Talk:James Hydrick

James Hydrick today

Further information about James Hydrick can be found on the California Megan's Law Web Page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.235.209 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 3 September 2006

Excellent find. That is indeed him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk • contribs) As it states on that site, "Extreme care must be taken in the use of information because mistaken identification may occur when relying solely upon name, age and address to identify individuals." This information may or may not be about the subject of this article and requires independent confirmation in a published source. Jokestress 16:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It is him....the man in the photo is the exact same age, height, and has the same tattoos in the same places as James Hydrick. Also, well, the man in the photo looks exactly like James Hydrick. And like Hydrick, the man in the photo is also a pedophile. If it walks like duck, quacks like a duck.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.130.35 (talk • contribs)

That's not how Wikipedia works. Unless we have incontrovertible verification from a reliable published source, we cannot confirm that's the same person. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS for why these policies are in place. Your belief that they are the same person may be true, but Wikipedia policy requires that we have carefully sourced facts to make a claim like that. Jokestress 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yes, that is how it works. That is why the sex offender list is there. That's him, no question. His name is right there, and that is without a doubt his face. If that isn't a reliable source, then nothing is. Get over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.130.35 (talk • contribs)

I don't think you read the two links I listed above. We need the court case, or a newspaper article, or some other reliable source to confirm this. Jokestress 19:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you went to California Megan's Law Web Page. You want confirmation? Go to the site. James Randi, the one who exposed him, also said he was back in jail. His name and picture is there. What more confirmation would one need? You could claim that the newspaper article, court case, etc is speaking of another James Hydrick. See how stupid you sound? Again, that's him, get over it.

Who keeps removing the information about Hydrick being a child molestor? Does he have a relative watching this page or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.157.14 (talk) 09:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed this section again. As I said before, you guys complained when I put it in there, now you are complaining that it isn't there. You can't have it both ways, sorry.~~Justtalk

Technique?

In the show, Hydrick performed his stunt with the mouth covered with host's hand, so how could he use blowing air. Pictureuploader 07:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Reply to the above: He made the air current with his hands. Try it yourself and you will see. James Randi demonstrated this when he exposed him on "That's My Line." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.219.130.35 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 18 January 2007

While the toothpick trick that James Hydrick perfomed was most certainly a trick, he never admitted to the particular feat as being a magician's trick. Unless you can supply a newspaper article that states this, then it should be removed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.197.217.20 (talk • contribs).

"...he never admitted..."

Do facts pertaining to a person need to be accepted by that person to be considered facts? I don't think they do. meinsla ^talk 23:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Same applies to you. Just because you say it's a trick doesn't mean it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I never said it was a trick, re-read my statement. I was only opposing the viewpoint that people must agree with facts about themselves to be considered valid. That's it, I'm not taking a side here. meinsla ^talk 14:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Video available

$24.95 gets you "PSYCHIC CONFESSION—Video" where "Investigative journalist, Dan Korem, not only exposed on camera how each of Hydrick's tricks worked, like moving objects without touching them, but his eighteen month investigation also resulted in obtaining the only known confession of a cult-like figure." See http://www.ifpinc.com/New%20Materials.htm TV programs are notorous for loose controls, letting fakers get away with all sorts of nonsense. AaronWL 22:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken link

(The first link following this article's text is broken and should be removed.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.4.133 (talk • contribs) 05:48, 11 November 2006

Length of time

I presume Hydrick stared at the phone book for ninety seconds not minutes on "That's My Line"... Oogrooq 04:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it was for 90 minutes. The show was edited for time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk • contribs)

Also, article states that Randi performs said trick just after judges say it is not supernatural. I have just watched the video on Youtube, this does not seem to be the case, with the show going to commercial straight after the debunking. Did this element happen after coming back from the break? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.155.54 (talk • contribs)

Yes, it was at the end of the program. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk • contribs)

take a look around youtube, there's another video with James Randi explaining the content that was cut out of the episode. The actual taping of that episode was SO long, the audience was allowed to get up and leave, and come back later SeanBrockest (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation text discussion

Some editors appear to want to include a "where is he now?" section in this biography and include information pertaining to Hydrick's current status as a sex offender. Other editors believe this is a violation of the Biography of Living Persons policy which is strictly applied to any biography due to legal concerns that always arise with Bio pages.

My personal opinion is that this section and the subsequent link to the sex offender roster is immaterial to the notoriety of Hydrick and applies too much undue weight to his legal issues. Since this information is not notable (there are many sex offenders without wikipedia pages) and does not further the stories that make Hydrick notable, then it is simply a ham-handed way of attempting to disgrace the subject of the article: a blatant offense against the WP:BLP policy.

Please discuss this issue here rather than continuing to add and remove the information, especially since removing it as BLP does not count against the revert war rules and yet adding it back does break the rule and may be necessary to report if it's not discussed here and consensus reached. 24.218.222.86 (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hydrick does not have a Wikipedia entry because he is a pedophile; Hydrick has a Wikipedia entry because he was famous and was subsequently exposed as a fraud. The information about Hydrick's arrest and current whereabouts is germane to his biography page in the same way similar allegations, lawsuits, arrests, and convictions have been made against Pete Townshend, Bernie Ward, Gary Glitter, Jeffrey Jones, and Michael Jackson, and are currently included in their respective Wikipedia biography pages. If child-pornography charges (which, I might add, were subsequently dismissed) are included in Pete Townshend's Wikipedia biography, then the same rule should apply to Hydrick's Wikipedia biography. 24.5.199.3 (talk) 07:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Hydrick is not the same degree of famous or notable as all of the examples you mentioned. See WP:NPF. Also, this is for discussion and it's clear we need to make this something the BLP noticeboard can take awareness of since you persist at adding the offending material rather than *only* discuss it first to gain a consensus. 24.218.222.86 (talk) 07:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Aha, I see. My mistake. Onward! 24.5.199.3 (talk) 07:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does the person have to meet a certain degree of fame before something like this can be added? I think the information about his arrest is within BLP guidelines and should stay. meinsla ^talk 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in response to 24.218.222.86, while the article obviously needs to state why the person is notable, not every piece of information in the article has to be necessarily notable itself, it just needs to be relevant to the article (which itself is notable). For example, being married or being a member of a certain religion or serving in the armed forces are just a few things commonly included in biographical articles - should we remove those because they aren't notable themselves? No, because they are relevant to the person in the article. And the same goes for this case. meinsla ^talk 19:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Criminal and fraudster?

By the same definition, so is everyone claiming to have a psychic ability. Perhaps that's a little too strong, it's true, but for the opening perhaps 'self proclaimed psychic' or something along those lines? I think everyone claiming supernatural powers should have 'criminal and fraudster' listed, IMO. :P 122.107.81.122 (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I believe the key difference here is that he actually spent time in jail for a crime and confessed to faking his "powers" to a reporter. Mackensen (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The man's been in prison several times--the most recent instance for going down on a 9 year old girl. I think that qualifies as criminal. Meinsla (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You can't prove that it is him though. ~~Justtalk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.197.217.20 (talk) 16:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I am sure you have visited the link to www.meganslaw.ca.gov web site, as was cited in the article. There's proof right there. I really don't see how this is disputable. Perhaps in your eyes we'd need fingerprint matching, retinal scans, and confirmation of the pH level of his sperm. You James Hydrick fan-boys need deal with reality. Meinsla (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it. I made the same arguments, but was warned and told that we needed a newpaper article. Read the first paragraph at the top of the page. Like I said, you guys griped when I put it there, now you are griping that it isn't there. Make up your minds.~~Justtalk

No, you don't get it. Nowhere does it say we need newspaper article. BLP policy states the content must be cited by a reliable published source. We have that. I don't see how you can dispute this. Now, you could possibly make the argument that this person isn't notable enough to include such information, which is certainly worth discussing, but that isn't the claim you are making. Also, what do you mean make up your mind--I never changed my position on this issue? meinsla ^talk 06:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia says we need a source....your source does not say that it is the same James Hydrick. At least that is what I was told. I was also told that my IP was going to be barred if I kept posting it. Consider yourself warned as well.

I know WP policies and guidelines. Notice I haven't re-added the information. However, my position on this subject still stands. meinsla ^talk 05:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a bit of a stretch to say the James Hydrick on the Californian offender registery website is not the same as the psychic James Hydrick whose sexual offending is documented in news articles from way back. Nevard (talk) 13:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Date of Randi and Hydrick

When was jh on What's My Line?64.53.191.77 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong...

This article says that Hydrick is "convicted molester"... is that grammatically correct? Shouldn't it be: "a convicted molester"? I am gonna, go ahead and edit it... if you disagree, feel free to tell me!--Kingdamian1 (talk) 19:16, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Randi did not debunk Hydrick

While James Hydrick is an unsavory character Randi did not debunk him Randi used his own tricks. I attempted to repeat Randi's getting the pencil move by wafting my hand by the pencil, but it would not move. I had it balanced on a knife's edge and it still did not move. I tried fanning the pencil with my hand and it would not move. I hid a magnet in my hand with the metal end of the pencil sticking, just as Randi had it and the pencil moved exactly as Randi had shown. I wondered why Randi had used the Styrofoam peanuts to "detect" air motion. I pondered it for a second and then realized that the reason why Randi used the Styrofoam peanuts is that they have a very strong static charge. This caused then the pages of the phone book to stick together.

When it says he confessed, all he said that he blew on some prison guards necks to think there was a ghost. He did not confess to faking the psychokinesis. He simply said he made pages turn in the bible to get converts. There was no confession of fakery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.249.246 (talk) 15:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I remember watching the episode of What's My Line. Randi most definitely debunked him. I have easily reproduced both illusions many times myself. When someone shows or explains how a trick is done and it is easily reproducible that is called debunking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.190.183.221 (talk) 10:09, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Incarceration timeline

The article states that Hydrick was convicted of kidnapping and torture in 1977, escaped from prison three times, and the last escape was in 1982. In another spot it says that the TV show where he first demonstrated his supposed psychic abilities aired in December 1980. Was it recorded in 1977 or before and then only aired in 1980? Otherwise I don't understand how he could be on a TV show when he was supposed to be still in prison. In general, it seems that there is something very wrong with the timeline here because it seems that his incarceration on multiple serious offenses coincides with the years when he was also on TV. Sbreheny (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2018 (UTC)