Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

what?!

wow is all i could say, hovind bashing at its best, but as his critics might say he probably deserves it and much more. The writing is unquestionably biased, remind me to see a professional site next time. im not a creationist but this article is a bit much good work evo dorks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.196.218 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I started reading about Kent Hovind, only to realise that it has not been written in a professional manner at all. I couldn't believe it- can't someone who is not angrily biased write? To write a piece of information about someone or something, you can't show your own opinions! This whole thing is stuffed up. And as if the dispute will ever be settled. Christians and atheists are at it 24/7, this talk page not excluded.

arg. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.29.189.85 (talk) 12:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is not at all "angry," nor is it "biased" except in that it is "biased" toward telling the facts. I found nothing in the article that even hints at being negative, or "angry," or "biased" in the sense you are using the word. In other words, grow the fuck up. --- Desertphile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.34 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Thank you for witty and helpful response.</sarcasm> Perhaps, we would all get farther if you both would make specific recommendations at the RfC below. Ursasapien (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What's the point in being annoyed? Only the most fundamentalist of atheists (for instance, that IP address that calls itself "Desertphile") would consider that this page is written neutrally.... but they seem to be the largest percentile of WP.

DarthSidious 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Bogus Categories

There is no proof he is a Conspiracy theorist, Scandalist (religious or other), or what he does can be called Pseudoscience. This is verry POV, and simply not true, just like the text books that say the earch is millions or billions of years old, but thats another story.--71.221.199.29 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist and pseudoscience are supported by reliable sources. I don't see evidence of a scandal, so would consider removing the scandal categories, but, because of this specific edit, but I haven't reread the entire article recently. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What definition of the word "scandal" would not include conviction on 58 federal charges resulting in a 10-year prison sentence? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I don't see a WP:RS that used the word "scandal", but it seems close enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A psuedoscientist is defined as one whom does not use the scientific method; he uses firm research, solid facts, and bases his theories upon them, which is what the scientific method calls for. Therefor, he is not a pseudoscientist. There is no denying he is a conspiracy theorist, but to use such a term negatively is ludicrous; there have been conspiracies since large groups of people (not even formal governments) have existed, and will be until man's time on earth is over. And we all know that the court system is a joke; it's really become nothing more than a competition to see who can hire a better lawyer.--69.252.221.116 05:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind uses firm research and solid facts? Like that whole Vapor Canopy iceberg-from-space thing, right? Knight of BAAWA 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

If you would actually watch the college seminars, you would find he gives ample proof for his theories. I would suggest watching his seminars before assuming he says nothing in them. The only videos of his I've seen that don't give proof for creationism are his "Redeeming the Strawman" and "The Bible and Health" videos, neither of which are relevant tot he subject. If you really wish to learn, then you would take a purely objective view on the subject, as opposed to assuming "the guy went to jail, he must be wrong".--69.252.221.116 10:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I have watched his seminars. Your claim is downright laughable and borders on dishonesty. The seminars speak for themselves: vapid nothingness repeated often, and are on the level of "evilooshuns r frum satin!" It's quite clear that Hovind does not use firm research and solid facts. What he demands is a complete lack of facts (HHGTTG reference). Knight of BAAWA 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>69.252.221.116: your claims ("he uses firm research, solid facts, and bases his theories upon them, which is what the scientific method calls for") are ludicrous, and not backed by WP:RS. Either come up with reliable sources for them, or expect them to be ignored. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Word

This article is unashamedly biased. I have deleted a repetitive remark about Hovind not having state accredited qualifications, and evened out the original statement, by saying why Hovind has chosen not to get a state-accredited degree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.240.126 (talk • contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2007

.... And you arseholes deleted it. I'm neither a creationist nor an evolutionist, and when someone truly neutral like myself can come along and make 2 small, reasonable changes to a completely biased article, only to not only have them immediately erased, but for someone to do it without discussion - that is the reason why Wikipedia is doomed forever to be the haven of the truly uneducated. Go fuck yourselves.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.240.126 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 9 July 2007

Boo-hoo. I guess you've never heard of WP:AGF, or perhaps you've heard of it but decided acting like a brat gets you more attention. Whatever the reason, your tone is completely unwarranted, as are your accusations. Perhaps instead of wailing about changes you made being reverted, you should try to establish a consensus on this talk page. I'm also curious how someone can support neither creation nor evolution. I assume there is a third option when it comes to origins of life? --Agamemnon2 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

His opinions about evolution and creationism aren't really relevant for the discussion of his changes. Let's talk about the changes themselves. I assume that they were reverted because he added uncited material and deleted cited material—although, I don't see a reference for the following claim:

"Hovind has no recognized teaching credentials nor academic degrees from accredited universities in the subjects he taught."

This claim is very likely true, but needs a citation. As for the anonymous editor's contribution:

"...because he believes the American schooling system to have been irreparably corrupted."

This text cannot be added unless we have a reference stating that Hovind purposely avoided accredited schools for exactly this reason. Phiwum 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, his opinions have nothing to do with why I reverted his edit, as you rightly pointed out it was because he added uncited content and removed cited. Though on that last point, while patriot being unaccredited is fairly uncontroversial and cited in numerous places in this article and others, looking further into the matter I was unable (after an admittedly superficial search) to find a direct reference to Midwestern Baptist College being unaccredited. The best I could come up with is the fact that it is not in this database of accredited US tertiary institutions. ornis 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not Hovind choose to get an accredited degree is beside the point (for the record, I doubt it was a choice). Accreditation is done privately it is not state controlled, and there are 3 Christian accreditors. Most seminaries and theological schools are accredited. That his degree is not accredited means it is worthless to anyone outside the place he received it. As such, it is important.

If something is incorrect let us know and it will be fixed. C56C 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• That his degree is not accredited means it is worthless to anyone outside the place he received it. - FALSE Harvard was unaccredited for decades. It does not mean a degree from Harvard was worthless.

• Most seminaries and theological schools are accredited. - I would like to see your references or statistics to back this up. I think this may not be true. I believe many "Christian" schools are not accredited or were not accredited when they started out.

• Accreditation is done privately, it is not state controlled. - This is disingenuous. If a school is accredited by some "private" accrediting body then it is often considered unaccredited or lacking valid accreditation. There are many Christian accrediting bodies that oversee schools, but most are not given validity by outside (state) agencies. Ursasapien (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

(ri) All well and good, but that's not got much to do with the content of the article. The article makes no assertion that an unaccredited degree is worthless, merely notes the fact that his are unaccredited, nor does it make any assertions about the number of religious schools that are or are not accredited. I notice that you've tagged the article to be checked for POV, was there something specific you thought was not suitably neutral in the article? ornis (t) 09:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see Neutrality below. Essentially, I was replying to the comment above mine (hence, the quotes). Ursasapien (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Confusing statement needs clarification

In discussion of the geological events related to The Flood, the article says that Hovind believes the Biblical account is literally true, but goes on to describe events that happened "in the first several months of the flood." According to the Biblical account, the flood lasted 40 days, not several months. Does Hovind's theory stretch time? Calaf 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The rains are supposed to have lasted forty days and nights, but the waters covered the earth 150. ornis 06:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality?

This article seems terribly biased! This article is not only filled with weasel words, but it seems that a group of editors resist even the most innocent of attempts to correct the balance. Why does every other line read that he attended an "unaccredited" school? Why the insistence that his religion be "Baptist" instead of "Independent Baptist?" Why must the article say "converted to Christianity" rather than "became a born-again Christian?" He converted from what? Independent Baptist is a much clearer description of his religious beliefs. Why is the article such a POV, unbalanced mess that seems clearly antagonistic to the subject? Ursasapien (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit you reverted to was anything but an "innocent attempt to correct the balance", it was unsourced POV pushing by one of his supporters. The most notable things about Hovind, are his legal troubles, and his near total ignorance of even the basics of the subjects he lectured about. Every occurrence of the terms unaccredited or accredited, is justified, as they are all attached either to the specific institutions he ( or in one instance his son ) attended, a statement demonstrating he has no qualifications in the subjects he teaches, an explanations of why his doctoral dissertation should be available to the public, or explanations of the terms themselves. As for his religion, I don't have any issues with changing it to Independent Baptist, and born again, it's all the same to me. Why does it seem to be antagonistic to the subject? Well the subject is fairly antagonistic to begin with, it just states the facts, and unfortunately those don't speak much in his favour. ornis (t) 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "unsourced POV pushing by one of his supporters," please assume good faith. I do not know this man nor much about his life or case. I can clearly see that you bear a good deal of animosity toward him. Does it have to do with his creationist arguments, his tax evasion, or the very fact that he is a Christian? I think there is plenty to show the negative side of this man. After all, he is spending 10 years in prison and he has been criticized, even by other Young Earth creationists. Nevertheless, this article needs to be trimmed (perhaps with some sections summarized and put into sub-articles) and balanced. As Jimbo has been wont to say, "NPOV applies to everyone and WP:BLP is an important policy in cases like this." Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ursasapien, several of your recent changes appear to be POV-pushing. The "evolutionist community", for instance: Hovind's nonsense has been condemned by experts in relevant fields of science, but calling those "evolutionists" implies they're some sort of religious sect. --Robert Stevens 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AGF? Puh-lease.. did you actually read some of the crap they inserted? Here's my favourite: He is widely hold by conservative Christians as a valiant Christian and a "hero of the faith" for his work to establish people's faith in the truthfulness of the King James Version of Holy Bible. Now what would you call that but POV pushing by one of his supporters? As for my animosity, it's just his dishonesty and anti-science agenda. I've reverted those of your changes I thought violated NPOV, but for the most part they seem ok. ornis (t) 10:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconding (or is it thirding?) Robert Stevens and ornis. Many of these edits are flagrantly POV. Hence our reversions/edits. --Plumbago 10:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with most of Ornis' changes and you will notice that I took a lot of the POV stuff out myself. I am all for intellectual honesty and I think this article can be made NPOV. The problem with saying "scientist disagree" is that it implies universality. Does this mean that all scientist disagree? Do non-scientist agree? I think we need another word (not evolutionist or scientist). (On a side note some evolutionist do operate with all the zealousness of a religious sect.)

As an example, this edit:

"The park depicts humans and dinosaurs co-existing in the last 4,000-6,000 years and also contains a depiction of the Loch Ness monster, and depicts humans and dinosaurs coexisting."

Talk about redundant just to make a point. And why do evolutionists anti-creationists people with an opposing view seem to have ownership of guardianship over this article. Ursasapien (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops... that was my mistake, I've reverted that. As for the scientific community, I would suggest a look at Level of support for evolution. 99+ percent of scientists in relevant fields and 95+ percent of all scientists... that's as damned near universal as you're going to get. ornis (t) 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, 95-99 percent of scientist may hold to some/most components of evolution. However, 95-99 percent of scientist do not (necessarily) disagree with this one individual. It sounds like many that you would not consider scientist disagree with this guy (i.e. Ken Ham). Perhaps, "most scientists"? Ursasapien (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Strike that! I re-read the section in question and it is fine. Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify on why it's specified that he attended unaccredited institutions, generally when one states that "X has a degree in Y from Z University", it is presumable that Z University is an accredited institution. If not, it's necessary to specify. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

On that note, it needs to be also included that it is a "correspondence education." Which also is unusual. Sssssdadad 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure that I agree with you completely or in every situation, but I certainly see why this is included in the "Education" heading. Although, again, it seems pretty redundant when they call it a "diploma mill" a few lines later. Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the source that Hovind is an independent Baptist? Sssssdadad 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

His website. ornis (t) 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to agree that this article is extremely biased. Regardless of your view on creationism or evolution or whatever. Why is it that in about every paragraph there is a mention of his unaccredited degree? A bit Redundant. Also You can't say it isn't biased in nearly every paragraph it introduces something he has done and there are more sentences trying to discredit him or his project that talking about what the actual project is. Any page even if it is about OJ Simpson that focuses more on the wrong doing or the beliefs of a certain group is biased... except maybe a page on Hitler--Mrthundercleese4 18:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree, because according to Wikipedia rules we (as editors and writers of the articles) must not give Undue (I don't know how to set up a link for it) weight to minority beliefs. Thus in a controversial article such as this.

A- the controversy must be explained (thus the "negative" you speak of)

B- The majority view (the criticizing of his stuff), should be given due weight. BCapp 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost this entire entry is a hit piece. Not only are counters given to every one of Hovind's opinions (they should stand on their own as they are), but there's a mug shot of him after being booked into Escambia County Jail. I searched the pages of Mike Tyson, Kip Kinkle, Charles Manson, and O. J. Simpson and in each case found no pictures of mug shots. If you get creative, I'm quite confident you could find many more infamous individuals who don't have book-in mug shots on their pages. I'm not sure how a mug shot adds to the information on this page seeing as the top picture already lets us know what Kent looks like and the info on his arrest is sufficient enough on its own. Clearly the placing of the mug and the overwhelming presence of argumentative language demonstrates how the intent of this entry is skewed in the direction of making Hovind look as criminal and unintelligent as possible. I'm calling into question the neutrality of this entry. The mug should be removed and Hovind's ideas should be left to stand as they are without argumentative caveats being added to every line of text. Anthson 21:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I concur with removing the mug shot. The rest of what you call a "hit piece" is basically required to avoid WP:UNDUE weight. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't the "Criticism" section sufficient enough to avoid straying from WP:UNDUE? State what the man thinks, THEN use the criticism section to display how his views are contrary to majority opinion. That would seem to be the fair, neutral way to present the biography of this man. Further, arguments still do not need to be made against Hovind's theories. A biography page is not the place to host a debate. We need to state what he believes, then state why scientists disagree. Holding a one-sided argument against creation using WP:UNDUE as an excuse doesn't make this entry look any less biased. Anthson 20:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, in-context criticism is considered preferable to having separate criticism sections. This is especially true here, where basically every claim Hovind makes is controversial: linking each statement to its appropriate entry in a separate criticism section would be awkward. And, yes, WP:UNDUE does require us to place each of Hovind's claims in the proper perspective: and citing scientists who disagree IS basically "making arguments against Hovind's position". And that's the way it should be. We are an encyclopaedia: NPOV does not oblige us to obfuscate the true situation in order to create some sort of "illusion of plausibility" around Hovind. --Robert Stevens 20:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

How can we improve this article? One way would be to pare down this article and make it more concise. Should the "Hovind Theory" have its own sub-article? (and does this truly belong in cryptozoology or paranormal?) Ursasapien (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

It's own article? No, there are already numerous articles on Young earth creationism, creation science, and flood geology that cover that. As for the cat's I don't know about paranormal, but the crytozoology, yes, his belief in things like, nessie and Mokele-mbembe alone qualify him for that dubious honour. ornis (t) 11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

First, I am looking at how to improve this article. One way is to make this article shorter and more concise. Do any of the article's on Young earth creationism, creation science, and flood geology contain details Mr. Hovind's particular theory? If so, we could add a link and summarize the section of this article. Second, I am not sure I agree that his belief that some dinosaurs may still exist puts him in the same category as the "Big Foot" believers, but I guess that is a longer discussion. Does anyone object to removing the paranormal cat? Ursasapien (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually that puts him in exactly the same category as big foot believers, and in any case he talks about cryto-zoology on his website. As for his "theory", what you see is what you get, the elements it has in common with YEC and flood geology, are better enumerated there, and the ice meteor is fringe, even by YEC standards, this is the best place for it. Also, I really don't see a problem with article's length, at seventy-one kilobytes give or take, when compared to something like Charles Darwin ( a featured article, I might add ) which is over ninety-nine kilobytes, it's not so very long at all. ornis (t) 11:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The article does not include the cat for the paranormal, only the talk page. The only reason that it is so categorized is that Wikiproject Paranormal tagged this as an article they keep up. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I have added "Prisoner" among Mr. Hovind's title. I really do hope this was okay. Simply Winter 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting. It's not a title. Nothing personal. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, prisoner is not job, and title is for things like, Sir, Dr, Right Honourable etc. In any case this is covered by his place of residence being a federal correctional facility. ornis (t) 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been awhile since I contributed to this article. Wow! First there is some good in additional details (for example I didn't know he owned so many properties). On the other hand the writing style and the grammar has really gone downhill. First there is a general lack of objectivity in the tone (yes I realize we are writing about a moral midget but still). There are also way too many references to unaccreditation (don't panic, I'm just going to combine some of them). Then there's this sentence About half that income went to employees who were salaried or were paid hourly wages that worked set hours and signed up for vacations and sick leave. The government believes that grew to the point of earning $2 million a year. Huh? The wages worked set hours? And what grew to the point of earning $2 million a year? Also it's not CSEM, It's CSE. Also the article twice mentions his employees vacation and sick leave so I'm removing one. The first paragraph in the "Responses" section basically restates the same info as found in the previous section so I adjusted that. Then there's this contradiction Hovind maintains that biology textbooks are lying and advocates simply taking evolution out of the textbooks because he considers evolution to be a religion.[113] He has said, "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks.... I also moved the legal section down the page since it came after the other stuff. There's more work that can be done but that's what I get with a go over. 4.246.201.223 07:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest small edits and suggestions rather than sweeping changes, and removal of sourced content. I've reverted you for the moment, it would be better if you discussed this first. ornis (t) 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I sort of figured it would be reverted but I thought it better to just demonstrate the changes as a whole rather than drag out a protracted argument about every point. I don't believe I removed any sources just shifted some comments around and removed some when they were repetitive. Incidentally I removed some of my own previous wording when I noticed that someone else had written the same thing a little later but better :-/. Reading it again yesterday it comes off sounding like a onesided diatribe by a bunch of Hovind haters that need a lesson in sentence structure not like an objective and expert piece for an encyclopedia. Another bit that just seemed a bit petty and unnecessary, the mention that Hovind's trial was delayed a week because his lawyer was sick. Well so what? I left that alone though. I'm not advocating removing any pertinent point against him but every now and then people should step back and read the whole article and see how it meshes with the continual additions. 4.246.206.21 15:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay I made the changes incrementally. Still haven't done anything with the line "The government believes that grew to the point of earning $2 million a year" which follows illogically from the preceding as my computer wont load the article linked to it so that I can see what it's refering to. About moving the legal stuff down, many in he past (usually Hovind supporters) have complained about its prominence near the beginning and I tend to agree with them. Not only did it come later in his life but its placement near the beginning gives the perception of bias. It's still mentioned in the introductory paragraphs and all the same information is still there on the page. 4.246.207.72 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

By way of explanation, re: my revert of Arthur Rubin's revert. At question is my placing of Hovind's legal problems farther down the page. Arthur wrote "Restoring order with 'Legal problems' before 'Creationism'; he wouldn't be notable except for his legal problems". Hovind has been well known since he publically offered his challenge (originally $10,000) back in the early 90s; it was clearly a publicity stunt, and it worked. I remember hearing about it on the radio when he first announced it. His legal problems, OTOH were finally acted upon by the authorities in just the past few years, and have only become generally known by the public in the past year or so. He became famous (infamous?) and made those millions based on his reputation from the "challenge" and debates which took place 15 to 17 years prior. Again the legal problems came later in his career and it's placement near the beginning of the article gives the impression of bias. 4.246.207.33 04:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the $250,000 challenge belongs under "legal problems", as one court required him to pay it. But I see your point. That he is presently serving a felony conviction belongs in the lead and infobox, as is done; where the details go in the article may indicate bias. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you have more information about the court case? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you happen to have more info on the court that required him to pay? That would be good info for the article, especially since AFAIK he's never paid. I'll add a couple of lines on the veracity his challenge and restore a sentence I removed. 4.246.204.249 13:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "assault and battery" reference

I have removed this reference twice now. I don't know about anyone else, but when I follow the link, I get redirected to this image of a pair of F-16s. This is being used to back up a very serious claim about Kent Hovind; whatever the reason is for me not being able to view the source myself (assuming, for a second, good faith here), this should be backed up by a far more reliable source than a picture of F-16s for some Internet users. This is a biography of a living person, not The Sun. If anyone cares to find out why I am getting that picture, rather than the originally referenced site, I will be interested. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 20:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lewis, I don't know why you're getting that picture. When I click on the link, I see a page with Escambia County Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Courtviewer Records Search at the top that gives the procedural history of the case and confirms the charges against him. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The link works for me, too. I get the chart with the court case information. Famspear 21:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually I get the f16s too, when I follow the direct link, but when I use a proxy I have no problem. Could it be something to do with being outside the US? ornis (t) 21:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to confirm, I get redirected to the F-16s, and I am also outside the US. The proxy works fine. GSlicer (t • c) 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I do get some kind of court order. (I'm in the US, and don't feel like setting up a proxy right now, so that still could be). However, the following notice is at the bottom of that page:

" While the Clerk's Office has attempted to preserve the accuracy of the online versions of the records, this information is not official and the Escambia County Clerk of Court will not be responsible for any inaccuracies that may be encountered."

When the source itself says it isn't reliable, we certainly can't use it, especially in a BLP. Also, that's just a court document, which is a primary source. For negative information about living persons, secondary sources must find the information suitable to pick up, otherwise we're just dirt-digging, which is not acceptable. If a reliable secondary source isn't found, whatever's sourced to that must get gone and stay gone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the section in question? There are two secondary sources for the claim:

• "Was it Assault and Battery?"
• "Stupid Dino Tricks"

ornis (t) 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The CSICOP article (the citation that immediately follows the court record citation) also mentions the charges, albeit very briefly. To be honest, I've never been comfortable with the prominence given to mere charges, of which Hovind was never convicted. Even more troubling is the "e-mail correspondence" cited at the end of the paragraph. The problem is that when you click on it, it doesn't look like e-mail correspondence, but is in chart form. Can we confirm that this was accurately reproduced? It's on an attack site, which I doubt can be considered a reliable source. The article claims that the e-mail is "widely available on the Internet." Perhaps TalkOrigins has a copy we could link to? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk origins, no. They provide a link back to www.kent-hovind.com. ornis (t) 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with removing the assault and battery stuff from the article entirely. They were dropped before ever going to trial. He should not have to continue to answer dropped charges and they are not appropriate in this article.

This article attracts considerable dispute. On one side there are people who despise the man completely and are keen for the article to include every disreputable detail. On the other hand there are people who continue see him as a martyr, and want to defend him through the article. Therefore I think we should see if there can be some kind of consensus on this point. The Wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them, lean strongly towards caution in the case of a biography of someone still living; and I think that is appropriate. My own POV is that Hovind is a charlatan and an idiot. That comes through just fine without needing to dig dirt with giving prominence to unproven charges never brought to trial.

If there can be a consensus for removing the reference, then it should be replaced with a hidden comment to say that there was a consensus for removing the reference to assault and battery. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for removing the "assault and battery" etc stuff altogether. The only evidence that it is still of any relevance is, as Quartunciae says, in an alleged email from the victim published on an attack site, which is not a reliable enough source for such a serious claim. If it stays, then the court order/F-16 reference should be re-added, with a note that it might not work for people outside of the US. Thanks for debugging the problem, guys. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The charges are plain as day at the court's database and are in the CSICOP article. I don't think there is any reason to doubt the court and/or Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wqqqs123 (talk • contribs) 21:44, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

While I am not a huge fan of Hovind, I have noticed that this article is quite biased. It is clear that most of those who have written this article are critics and really don't like him because he does not believe in evolution, he believes in God, and believes that the earth was created by God and clearly contains evidence of intelligent design. The personal dislike of Mr. Hovind can be heard in the way this article is written. There really should be more neutrality in this article.67.142.130.24 18:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The man is a crook and a felon. He lacks a valid education. He accepts donation though he does not run a non-profit. He lacks real credentials in ANY field he talks about. Despite all this, he attacks real academics and scientists.

Reality is not biased. What are you suggestions to make it "neutral"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wqqqs123 (talk • contribs).

Everyone knows reality has a strong liberal bias. ornis (t) 22:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous contributor makes a comment similar to others on this talk page. Like those comments, he fails to explain how exactly this article does not neutrally reflect the reliable sources about the subject. In fact, the article is probably not a neutral representation of the man's life and career. With "arguments" like "Monkeys are still having babies, why don't they have a human today?" he is a joke among evolutionary biologists. With his support for conspiracy theories, quack cancer cures and discredited cryptozoology urban legends, he is an embarrassment to creationists. A "fair" article would be much more negative. Hovind (and his supporters) are lucky that His conviction on tax charges in connection with using some of the flakier tax-protestor arguments are simply icing on the cake. Even if we were to throw WP:NPOV out the window, how precisely would we make a silk purse out of this particular sow's ear.

By the way, you are aware that many people both believe in God and accept evolution as the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on Earth, right? The Roman Catholic Church comes to mind, for example. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing the assault and battery material entirely

I have removed all mention of assault and battery entirely. The charges were never investigated, and were dropped before going to trial. It is not appropriate, in my view, for an encyclopedia to give public prominence to such dropped charges. I think this this subverts the legal system and presumption of innocence, and does not belong in the biography of a living person.

This is not because I am a fan of Hovind. I have a long history of activity fighting creationist pseudoscience, and consider Hovind to be one of the most disreputable and ridiculous figures in the whole shoddy creationist movement. He is a charlatan and a huckster and brought his current unfortunate situation upon himself.

I think it is best to try and uphold strong encyclopedic principles in this matter. Hovind's character and status come through just fine in the article, and material of dubious credibility detracts from a neutral analysis. Neutral analysis shows up Hovind's flaws best. I am not disputing in the least that the charges were actually brought; but I do not think this is sufficient to justify their discussion in the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough I suppose. ornis (t) 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It was the right thing to do. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it should have stayed. The assault was mentioned by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry[1] and Christianity Today[2] as well as being linked to the court records, which documents it. Wqqqs123 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, so do I, but DQ is right, in a BLP we should exercise a little discretion. ornis (t) 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the information should be put back in. If it's a celebrity or politician or any other publicly recognized figure, it's okay to leave it in. Why not for Hovind? The legal system isn't the issue here. Jparenti 11:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Combining Financial Information

I've combined information from three different areas of the article on Hovind's earnings. I have not read the links to verify the figures but assume that since they've been here this long they are correct. Pehaps someone can find a better source on his number of properties and other assets, he may have had more. These earnings and assets relate to the case against him. They also show that he had the money to pay those who successfully met his challenge. He still should be required to pay IMO, especially since neither his original $10,000 nor later $250,000 challenge contained his later added restrictive conditions (which info I'm adding to the "Hovind's $250,000 offer" section). There is an initial * but it links to nothing later. 4.246.201.23 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, that asterisk is bothering me. Perhaps I.A. didn't archive the whole page? I'll remove it from the article and save here for now. Here it is:

Critics also point out that neither his original $10,000 offer [3] nor original $250,000 offer [4] contained such later added restrictive conditions as shown by Internet Archive [5] and therefore they shouldn't apply. 4.246.204.165 15:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, I removed the wrong paragraph accidentally :-(. Attempting to fix but apparently Wikipedia is having a problem too. Will continue to try. 4.246.205.84 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. 4.246.205.84 16:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur Adventure Land

I have a question. Why does the term "Dinosaur Adventure Land" redirect here? Should there be a separate Wikipedia article for that? I've seen smaller businesses than Kent Hovind's have their own Wikipedia article, so would it be alright for me to make one for DAL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamanderson (talk • contribs) 03:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

The notability of a business isn't necessarily related to its size. I suspect that any notability DAL has would be drawn directly from the infamy of dr dino. ornis (t) 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So that's a "go for it"? I'm a bit confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamanderson (talk • contribs)

If you can make a neutral article, with WP:RS and WP:V sources, then I say yes.--Filll 03:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Not many businesses were shut down because they were never properly zoned. I think it should be kept here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that it will be fine. I mean, I'll surely include Kent Hovind's name in the article, and that would link back to this page. So the people could get here by searching "Dinosaur Adventure Land", easily. However, I know this sounds naive, but I don't know how to prevent "Dinosaur Adventure Land" from sending you to this page. Can somebody help?

I see... that being the case, perhaps it might be wise if you started something in a sandbox first, then when you feel it is ready to go into article space, leave a note here so we can have a look, and make sure it's properly sourced and formatted. ornis (t) 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

DAL doesn't need its own article. There's not enough material to warrant it. Anyway since the property is going to be taken away for owed debt, it would be merged back here shortly regardless. Wqqqs123 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll make something in the sandbox. Also, you're speculating that Dinosaur Adventure Land is going to be reposessed, but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Besides, even if it does, that's just more to write about in the Wikipedia article.

He is inmate number ....

The introduction states what "inmate number" Kent Hovind is. This certainly isn't relevant for a formal encyclopedia article... and certainly not in the introduction! Most people who read this article don't intend visiting him or anything. Why's it there?

DarthSidious 12:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious

Agreed! Such details seem to be indulgent gloating. Phiwum 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding Prisoner as a title

I would like to ask that Prisoner be added to Kent Hovind's titles, just as it was done for Jeffrey Skilling of Enron SimplyJessica 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid prisoner is not an occupation (at least for most people, probably even most prisoners). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed prisoner from Jeffrey Skilling's occupation, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur with editor Arthur Rubin. "Prisoner" does not seem like an occupation to me, at least not in the ordinary sense. Famspear 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, SimplyJessica, and welcome! You might notice the conversation with similarly named User:Simply Winter, above, that explains why adding "prisoner" is not good editing. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, but the account User:Simply Winter is also my account. I forgot my username and registered this account. SimplyJessica 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have to say that it is more than obvious to anyone reading the article that Kent Hovind is a prisoner, and that it would only seem antagonistic to add "prisoner" to his list of titles. Being a prisoner is more something that happens to someone (not usually by choice) than something someone decides to be. The article already tells you he is a prisoner, that being put in prison has happened to him. Cr4JC 03:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

May Need Attention

I was reading the article tonight and came across this phrase under "controversey over education": When questioned about his education and qualifications, Hovind has said that the arguments are ad hominem attacks, which indeed they are. Is this part of what Hovind said? If it is, it should be in quotes. Since the critical bloggers' statements are not listed, and one cannot therefore plainly see that they are ad hominem attacks, it appears that the writing is showing bias. Just FYI. I don't know if got snuck in there somehow. Also, reference 27 (115 as well) to Mark OBrien "She's 'Granny Jo' to her family, but a lawbreaker to the court". Pensacola News Journal, July 1, 2007, when clicked on, leads to a blank page on the Pensacola News Journal website. I'm not sure if they've moved/deleted the article from their site, or if my browser is malfunctioning.

Under "The Hovind Theory": The theory includes a literal reading of the Biblical account of Noah: (description of Hovind Theory follows). This phrase is not accurate, or at least not accurately written if its intent is different. What I gather from reading it is that the Bible literally teaches that Noah and 2 of every kind of animal (why is "kind" in quotes, BTW?) boarded the ark and then an ice meteor came flying... etc. etc.

However, the Bible doesn't teach any such thing about ice meteors, but says (Genesis 7:4) "For after 7 more days I will cause it to rain on the earth 40 days and 40 nights...", that "the waters of the flood were on the earth" (vs. 10), and "the rain was on the earth 40 days and 40 nights". It never mentions meteors, ice, but only rain (one can speculate on the source of the rain, which Hovind apparently did in his theory, but that must be phrased differently than "The Biblical account of Noah:...") In fact, everything listed under this section appears, by the use phrase mentioned above, to be what the Bible teaches about Noah, when in fact it is the "Hovind Theory". It definitely needs some help to make it clear. (I'd do it, but I am not familiar with editing an article, just using the talk page, sorry.)

Under "responses" it looks like the same person who added "and indeed are" about ad hominem attacks has added another line: The respondant was not amused and felt that this indicated dishonesty on Hovind's part and proved that he'd never intended to pay [42]. Or, the respondent did not submit science worthy evidence.

Under "Controversial Remarks": Hovind considers the King James Version of the Bible to be the inerrant word of God that must be taken literally. Because of this, he believes all findings of science will eventually be found to agree with Scripture Firstly, there is no reference showing that Hovind considers the King James version of the Bible to be the inerrant word of God. As this statement can potentially cause much ridicule (by Christians and non-Christians alike), it needs to have a source. Secondly, why would his believing the KJV to be the inerrant word of God (if that is indeed the case) have anything to do with science eventually agreeing with scritpure? That doesn't make sense. Is it because he believes the Bible itself must be taken literally that he believes all findings of science will be found to agree, or because the KJV is inerrant that this will happen?

Hovind disregards all fossil evidence, saying that "no fossils can count as evidence for evolution," because "all we know about that animal is that it died," and we do not know that it "had any kids, much less different kids." I think this should read rather that "Hovind disregards all fossils as evidence for evolution...", which his quote alludes to ("no fossils can count as evidence for evolution...")Cr4JC 04:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just reverted a set of POV edits by a creationist, hence some of the changes you mention are now gone ("which indeed they are", "respondent did not submit science worthy evidence" etc). --Robert Stevens 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Although I generally agree with much of your revert, please be careful regarding your descriptions. You have no idea of the previous editors beliefs regarding evolution. You may have some basis for your assumption that the "POV edits" were done "by a creationist," but your statement seems unecessarily perjorative to me. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was someone pushing a creationist POV, I for one can't think of anyone but a creationist who would do that can you? ornis (t) 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor inserted pro-Hovind POV in the article. You insist on making the article as anti-Hovind as possible. However, I would be wrong to infer that you were a godless anti-theist just because you are biased against Mr. Hovind. By the way, I noticed that we do not put the Gomel Chesed Cemetery as the "residence" of Allen Ginsberg or even the low security federal prison in Waseca, Minnesota as the "residence" for Jeffrey Skilling. However, in the latter they have a "convictions" category because they use the "Infobox Criminal" template. Perhaps we should use that on this article. Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already supported a couple of changes that are unnecessarily beating a man when he's down. It is a biography of a living person, after all; and so we should be very careful about doing no harm. But pointing out that he is in fact a convicted felon serving a long prison term is encyclopedic information that is no secret and no harm is done by pointing it out. The prison where he is currently serving time is also legitimately encyclopedic, and does no harm. Putting it in the info box seems perfectly apt. I would prefer that to merely using "Infobox Criminal". Although he is a convicted felon, that is not the major source of his notability. I would recommend leaving the info box as it is, including the prison where he is currently located, as his residence. It may be galling for his supporters, but it is neutral and relevant and does no harm. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My issue has little to do with being pro or con of Hovind. I think "Infobox Criminal" is perfectly apt, although I see your point that his criminal activity is not his primary source of notability (I would argue that he may not have achieved the notability to be in an encyclopedia if it were not for his criminal behavior). My issue is it seems like a silly use of the "residence" category/line. We do not list the cemetery as the "residence" for deceased individuals. Could you point to one other biography in Wikipedia where the subject's residence is listed as a prison? Ursasapien (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that is relevant. It's a somewhat unusual place for a person to be. I think this case is unusual already, so looking for similar cases is beside the point. What is silly or not is a subjective call. The actual description of the "residence" field in this infobox is

Residence: Location where the person resides, if notable.

It is one of the fields which would often not be used at all; but in this case the location where he resides is extremely notable. I'd say it is an ideal way to give important encyclopedic information in the box that is intended to be a brief summary of just this kind of broad detail. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I think listing the prison in which he is incarcerated as his residence is patently ridiculous and requires a special reading of the infobox description . . . YMMV. I think this is evidenced by the inability to point to a single example of where this is done elsewhere. Regardless, I have run out of energy. This article, as with so many other creationism-related articles, is tirelessly defended by editors with a POV agenda but this gentleman has given his critics more than enough ammunition. From this point on, my only edit to this article will be to maintain the NPOV tag until the article rises to some degree of neutrality. Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

YouTube Banning Controversy

This information needs to be cited. If a "future lawsuit is now being discussed" then there should be some documentation somewhere. On a side note, why did you revert my changes to citations (changing them back to links instead of inline citations)? Ursasapien (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for reverting the links I did not see that. I have a reference to the possible law suit now... http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9978 But I am unsure of how to properly insert it into the article. I would appreciate some help. K Watson1984 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to cite is to use the <ref> </ref> tags. Try cutting and pasting the text below:

YouTube Banning Controversy

On September 10, 2007, a user called "RabidApe" was banned from YouTube. Creation Science Evangelism accused him of copyright violation for using clips from Kent Hovind's video series. Many other users doing the same thing were banned, including users posting Kent Hovind's calls from jail.

The response has been almost universally negative. Opposers of this act cite Kent Hovind's statement that works produced by Creation Science Evangelism are not copyrighted and the fact that only opposing videos are flagged for removal.

Best of luck, Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a forum, not a WP:RS. Do you have any other sources? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with KC. I also don't see the "Rational Responders" as a particularly good source, nor do I find any independent sources that have considered the threat credible and serious enough to pick up on. (I'll just put as an aside here the irony of a group which uses "rational" in its name and the term "assfucks" to refer to people.) But in all seriousness, we don't add to an article every time someone saber-rattles about suing. If the suit gets filed, and reliable sources start reporting on it, then we got a case to add it in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This is now on Panda's Thumb, although it does not support the original assertions from the blog, it is coverage of the incident.[6] I suggest we keep our eyes open, this may become notable enough for inclusion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Slashdot has now picked it up. See [7]. I'm not convinced that's enough, but PT and Slashdot together may be enough to make it notable. JoshuaZ 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I added an article by Wired. When it comes to computer news it doesn't get much better than get it mentioned by them. FFthird 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed the line "that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government" in Controversy section, is this referring to the 2001 WTC attack? Does it need a correction? Eleccy 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. See World Trade Center 1993 bombings. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification Eleccy 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

NPOV?

This article has been nominated for POV check since August 3, 2007. To my knowledge, this article has not been checked by any uninvolved editors. If the goal is to improve this article, I feel that it could use some "fresh" eyes. Where I see bias and poor wording in the article, others do not. I truly believe this article would be improved if some neutral editors review it. Ursasapien (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nominated with or without the tag. I have no objection to you bringing people in (though a request for comment might get people in sooner), but we don't need tags slapped on it while we wait around. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So your problem is the tag? You feel that an "ugly" tag is worse for the article that its lack of neutrality. I passionately disagree. The tag serves to caution readers that this article may have some issues with bias. This is the best service we can give our readers until the article can get reviewed. I like the RFC idea, but I am not sure there would be much of a response unless is was promoted. Ursasapien (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

A lot of people watch RfC. What exactly is your debate with neutrality? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This article suffers from the chronic problems that WP has when dealing with subjects of creationism or Christianity in general.

• The use of weasel-word phrases like "intended to convert people to Fundamentalist Christianity" brings the encyclopedic tone down in my mind. I could not imagine a phrase "intended to convert people to Humanistic Atheism" being allowed in his opponents articles, nor do I think it should be.
• As far as I have been able to determine, this is the only article that uses the "residence" field of the infobox to list where someone is incarcerated.
• Hovind and his "ministry" - exactly why is ministry in quotes here?
• There are many examples of terms like "conventional scientist," "mainstream scientist," and the like seem to bias the article. I like "the majority of the scientific community," but I understand it is a little long to put in the article multiple times.

In the end, I think Mr. Hovind is a quack, conspiracy theorists, and a tax cheat. Nevertheless, that does not inhibit my desire for him to have neutral coverage in this encyclopedia. I think we may need some tags on the talk page, as well, to remind folks that this subject has a tendancy to be hotly contested. I will work at developing an RfC, but since this is my first time initiating one, I would appreciate any help I could get. Ursasapien (talk) 06:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I response to each of your problems:

1) Hovind says he aims is to "win souls" through the creation message (just watch his debate with Shermer). This translates into attracting people to his version of religion. Yes, this could be worded better, but hardly a reason to call it bias.

2) He lives in prison and will for the next ten years. If you don't like that just put the city where the prison is, but doing that could be misleading implying he lives in the town.

3) His "ministry" is in quotes because, according to the court case, he does not run a "ministry" (whether non-profit or for-profit), his employees don't consider it a ministry, its not registered with the government as a ministry, nor did it pay taxes properly like ministry do. Its ran by a family with a few other employees, who sell DVDs.

4) I didn't see "conventional scientist" or "mainstream scientist." Yes, those should be changed and it needs to be clear that science considers creationist claims bunk.

5) Yes, Hovind is a quack. That isn't bias that is fact. Anyone with dubious degrees claiming the Loch Ness monster is real while evolution isn't falls into that camp. FFthird 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

See my response in the RfC section. Ursasapien (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality of the Kent Hovind Article

This is a dispute about the neutrality of the Kent Hovind article.

First, I think it is difficult for editors to create a neutral article when they start with the perception that anyone who claims to believe in any form of intelligent design or creationism is a boob. If you start from the point of rabid zealotry for evolution and strike with a vitriolic defense at anyone who questions it, I think you are going to have difficulty seeing the middle of the road beacause you are too far from it. That being said, I think this article has been closer to NPOV in the past and could get there again.

I continue to maintain that listing the prison where he is currently incarcerated as his "residence" is ludicrous. If someone were kidnapped and held hostage in Iraq, would we list that as their residence? Do we list a cemetary as the residence of a deceased subject? The subject of this article is currently incarcerated and is not choosing to live in prison. As far as I can tell, the residence field is for Graceland or Pyrenees Castle (a situation where the place is notable in and of itsself).

Again, I think we can surely bring this article to a more neutral encyclopedic voice with a little sustained effort. I think it currently portrays Kent Hovind in a way that is so judgemental it borders on OR, hinting at his motivations and thoughts as evil. With some work, I think we could have a fine little article. Ursasapien (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

We've been over this before. The article is in keeping with WP:NPOV, and its undue weight clause. Furthermore, there simply aren't almost any reliable sources that are positive about Hovind. Even most other major YECs like Answers in Genesis don't like him. If you can find specific neutrality problems in the article then bring them up. Alternatively, if you can find reliably sourced information that is not included then bring that up. Vague rants don't help much. JoshuaZ 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I was more clear in the section above this one. Some of those issues have been addressed since I posted the original RfC. I was concerned that the article was tagged to be checked for NPOV (supposedly by a neutral editor) but the tag was summarily removed with no review occuring. I was encouraged to open this RfC, which I did.

A major part of the issue with this article is it seems to be edited and monitored almost exclusively by opponents of Hovind and his views. This leads to the denouncing of sources that are pro-Hovind as unreliable. This, in turn, leads to the interpretation that, "there simply aren't almost any reliable sources that are positive about Hovind." I agree that, "arguments about truth or falsity of cited claims should not go on talk pages because they are by defintion OR and in any case rarely convince anyone of anything. This applies particularly to articles related to pseudosciences and politics." However, I think articles, especially about living persons, should try to maintain neutrality about the veracity of a person's claims, particularly when it comes to interpreting someone's motivations. This article, IMHO, does not reach that standard of neutrality and balance. I am honestly trying to improve the encyclopedia and I think this article can be much better. Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

"A major part of the issue with this article is it seems to be edited and monitored almost exclusively by opponents of Hovind and his views. This leads to the denouncing of sources that are pro-Hovind as unreliable"... Where has this happened? There was an incident a while back where a Hovind-supporter tried to add his own personal website as an external reference, but when has an otherwise notable and reliable source been dismissed simply because it's "pro-Hovind"? Please provide a link to the appropriate History page. --Robert Stevens 12:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly can't see any problem with this article's neutrality. Citing his "residence" as a prison... isn't that a rather trivial reason to slap a POV tag on it? The "residence" label is part of the standard format of this infobox: it's supposed to be filled in (and if it hasn't been filled in on other pages, that's an issue for those pages, not this one). Furthermore, I note that Ursasapien is attempting to have the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield page deleted, for reasons that don't appear to make any sense (it is not a WP:COATRACK: other than mentioning Hovind as the only "famous inmate" and providing a reference to support the fact that Hovind is imprisoned there, it actually says nothing at all about Hovind). It probably deserves a "stub" tag due to lack of content, but not deletion. --Robert Stevens 14:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I discussed the Federal Correctional Institution, Edgefield article on its entry on AfD. When I went to it, the article was essentially "the Federal Prison that houses Kent Hovind." This seemed like a coat rack to me. The article did nothing to establish independent notability and seemed to be saying, "the prison is notable because it houses Kent Hovind." However, this has nothing to do with Mr. Hovind's article.

Regarding, -"The "residence" label is part of the standard format of this infobox: it's supposed to be filled in." The template also has fields for title, salary, term, predecessor, successor, party, boards, employer, height, weight, and other names. Why aren't these filled in? Because these details are of little relevance or do not apply to the subject of this particular article. It's a template! There is no mandate to fill in each and every field. I honestly do not see why it is so difficult to understand my point here. What is next, we find out how much he makes in prison and list it under salary because the information is notable and, after all, the label "is part of the standard format of this infobox!" Ursasapien (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ursa may be correct about the listing of the prison. I have on my watchlist a number of other famous people who were or are in prison, and we don't generally list their prison as their current occupancy in the template. JoshuaZ 20:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the bit about the residence to reflect both his legal residence (Pensacola) and where he currently lives (Edgefield). Generally, changes in legal residence must be voluntary and prisoners are not considered residents where they are housed. I know that legal definitions do not control the content we put in infoboxes, but I think it is instructive in this instance. Personally, I detest infoboxes and do not think they add anything to the article, but I realize I'm fighting an uphill battle on this. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 01:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Note: Teachers at public schools must have an accredited degree and a state teaching license, but this is not always required for private schools. Hovind has no recognized teaching credentials nor academic degrees from accredited universities in the subjects he taught." First, this text is logically falacious. "Has no recognized teaching credentials", yet his credentials were obviously recongnized by the school at which he taught. Second, is it standard MOS to write "Note: blah, blah, blah?" Third, what do these two sentences do to improve the article? They certainly imply that Hovind is somehow substandard academically/mentally. They pile on the descrediting that this article is filled with, but they seem to do little to expand one's knowledge of the subject. Ursasapien (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the phrase "recognized teaching credentials" should be pretty obvious from the surrounding context: it refers to credentials from officially-accredited institutions, which are required for teaching in public schools, and which Hovind does not have (the article already points out that the schools where Hovind taught were private religious schools). In my experience, many people do not know this. As for Hovind being "somehow substandard academically": yes, of course he is, and the article explains why (with copious citations from many relevant authorities). It's an important subject because of Hovind's own antics, his tendency to wave his "PhD" around. As for "the discrediting that this article is filled with"... why is this perceived "discrediting" inappropriate? We are accurately reporting the views of notable and genuinely-qualified authorities, with extensive citations. --Robert Stevens 10:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The meaning of the phrase "recognized teaching credentials" refers to the recognition by academic elitist. It is completely irrelevant and inappropriate POV. The article already points out that he taught at a private religious school. His credentials were accepted by this school. This is an obvious, gratuitous swipe at Hovind, the school itsself, and all Independent Baptist. You put in "copious citations" from opponents. I could put copious citations from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mel Gibson's father, and their ilk that the Holocaust was a hoax in the Holocaust article, but it would not improve the article. Ursasapien (talk) 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

"The meaning of the phrase "recognized teaching credentials" refers to the recognition by academic elitist. It is completely irrelevant and inappropriate POV"... "academic elitist"? No, it's all about ensuring basic standards of knowledge and competence. Your POV may differ, but please keep your POV out of this. And the article's "copious citations" are generally from genuinely-qualified authorities. Why make comparisons with the people you cite? Again, YOU may consider them equivalent... but your POV does seem to be clouding your judgement somewhat (as it did when you accused me of a "blatantly false POV" on my talk-page). Let's try to stay focused on the facts here. Hovind claims to have a PhD and claims that this makes him an authority on the subjects he covers: but he has no relevant, quality-assured, accredited qualifications in the relevant subjects. And those who DO have such qualifications have reported on his lack of expertise. We should report these facts, and not try to obscure them. --Robert Stevens 11:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that your POV (and perhaps even your animus toward Hovind and other creationists) is clouding your judgement and this is why you can not seem to see how snobbish your comments are. Hovind claims to have a PhD because he does possess a PhD. Now this PhD. may be of dubious quality and that needs to be presented in the article. That can be done without saying, "Hovind has no recognized teaching credentials nor academic degrees from accredited universities in the subjects he taught," which is false and malicious. Ursasapien (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

...No, it is factual (assuming the generally-understood meaning of the word "recognized" in this context: I may declare that I "recognize" a self-awarded PhD from "Robert Stevens University", but others may differ). And it's very pertinent to Hovind's claims of expertise. --Robert Stevens 12:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up and cited the issue that seems to be at issue here. Is this satisfactory? JoshuaZ 16:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks OK to me, if indeed it is not the case that all states require their teachers to be qualified. You say you're "pretty sure", but a citation would be handy here. How many states don't? --Robert Stevens 19:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "recognized credentials" does in fact commonly mean "recognized by the academic establishment", not "recognizable by having a stamp and gilt lettering". The definition is a fact, not PoV, regardless of whether one feels universities are elitist. Subsolar 09:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm less sure than I was when I made the edit. For example see [8] which suggests that in at least 47 states there is an alternative certification system which may imply that some form of certification is required. JoshuaZ 20:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the most appropriate action is to "assume good faith" on behalf of the original author (i.e. assume that he knew what he was talking about) and restore the claim regarding the need for credentials... but with a "citation needed" tag. If it turns out that there's a state somewhere that doesn't require them, we could add "(except Alabama)" or whatever. --Robert Stevens 09:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break 1

Ursasapien, your current version reads "Hovind's teaching credentials are not recognized by any government schools and he has no academic degrees from accredited universities". But does Hovind have any "teaching credentials" of any sort (accredited or otherwise)? Apparently his degree in "Christian Education" was an essay on the evils of teaching Darwinism to children. I work in a college which offers teacher-training: though I haven't taken such a course myself, I have a rough idea of what is involved in teacher certification (discussion of various teaching methods, observation of trainees teaching a class, legal matters relating to "duty of care", health and safety etc), which leads to credentials which indicate that the teacher knows how to teach and is competent to lead a class. I have seen no evidence that Hovind has any teaching credentials. "Being a Christian" is not a credential as the term is generally used (i.e. a certificate of competence in teaching techniques and related issues), even if this is deemed sufficient by some Christian schools. Without such evidence, I don't think we should presume that Hovind has teaching credentials. --Robert Stevens 09:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, I have made some assumptions and for that I apologize. I assumed that his degreee in Christian Education involved more than one essay. I know of many colleges and universities that offer "unaccredited" degrees. However, these "unaccredited" degrees, though not recognized as a credential to teach in a public school, do consist of discussion of various teaching methods, observation of trainees teaching a class, legal matters relating to "duty of care", health and safety, etc. I think the term "teaching credentials" is a little too close to weasel-words, implying different things to different people. Logic would tell you that he had "credentials" that were accepted by the school at which he taught. I am quite dubious that their sole credential was "being a Christian." Regardless, when I re-read the statement, "Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degrees from accredited institutions," I see it can be taken in two ways. Either, Hovind has no teaching credentials or Hovind has no teaching credentials from accredited institutions. I believe the latter is born out, whereas the former is not. Ursasapien (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

This article fails the neutrality test because it is too long and represents an original synthesis by the editors. Wikipedia should primarily be a set of links to other sources. Please edit to a managable size. Mpublius 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Long original synthesis"? Since when does bringing together information from disparate sources count as an NPOV violation? Since when is Wikipedia supposed to be a link farm? What a remarkably strange criticism. According to this criterion, the articles Oklahoma, Liver, and Jesse Owens are also blatant NPOV violations. Phiwum 19:52, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, bringing together information from disparate sources is source-based research. That is allowed, and that's what makes Wikipedia tick. That's how Wikipedia works. Source-based research is to be contrasted with original research, which is something of a term of art in Wikipeda. The prohibition of Original Research does not mean that editors cannot bring together information from disparate sources.

Additionally, bringing together information from different sources is not an "original synthesis" as that term is used in the rule on "No Original Research." Generally, prohibited synthesis in Wikipedia means doing something like taking Statement A in Source A and Statement B in Source B and coming up with the editor's own novel Conclusion C -- a new conclusion.

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a separate concept. NPOV does not mean that strong -- even BIASED -- points of view cannot be presented in a Wikipedia article. Again, that would be a nonsensical rule. NPOV means, in part, that various, competing points of view are presented without Wikipedia itself taking a position as to which view is correct. The sources used in Wikipedia are often (perhaps always) biased, just as most or all Wikipedia editors are "biased" in some way. NPOV does not prohibit bias in the source material or even bias in the editor. Instead, NPOV requires that competing biased points of view be presented in a certain way here in Wikipedia.

NPOV also does not mean giving "equal weight" to all points of view, in a strained attempt to be "fair." NPOV does require that all significant competing points of view be presented, but only in proportion to the acceptance of those views by experts, etc., in the applicable field. That means that in an article on The Moon, although Wikipedia cannot say that those who believe The Moon is made of green cheese are wrong, Wikipedia must present the information so that the green cheese theory is not accorded undue weight in relation to the majority view (presumably, the view of NASA scientists, etc., that The Moon is made of moon dust and rocks, or whatever the majority of experts contend The Moon is made of).

This article has had a continuing problem with a perception that there is a lack of neutral point of view, and I have shared that perception from time to time. At this moment, however, I have no clear, prepared critique about specific language in the article, and until I do have a specific suggestion about specific language in the article, I'll refrain from generalized, conclusory overall comments about the article, which tend to be easy to make and difficult to translate into effective, constructive changes. Yours, Famspear 20:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove the NPOV tag until we have finished the discussion here. The article is in sad shape, IMO it borders on BLP violation, and is not neutral. I am not the only editor that thinks this article is not of very good quality. It seems that some editors are eager to remove this tag, so I encourage them to improve the article. Ursasapien (talk) 04:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ursasapien, specifically, what is borderline a BLP violation? Specifically, what is not neutral? There cannot be a discussion on NPOV if you fail to give examples. The article is negative, but that is too be expected when the subject has a degree from a diploma mill, was convicted of 58 felonies, and believes in unfounded government conspiracies. If you have positive material add it. NNtw22 06:19, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

"Diploma mill" = weasel words, 58 felonies are all for the same issue (tax evasion), and "unfounded" is POV. "He is most famous for creation science seminars" and yet the article spends very little time covering this issue and an enormous amount of text is dedicated to "Controversy over education," "Criticism," and "Controversial remarks." I am not saying that the article should not contain information about these issues, but critical/controversial information is given too much weight. I believe I have talked about several specific issues previously. Many have not been addressed. To remove the NPOV tag with an edit summary of "since consensus on the talk page seems to favor its removal" does not jive with my reading of this talkpage. Ursasapien (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree that there is too much weight given to the tax issues, but I am biased in my interests, since I have long been interested in evolution/creation/ID issues and not in tax issues. But I can't see that the controversial remarks section is out of place at all, since it focuses on Hovind's own claims (with claims regarding evolution and creationism prominently featured). Nor do I think the criticisms section is unreasonable, since it places his creationist claims in context (including discussion of criticisms from other creationists). Finally, the education section is, to my mind, relevant. The fact that a dissertation is unavailable without the author's approval is remarkable, quite at odds with traditions in education and research. By and large, it seems to me that the article presents relevant information about Hovind and gives Hovind's opinions suitable attention. Phiwum 13:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

NNtw22 may have written BLP violations, but the article is fine. (And the felonies are not all for tax evasion.). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and actually there are no "tax evasion" (26 USC 7201) charges -- or convictions. As accurately described in the article, the convictions involve various other tax crimes and tax-related crimes, etc. I know that's hair-splitting, but it's important hair-splitting from a legal standpoint. Also, bear in mind that some people (like, for example, me) had never even heard of this guy before he got into tax trouble. (For me, his only significance was that he was a tax protester -- someone who raised legally frivolous arguments about Federal taxes.) So, different readers may come to the article with a different perspective on what the main focus of the article should be. Having said that, I guess I'm in the minority. It may well be that there are a lot more people who had heard of Hovind because of his creationism stuff, etc., than there are people like me who learned of him because of his tax-related conduct.

I'm not sure that "diploma mill" should be classified as a weasel word or term. And I'm not sure why mentioning 58 felony convictions in and of itself would be objectionable merely because the convictions involve the same pattern of conduct (although maybe I'm putting words in editor Ursasapien's mouth here). Yours, Famspear 14:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ursasapien, diploma mill isn't a weasel word(s), it was what several critics have called his "school." You simply aren't being specific. What issues have you brought up that you want to discuss? What are examples of the NPOV? I agree with Arthur_Rubin, Famspear, Stevens, and Josh. NNtw22 00:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

PS, If you can find positive material about Hovind add it. However, removing details about his felony convictions, beliefs and education is not a way to improve this. NNtw22 00:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

I am not even sure where to start. I am, frankly, flabbergasted that other editors do not see the problems with this article. I can only guess that it is systemic bias. I will attempt, once again, to outline the problems I see.

• Controversy over education section is filled with redundancies and inaccuracies. The section states over and over again that he attended unaccredited schools. At the mention of each school or degree this is mentioned again. However, when I followed a citation they stated that Patriot Bible University is accredited by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions (though they call this an "accreditation mill" like they similarly call the university a "diploma mill"). It then states, "Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degrees from accredited institutions." Well duh, the article has already stated this many times. He taught schools in which government accreditation was not expected nor desired (just like the schools he attended).
• The article goes to great lengths to cast aspersions toward his dissertation. As if it mattered (because, after all, it was an unaccredited university), the article repeatedly states the dissertation is unavailable. Then it cryptically avows, "Various criticisms have been made of his dissertation, including charges of incompleteness, low academic quality, poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style." How did it suddenly become available to critics?
• The article, in another redundancy, then goes on to criticize his use of the title "Dr." He did not got to an accredited school, we get it. No need to drive this point into the ground (unless bias is your goal). His critic, Dr. Barbara Forrest, does not have repeated mention that her degree is in philosophy and that she has no degree in "hard" science.
• The article includes others original research. It states, "the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry visited Hovind's dinosaur theme park and said that the park is deceptive and purposely misleads visitors." How does the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry know he purposely misleads visitors? Did they give him a lie detector test?
• Not content with repeating the fact that Hovind went to unaccredited schools 6-7 times, the article then has to state, "Eric [his son] attended Jackson Hole Bible College a one-year non-accredited institution."

I could go on, but what is the use? Ursasapien (talk) 08:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

...Uh, nope, I still don't really see what you're getting at (I guess it must be my "systemic bias": whatever happened to "assume good faith", BTW?). As far as I can see, the article only once mentions that "Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degrees from accredited institutions" (he could have gained such qualifications elsewhere, but apparently he did not do so). The criticism of the actual contents of his dissertation consists of just one sentence in the article: "Various criticisms have been made of his dissertation, including charges of incompleteness, low academic quality, poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style". The article also explains that critics HAVE seen it: "Although one copy of the dissertation is on file at the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) the organization is not able to provide it on request because of copyright and distribution restrictions". It is Hovind himself who makes a big deal of his "PhD", prompting others to investigate. There is no rule against quoting the research (or opinions) of others: this is NOT "original research" as Wikipedia defines the term. And there is only a single mention of Eric Hovind's education (relevant because Eric is continuing the Hovind family business).

So, I can't see any basis here for changes which wouldn't remove factual, cited and relevant information. Do you have any suggestions we can actually implement? --Robert Stevens 10:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

1. relevant because Eric is continuing the Hovind family business - Relevant how? He needs a degree from a "state accredited" institution to run a business educating people about a theological concept?
2. Do you have any suggestions we can actually implement? - I have a number of suggestions we could implement (like we could rewrite the section that erroneously states that Patriot Bible University is unaccredited to state that Patriot Bible University is accredited by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions), but I am highly dubious that we will implement them. Ursasapien (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And I hereby decree that "Robert Stevens University" is accredited by the "Stevens Foundation". We could add another section on "accreditation mills" if you like, but surely the point is that Hovind (who claims to be engaging in "science") has no qualifications from any institution recognized as competent by the state or by any scientific institution. --Robert Stevens 11:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

And surely, we could say that once in the article and be done with it. I am not sure that it would matter what degrees he had from where, considering his subject matter. (BTW, can we agree that Dr. Barbara Forrest (who claims to be engaging in "science") has no qualifications from any institution recognized as competent by the state or by any scientific institution.) Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But the article does actually say that only once. Are you suggesting that we delete all references to the various institutions Hovind attended, or delete the fact that they are unaccredited? Why should we do that? Would it not confuse the reader, who wouldn't otherwise know that the institutions mentioned are unaccredited? And Barbara Forrest DOES have a genuine PhD (albeit not in science) from an accredited institution (the same accreditation body that certifies MIT and a whole bunch of state universities), and she is a member of a genuine scientific institution backed by qualified scientists. Are you seriously trying to compare Forrest with Hovind? --Robert Stevens 11:52, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Ursa is having a bit of a problem grasping that there are a priori sciences. Mathematics, logic, praxeology--all of those are a priori. Dr. Forrest's degree is in an a priori area. Further, it must be repeated again that if someone can find some source saying something good about Hovind: that would be great. But the fact is that Hovind is looked upon by all but his (tiny) group of supporters as akin to Peter Popoff. What Ursa proposes looks to me like having Hovind's article here be about 3 sentences long. I don't see how attacking the neutrality of the article by saying (in a nutshell) "no one has anything good to say about him" really works. Knight of BAAWA 13:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• "However, when I followed a citation they stated that Patriot Bible University is accredited by the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions."
  • AAATI's "accreditation" is worthless (have you even bothered reading its article-?), it is not a legitimate accreditor according to many sources because its not recognized by the goverment or CHEA. Its not a contradiction. You are confused about how accreditation works. Everytime the "school," is mentioned so should the status of its legitimacy. That is, unaccredited. Read about diploma mills for further information.
• "The article goes to great lengths to cast aspersions toward his dissertation. As if it mattered (because, after all, it was an unaccredited university), the article repeatedly states the dissertation is unavailable. Then it cryptically avows, "Various criticisms have been made of his dissertation, including charges of incompleteness, low academic quality, poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style." How did it suddenly become available to critics?"
  • A dissertation is the most important work by anyone claiming to have a doctorate. All doctorates from accredited schools are publicly available (the Library of Congress even has copies of most of them), that's the point of the dissertation. A dissertation is supposed to make new research on a subject available to the academic community. It is VERY unusual that is not available from the school/library. That it is not available through the school and contains serious errors, such as, it is not even complete points to a low quality work would not pass muster in any legitimate school. Your question is easily answered, if you care to take the time and read the sources. The source (the NCSE cited) say Hovind sent someone at the NCSE a copy years ago. The fact that a school is not accredited does NOT make it bad. The poor quality of work makes it bad. The latter is why his dissertation must be discussed.
• "The article, in another redundancy, then goes on to criticize his use of the title "Dr." He did not got to an accredited school, we get it. No need to drive this point into the ground (unless bias is your goal). His critic, Dr. Barbara Forrest, does not have repeated mention that her degree is in philosophy and that she has no degree in "hard" science."
  • Your ignorance is clear. Forrest, who has a Doctor of Philosophy (the type of degree, is a PhD) in philosophy (the subject, academic field) is talking about how he misleading uses the title of a Doctor of Philosophy. Forrest states, as most would agree, the unaccredited status of his degree with the low quality work shows that he lacks the proper training compared to tje majoriity of people who use that title.
• The article includes others original research.
  • Such as. Name them. The magazine's article claim is cited. There is plently of information about how Hovind has been informed that his claims are wrong, but he doesn't correct them-- the article mentions one under "controversial remarks"-- the Lucy fossils. (When you know what you say is wrong, but you say the opposite it makes you a liar.) But that doesn't matter anyway, WP does not look for "TRUTH", but rather WP:V. Eric has an unaccredited education too. That is important since he now runs the business.

I suggest you read the school accreditation article, the PhD article, and the sources in the section who criticize. You don't seem to understand the difference between, say a regional accreditation and an accreditation mill, you don't know the purpose of a dissertation, nor what the point of the Dr (title) is. Also state's don't "accredit schools," accreditators are ALL private groups that need recognition from the USDE to operate. PU's accreditation mill doesn't. The NPOV tag should not be on this page due to your misunderstandings. Your claim against Forrest so wrong and pitiful. Forrest has a PhD and is a qualified professor with very good credentials. Hovind has a degree from a diploma mill. NNtw22 15:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV tag seems to be added per Ursasapien's misunderstandings(?) and/or minority view that information about a school's quality and accreditation lacks importance. I think it should be removed and Ursasapien should read-up on the subjects and/or admit that his attitude about academic quality is in the minority. Moreover the NPOV was added for the whole article, but Ursasapien raised questions mainly regarding his education. Seems misplaced, and Ursasapien its getting harder to assume good faith as your objections seem lacking depth and you claim of others bias. Educational merits are very important when dealing with pseudoscience. C56C 19:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dissertation

I hope something constructive comes out of this RFC; there has been too much disagreement and not enough change here. Per Famspear, I would like to suggest that some/most of the Controversy over education section be removed. Wikipedia has no place for criticisms of its subject's dissertation's spelling and grammar, no matter how well sourced. I am prepared to demonstrate if the cabal approves if I can be of assistance. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. A dissertation is the single most important work done by anyone who calls themself a Dr. (eg, Dr Dino). As such, it being so poorly done is an indication of the school and work completed by Hovind. That is why numerous scientific sources cite it and mention it. Just read this by Dr. Ingrid H. Shafer[9], who cites Hovind dissertation as being a reason not to take him seriously and to doubt Hovind has any knowledge of the subjects he makes money off of. NNtw22 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree per NNtw. This is well-sourced and relevant. JoshuaZ 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree as well. A doctoral candidate SHOULD know how to spell properly, or at least use a proof-reader. To not even bother with proper spelling is such a cavalier attitude to an important moment that I wouldn't give the person the time of day if I were on the doctoral degree committee for that person. It's not a 1st-grade book report; it's a doctoral dissertation. The standards are high. Hovind's dissertation doesn't even qualify as disseration in the first place; it's just a rambling diatribe against evolution. Knight of BAAWA 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a doctoral candidate SHOULD know how to spell properly. But I don't see why that belongs in a Wikipedia article. A dissertation is not the most important work done by someone, nor is its character a unique indicator of their character. I can find no other examples of using a dissertation to criticize someone on Wikipedia, which is as it should be. And while many sources mention his thesis, there exists only one recorded critique of it, the one by Karen Bartelt[10]. As she admittely has other reasons not to like Hovind, that doesn't count as well-sourced. However, I don't expect to persuade you, just to provide another viewpoint. –Sarregouset (Talk) 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

It belongs because Kent touts his PhD every single chance he gets. Thus, if he wants to tout it, people should know as much about how he got his "degree" as possible. If that means showing the shoddy workmanship of his thesis, then so be it. As I mentioned about Peter Popoff above, his fraud was exposed and it's written up in Wiki here. I see no difference between that and discussing Hovind's thesis. Knight of BAAWA 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Spelling is just one factor mentioned. It isn't even complete and has duplicated pages: "However, there is no 250 page dissertation; when one subtracts the duplicated material, the document is 95-96 pages."[11] Anyone who knows how a thesis works, knows there is no way this would be approved by the committee, department, or graduate office. "References are absent," "no original research presented," "writing style . . .is typical of high school-level writing."[12] This is not common for dissertations. NNtw22 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Finding Value in the RfC

I, too, hope something constructive comes out of this RFC, but that hope is waning. Editors have already started to assume bad faith and consider me disruptive. This saddens me because I simply want a good encyclopedia, and I truly believe this article, in its present state, is not worthy of Wikipedia.

Let me try, one last time, to be clear. I am not advocating that any information be removed. I also do not believe that we achieve neutrality by having equal amount of positive POV and negative POV. What I am speaking of is, in some ways, subtle. Let me try to think of an example that does not have to do with creationism or Christianity. How about this old story:

The parents scooped their small daughter out of bed in the middle of the night. She was frightened and confused. She began to cry, then wail, then scream. Her parents did not speak but drove furiously, delivering her to a gray building on the other side of town.

A woman took the child's clothes off and put her in a special gown. Then she began to probe and examine the child. The woman took a sharp object, stabbed it into a child and then filled a container with the child's blood. The girl struggled as she was in excruciating pain, so the woman strapped her to a table and forced drugs into her. As the girl began to succumb to the powerful drugs, the last thing she saw was the man wearing a mask and holding a knife.

The preceding story was about a child suffering from an appendicitis attack. Although it is perfectly accurate, it is deceptive because of the perspective of the story. I think the article builds on its self (i.e. Hovind doesn't like the government . . . and he went to unaccredited schools . . . and he has no state accredited degrees or teaching credentials . . . and he doesn't want anyone to see his dissertation . . . and besides all that he does not believe in macro-evolution which is laughable). I am sorry that some have chosen to question my good faith, but I genuinely see this article as biased. Ursasapien (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But your example involves the careful and selective omission of relevant information, in order to create a false impression. What relevant information have we omitted, and what false impression has this article created? If it has neither omitted relevant information nor created an unjustifiably negative impression: then it isn't unbalanced. --Robert Stevens 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that I omitted nothing, I just told the story using a particular frame of reference. I think this article is written from a particular frame of reference. Again, I do not believe we acheive neutrality by adding equal parts negative and positive POV. We achieve neutrality by presenting notable information in a straightforward, neutral fashion. I have decided to take this article to my sandbox and work on it there. Then, when I have achieved neutrality in a section, I will bring that section back to this talk page. Ursasapien (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

But you did omit much. You omitted the reason why the girl was "taken", what the building was, and what happened after, for starters. The article on Hovind here omits nothing. Again: Hovind touts his PhD. It is relevent to know how he got that PhD. Knowing that is not negative POV. It is simply what happened. Knight of BAAWA 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, in that vein the article omits that he loved his children, was kind to animals, taught his students in a thoughtful way- but all of that is irrelevant and not notable. My point with the story is that the article is written in a non-neutral tone. I can say, "Despite a mountain of evidence pointing to his guilt, a mostly black jury acquitted O.J. Simpson of the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman." I would be accurate but not neutral. I point the reader to a conclusion. Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It is written in a neutral tone. Look: should we eliminate from the Peter Popoff article any mention of how he was exposed as a fraud just because that might be "not nice"? That's really what you're asking to have happen here. You're asking to have omitted certain facts about Kent just because they're not nice. Well so what? Eliminate all mention of the holocaust from Hitler's page? Eliminate all mention of the pogroms and such from Stalin's page? The fact of the matter is that Kent touts his PhD wherever he goes. Not mentioning how he got it actually would be POV, since it's clear that he does not have a valid PhD, just as it was clear that it was Peter Popoff's wife, and not god, who was speaking to Peter Popoff. Knight of BAAWA 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that positive material should be included about Hovind then add it from WP:RS. However, removing the status of his schools and quality of his academic work is whitewashing criticism. You haven't provided any citations for what is "missing," but you seem to only want information removed. NNtw22 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What part of, "I am not advocating that any information be removed." and "I also do not believe that we achieve neutrality by having equal amount of positive POV and negative POV." do you not understand? Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Above you wrote the "education section is filled with redundancies" and cited the mention of accreditation. If you are not "advocating that any information be removed," but complain things are redundant, where do want these supposed "redundancies" moved to? You can't have it both ways, and it still unclear what these "inaccuracies" are. C56C 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't start a website called Dr. Dino, call yourself a Dr on EVERY page of that website, bill yourself as a PhD holder in videos and speaking engagements all the while having earned it from a diploma mill of dubious quality without expecting people to review your work. More details is better than less. If you can find positive information about it then add it. C56C 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the tag because there is no ongoing discussion nor has there been any evidence to support these claim "inaccuracies." C56C 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The dispute was that the article did not maintain neutrality, not any claims of "inaccuracies." The last round of discussions occured less than 72 hours ago, so I do not see how you could say the discussion was not ongoing. There is certainly more than one user who disputes the neutrality of this article. I am at the point that I am considering requesting mediation. I feel that I am at an impasse with this discussion and the RfC has not resulted in any attempt to understand my perspective. Ursasapien (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only other people who dispute the neutrality of this article are employees of CSE and the dupes who believe every word Kent Hovind says. What you're suggesting is no different from saying it's not part of neutral POV to say that Hitler despised jews and wanted as many as possible killed. Facts are facts, regardless of your feelings about them. Deal with it. Knight of BAAWA 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have to question your neutrality on this whole thing. You are pushing a POV which really doesn't stand up to the facts. Further, I shall cite a quote you made on User_talk:199.66.3.5 : "I would be happy to work with you to get a consensus for neutrality on Kent Hovind. Please feel free to join in the discussion on the talk page. Please also ignore the atheistic POV pushers who feel they own this article. Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)"

Knight of BAAWA 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My impression of the neutrality of this article is that:

• no scientists have anything good to say about Hovind;
• no Creationists of any substance have anything good to say of him either; and
• none of the facts about Hovind of any substance show him in a good light either.

This being so, the article has three choices:

1. accurately portray him in all his infamy;
2. make up good things to say about him (slight violation of WP:OR & WP:V there); or
3. not portray him at all.

I don't think I have to tell you that the first option is the only viable one. I am also of the strong opinion that the complaints behind the {{pov}}-tag are mere inconsequential nit-picking -- an excuse to label a legitimately and unavoidably negative article as POV. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's just as I mentioned with Peter Popoff. How can one talk about Kent (or Peter) without portraying him in the way his actions have lent? He has invited the research into his claims about not only evolution, but his education with his constant harping about how he has a PhD. I do not see how it is either our fault or problem that Kent's claims do not match up properly with reality. IMO, this mediation request and neutrality "dispute" are merely disruptions to make an unfounded point. - Knight of BAAWA 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Ursasapien, you have not proved that this article lacks NPOV. Hovind is a fringe minister with no scientific education who was found guilty of 58 felonies. Expect the page to reflect that his credbility, education, and views to be challenged by real scholars. Calling people "atheistic POV pushers" does not change the fact that you have failed to prove your claims. C56C 17:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"The Hovind Theory"

Calling this a "theory" (other than when mentioning that he titles it "The Hovind Theory") is not acceptable under WP:WTA#Theory (as well as being an almost certain violation of WP:UNDUE). The "then what do you call it" argument is likely to be fairly messy (at least the equivalent one over what to call Intelligent design was). It should probably not be called a "hypothesis" unless it can be shown to be testable. I have put "argument" in as a placeholder, as it is already implicitly called that in the first sentence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Conjecture' carries about the right meaning, but I'd be wary of renaming this thing. It could be confusing. How about just putting quotation marks around the word theory, or around the whole title? Ilkali 16:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The term "theory" seems perfectly appropriate to me in this context as well as in the context of other pseudoscientific theories. I see nothing at WP:WTA#Theory that suggests the term "theory" should not be used here. I suppose that you mean Hovind's story is more akin to speculation than scientific theory, but I don't think this view is supportable. The story is presented as a scientific theory, just as the conspiracy theories regarding 9/11 are presented as historical theories. The term "theory" is appropriate in each case, since the proponents present evidence for their account. That's not to say that the evidence is persuasive, but rather that they are applying the right sort of justification in each case. Speculations, on the other hand, are presented without argument.

WP has articles on the Hollow Earth Theory and Ancient Astronaut Theory as well. I know that precedence does not account for much in these disputes, but nonetheless, there you have it.

In the end, I tend to think this is much ado about nothing much and that trying to deny the use of the word "theory" to Hovind's account appears more spiteful than principled (no offense intended). Phiwum 17:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the term is abused in other articles has no bearing here. It is improper to describe his foolishness as a "theory" for precisely the reasons you supply "The story is presented as a scientific theory" please see Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience. Since he presents it as though it were a theory, but it makes no testable predictions, can't be falsified, has no supporting evidence, etc etc, and it's rejected by the overwhelming majority of scientists, (hell even other cranks reject it) then it's a rather gross violation of undue weight, npov etc to describe it as a theory.  – ornis⚙ 18:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"I see nothing at WP:WTA#Theory that suggests the term "theory" should not be used here". "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested and verified or otherwise falsified by experiment and empirical observation". Ilkali 18:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem calling it pseudoscience. But it is natural to call pseudoscientific theories "theories". Indeed, it is natural to call falsified scientific theories "theories". And, of course, contrary to what ConfuciusOrnis suggests, there are all sorts of perfectly respectable scientists who refer to (and reject) the theory of Creationism in its various guises. They may also reject that it is science at all, but nonetheless, unless in the process of making a narrow point, they apply the term "theory" to the topic, by and large. (Kitcher, for instance, uses the term "theory" when referring to Creationism even while he is explaining that it lacks the features of a proper scientific theory. See Abusing Science, Ch.5.)

Sorry, but the whole debate seems to me to be an attempt to score points on a discredited theory by further shouting "...and it isn't a proper theory either." Let us use English in a natural manner rather than bickering over whether something that is presented as a scientific theory has the credentials to earn the term "theory". Phiwum 01:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not a "discredited theory", because it was never accepted as a "theory" in the first place -- the only person who calls it a "theory" is Hovind himself. WP:WTA makes very clear the situations where calling something a "theory" is acceptable: "It is a system of explanation in accordance with available knowledge. Ideally it will have been tested carefully to attempt to determine whether or not it matches visible events." "In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested and verified or otherwise falsified by experiment and empirical observation." "In several specific areas of published philosophy, the term theory is historically acceptable to describe a very well established line of thinking, or a class of reasoned philosophical speculation such as correspondence theory, consensus theory of truth, pragmatic theory of truth, deflationary theory of truth." In this context the phrase "pseudoscientific theory" is clearly oxymoronic. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What you call an oxymoron is a term-of-art in philosophy of science. Kitcher's book was the first I grabbed and confirms that skeptical authors do call creationism a "theory". Gardner's Fads and Fallacies routinely refers to pseudoscientific theories, including the hollow earth theories (not creationism, since it is not dealt with there). Skepdic [13] calls creationism a theory (albeit a "religious metaphysical theory"). From Skeptical Inquirer [14], we find the following exchange:

"BB: With that definition of theory, would creationism qualify as a theory?

"ES: In the simplest definition of theory, yes,..."

I conclude that your view creationism is not a theory is idiosyncratic and POV-pushing and has no place in this article. Phiwum 12:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

And I conclude that you are editing against both consensus and wikipedia guidelines, and that your accusation of POV-pushing is a violation of WP:AGF. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, there appear to be two editors who object to the use of the word theory and two editors (including Arthur Rubin) who find it appropriate. I see no consensus. As far as whether I am violating AGF, well, perhaps, but I do believe that you want to deny Hovind's account the respectability of the word theory. If this is not a matter of a particular POV, then I suppose I don't know what is. Phiwum 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent>I would also point out that Scott was referring to Creationism generally, not the "Hovind Theory" specifically, and that she specifically stated that "a theory is an explanation" -- Hovind's "ice meteor" is not a legitimate "explanation" but merely a speculation (which WP:WTA#Theory specifically excludes). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Scott was speaking about Creationism generally. So? Are you seriously suggesting that some Creationist accounts are "theories" but that Hovind's is not? If this is not your suggestion, then how is this comment relevant? (It is also not clear to me why an ice meteor can't count as a legitimate explanation. Certainly, similar claims appear in Velikovsky's writings. Shall I dig up citations of scientists referring to Veliskovsky's account as a "theory"? Again, Gardner's Fads and Fallacies is a good first citation. See Ch. 3.) Phiwum 17:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I dare say you can find references to somebody somewhere calling anything and everything under the sun "theories". Does this matter? Of course not. Even people who should know better occasionally use words loosely. Does this change WP:WTA#Theory, or the consensus here that calling Hovind's giant popsicle a "theory" violates this guideline. Not in the least. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

My references are to well-respected skeptics and philosophers of science. If anyone should understand appropriate uses of the term "theory", it is they. You seem to believe that Hovind's account is merely speculative with no explanatory content at all and thus the consequences of WP's policy regarding "Theory" is a no-brainer. On the contrary, I say this is not at all clear and that Hovind's account includes explanations similar to that found in other pseudoscience theories. (Calling Hovind's account a "giant popsicle" does little to dispel the appearance that you're pushing a particular POV, by the way. Just a thought.)

I would be happy to hear from others on this issue. Phiwum 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I lean toward "theory", even if no one other than Hovind believes in it. "Hypothesis" might be acceptable, but I see no real reason to object to "theory" in this context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In regard WP:WTA#Theory, even though it isn't testable, he seems to think it is, and offers money to people able to disprove it. That seems close enough. And it is (in theory) falsifiable, in that, if a new species were to appear, it would falsify the theory. (He'd deny it was a new "kind", but it would still falsify the theory.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"if a new species were to appear, it would falsify the theory". What part of it? Ilkali 22:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I imagine that Arthur meant "evolve" rather than "spontaneously appear". And this would (I suppose) falsify Hovind's theory since in his theory, new species cannot be created through natural selection. Phiwum 00:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the University of Rochester, a scientific theory must pass many experimental tests and be supported many times. [15] According to the Charles W. Davidson College, a hypothesis only becomes a theory when there is a significant amount of evidence from both theoretical data and actual testing. [16]

Clearly, the "Hovind Theory" does not qualify as it has never been tested nor confirmed through repeated experiments. 68.175.106.168 02:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that those two definitions are fairly idiosyncratic. Terms like "theory" and "hypothesis" are often given particular definitions in undergraduate introductions to science, but it is pretty clear that these definitions do not reflect general usage by science or philosophers. Again, I think it's reasonable to turn to the experts regarding the demarcation problem: philosophers of science who write on issues in pseudoscience. As my citations show, it is typical for these folks to use the term "theory" for pseudoscientific accounts. There is no particular reason WP shouldn't follow in this regard, as far as I'm concerned. Thanks for your input, nonetheless. Phiwum 03:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you notice Phiwum's ploy: label anybody who disagrees with him as "idiosyncratic". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

My "Ploy". Right. Well, you found me out. In the meantime, you could prove me wrong by giving citations of prominent philosophers of science or scientists using the term as the anonymous editor suggests. But, even that would be fairly irrelevant, since his definition is not the same as WP:WTA#Theory. Phiwum 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"in his theory, new species cannot be created through natural selection". This isn't expressed in the version in his article. Ilkali 07:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. It's a standard line for creationists, and I'd be fairly surprised if it doesn't occur anywhere in his writings or talks, but I don't have a citation. Phiwum 13:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A brief glance at the anti-Hovind site http://www.kent-hovind.com/ finds that Hovind does say natural selection cannot create new species, although not as explicitly as one might like:

"Natural selection is kind of like God's quality control....... And natural selection cannot change the animal. It just makes it good. Keeps it good. That's all it can do."

Of course, that he says it doesn't make it part of the Hovind "theory", but just thought I'd mention it. Phiwum 14:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If the "Hovind theory" does not predict that evolution will never occur, then its occurence would not disprove the "theory". Do you have any other argument for its falsifiability? Ilkali 14:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, it depends on what counts as the theory. Hovind pretty clearly states that natural selection cannot create new species. Now, whether this claim is part of the "Hovind theory" is a question on which we may disagree, but seems to me that it is. As far as other forms of falsifiability go, the ice meteor bits of his theory seem no more or less falsifiable than meteor extinction theories. As well, the claim that flooding can create geological structures like the Grand Canyon in short times and also can explain the existing fossil record seems a perfectly clear and falsifiable claim. Indeed, I should think that the flood theory has plenty of evidence against it and hence it is falsifiable. Do you disagree? Phiwum 15:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"Now, whether this claim is part of the "Hovind theory" is a question on which we may disagree, but seems to me that it is". But that belief isn't reflected in the article, and you haven't produced a citation for it.

How would you prove that flooding cannot possibly create those kinds of geological structures? Ilkali 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Why raise the bar to "cannot possibly"? It is sufficient to use the same standard that we use for other scientific questions. And, of course, skeptics do argue that a flood could not create the Grand Canyon. Here are two unauthoritative sources, with more authoritative cites available on request: [17], [18]. You do agree that Geology is a science, right? And that this is the sort of question that comes up in Geology? Phiwum 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur: you are incorrect in stating "if a new species were to appear, it would falsify the theory" -- "Hovind's Theory" involves a giant ice meteor thousands of years ago, and is unconnected to new species today. "Hovind's Theory" "explains" a global flood for which no evidence has been found. Therefore it explains nothing and is pure speculation and conjecture. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:04, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

His theory is explanatory. There are various data to be explained, such as the diversity of geological data found around the world that gives the appearance of a very old world. Obviously, this is an issue for a YEC. The flood is the explanation for such phenomena as the Grand Canyon, but then how do we explain the flood? A meteor is the explanation for the flood (and this explanation is no less falsifiable than similar theories regarding the extinction of the dinosaurs). These are explanations, although implausible. I really don't see the motivation in denying that Hovind has offered a particular pseudoscientific theory and I don't see why you think that WP should avoid using the word "theory" where relevant experts in the fields use it. Phiwum 14:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"The flood is the explanation for such phenomena..." -- this is exactly my point. "Hovind's Theory" doesn't explain the phenomena, it merely explains this purported flood. It is no more an "explanation" of the phenomena itself than an "explanation" of how the Invisible Pink Unicorn could exist (with subsequent claim that said unicorn explains everything else) is. It is using one figment of Hovind's imagination to "explain" the purported existence of another figment of his imagination -- and if that isn't a conjecture or speculation, then I don't know what is. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

<unindent> Again, from the site [19], we find the following:"I don't think the river made that canyon. I think the flood made Grand Canyon, probably in a couple of hours when the mud was still soft and there was lots of water running through." Are you suggesting that this claim is not part of the theory under discussion? What counts as the Hovind Theory? Only the claim that the flood was caused by a meteor and not the claims regarding the effects of the flood? Why? The Hovind Theory is a theory in the context of Young Earth Creationism. In asking whether it explains anything, it is reasonable to interpret that question in the context of the claims of YEC, including that geological features were created in the flood. I don't see any controversy in my defense that Hovind's theory is explanatory, frankly. Phiwum 16:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to separate "every idea that Hovind might have embraced" from the "Hovind Theory" -- otherwise this "theory" will include (among a great many other things) Hovind's idiosyncratic ideas on the constitutionality of federal taxes. As the section is currently written, the Grand Canyon is not part of the Hovind Theory. If this omission is in error then correct it, with citations, and I will deal with how this alters the argument after this has been done. As things stand I am arguing on the basis of the current description of the Hovind Theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in asking whether it is explanatory, it is strange to start with the judgment that there was no flood and hence this is no explanation. Judge the theory in the context in which it is intended: it is intended to explain a flood which is a central tenet of YEC. The YEC folks give independent arguments for the fact that the flood occurred. just as there are independent arguments for the occurrence of a mass extinction millions of years ago and the meteor theory is intended to explain how that extinction was effected. Admittedly, there is better evidence for the extinction, but that has nothing to do with whether the two theories (Hovind's and the meteor) are themselves explanatory. Phiwum 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It is no more strange than to start with the judgement that there is no Invisible Pink Unicorn. Only things that are known to exist require explanations. Things whose existence have no evidence yield speculations or conjectures, not "explanations". One might conjecture how an IPU would come into existence, one does not explain its existence. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that Hovind calls it his "theory" means that the word should be used. However it should be with quotation marks and the section should include a paragraph which clarifies just what a scientific theory actually is. "In scientific terms, 'theory' does not mean 'guess' or 'hunch' as it does in everyday usage. Scientific theories are explanations of natural phenomena built up logically from testable observations and hypotheses". Further, I'm not sure that Hovind's ideas (and actually they aren't even his [20] "It is also disappointing to note that the Hovind Theory is not the work of Kent Hovind. He is putting his name to someone else's work, which is technically plagiarism") even rate definition as a hypothesis since a hypothesis is "A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested" [21]. It would be dishonest and a disservice to readers to allow the misconception that Hovind's (and Creationism's for that matter) conjectures are scientific theories without clarification. There are plenty of knowledgable persons which deny the word descriptive "theory" for Creationism [22][23][24]. "The word theory is reserved for ideas that have been repeatedly tested experimentally under very rigorous conditions and confirmed to behave as expected. Quantum electrodynamics, heliocentrism, and plate tectonics are other examples of scientific theory; they are areas that have been independently studied and repeatedly verified over decades or centuries using increasing amounts of hard data" [25], "Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is scientifically useless" [26]. This site (last paragraph) explains this well. "I do believe that you want to deny Hovind's account the respectability of the word theory", well of course, and that's because it simply doesn't deserve it. 4.246.202.89 04:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Hovind calls it a theory, and thus it is known as the "Hovind theory." While it differs from the proper use of theory we need to include what its name is "Hovind theory," and explain how the word is used by scientists (people with scientific degrees). I see no problem leaving the title "Hovind theory" as long as we explain what a scientific theory means and what it doesn't. Maybe put theory in quotes? C56C 16:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have neither problems with calling it the Hovind Theory, nor with calling it a "theory" in quotation-marks. I do however have a problem with characterising it as a theory without either qualifier. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem calling it pseudoscience and this strikes me as conveying exactly what you mean when you deny it is a theory. To call it pseudoscience and to use scare quotes around theory is, in my humble opinion, overkill. But perhaps I am mistaken. Is there any pseudoscience out there which you would call a theory? Or does the term theory apply only to respectable science? Phiwum 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I would not call any pseudoscience a theory in a formal setting (which includes in a encyclodpedia). I would only use it for a recognised scientific theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

To anon: Thanks for the citations from folks who deny Creationism is a theory, but I'm unpersuaded. These quotations are from bloggers, a social policy lecturer and some authors whose credentials I could not find. I simply don't find them more credible than folks like Kitcher and Gardner.

I can understand denying some pseudoscience accounts the term "theory", namely those that are simply to incoherent to count as a systematic explanation. I think Lawsonomy counts in this respect, as well as the strange meanderings of Archimedes Plutonium, for instance. But Creationism is not of this ilk. Creationist theory is comparatively lucid. Denying the use of the term "theory" here strikes me as petty rather than principled. Phiwum 16:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I would not call even relatively coherent pseudoscience a theory. I would also point out the Hovind's brand of Creationism is generally considered to be among the least credible and least coherent end of the range -- yielding two reasons not to call it a theory. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no argument that Hovind's "theory" is not a theory in the scientific sense. To argue that it is is to misunderstand the term as it applies in science. But if you think so then be prepared to show the evidence of its acceptance in peer reviewed, scientific journals. If the quotation marks are particularly offensive or seem too POV then the least that should occur is an explanation of what a scientific theory is and why Hovind's does not qualify. 4.246.207.106 17:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are fighting a straw man. No one in this discussion has claimed that creationism is a widely accepted scientific theory or that it should be. Rather, I have claimed that the term "theory" is appropriate and natural to creationism, even though it is an example of pseudoscience. Phiwum 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the National Academy of Sciences which I cited above,

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. The contention that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact" confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.[27]

Creationism and especially the "Hovind Theory" simply does not fit that definition. 4.246.201.239 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

A good citation and sorry I missed it earlier. Nonetheless, I stand by my position that in the literature, it is common and natural to refer to creationism as a theory even while criticizing it as pseudoscience. Still, this is the clearest and most authoritative quote against this position so far. Phiwum 18:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"No one in this discussion has claimed that creationism is a widely accepted scientific theory or that it should be. Rather, I have claimed that the term 'theory' is appropriate and natural to creationism". Certainly, just as UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster or any idea that people may have but which (at least at present) lack sufficient supporting evidence to be called scientific theories but do qualify as theories as is commonly understood. Might I suggest, then, a statement to the effect that while it is acceptable to refer to the Hovind "theory" as a theory as commonly understood (e.g. an idea, conjecture or belief) still, it does not meet the standard of a scientific theory? 4.246.200.255 22:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

But of course we should acknowledge that this is theory is pseudoscience. That was never at issue, at least not in this discussion (now, in the NPOV chat, well, that's another matter...). Phiwum 23:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Can't believe we've wasted so much time on this. 4.246.200.255 22:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we go with the scientific definition? Using the term theory, even calling it a pseudo scientific theory, would still be abuse of the term and would mislead readers. 68.175.106.168 00:57, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have attempted a clarification. 4.246.206.168 02:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)