Talk:Jamie Hyneman/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Careers

How many of the careers attributed to Jamie on MythBusters are 'tall tales'? Captainmax 06:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody tell me why Jamie's face is flushed so often on Mythbusters? I'm worried that one day he is going to have a stroke right on the show! --Jacqui M Schedler 04:36, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Special Forces?

Neither Jamie's bio at m5industries.com nor his bio at the Mythbusters official fansite list him as a past member of the Special Forces. I believe the sole reference to this comes from an on air comment from Adam Savage. Savage has also mentioned on air that Jamie spent time as a political prisoner, which was quite obviously a joke. --Great Scott 19:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been mentioned multiple times, including by the narrator as a rationalle for him shooting something with a HUUUUUGE gun at something.
Running joke? tregoweth 21:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

It is a running joke. It's an intentionally-made exaggeration of Jamie's skills. Jamie never was Special Forces, but in my opinion, the marksmanship skills he displays are at least on par. Don't take my word for it on the subject of marksmanship, though; I'm just a civillian. Creamy helium 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jamie can't shoot, didya see him with the 44 mag? Justforasecond 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I was speaking of his skill with a rifle. Rifles and handguns transfer their recoil forces to the body very differently. Plus, as anyone even slightly familiar with firearms knows, the Smith & Wesson .44 magnum revolver has a recoil that is difficult for even the most experienced marksman to deal with.

Military.Com's DOD record search does not list any John,James or Jamie Hyneman as having served in the Special Forces.

Blendo

Anyone with a picture of Jamie's (or rather, M5's) Robot Wars robot Blendo? It's significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article.

There's one here: http://www.m5industries.com/images/battlebot-048.jpg 208.58.199.42 23:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The current picture, while a cool moment on MythBusters... is a bad image for this article... you can't even see his face... he is facing the complete opposite direction. Maybe keep this one but lower in the page and have a better, front-on view at the top. Gohst 12:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

There appears to be a decent picture at the M5 industries site in the staff section. Captainstoat 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
If there is a decent picture there that you would wish to use on WP, you'll need to refer to the process for requesting copyright permission. Once you have gone through the process and it's OK'd to place up, you will need to then drop the editprotected template onto this talk page to make the change. Thewinchester (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Just last month, my family and I went to M5 Industries on a whim. Jamie happened to be standing outside, so we took a couple of pictures. I'll try to get one for you guys to use. Would that be okay? Please tell me if it is! 24.180.152.186 16:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes please! If you're prepared to freely license the image, then go knock yourself out. If you're wanting attribution, upload it to Wikimedia Commons under the relevant Creative Commons license. If you need any help with this, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Thewinchester (talk) 22:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I think it was a simple (non-origional) defacement, but yesterday the page said he was gay. I was wondering if he actually is gay, and it might have been removed because someone *thought* it was a defacement. Adam talks about his wife and kids on the show, and Jamie never talks about his personal life. Will 23:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

nevermind, looking at the user that added the gay comment, his history shows that he also changed "hyneman" to "hymen" in the article. *sigh*. Will 23:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't recall where, but I have seen at least one interview where he specifically said he is not gay and has been married for a while to the same woman. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.109.214.15 (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

There's a lot of online banter about him being Gay, probably because a number of guys find him attractive, and that the show is filmed in San Francisco. Saxophobia 01:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[1]"Adam: I'd also like to answer an unasked question here — we're NOT gay! We're both happily married, and we're not even remotely gay. " --85.157.118.96 15:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate

It has come to my attention according to the birth year listed, 1956, and the current year, 2007, Jamie's age would actually be 51, not 50 as listed. DeniabilityPlausible 19:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

He will continue to be 50 yrs old until 25 September 2007, when he turns 51. The template {{Birth date and age}} computes this, not an editor, so it will update when his birthday arrives. --WillMak050389 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for such an oversight. Thanks. DeniabilityPlausible 00:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

alleged death

I see no sources anywhere for this. Either one or more people is heavily trolling this, or the news media is really, really, really slow tonight. I requested RFPP for semi protection here. Is this true? Sources please. - Denny 06:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

He's dead. There's already amateur footage of his death on youtube. [vandalism truncated] R.I.P Jamie Hyneman We will miss your moustache.

I can confirm that his death was announced on TV. 66.109.196.40 03:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
He was killed while testing Blendo, it threw him into the sea and he drowned.
This was just the failed vandalism attempts of a group of misguided 4channers. Jamie is not dead and hopefully the article will not be vandalized to say so in the future. Mr.Hotkeys 06:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
RULES 1 AND 2! Also major vandalism, I'm watching it unfold right now. Daisenji
This is bullshit, and needs to be locked as there is another death edit right now. 70.122.208.181 22:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
He is not dead, and far from it. That's just one of the millions of stupid lies that people put on the internet. Ryan Got something to say? 11:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Legal Name

Is his legal name James Earl Hyneman? Adam has called him James once before. In one episode (I don't remember which) he says "Danger is my middle name", to which Kari replies "I thought it was Earl." I put it on the article and it was deleted, so I'm not sure I'm correct. Winndm31 17:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also does not celebrate Christmas.

During the 2006 Christmas themed Special of Mythbusters, he has said that Christmas "was not his thing" and that he would be working on Dec. 25th. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.117.34 (talk) 03:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Religion

I think it is more than reasonable to state that Hyneman is an atheist. There are plenty of people who are against religion but not necessarily God, granted, but Hyneman said he was "adamant about the whole God thing". Can anyone honestly say that if you heard someone goes to church and prays but did not explicitly say he is a christian, we should conclude the matter is ambiguous? Furthermore if we demand that level of explicitness then we should also remove any reference to him being a skeptic since he never outright says that he is a skeptic, at least based on the transcript at the bottom.

Seriously thought, I've often come across this position before that we should not call someone an atheist unless every possible interpretation, no matter how remote, has been exhausted. I'm not sure if it is because people don't realize that apparently decent people like Jamie Hyneman can be atheists and we shouldn't brand them with a scarlet "A" unless they absolutely bring it upon themselves, or some other explanation. Please note I'm not alleging bigotry on Wryspy individually (who was probably not doing this intentionally) but rather it stems from a general social ambivalence towards agnostics and atheists. Sorry if I got too preachy at the end. Martin-C 10:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect (one hour later) that was way too preachy. Sorry I took it so far with the second paragraph. Still my argument stands in the first paragraph. Martin-C 11:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It's still speculation. If we have a source that says flatly he believes there is no God, we can call him an atheist. If the source says he figures there is probably no God or he doubts whether or not God exists, he's an agnostic. We cannot make statements about what is "likely" and be encyclopedic. He doesn't have to call himself the word atheist for us to use the word, but we would need a quote that 100% clearly fits the definition, and "against the whole God thing" leaves room for interpretation. Let the quote speak for itself. Let readers make their own inferences. And I'd have made the same kind of remarks had you said, "He is likely a cynophobe," after finding a quote that said he's against keeping dogs as pets.

Oh, yeah, and to address your example: If someone said they go to church and pray, I would not leap to the conclusion that the person is Christian. I know people who worship God in a Christian church because that's what is local and yet they flatly said to me that they themselves are not Christian.Wryspy 19:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Very well but my point was that if we adhere to that limited level of interpretation then we cannot say that he is a skeptic even though it is absurdly obvious that he is. In fact, the evidence Hyneman is an atheist is at least as strong as that he is a skeptic considering Jamie Hyneman was the one who brought the subject of god and atheism up in the first place to associate it with skepticism. I don't think we are going to achieve a workable compromise, as I have twice tried to reword the statement to make is more acceptable to others, and both have been rejected. Therefore I respectfully suggest we bring it to an administrator to settle the matter. Please change it once more so it qualifies for the 3 changes each in a 24 hour limit to invoke higher arbitration. Martin-C 05:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
A MythBuster is, by definition, a skeptic. Wryspy 06:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize for running into your commentary. Secondly, I have twice offered reasonable compromises that have been twice rejected and I believe that this issue is being held to a different and higher standard of evidence than most others for reasons I am not quite clear on but do not seem to be fair. Therefore I have chosen to file a request for non-binding mediation as a (hopefully) preliminary step. You may chose to agree to this non-binding resolution within 7 days (if I understand the procedure correctly). If you do not agree then it will go to binding arbitration. I want to make is clear again that I do not believe this is personal but rather the result of a general animosity towards atheism. Please follow this link: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jamie Hyneman As a good faith gesture, I will leave the page unedited until this dispute resolution is concluded. Martin-C 07:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a shred of animosity toward atheism. Believe me, you are SO far off the mark on this one. This is about letting readers make their own inferences. If you'd interpreted "I'm all in support of Democrats" (or Republicans or tree huggers, whatever) as a reason to say he is a Democrat or (much worse because it involves unencyclopedic speculative language) probably a Democrat, that would still be wrong to say. Let the readers make their own inferences. Compromises don't work when they're still wrong. Wryspy 16:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, I will say that there is no stronger reason to think Jamie Hyneman is a skeptic (even though he almost certainly is) but according to your standard for atheism, nothing will count except for Jamie Hyneman actually saying he is a skeptic. Your argument that mythbusters are skeptics is logical and I agree with it, but it is still an inference. I can't find the original file of the interview, but as I recall, Jamie Hyneman was the one who brought up the subject of atheism in the first place, then he noted that he was "pretty adamant about the whole god thing" and he strongly identifies with skeptics and atheists. If anyone can track down another copy of the file, I would appreciate it. Regarding the mediation request, if a friendly debate emerges over the next week than comes to an agreement, I will retract my request for mediation. Until then, I choose to let it stand and I hope others will weigh in with their opinion. Finally I will say again that I did not accuse you of harbouring (Canadian spelling :) animosity towards atheism in particular and I don't think you are prejudiced. Let's keep things friendly. Martin-C 21:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Update. I managed to track down the link to the interview and have repaired it. As it turns out, Jamie says that he was not much of a skeptic before Mythbusters began (though Adam was) but that he was "pretty adamant about the whole God thing". Apparently his atheism introduced him to skepticism. I would encourage anyone to listen to the podcast beginning at 29:00 minutes. Best regards. Martin-C 22:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Then that's the quote the article should have. If he said he wasn't much of a skeptic before Mythbusters began but Adam was, that's a great quote. And then insert the quote that he was "pretty adamant about the whole God thing" instead of burying it in a reference not everyone will see.
But as to "according to your standard for atheism", no, you're still not getting what I said. If he said, "I believe God does not exist," then we can call him an atheist because we then have a quote that meets the definition, just like if we have information that meets the definition of skeptic, we can say that. But "pretty adamant about the whole God thing" could mean something other than atheist. He doesn't have to call himself atheist, but we have to have a better quote that clearly fits the definition before we tell readers what to think. Let them make their own inferences. Wryspy 22:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello again. First of all the mediation request was rejected. I do have the right to invoke binding arbitration at this point but I chose not to do so because I am encouraged by your subsequent modification. I don't want to start another edit war so I will make a suggestion here instead of modifying the main article: Why not simply say that Jamie Hyneman identifies with skeptics and atheists without specifically saying he is one? I will also enlarge the transcript so cover everything. What do you say? Martin-C 00:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That works. It's accurate. It leaves room just in case any part of the quote has been misunderstood, until a more clearcut quote comes along. It's great. See. We never needed arbitration. Wryspy 00:05, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made the changes. I jumped the gun on arbitration and I was wrong to do so. I also made the update to the transcript. Anyway, good to have debated with you Martin-C 00:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)