Talk:James Kim/Archive 3

Nationality information

I'm seeing James Kim's nationality information repeatedly removed and re-added with dispute as to its relevance in this article. Per WP:MOSBIO, I believe this should be present. Any opinions? --Kameron 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

yes an individual's nationality would be relevant and should be included.--Crossmr 20:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree it should be in the article, but not in the introductory sentences. Tragic romance 02:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone can find a source demonstrating that he was not born in the United States we should assume he is "American" and NOT "Korean American" in the opening sentence 64.111.46.44 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the majority of second-generation immigrants identify themselves as x-American, and that that classification is not limited to those who were born in another country. I also think that the nationality is a simple two-word fact, and that it doesn't detract from the article in any way. Why shouldn't it be included? It may not be relevant to the event, but it's part of his biographical information. --Cue the Strings 21:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be included, since it is a signifigant fact about him. However, it isn't a fundamental part of this story, and therefore it should be mentioned in the body of the article, not in the first two sentences.Tragic romance 23:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember this article is about James Kim as a whole, not just about the few days leading up to his death. He had plenty of notability from TechTV and CNET.--Crossmr 23:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This is again an example of Americans mixing ethnicity with nationality. James Kim was an American. His ethnicity was Korean-American. This story would be just as strong without mentioning the ethnicity as it is with it, but it adds a dimension to the story of Americans coming together to try to save this family.John C. Ratliff 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John. James Kim was an American citizen born in Kentucky; he was not an immigrant, his nationality was "American". He was born to parents of Korean descent (his father's name "Spencer" leads to believe his parents were born in America as well) and could be ethnically identified as "Korean-American" but his nationality was "American". Blacksun1942 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim's father, Spencer H. Kim, was born in Korea in 1946 and came to the US in 1963 to go to college. I'm not sure of the origin of the name "Spencer" nor do I know anything about his mother. Crunch 13:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Many Asian people take random names of a list upon moving to North America. I once asked a chinese instructor I had about this as he had chosen the name William and his daughter had chosen Grace. There was no significance to them, they simply picked a name they liked.--Crossmr 14:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

As to finding out the "origin of the name 'Spencer'", I don't see how this tidbit of trivia will contribute to the larger scope of this article and frankly, it gives a lot more attention to the issue of his nationality and ethnicity than this article really calls for -- not to mention its way of satisfying this peculiar curiosity and fascination non-_(Asians/Koreans)___ may have for _(Asians/Koreans)_.128.111.97.125 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd urge us to refrain from speculating about the origin of Spencer Kim's name based on anecdotal evidence of what "many Asian people" do or on one report of what a Chinese person you know did. Let's stick to facts. Crunch 14:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't providing that as anything other than anecdotal comment. You said you weren't aware of where the name originated. I don't think the origin of his father's american name is relevant to the article anyway, I was just letting you know where those names sometimes originate from. Incase you were unaware that that was a practice.--Crossmr 16:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

...yet you fail to address your use of the phrase "many Asian people", which clearly is a breach of encyclopedic protocol. Well put, Crunch (although he did sort of report a "fact"). 128.111.97.125 02:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the article, this is the talk page. I'm not required to provide a reliable source for every statement I make on the talk page. I was in no way attempting to add that material to the article at all.--Crossmr 03:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

and if you'd like a source for changing, here it mentions asians being encouraged to change their names for database reasons [1]. and our own article on Given name talks about Asians doing so, but its in disparate need of a citation. Here is a citation stating that it is "often" done [2] and this (INS has since restructed their site, not sure where this is located on the new site) [3] about immigrants changing their name--Crossmr 03:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I've re-added mentioning that he's of Korean descent. Why should this be hidden as if it is something shameful or inappropriate? Describing ethnicity is like detailing his education or professional endeavors. It's a vital component of one's background. I know removing ethnicity implies we're all one great American race. If that's your personal belief, that's honorable. But Wikipedia is about providing information, not advancing personal belief --UCLARodent 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

His ethnicity should be in the article because his image is in the article. If he were white or black, his ethnicity would be obvious. But most people (?) would have difficulty determining what kind of asian a person is from a photo alone. Also, his ethnicity had nothing to do with his death, but the article is not about his death -- it is about him. And ethnicity is a fundamental part of one's identity, like it or not. Tragic romance 02:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles on White british people do not say they are white british. Singling out someone's nationality because you see it in a photo is very, well, I'm going to go for racist failing a good alternative of text.--I'll bring the food 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Most people, seeing his photo, are going to wonder whether he's Japanese, Korean, Chinese, etc. Maybe someone familiar with the differences could tell just by looking, but I think most people can't. It isn't 'racist' to want to know what nationality someone comes from. It's information about someone's identity, not a politcal statement. Tragic romance 18:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The last name, "Kim," identifies him as Korean. 71.36.99.242 21:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Another way of putting this matter to rest might be to simply identify the father as "Korean American." Because Spencer Kim is a naturalized citizen born in Korea ( The Oregonian, Dec. 7, 2006).71.36.99.242 23:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am 34 yrs old and I didn't know that "Kim" is a Korean last name. What about other people who don't know that (which I imagine are many)? Should someone have to "figure things out based on third party information?" Shouldn't an encyclopedia state the facts plainly? Further, while "Kim" may be a predominantly Korean last name, it isn't proper to assume knowledge based on that. Are there no Chinese, Japanese, etc, called Kim? It should be stated plainly in the article. Tragic romance 09:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Donations and money

69.19.14.26 and 69.19.14.15 (which are registered to the same source) - I am going remove the statements you've added to "Early life and background" ("wealthy") and "Death" (CNET's donation link), because it feels like personal commentary and POV inclusion. I appreciate your editing to make the CNET statement more accurate, but it's still not entirely true. The address CNET provided was because third parties requested a way to contact the family through cards and other well-wishes, which is certainly not limited to money. Furthermore, what you posted to the talk page (which is no longer here) revealed that the reason you want to include this information is because you believe it's inappropriate and tacky for the family to receive donations, which is up for debate and doesn't belong in an objective encyclopedia article about James Kim. What his family did or did not do after his death has nothing to do with him, and finding ways to insert references to the Kims' supposed wealth is not improving the article. If you disagree, please post it here, but I just wanted to provide an explanation about the deletion. Cue the Strings 00:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's be truthful here. A person's socioeconomic status is most certainly relevant to all aspects of a person's life. Why are you trying to hide the Kim family wealth? Is it because they are shamelessly trying to cash in on his death by holding fundraisers for the public to contribute money?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.82.9.79 (talk • contribs) 05:02, December 14, 2006.

My point is that your approach to editing this article isn't from a neutral POV. It doesn't matter whether I agree with your opinion about the Kims or not - the reason you're putting this information in here is to make a point, which is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm not trying to "hide" the Kim family wealth because I disagree with your opinion, but I don't believe you've made a case for it belonging in the article for any reason other than your own suppositions. Anyway, the largest question is: does info about his socioeconomic status improve this article? Did it play an important role in James Kim's life? Was it immediately relevant to his death? For me, the answer to these questions is no. Unless you can provide a sound reason for including this info other than exposing "truth" to the public (which is what you've written in several of your edit summaries), this info doesn't seem to be pertinent. Cue the Strings 05:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

My reasons for adding content to this article are irrelevant. You obviously are biased and I think you're a member of the Kim family circle of trust. The truth is that the Kim family is very wealthy. Even so, they are embarking on a major fundraising effort to capitalize and monetize the public's sympathy for the death of James. In my opinion, this is a disgusting and despicable act by the family and friends of the Kims. My opinions aside, the socioeconomic status and upbringing are at the core of a person's makeup and identity. The Kim family wealth is pertinent and relevant. It's staying in the article. You're not King of the James Kim Wikipedia article.

I don't have an opinion yet on whether statements about his family's wealth belong in the article, but you seem to be implying (very strongly) that the Kim family is asking for donations for themselves. As far as I've seen, they haven't stated clearly what the money will go to (and yes that is cause for concern). But their site says it may go to the girls' college fund or to reimburse the S+R effort. If that's the case -- and they're not taking the donations for themselves -- then will you recant your opinion as "loudly" as you've stated it? Tragic romance 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to www.jamesandkati.com Here are a few quotes: "We have set up "The James Kim Memorial Fund" through Bank of America. Donations to the paypal account above will be transferred to that account. Checks can be sent to either of the addresses listed below. Make checks payable to "The James Kim Memorial Fund"" and "James and Kati started two stores in San Francisco in the past couple of years. Helping to support these stores is a way that residents of San Francisco can help support the family. Doe is in the lower Haight and Church Street Apothecary is in Noe Valley." Obviously there is an aggressive attempt to solicit money from the general public for the benefit of the Kim family. Has the public been informed that the Kim family is wealthy and doesn't need money? There is a fundraiser being held tonight at The Endup in San Francisco as discussed here: http://sanfrancisco.tribe.net/event/Kim-Family-Benefit-Endup-Thu-1214/san-francisco-ca/45f6db60-8547-4e1e-adf1-da1750bc10f2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.19.14.31 (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

I see nothing remotely aggressive about that. Seems like a standard statement made when people they set up a donation account after a tragedy.--Crossmr 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since your other edit to the same effect has just been removed, I hope it's been made clear by other sources that it's not just me who feels you're trying to push a POV. Status is one personal characteristic out of an endless number, and you're only going to find status/income level in biographies where it's found to be relevant. Please don't just say, "It's pertinent and relevant" - why is it relevant? Because the Kims have a "Make A Donation" button on their webpage? I'm not a member of the "Kim family circle of trust" (I'm not even sure what that means), nor have any particular interest in the family overall, but you're not helping your argument by accusing me of trying to control the article while you refuse to budge on your own edits, while adding personal attacks into your edit summaries. If you can make a case, please do so. Otherwise, it might be best to look at other people's rationales for why your other edits have been removed. Cue the Strings 03:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who hasn't seen it, IP 66.82.9.74 just put this in the article: "...the friends and family (...) attempted to capitalize and monetize the public's sorrow by [asking for donations]."

Thankfully it was promptly removed. Tragic romance 04:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Spam links to a site asking for money are extremely inappropriate and should be removed. Edison 14:36, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Regardless as to whether or not it asks for money, it is THE site that friends and family set up and is appropriate as an external site. Just because a site has a donation link on it doesn't mean its spam.--Crossmr 14:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I maybe missed references and sources confirming that it is THE site family set up or approved. Anybody can claim to be friends of family collecting money for family. Anybody can create web site. Without family officially endorsing the site I would find the site highly suspicious. Crossmr, could you back up what you are saying by citing reliable sources ? Roman 15:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you miss all the initial news reports linking to the site? Here is one [4]. Another [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. I recall reading more, but they're difficult to find in the shear mass of news stories about this now. Since most places linked to it in their early news stories they're not linking to it as much now. Were it some scam you can expect it would have exposed by now. A father who pays for private helicopters to search isn't going to sit quietly by while someone makes a buck of their disappearance. Nor would the media have accepted the statement coming from the website instead of going directly to her for a statement. With the volume of reliable sources linking to it as the site, there is no reason it shouldn't be listed. It doesn't have to be described as taking donations, it was originally descirbed as "ASite created by friends of the Kim family"--Crossmr 15:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is NO confirmation at all on your sources that the family endorses or agrees with site and the donations. I asked for sources on that (read my post again), not for how many web sites list link to the donation site in question. Most of your sources are just putting link to the donations site with no comment at all. They might just see that link somewhere and list it on their sites, just as they all initially picked information that Black Bar Lodge was a mile from Kims' car - which later turned incorrect. Correct me if I am wrong, but first source you listed, CNET, does not link donation site at all, which is strange considering James was their employee and they created numerous tribute articles for him. I also find strange that speculating about what father would or would not do come from you, after seeing all your posts here fighting others to delete/alter their posts because they don't conform to Wikipadia policies regarding reliable sources. And regarding what source would media accept ? ... oh please, don't let me start about that... I can too speculate that father's mind is currently involved with something else than re-wounding himself by being involved in news coverage about his just-deceased son. I also remember news sources (unreliable as they are) also saying that family does not wish to be contacted. So it is strange to see in the same time a site set up by "friends of family" accepting messages and donations for the family. Roman 16:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be confirmation that the family endorsed the site. There is no requirement that all external links about James Kim be endorsed by the family. The media said they don't want to be contacted after that statement was made on the site. The media accepted that as a statement coming from the family. CNET does indeed link to the site. Read the article again, look for this sentence Loved ones have also set up a Web site where the public can receive updates on the Kims and share their thoughts. and notice the underlying hyperlink and from the CNET front page they link to this: [12] which gives a link to the jamesandkati.com website. So yes his place of work does link to it. As well both the site and the CNET site give the same address for the Kim Family.--Crossmr 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

More specifically goto http://www.cnet.com/ and click on the link in the middle of the page entitled "How to help the James Kim family".--Crossmr 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Because of the CNET link you provided above (thanks) - I changed my opinion to neutral regarding listing the donation/support site at this moment. I think it is still possible that family will later distance themselves from the donation site (for reasons listed in this discussion page or elsewhere). So if the link is put on the James' page then I would recommend note next to the link saying that family did not officially endorse the donation site yet. But my recommendation about the note is also neutral, so if the note is not there then I am not going to argue to put it there. Roman 18:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

My objection above was to IP 66.82.9.74's unencyclopedic, accusatory POV writing, not to the external link. That site has been around since before the family was even found. It is run by a close friend of their family who has been involved from the beginning of the search. Tragic romance 16:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, but Edison has now removed the link claiming its spam [13] which is why I was pointing out that it is indeed a proper link because of the amount of reliable sources which link to it.--Crossmr 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The site has been vetted by James Kim's former employer. [Specifically by Jai Singh, editor in chief and senior vice president of the corporaton.] I'll be the first to admit, the site doesn't seem to offer much, but WP:EL "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." I wouldn't go so far as to say it is "the James Kim official site," but it is the only site endorsed by his family as well as by his former employer, so I put the link back up. Tragic romance 18:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Doe, the luxury boutique store owned by Kati Kim, is now soliciting money for the "James Kim Memorial" fund. See for yourself here: http://www2.doe-sf.com/ It doesn't say what the money will be used for. However, Kati herself said this at http://kati.yelp.com: "Someday, I'm going to be a very rich woman with a very large Dwelled-out house. And, when I am, I'm going to buy up plenty of these rugs to adorn the floors of my lavish abode." I believe you Kati. I have no doubt whatsoever.

If you want to write that a memorial fund has been established, I think that's OK. But to say she's SOLICITING is inappropriate here. This article is about James Kim, not the activities of his wife. If you want to describe her activities, perhaps noting it in an article on Kati Kim would be more appropriate. --UCLARodent 21:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

A man's wife is a reflection of himself. Why are you so afraid of the truth?

Sorry to sound confrontational but that seems like a ridiculous argument. And please sign your comments by typing four tildes (this --> ~ ) at the end. Like this: ~ ~ ~ ~ Only without spaces. Thanks Tragic romance 02:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the truth. The issue afoot is relevancy. So what are you saying? If Kati lives another 50 years, should all of her activities be included on this James Kim article? If man and wife are the same, will you also be suggesting to merge the articles of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton? --UCLARodent 22:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

James Kim's wife is apparently attempting to exploit the public's sympathy by soliciting money from the public as a result of her husband's (James Kim) tragic death. There has been no mention of what this money will be used for (other than vague references to college fund for the kids for part of it) and there has been no mention of why the family is in need of money at this time. If you can't see how that's relevant, then you must be dumb as a post. I find it not only relevant but nauseating.

Thanks but no thanks to your suggestions of adding irrevelant social commentary to an objective article. Franky, nobody cares what you or I consider nauseating. Wikipedia is a showcase of facts, not passions. --UCLARodent 23:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The Kim family and friends are exploiting the public's sympathy of James' death for money. That's a fact, not a social commentary. I find it nauseating personally but I didn't insert my personal feelings into the article. You are obviously trying to hide the money grab from this story. Why? The crux of this story is got lost, made a valiant but futile effort to save his family and the his friends and family embarked on a public money raising campaign to take advantage of the sympathy and notoriety. These are facts, not opinions. They all belong in the article. [Unsigned comment]

A friend or family member set up a fund to receive donations. That is the fact. Whether that constitutes "exploiting the public's sympathy" and "a public money raising campaign to take advantage of the sympathy and notoriety," is your interpretation of that fact. Tragic romance 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Editors have long removed links to sites which have some information about an organization but also offer items for sale (books, DVDs, T-shirts) on the ground that they are SPAM. As long as this site asks for money, it is spam. The link should be removed until its organizers stop asking for money. This is a horrible precedent for people to set up fund solicitation websites which might or might not be legitimate on memorial articles for victims of tragedies in every future media circus.Edison 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing here Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided which would indicate this link is not acceptable. Spam is a link which has been added to several pages with little or no real relevance to the articles in question. I also see nothing here which would relate it to spam Spam (electronic). This link is directly related, and its only been added to this single article. --Crossmr 18:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)