Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

A Sentence Removed

I removed this sentence, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis." because it is unsourced, and I think it is incorrect.Njaohnt (talk) 00:37, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Check the body for cites per WP:LEDE. Also, please check the talk page archives for prior discussions on this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:43, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean. It is unsourced, and even if it was sourced, no good source would say something like that, only people who hate this guy. If he is contradicted, show me where. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Njaohnt (talk • contribs) 16:03, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see where he was contradicted. He never said that Lucy was a fake, and I'm going to take the sentence back out if you don't show me something soon. I understand the the lead doesn't need sourcing, but the sentence is just an attack on Kent Hovind.Njaohnt (talk) 19:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not an attack, it is a summarized statement of fact. And it will go back in again as you're editing against established consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:11, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Consensus? Who was that with? You and some atheist? Show me where he was contradicted. Njaohnt (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the links I provided you up above for discussion and consensus. Many editors have chimed in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Show me where he was contradicted.Njaohnt (talk) 23:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Read the article. --Onorem (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You have literally already been shown multiple times, Njaohnt. We can only show you where to look. It is up to you to actually read what you have been given.Farsight001 (talk) 03:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Completely shocking article

I've been a Wikipedia user for many years and it's the first time I read such an unprofessional angry article. I learned about Hovind's view today and decided to research him some more and was terrified with this article. It should be posted in an opinions section, not biography and facts. I haven't heard about the imprisonment and the scandal until of course you force fed it to the public. As a scientific researcher I disagree with so many statements and as a linguist (even not a native English-speaker) with the scornful bashing language. I understand your disagreement with his view but representation of the information should be bias. Just because somebody likes Saddam Hussein, it doesn't mean they have a right to post an article praising his achievements and bashing his percussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunnyevj (talk • contribs) 03:46, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced. He is a tax evading pseudoscientist. We don't do fair and balanced here, please read WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

"I haven't heard about the imprisonment and the scandal until of course you force fed it to the public." - What? I'm sorry that this article presents facts. You haven't hear about his imprisonment? Now you have. You're welcome. You should appreciate the help you have received as "a scientific researcher" --Onorem (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Sunnyevj: You hadn't "heard about the imprisonment and the scandal until" Wikipedia "force fed it to the public"???? So, the reporting of an individual's federal tax (and related) crimes, convictions and prison term in an article about that very person is somehow "force feeding" the information to the public? Why would a person interested in Kent Hovind resent receiving information about what is arguably the most significant aspect of his life: the fact that he is serving a long U.S. federal prison sentence for tax crimes?

"Force feeding"???? What in the world are you talking about?

In an article on Richard Nixon, would extensive coverage of the Watergate scandal and Nixon's resignation be considered "force feeding" such information to the public?

Why the apparent reluctance to see truthful, negative information about Kent Hovind in Wikipedia?

Not everyone who reads Wikipedia is interested in "creation science" (whatever it is). I had never even heard of Kent Hovind until I came across his name as part of my study of people engaged in U.S. federal tax crimes. All the "dinosaur" and "creation science" stuff is boring, secondary information for me. For someone else, the interesting part is going to be the creation science stuff. All kinds of people read these articles.

If you have some specific suggestion for exactly what verbiage in the article is problematic, or a specific suggestion for improvement of the article, let's hear it. Famspear (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Isn't it possible that an article can contain information you don't already know, and yet still be accurate and useful? I generally use Wikipedia to look for things I don't already know; for things I already know, I don't bother to look up articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:55, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

United States of America v. Creation Science Evangelism?

Anyone have information about the 2012 case, United States of America v. Creation Science Evangelism? It was mentioned in United States v. Hovind (Amended Order on Motion for Discharge of Liens). — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinBnn (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I see what the case was. United States of America v. Creation Science Evangelism was the government getting Hovind and his "attorney" Paul Hansen (who is not an attorney and is barred by the state supreme court from claiming or practicing law without a license and has been to jail for related thinking) to stop filing false liens on the property the federal government seize when Hovind failed to pay taxes. The court ruled in the government's favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinBnn (talk • contribs) 14:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Scientific Theory?

See WP:NOTFORUM. If you have sourced and a specific change for the article, please present them in a new section.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:46, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The wikipedia article and many other sources define a scientific theory as a "well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation". This article calls the theory of evolution a scientific theory. Can someone explain how evolution has been "repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation"? Has anyone actually observed evolution or confirmed through experimentation (other than micro-evolution, which is intra-species adaptation, which Hovind has clearly said he does not deny)? Macro-evolution (inter-species evolution) is a theory that claims that species have evolved into other species over millions of years; therefore, it has never been observed nor tested repeatedly through experimentation. Under that definition, macro-evolution IS not a scientific theory. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.215.136 (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2014 (UTC) This really belongs at the evolution page, but, umm, yes. Evolution is about as much in question as gravity. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:13, 5 January 2014 (UTC) Well, 'macro-evolution' (which is called Speciation in the scientific community) is when there's just so many 'micro-evolutions' that one community of an animal can't successfully breed with another (along with other factors which aren't brought up in micro/macro arguments). Pairings between Phenacodontidae and a modern horse probably won't work, but we know the Zebra can mate with current living horse species, but they are genetically different enough to only produce sterile offspring. But, I digress - Kent is fond of the Baraminology concept (evidence by "kinds of animal), and so will accept that all horse species evolved from a single horse ancestor which existed around Genesis 1/2. On a lighter note - why are all the critics of this page anonymous users? Don't they know that if they get an account they can watch it for any changes?-- OsirisV (talk) 01:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Needs a New Picture

This article uses his mugshot as a picture. He has been in public giving speeches for many years. Surely a better picture exists that can be used? To use a mug shot would seem to give the article a negative perspective rather than a neutral perspective. In other articles, for example O.J. Simpson and Lindsey Lohan, about people who have been arrested, there aren't mug shots show as the featured picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.160.93 (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, he is pretty notable as a criminal, that said, do you have an option for another free picture we could use? Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that per policy, we must priorities pictures that are free-use, which mug shots always are. Someone taking a picture themselves at one of this speeches and uploading it for us requires their permission - it is not "free-use". Hence we're pretty much stuck with the mug shot. A-list celebrities, obviously have a lot of free-use photos out there. Hovind however, does not.Farsight001 (talk) 11:38, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I like it as-is. ;) JessicaSideways (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

...and no chance of getting any picture other than a mugshot for the next eighteen months! Lol etc _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit

Edit request:

Please add the latest PNJ article that explains Hovind "has been ordered to pay more than $3.3 million in taxes."

http://www.pnj.com/article/20130523/NEWS01/305230028/-Dr-Dino-ordered-pay-taxes-penalties

07:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Interviews with Kent Hovind

Not sure if this would be relevant but there are several online video interviews of Kent Hovind (part one) from Truth Serum Talk Radio Show where he talks about his beliefs.

According to the host, Kent Hovind told her that he cannot not know she is recording the call. Several of us who have been following Hovind's case are curious to know if this is because it is against prison rules as she plans to more interviews with him.Cms13ca (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What specific points do you think should be added to the article?--Adam in MO Talk 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hovind has repeatedly declined written debates where his claims would be scrutinized by scientists, for example, when offered by Dave Thomas[82] and Carl Marychurch.[83]

I, Carl Marychurch, am not a scientist nor have I ever challenged Hovind to a written debate. Even the citation referenced does not make any such claim (because I wrote the original source material). Please make the necessary corrections.

1.123.157.39 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

False Statements

Hovind has repeatedly declined written debates where his claims would be scrutinized by scientists, for example, when offered by Dave Thomas[82] and Carl Marychurch.[83]

I, Carl Marychurch, am not a scientist nor have I ever challenged Hovind to a written debate. Even the citation referenced does not make any such claim (because I wrote the original source material). Please make the necessary corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.123.157.39 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that text. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible new legal challenges

It would appear that he's suing RationalWiki (that snarky wiki which is opposed to Young Earth Creationism and 'woo') for calling him a tax fraudster. Any chance he's coming for Wikipedia, next? His son's fans certainly don't like our article.-- OsirisV (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Any talk of legal issues regarding WP need to go through the legal department. --69.179.144.203 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RationalWiki is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikimedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I was concerned that they would be making a sweep across websites in general that refer to him as a tax fraudster, with the unrelated wiki being only one.-- OsirisV (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't comment on the RationalWiki article at this time. However, the Wikipedia article is in good shape. It does not refer to Hovind as a "tax fraudster" or as having committed "tax fraud." Those terms, or variations thereof, do appear in three footnotes -- but only as part of the names of the source articles, and those characterizations are only those of the source articles. The main text of the Wikipedia article accurately describes exactly what Hovind was charged with and convicted of. There's nothing that Hovind can do about that; under American law, if a statement is true, then generally that statement cannot be defamation (libel or slander).

Now, for a digression: Again, without commenting on the RationalWiki article, I have to say that as an attorney and a former broadcast news reporter myself, I am concerned with the way that reporters often use terms like "tax evasion" and "tax fraud" in a sloppy way. Not every tax-related conviction is a conviction for "tax evasion" or "tax fraud." For example, a conviction for failure to pay U.S. federal income tax (a misdemeanor), or for failure to file a U.S. federal income tax return (a misdemeanor), is not a conviction for tax evasion (a felony). Period. Famspear (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Correction: The article does state: "Hovind stated that he did not recognize the government's right to try him on tax-fraud charges..." That statement is documented by a footnote citation to one of the three sources I mentioned earlier. The source clearly uses the term "tax-fraud." It's unclear whether the source instigated the use of that term or, alternatively, whether Hovind himself used that term at some point and the reporter was simply reporting what Hovind said. Famspear (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

In the "Creation Science Evangelism and Creation Today" section, the sentence has a grammatical problem ("for taxes owned filed by Hovind"). It should be "for taxes owed by Hovind."— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWakefore (talk • contribs) 04:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, it turns out Kent is starting a trend of suing anyone for anything, given that he's now suing a prison warden.-- 194.81.33.17 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources are found describing this, then it should be included in the article. Right now it has only been reported by blogs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

It is clear that the intent of this article is to disparage Kent Hovind in every manner possible. There exists no neutrality on any level whatsoever, and every point is made without any countering perspective cited. In the very first paragraph:

"Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis."

You are making a broad sweeping assumption here. Are all of Hovind's views contradicted by science? How can that be? If it were so, wouldn't evolution be a law and not a theory? There are plenty of areas in which science is left scratching its head in the evolution vs. creation debate.

And other places:

"Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done."

Including this quote in an encyclopedic entry is sophomoric, and argumentative. It is also clear that again, Mr. Hovind's character is being called into question. I'm sure that Mr. Hovind is not the PhD to adopt this practice. And I am sure that you could find other quotes from individuals on par with Professor Bartelt to offer a countering perspective.

"Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[11][12] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month.[13] "

Is this an entry on Hovind or Patriot Bible University? You are using your platform to now disparage Hovind's place of education. This editorializing has no place in an empirical environment.

"Bartelt has stated that Hovind's doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science.[9] She noted that Hovind's dissertation is incomplete (it contains four chapters totaling 101 pages, but Hovind's introduction claims the work is 250 pages with 16 chapters), of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.[9]"

It seems you have found a fellow ideological opponent in Professor Bartelt. Is there no other "expert" on this matter? Is her opinion the final say on Hovind's pedigree, education, and intellect? Again, this smacks of a hit piece on Hovind in every way, and is extremely childish.

"A 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article explored visiting Hovind's dinosaur theme park and concluded that the park is "deceptive on many levels".[39] The Southern Poverty Law Center noted the park also "claims that a few small dinosaurs still roam the planet."[40] George Allan Alderman wrote it was "essentially a playground with a few exhibits, several fiberglass dinosaurs, a climbing wall, and a couple of buildings."[41] He said it can be "summed [up] in a word: shabby. The dinosaurs looked shabby, the displays were shabby, the attractions and activities were shabby, and above all the ideas were shabby."[41]"

Once again, the clear attempt is to disparage Hovind. These opinions may be valid to include, but there is never any counter perspective offered anywhere in the entire article.

The entire section titled "Responses" under "Hovind's $250,000 Offer" is biased and opinionated. Only criticism is offered, no countering perspective whatsoever. "Scientists" are cited as having the final say on every matter, and no supporting position is ever cited. The following quote even uses the convenience of the topic to editorialize on evolution "Also, unlike Hovind, scientists in the field of evolutionary biology do not distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution as distinct processes, instead contending that evolution takes place as microevolution, and that macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.[74]"

"Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous: his FAQ states that claimants must "prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."[71]"

Again - unnamed "critics" have the final and authoritative say on subjects pertaining to Hovind. Never any counter argument is offered. You pose your editorialization as a paraphrased quote from your unnamed "critics". Very sophomoric and petty. The entire piece is designed as a character assasination, and not a encyclopedic entry on Kent Hovind.

It is humorous that you have entitled a section "Criticism" when there is never any other perspective offered in the entire piece.

The rest of the entire article follows the same modus operandi over and over again - Hovind is a lunatic fringe nutjob with no credibility or support anywhere. This piece is a disgrace, and would be more appropriately placed as a cover story in an anti-creationism magazine or newsletter.

Bcm924 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)bcm924

We go by sources here. What reliable secondary sources do you have to back up a change to the article? It also may be worth looking at Objections to evolution and Evolution as theory and fact.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I second Jess. There is also due weight to consider.Mophedd (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I third Jess's points. The material is sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." (emphasis mine). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are of course the issues of WP:Undue and WP:Fringe. However I do agree with this user, and believe they have pointed out some areas where the article could use some improvement, specifically with sourcing.

"Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[11][12]

Instead of unnamed critics, it should be more specific. Also there may be issues with the second citation from York Dispatch. I do not know if it is a reliable source or not, and the article is no longer available.

The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month.[13] "

This section I removed. The current policies of the school are irrelevant. The article and the source it uses has to discuss Hovind in some way.

"Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous: his FAQ states that claimants must "prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."[71]"

This section I rephrased. I added the name of the critic and reorganized it. I added tags for "who" and "cn".

"Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done."

I removed this entirely. It's completely trivial and does not even warrant being included in a Wikipedia article. This was later reverted by user MannJess.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

this series of edits identifies some areas where the article can certainly be improved, but it doesn't move the article in a positive direction. I've tried making some changes to those areas you've identified, Harizotoh. For instance, you removed a bunch of content on the claim it was unsourced or poorly sourced. In some cases, the content was sourced (to earlier or later sources in the paragraph); in others, it could have been sourced with a quick search. I've added sources to those areas. You changed some attribution, but in some cases we should just be removing attribution altogether, not honing it. You reintroduced creationtoday in the ELs, but that's already discussed and linked in the body, and you removed the ncse link, which seems appropriate at a glance. We shouldn't be attributing conspiracy theories in the body with "Hovind has stated", and so forth... "claimed" is more appropriate, given the lack of support for his claims in the academic community. I think that's everything. Hopefully the new version works for everyone.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources:

Sources can be improved in some areas.

Also, unlike Hovind, scientists in the field of evolutionary biology do not distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution as distinct processes, instead contending that evolution takes place as microevolution, and that macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.

Source used: About.com

Not a reliable source. I removed it. Additionally it's too off topic. The sources need to discuss Hovind and his views, not creationism in general. Reading some of the posts on WP:RSN about About.com seem to say it's not a RS.

While Kent Hovind is in prison, Eric has continued operating CSE and has received criticism for errors in his claims. Biologist PZ Myers criticized Eric and CSE employee Jonathon Sampson for their comments on cephalopods, writing "We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution" and "they lack the intelligence to grasp it." In his criticism, Myers criticized Hovind for failing to look up the evolutionary scholarship on cephalopods and linked to his blog article on cephalopod evolution.

Source used: Pharyngula. Personal blog. Not reliable. I removed it, but it was re-inserted.

In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments" and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".

Sources: AIG, OC Weekly

OC Weekly I'm not sure about. It has been suggested on WP:RSN that it is an alternative newspaper, which means it would likely not pass as a RS.

Other sources:

• Alberta: Evangelist says dinosaurs existed in God's world," The Guardian (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island), December 2, 2000

There does not appear to be an online version of this source. Would like to review it to see exactly what it says. Also, it appears to be a small local newspaper. Is it a RS?

• "Creationist speaker 'loose about the facts'". York Dispatch. March 13, 2006. Retrieved 2010-06-24.

Link is dead. Also can't find a copy of it on the way back machine. Need to review the source to see what it says, and whether it is being used properly, also not sure if it is reliable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

About.com is not reliable. Pharyngula is, for some content. See WP:SPS; PZ Meyers is an expert in the area of biology. That OC Weekly is "alternative" seems irrelevant to whether it can source this very timid claim, but if you can find another source which discusses AiG's stance, feel free to replace it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to revert lede: Just creationist or creationist and conspiracy theorist?

Going through the history of this page, the lede (the article's first sentence) has been changed, but not discussed on this talk.

I propose we return the lede to mention that Hovind is a conspiracy theorist and a creationist, not just a creationist. A large part of his creationist seminars include conspiracy theories to support his views. There are a large number of examples of this, but one notable claim is that the New World Order is behind evolution, which appears in Hovind's The Dangers of Evolution video and in Hovind's 25 page diatribe about the New World Order and evolution.

More than that, many of his non-creation videos are built around a range of conspiracies. For example, his videos The Bible And Health is about a cancer conspiracy or Redeeming The Straw Man is about an weird anti-tax conspiracy. His website featured claims that the US government created AIDS and the New World Order is even featured in his nonsensical view of the Great Pyramid ("Satan has been using the great pyramid as his symbol for the New World Order").

Conspiracies are prominent in his creationist and non-creation videos, and wikipedia rightfully discusses Hovind's claims because many secondary sources reported them. Examples: [6][7][8][9]

Therefore, I propose we change the current lede sentence to what it was previously:

Current: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth creationist.

Previous/proposed change to: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist.

It is more accurate to describe Hovind as a creationist and a conspiracy theorist as he propagated not only creationism, but a variety of conspiracies in his videos and on his website. Not all creationists believe in the New World Order or that the government created AIDS, and not all New World Order believers think that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. RobinBnn (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - sources support this reversion/change. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - because the proposal is well sourced. JessicaSideways (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support - Yup, makes sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I made the change. As a note, however, the secondary sources listed above aren't great for this. They give examples of conspiracy theories Hovind has discussed, but they do not call him a conspiracy theorist generally. There is some discussion in the article of this issue (I'm not sure how much). I trust that proper sources are in there somewhere. If they aren't, we need to improve them. This will undoubtedly be challenged quickly and often.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

More conspiracies

Some more conspiracies, in Hovind's own words on his website:

• Hovind claims global warming and "most of the environmental hype is really to help bring about Karl Marx’s dream (nightmare) of a Communist world. . . . I believe the real agenda is Communism, not saving the planet." (In Hovind's Seminar Part 5)
• Hovind claims the Great Pyramid is Christian not ancient Egyptian. (Video)
• Hovind believes the Bermuda triangle myth.
• Hovind believes the bigfoot myth and it "may be an unidentified species of ape."
• Hovind spreads the claim that some UFOs "are Satanic apparitions"
• Hovind says that "It would not surprise me if 'big brother' was" making technology to allow "your television to watch you"
• Hovind says "Microchips may play an important part in the mark of the beast" and "four people have called me from Arkansas and Missouri to report seeing customers at the grocery store pay for purchases by scanning their hand."
• Hovind claims that you don't have to pay taxes or contribute to Social Security because the government capitalizes names. He says: "Actually, no real person has a social security number. Notice on your SS card that your name is spelled with all capital letters. This designates the STRAW MAN business, trust or corporation not a person as we discussed earlier."
• Hovind says you don't have to pay taxes because "None of the taxes or forms apply to an individual's earnings" and "I sincerely believe that I am not a person required to file a Federal Income Tax Return."
• Hovind on citizenship: He is not a citizen of the "United States of America," but "I am a citizen of the united States not any of the others above. Claiming to be a citizen of one of the others may cause someone to assume authority over you that they would not otherwise have."
• Hovind on state taxes: "All state income taxes that I am aware of are based on you federal income tax. If you don't owe any federal tax you don't owe any state income tax either."

There are many more and in his videos. RobinBnn (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

While the man is very in to conspiracy theories; pseudoscience and cryptozoology, I think we should stay clear of a Time Cube-style comprehensive database on everything he's said. It's quite clear in his biology videos that he has no idea what some of these words are. The controversial YouTuber, 'Thunderf00t' made a video where he counts every time Kent makes claims such as procreation being when the DNA of both parents is separated into "half-ladders" and re-attached to each other, and that an entire human being can be cloned from a single chromosome (and then stuff where he confuses atoms; molecules and cells). It might be best to pick out things he has said repeatedly, like when he falsely described the circumstances of Lucy's discovery up to at least two years after being told he was incorrect by one of her discoverers. For people who thought "tl;dr" to that - use what can be understood as his 'arguments', rather than the cliche ravings of a lunatic..-- OsirisV (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply we should list every conspiracy he believes in the article or even mention "everything" he said about them. I was just listing some more conspiracies directly from his mouth, which might be relevant to the discussion above. RobinBnn (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Article should not be a list of every stupid thing he's said on his site. Secondary sources should dictate which views are notable enough to discuss. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede re-write

Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

I think this needs re-wording. "Contradicted by scientific evidence" is too blunt and non-neutral. It's also simply poorly worded, as has been pointed out above. "Views" is simply too broad, as it technically means all of his views, and of course he has to be right about some things. Now for comparison here is a similar section from the article on Flood Geology that I believe is better written:

Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy, and the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience.

I think this article should follow wording similar to this. Also it needs citations. I'm a big proponent that ledes should include citations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 'contradicted by scientific evidence' is just fine. I don't think we need cites in the lede as long as we have them in the body. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's making a bold statement about the ultimate truth of reality rather than a more tentative statement referencing verifiable reliable sources. I can't say in some ultimate sense that Hovind is wrong, but it can be very verifiability said that Hovind's views are a fringe, minority opinion that is rejected by the vast scientific consensus. It is also, as I said poorly phrased. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Evolution by natural selection is in about as much question as gravity. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is about verifying, and summarizing the views of experts and academia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Find me an expert who questions evolution. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about writing what is objectively true, especially in some ultimate sense. Wikipedia is about summarizing current scholarly opinion. The difference is subtle, but key. Which means that when discussing fringe theory supporters, the phrasing used is not "they are wrong" but that their views are not held by the vast majority of academics. Which is why I believe the phrasing should follow more like the wording used in the Flood Geology article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You say it is irrelevant, yet, you said we should summarize the views of experts. Experts don't question evolution. The Flood Geology page is irrelevant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia policies. Also I'm citing the Flood Geology page because it is an article on a similar topic, but is also significantly better written. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 is correct in every sense. It is clear that your firmly held personal opinion is dictating the direction of the article. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Who you consider an "expert" could easily differ from who others consider an expert to be. It's an arbitrary designation attributed by people to other people based on their knowledge and work as perceived by individuals. I can cite people I consider "experts" who firmly believe in creationism. Dr. Jason Lisle is one of the most brilliant mathematicians and astrophysicists on Earth; certainly an "expert" in my view, as well as many others; and his conclusions have been drawn to creationism. There are many more like him as well. However, that is only my opinion that they are experts. The article basically makes the claim that a belief in evolution, and an atheistic worldview is the determining factor of what makes a scientist or "expert" credible; and conversely, that one who holds a differing perspective cannot be an expert or a credible source, due to that belief. It seems apparent that your definition of a credible source or reliable expert is only someone who holds your own personal beliefs. The article begins to take shape as not a bio and encyclopedic entry on Hovind, but a hit piece on his beliefs. I think a truly objective party would most likely come to the same conclusion. I am not asking that a flowery piece on Hovind be concocted. Certainly he is a convicted criminal that holds controversial beliefs, and has been involved in things that have been suspect. These are elements that should be included in the piece. However, it reads such that at every turn, his beliefs, worldview, and academic credibility are being relentlessly attacked, calling the neutrality of the article into serious question. The web community deserves a neutral entry, as they are more than capable of determining their own conclusions as to the validity or lack thereof of Hovind's claims, perspective, and pedigree. Bcm924 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me add, WP's guidelines summarily support my contention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone -

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." (emphasis mine)

Bcm924 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bcm924 The language in this article can at times become POV. By saying "he is contradicted by the evidence" that is adopting a POV. In addition to NPOV however, there are two other major policies that are relevant to this article:

• WP:Fringe
• WP:UNDUE

Hovind is someone who holds fringe viewpoints on a lot of issues. And we must not give undue weight to him or his supporters. So this article has to do a better job of balancing between the various WP policies. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of adopting POVs, there is no difference between "contradicted by scientific evidence" and "contradicted by the scientific consensus on...." The former simply summarizes the latter without the need for a long list of disciplines. Neutrality means representing what our sources indicate, and our sources very clearly indicate that Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence, and by scientific consensus, and so on. Since Hovind has such a large set of varied views, listing everything they contradict would be tedious, and is a task best suited for the article body, where each view can be discussed in depth.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

External links

Myself and others have massively trimmed the external links. However I believe these two should also be removed per WP:ELRC since they were used as citations in the article.

• Unmasking the False Prophet of Creationism by Barbara Forrest. September 1999.
• Kent Hovind FAQs from talk.origins

Also, shouldn't creationtoday.org be added as it is the official site of his ministry? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No because Kent has made clear that creationtoday.org is Eric's ministry and he doesn't have a connection to it. Hovind, if you read his blog or listen to the recent interviews, says that he doesn't want to be involved with it and he might even not move back to Pensacola when he's released. He's planning on start a school or creation camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWakefore (talk • contribs) 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If he's not affiliated with the site, then Peter is correct that we shouldn't link to it. Harizotoh, you're correct that we shouldn't link to anything we've used as references in the ELs. However, I reverted the addition of links to archive.org for Hovind's old sites. I don't see how those are an improvement; the sites are dead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

From my talk page

<Related to my removal of the phrase with numerous words "shabby" Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)>

Before tossing out terms like "slander", please be certain you know what they actually mean. Defamation might help in this case. Specifically, opining the exhibit and ideas were shabby is not slander. There may be other reasons to remove the quote but defamation/slander isn't one of them. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care. But disparaging remarks, even if cited, are hardly encyclopedic content.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Criticism of a fringe viewpoint certainly is. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

it was not criticism of a fringe vpoint, it was criticism of workmanship or design skills. And it was not criticism, it was just disparaging remarks. In the case I lack Englsh again, let me clarify: criticism involves arguments (which may be contested by other arguments). Whereas the only kind of argument against "dinosaurs looked shabby" may be "your eyes were shabby (and your mama too)". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it wasn't only that. The full quote: "summed [up] in a word: shabby. The dinosaurs looked shabby, the displays were shabby, the attractions and activities were shabby, and above all the ideas were shabby." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If you suggest "shabby" is a valid criticsm, then I say it is a shabby criticism not worthy of wikipedia. You did not comment on the second, more important part of my previous reply. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Why would you assume that and above all the ideas were shabby is a "criticism" of a fringe vpoint? I say it is a criticism of the design of the theme park. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with the quote, and Hovind's ideas, his crazy out there not supported by any science ideas, are indeed shabby. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Kent Hovind/archive1

I have opened a peer review to get some outside input. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It'll have to wait until the edit-warring (over a ridiculously insignificant paragraph, I might add) stops. Jinkinson talk to me 00:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

More YouTube stuff

The false DMCAs go further, multiple channels experienced them, including ExtantDodo. Though I don't know of any reliable secondary sources. It is referred to here, as well as other videos.Halfhat (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't he already make it very clear that his work is entirely in the public domain (which he described as being uncopyrighted)?-- OsirisV (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, his son later on changed that. So because of that the whole DMCA thing started to happen. Of course this was only against his detractors, as channels that just had his videos up did not get false dmcaed. Of course in the end they had no leg to stand upon as it was fair use. Also yeah there are not any reliable secondary sources on it. NathanWubs (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind in trouble, moved from federal prison to county jail

Kent Hovind is in trouble. The federal prison handbook tells prisoners "you may not give to or receive anything from another inmate" ( Handbook). However, Hovind bragged on his blog about passing bookmarks with literature out to others in the prison (Summer 2014 Update). His son and official blog says he was moved from the prison to Elmore County Jail because he broke the rules (See post). Today, Eric Hovind wrote: "I was able to spend about an hour and a half with my Dad at the Elmore County Jail on Monday. . . . After spending 21 days in county jail Kent has now been transferred to Atlanta, GA" (See post). This update should be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredrii8th (talk • contribs) 19:29, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

So, basically, way too much Wikispace extended to a liar, cheat, & convicted felon, who hopes you'll ignore his legal indiscretions & just prattle on about his creationist opinions & the remotely affiliated "Flood Geology." BubbleDine (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Removing sourced content without gaining consensus on talk is not in keeping with policy. Repeated removal of the same content when it has been replaced by other editors is edit warring. This is against policy. The content being removed is sourced and the source is directly referring to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think its as much edit warring as a person with a single purpose account trying to push their Kent Hovind Pro pov in. NathanWubs (talk)

Repeated removal of the same content is by definition EW regardless of spa or pov pushing also. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. How do I gain consensus if I want? Thank you. SamuelN77 (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose your changes here, get feedback from other editors, and work towards consensus. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SamuelN77, are you affiliated with User:Logandown? They were doing the edit-warring, not you. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 02:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you User talk:NeilN! And thank you Ebyabe, I am not affiliated with anyone. Relieved to know this was not about me. SamuelN77 (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Contempt Order (2014)

I am having trouble finding an official source for this, Kent has been cited for cause to initiate criminal contempt of willfully violating an injunction. Kent is required to appear before the Court at 8:00 a.m., on September 8, 2014, to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt of Court, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 401(3) and Fed. R. Crim. P. 42(a). --Cms13ca (talk) 18:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I checked PACER, the official on-line U.S. federal court computer system. On July 8, 2014, a Notice of Criminal Contempt Proceedings and Show Cause Order was issued by M. Casey Rodgers, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola. The Order has been docketed by the Clerk of the Court and the case number 3:14-mc-00053-MCT-EMT has been assigned.

The Order states that in an earlier case -- known as United States v. Creation Science Evangelism, Case No. 3:12cv136-MCR/EMT, in the U.S. District Court -- a permanent injunction was issued on June 27, 2012, against Creation Science Evangelism among others, including “their representatives or agents,” permanently enjoining them (prohibiting them) from seeking to file or to create a lien on certain properties without first obtaining permission in the form of a Court order. The allegation is that in violation of that order, Kent Hovind filed what is known as a lis pendens on properties that had been legally forfeited to the Government -- properties that were subject to the Court’s permanent injunction order.

A jury trial is set for September 8. Famspear (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and the citation would be something like this: Notice of Criminal Contempt Proceedings and Show Cause Order, July 8, 2014, In re Kent E. Hovind, docket entry 1, case no. 3:14-mc-00053-MCT-EMT, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.). Famspear (talk) 22:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Trial has been postponed to November 3, 2014. Hovind is apparently at the Santa Rosa County Jail in Florida. Famspear (talk) 04:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The trial has been called off as Hovind will now be tried with Paul Hansen. They are accused of defrauding the United States.Cms13ca (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I added some detail on the new charges. In an indictment on October 21, 2014, Hovind is charged with two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and one count of criminal contempt. In the same indictment, Paul John Hansen is charged with two counts of mail fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and two counts of criminal contempt. Famspear (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Indictment in 2014

Does someone have a copy of the new indictment or the criminal contempt documents they can upload PDFs to wikimedia or the text to wikisource? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kess311n (talk • contribs) 17:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Opinion blog from creationist added. Remove it?

I see that a blog post from Peter Reilly has been added. I think it should be removed because it is not a WP:RS and hurts the quality of the wiki article.

1) Peter Reilly is a Forbes blog "contributor," not to be confused with staff. That is, he is part of the Forbes blogging network, which is not the same as being published in the Forbes magazine. Thus, it is not a WP:RS.

2) The blog is an op-ed, sympathetic to Hovind. Reilly even manages to connect Wesley Snipes' case to Hovind. Reilly wants Hovind released and was "saddened" to hear that the government is "piling on" with new charges.

3) The blog's actual text is merely recycled block quotes from wikisource, facebook and court rulings that are openly available with a google search anyway. To put it another way, the facts aren't original and were reported elsewhere.

4) His "tax" blog also promotes creationism. Rarely would a RS or newspaper article about criminal charges have a section titled "Some Thoughts On Young Earth Creationism," where tells us about "taking my sister home from Christmas Midnight Mass."

The Forbes' contributor posts should be removed and avoided in the future. They add nothing of merit to the article, and only give a platform to a blogger with a pro-Hovind bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kess311n (talk • contribs) 15:43, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Hovind's 2006 trial transcript available online

Hovind's trial transcipt from 2006 is available online.--Cms13ca (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

More transcripts from Hovind's trial.--Cms13ca (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that shows (as if it wasn't evident already) the evidence against him was pretty overwhelming. Meanwhile Eric Hovind is quietly editing the Kent Hovind tapes, removing all his father's tax refusals and anti-government conspiracies. Someone should take note of this as it seems a new group of Hovind supporters, who don't know his past statements, are rushing to defend him with limited knowledge about the man's long anti-tax history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattpeoo (talk • contribs) 16:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not rushing to defend him. I don't know anything about him but wasn't his country established on the ethos of no taxation without representation>

Weatherlawyer (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The "no taxation without representation" is an elementary school summation of history. For the record, there is representation. Ever heard of the United States Congress, for example? It as well as police, roads, courts and fire departments are paid for with taxes. While Hovind failed to pay income taxes for 30 years, that wasn't what he was convicted of. In 2006, he was found guilty by a federal jury of his peers for willful failure to withhold employee tax, structuring and obstructing government administration. Ronneyy (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he was found guilty of willful failure to withhold and pay the taxes, but editor Ronneyy is essentially correct. Famspear (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And, the "failure to pay" for which Hovind was convicted was the failure to pay the withholding taxes, not his own personal income taxes (although some of the taxes he should have both withheld and paid might very well have been withholdings for his own income taxes).

I did make a correction to the article on criminal tax terminology. The news media (of which I am a former member) has a bad tendency to refer to any federal tax conviction as a federal "tax evasion" conviction. That's erroneous. Federal tax evasion is a specific kind of tax crime. Hovind was not charged with that. A tax criminal may have the intent to evade federal taxes and in connection therewith may willfully refuse, fail or neglect to withhold and pay those taxes -- but all that by itself simply will not support a conviction for tax evasion. Federal tax evasion (26 USC 7201) also requires a specific affirmative act -- not a mere failure to do something you're legally required to do (as Hovind was required to do). Mere intent to evade is not enough for a tax evasion conviction. So, while Hovind's tax convictions were very serious, it could have been even worse for him had the government charged and proved tax evasion. Famspear (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I feel the continued revisions on edits to people trying to make this article unbiased are open vandalism. Someone has an agenda against Hovind. Rather than turn that into a "conspiracy", lets just say that this is a living person and people are using a Wikipedia biography to defame him. That's not acceptable. Hovind has pending court cases, likely a great deal of ligation and a growing base of support that believes he is a victim. Regardless of how those people feel on his teachings, a basic decency is needed here.

I have tried to be unbiased in edits and simple clean up the very biased statements that are turning this page into an attack. I'm not an expert editor here. Maybe someone with more experience can help get this thing on track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrilqstman (talk • contribs) 08:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEDE requires that the lead summarize the key topics of the article, especially with respect to what makes the subject notable. That's all about his WP:FRINGE theories and how they are contrary to mainstream science, and how he's got legal troubles. WP:BIAS is very clear that the article must take the position that reliable sources have. They are strongly one-sided, so the article here must be also (in this case, 50/50 would be a strong bias against reliable source!). These issues have all been hashed and rehashed dozens of times over many years here, and they always seem to lose on those and other policy and guideline basis. You'll need to find some new point to raise after reading those discussions if you want to make any headway. See also WP:VANDALISM to make sure you aren't mis-using words with technical meaning for emotional impact. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You should also read WP:V, WP:RS and what is defamation, a term which you've used incorrectly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You can cite all the pages you want. Anyone who reads the current edits and says they are not unfairly biased is openly taking part in this smear job of Mr. Hovind. Don't try and get me with technical meaning and rule books. It's a bottomless pit and if you mean to debate the facts of integrity I don't have time for it here. What's happening on this article is wrong. Simple as that. If you want to support WP being a platform to smear political opponents, that's on you. We need to stop making excuses and get the get the article corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrilqstman (talk • contribs) 17:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

"Don't follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Wikipedia" is not a convincing argument. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

OK I'm starting to see how this works. Those that are more experienced here use their knowledge of the rules and pages to intimidate and get users in trouble so they can get their agenda accepted. I guess I had hoped for better from WP. The bottom line is this. If you research Hovind and the look at what's being written about him him it's clearly an unethical article. This is integrity 101 and all the WP buzz phrases won't change that. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrilqstman (talk • contribs) 13:58, March 31, 2015‎

There has been no misconduct here, if you believe there has been there are remedies such as WP:ANI but, trust me, there has been no misconduct here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this really Neutral???

I think this article on Kent Hovind is more of a personal attack by someone who disagrees with his beliefs than an unbiased account of him. Is it really fair to portray him as a criminal and a fool, when he provides scientific evidence for everything that he says, and many people believe his charges were bogus? I think this article needs to be reviewed for a serious bias. Someone is trying to just knock his reputation in my opinion. Mathman314159 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for coming to the talk page. On wikipedia, we go by what the sources say, exclusively. Is there a part of the article you believe is poorly sourced? Or, do you have another source to back up the addition of new content? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

What Jess said is right - here we go by the sources - specifically reputable sources - say. See WP:RS If they are weighted against, so must the article. If the bulk of them say the sky is brown, we MUST report that the sky is brown, even though we can look outside for ourselves and see blue.

Also, as a man with a degree in geology (which is the jack of all trades of the sciences - we have to understand biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) who has viewed nearly all of his videos, I can say rather confidently that he provides exactly zero scientific evidence. To be blunt, I'm doubtful that he even understands what does and does not qualify as scientific evidence.Farsight001 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mathman314159: At the expense of stating what should be obvious, Kent Hovind IS a criminal. He's in Federal prison, and has been for many years. He was found guilty by a jury. The evidence against him was overwhelming. He knew exactly what he was doing. Famspear (talk)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "knock his reputation." His reputation is that of a convicted criminal, which is what he is.

In my view, the article does need work on Neutral Point of View, but I am in the minority on that point, probably. The article spends too much time on the creationism versus science stuff, and that's where the neutrality (notice that I said "neutrality," not "bias") in the article is relevant. Famspear (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And, editor Farsight001 has hit on a good point. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) does not mean giving equal weight to every point of view. Rather, NPOV means presenting each significant point of view with a weight in relation to what reliable, previously published third party sources have provided. Example: In an article on The Moon, if the overwhelming bulk of the reliable sources say that The Moon is made of moon dust, we do not give equal weight to a few other people who might claim that The Moon is made of green cheese. NPOV does not mean straining to give equal weight to all points of view in an attempt to be "unbiased." In Wikipedia, we as editors have to edit articles with all this in mind. We do not give equal weight to Green Cheese arguments. Famspear (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is fair to portray him as a criminal since we have verifiable sources showing he was convicted of a criminal offence. It is not fair to portray him as a fool, because that is not possible to verify. I do agree however that the criminal conviction section is too long. It contains a lot of detail about the various institutions he was housed at and minutiae of his legal proceedings that do not seem to be encyclopedic. That section should be pared down to just the basics of his trial and incarceration. Ashmoo (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

..........Hmmm. I have a quite different perspective. I sense that the legal troubles section is about right, and that there is wayyyyyyy too much space devoted to all the "creationism v. science" stuff. I had never even heard of this guy until his criminal issues became known. For me, the emphasis on the "creationism versus science" stuff, if anything, is unencyclopedic (and, bluntly, sort of boring). However, I am a "tax geek," so I may be in the minority on this. Famspear (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Hovind's nutball beliefs about the U.S. federal tax laws and the structuring laws under which he was convicted -- the beliefs that are documented in the article -- are the very things that make Hovind notable. Famspear (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: The bulk of the coverage of Hovind among reliable sources in recent years has been about his legal problems, his criminal convictions, not about "creationism" etc. Indeed, he or some of his followers (or both) have tried to paint a false picture of the very reason he was again indicted, and why he was charged with criminal contempt (for which he has now been found guilty). He and his followers have tried to claim that the reason the lis pendens documents were filed (in violation of a court order) was that there was still some sort of on-going legal dispute about the ownership of the property, when (to my knowledge) there was no such dispute. He had already appealed that issue, and had lost. His latest conduct (for which he was found guilty a few days ago) occurred in 2013 -- several years after his last appeal became final. Hovind, and others like him, simply refuse to accept the fact that he lost the legal battle. That refusal to accept defeat resulted in further criminal activity, for which he has now been found guilty. Again, I would argue that it is his criminal activity, not so much the "creationism" stuff, that makes Hovind notable today. Famspear (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I do agree with editor Ashmoo's point about the different prisons at which Hovind has been housed. The article could mention his current location and projected release date, but a history of the prior places has been imprisoned is somewhat immaterial. Famspear (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann Jess, I see you have mass reverted my edits. I *have* discussed them on talk (see above). It seems to be agreed to pare down the legalistic details of his incarceration. I am not debating the veracity or sources, just notability and text clarity. I'll start making the changes one by one so they can be discussed. Ashmoo (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking over your edits again, I don't have a problem with any except the first change. In the lead, removing "contradicted by..." dramatically softens the statement we are trying to be very clear on (since it is what our sources discuss most). The other removals I have no objection to, so I should have done a partial undo. Feel free to make those other edits again. If you'd still like to make the first change, I'd prefer it was discussed first, since it has been a perennial discussion here, and consensus has always been to keep it in.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOR

I removed a paragraph that was original research about original research[10], a clear violation of WP:BLP. I might work through more references and remove content. I have no opinion on the veracity of claims, but this article is littered with references that are not reliable sources that are framed to disparage and discredit the subject, which is not a neutral point of view. Keegan (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I'll likely not dive in more, because this article is just ugly and I don't have the available time to work on fixing it much further, but I invite others to review not what information is presented, but how information is presented. Keegan (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Would noanswersingenesis even count as a reliable source? I'd lean towards no. If so, then that source should be removed from the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow, Keegan. A source cannot engage in original research. Our policy on OR applies to editors. If the content is sourced, and we adhere to the source, then it's not OR.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mann jess: my apologies if I wasn't clear, it was late and words were hard :) Here's the ultimate problem with that source: it's a scathing critique of Hovind's thesis without even making the thesis that the author had access too available. I hardly think it's within the bounds of WP:BLP to provide an entire paragraph devoted to this topic with this single source that we have no way of verifying that the author's interpretation is correct. It's simply wrong to include it if we're just supposed to take the author's word for it. I hope that makes more sense. Keegan (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. But it's not our job to verify if a source is correct. If we have good reason to believe it's not (for instance, other contradictory sources), then we need to take that into account. However, I'm not aware of other sources contradicting our summary. As wikipedia editors, it would be OR for us to do our own research to verify or disprove the claims in a source. If I've misunderstood you, let me know!   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WP does not verify that an author's interpretation is correct. We may evaluate the reliability of the source, but an editor making an interpretation and analyzing an author's interpretation to see if it is correct is original research. We do indeed take the author's word for it if the source meets criteria as a reliable source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Cleanup

I got rid of a bunch of violations of MOS:WTW, such as the use of "claimed", "alleged", and "noted". These are not neutral terms, and one should simply use "said". When you use "claimed" or "alleged", it throws doubt upon what is being reported. I also fixed a few basic citations errors (we don't link to articles in the author field; that's what authorlink is for) and other minor MOS violations, such as WP:SPECIFICLINK. But what really bothers me is the overwhelming amount of boring, unnecessary detail dumped on readers. This article is over 8000 words! Really, why are every one of Hovind's beliefs detailed and then refuted? It's incredibly boring to slog through all that, especially when the sourcing is so weak. For many of his beliefs, the only citation is to one of his own websites. If no independent reliable source has seen fit to comment on his belief in some fringe theory, then we shouldn't be detailing them like this. Skeptic Magazine is good, and anything by Michael Shermer or PZ Meyers is pretty much golden. However, random criticisms from chemists who are quoted in No Answers in Genesis? I would dump that. The article is too long, overly detailed, and frankly a bit boring... especially when it descends into excruciating detail about how often he was moved from prison to prison. Is there any reason to keep that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've advocated getting rid of the prison movement stuff in the past. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:SAY does not indicate that "claim" is always inappropriate, only that it must be used with care. There are cases where "claim" is the correct word, and this article is a fairly good example. For instance:

• He claims that the cyanide-releasing compound laetrile is a "cancer cure"
• he has claimed that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks
• Hovind also claims that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), HIV, West Nile virus,... and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination
• He claims, "Satan is using evolution theory to make kids go to hell.

In these cases, all the available evidence contradicts Hovind's claim, so we don't need to (and shouldn't) take great pains to make his claims seem reasonable. They are, in fact, claims.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

This article does not have to go to such pains to constantly refute every statement and belief. It's pretty obvious what the scientific consensus is, and hammering people over the head with it isn't going to do any better than using simple, neutral wording. That would be a major first step in NPOV cleanup here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not taking pains to use the right words... those bullets above are quite clearly claims Hovind has made. It is perfectly neutral to call them claims. To say "Hovind says that laetrile is a cancer cure" gives the idea an air of legitimacy, when in reality, Hovind is the only one claiming that and it's obviously nonsense. "Claim" perfectly contextualizes the statement without having to add additional wording. Neutrality doesn't mean equal time or weight, and where Hovind is the only claimant of a widely disputed idea, it is most neutral to describe it as such.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We're not here to soapbox about how fringe theories are wrong or save the world from itself. We're here to write a neutral encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with explicitly stating that his beliefs are fringe and outright rejected by the scientific establishment, but repeatedly hammering it isn't going to help. I doubt anyone will think, "Wikipedia used neutral language to describe Hovind's beliefs, so maybe they're true!" If he makes a claim that is rejected by mainstream science, just neutrally report both the claim and the refutation. If there isn't a specific refutation, just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you're reading what I'm writing carefully enough, because we seem to be having two separate conversations. I'm not suggesting we use non-neutral language; "claim" is the neutral word here. The MOS says it must be used with care, and it has been. Even according to your last reply, these are, in fact, claims. Neutrality doesn't mean providing equal weight, it means following the sources, and this is what the sources say.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have also noted that we don't need a mention of his prior prison residences. A reference just to his location at the current time is OK. I am admittedly a tax geek, and I had never heard of this guy (or his beliefs about evolution, etc.) until he popped up on the radar for federal criminal structuring and tax violations, so I also find the other stuff to be a bit long and tedious. I might be in the minority on that, though. Famspear (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not alone. I think many details could be cut from the Legal section. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

No! No! Don't cut the legal section! That's the best part!

Seriously, though, I would argue that if we're going to trim the article, we should at least start with the evolution versus creationism stuff, and leave the legal stuff in for now. Just my opinion. Famspear (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Certainly not. His entire profession and notability revolves around his ministry, which is the "evolution vs creation stuff". He would be notable for that if he hadn't gone to prison, but he wouldn't be notable for going to prison without that. There may be cruft to cut out, but if we're speaking just in general terms, we certainly can't prioritize his prison sentence over his ministry. As a note, I very often hear things like "I'd never heard of this until X"... that's a really terrible way of determining what's most significant to wikipedia. Our sources place a lot of emphasis on his views about creationism.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mann jess: Ummmmm... I was trying to make a stab at humor -- perhaps unsuccessfully.

Although I disagree with the statement that his entire notability revolves around his ministry (I assure you that he would definitely be notable because of his federal criminal problems alone, even without the ministry stuff), I agree with you that we should not prioritize his federal criminal aspects over the ministry stuff. And, I agree that we don't actually make editorial decisions based on what a particular editor has or has not heard of before.

Look, this is Friday. I guess all my good comedy for the week was used up by Tuesday or Wednesday..... Famspear (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: My serious comment was that we should start the trimming with the ministry-evolution stuff. My idea is that if we're going to trim, it's the ministry-evolution stuff that needs it more than the "legal problems" materials. I don't really consider that to be prioritizing the criminal stuff over the ministry stuff; it's just that I view the ministry stuff as having more fluff in it right now than does the criminal stuff. Believe me, if the criminal sections included the extent of detail currently found in the ministry-creationism-evolution portions, this article would be huge. Compared to the evolution-creationism-ministry stuff, the article barely touches on the substance of the legal/criminal stuff.

Hovind is a notorious tax protester and, in the legal and accounting communities, that is a much bigger deal than the creationism stuff. Famspear (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I got the humor in the first part. I was responding to the second (the "serious comment"). Again, I don't have a proposal to look at, so I don't know if it'd be appropriate or not - fluff should be trimmed, regardless of the topic. But generally speaking, I don't want to see the article shift weight toward his legal troubles and away from his ministry. If that's not what you were suggesting (it appears not!) then I think we're on the same page. :) Instead of speaking generally, since that seems to be getting us into trouble, I'll wait for someone to propose a concrete change to comment on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems like I'm the only MOS fanboy here, so I'll just leave the "claimed" vs "said" thing alone for now. The debate isn't going anywhere productive with two stubborn editors arguing back and forth. Do we at least have consensus to remove the "he went moved to this prison #1, then prison #2, then prison #3" paragraph? It's incredibly trivial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Barring a source that establishes relevance, I'd say it is extraneous detail. I'm also going to remove an interest rate as an extraneous detail, as previously proposed.BiologicalMe (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree about the interest rate and the history of prison locations. They're pretty tangential. I would suggest: keep just his current prison location (which is what many other Wikipedia articles on notable persons in prison show). Famspear (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I don't see why his prison moves are significant. I don't really have much thought on it either way. Have at it! :)   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Creationism section

I pulled three paragraphs of criticisms which were more about his other views than Creationism. I made no effort to move any of the content to the "Controversial remarks" section as there is some coverage there. I'd appreciate any opinions if some (or all) of the text should be added back, and if so, where.BiologicalMe (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Can we try to merge that content into the appropriate section, then? As an aside, I think we have too much criticism that's not integrated into the main content. It might be a reasonable time to trim and integrate a bit, so the article isn't dominated by massive criticism / legal troubles sections. This stuff might be a good candidate for that. I'd have to review the whole article again.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I took a very rough stab at moving the content to new sections. Does that look better to you, Biological? I didn't integrate it with the existing text at all, and the "conspiracy theories" section is now incredibly long. We'll have to address that at some point.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It's a little better. If we can sort the content into distinct sections, it should help in reducing the redundancies.BiologicalMe (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

CSE management in creationism section

I deleted some text regarding criticisms of CSE that did not pertain to Kent Hovind himself. It was restored on the basis that it contained relevant statements about his son taking over. I think that aspect is redundant with the "Creation Science Evangelism and Creation Today" section.BiologicalMe (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Reading the whole section again in context, it doesn't fit there, and I'm not really sure where else it would be more appropriate. I've removed it again. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Image:

Hovind and his supporters object to the use of his mug shot used at the top of the page. This however is used simply because it is the only one we have which is in the public domain.

Another image could be used. At which time the arrest photo could then be moved down to the "Legal problems" section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: Please explain the reasoning behind your NPOV tag. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Harizotoh, your summary about his mug shot is correct. Are you proposing some other image to be used?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If another image is uploaded, and it is a quality image showing Hovind clearly, I would suggest it to be used at the top of the page. His ministry could perhaps release an image under the GNU license--Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

If Hovind's people are reading this, the image needs to be released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. A GNU license won't be accepted. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)