Jump to content

Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

"What is happening? I saw you in the news! July 25"

"As most of the world now seems to know, due to the planned media blitz by the IRS, my wife and I were arrested 12 days ago in a highly publicized raid on the church ministry. The three “charges” against my wife and I are ludicrous as will be shown in the next few weeks but I have been advised by counsel not to discuss the case openly yet. There are, however, several things the world needs to know before rushing to judgment, condemning me as an evildoer or lawbreaker."

More at [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeolmeun (talk • contribs)

From the blog: "Dinosaur Adventure Land is still flooded with visitors." Does anyone know if this is the case? Several media reports cited in the article describe it as 'defunct'. I think this is a significant fact and while a blog is not a credible source, if anyone in the area knows the true situation it would be very helpful if you could let us know. --Davril2020 20:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like opinions on deleting the 'defunct' comment temporarily. I've checked the DAL website states normal opening times, and although there are no 'events' planned, there appears to be no mention anywhere on the public material that the park is not open. If we don't have a very recent source which can clarify whether the park is open or closed indefinitely, I'd be strongly inclined to remove the comment until we can resolve whether it is or is not shut. In the meantime I'll keep trying to find more sources on its status. --Davril2020 13:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

  • The source for "defunct" is a a little over a month old. I would be disinclined to remove it merely because Hovind's blog (not a reliable source) claims it's open. However, we should qualify it by noting the date and limiting it to a claim of the source and note that the website claims it is still open. I would definitely support changing it when we (hopefully) get a more recent reliable source. JChap2007 13:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The DAL never said it stopped operating even when that news article came out. Like JChap, I wouldn't want to change something just because Hovind's blog claims its true. C56C 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI, they are still activaly adding peices to Dinosaur Adventure Land. Last time I drove by there was a new set of (I think) duckbllled dinosaur statues being put up and new paint on the fence (I live about half a mile from it). What you need to understand that its not a "park" but really just a meduim sized playground, but it is mildly popular for childrens birthday partys. They also had a few summer camps that used them for outings this last year. I'm not sure that his "flooded" and most peoples ideas of "flooded" is the same thing though...all I know is they are still open and active---— Possible single purpose account: FG3001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


His blog just gave an update, which included: "With the IRS, everyone is guilty until proven innocent. In the courts, the judges and the juries are much more likely to rule in favor of the IRS so they don’t get audited next year." He can't really expect readers to be dumb enough to believe that, can he? In the same section that he mentions a DVD series he sells for $75.00 he says others "just want to keep the paycheck coming in"... even he can taste the irony. Should any of his blog comments be included in the article? Arbusto 03:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think that the blog should be put in the article, expressing how he thinks he is innocent and the government is out to get him (Another one of his wacked up conspiracy theories). But Arbusto, I agree with you that he is a conservative idiot, but 1) Everything he does is idiotic, this is no different and 2)wikipedia is not the place to discuss his intelligence, no matter how low.

As much as I don't agree with everything Kent Hovind has said, I can't help thinking this is a Government conspiracy in some way.... in any case, thanks for the article. Yoda921 11:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda
What's your evidence for a conspiracy theory? Blind faith? FGT2 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't have "evidence", I just suspect it given that many people would want to censor his comments. Yoda921 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

Need help with sources

Some very relevant facts to a Kent Hovind biography are missing, but I need help pinning down the numbers and sources first. First: Kent Hovind is supposedly known to maintain a grouling speaking schedule, speaking hundreds of times a year. Can anyone find an article or video where he specifically claims this, or an article that documents this? Second: I've seen one of his videos where he speaks of the copyright on his videos in this way: "They're not copyrighted. Make as many as you want. You can even buy them, make copies, and return them and we'll give you your money back". Anyone know the video/time? Third: I'm extremely suprised that this biography hasn't mentioned his debates. KH's supporters and critics know him as a ruthless and experienced debator, even taking on 3 evolutionist PhDs at once. (His critics claim he uses crowd winning tactics). In any case he never misses a beat in his debates. Videos of the debates were on his site, but with the latest changes I can't seem to find them. In any case, I'm not sure how to write up a paragraph explaining all this, but i assume it would fall under the "CSE ministry" section. A 50-sum year old somewhat famous evangelist's biography should have less than 50% of it's content expounding recent tax and legal problems and the critics' responses. However, writing "pro" material might waste my time in an edit war, so I'm going to let the other truth-lovin-npov-wiki'ers out there do it for me!!!

His website used to have a speaking sceduale, but I think it's been removed after his arrest. Actually, his whole site has fallen into disrepair following his arrest. All of the info you want used to up there, though.

NPOV

Criticism is strewn throughout the article in the form of constant mentions of unaccredited universities, etc. If the criticism is relevant to the overall subject, it should occupy its own section. Dfinch 08:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

If you object to the placement of comments, then that's not an NPOV issue but a copyedit issue. Edit as you feel is necessary or post here if you think it might be controversial. The only specific criticism you mention, that the university is unaccredited, is an essential fact that should not be relegated to an ugly, tacked-on 'criticisms' section. Indeed, Hovind himself acknowledges, when asked, that the university is non-accredited and many people do not consider it to be a criticism, merely a statement of fact. The article does not say, for instance, that by virtue of having graduated from an unaccredited university he has no right to comment on science, which certainly would be NPOV. --Davril2020 12:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I aggree with that. I do think that the 2nd seperate setence "Hovind has been charged with 58 federal crimes, including separate counts of making threats against federal officials, filing false complaints and tax evasion." does have an effect on the mood of the opening and should be in its appropriate section instead of up on top standing alone. I'm just going to move it to the legal section replacing the weaker sentence "Kent Hovind has been in trouble with law enforcement several times." — Possible single purpose account: FG3001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 15:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it got moved back with the argument that it is compelling enough for the lead. I still say that having it last and alone makes it seem very seperated from the summery. Atleast if it was shortned and intergrated into the previous paragraph (something along the lines of the "trouble with the law several times" one I replaced) would make it seem more natural and less like an exclamation point. Anyone else have an opinion on it?--— Possible single purpose account: FG3001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 20:34, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


This is a tricky one. It's only one sentence, but it is critical to the article - you can't get a fact more notable than being charged with a massive number of criminal violations. I agree that it's ugly and tacked on, but making it more extensive might be inappropriate for the introduction. I've slightly altered the wording and merged it into the second paragraph, but that doesn't do a great deal for it. I may edit it later again, to rewrite the introduction somewhat so it flows better. --Davril2020 12:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

These type of edits[2] are just funny. Arbusto 02:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Funny how? Minor vandalism encouraged by the likes of "Alberto" elsewhere is an annoying distraction here. Being fairly new at this, I'd hate to run afoul of the 3 revert rule. When is it time to call "Sock-puppets" to the administrators?--— Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 21:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you JzG!--— Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 22:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Alright, what is going on here? I am simply removing scare quotes: "Young Earth" Creationist, weasel words ("although some critics say...") and organizing and adding some relevant wikipedia content. I do not want to start an editing war--not about this but we should not resort to childish tatics (eg labelling a legit edit as 'vandalism') to get our point about creation/evolution across. This is not the forum for that--it is a biography--one that needs to adhere to the biographies of living persons

— Possible single purpose account: Lord9Genesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 23:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with not resorting to childish tactics. Do not remove information, such as his degrees an unaccredited or mentions from the scientific community. This is not the forums where you are allowed to remove things on a whim by making generalizations. Arbusto 02:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Now I am not looking for a puff piece on this man but clearly making statements in the introduction using scare quotes about "'YEC'" and using weasel words ("though his numerous critics say...") do not belong in THIS section of the biography. The other sections make the point nicely about what a bad guy he is. BTW I don't see any mention in Charles Darwin's introduction about him being a "graduate" from an "unaccredited" Bible College--it is irrelevant in this context (FYI Darwin only had a theology degree and was qualified to write his widely accepted scientific thesis). Or how about using scare quotes in Michael Jackson's bio about his numerous "sleepovers." (It sounds oh so seedy in quotes :-)

BTW the Genesis in my name is from the group--so don't hate ;-) — Possible single purpose account: Lord9Genesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 04:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

His "numerous" critics are sourced throughout the article. You are referring to a claim made in the introduction, which introduces Hovind to the reader. Do you doubt he has "numerous" critics?
Perhaps, you should take issue with what's not in Darwin's article at the Darwin talk page. There you will be told, accreditation was not an issue back then nor required as public universities were very unusual at the time. Well, flash forward a century and a half later-- modern science, medicine, and the light bulb: accreditation is an issue, and Hovind lacks it.
If you aren't going to explain and receive consensus with each major change expect your edits not to be accepted by wikipedia. Arbusto 07:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the article could be made more NPOV by changing the importance of the various sections in this article.

20% about his education and why it sucks -> Should be 10%
50% about legal issues -> Should be 25%
8% about his scientific view -> Should be 30%
12% criticism -> Should be 25%
10% proof evolution -> Should be 10%

Now to me Kent Hovind is a creation-"scientist" and therefore most of the article should be about his "scientific" views, of course with some heavy criticism to go along with it. Then you can add a paraghrap about his education and a paragraph about legal issues. But not the other way around.

I have to say that these percentages sound about right to me. I agree with this unsigned suggestion. (I have made a minor edit to the above comment for readability's sake.) Phiwum 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't he in prison?

I don't get it. Last I checked, the government throws you in prison for evading taxes, why not him? — Possible single purpose account: Inforazer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hovind's trial for 58 felonies is in October. You can compare it to Ronald Isley who got three years in prison last week for being convicted of 5 counts.[3] It remains to be seen. Arbusto 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, but I would suspect that one or more of the usual reasons people get away with crime are involved (you know, money, powerful friends, etc.) Kasreyn 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
He isn't in prison because he hasn't had his trial yet. When the trial is complete he will probably get to be a long term guest of Uncle Sam. JoshuaZ 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
If convicted on all counts, what would be a typical sentence for this sort of thing? --Davril2020 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
According to the Al Capone article, Capone was found guilty on five of twenty-two counts and sentenced to eleven years in a federal prison for tax evasion. Arbusto 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, the government does "throw" people in prison for evading taxes. Hovind was found guilty and faces up to 288 years in prison.[4] Arbusto 04:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

His reason for tax evasion

The reason given for Hovind's tax evasion isn't very clear. His basis is that incorporating a ministry as a 501c3 non-profit corporation gives government power over the church, and as such violates the First Amendment. For example, 501c3 corporations are not allowed to speak on politics. Thus a minister is not allowed to endorse or criticize any particular candidate. Many Christians believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell a minister what he can or cannot say during a sermon, yet forcing a religious organization to incorporate as 501c3 in order to have tax exempt status also imposes government rules on what a minister can say. On the other hand, a religious organization incorporating as a for-profit organization gives the government power to tax the organization. So either way, the religious organization needs to get the government's permission to exist - or face criminal charges for tax evasion. -Dan 14 September, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.5.54 (talk • contribs)

Or not get tax benefits (many would argue that there is no good reason that religious establishments should be non-taxed). There are a multitude of other problems with the above but in any event this is all wildly off topic and essentially original research. JoshuaZ 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks lioke a clear case of "render unto Hovind that which is Caesar's" ;-) Guy 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, 70.33.5.54 where's some links to Hovind's polititcal comments. Arbusto 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: See my comments below. It's splitting hairs, but Mr. Hovind technically is not charged with tax evasion. I have made some edits to the article to reflect the specific charges listed in the indictment in Federal court in Pensacola. Yours, Famspear 21:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

After seeing him talk in his impressive DVD series, it becomes easy to imagine why he would seek to minimise contributing funds towards groups and organisations that he easily shows as being rife with fraud and dishonesty (among other things) and who are neither worthy nor rightfully deserving of what the Governments give them from the IRS collections. Sounds like he picked the wrong advisor or strategy in his minimisation efforts, and now he is more at the mercy of the groups and organisations he appears to hate than ever before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.55.31.66 (talk • contribs) on 19 December 2006.

His "Theory"?

How are his collected ideas a theory? He hasn't been published or reviewed in academia, and he holds no accredited degree. Calling hsi ideas a theory gives them far too much credence. - Plasticbadge 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. If we are using the actual meaning of the word "theory", he has none. At most, he has conjecture, or speculation. — Possible single purpose account: Inforazer (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
I don't see see why the theory is "notable" I just cleaned it up. Should it be removed to due lack of notability/importance? Arbusto 02:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see a reference for his theory. Especially the part about the comet which I have not found information about. I'm not saying it's untrue, I'm just saying I haven't seen proof of his theory being published, even on his own site.-- — Possible single purpose account: 68.125.48.129 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 18:03, 3 October 2006

This guy calls his stuff science, when it is really religion. All his claims have been proven false one way or another, and yet he still continues to lie to/brainwash the public with is obviously outdated ideas. Is this guy insane? He is definitely crossing the boundary of church and state. I think he and his creationist followers gives all of us Christians a bad name. That's my opinion. Any thoughts? --DeadGuy 02:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't really the right place to discuss whether Hovind is a good guy or a bad guy. The talk page is for discussing the development of the article. Phiwum 00:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Understood. My apologies. I added a more recent photograph that is more accurate to his current appearance. I also think it should be pointed out that the "Even though he has been made aware of [The falseness of his Lucy theory], he continues to make it" sentence has a resource that said he stopped making that claim after he was told a second time.--DeadGuy 18:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
A "theory" is anybody's ideas on something, and provided that they think it's seriously viable, it's a theory. Even if it's not taken as accurate by others - so the "Hovind theory" is still a "theory" albeit an unlikely one. Or at least in my point of view. - Yoda
This statement is not quite accurate, but is a common belief about the nature of theories. This is not my opinion, but is rather a description of accepted [5] scientific principles. I hope this is helpful. There are two kinds of theories:

1. Most people use "theory" in everyday speech in just this way - a guess, hypothesis, or supposition. 2. A scientific theory is very different and refers to a specific part of the scientific method. In the context of scientific inquiry, a theory is not a guess or your ideas on something, but is based on an understanding of the relationships between different sets of empirical data. These are observations that you have worked out not by guessing and wondering, but by observing natural phenomena. Publication and speeches from scientists laying out theories are typically preceeded by years of dedicated research.

Comparing Hovind's "theories" with scientific theories is an exercise in comparing apples and oranges. I would say that Hovind has some hypotheses about creation, and he seems to confuse "hypothesis" with "theory". To my knowledge he has never presented any evidence that he has tested those hypotheses. Therefore, he cannot accurately claim to be advancing any theory.

Of course scientists have plenty of ideas and guesses too, but within the framework of the scientific method, any hypothesis must be repeatedly tested (and not disproven) before being described as a theory. Spannerkit8 06:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Beliefs

I am going to attempt a section on what Hovind says he believes to ultimately be placed on the bio page. I find this whole topic fascinating and would appreciate any input fellow serious biographers have. I think a simple unbiased walkthrough on some (not all) of his more UNIQUE beliefs would be far more telling and beneficial than simple critiques on what others may say about them. Like it or not he does have a huge following and it would be irresponsible of us to ignore why. Any thoughts? More to come...— Possible single purpose account: Lord9Genesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 05:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I suggest you start from the beginning, and explain each edit. For example, why did you remove the fact that his "degrees" are NOT accredited. Do you doubt the source, a court document supplied by Hovind or does it not conform with what you want presented?
Specifically, you removed ALL mentions that his degrees were accredited, and review of his work, and replaced it with the title Dr.[6]
Please note you have violated WP:3RR, and editors will not accept someone blanking an article of cited facts as it suits their agenda. Arbusto 06:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
PS:Visit Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and read the section Undue weight. NPOV does not mean we treat psuedoscience or conspiracy theories on par with science and history. That is, wikipedia does not overlook experiments, data, and research conducted by scientists for DVDs sold by people with limited "education" done through mail order schools. Arbusto 07:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Evolution and the origins of life

The following was taken out a few times: "although his numerous critics consider the challenge to be spurious because evolutionary theory has nothing to say about how the universe came about or how life began." This is a fair and factual statement to leave in the article though. Evolutionary biologists and others do not argue that evolution has anything to do with the origins of the universe or how life began. It should be left in. --Havermayer 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

>>>>The current idea in the scientific theory of evolution is that life began with abiogensis creation.

The majority of edits in the past week have been bad-faith edits, good faith edits that violate virtually all Wikipedia guidelines, or reversions. I don't think there's a meaningful dispute over the validity of the line. --Davril2020 20:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Arbusto 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
I disagree; The man is an idiot who claimed dead sharks were dinosaurs. I hope he gets education in jail. - Sparky 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Order of things

Am I the only one who feels that the order of sections in this article is rather backwards? Surely, after "Kent Hovind: The Early Years" should come a substantial section on his chief claim to notariety. I confess I don't know a good deal about the man, but presumably he became noteworthy due to his views on evolution and probably garnered press from the $250,000 challenge -- at least that's the impression a reader might get from the first paragraph. However, the article launches almost immediately into a long excursus on his legal woes, and in sufficient detail that it seems like this ancillary topic has displaced his "theories" etc as the main focus of the article. Now either the fellow is now best known for his run-ins with the law, in which case the overview should be rewritten to reflect that, or else the material about his theories should be given higher billing in the body of the the article, and the legal troubles might be reduced to highlights so the focus of the article is clearer.

I get the sense that the overabundance of detail in the legal matters sections might reflect an animus toward Hovind and be at least partly motivated by a desire to discredit him. Just to be clear, I say that as somebody with little patience for his views on human origins -- they seem fairly silly. However, for purposes of the article, the fact of their notariety is unrelated, of course, to any editor's feelings about whether the views themselves deserve to be taken seriously. I haven't done a thorough check of the edit history, but I wonder if somewhere along the line people who would like to discredit him began to think that the more examples of alleged malfeasance they could include, and the more abundant the detail, the more the guy will look like a fraud and a con man. How does it strike others?--Rrburke 22:24, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Overabundance of detail in the legal matters..." I disagree. Legal details are part of the biography. He has much more news press for his legal trouble than for his creationists beliefs. Secondly, legal issues such as assault charges and felony evasion belong close to the biographical section, it has more relevance there than any of part. Lastly, his creationist beliefs and criticisms on that belong new his "$250,000 challenge," which has its own section. Arbusto 23:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
"He has much more news press for his legal trouble than for his creationists beliefs." That's possibly true, but lots of non-notable people have legal troubles like bankruptcy proceedings and charges of tax evasion and, um, violations of zoning bylaws, but those troubles are not especially noteworthy unless the person is. Unless the reader already knows that Kent Hovind is noteworthy or controversial in some other way, a long divagation on his legal history, especially one that precedes a discussion of what made him noteworthy in the first place, is bound to make the article seem disordered and misshapen. Moreover, when the section on legal troubles has swollen to about three-and-a-half times the section entitled "The Hovind Theory," the article's proportions seem so lopsided a reader could be forgiven for wondering what it's actually about. I'm left wondering whether to include him in the Wikipedia category "people who have run afoul of zoning bylaws." --Rrburke 03:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
If we have as much media sources on Hovind's "theory" then the section can be as long as the other sections that contain multiple sources, but as it sits we don't.
It is uncommon for someone to spend get $40,000 in fines and bills for refusing to get a $50.00 permit in 5 years. If the story wasn't notable then there would be no press articles, hence the section wouldn't exist. Arbusto 17:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I argued that his run-ins with the law were not worthy of inclusion, only that they have been accorded disproportionate space and unmerited detail -- and that it seems backward that they appear before the reasons for his initial notariety have been discussed in any detail. Readers coming to this article cold have had to wade through a long list of Hovind's legal troubles before knowing why anyone would ever have become aware of him in the first place. --Rrburke 00:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
If you read through the past edits on this page you will find that, ironically, Hovind's theory was originally a much more substantial section than it is now. The consensus at the time was that the 'Hovind theory' section needed to be cut down, though I personally did not feel it was necessary. I agree that reordering could be useful; I'm going to look into re-positioning the Hovind theory section later. I would disagree that the 'legal troubles' section is over-complex: it is vitally important when dealing with any legal matter that is ongoing and involving living individuals to be absolutely precise. As such I would be concerned that removing details - even dates, and how Hovind pled - might end up displaying some form of bias or induce doubt as to what he was accused of and what the response was. It's tedious, but given the gravity of the situation I don't think we really want to risk cutting out crucial information. If you can think of a productive, impartial condensation of the legal section it would be wonderful to see it. --Davril2020 00:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the bulleted Hovind theory copied from his DVD store page? Arbusto 05:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Hovind is 53 years old could we update the picture or date the picture provided? This article has a picture of him in July, and he looks much different than the photo in the article. Arbusto 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I like that photo, he seems to be waving some sort of "dino-dollar" around. But, it's certainly copyrighted by the paper or photographer or both. Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask for permission to use it. There's a form letter around here somewhere. I'll draft a request and send it to the the article's author for forwarding (traded e-mails with him a while back). — Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 19:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Wow, only ten edits and you already plan on using a wikipedia form to request usage of a picture. Did you edit on wikipedia under another name? Arbusto 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
No. Had you planned to make the request? — Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.] 15:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
PS. PNJ/Gannett says no, never, not ever, ah well...— Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Done. It is from an unknown source and will be deleted in seven days(how ironic) if it is not given verifiable copyright by an experienced editor. --24.22.212.250 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The new picture is much better, but hopefully we can do better. Arbusto 07:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Well there is his booking photo (looks better when pasted). DodgerDean 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Controversial remarks edit

I am removing very much of the following paragraph in the "Controversial Remarks" section

He has a social conservative stance demonstrated with his presentations are fused with political messages that are socially conservative. Hovind maintains that biology textbooks are "lying" and advocates simply taking evolution out of the textbooks because he considers evolution to be a "religion." [7] Hovind's presentations are also fused with other political comments, including posting political cartoons on his PowerPoint slides as the audience waits for his presentation, and comments saying: "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I'm trying to do is get the lies out of the textbooks." (www.drdino.com video tape #3.)

Most of this discussion has nothing to do with controversial remarks. Perhaps it should be mentioned somewhere, but not in that section.Phiwum 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree his politics has a rather important part of his ideology in that section. Arbusto 00:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not want to start an edit war, but the fact that he is a social conservative is utterly irrelevant to a section titled "Controversial remarks". These comments do not even include any remarks at all. And as far as I can recall, being a social conservative is not particularly controversial. If his politics are relevant to the article (and that's certainly possible!) then put this somewhere else. This section is about controversial things he has said. At least, that's what I supposed, reading the section title. Phiwum 01:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Being a social conservative isn't what makes his remarks controversial. The context of that mention is in reference to the political cartoons at his presentation and "Hovind has several conspiracy theories about the US government". Knowing a political stance in reference to political beliefs (ie, this claim that the US planned 9/11) is informative for the reader. Don't cherry pick data. Arbusto 03:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we can't delete this material since it is relevent and significant (people who hold serious conspiracy beliefs about 9/11 are not all that common and it is important in understanding Hovind's worldview, which is often based on the assumption of a fairly wide-ranging conspiracy theory). Reorder or edit it; please don't delete it. --Davril2020 03:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Read that paragraph again. It makes no coherent point at all. It mentions his political beliefs and the fact that he uses political cartoons in his slides (so what?). And it mentions his belief that biology textbooks are lying. It does not mention any of his broad conspiracy theories and the fact that he believes textbooks are full of lies is utterly irrelevant to his political beliefs. It seems to me that a neutral reader would be utterly confused by this pointless paragraph. There is no connection between his social conservatism and his allegations about textbooks and the aside about political cartoons is not informative, interesting or relevant.
I'm not reverting it again, but this paragraph needs work. It isn't my aim to argue with you two over this fact however, so if you want to leave an utterly pointless and poorly written paragraph that mostly has nothing to do with "controversial remarks", fine. Frankly, I find it a shame, but you can have it. Who needs coherence anyway? This is Wikipedia, baby! Phiwum 10:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Tell you what. You tell me what the main thesis of that paragraph is. If it's a coherent paragraph, then we should be able to identify what the primary point is. I thought the primary point was to discuss his allegations that textbooks lie. That is, after all, the only controversial remark mentioned in the paragraph. But if that's the primary aim, then clearly politics and cartoons are utterly irrelevant. So maybe you think that there is some other primary aim. Well, what is it? What am I supposed to learn on reading this paragraph? Phiwum 11:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
And let's have a citation for this vitally important information. After all, it looks like original research otherwise. Phiwum 11:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

As a new/not very active Wikipedia user/contributor, I need some help here. I've got a great controversial remark which is sourced... at an April 6, 2006 presentation at Kent State University, Hovind said the following regarding the fact that evolution is in Kent State's textbooks:

"You should have another rebellion here at Kent State and do it for the right reason. This time, don't get shot." Source: Creationist speaker: 'Stop lying to students', Daily Kent Stater Jfahler 11:01, 10 Feb. 2007 (EST)

WP:V issues

I see that no one has answered my criticisms of that paragraph. No one has offered any explanation for its organization. No one has really said why Hovind's social conservatism is relevant at this point (hint: that paragraph does not discuss his broad conspiracy theories at all). And on these grounds, I think I would be justified in removing the material again.

But no matter. We don't have to argue on these grounds! The claim that he's a social conservative is unverified and so should be removed according to WP:V. Without that claim, the discussion of political cartoons is irrelevant as well. Thus, we are left with a paragraph that has an actual point: Hovind claims that biology textbooks are full of lies. Moreover, this claim is in fact controversial. Phiwum 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"He has a social conservative stance and his presentations are include many socially conservative political messages."? Are grammar may still need work... — Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
What's your point? (Thanks, I fixed that there thingy.) Phiwum 16:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Useless responses section

In the section on Hovind's creationist theory, we see a responses subsection. It consists of the following:

One criticism of the Hovind theory claims he uses contradictions, straw man, red herring, and flat out false arguments in his theory.[32] For example, Hovind supports his claims with material written by fellow Young Earth Creationist Walt Brown, which contains serious scientific errors.[32]

I do not see the point of this subsection. The listed responses are broad and unspecific (e.g., uses straw man how? and is that a response to his theory or to his debating tactics?). Besides, the section following is a Criticism section, which gives much clearer and more detailed criticisms of Hovind's creationism.

I had removed this material previously, but DodgerDean reverted it (losing many other unrelated edits in the meantime. Thanks much.). Is there any particular reason that we should keep this two-sentence subsection? If we want to keep these allegations, why not put them in the criticism section? Also, the reference is to the kent-hovind.com website, a site whose purpose is to criticize Hovind. It doesn't strike me as the best reference for a Wikipedia article. Why not replace it with a more appropriate reference? (There are plenty found in the external references section already.) Phiwum 17:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are good, but some type of criticism of the Hovind theory must be included per wikipedia undue wieght policy. His theory goes against several fields of science. --Arbusto 21:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that an article on Hovind should include criticisms. But this article already has a good section on that. It's the Criticisms section. My complaint is that the "Responses" subsection is too brief, too broad, has only one dubious reference and does not seem to have any real point.
I hope that no one really thinks I aim to give Hovind and his theory a free pass. I just don't see that this subsection serves any real purpose. Phiwum 21:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Is Hovind's "theory" notable aside from one DVD listing where the section was taken from? If we can't find multiple sources there is some WP:V issues with its anti-scientist claims. --Arbusto 16:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand your question. I thought that Hovind's creationist ideas were the primary reason that he's a notable figure. You're not suggesting omitting the discussion of his theory, are you? (In reality, he probably spends more time arguing against evolution than putting forth any positive creationist theory. Nonetheless, even if there's only one source for his theory, it seems to me that we should cite it. I don't understand your WP:V issues at all.) Phiwum 17:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Hovind has many claims in many DVDs. Why is this theory (taken from a listing of a DVD at his online store) important to include while excluding his other claims (such as his false attacks on Carbon dating)? Arbusto 18:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, for my money, his positive theory is interesting because there aren't too many young earth creationists. His arguments against evolution are a dime a dozen and not particularly novel. Pretty much every creationist, creation scientist, intelligent design advocate, etc., uses some combination of these same arguments. But it's not too often that a creationist gives an account of how the whole thing came about. (According to http://kent-hovind.com, his theory isn't original. We should probably mention that, though again I'm not sure that http://kent-hovind.com counts as a reputable source according to WP:RS.) Phiwum 19:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, another source needs to be found, but we need some critical of the theory per the undue weight policy. If we can't find anything critical because this goes against science it should be removed. Wikipedia is not here to advance pseudoscience. Arbusto 00:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no! I don't agree that we remove relevant and notable information because we can't find appropriate criticism! That just seems a very strange reading of WP:RS + undue weight! Anyway, there are plenty of more reputable articles about Hovind. And I am really very doubtful that the theory section would count as "advancing pseudoscience". I've seen them from Shermer, for instance, a reprint of a regularly published article. Also, doesn't the kent-hovind.com site have some citations? At least they cite the "Quacky Quotes". Perhaps we can use the site in order to mine for cites. In any case, I really am not concerned that Wikipedia will benefit the creationist cause as it is. It really isn't my concern at all. Phiwum 00:52, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Its not a "strange" reading of undue weight. Wikipedia must be critical of pseudoscience, and that section is pseudoscience. This is not debatable. If wikipedia isn't critical of crackpot ideas then those ideas don't belong on wikipedia. Also I went through your edit history and noticed the majority of your editting history is on a small range of articles. Thus, I believe you are not familiar with wikipedia policy regarding quacks. Arbusto 00:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
That small range of articles is heavy on quackery, crankery and conspiracy. I should expect that I've learned a thing or two about Wikipedia and quackery. I re-iterate my claim. It would be very strange to omit the most notable feature of Kent Hovind on the grounds that we can't find a reliable source who disputed his young-earth creationist theory. Especially when there are surely so many sources disputing young-earth theories quite broadly. Phiwum 03:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed subsection

No one has argued that this very short subsection is essential to the article. (At least, I don't think that Arbustoo said so.) Therefore, I am removing it since it is redundant, short, confusing and almost certainly violates WP:RS. Phiwum 12:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we can do without the subsection. Arbusto 18:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that the legal issues section is a bit too long. I can accept that Hovind's legal issues are worth discussing, but right now they take up a considerably longer part of the article than the theory + criticism sections. But Hovind isn't particularly notable for his tax fraud.

I also thought that perhaps the legal problems section should be moved. It comes before any of the interesting bits of Hovind's story, namely his young earth creationism. But I have to admit that, for the sake of article flow, it makes sense to follow up the biography section with the legal problems. Where else would it go? Maybe after criticism?

Any thoughts appreciated. Phiwum 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That would make sense. Presumably should be between the controversial remarks section and the trivia section maybe? JoshuaZ 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Wait a few weeks (his trial begins next week) before doing any serious editting/removing. If Hovind is found guilty on the majority of the charges his fame will be more about tax evasion and religion then on creationism and evolution. The rest of his life will be about jail for tax evasion instead of making speeches in churches. --Arbusto 05:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll wait before serious editing, but I seriously doubt that Hovind will be more famous for tax evasion! Tax evaders are a dime a dozen. Hovind's not influential, near as I can see, in the area of tax evasion (unlike some Republic of Texas and other militia tax evaders). But he is influential as a young earth creationist, a fairly rare flavor of creationism; and he's also interesting because other young earth creationists disavow his work. Phiwum 10:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Right now Hovind is only notable to the creationist fringe. If gets more than 20 years in prison, he'll be known as a tax cheat who made a bunch of money off religion for his own need. Thus, he'll make mainstream news headlines to that affect. Hovind has never made news headlines for his "theories." Arbusto 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow

I dont remember seeing this much slander in a wikipedia article since.....actually, I dont think I've ever seen this much slander before. I'm not taking any sides here (although I personally believe Dr. Hovind's evidence on creation), but just from standing back and looking at the content, this article is rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldwings (talk • contribs)

By all means, give examples of what you consider to be slander! It won't be fixed unless you are specific. (By the way, "slander" usually refers to falsehoods maliciously spread. So if this is what you mean, please be sure to mention why you believe the offensive material is false!)Phiwum 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
In fact, it's some of the best-cited slander on the site :-) Guy 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Think about it though. The page has to be like that for his words to be true. It's all part of the conspiracy.--68.119.173.26 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Minor corrections

I removed a sizeable portion of the information under the Education section and placed it where it belongs: under Criticisms. Also, under the Education heading, I found it a little easier to simply say that both places where he received his degrees from were not accredited rather than describing each place as "the unaccredited ---"Jlujan69 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the changes. The original statements had more information and were supported by references - this is a good thing. In addition, moving specific information from the relevant section to an all-purpose "criticisms" section is bad formatting. Structuring articles in that way is generally frowned upon. Specific issues should be dealt with in the appropriate section. Critiques unrelated to any specific section could go in a criticms section (although it would probably be better to work them into sections that deal with specific issues, rather than making them general-purpose "criticism" sections. Guettarda 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It's funny how Wikipedia as a whole trashes anyone who is conservative or has a conservative point of view, but writes glowing bios on anyone who is liberal.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.114.49.2 (talk • contribs)

Hey I was looking at the source for number 69 wich states that Hovind Didn't know anything about how carbon dateing works I have a couple of gripes 1. When I looked into who this guy is and what his credentials and his thoughts were on wiki it didn't list hardly anything at all? <-> to kent hovind? that I think is a little biast on getting a full understanding of both people I think. Also when I did search his page (I am kind of lazy like that ) But... the word search didn't find the word carbon I did a search for CAR - C-14 and c14 If this is in error please could someone please tell me where it talks about hovind not knowing anything about Radiometric dating?

Content forking/Article spinouts

As Phiwum noted, the tax issues/legal problems are taking up much room and make the article awkward. However, such well-sourced and publicized information shouldn't just be pulled off. How about we content fork/Article spinout Hovind's legal problems to its own article? Arbusto 23:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no objections. Phiwum 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
I prefer it this way, I think they are important enough that it should stay here. The page is still within the recommended page size. If it gets much longer though I might change my mind. JoshuaZ 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
When I click on edit, at the top of the editing section it says "Note: This page is 56 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Since Hovind's trial is over I figure we can do without trial specifics on the main page. Arbusto 06:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
See below. Arbusto 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Tax problems

I have made a few minor edits to add more detail on the tax problems facing the person who is the subject of this article. I have not yet had a chance to research this matter in depth. The changes I have made so far are based just on the criminal tax case in Florida.

In that case, Mr. Hovind has not technically been charged with tax evasion (which is 26 U.S.C. § 7201). I have therefore deleted most of the specific references to "evasion." Some of the specific conduct with which a person is charged may or may not constitute tax evasion, and may or may not be the subject of criminal charges like the ones Hovind is now facing. I would argue that we just want the Wikipedia to be precise in legal terminology, especially in an article about a living person who is innocent until proven guilty. This guy has enough problems facing him (by my quick and dirty arithmetic, he could theoretically get over 285 years in prison if convicted on all counts). Yours, Famspear 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the revisions. I notice you cited the court document. Could up please post it at www.wikisource.org so it can be referenced in the future? Arbusto 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear editor Arbustoo: I'm not familiar with wikisource, but I will look into it. The indictment is is PDF format from the government's online PACER system, so I would have to figure out how to get the document into wikisource. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 02:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to use Wikisource, a database for documents/books like wikipedia. With the PDF file, go to the tool bar under "edit" and use select all. The copy and paste the document into wikisource:United States of America v. Kent E. Hovind and Jo D. Hovind. Arbusto 03:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Ooops, I just noticed that there is a "tax evader" label on the bottom of this article. The individual who is the subject of this article was neither charged with nor convicted of tax evasion. He was convicted of a veritable mountain of tax crimes and tax-related crimes, but not tax evasion. The government never charged him with that; it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia to label him with that. I'm removing the "tax evader" label. Yours, Famspear 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Message from IP address

Odd that Davril2020 continues to remove a good link here. 1)It is entirely appropriate since the sub-text is responses to Hovind's challenge. 2)Your original reason for deleting this was that I was editorializing; the editorializing has now been removed thus there is no good reason for the sentence's removal short of censorship. 3) It is all of ONE sentence long. 4)It is an actual, systematic response involving organismal biological evolution, not just pointing out contradictions in Hovind's ideas as the preceding argument appears to be from the reading here. IOW it is the kind of evidence that Hovind has been saying that he wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.203.115 (talk)

If you're talking about this, "one can judge for oneself..." is not encyclopedic language. Also, please read WP:EL and make your case based on those criteria. I couldn't care less what Hovind wants. In the future, please sign your posts with four "~." You might also consider registering for a username. JChap2007 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Well let's see, first you've now changed the reasons for deleting a pefectly relevant link. You originally stated that it was being deleted because I was editorializing. I removed any hint of that, but still your deleting it. Next, in your last deletion you suggested that I go to the talk page and state my reasons for keeping it in, which I did. Now you've added another condition, read this page on links. I've read it, particularly the section "Links normally to be avoided". I see nothing there that would indicate that the link I'm providing should be avoided. Additionally I read the entire page and see no reason from it why the link should not be there - what are you pointing to here?

If you're talking about this, "one can judge for oneself..." is not encyclopedic language. Did you notice that I removed that line at your request? BTW, I might also add that I can find other instances of editorializing within the article - yet there they are. What will be the next condition? Unless you are the Wikipedia administrator I don't see where you have any more right then me to say that I cannot include a relevant sentence and link. Even then, Wikipedia is supposed to be a publicly controlled media not someone's private enterprise to delete stuff willy nilly just because he may not like it. Tell you what though, why don't you tell me why you think that a one sentence addition that specifically deals with a scientific response to Hovind's challenge is not relevant in a section on just that... By the way, as far as I know one does not need to register in order to edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.204.13 (talk • contribs)

True, one needn't register; at the same time, doing so demonstrates an ongoing interest in the project. Not doing so can raise concerns that an editor is here for a very limited purpose -- such as, in this case, repeateadly inserting a detail that doesn't really add much to a thorough preceding discussion, drawn from a source already included as an external link. Robertissimo 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I fail to understand how my insertion of this link in the subtext of that exact subject does not add much. Hovind has been saying "I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution". That is precisely what the respondent did in the link provided. The preceding response from the Skeptic, while good in its way does not deal with evolution but with a philosophical argument against God, thus this one link I provided is the only one to answer Hovind's challenge as he has stated it. drawn from a source already included as an external link certainly it is, but who is going to find it amongst a hundred links? How can this be deleted when it is completely relevent to the context? So is there a vote on matters like this or do I simply roll over to blatant censorship? *What do people have to fear from this one sentence?* I tell you, if this is how Wikipedia is run it makes me fear for the accurateness and objectivity of the articles. Oh and here you go 4.246.204.13 04:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stood, the detail you would like to add was both extraneous and not well presented (in-text, off-site references are distracting at best when presented as "here is," virtually forcing the reader off-site to know what is really being discussed). Because you clearly feel passionately about this issue, I have taken the liberty of trying to include the link in a way that reads more smoothly and follows standard practices. I hope it is satisfactory, although I also feel that other editors will likely continue to excise the passage as unecessary, and I would not disagree with them. Robertissimo 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I appear to be hardnosed about his but I met Davril2020's conditions and still he/she continued to delete. I followed all his/her suggestions and changes still he/she continued to delete. I stated my case as suggested and still he/she continued to delete. I was not out of Wikipedia policy that I could see. It has now become sort of the principle of the thing. I provided a relevent link that was the only one in the context that addresses Hovind's challenge. I can't see how that's irrelevent. I would think it is a welcome addition that anyone bothering to read the article would be interested to see. I certainly found it to be. As it stood, the detail you would like to add was both extraneous and not well presented How would you like it to be presented? Oops 4.246.204.13 05:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Robertissimo, the edits you made seem fair to me. 4.246.204.13 05:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the link is now fine in that context. Cheers Rob. --Davril2020 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hovind found guilty on all charges/ Article split for tax information

Okay so Hovind is found guilty and faces a maximum of 288 years in prison. The tax section is long and should be split off. So let's get it started at Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1. Arbusto 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

With a guilty verdict, is any of the information terribly necessary? The verdict, the sentence and the charges yes, but besides that I'm not particularly convinced any of the rest of it deserves to remain. --Davril2020 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
That's my point. If we content fork the tax/legal issue to another page it will take up less room on this article, but still provide details on another page for interested researchers. Arbusto 09:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a valid content fork to me. Of course, the information in the court documents about Hovind's operations should not be excised from this article. These are useful reference materials, apart from the cases that produced them. JChap2007 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Arbusto 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest not splitting. It is not so long that it is necessary, and this situation is not concluded. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh good grief. I just saw the working page (/Taxes 1). Never mind, split if desired. I'll hush up now. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Everyone, feel free to mess around with the test page. Arbusto 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As JChap wants, and I agree, if we split the article the court/wikisource documents should still have links on the main page. What does everyone else think? Arbusto 08:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, I'm new to this page, but it looks like someone added "adult" right before videos and "dildos" somewhere in the sentence telling what they sell. I checked the source so as to remove it, but it looks fine in the source. Perhaps someone with more experience than me can correct? Thanks, Kale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.186.20 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Kale. What you saw was vandalism--an unfortunate occurrence here on Wikipedia. By the time you were looking at the source, another user had already reverted the vandalsim, so what you saw was after it had been corrected. Justin Eiler 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
  • sigh* Rather than read that whole page again, can you just tell me why you think it fails? My reason? I stumbled upon this link and thought it to be both informative (you can hear with your own ears Hovinds views on several controversial topics without having to buy several of his videotapes to do so) and entertaining. I would think that people interested in Hovind related information would appreciate it.
Specifically, the secion under WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided:
"A page that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations. Sites which fail to provide licensing information or to respond to requests for licensing information should not be used. There are currently a large number of links to YouTube [1] and similar sites in violation of this principle. If a linked clip has no licensing information it should be removed or reverted. (Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States.)"
I do not know the copyright status of the video in question, but I suspect it would fall under copyright violation. It is definitely a derivative work (a splicing of some of the Hovind debate tapes and Simpson's episodes was what I saw), all of which is copyrighted, and none of which falls under the category of "Fair use." It may qualify under a "parody" defense, but I do not know what the legal status of such a work is.
I know it sounds like I'm being a curmudgeon, but this is an area where Wikipedia must be very careful. Copyright infringement is serious deep kimchi, and it's something that must be closely adhered to. Justin Eiler 05:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well alright but, not being a copyright expert here, I just find that hard to comprehend. First the video is not Wikipedia's creation, second Wikipedia is not hosting the video only linking to it. How can Wikipedia be liable if they are merely linking to such a page? Must we find out the copyright status of every page we link to? That could well be an impossible task. What if the linked page has, say, numerous quotes from others? Do you need to find out the copyright status of each one? Why do I suspect that there are LOTS of Wikipedia pages which voilate this strict rule? Not arguing here, just questioning. Sorry, i keep forgeting this tilden thing. 4.246.207.145 05:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is in the last sentence: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." And yeah, I bet there are a lot of sites that are linked that violate it--we're working on it, but it's a big encyclopedia. (sheepish grin)
And don't worry--if you stick around (and I hope you will), signing your posts will become second nature soon enough. :) Justin Eiler 06:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem with spacing on this page (I mean in the Hovind article). 4.246.202.172 18:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So what's the status of using a more recent picture? I think the recent one from above proposed by Arbusto [8] is much better than using some ancient thing. Hmmm, apparently someone has requested already, anyone double check this? Contact info lsuchcic@pensacola.gannett.com Or what about the booking photo. Pity it doesn't have a profile view too. 4.246.205.137 07:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

View Kent Hovind's federal indictment

Download his indictment here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HovindIndictment.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HPBible (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Kent Hovind stepped onto a lot of toes and are condemned for that. Why are scientist playing the player instead of the ball? For the sake of not having better answers, you want to discredit the man before his judgement day? This is unlike a scenticfic aproach, and seems more like a childish aproach instead of a "scientific" aproach... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.25.255.250 (talk • contribs) 20 December 2006.

Thanks for the link, anonymous user :p

Yoda921 13:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Yoda

Re: The Removal of the Hovind Gun Information

FGT2 deleted it and said: including that A gun was seized isn't important and its mentioned elsewhere if people care

First, The inclusion of the gun information and Hovind may not be important to you but Google has 37,600 sites which associate the two [9]. So it would seem that other people might like to know it. Second, you say that it's mentioned elsewhere so people can search the web if they want to know. Well duh. Every bit of information on Wikipedia is "mentioned elsewhere". In fact it's supposed to be. But one of the purposes of this encyclopedia is to gather it together so people don't have to look all over the place to find it! The mention of guns and Hovind is relevant considering his rightwing stance on guns QUACKY QUOTES GUNSand the fact that the judge feared for the safety of the IRS personnel enough to remove them before he did a Waco on them. Third it wasn't "a" gun but "More than a half-dozen".

You also give as a reason that you do not cite in the proper format. In what way? If you can see a deficiency in my citation you should correct it not just delete it. 4.246.206.57 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the information about the guns should be kept, as it is covered in reliable sources, but NB, citing number of Google hits or an attack site as a reason to keep information is generally not valid. JChap2007 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks JChap. The only reason I cited the Google info on this talk page is to show that the Hovind/gun information is important enough to the public that there are many web pages that discuss it. So why not include it? What if he had gotten to the guns first and had done a Waco on them (which the judge obviously feared), it would be a national event. Then in retrosprect we might think that his stand on guns was important. I wouldn't call the site I cite an "attack page", it's mostly made up of Hovind's own words. 4.246.206.57 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

250k offer for proof of evolution

I've added a sentence that says Hovind's offer is in reality asking for proof of atheism. (which ultimately it is, isn't it?, i.e. proving a "negative"). Would the consenses agree with that?

Yoda921 12:58, 1 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Do you have reliable sources for that? Seraphimblade 17:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with this, a) his offer states that one cannot believe in both evolution and God, although this is untrue, he has obviously never heard of theistic evolution, b) he maintains that atheists have no proof that there is no God, although the burden of proof rule says the burden of proof is indeed on the believer, c) He also ignores all the evidence against creationism and makes up false evidence to disprove evolution and also seems to ignore all claims of people who have taken up his challenge. All in all, he's a fundamentalist/sexist/bigoted/brainwashed/ignorant bafoon who seems to think there is a war between christianity and evolution, when there isn't. I also added some more to the statement. ;) --DeadGuy 18:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
This seems like original reaserch to assert it as truth when obviously he isn't explicitly asking for proof of atheism.... Homestarmy 18:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
He asked for "Proof there is no god", sounds alot like atheism to me...Last time I checked, atheism was the lack of belief in a supernatural deity/set of deities. Now, seeing as the arguments are directed at people who believe in evolution (which he believes are all atheists), it would be safe to say he is indeed asking for proof of atheism and evolution.
That's not what was originally proposed, but rather a sentence stating that instead of asking for proof of evolution, he was actually asking for proof of atheism. That seems to imply he was only asking for proof of Atheism, not evolution. Homestarmy 04:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the article is improved by this debate. We should repeat what he says, stick to the facts, and let the reader decide the rest. ⟳ausa کui × 06:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Ryan. Its WP:OR and puting words in Hovind's mouth. Conflating evolution and atheism is logically incorrect. As one can recognize evolution without being an atheist. As Hovind's demands are "prove it happened without God," which is different than saying "there is no God." FGT2 23:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the links from the Pensacola News Journal news stories are dead, as most news sources do change the links and archive the older stories to charge people a fee for archives. I think we should remove the links, and leave the article title, journal name, date, and author to make the article pass WP:V while removing dead links. PatriotBible 02:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the dead links. The articles are at the pensacolanewsjournal.com archives for purchase now. PatriotBible 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Referenced

Some of the sources are:

Answers in creation is an anti-creation website

Despite the title, answersincreation.org is a pro-evolution website. It does not support creation - it believes that the "days" are a metaphor for evolution. I took it from "Pro-creationist but critical of Hovind" to "Anti creationist and hovind." Most people would associate "creationist" with a literal interpretation of the Bible. Yoda921 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Literal interpretors of bible are called "young earth creationists". Creationist theory is any theory which believes God created the universe.

answers in creation is critical of YEC, but it is still an example of a creationists theory. They believe in "God created the world" claim, but only say that it is possible to believe both the bible and science, but suitably re-interpreting the bible. --Amit524 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoda, you don't even know what you are arguing. You wrote "Answers in creation is an anti-creation website," but that simply isn't true as AiC believes "the Word of God is without error, and its account of the creation story in Genesis is perfectly in line with the scientific record." Yoda, keep your personal opinion and bias out of your editting. Evolution is science, and does not deal with theology, such as Christian or Sumerian creation. AiC accepts more of science than AiG, but still relies on creation theology. FGT2 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Fine, whatever. Majority rules. Well, not always. But I'll concede to this now.

Yoda921 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Hovind reads Matthew, but doesn't comment on Render unto Caesar...

According to Hovind's blog from December 1, 2006:

I’ve been here about a month now. I am fine physically and even getting in a little better shape since I have time to work out several times a day. The food is tolerable and the room is well lit and comfortable. The five new converts that are in this pod with me are meeting with me four to five times each day for Bible study and prayer. This is a pastor’s dream! It would take most churches a year to cover what we cover every week. Our group has been through, verse-by-verse, Matthew, Mark and Acts as well as most of Proverbs. I started with the 6,000-year time line and gave several days of general overview of the entire Bible. It is awesome to see the spiritual hunger in these men.

Hovind says he read Matthew again, which includes Render unto Caesar... in Matthew 22:21. Should we include Hovind's unBibical interpretation of Matthew as commented in the newspaper articles? PatriotBible 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

While amusing, I don't really think such a distinction is encyclopedic. Justin Eiler 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow!

This is the most one-sided, article here on Wiki. Shame! you might aswell put Wiki on the anti-Hovind list.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.132.243.182 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Please identify any areas which seem inaccurate to you, and make suggestions for improvement. Criticising without offering suggestions does not help to improve this article. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
This page is more derogative than the page for Mao Zedong, and seriously, Mao was responsible for 70 million deaths. This is a rundown of the page:

"He is a subject of controversy and public scrutiny" - in the introduction, giving the impression that he is some sort of con-man. A REALLY bad introduction. Under "biography", it says that all his education is "unaccredited" and can therefore be discarded. "Hovind has no degrees or anything for anything" is basically what it is saying. The last sentence portrays him as being solely after money. Ok, read that paragraph, and it's OBVIOUS that it's anti-hovind.

The section on "education" implies that he never was actually educated - and all his "degrees" were from low-quality universities which do not qualify. Despite the fact that Hovind allows people to freely copy his work, the "Creation Science evangalism" page implies that he does his seminars in order to gain profit. I won't do the rest of it, but it's full of slander. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoda921 (talk • contribs) on 18 January 2007.

Do you assert that this information is incorrect, or do you simply dislike it? We don't want wrong information, so if it's here, please feel free to cite reliable sources that can show he does have accredited degrees, or isn't a subject of controversy (good luck there!), or the like. Also, please state what specifically you object to in terms of implication of profit motive, and what changes you would suggest. Seraphimblade 05:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, just because you dislike what the article says doesn't mean that it is wrong! If it is so OBVIOUS that the article is anti-Hovind, please factualy stae why and give reliable sources to prove your point. --NeoNerd 12:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

288 years

To the person who incorrectly inserted Hovind was due a max of 14 years. I do not know why you disbelieve the Pensacola News Journal, which said 288 years.

But here's some math:

  • The first 12 counts he was convicted of (26 U.S.C. § 7202) EACH received a maximum years of 5 years.
  • Obstruction and threats 26 U.S.C. § 7212. Section A is one year and Section B is two years, which is three years total.
  • 5 years -times- 12 counts = 60 years
  • 5 years -times- 45 counts = 225 years
  • 2 years
  • 1 year
  • Total = 288 years

Most judges would allow him to serve them concurrently so all offenses are served at the same time. In sum, the judge was kind enough to let Hovind to basically serve for only two out of the 58 charges. C56C 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought. Does "He had PREVIOUSLY been threatened to a maximum of 288 years" still need to be in the introduction? It doesn't seem necessary given that it's 'old news,' and should remain in the "legal problems" section. Unless this isn't the end of his trial.

Yoda921 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Yoda

I agree; I have removed it. Indeed, I had thought all the "288 year" references had been deleted already. Yours Famspear 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Source #69

Everyone is saying please site from a credited source again don’t you see that is exactly what Hovind is trying to say Who determines if something should be taken as truth. Lutz say I had A lot of money and I bought my way into a college ( I bet that’s never happened either Huh? ) So what does having a degree from one of these places have to do with anything ( just because he isn’t cited in science journals ? he has talked many a time about how people are losing their jobs over trying to speak the truth ) One good example which is more of an personal thought than a fact but still has meaning My wife Is very good at playing the flute she is going to what many would call a good college rated one of the top liberal arts colleges in the U.S. as a freshman she has already risen to 2nd chair beat out many of seniors. The college is supposed to be well known for their music program and I was sold on it when she first enrolled but she says she hasn't learned a darn thing really. This place is actually slowing her down so Just because it’s a good college and advertises well doesn't mean it is. Again I couldn't find any related information on source #69 if someone could please point it out where it is mentioned on the page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.132.224.130 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 1 April 2007.

You may wish to familiarize yourself with the Wikipedia policy on Verifiability that is motivating other editors' requests for citations from reliable sources. --Rrburke(talk) 13:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rrburke Basically what I got out of the link is that nothing posted on wiki on a source limb should not just be taken as fact and that if said person who posted link should have a weak source for supporting what ever said that it could be challenged. Now I.E. me I am sorta Challenging source #69 where is states that in a debate that some dude did a walk off in one of hovind’s debates because he didn't understand much of evelution"ism" and that his understand of radiometric dating is unfounded. Basically stating what he is saying is not how radiometric dating is done on source #69 I couldn't find anything on that if some one could please point that out to me at a credible place I would look into it further and Have a starting point that maybe he doesn't know what he is talking about. Personally I have used a lot of my time looking at what people think his lies are and so far they are weak at best or don't understand what he is trying to say. So if anyone could send me a direct link to a credable place talking about this issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.132.224.130 (talk • contribs) 15:44, April 1, 2007 (UTC)

Which one is "source #69"? The one I looked at has nothing to do with radiometric dating. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup But maybe Im wrong I did rem seeing it on the wiki page about hovind I'm not so much interrested in Proving bad backing up as I am in finding out about the trueth for myslef Does hovind really know what he is talking about with Radiometric dating? If so Could someone please point me to a place to explain his wrong doing because what he said made perfect sense to me? Don't people eat carbon stuff? Doesn't that affect carbon dating If you believe the things about Lucey can you prove what "her" diet was? That she didn't do anything to upset the balance of carbon on the bones? Or for that matter If you want to be really skeptic can you fully trust the find didn't plant evidence? I've never met the dude who found Lucey But I (could be mistaken) Didn't a bunch of con's find Lucey? And that may rise some suspition about it? Or I'm wrong Please someone I'm not here to start Anything just looking for info. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.148.17.240 (talk • contribs) 18:00, April 1, 2007 (UTC)

89.148.17.240 , the answers to your questions here can be easily found in the following articles:
Lucy (Australopithecus)
Radiocarbon dating
Briefly, all living things take in carbon while alive, plants do, animals do. When they die, they stop taking in carbon and the radioactive carbon isotope Carbon 14 decays at a rate that scientists can measure. They measure how much has decayed and use that to calculate how long ago the organism died. it is one of the more reliable dating methods so long as the sample is contaminated. There are other dating methods which are often used as well.LiPollis 18:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So how do you determine how much carbin intake you have and if its the special kind i think it would be cool if i could do this on myself how do i measure it anythoughts?

Lying, hiding money, and threats

The new article says [10]

  • "In a recording of one of the telephone conversations played in court Friday, Hovind said the Internal Revenue Service, presiding judge and prosecutor broke the law by going after him, and there were things he could do 'to make their lives miserable.'"[11]
  • "Comparing himself to a buffalo in a lion fight, Hovind's voice was heard saying "As long as I have some horns, I'm going to swing. As long as I have some hoofs, I'm going to kick. As long as I have some teeth, I'm going to fight. The lion's going to know he's been in a fight."[12]
  • "The recordings, compiled by the IRS from phone conversations from jail, showed Kent Hovind was trying to hide assets from the government, Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer said."[13]
  • "Furthermore, Rodgers contended Kent Hovind had failed his fellow citizens and the men and women of the military -- who fight to defend his freedoms -- by refusing to pay taxes."[14]

I think some material on Hovind hiding his money, and threatening government officials should be included. C56C 19:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Listen to Hovind plotting to conceal his assets and threaten government employees. C56C 23:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


I believe the above statements are deliberately deceptive.

If anyone cared to actually listen or read the court transcripts he clearly says that he will ONLY make their lives miserable if he doesn't get acquited, and that ONLY legally make their lives miserable by using LEGAL means not violent or any other means that are implied. He clearly says that he wants nothing than to leave them alone and be left alone, but if they (the court or IRS agents etc) have broken the law, then he intends to sue them (that is what he means by "miserable") - he also clearly says that he does not want to spend the next five years sueing them, but he would rather spend it preaching - I beleive what a lot of people are trying to imply on this site is very un-encyclopedic, by selectively taking quotes out of context (If such a PC term exists! I can think of more appropriate terms.)

He also clearly states that any so called money that he was trying to hide was nothing to do with himself personally - but he was concerned with trusts that the IRS was trying to get leins on - these trusts if one cares to listen carefully are clearly church related trusts - stuff that is obvious that he intended to have set up in perpetuity. please listen to this audio conversation for a indepth conversation that kent Hovind had with his wife and son (I believe) http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/VIDEO/70119009/1006

--202.78.145.179 13:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear user at IP 202.78.145.179: This is just my personal perspective, but I do not perceive the statements are "deliberately deceptive," as I did not interpret the statements as implying that Mr. Hovind was threatening to use illegal or violent means, etc. For example, the references to the "buffalo" and the "lion", etc., I took as being the use of metaphors by Mr. Hovind -- he is threatening legal action against the judge, prosecutor, whatever. At any rate, this material is not in the article itself.
By the way, such threats (if they were made by Mr. Hovind) would be in my personal view fairly impotent. In general, judges, prosecutors, etc., have immunity from lawsuits. A convicted felon saying he is going to make a lawyer's life miserable by throwing the lawyer into a lawsuit might be a bit like saying you are going to make "Brer Rabbit" miserable by throwing him into the briar patch (see Uncle Remus).
On another point, whether the money Mr. Hovind was trying to hide "had nothing to do with him personally" and was related to "church trusts" intended to be set up "in perpetuity", etc., would not change the fact that hiding the money or moving it around to avoid the effect of a Federal tax lien would be a felony under U.S. law, for anyone who engages in such conduct. Willfully attempting to prevent the collection of any Federal tax owed by anyone is a felony, even if it's not your own tax. Yours, Famspear 14:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Clarification: When I noted that the aforementioned material is not in "the article itself," I was referring to the fact that the material in the Pensacola New Journal article is not currently found in the Wikipedia article. Yours, Famspear 14:44, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[IP202.78.145.179's response to Famspear's comment about suing lawyers, moved down a bit by Famspear, to preserve chronology]: Most likely very true - given that his other appeals did not work - --202.78.145.179 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding from listening to the phone call that he believed that the money or "assets" in the trust were being unlawfully targeted in either case and not fairly part of the lawsuit or federal lien. And from previous information I had gathered regarding this case that he was under the impression that he was being charged or convicted with "structering" which is not exactly tax evasion, but having your affairs structured in such a way that it would give the impression of tax evasion (a law brought into effect to deal with smart drug runners etc) so from this context I don't see anything particulary suspicious, malicious or dodgy about what he was saying - although you are right it may have been technically "illegal." I heard a quote - maybe some else can find it. kent (supposedly) said something like this when first charged "this law is the equivalent of the speed limit, if i go faster then I get fined, if I go slower then I'm accused of deliberatly trying to avoid a fine" -if true then this "structering" charge is pretty crazy.

- besides that I still stand by my previous comment that the quotes above don't serve anything other than to give the impression that he is not a nice guy by "threatening government officials" - and not clarifying what kind of threat - (as you say if they can't be sued then what kind of threat is it) for anyone who simply looked at the comment and saw the reference would ASSUME he really DID "threaten a government official." By saying you are going to sue someone in my language is NOT known as a threat - most people erroneously assumme if someone puts a citation next to something then they have read the citation or this case listened to it and that the citation accurately supports the sentence quoting it.

Either way it has nothing to do with an encyclopedia article - although it would get good ratings on the nightly news. --202.78.145.179 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear IP202.78.145.179: You could be right on your first point, basically, if I hear you saying that Mr. Hovind's state of mind was such that he did not realize he was breaking the law, although the "willfulness" concept, the Mens rea concept, can get a bit complicated and dicey to interpret. And you're also right that structuring transactions per se may not be the same as tax evasion (or it may be part of a tax evasion, depending on the cirumstances). I would hasten to add that he was not charged with or convicted of tax evasion; he was convicted of willfully, knowingly structuring transactions (bank deposits) to avoid the Treasury reporting requirements, which is a criminal offense, and is separate from tax evasion. Repeatedly and willfully structuring deposits in amounts of what I believe were about $9,500, $9,500, $9,500, over and over, etc., etc. (I forget the exact amounts he made the deposits for), for the purpose evading the $10,000 reporting requirement is blatantly illegal -- forget about whether any tax is owed or whether the conduct also constitutes tax evasion. Mr. Hovind's reported "deliberately going less than the speed limit" analogy does not work at all, from a criminal law standpoint. It's not against the law to drive less than the speed limit. Anyway, you make some interesting points. Yours, Famspear 15:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Correction on my February 3 comments: On the "structuring transactions" discussion above, I should have said "withdrawals," not "deposits." Yours, Famspear 16:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Jo Hovind

I just listened to some of the jail house tapes of Jo Hovind talking to Kent. It's all pretty sad. But what's clear to me now is that Jo has been a victim of Kent's overbearing nature for a long time. If she took part in illegal activity it was more than likely at his insistance. She seems clearly not comfortable with his militancy. She's been lumped in with Kent and has suffered for it, unjustly I think. She sounds to me completely harmless. Kent may well lose her. I hope not for his sake. Still. Ultimately one's family is more important that some obscure principle about taxes. I hope the court takes into consideration the fact that sometimes spouses do things they suspect are wrong but they do it for the right reasons. In Jo's case it was her marriage. It's not too late for Kent. He may be out earlier depending upon his conduct. But he may have to eat some humble pie. Just my opinion 4.246.203.53 02:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's also sad people go along with his creationist arguments. This type of reasoning and perception of science would put us into another dark age. However, its willfull ignorance. People have a choice to go out and research the truth, they don't have to follow Hovind's failed understanding of tax law and science. Hovind has corrupted many people through his drive to pass himself as an expert when he doesn't even understand the basics of government or science.
Those who go around not questioning "preachers" who are to readily willing to give them an answer share some of blame in this. Hovind is a fool. C56C 02:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

While I'm on my devil's advocate kick, I have to say that it's not easy to sympathize with the cold, hard government - especially the I.R.S. And I can't help feeling that it was just a little bit slimy for the jail to record what I suppose the Hovinds, or a least Jo Hovind, thought were private conversations then give them to the court to be used against them. But I think Kent probably knew he was being recorded which may be reason for all of that bluster. 4.246.203.66 08:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You keep giving Hovind the benefit of the doubt, its time you understand the government was more than fair with this man. Its his own fault where he is.
"Although phones include warnings that conversations are recorded, he didn't mince words as he ran up eight hours of calls per week."[15]
The phones in the jail are not owned by Hovind and they state clearly that the conversations were record. Hovind either didn't care or was too dumb to understand that. C56C 01:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Jail phone conversations are routinely recorded in all 50 states of the US and those recordings are admissable evidence in court. Among other reasons, this is to prevent members of organized crime from running their gangs from jail. The Hovinds had no expectation of privacy while talking on a jailhouse phone. thx1138 10:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow!!

This is not a biography. This is an essay of Kent-haters. But it's funny that you put lots of time to denigrade a person you don't even believe. Probably he is close to the truth; if it all was rubbish, nobody would spend so much time proofing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.190.38 (talk • contribs) on 25 January 2007.

Can you state more specifically what you object to? Seraphimblade 09:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I object to all this negative tone. If mr. Hovind didn't obey the law, he will be judged by that law. No problem with that. But mr. Hovind's teaching is a blessing for thousands, maybe millions of people (many other countries are listning, I'm from Holland myself). Don't only tell the bad things.
Have you ever told lies? If you did, someone can make a page of you telling the whole world youre a liar, with all the lies you ever told. Their wouldn't be any false information in it. But it wouldn't be the right thing to do, would it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.132.190.38 (talk • contribs) on 25 January 2007.
Mr. Hovind's problems have already been reported to the world by the news media-we're not here to "out" him, simply to write an article on what multiple reliable sources have already reported, and what decision a jury and court have made regarding his case. Our personal feelings regarding Hovind are irrelevant-we do, in the article, report his beliefs and philosophies, but in accordance with our neutral point of view policy, we must frame these beliefs properly in stating that they are a small-minority viewpoint. As to me lying? If I was in the habit of lying, I guess I'm unsure how it would be wrong to report that, so long as the accusations were substantiated and I really was guilty of that. I would ask again what specifically you would object to-Hovind is a convicted criminal, we can't really write about that part of his life in a positive tone without grossly violating the neutral viewpoint. If there's more you think should be added to the article, though, suggest it here and we'll go over it! Seraphimblade 10:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
A habit? You mean you used to, but don't anymore?
I don't agree in the neutral point, but do not have the intention in any more discussion. Do wathever you think is right. That's normal these days. Over and out. 11:51, 25 January 2007 (René) [[from IP 213.132.190.38]
[Note: Comments inserted here on 25 January 2007 by user at IP 4.246.206.65 were removed on 26 January 2007 by user at IP 4.246.203.215. See comments by Phiwum below. Famspear 12:52, 26 January 2007 (UTC)]
The above comments are out of place here. Whether you like or hate Hovind, whether you think that it's good or a shame that he's been prosecuted, etc., is utterly irrelevant. Discussion pages are for talking about the article and suggesting improvements, not giving opinions on Kent Hovind. Phiwum 22:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here's gonna disagree that this Hovind guy is obviously bad news. But this is an encyclopedia, and it's really gotta ease off on the one-sidedness. Sure there's less of a risk of POV when only facts are used, but when only negative facts are used, it's no better than an opinion article. As it stands right now, the more appropriate title of this article would be "Criticism of Ken Hovind", (which as an side, I think wouldn't be a bad idea for an article considering the extensive documentation). But this article is about the guy Hovind, and so should include his non-fraduster background and a discussion of what he believes without first qualifying them as "highly controversial". The article also doesn't seem to reference or give any credibility to what his supporters have to say. I think the facts of this guy speak for themselves, we really don't need to editorialize or overkill on the criticism of the guy. -Taco325i 14:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

When I first started editing this article, those were my sentiments exactly. Surely the man must have done something good in his life. However, when I went to find reliable sources that would provide positive information on him, I found out there weren't any. So the answer seems to be that no, he hasn't. He's notable mostly for scientific fraud and tax fraud, as well as his, um, interesting political beliefs. Even other creationists don't like him because they think his intellectually dishonest, easily disprovable arguments make creationists look foolish. The article reflects the reliable sources available about the man, which is what WP is supposed to do. However, if you can find evidence that he has done anything significant that is non-fraudulent, by all means {{sofixit}}. JChap2007 14:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: I have to agree with Taco325i. I have been sporadically working on the article from the standpoint of his legal problems, especially his tax problems, to help assure that the legal material is accurate (I happen to be a tax law geek of sorts). I had never heard of this guy before I came across the article in connection my edits on taxation. The whole evolution-creationism argument is boring to me, so in analyzing the article I might actually have an advantage of sorts over readers who are biased one way or the other, as I don't really care.
Problem is, I haven't yet specifically identified what needs to be done. I guess I need to read the entire article again -- more slowly. It does seem that there is way too much repetition of anti-Hovind material. The term Taco325i used is apt: "overkill." Stay tuned. Famspear 14:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear ya, JChap. I don't think we necessarily need to strain ourselves in finding something good about this guy, but I think we should work on focusing the criticism to a single section. Like the section on Hovind's theory, it's more like a criticism of his theory. There are plenty of people with what seems to be even crazier theories, but their wikipedia articles still try to be neutral (see Heaven's Gate (cult). Even universally accepted monsters like Hitler seem to have a less stinging article in wikipedia. Check out the article on Jim Bakker, which mentions covers all the bad and controversial things he did but appears to be neutral in the delivery of content. Let's go to work on this bad boy. -Taco325i 14:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
At best, it could be argued that since Hovind is more notable as a creationist rather than a tax evader, all the creationism-related stuff should precede all the tax-evasion stuff (other than a brief mention in the introduction) to avoid giving the impression that the tax-evasion material is a pre-emptive ad-hominem attack. But the article is mostly structured like this anyhow (maybe the "Legal Problems" section could be moved down below "Hovind Theory" and "Hovind's $250,000 offer)... and I'm no longer sure that he IS still more notable as a creationist anyhow. A lot of money was involved, and 10 years is a stiff sentence: he'd be notable for the scale of his tax-evasion alone. But he is certainly not a notable person for any reason that does not involve "fraud" of some sort. The creationism-specific criticism is well-deserved, and shouldn't be dropped, even if the wording changes a little. --Robert Stevens 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding like a cheerleader, I agree with Taco325i -- again. Even if we cannot find one single positive thing about Hovind, the negative stuff should be presented with a more neutral tone.

Speaking of Hitler, one of the very best books about Hitler is the gigantic biography Adolf Hitler by John Toland (Doubleday 1976). Toland's treatment of Hitler is to a large degree antiseptic, non-judgmental. Toland goes into such detail about so many things that Hitler said and did, but in a neutral way, that the eventual effect on me -- after reading over a thousand pages (including endnotes and index) -- is even more devastating than I get from reading other excellent works on Hitler, like William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (Simon and Schuster 1960) (also well over a thousand pages, by the way). Shirer's work is a bit more POVish, which actually detracts from the overall effect (only a little bit in Shirer's case, because he was such an excellent writer and historian, and he didn't overdo the POV stuff too much).

The Hovind material needs to be presented in a more neutral tone, but sometimes that's hard to do. I have the same problem editing articles on the subject of tax protesters (people who make legally frivolous arguments about the validity of U.S. income tax laws). Indeed, that's how I discovered Hovind. You cannot find a single reliable source that backs up any tax protester argument, because there is none (basically, by definition: if the argument had merit, it wouldn't be a tax protest argument). But you still strive to present the material from a neutral point of view. Famspear 15:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very different claim than what Taco said. If you think there is non-neutral part of the article that can be better phrased then change it. However, a) I don't see any and b) that isn't Taco's objection above anyways. JoshuaZ 15:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I generally agree with Joshua, but am ready to be persuaded that we are wrong. What specific wording changes would you propose? JChap2007 16:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I have made a few edits to tone down what I perceived as some mild POV. Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 05:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute Tag

The NPOV dispute tag indicates merely that there is a dispute about NPOV, not that the article is not NPOV. There's been extensive discussion on the NPOV topic. I cannot think of a more appropriate article in which this tag should be placed. I will replace the tag. Tag should be removed only when (1) nobody disputes NPOV and (2) there is no discussion on the NPOV of the article. -Taco325i 14:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The tag is not so you can make vague objections. If you have specific objections other than thinking that there is too much well sourced, verifiable negative information then state them. JoshuaZ 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
You'll notice that the tag doesn't say "a user objects to this article". I do not object to any of the factual contents of this article. I believe it can be presented in a neutral manner, and I am not alone in this belief. There is much discussion regarding the neutrality of this article. Thus a dispute over the neutrality exists, and thus a tag is appropriate until the matter is resolved. I am not required in anyway to prove that this article is not neutral, as you are not required to prove that it is neutral. -Taco325i 16:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself: {{sofixit}} by finding positive information from reliable sources. And good luck with that. JChap2007 16:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hear ya JChap! I don't intend to just place this tag and walk away. I will contribute to this article to make it appear more neutral. I agree that I probably won't find anything "good" about this guy, but we don't need to be singing praises of this pharisee to make the article neutral.-Taco325i 16:31, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Alright, but what specific language do you object to and how would you change it? Keep in mind that editors will probably not react favorably to the removal of relevant sourced content just because there is little positive information (on WP or elsewhere, apparently) about Hovind. JChap2007 16:40, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
While it would be ridiculous to suggest that Hovind is "more evil than Hitler", I think it's probably true that there is more positive material for Hitler than for Hovind: Hitler was a man of many accomplishments, and not everything he did was "evil" (autobahns, free healthcare etc). Whereas the difficulty here is that Hovind's much lesser accomplishments don't seem to include anything much that can be presented as "positive". Right from the outset, he set himself up with bogus credentials and set about misleading people with false claims, and that's how he became rich and famous: it's hard to put a positive (or even neutral) spin on that. Probably the most charitable thing that can be said about him is that he was probably self-deluded most of the time. --Robert Stevens 16:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
relax guys relax. Am I coming across as somebody who's trying to defend this Hovind guy? Belieeeeeve me I'm not. I am not going to delete ANY of the facts that exist on this article. I may reword things. I may trim sentences/paragraphs for conciseness. But just to be clear: positive facts about Hovind do not need to be included for this article to be neutral. I am not going to dig up insignificant or irrelevant facts to put Hovind in a good light. There is no place on wikipedia for "spinning" of facts, let's leave that for Fox News. -Taco325i 16:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I was in the same place you were when I first came across this article. Do some research and watch his videos. Then evaluate whether the article accurately reflects the tone of what the reliable sources have to say about Hovind. Rather than the Hitler article, a better analogy may be the article on Emperor Norton. None of the reliable sources take either Hovind or Norton's claims seriously, and their WP articles reflect that. JChap2007 17:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the issue of the tag, I don't see a dispute here. What, specifically, do you see as violating NPOV, and what is preventing you from fixing it? Without that, I can't see how you can assert that there's an NPOV dispute. Guettarda 19:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag doesn't belong! If someone is in jail, it's neutral to say so. It's not neutral to say it is fair or unfair, it's neutral to state the fact. If the science doesn't back someone up, the science doesn't back someone up, and it's neutral to say so. Just because there are people who don't like plain bald straight facts doesn't mean those plain bald straight facts are not neutral. Think about that before you edit war over a tag that doesn't belong in an NPOV article. If you truly feel that the article is NPOV, please point out the specific portions that truly are non-neutral, instead of saying "people won't like that" and tagging it. Harvestdancer 00:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, so far you added it once today and three times reverted the removal. You've put it in four times today, and putting it back in one more time would be a violation of the 3RR. I've only removed it twice, and others have removed it the other times. Clearly consensus is going against you. Think about it before you proceed further. Harvestdancer 00:29, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey. did you even read this discussion? did you read what Wikipedia:NPOV dispute says about the tag? let me copy and paste the wikipedia policy here: "This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link, the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards." Let me paste it again with annotations: "This means that in the opinion of the person who added this link [me], the article in question does not conform to NPOV standards." That's ALL it means. Further "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV, and some people who disagree. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." Let me copy that again with annotations: "It is important to remember that the NPOV dispute tag does not mean that an article actually violates NPOV. It simply means that there is an ongoing dispute [THE 15 OR SO PARAGRAPHS ABOVE] about whether the article complies with a neutral point of view or not. In any NPOV dispute, there will be some people who think the article complies with NPOV [YOU, JCHAP, JOSHUAZ, AMONG OTHERS], and some people who disagree[ME, FAMSPEAR, AMONG OTHERS. In general, you should not remove the NPOV dispute tag merely because you personally feel the article complies with NPOV [WHAT YOU DID]. Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved.[THERE IS NO CONSENSUS]"
If you had read the paragraphs above you'll see that the other editors who strongly believe that this article is NEUTRAL and I have reached some sort of consensus that we'll work on addressing the issues within the article. This will take time. So until the DISPUTE is RESOLVED, it is not appropriate to remove the tag. -Taco325i 00:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
First, "consensus" doesn't mean "unanimous". There is strong agreement, in this case, that the article in its current form is acceptable. That doesn't in any way mean perfect, and if you believe changes would be beneficial, let's talk about them! However, the arguments I've seen so far are either so vague as to be meaningless (too negative? This is an article about a guy whose main route to notability is a widely-discredited fringe theory and a felony conviction!) or already addressed (lack of biographical information? The article includes information about his family, theme park, and theories. Is there anything in specific that you would suggest including?) It is not a violation of WP:NPOV to state that a widely-criticized theory is widely criticized. It is not a violation to state that a person convicted of a crime has been convicted of that crime. It is not a violation to state that an unaccredited degree is unaccredited. It would be a violation to actively suppress verifiable and reliably sourced positive material, but every time the question has been asked "Where is it?", there has been no answer forthcoming. If you have objections to the way things are presented, state what specifically you object to, why, and how you would propose to do differently. {{NPOV}} isn't used to mean "Someone suggested there might be neutrality problems at one point", it means that there is an ongoing debate over specific issues with the article. Please present specifics. Seraphimblade 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
And you should read WP:3RR Harvestdancer 01:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am familiar with the policy, I've reluctantly violated it. That's your response? You haven't contributed to this discussion at all, yet you show up, remove a tag without reading the discussion, and you flare up a heated disputed that had quieted down to a temporary consensus. Then you slap the 3RR in my face without addressing any of my comments to you. This is not wikietiquette. -Taco325i 01:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
So you admit you knew the policy and violated it anyway? I may have vioated WP:BITE, but most people would have looked at your violation and say "he's new, he didn't know."
What specificly is disputed. What specifically is not neutral. Just because some people won't like it doesn't mean it's not neutral or disputed. It is a verifyable fact that he's in jail. It is a verifyable fact that science doesn't back up his claims. What's to dispute? Harvestdancer 01:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflicted reply to Taco) You don't need to SHOUT, we're perfectly familiar with lowercase letters. You and Famspear appear to be the only established editors who endorse the idea that the article is WP:NPOV. (I'm discounting the anons/SPAs who tell us that Kent Hovind is a man of God and we and the IRS are going to Hell.) However, you have not given a specific example of any langugage that you think needs to be changed. Famspear has given an example below, but this seems to be based on confusion about the definition of "church" for purposes of the tax law, as I explain below. (Hovind's organization is religious but not a "church," either based on specific criteria developed by the IRS and listed in the Jeffries case, by the common definition of the word or in the estimation of his staff; building an overpriced playground in your backyard and going on speaking tours does not make you a church.) I'm going to wait for Famspear to come back and see if he agrees with my analysis before removing the tag. JChap2007 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't even been able to go near the substance of the article because i've been spending my time here trying to argue that there is a dispute as to whether this article is NPOV, i haven't even reached the debate over the NPOV of this article. you guys see this right, this whole dispute is about whether a dispute exists and has been resolved. to address your concern and seraphim's concern, are the placement of facts that could be moved to other places. to be specific: every single neutral statement in the article is immediately followed with a qualifier that seems to qualify it with a negative attribute. for example in the education section, it says that he received a degree in " ", and you put the quotes around the degree, as if it's fake. then the reader is immediately reminded that the schools are unaccredited. now there's nothing wrong with the facts of this, but it's the way facts are presented. an unaccredited school does not mean it's not a school. there are plenty of students who go to unaccredited schools. some states allow future lawyers to take the bar exam who went to unaccredited schools. Now this can simply be fixed by moving that fact to the criticism section. we can make a HUGE criticism section, that's fine, because it appears that's all this guy's gonna get (in addition to prison shower encounters) Ok, so that's one example. the other example is the one edit i made today, before I had to come back to the talk page to defend the addition of the tag, and that was the statement that "The vast majority of scientists do not take Hovind's work seriously and do not agree with his interpretation of the facts". Cmon, look me in the eyes --> OO <-- and tell me that's a neutral statement (let alone untrue).
And please, please understand what this tag means. It does not mean that this article is not neutral. It means that the neutrality is disputed. Does anybody here deny that I am disputing the neutrality of the article?
So how about this. Let me get to work on this article, and get it up to par in terms of neutrality. I just need like a day. I am never going to be able to show how this article can be improved if I'm spending all my time here. Give me 24 hours, yeah? -Taco325i 01:34, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
(Looking you in the eyes). Yeah, the vast majority of scientists don't take the work of any Young Earth Creationist seriously and believe their facts (the Earth is 6,000 years old, for example) are wrong. So the statement is accurate and neutral about what scientists believe. See, to take one of many examples, Project Steve. Hovind himself revels in the disdain he gets from scientists, as he takes it as evidence that he's doing something right and that the evil, liberal Satanic scientists are all against him. JChap2007 01:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the use of the "" marks is unnecessary (these should be reserved for actual direct quotes), and have removed them from the paragraph you cited and the intro. I strongly disagree to removal of the "unaccredited" qualifier regarding his degrees, however. When it's said someone has a degree in something, it is a nearly automatic presumption that those degrees are from accredited institutions, and we would be leading our readers to believe something untrue. The reader should be informed that the degrees are unaccredited, and it should be left to the reader from there to decide what worth, if any, (s)he believes such degrees would have. Seraphimblade 02:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreeing with this, although for clarification, contrary to what Taco says above, I did not add them. JChap2007 02:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  1. The degrees are fake, the article establishes as much. Do you have a better way to refer to a fake degree? Let's discuss it.
  2. "The vast majority of scientists do not take Hovind's work seriously and do not agree with his interpretation of the facts Cmon, look me in the eyes --> OO <-- and tell me that's a neutral statement" - of course that's a neutral statement. It's a simple, factually accurate statement. How is that not neutral?
"Does anybody here deny that I am disputing the neutrality of the article?"

Sure I do. The first issue is stylistic - how best does one refer to a fake degree. In the second case, you are asking whether a simple factual statement is neutral. That isn't a neutrality dispute - asking silly questions doesn't constitute a neutrality dispute. Guettarda 05:17, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, would be highly in favor of a "dispute" tab being placed on this article. See my last post in the "FreeHovind" Section of this page. Roburmow 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Questions

  • 501(c)(3) qualification.
Did Hovind ever claim that his organization was a 501(c)(3) organization?
Was Creation Science Ministries ever a 501(c)(3) org prior to his conviction?
  • Regarding the Hovind theory
What does his theory say generally? Are there plausible arguments in his theory? because the article only points out the off-the-wall points.

-Taco325i 17:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've ever been able to find, his theory consists pretty much of off-the-wall points to rival the flat-earthers, but there might be more to it that I've missed. Haven't found it yet though, do you have any suggestions on good sources that aren't already used? Seraphimblade 19:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
With respect to your first point, I don't think Hovind has ever applied to be a 501(c)(3). Hovind's supporters say (or at least said on this talk page) it's because he shouldn't have to apply for a license from the government to run his ministry because of the First Amendment. Whether you think that's self-evident bullshit or not, it could be a good addition to the article to find a reliable source with Hovind's comments on that (as well as any refutation that exists in reliable sources). JChap2007 19:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors: On the 501(c)(3) question, I was already in the process of working on clarifying the verbiage in the article.
I haven't finished the research, but I think Hovind's argument was that his organization was a church. Under the Internal Revenue Code, a REAL church IS a 501(c)(3) organization, and under 26 U.S.C. § 508(c)(1)(A) is not even required to file Form 1023, Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. (By the way, the term "church" is not defined in the statute.) If an organization is a "church" for Federal income tax purposes, there's no need for the church to get "recognition" from the Internal Revenue Service. (However, for strategic reasons some churches do file Form 1023 anyway, and are presumably expressly listed by the IRS as 501(c)(3)'s once the Form 1023 is accepted.)
I haven't researched it, but the apparent decision by Hovind's organization not to apply might be one reason the IRS didn't specifically list his organization as a 501(c)(3). There might be lots of churches in that category.
Again, I haven't researched it, but I think part of the reason Hovind got into so much trouble is that his organization was not really a church at all for purposes of 501(c)(3). You see, the organization must actually be organized for a charitable purpose under complex rules -- including the rule that no part of the earnings of the organization can "inure to the benefit of any private shareholder."
Once I finish my research, I'll try to work on a proposed change for the wording in the article. It's misleading as currently written, because it seems to imply that Hovind was doing something unusual for "a church" by not applying for IRS recognition. Famspear 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for the record, here is the verbiage from the article that I am referencing:

The ministry is not listed as a tax-exempt Code Section 501(c)(3) charitable, educational or religious organization by the Internal Revenue Service nor is it considered a church by people who work there.

(Bolding added; footnotes omitted).

To me, the language just seems to imply that there is something unusual or fishy about not being listed with the IRS as a 501(c)(3). Famspear 21:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

PS: Here's the applicable language from the IRS instructions for Form 1023:

Form 1023 not necessary. The following types of organizations may be considered tax exempt under section 501(c)(3) even if they do not file Form 1023.
Churches, including synagogues, temples, and mosques. [ . . . ]

--Internal Revenue Service, Department of the Treasury, Instructions for Form 1023, page 1, third column (Rev. June 2006). Yours, Famspear 21:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CSE would not qualify as a "church" under Code Sec. 501(c)(3) because it does not have an established congregation (the case name is Jeffries, I don't know the cite offhand). It could qualify as a religious or educational organization under that subsection, but would have to file Form 1023 to qualify (not all religious organizations are churches and religious organizations that are not churches are required to file Form 1023 to claim exempt status). As you note, the real issue implied by the facts is private inurement/private benefit. However, this was never addressed by a court (because Hovind claims exemption from tax under 508 as a minister of the gospel rather than under 501(c)(3)) so we cannot say this in the article. JChap2007 21:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
The cite for Jeffries is 854 F2d 254, if you're interested. JChap2007 21:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, from a footnote in Jeffries, the criteria to be used as a guide in determining whether an organization is a church are: (1) a distinct legal existence, (2) a recognized creed and form of worship, (3) a definite and distinct ecclesiastical government, (4) a formal code of doctrine and discipline, (5) a distinct religious history, (6) a membership not associated with any other church or denomination, (7) an organization of ordained ministers, (8) ordained ministers selected after completing prescribed studies, (9) a literature of its own, (10) established places of worship, (11) regular congregations, (12) regular religious services, (13) Sunday schools for religious instruction of the young, (14) schools for the preparation of its ministers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JChap2007 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

If you listen to Hovind's jail-house conversations in them he insistes that he's NOT a "tax-protester" which, of course, flies in the face of all his ranting about taxes. I think what he may mean is that he's not necessarily opposed to taxes per se but just certain uses that his tax dollars are put to (i.e. evolution education). In this article, he mentions taxes and evolution education no less than 6 times, 4 times in this one. Here he says The problem is that they want to use tax dollars to spread their religion through our museums and science centers. I don’t think anyone that I’m aware of in my camp is ever going to be okay with this situation. So perhaps it's more accurate to say that he's a "selective tax protester" or a Tax resistance advocate. While almost all of his tax protesting comments are evolution related he makes a few others as well, in this article about overpopulation he says Billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent both studying the 'problem' and attempting to coerce developing nations into stricter birth control methods.... In this article about Jesus he makes the commentWanted by the DN&R for fishing without a license or paying the tax which looks more like a general tax protest comment. I have not researched closely enough his views on taxes though. 4.246.206.234 21:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand He did renounce his citizenship (and lives in Florida where they pay no income taxes) so his views on taxes could be more of the general tax protester sort. By the way not having his own chruch I don't think he was even officially a minister was he? He was more like a traveling salesman: have a debate or give a speech, sell books and tapes. 4.246.206.234 22:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

How about putting that his "ministry" is not registered as a church. That is what the prosecution pointed out in the link. FGT2 04:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you are referring to him not applying for 501(c)(3) status, see discussion above. JChap2007 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone cares I think I started this whole discussion on the forums or not It doesn't matter in fact I have been too busy to worry about this site I'm just going to boycott wiki its about the only thing I can do But seriously they should have a debate in a freaking coliseum arena and broadcast the debates live. I think this topic would get plenty of ratings and too many people would show up I for one would consider going Awol to watch something like that this guy stirs up a lot of controversy and he isn't doing any physical harm but I've seen people through fist and punches over this topic I mean this I think a show like that done on national TV in front of a Live studio audience would Sell And it would answer a lot of peoples questions but hey what ever this will prolly be the last time I respond. If Kent has to pay for a fine to get free all he would need is just a fractional percentage of the profit from that. (and yes I know my grammer sux) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.148.17.154 (talk • contribs) on 11 April 2007.

Request for Comment

There is a dispute as to whether the is a NPOV dispute. One editor has placed a tag asserting that the NPOV of this article is disputed; at least three other editors, including an administrator has at one point objected to the adding of the tag. As of the post of this RfC, there is at least one clear objector to the placing of the tag. Taco325i 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is give evidence of what you disagree with. That would be reason enough for the tag. However, you have not. FGT2 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
If you have a specific statement that you feel is not neutral, say what it is. We can work on it. If you feel that it should be tagged as non-neutral for factual, accurate statements, then this isn't a case of the article being NPOV but the tagger being NPOV. Harvestdancer 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Some observations

Going down the article. A bit of overlinking in the Hovind Theory section. For example I think eveyone knows what earth, the moon and the south pole is. Common knowledge doesn't need an explanation. "Fountains of the deep" is linked to twice in the same paragraph.

"Their article "Maintaining Creationist Integrity"[70] responds to Hovind's criticism of the original Answers in Genesis article"; here you might provide a link to Hovind's criticism.

"Critics view this to be spurious because of the conditions which Hovind imposes. The winner would have to convince Hovind that evolution is real and would be required to scientifically prove that God doesn't exist". I don't read that. What Hovind asks for is that the submitter would have to prove that "the process of evolution...is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence" [16]. In other words, they have to think up every other possible theoretical scenario in the universe (besides the obvious natural explantion) for the existance of everything in the universe then disprove it leaving only evolution standing at the end for it to be accepted as true. Pretty ridiculous qualification.

Some sentences about Hovind are in the present tense, but as he's in jail ought to now be in the past. Look, for example at the Biography section.

Funny to read Hovind's evasions to the judge: "Magistrate Miles Davis asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded 'To some degree'", "Nobody's an employee, and they all know that when they come. They come, they work...There are no employees here". Gosh, I thought that if you WORK for someone you are an "employee". But in his challenge he says that a lot of people waste his time with "Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like "is" [17].

I think I'll make some corrections. Others can judge them as they see fit. As far as NPOV, except for lots of use of the word "claims" and telling us that his degrees are from "unaccredited" institutions four times this article seems as NPOV as one can be on a subject like this to me. 4.246.203.114 04:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "unaccredited" the four times are once in thr introduction, once in the biography sketch and then twice modifying specific institutions. It isn't clear to me that any of those are removable. JoshuaZ 05:48, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear fellow editors. I'm baaaacck. OK, I have made a few edits, including some edits to tone down what I perceive as some mild POV, I hope my edits did not change any substantive meaning. The POV in the article, or what I personally perceive as POV, is not blatant; it's subtle and probably unintentional. Maybe some of it just comes from the repetition, which, as editor JoshuaZ more or less indicates, may be difficult to do away with.
At the risk of appearing to digress a bit: The subject of this article, Mr. Hovind, apparently not only subscribes to some tax protester theories (frivolous arguments about tax law), but also uses some tax protester tactics. I am fairly familiar with the tactics, having studied them over the years and having dealt with tax protesters here in Wikipedia since late 2005. The "standing offer" regarding proving/disproving evolution versus creationism is a classic example. As I believe at least one court has noted, this is pretty much an illusory "offer." Yours, Famspear 05:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear editors: I've made a few other edits on arcane tax law stuff. Technically, the Internal Revenue Service does not "issue" tax liens. Federal tax liens arise by operation of law under the Internal Revenue Code upon the happening/non-happening of a series of events -- see various Code provisions including but not limited to 26 U.S.C. § 6321 and 26 U.S.C. § 6322. The IRS does "issue," and then "file," in the appropriate place, a notice of Federal tax lien -- under 26 U.S.C. § 6323 -- to perfect the already-existing lien, as against certain third parties. Now, isn't this a lot more interesting than that silly old creationism-evolution debate? What? No? Yours, Famspear 06:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: One clarification. Above, where I said that "at least one court has noted" the offer to be illusory, I should have said at least one court has noted that these kinds of offers are illusory (not a ruling on Hovind's offer specifically). I don't know of any court that has ruled on Hovind's offer itself. Often, these kinds of tactics are not real offers, as the only judge of whether someone has satisfed the demand is the person placing the offer. They're publicity stunts. Yours, Famspear 06:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the employment thing seven paragraphs up, I think the people who worked at the company were treated as independent contractors rather than as employees. Therefore, the company is not required to deduct tax payments from the paychecks. The workers are responsible for their own taxes. JBFrenchhorn 21:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear user JBFrenchhorn: Yes, this is a bit off topic, but that is a tactic used by many businesses. Unfortunately, if the Internal Revenue Service audits the business, the IRS might conclude that the "independent contractors" are really "employees." It's a "facts and circumstances of each case" kind of thing, and the applicable case law includes a long list of weight factors used to determine who is right if the case goes to court. If it's ultimately determined that the payees were employees, the employer could be liable for (1) Federal income tax withholding, (2) Social Security tax withholding, (3) Medicare tax withholding, (4) the employer share of Social Security tax, (5) the employer share of Medicare tax, (6) the Federal unemployment tax, and (7) any applicable state unemployment tax. Further, certain individuals (usually members of management) at the company who had authority to authorize payments, and who allowed as much as a light bill to be paid while knowing that the withholding taxes (items 1, 2 and 3 above) were not paid may be held personally liable under 26 U.S.C. § 6672. Legally, the workers are always responsible for their own income taxes, but if the worker is really an "employee," the employee is not legally responsible for self-employment tax (which is the independent contractor equivalent of items 2, 3, 4, and 5 above) and the employee is not responsible for items 6 and 7. Yours, Famspear 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Post-script: Obviously, Mr. Hovind's problem with Federal payroll taxes was also a criminal law problem, and therefore even more serious. He was convicted under, among other things, 26 U.S.C. § 7202. Yours, Famspear 21:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing wording in article

See this sentence in the last paragraph in the section about the current tax case:

One conversation with Eric Hovind, Kent Hovind's son, showed the two plot to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.[58]

This sentence should be reworded. Should the word plot be changed to plotting? Maybe more information should be added.

JBFrenchhorn 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

What's confusing? "Plotting" would be in the present tense when it should be in the past tense (plot). FGT2 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Read the rules then rewrite this article as it breaks the laws of Wikipedia

All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]

This page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.213.193 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Can you please specify what, in your opinion, is wrong with the article? janejellyroll 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
...Obviously, nothing. A look at the history file reveals that this editor began with a bogus assertion that Hovind "hasn't been proved wrong" (he has, many times over), followed by massive deletion of factual and well-sourced information about Hovind. Sometimes, the facts aren't flattering. Indeed, the page of another famous tax-evader, Al Capone, describes him as some sort of gangster... --Robert Stevens 10:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: Editors Janejellyroll and Robert Stevens have hit it on the head. I have had the same kind of objections come up time and time again in Wikipedia with respect to "tax protester"-related articles. Some tax protesters have objected to the very use of the term tax protester to describe a person who makes a legally frivolous argument about Federal income tax law, despite the fact that tax protester is the term uniformly used by the courts -- in formal decisions -- to describe such a person. Why? Because the term has negative connotations they don't like. The fact that a term or a fact has negative connotations for someone does not necessarily mean that the reporting of that term or fact in Wikipedia represents non-neutral point of view.

For example, the term "tax protester" originally did not have negative connotations; it was originally used to describe people who, for example, simply refused to pay taxes because the government was prosecuting some unjust war or another, or the government was doing something else somebody deemed immoral. The term gathered its more negative connotations in court decisions in the mid-1970s -- because of the conduct of the people (wasting court time with false, groundless, bizarre contentions about the tax law itself) to whom the term was applied.

When a person does something that does not result in a flattering description, that person cannot reasonably complain when the result of that conduct is reported. Neutral point of view in Wikipedia does not mean deleting "negative" information. Neutral point of view means presenting both negative and positive information in a way that lets the facts speak for themselves, without Wikipedia itself taking a moral position or exhibiting a material bias.

Generalized statements that the article is not "neutral" are not as helpful as specific examples. Of course, I and other editors have indeed made changes here and there, where we have found instances of what we assessed were specific examples of non-neutral point of view -- based on critiques of language that was in the article, and we have provided descriptions and reasons for those changes. This article, like all Wikipedia articles, is a work in progress. Yours, Famspear 15:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The page 71.72.213.193 quotes [18] also says Facts ... are not Points Of View and Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.... A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up. I also read The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete. Ya gotta love people who are exercising an agenda under the guise of editorial purity. 63.196.193.26 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if a reader perceives that a particular passage in an article represents an example of someone "exercising an agenda under the guise of editorial purity," that reader is certainly free to point out the specific language of that passage. I think the point that editors Janejellyroll and Robert Stevens have made is, essentially, that a reader who has a complaint should identify the specific language in the article that is considered problematic. I and other editors have from time to time made edits in this particular article to tone down what we have argued were specific examples of language that conveyed a non-neutral point of view -- and those changes were accepted by the Wikipedia community. It's pretty much a level playing field here; but you do have to learn the rules, and learn how to apply them. Yours, Famspear 15:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Hovind/Archive_2&oldid=439121994"