 21:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're clear on the intent of Wikipedia. It isn't up to us to editorialize on the tragedy of any person's death, whether that person be -- to think of the two first examples that come to mind -- John F. Kennedy, John Lennon, or James Kim. And I was responding to the use of those words in relation to the fact that he is known to the public mostly for his death, not for the death itself (nor though should those words be used to editorialize about his death in the article). Those are strongly POV words and they simply don't belong in an article. If you're unclear on why that's the case, I hope you'll familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's NPOV policy and compare the articles here with those found on a blog or at a memorial site. Clearly we're all human and can sympathize with the circumstances of his death and the pain his family feels. If you want to express that grief though, a Wikipedia article is not the place. Moncrief 23:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any editoralizing on the article. And if there is, it should be deleted. This discussion page isn't the article, therefore, people can express whatever editoralizing or theories they want here. --UCLARodent 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if people don't want to sign their posts, so what? Just ignore it. People have the right to remain anonymous. --UCLARodent 23:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion page is not a place for theories or editorializing. It's a place for discussing the article, which it's agreed upon will be built using Wikipedia guidelines that don't include unsourced "theories" and editorializing. If you want to editorialize and express your grief, I am sure there are lots of places online to do that. I'll let my comments stand at that. Moncrief 23:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This page is filled with editoralizing and theories. Big deal. Don't turn this into a federal case. --UCLARodent 23:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone's trying to turn it into a federal case. But he's right. The Talk page is for discussion about how to improve the article. It states right at the top that this is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject. Nobody's going to confront you if you do make a few comments about the article's subject (and I myself have done that), but that's the exception, not the rule. So it isn't here for people to "express whatever editoralizing or theories they want."

Also, yes, people have the right to remain anonymous, but they are still required to sign their comments with tildes. Tragic romance 17:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to what else Crossmr has been posting, but not signing posts is a major annoyance. Signed posts at the very least make it easy to follow the discussion and see where one person's comment ends and another person's takes up. If someone, Moncreif, me or anyone else, has to interject a reminder in the middle of a discussion to get people's attention, so be it. It's not irrelevant. Crunch 13:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Crossmr was responding to the unsigned poster with his/her "relevance" comment, not to my request. Moncrief 14:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Distance to Galice 15 miles ?

I checked on Google Earth, shortest (straight-line point to point) distance from their car to Galice is about 12.5 miles. However, this distance would be relevant to the story only if Kims could fly. When I am measuring shortest along-the-road-distance to Galice (which is I guess the quickest way how human can get there on foot) I am getting distance of more than 30 miles. I think this along-the-road distance (probably more precisely measured than I did it) should be stated in the article instead of 15 miles distance quoted from "authorities". Saying that in reality distance to Galice was 15 miles is very misleading because Kims could not possibly get to Galice by walking 15 miles. This just shows how sloppy media reporting is and how questionable is using news reports as "reliable sources". Roman 19:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with regard to the relevance of the as-the-crow-flies distance to the nearest town, because ostensibly Mr. Kim, as he left the road and entered the rough terrain that would prove his undoing, thought that there was a roadless route to (some) town that would be quicker. Of course the distance by road is worth noting as well, since that would have been the best route. Matt Gies 00:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

He left the road after walking along the road for more than 10 miles. So I don't think his initial intention was taking as-the-crow-flies path. He clearly did not know where he was. If he thought Galice was 4 miles away then after walking 10 miles he must have realized that he is somewhere else. But regardless of what he thought ..., when you are on road and somebody tells you that a town is 15 miles away - most of people think that what is talked about is along-the-road distance, not as-the-crow-flies distance. That is also clearly the case in this article's discussion, as couple of people here (Casey, Crossmr) discuss the mentioned 15 miles as it was along-the-road distance - which is just not true. Roman 06:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not native English speaker. Is there any better/shorter term for as-the-crow-flies distance ? Roman 04:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hrm. The message attempting to be conveyed is "direct overland route". It seems wikipedia has an article on it which could be inter-linked too As_the_crow_flies.--Crossmr 04:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the link, I used it in the article. Roman 19:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

... Driving back to retrace their path, they accidentally turn onto a spur road ...

I just saw this CNN footage, and also checked GoogleEarth. I just don't see how they could accidentally turn onto that spur road while backtracking. While driving downhill they would have to make about 160 degree uphill turn, I just don't see how you can do that accidentally. Look here. The spur road is the one which looks just as it was a main road at that intersection. My opinion is that they were backtracking much later after already taking that spur road.

BTW, I am pretty sure that if I was going from Galice to Agness in bad weather without GPS then I would do the same mistake and take that spur road first. It simpy looks like it is the main road at that point. In middle of that intersection where the road forks there is sign indicating direction to Agness. But since at that point the roads are almost parallel, the sign is quite confusing. Black Bar Lodge owner's family even painted additional huge "COAST" text with arrow written on the road pavement indicating which way the coast is, because they also found intersection so confusing. This sign is however quite useless during snow, because snow simply covers it Roman 06:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC).