Talk:James Hydrick

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: James Hydrick today

message: $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)
thread_title: Video available

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]] violation text discussion 

message: When was jh on What's My Line?64.53.191.77 (talk) 19:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of Randi and Hydrick 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Correct me if I'm wrong... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Randi did not debunk Hydrick 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incarceration timeline