Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 5

Taught Highschool science for 15 years?

Hovind mentions in every single one of his lectures that he taught highschool science for 15 years, while opponents say this is a lie. Anyone have any info on that? I do think that's kind of relevant, these are 15 years of Hovind's life unaccounted for in the biography. --Mithcoriel (talk) 10:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Read more closely. The article clearly states "Starting in 1975, Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools." Note it is sourced to an affidavit he wrote, but isn't clear as to what his teacher duties were, which interesting since he has no training in science or math. Tgreach (talk) 03:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I read that part, but teaching at a private Baptist school is not what I call teaching highschool science. So, that's all there is to it then? --Mithcoriel (talk) 23:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That is all there is to it. Hovind has never taught science in any public schools. Artichoker^[talk] 23:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice that he always says he "taught high school science" not "taught science in high school." meinsla ^talk 23:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Good point, he could have taught high school science to his dog, and the sentence would still be true SeanBrockest (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mug shot/picture

It is commonplace on wikipedia to include a mug shot of criminals. I don't see any reason why it should be removed. C56C 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, only for those who are famous for being criminals. This guy is famous for being a crank Young Earth creationist, as well. Wasn't Bill Gates's (alleged) mug shot for a drug traffic undetermined violation in New Mexico removed under WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing Gates' DUI to Hovind's 58 felonies? For one, the majority of press about Hovind is many legal battles. I think a good argument can be made that is just as famous for his tax battle than for his anti-science beliefs. I mean Jim Bakker only got 18 months, and he is known more for his convictions than the PTL. Hovind got ten years and never grew to having the support that Bakker did.

But anyway, the Gates article does not cover his arrests, criminal past, and conviction. As such, such a mug shot has little importance Why? Because Gates is known for much more than a single arrest. Gates' misdemeanor (or whatever it is) is much different than a 10 year (out of 250+ year possible) conviction and 10+ year legal battle over taxes.

Since you want to compare articles, Paris Hilton's booking photo is included. Hilton served 22 days in jail for a misdemeanor, and is known for more reasons than those 22 days in a county jail.

The mug shot of a currently imprisoned felon who was described by an attorney as a "danger to the community" is worth keeping in an detailed article that deals with his various convictions and prison life. A mug shot for a famous person who has a misdemeanor is not. NNtw22 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many, many wikipedia entries that do not contain mug shots of truly infamous individuals known mostly for their violent criminal history, unlike Hovind's white collar crimes. I have listed some above in the neutrality section of this article. Simply finding one person (Paris Hilton) is not sufficient argument for placing a mug on this page. It might just be argument for removing the mug shot from Hilton's page. Further, mug shots do not add any encyclopedic value to any entry except those where the only photo available of a person is a mug shot. Also, this supposed attorney that describes Hovind as a danger? I'm curious about that. Hovind was found guilty of white collar crimes. I'm not sure he's a danger to anybody unless you let him do your taxes. Anthson 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. You are wrong on several accounts. Hovind was not convicted simply of a white-collar crimes. I suggest you read the 58th charge as well as his past false declarations to the IRS. But what does that have to do with anything? Finding articles without a mugshot proves what? That the pictures haven't been uploaded to wikipedia? The Hovind picture is available and Hovind is a felon with 10 years to serve. Why not include the link? NNtw22 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The page states he was convicted of 58 counts of tax fraud. Last I checked, tax fraud is not a violent crime. If the page is wrong and Hovind was convicted of something other than tax fraud that you have knowledge of, I suggest you correct the error. Finding articles without mug shots sets a precedent. Welcome to Wikipedia. Discussion pages often refer to other pages as a guideline. Also, "why not" is not a sufficient argument, even though the question has been addressed. Explain the encyclopedic value of a mug shot if you wish to make the case for it being on this page. Otherwise, it should stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthson (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You seem confused. Where did anyone mention "violent crime"? Again, "I suggest you read the 58th charge" or the wikipedia article as it wasn't just "tax fraud" charges. I see no problem of a mug shot in article about someone who was convicted of 58 felonies and will be in prison for the next decade. NNtw22 05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Hovind is a convicted felon. 2) Wikipedia has his mug shot. 3) No reason or policy has been given that this available image of a felon should be removed. NNtw22 06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything placed within a wikipedia entry must have encyclopedic value. In order for the mug shot to remain, you have to argue how the shot has any encyclopedic value at all. Otherwise, we could go on listing the names of Hovind's horses and his shoe size because there's no policy against it. You have not made such an argument. Several others have agreed the mug shot has no value on this page, yet despite their edits and my edits, you continue to replace the photograph. You should quit doing that. Anthson 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture is of the subject of article getting booked for his ten year prison conviction. The conviction takes up a fair amount of the article. Lots of details about a certain event allows for a picture or illustration of part of the event. The picture is ALREADY on wikipedia, you have given no reason for removing the link. Until you prove that his prison sentence is of little importance, the booking photo of the sentence will stay. NNtw22 03:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to indulge you here and ask you to explain how one can prove that anything is of no importance. The fact is, you have to prove the photo is of importance and display to the other editors of this article its encyclopedic value. Time and time again, you've been asked here to do that, and despite the editing of several editors including myself, you continue to replace the mug shot. This is bordering on vandalism, the way I see it. Anthson 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Its relevance is clear. Get consensus before reverting anymore, these reverts are the bulk of your activity. If you want to close your eyes to the reasons already offered and refuse to get consensus, be aware you appear to be WP:SPA and your edits meet WP:DE. C56C 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Most of my edits have nothing to do with the single purpose you're referring to and most have occurred well before any edits on the Hovind Wikipedia page. Anyone bothering to check for themselves would realize this. As for reasons already offered, there are none. The only person replacing this photograph is simply stating that others who have removed the photo (others besides myself) need to provide a reason to remove it. Check the history page. There is only one person replacing the mug shot, yet multiple people have removed it. The WP:DE problems are occurring on the end repeatedly replacing the image. The fact remains that the image's purpose is not clear and needs to be explained. If you cannot offer any explanation other than "the purpose is so obvious I don't need to explain," then the image needs to be removed.

You can find a list of my edits here if you have any further questions or doubts as to the purpose of my account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anthson Anthson 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I looked at your edit history. You have less than 50 edits in the last year (you registered in August 2006). Half those edits are about the Hovind article. Your edits on this article have all been about downplaying criticism in some way and now your focus is the picture. You have little editting history and have repeatedly reverted other people. C56C 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you're looking for a vote, I say get rid of the mug shot. It does not seem all that relevant to me and it does seem to convey an emotive content that is contrary to our aim. If we want a photo for the article, maybe someone can take a picture of Dinosaur Land or something. I know it's tough to find public domain photos of living persons, but I don't like the use of a mug shot in this article. Phiwum 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, but Wikipedia does not "vote." The picture is of an important event in this man's life: booked for ten years in prison. Can you explain the reasons for not "liking" a mug shot of a convicted felon in the section on the man's criminal past? "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason. Does it have relevance to the section? Yes, it marks a specific and important moment in his life. Is it public domain? Yes. Was this related a serious charge and a long prison term? Yes. C56C 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It is disingenuous to claim all I said is I don't like the mug shot. Let me say it again, slowly. I do not find the mug shot informative or relevant to the article and what relevance it has is outweighed by what I consider non-negligible prejudicial and emotive value. And I say this as a longtime user of Smoking Gun. It's not that I don't like mug shots or that I think Hovind is a fine man, but that I don't see the mug shot as appropriate for an encyclopedic article about Kent Hovind. I appreciate Ashmoo's and Stevens's points that there is a dearth of public domain photos in this article, but I still think that this particular photo is in bad taste. Phiwum 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You also talked about emotion too, but that wasn't addressed because its your opinion. There was no point in addressing emotion about the picture because it is a personal opinion and cannot be weighted with facts. As someone else said it doesn't even appear like a mug shot and is a higher quality image. As such, I too disagree with your analysis. In your most recent claim that it is "in bad taste," much like your emotive opinion can only be discussed so far as they are your perceptions. If you want to cite policy that can be discussed at length beyond personal attitudes about an image. Your opinion and emotive/taste critiques cannot be handled in a similiar to policy. C56C 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My "emotive opinion" I suppose means my opinion that the photo conveys more emotive content than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. You're quite right that all I have stated is my personal opinion about the appropriateness of this photo, just as you have expressed yours. Indeed, I don't see any particular facts that would support the claim "This photo does/does not belong in a WP article," without further judgments about appropriateness, what counts as encyclopedic, and so on. You may well disagree with my analysis, but it makes little sense to call my analysis mere opinion and pretend that you've come with cold, hard facts settling the issue. Phiwum 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Since when was "this content is too emotive" a reason from removal of content from an article? It's notable, it's relevant, it's sourced. That's all that matters. johnpseudo 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Johnpseudo. C56C 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether the emotive effect outweighs any particular informational value—especially in the case of a living person in which the emotive effect is negative. At least that's how I see it. Now, it is good to have a recent photo of Hovind in the article and it is good to have a few photos to break up the text. It is, in my opinion, bad to use a mug shot because it tends to exaggerate his current status as a convict and thus prejudice the reader. Of course, persons of good will can disagree about the degree of this negative effect and the relevance of the mug shot. My opinion is that the mug shot is not particularly relevant nor notable and that the article is arguably more biased with it than without. I appreciate Johnpseudo's comments, but I humbly disagree. Phiwum 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Umm, no. That's not the question. The question is, "What is Wikipedia's policy regarding the inclusion of material on biographies?". And the answer to that question is right here. It says that biographies should be written "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". A picture of a mug shot, when that person has just been sentenced to 10 years in jail, is of course notable and relevant. If his "current status as a convict" is important enough to occupy half of this article, then it is certainly important enough to include a relevant picture. johnpseudo 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears to me that consensus is generally in favor of the mug shot. I do not agree and I don't think that the mug shot is in keeping with a "neutral, encyclopedic tone" (nor that the status as a convict should take up half of an article about an interesting creationist and conspiracy theorist). Nonetheless, I defer to the apparent consensus. Phiwum 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to add another voice to the debate... I'm in favour of keeping the photo. If only to break up the text with another picture. It is a longish article and only has one illustration. Also, the mugshot isn't terribly unflattering. It is not like it's one of those shots that has the subject with one eye half closed, unshaven and looking like a serial killer. If someone could supply photos of him engaged in other activities, I think they should take precedence though. Ashmoo 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I am somewhat in favour of keeping the photo (I guess you can count me as a "yes" vote). I appreciate that there's a valid argument for not having it (perceived tone etc), and I wouldn't be particularly upset if it was left out. However: the article isn't exactly overburdened with pictures already, Hovind is probably about as notable as a criminal as he is as a creationist, and it's actually a clearer photograph of Hovind than the rather poor one in the infobox. --Robert Stevens 10:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...Just to clarify, the encyclopedic value of the mug shot is clear in the context of describing Hovind's legal problems. Namely, it illustrates that Hovind is a convicted fellon, which is the central theme of this section of the article. If the article was related solely to Hovind's CSE work, earlier posts might have had better justification for removing it. -MacGriff —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGriff (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Restore the mugshot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.75.108 (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Consensus from two years ago says this article should be illustrated with a mugshot. Where is it? MartinSFSA (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Overemphasis?

Sammy Gravano has a much shorter article, with much much less detail. Is Hovind really that much more of a heindous criminal that Gravano? And Gottis is much shorter. And Capones is shorter. Dontletmedown 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Most probably because Gravano was convicted before the newspapers went online, making researching such things far less easy than with more modern events. But by all means contribute additional detail to Sammy Gravano -- or any article at all for that matter. Your sole activity to date has been asking not particularly helpful questions on talkpages. Are you here to improve wikipedia or just to tie up other editors answering your questions? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if I thought changes should be made I should bring up those ideas on the talkpage and getting some sort of feedback before changing the articles. I see in my mind many errors in articles but do not want to make changes until I get feedback. If you feel I should make that changes first and then get feedback I will do that but I hope I will not be accused of a wrongdoing by doing that. Dontletmedown 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BRD for another view as to the "proper" mechanism for editing. However, please discuss the matter at Talk:Sammy Gravano, rather than "here". In general, if you think a person's article is longer than that of those you consider more notable, the proper approach is to add to the other article, not remove acceptable content. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

That would be true if your talkpage questions were related to suggesting edits. However, this does not appear to be the case. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

<<<This is a phrase in the 'evolutionism' article. Now since the term 'creationist' would include old earth creationists. it seem that it implies that people like the Pope and other non-bible-literalists use this term wrongly. And Dawkins also used the term. I think perhaps it sh Aould be

"Bible literalists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

or

"Young earth creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.">>>

Here are edits I suggested in another article. Dontletmedown 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Except:

1. you didn't say this in Talk:Evolutionism, you said it in Talk:Creationism, making the whole suggestion irrelevant; and
2. this 'suggestion' is sufficiently incoherent and illogical as to be non-actionable.

Now, if you're quite finished attempting to justify your unhelpful past comments, please either do something useful or depart. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you are saying that an article can never be too long. And give too much detail. Are there any guidelines on articles length or is it as you say there is no optimum length. Dontletmedown 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as long as the detail is notable, relevant and well-sourced. Where, even with these restrictions, the articles get too long, more detailed sub-articles on specifics can be split off. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a saw a suggested length somewhere. I have seen people talk about other articles being too long based on number of bytes. Dontletmedown 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is (but more as a guideline than a hard & fast rule) -- where articles get too long, parts of them get split off into sub-articles, as I mentioned above. However this is a talkpage for Kent Hovind. If you want to discuss style guidelines go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Neyman says that Hovind's claim that "scientists assume the amount of carbon-14 is constant" is wrong, and Neyman writes "there are many periods of decreasing C-14, which disproves his theory that the earth is young based on C-14 equilibrium."[70] could someone point out why this makes the current C-14 a constant shouldn't this make it even more unreliable? or is it just worded wrong or not nuetral (let alone I dont know if there ever was a nuetral arguement even someones nuetral point can be made into a hostile action I.E. luts say some one was trying to be nuetral with writing (the dog walked to the room) the other person might say I take offense to that I think Hovind had the right Idea about this though there are absolutes how do you determine right from wrong? or is everyone always going to be offended? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.134.133.139 (talk) 15:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The Hovind Theory

My only point regarding this section of the article is that it should be well-written and backed up with RS. I do not think the current version is any better progress toward this goal. We had,

Hovind summarizes his highly controversial version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

and now we have

Hovind summarizes his meritless version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

What is wrong with

Hovind summarizes his version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

followed by a summary of his ideas and a sourced critique pointing out his argument's implausibility? I would even think

Hovind summarizes his implausible argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

would be better grammatically, although it should cite Bartelt immediately after this sentence. Ursasapien (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, "is this better?"

Hovind summarizes his non-scientific version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

My first issue is the "version of the" piece. This sentence would be less redundant if it just said, "Hovind summarizes his non-scientific argument . . ." My second issue is it needs to be sourced. Ursasapien (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with "highly controversial"? There are plenty of references in the article to reputable sources that disagree with Hovind: hence, "controversial". Even other YEC's such as "Answers in Genesis" disagree: hence, the "Hovind theory" is even more controversial than standard YEC beliefs. The fact that Hovind's views are "controversial" (or even "highly controversial") is not itself controversial.

BTW, I don't like "his non-scientific version of the argument for Young Earth creationism", because this implies that there is an alternative scientific version: and there isn't. --Robert Stevens 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Robert, on both points. Ursasapien is distorting WP:RS in demanding the exact wording from the source before he'll 'permit' it. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree per Robert. NNtw22 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The group think/piling on is asinine. The assumption of bad faith is getting in the way of any rational attempt to improve the article. As has been demonstrated time and time again, I have no ability to permit or deny any text in this article. Additionally, I am in no way distorting WP:RS nor am I demanding that we use the exact wording of any source. I do think WP:BLP and WP:RS would inform us that an article about a living person that states someone is or has beliefs that are highly controversial should be backed up by some reliable source that demonstrates the controversy. It should not be difficult to find a source that demonstrates that parties disagree with Hovind's ideas about the origin of the universe. I still like implausible better and we already have a source for it, but YMMV. I think the whole "version of" text is just a holdover from previous versions of the article and needs to be changed when the sentence is changed. Ursasapien (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"Implausible" appears to be even less pristinely sourcable than "highly controversial" -- and it is a rather passive and pallid word to my mind, and thus a highly imperfect descriptor of Horvind's over-the-top and purposefully-controversial style. The "controversy" has already been "demonstrated" -- both scientists and Horvind's fellow Creationists are of the opinion that his claims lack legitimacy. You may think that the consensus against you is "asinine", I won't be drawn into likewise violating WP:NPA by responding to this mud-slinging. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean you are not going to make any more personal attacks like "Ursasapien is distorting WP:RS"? That would be great! I draw from your response that you would not have a problem with me copying a couple of references to support "highly contoversial" then. I still think "controversial" implies that Hovind has a valid side of an argument, but if that is consensus, so be it. Ursasapien (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

When you make an argument that is, in my opinion, a distortion of wikipedia policy, I will say as much, per WP:SPADE. I will however attempt to refrain from expressing in precise detail how low an opinion I have of you, your judgement and your reasoning skills. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, Ursasapien, I do have a problem with you cluttering up the section intro sentence with pointless re-references to points already established in the section body. As per my previous comment, I will not hesitate from pointing out that such an interpretation of WP:RS is idiosyncratic, counter-productive and disruptive. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Compliments to all for your hard work!

Whoever did the Legal section did a superior job! Good research and thanks for your hard work! Ekulwyo 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow there is a lot of speculation and violation of privacy in this. Though I don’t believe it all or the citations this is hardly a neutral or simply fact citations more like a popular options beat down O22Y 13:33, 1 Febuary 2008 (UTC)

Hovind is a public figure, and his trial received substantial publicity, so no "violation of privacy" is involved. If you have any specific substantiated complaints to make about unsubstantiated statements (i.e. "speculation"), unreliably sourced statements, or violations of WP:NPOV in the article, please make them. Vague and unsubstantiated complaints are "as useful as tits on a bull". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Cite for "no copyright required" change

I've looked at the wayback machine, and I can't find any point at which the copyright notice said anything other than "all material copyright (unless otherwise noted)". Perhaps there used to be individual portions of the website that did have an exception to the copyright notice, but I think the IP is right that we can't include unsourced claims like that. Even if the current citation used to be valid, it isn't anymore. johnpseudo 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the claimed date is within the wayback machine's view; doesn't it have a 6 month minimum? In any case, I think you're probably right; we can't include it unless, in addition, a WP:RS noted the site disclaimed copyright. But just taking it out changes the meaning of the rest of the paragraph, so we need to rewrite, or at least remove the clauses which refer back to that sentence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Will the wayback machine be able to archive the page stating nothing was copyrighted? I have a screenshot of the page stating in September that none of the material was copyrighted but can't find the site stating that on the wayback machine. There is no doubt that CSE's website did recently state that, we just need a citation. The wayback machine DOES have archives of the website not having a clickable copyright notice, though. Does this image provide enough evidence? http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3830/csexi5.jpg The most recent archive is from August, 3 months ago. Anyways, finally, will the wayback machine be able to archive them waiving copyright? If so, when it does, can we use that as a citation? 68.175.106.168 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If the wayback machine is indexing the current version of that page, it probably did index the archive stating that nothing was copyrighted (unless it was only there for a short period of time, between index updates), and it will eventually report that archive. However, because this is derogatory information toward a living person (the webmaster, if noone else), we may need an external WP:RS even if the wayback machine does report such an archive. As for clickable copyright notices, copyright notices have not been necessary since at least 1978 in the US. Damages may be limited to actual damages if copyright registration wasn't filed within some time (6 month?) of creation, and willful copyright violation may be difficult to prove without a copyright notice, but copying my personal web page would be a violation, regardless of the absence of a copyright notice. (That is, if you can find my personal web page. I haven't updated it since 1999 or so.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Wired, CSE said, "creationist ministry's own website said that 'none of the materials ... are copyrighted, so feel free to copy these and distribute them freely'."[1] The URL that is on there is correct and I added the image, which is free to do since they said it was not copyrighted. TYie34 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I know at one time Hovind said on his videos (and what used to be his weekly radio broadcast) that they weren't copyrighted and you could buy them, copy them and return them. This was stated quite a few times. I wonder if that is still on the videos. These videos were on his website. Not sure if they are now. Strawberry Island (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I still find it strange that Hovind has harassed a number of YouTube users, citing copyright violation. -- Sy / ^(talk) 06:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

One thing that Kent Hovind has made clear in his seminar videos is that he is a conspiracy theorist. He hasn't used those words specifically, but he has said that he believes there is a conspiracy among Evolutionists to keep any pro-Creationist evidence out of classrooms and away from the public at-large. Should this be added to this article as well, with proper citations, of course? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcturis (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If he theorises about conspiracies, including the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion, UFOs being demons, the 'new world order', fake moon landings etc. then I think it's fair to label him a 'conspiracy theorist'. Alot of his 'wikiquotes' page deals with his conspiracy theory, considering his notability he is a prominent conspiracy theorist and the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We can't label him a conspiracy theorist just because you think his beliefs add up to that label. It is both a violation of WP:V as it has no source and a violation of WP:NPOV as it is a loaded term. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Then surely the 'conspiracy theory' article on wikipedia should be flagged for deletion immediately.195.195.128.84 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind certainly is a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure if Hovind has given himself that label. Maybe he doesn't even consider them "conspiracies" because he believes it's common sense that they're true. He believes a wide range of conspiracies, including certain groups (United Nations, Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, Federal Reserve, IMF, etc.) being part of the New World Order and 9/11 conspiracy theories. He also believes that the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center attack were both staged by the US Government in order to pass gun control laws or "anti-terrorism" laws that take away civil liberties. As I'm sure we all know he also has lots of conspiracies about the tax system. I've also heard him mention lots of other minor conspiracies in sort of "off the cuff" remarks in videos, such as the media frenzy around the O.J. Simpson trial being a planned diversion from "President Clinton wanting to sell an American port to China." Interesting that there was insane media coverage about the potential sale of American ports to Dubai a bit later :)

He also has lots of beliefs that tie in with premillennial dispensationalism, in which he believes the mark of the beast is a microchip that a one-world government will be placing in people very soon to track them and make them buy and sell only if people have it, etc. He has said that Mondex will be a big player in this supposed coming technology. These conspiracies are a very integral part of his ministry. Any sort of mention about his conspiracies should be kept. Clinevol98 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The honest thing to do would be to call him something synonymous with "conspiracy theorist" exclusive of all the un-encyclopaedic connotations that come with it. I'm sure we can all agree on "conspiracy analyst" or something similar. Sorry - new to Wiki, don't know how to format this properly. The point remains... User:Not Registered Yet 05:52, 31 July 2008 (NZST)

moot. (Sorry.) Until such time as such a label could be found and sourced, conspiracy theorist will have to do. (conspiracy analyst would be fraud, as that would imply that he analyzes conspiracies, rather than promoting (some) conspiracies. Then again, he was convicted of fraud, wasn't he....) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The point being - conspiracy theorist has connotations beyond its superficial meaning, and it's biased to refer to somebody as such in an encyclopedia article in all instances except where either a) They acknowledge themselves as such, or b) It is so encompassing of what they do that there can be no dispute. An example of the latter would be somebody who publishes literature which is acknowledged as conspiracy theorist literature, while denying they are conspiracy theorists. Kent Hovind almost meets that definition, but at the end of the day (rightly or wrongly) he is a young earth creationist which (rightly or wrongly) is not generally regarded to be a conspiracy theory. Just... yeah - my point is that something which says the same thing minus the connotation should be used. Otherwise this is all just a gag between Kent Hovind supporters and haters, not people who actually care about a decent source of free knowledge. User:Anon 01:17, 01 August 2008 (NZST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.84.33 (talk)

Hovind's video lecture that he gives doesn't get into much conspiracy theories until the last video, #7 (at least when I last heard/watched them several years ago). I do remember someone asking him a question on his radio/internet broadcast about the moon landing and he actually tended to feel it really happened (although said he had no solid evidence, besides all the normal we already know). But even someone that pretty much agrees with a lot of his stuff I have to still label him as a conspiracy theorist. I have to admit though I like the "conspiracy analyst" phrase pretty well. :D Strawberry Island (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

birthday

Is there a reference for Hovind's birthday in the infobox? Bueller 007 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be sourced to any of the legal documents/databases. C56C (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy in article

First, I am an atheist and believe in evolution, so please don't call me a YEC.

This part of the biography:

He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions. He is married, and has three adult children and four grandchildren. His son, Eric Hovind, travels doing creationist presentations and debates using many of his father's arguments.[5]

Starting in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[6] Then in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored.[6] Teachers at public schools must have an accredited degree and a state teaching license,[7] but this is not always required for private schools. Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degrees from accredited institutions.[8] In 1989, Hovind started his Creation Science Evangelism.[9]

In the first paragraph, it is mentioned that he holds degrees from unaccredited institutions, so there is no need to mention it again so explicitly in the second paragraph ("Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degress from accredited institutions"). That not only is bad writing but it seems like an attempt to inject POV.

Here is my proposal for how the second paragraph should read:

Because some private institutions do not require teaching and acadamic credentials from accredited institutions, in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools, and in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored. In 1989, Hoving started his Creation Science Evangelism.

Is that okay? Hazillow (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, scratch that. My proposal is:

Starting in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[6] Then in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored[6] (it is not always required for instructors in private schools to have accredited academic and teaching credentials).[8] In 1989, Hovind started his Creation Science Evangelism.[9]

(I also fixed my original post which sounded more abrasive than I intended) Hazillow (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I think your [first] version is more problematic than the original. It implies that he was at the three schools simultaneously, and places WP:SYNTH emphasis on a causal relationship between his lack of qualifications & working in private schools. I would suggest:

Starting in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[6] Then in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored.[6] As these were private schools, Hovind did not require any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications (which he lacks).[8] In 1989, Hovind started his Creation Science Evangelism.[9]

[Your 2nd version isn't so bad, but a tad heavy on the amount in parentheses.] Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like yours better than mine. If no one else has a problem (I don't see why they would), let's do it. Hazillow (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Changed. Thanks for the suggestion, Hrafn. Hazillow (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Spinoff proposal

This page is about 80KB. According to Wikipedia guidelines on article size, a split should be considered if the article grows above 60KB. The "Legal issues" section seems like a natural target for a spinoff. The four subsections in this article would become sections of the new article, tentatively titled "Kent Hovind's legal issues." The current section would, of course, be summarized in this article and a "Main article:" note would preface the section. What are your thoughts? Hazillow (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is enough meat to make a worthwhile article. The legal stuff is important to the article and may be too difficult to summarize. And the legal article will be fairly small and will only put the article under 60 kb by a little. Splitting off isn't necessary in all articles, take a look at some of the other articles in related fields (evolution, creationism, ID, c-e controversy) and they are all quite large. I just don't think there is enough for make a quality article. Baegis (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Baegis that spinning off a legal issues article makes no sense. I better solution would be to attempt to distil the article down a bit. It is really too detailed a treatment (probably due to disputes leading to extra detail being dumped in) for a second-tier (if very colourful) creationist. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason why the articles you mentioned (evolution and the like) are so large is because they cover very broad subjects (from WP:Article length: "Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields.). Regardless, the ID and c-e controvery articles probably should be split anyway. If we can wittle this article down, then fine. But everything seems to have a source and, as Hrafn mentioned, extra detail was dumped in as a compromise. I don't think we should remove things that are sourced and were agreed upon without the input of the major contributors (if they are still active). I'll see if I can hunt them down. Hazillow (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Such 'compromises' tend to be of the type of one side putting stuff into the article, so the other side adds balancing information. Any WP:CONS is for the balance, not the level of detail. It should be possible to summarise (both sides equally) or move (again both sides equally) supporting information into footnotes without disturbing this consensus. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't look like much consensus was reached, so in view of WP:BRD I started a new article here Legal problems of Kent and Jo Hovind. Read the talk page for more info. If people have a problem, please write it here. Otherwise if no one objects, I will summarize the legal problems and put them in this article, and use a hatnote to link to the main Legal problems article.

If someone wants to write the legal problems summary for this article, you can write it and put the proposed text here. If no one does it in the next few days I will get around to it...   Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  20:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

As (i) there is no WP:CONSENSUS for a "spinoff" & (ii) Legal problems of Kent and Jo Hovind is simply a WP:CFORK of material already covered here, I am redirecting that article back to this one. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention on this subject Hrafn. I do not agree with you that this is a content fork at all. According to the wikipedia policy you quoted, in subsection about spinout it says that spinout of an article is acceptable when it gets longer (see Wikipedia:Article size as quoted on the CFORK section I just mentioned) and is not a content or POV fork. The intention of this spin out is to follow the article size wikipedia policy and not introduce any NPOV problems. Right now the article is so long, who is really going to read the whole thing?? Its obtuse to deal with and I think summarizing the legal problems on this article and providing a link to a new article is the best solution. I hope you appreciate my bold moves in order to mature wikipedia!   Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  17:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

A second article isn't the answer. The problem is not that the legal problems section is, of necessity, large -- but rather that it has become bloated. Simple copy-editing (repeated reintroductions, jumping back and forth, only-marginally-relevant quotes) can trim quite a bit, even before we get to deciding if all the detail is necessary. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, in light of that, I added a copyedit tag here.   Jonverve  ^{Talk  Contrib}  18:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

THis article is ar from neatural. THough it may be the common opinion, its not NPOV.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly in the article is POV? If the facts about Kent Hovind's life paint him in a disparging light, perhaps that is his fault, and not the editors'. Hazillow (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It clearly POV aside from whether or ot you share his beliefs. I feel a rewrite is in order, see Kent Hovind/NPOV for writting of a new NPOV version of this page to later be merged in to existing page.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Huh?

You didn't answer my question. What is POV about this article? It is probably good to bring up what you feel is POV before you suggest "complete rewrites" and link to a page that doesn't exist, expecting us to go with it. Hazillow (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, please understand that WP:NPOV means we report the POVs expressed in reliable sources without giving our own POV one way or the other. Do any major sources extol him which we've missed? Anynobody 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Having the chance to read the whole article it seems their is only two small issues with it, I just nticed the first one right at the beginning and tagged it, but I'll fix them.--L33t-Geek (talk)

16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes made, I removed the unsourced claim of him being a conspiracy theorist and replaced it with a simple description of his belief or disbelief actually in evolution, speciifically macroevolution. I also removed the Scandal related categories as I don't belive they were valid for this article, unless someone can explain.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

And I have reverted your changes. His conspiracy theories are documented in Kent Hovind#Controversial remarks; given that he is a YEC, to say that he rejects macroevolution is redundant; for a prominent Christian apologist to be convicted & imprisoned would surely count as a "religious scandal". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I would revert it back because thats is so bogus, but you would do the same so I just taged where needed with {{Proveit}}.--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with L33t-Geek that the "religious scandal" claim is dubious. I'm not at all sure that I'd count Hovind as a "prominent Christian apologist", but regardless, the scandal is not religious in nature, is it? I can accept that a sex scandal involving a famous evangelist, say, is a religious scandal, since it involves a pretty blatant hypocrisy, at least if the evangelist has repeatedly and publicly condemned sexual misbehavior. But tax evasion? Well, surely most religious persons condemn lying, but that doesn't seem to justify calling this a religious scandal.

Does "religious scandal" include any legal troubles in which a preacher-man is on the wrong side of the law?

Unlike L33t-Geek, I'd say that the conspiracy theory category is defensible. Phiwum (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did an NPOV rewrite.--168.156.174.49 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I've moved L33t-Geek's NPOV fork over to Talk:Kent Hovind/temporary. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

L33t-Geek, KHrulz, and Kentisawesome seem to be intimately connected. In an edit comment, Kentisawesome referred to the TALK page to which he himself did not comment, but L33t-Geek did. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad thats not true, and i am sure ther is a way to check ips to prove it. Also where did all my tags go?--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I consider the current emphasis on his behavior in prison, and--indeed--the details of the legal difficulties, such as the argument over his passport, to be somewhat excessive. I think they do serve only the purpose of trying to lengthen the bulk of the negative criticism against him--hardly necessary in this particular instance. People where should know the amount of sympathy I am likely to have with any portion of his career, but it still isn't fair. A correct article should discuss it--it is a notable part of his career. L33t's version is too far in the other direction. DGG (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My version is not finished so why even bring it up?--L33t-Geek (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What DGG said. I removed the booking photo as being gratuitous and problematic per WP:BLP. Fact is, we really don't need to rub Hovind's nose in his own mess - he's done a bang-up job of that without our help. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally fine with leaving the booking photo out, but falsely claiming it is a copyvio and disrupting the page in order to make a point is where I draw the line. 2^nd Guy's motion to leave it out. Baegis (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Also FYI booking photos are ARE copyrighted.--L33t-Geek (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is disputing that it's a copyrighted image. Copyrighted images are allowed on Wikipedia, completely in keeping with US and other countries' copyright laws. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey i'm no lawyer, I was just doing what I though should be done. Someone needs to WP:AGF.--L33t-Geek (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that booking photos taken by the FBI are not copyrighted. At least we have a template which makes that claim, and it's plausible, as documents generated by the Federal Government are not copyrighted. However, the claim that it should be removed as a copyvio is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. But, as long as you don't do it again.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)AGF gets tossed out the window when you decide to sock your way to changing the article. Baegis (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What????-L33t-Geek (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If we're agreed we don't want to use this photo, why argue over its copyright? if L33t intends to continue his version to cover the later part, I'd like to see it.--I assumed it was intended to be complete as was. DGG (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey l33t, great work on the NPOV article, it was taken down but i'm putting it back up for you.--KHManiac (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The blocked my other IP and accounts, but I got plenty of IPs to edit from, gotta love the uni network,--168.156.174.90 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that too much emphasis is put on the procedural aspects of his various legal troubles, although I believe most of those edits were made by a tax lawyer who pronounced himself uninterested in the whole creation-evolution debate (and does great work on this and the tax protestor articles incidentally), so I wouldn't ascribe it to attempts to make Hovind look bad. However, I disagree that an article is POV simply because it is unflattering. The reason the article reads the way it does is that virtually all the material available on Hovind in reliable sources is negative.

When I first came across this article (one of the first I edited here) I was completely unfamiliar with its subject. It sounded to be a bit biased to me, so I tried to find positive or neutral material about him, perhaps discussing missionary work abroad or other simple facts about his life, but did not find much. His "mission" seems mostly just peddling merchandise and speaking wherever he can get a sufficient honorarium from a sponsoring group or "free will offering" from the congregation. He seems to be regarded as a joke among biologists and an embarrassment to Young Earth Creationists. I was convinced that the article was, if anything, too nice to him.

On the other hand, I think a more extensive discussion of his views would benefit the article. He's fairly well known for his claims that the dragons or monsters in old legends are actually dinosaurs and continuing to push the claim that rotting basking sharks are in fact plesiosaurs. There is no doubt other material from him ubiquitous videos we could mention, as well as his exchange with Answers in Genesis on arguments that AiG thinks creationists should not use.

I'd really like to see the Hovind Theory section developed a bit more, along with his criticisms of evolution, but the problem is that the man has no published works and his videos are often contradictory or simply misstate the scientific principles he is trying to criticize ("The Big Bang was the explosion of a spinning dot," for example). It's tough to see how we could synthesize them, even if such were not explicitly prohibited. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

There deffinatly needs to be some rewriting in this article. For example, the opening paragraphs should be the topic of the person and not POV of him, regardless of how widely accepted this POV may be. The article starts by saying he "aim(s) to convince listeners to reject modern theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the creation myth found in the Bible, creation according to Genesis." A better and more accurate sentence should read "aims to encourage students to question the theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology. He believes in the creation theory found in the Bible according to the book of Genesis." Another example is in the next paragrah which states "Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism ministry in 1989 and frequently argued for Young Earth creationism and made other controversial remarks in his talks at private schools and churches, at debates, and on radio and television broadcasts." A more neutral statement would read "Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989 and frequently argues for Young Earth Creationism." This would remove the criticism from that sentence which is not congruent with the first part of the sentence. Criticism needs to stay in a "Criticism" subject heading on his page. The truths about his self and his life need to be unbiased and reflect fact only and not an angled POV. Let's AGF on the person about which this article is written before we AGF about the one's writing it. All suggested re-writes can be verified through review of his siminars.Texmant (talk) 04:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)Texmant

Your suggested sentence is whitewashing. Hovind has made it clear he doesn't just want people questioning science- he wants evolution, the big bang theory, etc, rejected. It's also inappropriate to call the creation myth in Genesis a 'creation theory'- per WP:RNPOV, we're locked into using the formal meaning of words like 'theory'. Genesis may meet the colloquial meaning, but it certainly doesn't fit the bill of a scientifically sound Model of Creation. --King Öomie 06:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Texmant, there are a few problems with your proposed changes. First, the lede, which is what you call the opening paragraphs, is supposed to reflect the content of the article. So it in fact should be the way it is because it summarizes the article. Second, your first proposed sentence change is actually less accurate as Hovind DOES in fact call people to flat out reject evolution, geophysics, and cosmology. There is just about nothing about those fields of science that you can accept while holding to Hovind's ideas. Also you refer to Creation as a theory. This is problematic as we are to use the scientific meaning of the word, and the scientific meaning in no way applies to Creationism - especially not as it is presented in Genesis.

For the second change you propose - I really have no idea why. It's neutral, it flows well, and its very encyclopedic. Why remove the fact that he is criticized for what he promotes? That seems a bit like whitewashing to me. Criticism sections are actually discouraged on wikipedia. Ideally, all criticisms of the subject of the article are integrated into the article body itself. Adding a criticism section would wind up being a step backwards.

Lastly, we can't use Hovind's seminars for information on himself or his ideas. Hovind does not qualify as a WP:RS. He IS in prison for fraud after all. :P Farsight001 (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That's... exactly what I said XD --King Öomie 17:19, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

King Oomie, please consider the last sentence in my suggestion that we should AGF on the person about whom the article is written before we assume it on ourselves. In order to keep NPOV, you have to take into consideration his stance on these topics... He encourages people to question these theories. He himself might think of them as "dumb", but that doesn't subtract from his teachings. He teaches that all things should be considered. As far as creation being established as a myth and not a theory, neither "theory" have every been proven nor disproven. You're assuming that the entire scientific community has accepted evolution as the only possible solution (at which point it stops becoming a theory and starts becoming fact). There is a section of the scientific community that believes that creation is a plausible arguement (See answers in Genesis in reference section). To establish it as a myth is to refuse alternate angles. To establish it as a theory is not out of the question.

Farsight, you're right, the opening paragraphs should reflect the content of the article. But please understand that my point is to say that a NPOV needs to be maintained through the entire article. Facts only, not opinion. You mentioned that the scientific meaning of the word does not apply to creationism. "a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena" - theory. This definition does not in any way imply that the ideas of creationism are out of this scope. A re-write would allow for a reader to enter the article expecting to hear facts, not hear about someone's idea about him. Liked, or disliked, his article needs to reflect his beliefs as what they are, and not as rediculous. I am not expecting to have anyone believe evolution or creationism, however, I do expect an encyclopedia to state all possibilities as just that, possibilities from a NPOV.

As for my second change, you're suggesting that the sentence is NPOV and flows well. I have to disagree entirely. The sentence starts off by saying that he established a ministry and ends by saying that he said some contraversial things. This in no way keeps a consistant sentence, but rather changes topics midsentence to state that he did something that has nothing to do with his establishment of a ministry. He and contraversy about him should be in a seperate paragraph. Kent Hovind (obviously) has no problem with contraversy. However, I do think it needs to be addressed approprietly. You also mentioned that Wikipedia discourages "criticism" sections. These sections are all over personal articles throughout the site. I understand that we have differing opinions on this, but it is out of place for anyone to randomly interject criticism into an otherwise solid and possitive sentence.

Lastly, I'm sorry you don't think he is an acceptible source of information on himself. But his conviction is a fact and should be stated as such, and not a reason to disbelieve anything he says. If that's the case, then how can you accept anything he says about what he believes. Most of what has been published about what he believes, was observed from his seminars, therefor, NPOV material can come from those as well. To refuse to cite such material would be a gross violation of POV.Texmant (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)texmant

I don't have time to respond to your entire post, but two things.

One, AGF is not a factor here. I fully believe Hovind thought he was doing good. I disagree, however, that we should present HIS view of his work as fact. See also, Charles Manson; Hitler. I'm aware these historical figures are "evil", and hovind is decidedly less so- but you get my point.

Two, see Theory-

"A theory, in the scientific sense of the word, is an analytic structure designed to explain a set of empirical observations. A scientific theory does two things:

1. it identifies this set of distinct observations as a class of phenomena, and
2. makes assertions about the underlying reality that brings about or affects this class."

Bolding mine. You won't find this anywhere near a creation myth, despite the insistence by the Discovery Institute and AiG to the contrary. --King Öomie 22:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding your argument and how it addresses my issue with the lede on his page. Presenting his point of view as a fact is not what I am saying... I'm saying it is a fact that he has this point of view, and this fact should be presented in a way that suggests that this is normal and acceptable. Second, I believe that the part of the theory deffinition that we're getting hung up on is the "emperical" part of it. Since these are theories are about the birth of the universe and, let's face it, no one was around to see it, it is difficult to observe any parts of each theory. But if a presidence can be set, let's establish what I wrote in my last response that evolution theory has been presented as a theory, yet there has been no emperical evidence found to support it, other than the fact that species can adapt to their environment. Whatever creation is classified as (myth, theory or religion), evolution belongs in the same classification. There needs to be fair and even classification on this topic since it is a topic of such hot debate. And to be perfectly honest, it's not up to me, you or anyone else writing this article to determine that he believes in fairy tales (myth) and that everyone else get's to believe in the real theory, since we do not have all the answers. Creation is a very arguable theory that threatens evolution theory as they are in direct contrast. You cannot believe in both, but that doesn't mean that we know who's theory is correct.

My real problem with the opening paragraphs continues to be that the paragraphs seem to be (and appearantly are) directing attention to criticism about him, rather than setting a NPOV of him before all the facts can be listed. There may be a million facts about him, but no one ever deserves to have their name placed in such a negative light by picking specific negative facts while an equal (or greater) number of positive and agreeable facts exist. This is what is causing POV issues. I will be gathering some references and updating the article necessary in time.166.164.101.130 (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)Texmant

Boggle. Have you actually read the Evolution article? It has nothing to do with the "birth of the universe". And the only way Creationism is an "arguable theory" is to argue that you have to leave everything to faith. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Beyond all other points, I will fight you all the way to ArbCom on calling creationism a 'theory'. And yes, it sounds like your knowledge of evolution is indeed lacking. Evolution does not claim to have any connection to Abiogenesis or any other beginning-of-life school of thought, and the notion that it belongs in the same category as creationism, "Whatever that classification is", is ludicrous. --King Öomie 13:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"but no one ever deserves to have their name placed in such a negative light by picking specific negative facts while an equal (or greater) number of positive and agreeable facts exist. " This does not apply in this case. For every WP:RS praising him, two condemn his work as preaching ignorance. While this certainly shouldn't be an attack article (and right now, it's not), due to the relative weight of the sources, the lead of this article should not resemble that of Henry Ford, another figure with some (though not nearly as many) controversial issues.

Lastly, some links for you. If you have a prodigious amount of free time, I'd suggest reading the entire list, but these are directly applicable to the claims you made:

CA041: Teach the controversy.,

CA201: Only a theory,

CA202: Evolution proof,

CA100.1: What evolution doesn't explain --King Öomie 13:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Neil, you're first point is null. Your second point... please understand that many people consider evolution to be fact. Also, many people belive Creation is fact. There is arguable scientific evidence in favor of many of the Genesis accounts (not all). To deny this fact is to be blind and dogmatic.

King Oomie, Fight me??? there must be a way that a reasonable conclusion can be reached on the "theaory" "myth" issue, as this is an article that many people will rely on and that word will turn MANY well meaning readers away from Wikipedia for it's audacious tone. It sets a biased standard that is both untrue and offensive. Again, perhaps a reasonable solution can be reached on this issue. "This does not apply in this case. For every WP:RS praising him, two condemn his work as preaching ignorance." Do you have proof of this? You're very conclusive in this to the point that you will "fight" to make sure that this man's name is viewed wholey as a detriment to society. It is NEVER right to pick out negative occurances and deliver them as though they are the only truths that exist.

I found some time to read your links... I have to say, they are as closed minded as expected. "counterarguments from creationists, which are all bad science" CA041 doesn't disprove anything... it's just a statement of opinion. "Theory...does not imply uncertainty....Fact: •Life appeared on earth more than two billion years ago" CA201 implies certainty. Compare with "1.Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty" CA202 implies uncertainty. As I stated in my last response, I'm not here to convince you that either evolution or creation is true, I have a problem with NPOV of this page.

Your argument about creation vs. evolution... I can say the word ludicrous too. I can put it in front of any idea I want. It is not for you or me to accept or deny any idea as ludicrous unless you have proof... and by the way, neither of us do. As much as you'd like to think so, you do not. And don't ever say anything to the contrary... that would be ludicrous. You're confused on the purpose of my suggestions. You are not being solution minded, you are being argumentative and I will not discuss arbitrary arguments beyond a solution driven point any more. Why put in timelyarguments rather than helping to improve the NPOV of this article? Here's a solid point... multiple peole think there is a problem with the NPOV of this article. That means there probabley is a problem. Don't stand in the way of it's improvements unless you have something to gain from his degridation... which i'm sure you don't.98.134.211.83 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)TexmanT

The reasonable conclusion is pretty clear. Please read the articles Theory and Creation Myth. It's obvious which one is the appropriate term. The word "myth" is not being used informally here which complies with policy. You're taking offense where none exists. Academia, Scholars, Theologists etc... all use the term. Saying that the usage of Creation Myth implies negativity or falsehood because it contains the word "myth" is akin to saying that the Electoral College is an institution of higher learning because it contains the word college. Nefariousski (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As this is not the place to discuss creationism, I won't ask you for the "scientific evidence in favor of many of the Genesis accounts". Farsight001 has commented on why your changes to the lede shouldn't be implemented. Do you have any other suggestions? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

IP, you can use the word 'ludicrous' whenever you want. I'll be content in the knowledge that I, at least, used it correctly. There is no matter of opinion here. You can't just say "oh, well, they're just words, I can write on wikipedia that bikes are a food if I want to." These are words with specific definitions, and you're misusing them. Stop. --King Öomie 02:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected

I have semiprotected for two weeks to stop the high rate of anonymous vandalism to this article. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tax evasion?

Tax avoidance and tax evasion#Tax evasion states "By contrast tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, firms, trusts and other entities to evade taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as declaring less income, profits or gains than actually earned; or overstating deductions)."

This would appear to be the common usage of the word, and clearly covers Hovind's criminal acts. Unless a WP:RS can be produced stating that this isn't 'Tax Evasion', then I would suggest that this is the clearest characterisation of Hovind's offenses. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If 'tax evasion' can be proven to be inaccurate, then the slightly-vaguer 'tax fraud' would also be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia articles are not themselves sources, especially when you can only get your conclusion through novel synthesis. A scholarly or professional journal article would never use that definition. Just to take the first thing that popped up when I did a search for this, the BNA Tax Management Portfolio Tax Crimes (a standard professional reference), "Tax evasion, the most frequently charged crime under the Internal Revenue Code, is a felony defined in § 7201 as the willful attempt to evade or defeat any tax imposed by Title 26."

Second, that's not the way it works. If you want to say that he's guilty of tax evasion, you need to provide a source saying so, especially when you're saying a living person is guilty of a crime. However,even if you are able to find a newspaper reporter who used the term colloquially, there's still a problem with using "tax evasion." Hovind was not convicted under Sec. 7201. Saying that he was guilty of tax evasion implies that he was. This would be inconsistent with the generally conservative approach taken on biographies of living persons.

If you look through the talkpage archives you'll see that I'm no fan of Hovind, but I think it is important for WP to be precise on these things. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

We are clearly using tax evasion in the manner described by Hrafn. It is a much more generalized term than the specific crime committed. For example (a bad one), there is clearly a line between murder one and murder two, but in the opening of someone's entry on WP, we don't make that distinction. We just say murder. Tax evasion is clearly the best way to phrase his charges even if it is technically not the crime he was charged with. Baegis (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be accurate. This is especially true when the article is about a living person.

The news media often confuses the term "tax evasion" by using it to refer to any "tax crime." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not need to be incorrect or imprecise merely because some members of the news media are incorrect or imprecise.

The analogy using "murder one" and "murder two" is not on point; both crimes are "murder."

The distinction between tax evasion and other tax crimes is also an important one for the simple reason that because the things you have to prove to obtain a conviction for tax evasion and a conviction for, say, some other tax crime, can be very different. When a federal prosecutor is reviewing the evidence in a tax case and deciding which charges to ask the grand jury to make, the prosecutor is keenly aware of the substantial difference in difficulty in proving say, "willful failure to file" (26 USC 7203) and "tax evasion" (26 USC 7201).

Sorry, but "tax evasion" is clearly NOT the best way to phrase the charges in the Hovind case. The best way to phrase the charges in the Hovind case, or any other case, is to state accurately what those charges were. Being accurate imposes no hardship on any Wikipedia reader, and certainly not on any Wikipedia editor -- especially when the correct information is right there in front of us. Famspear (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Regarding the comment that tax evasion "would appear to be the common usage of the word, and clearly covers Hovind's criminal acts" - no, sorry, that is not a judgment that we as Wikipedia editors are allowed to make.

And we as Wikipedia editors are NOT under some burden to "prove" that the term "tax evasion" is "inaccurate" as applied to Hovind. He was not charged with tax evasion; he was not convicted of tax evasion. Period.

The burden of proof is not on the editors wishing to keep out inaccurate, unsourced material. Further, in this case, the court record is already available -- and is sourced in the article itself.

In my personal opinion -- and I have studied more tax evasion and other criminal tax cases than I care to try to shake a stick at -- what Hovind allegedly did would indeed constitute tax evasion. However, I am not a previously published third party source for purpose of Wikipedia. I am just a Wikipedia editor. As a Wikipedia editor, I cannot presume to write, in a Wikipedia article about a living person (or in any other Wikipedia article), that this person committed tax evasion without proper sourcing, where he was neither convicted of that, nor even charged with that. My being right about my belief is not enough. Famspear (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the disagreement here seems to stem in part from whose pool is being pissed in, perhaps I can offer our friends an analogy:

There are two different types of elementary fermions, quarks and leptons. You tend to hear the term quark discussed in popular media, but not so much leptons or fermions. However, it would be incorrect for Wikipedia articles to call all fermions quarks under the rationale of "Hey, close enough." You would never advocate that I be allowed to go through articles changing lepton and fermion to quark under the rationale that that term was the one likely to be recognized by the average reader. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

When people are quite finished with this pissing contest:

1. I was NOT using a "Hey, close enough" definition. I was using a common and ubiquitous definition. See (for example) here and here. I would therefore like to thank ObiterDicta for his gross violation of WP:AGF. It really adds to the tone of these talkpages.
2. That being so, if the US tax-law slices the definition more finely than this ubiquitous definition, it is up to challenger to establish this, by citing it, as they (eventually) did.
3. This being so, while calling Hovind's offences 'tax evasion' is not 'incorrect' (per ubiquitous definition), it is confusing (per conflict between ubiquitous definition and tax-law definition), so should be avoided.
4. It therefore makes sense to look at alternatives, such as "tax fraud" (which I suggested above). Is this sufficiently close to the common and ubiquitous definition of 'tax evasion' to be appropriate? Does it have any hair-splitting definition in US tax law to conflict?

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrfan, I'm sorry you misunderstood my attempts at levity. I'm sure you're acting in good faith. To rephrase, I think it is important to use technically accurate terms in articles, rather than the colloquial ones that would be used on about.com or investopedia. You, I'm sure, would insist on such if it were a scientific term being (mis)used. My example was simply intended to compare misusing the legal term to misusing a scientific term. And since the sentence talks about Hovind's incarceration for violating federal laws, it is the legal definition, rather than the colloquial one, that is the important one here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear editor Hrafn: Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any remarks by editor ObiterDicta that would constitute a gross failure by him/her to assume good faith on your part.

I do think you are raising some very interesting points - especially about what you refer to as the "ubiquitous" definition versus the more technical U.S. law definition. Actually, the U.S. tax law definition -- the one that would apply to Hovind IF it, uh, well, actually applied, is already shown in the article Tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Regarding "tax fraud" -- I agree that we should think about that. Tax fraud is generally under 26 U.S.C. § 7204 through 26 U.S.C. § 7207, with 26 U.S.C. § 7206 being the typical statute that is used. Some people are charged with tax fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is a more general statute and not limited to "tax" matters.

Now, let's look at what Hovind actually was convicted of:

1. Twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202.

Mere failure to do something like this probably does not, in and of itself ordinarily constitute "fraud." Had Hovind actually signed and filed a tax return knowingly and falsely reporting the amount of his employees' wages (and thus the amount of federal payroll tax due), THAT could have been tax fraud (under 7206). But I see nothing in the article that indicates that the government alleged that he did that. Fraud has been defined as "a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignorant of its truth" (Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 194, 2d ed. 1984, italics added).

2. One count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws under section 7212.

If I recall correctly, this may have related to making threats against government personnel, endeavoring to impede or intimidate a federal officer. That's what the statute is talking about. Again, this would not necessarily be "fraud."

3. Forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11.

This is where it gets dicey. This involved Hovind evading (there's that word! - but I agree that it's OK to use it in this context) the Treasury reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (a technique known as "smurfing". I have little doubt that it was probably Hovind's INTENT here to engage in tax evasion -- but as a Wikipedia editor I cannot justify putting that in the article on that basis alone. The question is: Does deliberately and repeatedly making bank deposits of $9,500 rather than $10,000 to evade the requirement that the bank make a "currency transaction report" to the U.S. Treasury, in and of itself, constitute FRAUD? What "material misrepresentation" was Hovind making when he made those deposits? All he was affirmatively saying was: Here's $9,500, Mr. Banker, please take it and credit my bank account for that amount."

I guess you could argue that Hovind was IMPLYING that "hey Mr. Banker this is the only money I have to deposit today -- and that additional $9,500 deposit I intend to make in a couple of days is not really just part of the total $19,000 I have today and I'm just trying to avoid the Treasury reporting requirements so the Internal Revenue Service won't know I got this income...."

I believe it was obviously Hovind's INTENTION to evade having to pay the tax -- but does the mere making of a deposit under the $10,000 reporting requirement constitute FRAUD?

Any thoughts? Famspear (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Just so no one will get confused, the reason that the use of the term "evading" is perfectly OK in relation to Hovind's conviction under 31 USC 5324 is that the statute in question provides (in part):

No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508—

(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

--(italics added).

That's not tax evasion, that is evasion (or attempted evasion) of the currency transaction report requirements. Hovind was convicted of that. Just wanted to make that clear. Famspear (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Having thought about this a bit, I don't think that trying to characterize Hovind's crimes is a particularly good idea. The article should just state the facts. As Famspear has noted, "tax fraud" typically refers to statutes other than those Hovind was convicted under. We could change "crimes" to "felonies" I suppose, or simply note the three laws that he violated. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing legal issues

I added the information about the ongoing legal issues: Feds still looking to force Dinosaur Adventure Land into extinction. Paper45tee (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Jailed owner fights to keep park open (July 21, 2008) We66er (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, unfortunately those links no longer work. Any other sources? Petrafan007 (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey, if you actually read the dead links you would know that the paper's older stories are archived. If you didn't then below someone wrote the PNJ articles expire after 6 months requiring purchase from their Newsbank archive. Articles and webpages go offline all the time.

A good source is "D. C. Docket No. 06-00083-CR-3-MCR" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. December 30th 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help), which has a history section laying out Hovind's crimes, his defense, and the evidence that convicted him. Dooteeyr (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Biologist PZ Myers criticizes Eric Hovind's claims

Since Eric is now running the family business, we should include some mention that his claims are also considered ridiculous by trained scientists.

Biologist PZ Myers criticized Sampson and Eric for their comments on cephalopods, writing "We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution" and "they lack the intelligence to grasp it."(Myers, PZ (June 26, 2008). "Three dopes sitting around a table". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2008-10-21.) In his criticism, Myers criticized Hovind for failing to look up the evolutionary scholarship on cephalopods and linked to his blog article on cephalopod evolution.(Myers, PZ (July 30, 2007). "Cephalopod development and evolution". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2008-10-21.)(Myers, PZ (June 26, 2008). "Three dopes sitting around a table". Pharyngula. Retrieved 2008-10-21.)

What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenntand (talk • contribs)

Also - link 5 which states that "Eric Hovind often uses his fathers arguments" or words to that effect. This link does not show that eric uses kents arguments at all. In the interests of a half-way reliable source, this should be removed or a better reference found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.96.84.33 (talk) 17:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right the source doesn't support "using many of his father's arguments" but it does support "travels doing creationist presentations." While it is obvious that Eric's nonsense mirrors Kent's, it does need a reliable source. We66er (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should also mention PZ Myers's review of his talk[2] since Myers is a biologist and such an opinion of an expert would add to the article. Dooteeyr (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Blogs, even reliable ones, aren't permitted in BLPs per WP:BLP. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

God Quest Inc. and God Quest Ministries

Since Hovind got thrown in the slammer for tax problems and running an illegal business, his son is trying to avoid the jail fate and still make money. Thus, Creation Science Evangelism has been registed by "God Quest Inc." which is operated by Eric Hovind. Recently Hovind has sent out letters to the Florida Board of Education calling himself president of God Quest Ministries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BBiiis08 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links-FreeHovind

No argument on the basis of WP:EL for it's inclusion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Excuse me, guys. who removed the link to Free Hovind site?Cypapaper (talk) 09:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Aunt Entropy did (the most recent time it was deleted), per WP:EL. An action I agree with -- per WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided #1, #2 & probably other reasons-to-avoid. HrafnTalkStalk 11:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC) I totally disagree. There are plenty of external links, and this link is completely relevant to Dr. Hovind. If folks wants add more and more information about his tax offenses, prison term, and other unfortunate situations, then why not this? Please re-add the link, Cypapaper. Petrafan007 (talk) 14:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Read WP:EL. Make arguments based upon policy and facts, not airy assertions. HrafnTalkStalk 14:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Facts? Hmm...the site exists, it's regarding Hovind...what more is needed? Let's not make things more complex than need be. Policy? Well, it's not false information and it's regarding the subject at hand, so still I don't see what the problem is. I am reversing the edit now. Petrafan007 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Existence is not enough for an external link, which you will discover once you read the page linked here. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2008 (UTC) There has been consensus for nearly two years to keep the FreeHovind website off. A quick look at the archives turns up several discussions, such as Talk:Kent_Hovind/Archive_3#FreeHovind.com. A website started by a home schooler who stole material from wikipedia and omitted material that the creationist didn't like isn't a good addition. Tgreach (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC) No, you! (LOL) The site keeps coming back for the same reason it goes off...it's a bias for or against Hovind, obviously. I think it has more of a right to be on here than not. Why? BECAUSE IT'S FREAKING RELATED! What more do you want? Relation matters more than biased people's opinions, even mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Petrafan007 (talk • contribs) 22:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Again, please read WP:EL! Merely being "FREAKING RELATED" is not sufficient for inclusion. Either make an argument for its re-inclusion on the basis of that policy, or let be. HrafnTalkStalk 23:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC) Obviously, but my point still sticks. The site keeps coming back for the same reason it goes off...it's a bias for or against Hovind, obviously! You keep insisting that I am breaking the WP:EL policy, when I am clearly not, and others who put it on were not either. You just don't want it on here, plain and simple. FreeHovind.com just makes sense to be on here because it talks about his creation theories and freeing him from prison. Information about his crimes and prison term is plastered all over this article, yet a site dedicated to his release is not acceptable. What are you trying to prove? Except for the WP:EL policy (which is highly disputed around here), you've given me zero good reasons NOT to include it. Go ahead, what are they? Petrafan007 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Tax offenses

Just a quick question...where is the reference found for Hovind having 58 tax offenses? Petrafan007 (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Read the article -- the citation for this (currently #153) is "O'Brien, Mark (November 3, 2006). 'Hard to believe a man with a Ph.D didn't know of a basic tax law', Pensacola News Journal." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:27, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the excerpt from the article:

On July 11, 2006, Hovind was charged in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola with twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202, forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11, and one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws under 26 U.S.C. § 7212. [see footnote in article - to indictment]

Twelve plus 45 plus 1 equals 58. I believe the article also mentions that he was convicted on all counts, with applicable citation. So that would be convictions of 58 tax offenses. Famspear (talk) 00:24, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

In addition, to the five or so citations in the article which source the claim:

• 58 charges against anti-evolution speaker York Dispatch, Jul 20, 2006
• Dinosaurs, Bible meet in Pensacola: A creationist theme park promotes, Miami Herald Sep 10, 2006
• Atheists Blast Creationists in Copyright Battle, Christian Post, Sep 28, 2007 ("found guilty in November 2006 on 58 federal...")
• DINOSAUR ADVENTURE LAND FOUNDER FACING 288-YEAR STRETCH Miami Herald Nov 5, 2006
• Evangelist Hovind found guilty for tax fraud, wikinews, November 4, 2006

And from this talk's archive at Talk:Kent_Hovind/Archive_2#Dead_links (The links are now dead because PNJ articles expire after 6 months requiring purchase from their Newsbank archive or to look at the microfilm):

• Stewart, Michael (14 July 2006). "Evangelist arrested on federal charges". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Stewart, Michael (18 July 2006). "Park owner pleads not guilty to tax fraud: Evangelist says he's owned by God". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Stewart, Michael (19 July 2006). "Creationist's fight with Uncle Sam may evolve into painful defeat". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Stewart, Michael (21 July 2006). "Lift restrictions, evangelist asks". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Stewart, Michael (28 July 2006). "No travel for evangelist, judge says". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Stewart, Michael (1 September 2006). "Evangelist's trial postponed". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Fail, Angela (October 18, 2006). "Evangelist's trial begins: Dinosaur Adventure Land owner, wife face 58 counts of tax fraud". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-18.
• Sowder, Amy (October 19, 2006). "Workers testify in 'Dr. Dino' trial". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-19.
• Fail, Angela (October 20, 2006). "Christian College leader says taxes are part of religion: Hovind argues God's workers are exempt". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-20.
• Michael Stewart (21 October 2006). "Lawyer: Hovind detailed actions: Evangelist said he 'beat the system'". Retrieved 2006-10-26. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |pub= ignored (|publisher= suggested) (help)
• Staff (25 October 2006). "Hovind trial resumes Monday". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-10-20.
• Lozare, Nicole (October 31, 2006). "IRS agent testifies in Hovind trial, Case could go to jury Thursday". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-01.
• Lozare, Nicole (November 1, 2006). "Judge admonishes Hovind attorney". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-01.
• Lozare, Nicole (November 1, 2006). "Prosecutors rest case against Hovind". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-01.
• Lozare, Nicole (November 2, 2006). "'Dr. Dino,' wife guilty". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-02.
• O'Brien, Mark (November 3, 2006). "Hard to believe a man with a Ph.D didn't know of a basic tax law". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2006-11-03.
• "Pensacola Evangelist Who Founded Dinosaur Theme Park Convicted of Tax Fraud". First Coast News. 6 November 2006. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
• Stewart, Michael (19 January 2006). "10 years for 'Dr. Dino'". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
• Stewart, Michael (20 January 2006). "A decade for 'Dr. Dino'". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2007-01-20.
• "Florida evangelist sentenced for tax fraud". WALA-TV. January 20, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-21.
• O'Brien, Mark (January 21, 2007). "Earth to 'Dr. Dino': Please pay your taxes and start facing reality". Pensacola News Journal. Retrieved 2007-01-21.
• "Kent Hovind jail calls". Pensacola News Journal. January 20, 2007. Retrieved 2007-01-21.
• "Court upholds Hovind convictions". Pensacola News Journal. Jan 5, 2009. Retrieved 2008-10-18.
• "Tax-evasion sentences upheld for 'Dr. Dino' and wife". Pensacola News Journal. Jan 6, 2009. Retrieved 2008-10-18.

A simple glance at the footnotes would have answered your question, but the above shows you all the citations about his trial and conviction. Tgreach (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the recent court ruling that rejected Hovind's appeal, has a good history of the trial, including evidence for him being guilty. It breaks down the charges and Hovind's failed excuses poor defense of the 58 crimes (which were rejected by the judge, jury, and appeals court). Read it at: "D. C. Docket No. 06-00083-CR-3-MCR" (PDF). United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. December 30th 2008. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) Tgreach (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Confusing, money owed over $1,000,000

I think the money Kent Hovind and his family owe need cleared up in the article. Since there are so many issues going on I think one sentence summary of what he owes should be inserted.

1) In a 2006 civil case Kent Hovind was ordered to pay taxes for the years 1995-97 in the amount of $504,957.24 (US Tax Court Decision, July 2006)

2) In a 2006 criminal case (sentenced in 2007): Hovind was ordered to pay costs of $5,800, a fine of $2000, and restitution of $604,874.87 (Source from the news, Jan. 2007).

Perhaps in the introduction of the legal issues should spell out that he owes money from a variety of issues totaling $1,117,632.11. Dooteeyr (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox policy - include title?

Could someone familiar with infobox policy please tell me whether it is standard practice to include titles - that is, should it read 'Kent Hovind' or 'Dr Kent Hovind'? Hadrian89 (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It appears the standard would be "Kent Hovind." Famspear (talk) 23:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, noted. Hadrian89 (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Logic in sentence regarding relation between atheism and evolution

At the time, Hovind commonly insisted that evolution and atheism were synonymous, even though many believe the two are not mutually exclusive.

" " , even though many believe the two are not the same.

The first version means: 'many believe it is possible to believe in both atheism and evolution.' This is not news. What the sentence wants to mean is: 'many believe that evolution does not imply the lack of a god.' The second is closer to this, though I suggest that 'not inseparable' would be even better. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I think a more concise way of stating it would be "many believe that evolution does not entail atheism". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 13:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Yup, that's good. I'll change it. Hadrian89 (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I see now why the IP editor made the earlier change, too. My mistake. Phiwum (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Article

Maybe it would be benificial for readers to have a unbiased, accurate article when wanting to read about Kent Hovind? -BobbyG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.94.5 (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is biased toward accuracy. How do you think it is inaccurate? Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The article (As are all articles on Wikipedia) is biased towards what is popularly opinionated as accurate, not towards actual accuracy. For example, if I were to change the article, regardless if it was accurate or not, if someone was to come by and think it was inaccurate they would change it back to what they thought was accurate. And I would love to point out the areas of inaccuracy, but I'll save you the trouble of re-reading 3/4 of the article. -BobbyG

How do you expect us to change anything if you give no clue whatsoever as to which bits you think are inaccurate? Hadrian89 (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think that 3/4ths of the article is inaccurate, I understand not posting it all. But we can't do anything if you don't point out anything. So start with one sentence, we'll work that out, and then we'll move on to the next one. If all you do is complain about the article bias that you see, there is nothing we can do to help.Farsight001 (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

196.207.47.60 (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)The gist of the article seems to be biased to evolution and against creation, in the sense that it seems as if the article seems to be seen as an opportunity to disparage creation in favour of evolution. The point of view that evolution is the only possible point of view can only possibly be seen as neutral from a bigoted evolutionist point of view. Basically evolution contends that God doesn't exist and therefore He didn't create anything while creation contends that God does exist and He created everything. For an article about Kent Hovind or any human being to be from a neutral point of view, the article should be written in such a way as to not present evolution, or in this case creation, as laughable and the other point of view as the only possible point of view. Creation is testable; e.g. the layer of dust on the moon is less than two centimetres thick, from a creation point of view the moon is not milliards of years old if one mathematically calculates the amount of years it would take X-Rays to change the surface of the moon into a two centimetre thick layer of dust on the surface of the moon as opposed to more than 30 kilometres of dust as would be required by evolution. Many people on earth believe that some form of deity does exist and for people who do not believe in the existence of a deity to believe that only they are scientific is unfair to a sizeable percentage of the earth's population. Maybe that is what BobbyG is referring to. I believe the article should be about Kent Hovind and not a creation bashing party, or for that matter an evolution bashing party. It should be an article about Kent Hovind, whether the author of the article agrees with Hovind's views on creation/evolution or not. It seems as if Hovind's views are portrayed in the article so as to seem laughable. The minority view on a subject is not of necessity wrong. Aristotle said heavier objects falls faster than lighter ones, Galileo said their time of descent was independent of their mass, as you can read in the Wikipedia article about Galileo. In the video '911 In Plane Site' Dave von Kleist presented several news reports by local news reporters at the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, where the local news reporters reported that more than one bomb was found inside the building. Of course the national reporters reported that it was a single truck bomb. Later Ted Gunderson, a retired FBI agent, said that the bombs inside the Murrah building were identified as highly advanced US military bombs. I know that doesn't prove that the government blew up the building so they could push through anti-terrorist law, but it does prove that somewhere somebody lied about it being a single truck bomb. The minority view is not of necessity wrong. In America there are two big political parties, Republican and Democratic. These two parties have the same policy on major issues, for instance Bush Jr. sent the troops into Iraq and Obama is keeping the troops in Iraq. In America there are also a few small political parties, e.g. Constitutional Party and Libertarian Party. Does it of necessity mean that one is 'antigovernment' if one does not support the bipartisan alliance between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? Why is the word patriot in ""-marks? Is that neutral? Here is a link to George Bush Sr.'s New World Order speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a9Syi12RJo GHW Bush promoted the New World Order, so did Henry Kissinger, Obama and Tony Blair. How can the New World Order be a conspiracy theory? Why is Kent Hovind portrayed in a negative way? Should the article not be neutral, in spite of him being in jail? Nelson Mandela was in jail too, in Mandela's case for treason. If Hovind were tried in a country where the suspect is deemed innocent unless otherwise convicted, he would most likely not have been sentenced to jail, and some of the charges against him would not have existed. Kent Hovind was sentenced to jail because of specifics in American law that does not exist in every country on earth. I disagree strongly with some of Kent Hovind's views, but that does not give me an open invitation to write a character assassination in stead of a biographical article on him in Wikipedia.

As said above, this article is biased toward accuracy. Evolution is widely accepted by the scientific community, but looking at the article, I don't even see its perceived evolution bias in the article. I however note that evolution does not rule out a god, as science is agnostic. I also find it interesting that many of your pro-creation arguments (i.e. moon dust) are listed on the Answers in Genesis (pro-creation) website as "Arguments that should never be used". But in any case, the majority of your post violates WP:NOTFORUM. Kent Hovind is portrayed "in a negative way" because the majority of his reception was negative. This implies that the article is in fact correctly neutral. Artichoker^[talk] 22:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Anonymous IP - first of all, simple hitting enter will create a paragraph break, making what you type easier to read. Just remember the colon if you want the new paragraph indented too. Second, you seem to have several misconceptions regarding evolution, Kent Hovind, and wiki policy.

Evolution, in fact, does NOT contend that God does not exist. I know that Kent Hovind teaches this and I know that many evolutionary biologists are atheists, but this is simply untrue. Evolution does not declare or deny the existence of God. God is, by definition, supernatural. Science is the study of the natural world, and thus it cannot study God or directly involve God in any of it's theories. This does not mean that God cannot have played a part, but only that if God did play a part, we have no way of determining scientifically what that role is. In fact, most Christians (I'd say a good 2/3rds) believe in what is called theistic evolution, whereby God is real and evolution is the method which He used to create us. This also means that belief in a deity does not mean that a person automatically rejects scientific consensus either, as you suggest.

The layer of the dust on the moon in no way is a test of creationism. Also, the numbers which Hovind uses to determine that there are only 6000 years worth of dust on the moon are well known to be completely and utterly false. A creationist invented them, Hovind saw them, assumed them to be authentic, and now uses this (unknowingly) false information in his arguments. Evolution also has to do only with life. Dust on the moon is NOT an aspect of evolution. You are mixing it up with the big bang and the current estimates for the age of the earth.

The article should be about Hovind and it is. We make note of what the person is famous for. Hitler was an accomplished artist who produced quite beautiful works, but he is famous for his massacre of the Jews and for Nazi Germany, and so the majority of the article on him talks about that, with little to nothing given to his art. Likewise, the article on Hovind expounds upon what he is famous for. That this information presents him in a disparaging light is not the fault of wikipedia, but rather of Hovind, who promoted and committed these disparaging acts and ideas. And no, the minority view of a subject is not necessarily wrong. However, wikipedia policy demands that we report what reliable secondary sources say. If wikipedia existed 1000 years ago when everyone thought the earth was flat, then wikipedia would declare that the earth was flat.

Also, your youtube video shows Senior talking about a "new world order", but the order he speaks of and the order the NWO conspiracists expound are not the same thing. Senior was speaking of a new and better way of doing things (an "age of enlightenment" so to speak), not a one world ordered dictatorship where every aspect of everyone's life is controlled, ruled, and regulated for them. It is, in fact, textbook conspiracy theorist behavior to hear a phrase and assume that the speaker's meaning is the same as the conspiracy theorist's. Many people think Junior is satanic because he has been seen sticking his pinky and index finger out, which some people think is the sign of devil horns. Junior is, in fact, a Texas longhorns fan, and the hand gesture is a symbol, even in sign language, of a bull's horns. But the conspiracy theorist assumes insidious intent instead of reasoning that the purpose may be innocent.

Yes, the article should be neutral, but on wikipedia, as policy explains, neutral does not mean half positive and half negative. How do you make an article on Hitler half positive? Or an article on Gandhi half negative? You don't. According to wiki policy, neutral means representing what the sources say. That means that if 95% of reliable sources about Hovind are negative, than 95% of the article must be negative. This is exactly what we have done here. Nelson Mandela gets a positively spun article because most reliable secondary sources present him in a positive light. Farsight001 (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Community comment

I went ahead and removed the sentence under 2.1 (The Hovind Theory) that stated "The scientific community rejects any form of creationism, including young earth creationism." According to Wikipedia, the scientific community "consists of the total body of scientists." Whether we like it or not, that would include accredited creationists and intelligent design proponents (eg. Jonathan Sarfati or Michael Behe. The "proof" reference given for the original statement obviously cannot speak for the entire scientific community. 67.225.34.65 (talk) 03:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. You seem confused. Just because a scientist may accept pseudoscience doesn't make it science. The scientific consensus is that creationism and Hovind's "theory" isn't a theory and doesn't stand up to facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ash8892 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

That line of argument is simply ridiculous and not scientific at all. This is just an appeal to common practice. In fact it seems that the evolution thesis is the one that is pseudoscientific, given that they can not support their claim with empirical, testable evidence --41.15.57.248 (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh...yeah...actually there is a lot of ermpirical testable evidence. In fact, a lot of it has been tested. Don't be lying now. ;PFarsight001 (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please, assume good faith and accept that the IP is either deluded or misinformed. Unfortunately the IPs don't seem to appreciated that the scientific community includes people doing science, not theologians who once did some science but abandoned the effort. . dave souza, talk 14:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not meaning to convey that I was assuming bad faith. I meant not lying unintentionally. It was a creative suggestion to fact check, hence the smily.Farsight001 (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I would point out that neither Sarfati nor Behe have scientific expertise in a field relevant to evolutionary biology, nor has either published anything in recent years that is related to their fields of scientific expertise. It is therefore a stretch to claim that they are functioning as members of the scientific community, and far more accurate to state that they are functioning rather as members of the creationist Christian apologetics community. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Judge rules to allow Feds to seize Dinosaur Adventure Land

According to the NCSE, "Dinosaur Adventure Land, Kent Hovind's creationist theme park in Pensacola, Florida, is to be seized by the federal government." Thed Feds are taking the property for money owed, which Hovind hide and transferred into other people's name. The link has the court's ruling in a PDF, which gives the rationale for the decision. Agg56tt (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Movie about Hovind?

Apparently, there are plans for a movie about about Hovind by what looks like some of the same people who did Expelled. Should this be mentioned in the article? Right now, I can't find any details other than this press release so I'm not sure it is worth mentioning at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we should hold off adding it to the article until we get more sources/better sources about it. A few sentences published via a free press release service is not worth mentioning now. If the project gets steam and funding, which I'm skeptical of, then it should be mentioned. C56C (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Federal raid at Hovind's business in 2004

Here's an old account from PZ Myers discussing the 2004 raid and Hovind's response. It might be worth discussing this in the article. C56C (talk) 16:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thankful21&3's recent additions

• "All three and their spouses work in the ministry" ≠ "Mostly employing his own children and their spouses to serve the ministries operations".
• The source Thankful21&3 cites makes no mention of RICO.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, from a glance most or all of his sources are WP:SPS, or blogs, and the Matthew 17:25 argument is simply bizarre. What's next - killing shamans based on Exodus 22:20? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:43, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, whether or not the Mathree 17:25 argument is bizarre or not it clearly is WP:SYNTH. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Biblical Quote

I've removed this sentence: Some have been critical of the way the Hovinds' profit from their business earning millions, while refusing to pay taxes asking: "What part of Matthew 21 ('Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's and to God the things which are God's') did he not understand?." as the source did not mention "earning millions". Also, the quote, while good newspaper copy, does not belong in an encyclopedic article in my opinion. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 15:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Overtly Caustic

Would just like to point out that the language and wording used in this article is obviously caustic, which hints at bias. Does not help Wiki's credibility. Appears every sentence is being critical of Hovind. As an atheist, I know people have many issues with the guy, but a wiki entry should not be the place to vent them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.202.54 (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

You would have difficulty finding any commentary on Hovind that is not "critical", so it is hardly surprising that the article reflects this, per WP:DUE. I would disagree that "the language and wording used in this article is obviously caustic, which hints at bias." Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, in fact, difficult to find any comentary writen by one human being about another human being that is not "critical" but the argument is that in an encyclopedia an effort should be made to refrain from being bias in any way. It does in fact hurt Wiki's credibility to see articles in which the author is obviously hostle toward the subject. This is something I would expect to read in a tabloid magazine, not in a credible encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.187.60.104 (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh? There are thousands of articles/papers published every day about individuals that are not critical towards their subject. Also, it would help if you point out the specific text you find problematic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Caustic-but not entirely the wiki's fault

I agree with the first poster. It states that the court rejected certain things, but I've found an article written by a very incensed bank owner who finds that Holvid's arguments actually do hold up under technicality. If they didn't, then literally anyone and everyone who has ever owned a bank account is by-default a criminal. More here. There is bias on the part of the judge, who ordered that the land be seized EVEN THOUGH HOLVID DOESN'T OWN IT. There is a bias, yes, but it's not entirely the wiki's fault. The court made the decisions, including the utterly ludicrous "flight risk" charge. The court arrested the guy's wife at gunpoint while she was sleeping, and denied her a right to even so much as use the bathroom before hauling her away. The court allowed the couple to be arrested without warning and without warrant, according to the AIP website. That's hardly the wiki's fault. Before the wiki even got wind of any of this story, the court already framed everything to make this guy guilty, even ordering the jury to find him guilty AFTER closing arguments, in violation of judicial protocol.161.57.231.45 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

No, Hovind's arguments do not hold up. And no, anyone and everyone who has ever owned a bank acccount is not "by-default" a "criminal." Hovind was convicted of violating specific statutes which the average person never violates. The "court" did not "arrest" Hovind's wife, or anyone else. "Courts" do not arrest people. And there is no legal requirement that a person be "warned" prior to being arrested. An arrest warrant may or may not be required, depending on the circumstances. No, the "court" did not "frame everything" to "make this guy guilty." No, the court did not "order the jury" to find Hovind guilty. That is preposterous nonsense. Famspear (talk) 12:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please tell me where the right to use the bathroom upon arrest is enshrined in the constitution. If that right does indeed exist, I think we have ourselves a human rights epidemic on the scale of the genocide in Congo's Kivu provence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.52.135 (talk) 21:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This sentence should be removed...

Collapse off-topic conspiracy ravings
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Yet, the mechanisms and history of such a project does not withstand scientific and historical scrutiny." This sentence should be removed considering the fact that a publication as reputable as Time Magazine would tend to disagree. According to them the technological capability to implant computer chips in a great many people, effectively turning them into remote control slaves devoid of all tendencies concerning individuality or free thought, has been a very real possibility since the late fifties. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,865530,00.html 67.101.1.69 (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC) ET253 sorry if I'm doing this wrong this is my first time "Electronics, he believes, could save a lot of work for the indoctrinators and thought-controllers of the future. " "Of the future" ≠ "since the late fifties." Nor is this evidence of an actual government conspiracy to do this, only that a single scientist believes that it might be possible in the future. It is "possible" today for various governments to blow the world into a nuclear winter -- but last I checked they hadn't done so. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC) I see your (the original IP's) point; unless that sentence is sourced, it should go. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC) It is sourced, to a Wired magazine article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 06:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC) Hovind actually alleges this conspiracy videos (of the variety "They are controlling our minds," they "put chips in our cars to control us" and the "New World Order is coming in 1999."). He is on the fringe and supports many wacky conspiracies. You (IP) are trying to justify his paranoia and shortcomings in science, but your defense falls short. Agg56tt (talk) 02:15, 15 September 2009 (UTC) In science? How did I try to defend them with any scientific evidence? I tried to defend that one particular assertion of the overwhelming possibility that it is very likely we will see this technology come to fruition in our lifetime based on admissions of the mass-culture we're spoonfed by the big movers and shakers who's media conglomerates control what we see, read, and hear but that's about it. I have no idea how you misconstrued that as scientific evidence of any kind. It is strictly cultural, nothing more, and never once did I attempt to portray it as anything else. It sounds like you're trying to justify your own lack of knowledge and intuition pertaining to that particular subject more than anything. As for the argument that the scientist quoted in the TIME Magazine article was alluding merely to technological capabilities not yet possessed by anyone at that period of time, he clearly states toward the end of the article that versions of this technology had already been successfully implemented and tested on human subjects "Elementary forms of biocontrol have already been demonstrated... The regular treatment for schizophrenia uses the same surgical techniques... The electrodes cause no discomfort, no damage to brain tissue and no interference with the functioning of the brain except when energized," basically, the understanding you are all choosing to formulate of this very frightening and very real possibility boils down to (based on your own criteria) TIME Magazine's word vs. that of Wired Magazine. Hmmmmmmm, can you say NO CONTEST? And if that's not enough to convince you that this is anything other than conspiracy "theory" then here's Roger Ebert hopefully shaking you out of your complacent stupor http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arUMVF2kYIc Make sure you are well informed on any given subject before denouncing it as you have here because your criticisms in this instance have been nothing more than mere assumptions, and you should hopefully know by now what assumptions make of U and ME... but in this case you. And, although I don't have a link to it at the moment, I have also personally witnessed footage of a moth that had been implanted with this chip being flown by scientists like a remote control air plane. Again, sorry if I'm doing this wrong to the extent that it has caused anyone distress of any kind (even though I honestly couldn't give rats ass). As I previously mentioned I am new to this little world of having nothing better to do than nerd out over Wikipedia articles by trying to crucify those who don't completely agree with me, which would seem to be the trend. "Fringe" are you kidding me??? Haha you watch way too much of the mainstream media's sensationalist nightly news. 67.100.45.124 (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC) ET Wow. Agg56tt (talk) 05:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC) ....!!!212.84.122.36 (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC) I deleted that sentence because apparently I'm the only one who cares enough about our children's future not to allow corporate msm outlets such as Wired magazine to continue propagandizing their minds into a complacent stupor concerning this very frightening and very real possibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.49.167 (talk) 15:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC) "It's for the children" is not a legitimate editorial reason for deletion. Auntie E. 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC) That's not the ONLY reason. You think this wiki article should continue to present people with anything other than the closest it could possibly come to the truth? This is the kind of shit I'm talking about you fucking wikipedia nerds will come up with any old bullshit to justify your personal prejudices. If you wanna be a remote control slave someday that's fine but don't aid in misleading those who won't even be given a choice. If that's all your criticism accomplishes then you might as well stick it up your ass because it's obviously not helping the article be any more accurate or truthful. It's sourced to a WP:RS. There is no RS that contradicts it (the Time piece is only talking about one scientist's opinion about what may be possible in the future -- NOT what is happening now -- so does not contradict it). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 02:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC) You obviously did not read the article itself (either that or you didn't read it very well) or the reply I provided above. He CLEARLY states that rudimentary forms of what he is referring to as "biocontrol" have already been successfully tested. If you're still not convinced that this is a very real possibility here is a re-post of a Reuters article about Verichip stocks skyrocketing as a result of a new version of the chip that they recently released, which is designed to test for swine flu after being implanted in the recipient's body http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=1140 The remainder of the article also informs the reader that a previous version of this chip has already been implanted in thousands of people. Also, here is a separate article form Hitachi's website describing yet another innovation that this particular company has made concerning implantable RFID microchip technology http://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/030902.html The competing source is glaringly inaccurate in light of these sources I have now provided from much more credible and respected publications, such as Time and Reuters, many of which refer to the extremely broad range of applications that this technology might be used for as well as more than simply one company that manufactures them for only one specific purpose, whereas the author of the Wired magazine article did not appear to be familiar with any other instances of this technology's application or development aside from a company that uses them to track lost pets. Therefore, based on your own criteria for judging the credibility of a source, the original source does not withstand the scrutiny necessary to validate it's citation or even the inclusion of the sentence that sourced it to begin with. I see no other alternative than to remove it completely or to amend it based on the more accurate and credible sources which have now been presented, and which paint a drastically different and more detailed picture of this technology and it's potential than that expressed by the author of the Wired Magazine propaga... err, oops, I mean article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.49.167 (talk) 08:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Get a bloody clue! Changing somebody's balance & making dogs & rats hungry is not even close to putting "a chip into each of the major muscles and network them together so that a paralyzed person would be able to get some movement from their muscles" I don't see any connection between a chip for detecting swine-flu and any of Hovind's ravings I see no evidence that the Hitachi chip is designed for human implantation, let alone that it contains the 'mark of the beast' HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Maybe you should "get a clue" seeing as how you're completely missing my point here. First of all, intuition alone should pretty well illustrate to the truly impartial observer of all the links and assertions I have provided here that if there is an agenda to enslave a population of people using what the scientist quoted in the Time Magazine article referred to as "biocontrol" then they are obviously not going to be idiotic enough to come right out and say that this is the purpose, especially while simultaneously attempting to make money off of it. However they do drop obvious hints at the fact that - whatever version of this technology is being hocked by whatever company - the possibilities are endless, as I'd have hoped intelligent and intuitive people unlike yourself, capable of restricting their ad hominem attacks throughout impartial discussion and observation (which may seem a bit hypocritical coming from me at this point but at least I have a good reason for losing patience, which is that you people should all be ashamed of yourselves. How can obviously intelligent people who spend the majority of their time nerding out over editing encyclopedia articles have so little sense??? I shouldn't even have to provide all these examples, this is something you sheeple should all just feel deep down in your bones and your gut. Am I the only one with any remaining instincts of self preservation, that haven't been completely domesticated out of me by Pavlovian response conditioning in the arena of "conspiracy" discussion?), would have gleaned from the following statement issued by Hitachi's website, "Hitachi plans to develop numerous markets for this chip that take full advantage of its outstanding features," And as the oldest and most credible of all sources on this subject provided thus far states, one of the primary goals has and probably always will be subcutaneous human implantation for the purpose of total mind control over entire populations of people. I am not arguing in favor of Hovind's take that there will be a chip in each individual muscle, because that seems a bit extraneous and unnecessary when all it would really take is control over the mind itself, which could then simply be directed to send the usual electrical signals to one's extremities that cause them to function in whatever desired fashion. I'm sorry you are not intuitive enough to see any connection between altering a person or animal's perceptions, whether it be balance or appetite, but that does not change the fact that the Time Magazine article clearly states, "From that time on, the child's sensory perceptions and muscular activity could be either modified or completely controlled by bioelectric signals radiated from state-controlled transmitters. The regular treatment for schizophrenia uses the same surgical techniques." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HSxgb9I0zk FYI Zbigniew Brzezinski is basically #3 in de facto charge of the United States right now (and he doesn't even have an American accent LOL), is a self proclaimed Marxist, and has spoken more openly and frequently than anyone else in the history of the human race (with possibly the exception of Aldous Huxley) about the supposed "necessity" of instituting mass mind control and how it could, and has been accomplished. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.100.122.169 (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

In his own words

WP:SOAPBOX
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Having read the article on Mr. Hovind and much of the discussion, there is not much if anything mentioned in his defense or for that matter, in a positive light regarding him. Having watched his videos over the last several months, I have to say I am impressed with his common sense when it comes to the subject of creationism, his intellect, and also what seems an honest desire to serve the Lord. Like Mr. Hovind, I too am a Christian. From my reading on Wikipedia, I don't think any Christians have contributed to this discussion or article.(although I could be wrong) I bring this up because Orthodox Christianity believes some very strange things, from the perspective of non-believers! We believe God came from heaven in the form of a man to redeem us for instance. We believe in a literal hell. We believe as God has changed our hearts, we are called to love others and to share the good news that they too can know God in a personal way and be saved from their own sins before the coming judgment which all men will experience one day. Many of us believe in a "rapture" when millions of Believers will suddenly disappear from the earth and hundreds of thousands if not millions believe that the earth is young and was created in six literal days. Yes, we indeed believe in some strange things from the perspective of a non-believer! I say all of that to say it in only strange from a non-believers vantage point. Secularists or other religions also believe some very strange stuff! Things like that we life appeared from non-life for instance. That if the American government will spend more money, that will solve our financial problems. (not to bring politics into the discussion)Some radicals in other religions believe you can blow yourself up and earn your way to heaven like that. Of course, Christians were all non-believers at one time. We have come to the conclusion that the bible is God's word to humanity. That in its original language and manuscripts it is perfect and without error. We respect the right of others to disagree but strongly urge people to look intently into the matter, as eternity hangs in the balance. I am not writing this article to defend Mr. Hovind. Of his innocence or guilt, I cannot say. Certainly, a convicted felon perhaps does not need anyone giving him a defense, as he had his chance in court. I am writing it to give his words a hearing. I also want to add before I copy and paste his own words from his blog, that because others think differently from perhaps your world-view, it makes them neither necessarily right, wrong or worthy of persecution, bigotry or ridicule. And the amount of ridicule I detect on here is high in my opinion and based on Mr. Hovinds beliefs as a Christian, and those are views of hundreds of millions of people. His political views which are deemed "conspiracy theories" are as ligitimate to hold as anyone elses. He is no doubt an imperfect man, like all of us, trying to do what he believes is right in the sight of his God, and that God will judge him fairly at the appointed time. If indeed he has committed the crimes as described in Wikipedia, and around the internet in general, then he is paying his debt to society, no more no less. Here now is Mr. Hovind in his own words from a recent post on his blog, this source can be found at: http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=239 Garpow62 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Please do not copy text here from another website - I have removed it. Also, see WP:NOTAFORUM. This talk page should only be used to talk about specific changes to the article. --NeilN talk ♦ contribs 22:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Once again this gets turned into an emotional appeal - just like Hovinds "debates" with people who actually have a scientific background. I believe that Christ died for our sins and I find no fault in the way the article is written. 70.75.11.148 ([[User ::talk:70.75.11.148|talk]]) 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Hovind's Dissertation on Wikileaks

Someone put his dissertation on wikileaks[link removed--dmacks], I haven't looked at it yet, but saw the link of PZ Myers' blog. Jack4Schaat89 (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the link itself...WP:ELNEVER is very clear that we are not to link to presumed copyright violoations, and even the wikilinks site makes it clear that the item is not supposed to be freely available. DMacks (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can his dissertation be used as a source? --BiT (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Doh! Undone my own edit, I really should have read this page first Chris Hall (talk) 11:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could write him and ask if he releases rights, but as he was asked (not by Wikipedia) before and declined (unless I have him muddled with someone else) that seems unlikely. Pity; its a revealing read. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

But we could mention that one Copy leaked an is on the internet. That would be legal. So if people really want to read it, they could search it for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.61.189.140 (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good compromise. He can cite Myers blog.[3] Jack4Schaat89 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That link is to Dawkin's blog, which links to Meyer's blog, which links to wikileaks, which states "According to our source, contrary to accepted practices in academia where doctoral dissertations are available to the public. Kent. Hovind, along with his alma mater, Patriot Bible University, has consistently refused to allow his dissertation to be offered for public reprint or scholarly inquiry." which precludes our including it at all, eh? Pharyngula is a RS for certain very narrow things - what PZ thinks, and a few biology topics - but not for other subjects. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Myers has personally seen Hovind's "dissertation" and confirmed the leak is really it:

Yes, it's actually his thesis. I've also seen the copy that NCSE has in their offices.[4]

Jack4Schaat89 (talk) 00:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No edit has grounds to remove the fact that the dissertation is online now. That is not controversial, and I fail to see why that fact keeps getting removed along with the link. Here's my proposed compromise:

"On 9 December 2009, the dissertation appeared on Wikileaks and became generally available on the Internet. An analysis of the leaked .pdf reveals that it lacks a title, any secondary references, a discussion of the relevant scholarship, typed page numbers, or a dissertation committee (most doctoral-granting institutions require multiple committee members to approve a dissertation, while Hovind's degree was approved by a single man)."

It seems absurd to me to not be able to comment on the salient points about the dissertation, with or without a link. Under fair use, of course, brief quotations of copyrighted work are permitted for informational purposes. This applies even to Wikipedia, I'm sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.113.73 (talk) 21:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• Read our policy on biographies and come back when you have a reliable, independent source. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm holding the dang thing in my hand. How much more objective do you freaking need? I HAVE THE OBJECT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.113.73 (talk) 23:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

In that case, you are illegally in possession of copyrighted material. And with your IP displayed here for all to see, you shouldn't be hard to find and prosecute, should Hovind with to do so. Wikipedia, however, would prefer that not happen to them, even if you personally don't care.Farsight001 (talk) 01:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Farsight001, don't assume to know the laws in every country of the world. In many places, being in possession of a copyrighted document is NOT illegal. SeanBrockest (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to know the law for every country in the world. Wikipedia is based in America. Hovind lives in America. His dissertation was made in America. So it's only America law that matters here.Farsight001 (talk) 02:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Every time you pick up a book you are in possession of a copy of copyrighted material. It is copying, distributing and selling copyrighted material that is illegal. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is not public material, it is even listed as a copyrighted work by wikileaks, and adding it is in violation of WP:ELNEVER and WP:LINKVIO. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 04:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the thing is out there is NOT protected. The link to Dawkins.net does NOT link to the document. And even if it did, Wikipedia would NOT be responsible for a link there hosted by Dawkins. Dawkins would be. This is beyond elementary. I'm glad that someone is referring this up the chain, because this is a complete farce. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.251.113.73 (talk) 05:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC) Actually, under the law, knowingly linking to a website that itself links to copyrighted material would make you at fault too. And I must ask - why is a dissertation written by a convicted fraud and a crackpot written for a fake degree being leaked to the internet a notable thing? And where is the proper WP:RS secondary source for the fact that it's been leaked? So far I've seen blog posts and the leak site itself as citations. Those don't work.Farsight001 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are at least two issues here. One is that no reliable independent source is cited for this actually being Hovind's work, rather than an attempt to do him down. The other is that any copy we link to has to have permission to host the document, as explained in copyright policy (check the section on contributory infringement). Neither of these has been provided to date, as far as I can tell. It's also bad form to accuse long-standing users of "vandalism" when they have explained the policy reasons behind removal of the material. Guy (Help!) 09:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easy enough to say that a "purported copy" of his dissertation is online, then link to someone claiming that it is his dissertation? Then the question of whether the sources can prove it becomes moot -- all they have to do is purport it is. Later, if he or Patriot Bible University makes a statement about it, the article can be updated to say "but it wasn't actually" or "and they admitted it." Cap'n Refsmmat (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

98.251.113.73 (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)Today, I corresponded with the National Center for Science Education, who possess a copy of the dissertation (mentioned in the article). They confirmed to me that the copy that is currently being circulated on the web matches their copy. I have uploaded the detailed response to: http://english1509193.blogspot.com/2009/12/kent-hovinds-leaked-dissertation-checks.html Is this sufficient to put the matter to rest?

• sigh* What part of ILLEGAL don't you understand?Farsight001 (talk) 07:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole debate is a good example of one of the common misunderstandings about Wikipedia. We are not here to break new ground in documenting the exposure of charlatans, we are here to document what reliable independent secondary sources say about them. We can't link to material hosted in violation of copyright and we can't use copies of letters on blogs about letters on other blogs to say anything, especially about living individuals. We can't go to sources, publish their responses on our blogs and use that as proof of anything. There's no serious dispute that this is Hovind's work, but that's not the point: before we can say it's been leaked we have to have a reliable independent secondary source that says it's been leaked. Our anonymous friend has, quite simply, come to the wrong place. When there is a satirical editorial in one of the science publications about the leak, the poor quality of Hovind's work and how that reflects on his alma mater, then we will have a good source that we can quote and use. Until then, please stop trying to use Wikipedia to spread the meme, all it will do is cause friction. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

There's this [5]. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

OK: I get the thing with the Copyright infringement and that we can't post a link to the dissertation. So, to the Poster who seems to understand a lot about the Wiki-Rules: What Source-Type is NEEDED to write, that the dissertation has PRESUMABLY been leaked? Newspaper-Article? I get that just some Blog isn't enough. And I suppose this Blog, doesn't have any Quotability: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/12/read_for_yourself_kent_hovinds.php

Is not Hovind's dissertation and other thesises considered to be in the public domain? According to Karen Bartlett, who reviewed the thesis, it is public. Also, Kent stated to Skip Evans who originally obtained the thesis that it can posted as long as no changes are made. --Cms13ca (talk) 02:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you retain all rights for your thesis, since you "publish" it yourself and the university just acts as a reviewer and holds it in their library. Sine you hold copyright you can use it yourself, for example I added chunks of my thesis' introductory literature review to Wikipedia (now part of the oxidative stress article diff). This is unlike when you submit a paper to a journal when you have to sign a copyright release form giving them all rights. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

While not really relevant since this is an issue that has come up in the discussion, I would point out that making a copy even for personal use may be illegal (as in subject to criminal penalties) in some countries although it's a largely untested area of the law because governments don't pursue people for these sort of activities even if it is illegal. In any case in many countries you could likely be sued by the copyright holder for copyright infrigement even if it isn't illegal. There's a myth that if it's for personal use and you're not selling the material or redistributing it for free it's okay but this is often not true. If you think it is try downloading a copy of Windows with FTP or something (not P2P where you'll likely be redistributing as well) and without any payment and using it without a license on your home computer (for no business/commercial purposes) and see how you get on when you try to convince MS it's okay because it was for personal use only. If the software example doesn't do it with you, try it with one of the Harry Potter books or something. The fact that it's not possible to obtain a copy of the thesis which isn't violating copyright (and particularly since you may be able to claim given that it was necessary for you to obtain a copy even if it was violating copyright for reviewing/critiqueing which was in the public interest given the way Kent Hovind promoted himself) and that the thesis isn't commercial may change some things but the basics are the same. Similar issues have come up for example in Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Note also that in the digital arena, copies are made all the time. If you download the material you have by definition made a copy. But so too if you even just view the material in a web browser. Even just opening a local file arguably means you've made a (or several) copy since even if the program doesn't copy the file to memory which many did your computer needs to render the file into pixels to display which could be construed as making a copy. In other words, the difference between viewing and copying in the digital arena is rather complicated (there are plenty of discussings surrounding the complexities on the web if you're interested). Also as TV says, it is unlikely this thesis is in the public domain. For starters, it's almost definitely up to the university what rights, if any, they believe the rights holder should grant. If there was a government grant or the university was receiving government money then they may have certain requirements like making the thesis available (which doesn't necessarily mean they require you release the copyright of the thesis into the public domain). Similarly some other funding agencies may have similar requirements. But none of this was the case here and given then nature of the university unvolved it's hardly surprising if they don't require the thesis to be available at all nor require any transfer of copyrights (and again I should emphasise these are largely two different things). In terms of the actual issue at hand, it would be fine linking to some WP:RS discussion of this thesis however blogs aren't really a great source for a WP:BLP Nil Einne (talk) 10:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)