Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Citation Dead

This whole article reads suspiciously bias, started checking some of the citations and found that this line:

Between 1975 and 1988, Hovind served as an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools, including one he started.[3]

Is unsupported by a dead link. Is currently pointing to: http://205.152.130.14/or_1b.asp?uinstr=

Which doesn't seem at all like it was ever really pointing at anything legit anyway.

I recommend to revise this article by updating the link or removing the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.70.47 (talk) 18:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder who wrote this entry, because I checked this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20070914150425/http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=31 (Citation #2) and if you read the article it in no way supports this line:

On February 9, 1969, at the age of 16, Hovind became a born again Christian. In 1971, he graduated from East Peoria Community High School. He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions. He is married and has three adult children and five grandchildren. One of his sons, Eric Hovind, travels doing creationist presentations and debates using many of his father's arguments.[2]

How the person who wrote this got all of that information from the linked article is incredible! Again, I recommend to revise this article by updating the link or removing the line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.70.47 (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

• Your three issues:
  • 1) The sentence: "Between 1975 and 1988, Hovind served as an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools, including one he started." The reference is "Escambia County Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court Affidavit 08/10/2005a," a court affidavit Hovind presented containing his biography. The court's website shifted the links. You can find it from the court here: http://www.escambiaclerk.com/xml_or_1a.asp by searching Hovind. Here it is: http://www.escambiaclerk.com/MyImages/2005406964.pdf The affidavit is also reproduced here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind_2005_Affidavit
  • 2) The sentences: "On February 9, 1969, at the age of 16, Hovind became a born again Christian..." Specific details are sourced in the sentences that follow about his education and "teaching" history. For example, Hovind wrote in the above mentioned affidavit: "I . . . accepted Jesus Christ as my personal Savior on February 9, 1969." You can find it from the court here: http://www.escambiaclerk.com/xml_or_1a.asp by searching Hovind. Here it is: http://www.escambiaclerk.com/MyImages/2005406964.pdf The affidavit is also reproduced here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind_2005_Affidavit
  • 3) The sentence: "One of his sons, Eric Hovind, travels doing creationist presentations and debates using many of his father's arguments." The reference is an article by his son, Eric Hovind, writing about his travels to a debate. If you are familiar with Eric's presentations and Kent's presentations, you would know their material is identitical (literally word for word). — Preceding unsigned comment added by VLARKer7 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Dinosaur Adventure Land gone?

I visited a few years back and took some photos. This recent Google Street View of the same place looks like it's not there anymore. I can't find any specific news, other than that the property was seized by the government a few years back. If anyone else can find something more recent, it would be nice to add it. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 00:57, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

2008 tax filing

This should be added to the article.

File:God Quest, doing business as, Creation Science Evangelism 2008 Tax Form.pdf

Creation Science Evangelism's 990.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SlN78 (talk • contribs) 17:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Adding it would in no way improve the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 17:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of a the tax filing which put Hovind in prison should add to this article, and his mugshot. The "scientific evidence" contradicts the evolution theory, also. Thanks for your unbiased approach to spreading information and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjsd11 (talk • contribs) 13:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This isn't going to happen per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:MUG. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Mugshot

WP:MUG being violated 75.166.192.132 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In what way? It doesn't say mug shots can't be used. It just says they can't be used to give a false impression. No one even knows the photo is a mug shot until we tell them it is.Farsight001 (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Farsight001. The rather pleasant photo does not present Hovind "in a false or disparaging light". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:31, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

spelling correction needed

The last sentance of "politics and conspiracies

" reads "As a way to counter the increasing level of criticism Hovind was receiving, CSE released a set of 8 hour-long videos entitled The Creation Science Hour: Dr. Hovind Answers His Critics, filmed in December 2003, Hovind and his younger son Eric address many of his more controversial remarks, claims, and frequently used arguments from what he terss "Anti-Hovind Websites"."

I'm just gonna go with "terss" should mean "terms"? idk of any other english word, that would fit the conext "terss" uses. chow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.211.20.169 (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. TippyGoomba (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

There is another spelling mistake in the paragraph "Education", second last line from bottom. Karen Bartelt's name is mis-spelled: "Bartlet". Phansos (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for pointing it out! Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 August 2012

I am looking out for your article's betterment, so please do not take what I have to say offensively, but please change "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence" in the opening paragraph. It feels too subjective. Evolutionary scientific findings are contradictory to his beliefs to be true, but stating a man's life work is contradictory to scientific evidence in general is pretty shaky ground. If you make such a claim, you must point out exactly what is contradicted and how it contradicts by evolutionary scientific findings. This will open up a can of worms, of course, since many Creationists and Evolutionists will begin a "Wikipedia debate" over the article. My advice is a rewording of the clause or omitting it altogether. I'm fine with the clause immediately following, which states, "some of his ideas have also been criticized by young earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis." Because the statement cannot be debated over, and is very factual and objective. Perhaps, one may change the sentence to one of the following: "Hovind's views are contradictory to evolutionary science, and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis." or "Hovind's views are contradicted by evolutionary scientific findings, and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis." Again, I am merely attempting to improve your article and make it stronger through objectivity. Thank you for your consideration of this request. 209.237.95.46 (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What is subjective about the statement? Hovind's views clearly contradict not only evolution, but biology, geology, chemistry, physics, and several laws of nature. When the guy things like that you can technically cover the entire globe with a single drop of water, there's no need to do anything but speak plainly about how contrary to scientific evidence his views are.

So your proposed change would not work either, as his views are not contradicted merely by evolution, but by several fields of science. Specifying only evolutionary science does not tell the reader enough.Farsight001 (talk) 20:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Well put Farsight. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: The lede's wording appears to be supported in the body of the article. Rivertorch (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is this is a biographical article on Hovind or a subjective hit piece on young earth Creationism? Because I can't tell the difference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjonathan2000 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Editor fails to make a concrete proposal for change, merely complaining about his own inability to understand it, and offers nothing based on standard policies and guidelines that would help others change it either. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

"Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence" is an opinion supported by questionble references at best. Has the magazine "Newsweek" now become a scholarly primary source? The aim of Hovind is not to create a new theory but to expose evolution as merely a theory. - Hovind, Kent. (2002). "Lies in the textbooks." Creation Science Seminar Vol. 4. [Video] — Preceding unsigned comment added by YAHUWnathan (talk • contribs) 15 September 2012

No, it is not an opinion. For anyone who watches his videos and has taken even so much as high school science, they know that Hovind's views contradict physics, biology, chemistry, geology, paleontology, and several laws of nature. Truthfully, we shouldn't even need a reference it's so clearly true, but we have one because so many people complain about it. And yes, Newsweek is a WP:RS. And that statement by Hovind only reveals his ignorance as to what a theory actually is, something I learned in 5th grade. It only further displays that his views do, indeed contradict scientific evidence.Farsight001 (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Not done: editor does not understand the meaning of the word 'theory' and does not seem to understand that virtually everything Hovind has said about science is contradicted by evidence. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hovinds owe I.R.S. over $3,000,000

From Forbes:

Mr. and Mrs. Hovind did not file returns. They were both involved in the financial transactions of the enterprises and they lived together. That makes it hard for the IRS to sort out which of them should be taxed on the unreported income. They are married, but filing a joint return is an election. The solution is for the IRS to send a deficiency notice to each of them for 100% of the tax. With interest and penalties the balance for the years 1998 to 2006 is over $3,000,000.

US Tax Court (JO DELIA HOVIND, Petitioner y. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent):[1] --Cms13ca (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Frorbs article links to court documents. If I'm reading this correctly, there is $1.5m in taxable income spread over several years and they both need to independently pay tax on this income. Can anyone confirm? Any ideas of how to integrate this? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it, but right now I'm dealing with real world tax problems for my own clients (and trying to get some sleep). The rule, by the way, is that the IRS can collect the tax from either or both parties, but each party gets credit for each dollar the IRS collects from the other person (in other words, the IRS does not get to double-dip). It may be at least next week before I can get to this. Famspear (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Science Backed

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dr. Kent Hovind fully embraces science and scientific evidence. For those interested, You should watch his series, where he uses scientific evidence not only to prove Creation, but also in direct correspondence with the Scriptures. He also shows 'proof' that Evolution uses and shows you outright why it isn't really proof. Do not discredit the man until you have heard from his own mouth what he believes and why he believes it. You can find several of his lectures here. If you have a desire for true science, education, and truth than watch the videos all the way thoroughly, you'll find it completely fascinating as I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceFusionVideos (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Hilarious. --Onorem♠Dil 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I remember reading that article of his in Nature, or was it Science, oh yeah, no...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Mr. Kent Hovind doesn't know the first thing about science, scholarship, or academic credentials. His series is worth watching though, it's quite funny to see inside that head of his. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC) We have watched his series. We have watched his videos all the way through. They are the imaginings of a five year old, not serious science. They contradict several scientific fields at large, and multiple laws of physics. He doesn't "show" a thing, except to the ignorant and easily duped by substance-free charisma. He's also not a doctor. He went to "school" for six weeks in a "school" that's literally a double wide trailer with one staff member, no class curriculum, and no textbooks. His "thesis" would not have gotten me a passing grade in junior high, let alone at the doctorate level. He's a fraud literally in prison for fraud. Why anyone would believe him now is beyond my comprehension.Farsight001 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

More balanced intro paragraph

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth creationist. Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject the encompassing theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Some of Hovind's views, however, have been criticized by other young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism in 1991, and frequently spoke on young Earth creationism at seminars at private schools and churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions (depositing amounts less than $10,000 to avoid IRS paperwork). As of October 2012, Hovind is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Berlin, New Hampshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE5:D220:3CEA:8ABD:F4F7:C38C (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the observation that Mr. Hovind's absurd ideas are contradicted by science. That removes balance. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The intro summarizes the article as it is; if the content is not 50/50, then the intro is not either (because it would not be a faithful summary of it). Per WP:NPOV policy, articles are explicitly forbidden from trying to attain a 50/50 balance if the weight of the sources are not, but instead must use the same (non)balance per the sources. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's old website 216.248.142.66

Kent Hovind's old website, before he paid for a domain, was 216.248.142.66 . The old website can be search for further documentation about Hovind's business and beliefs. SalHamton (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Kent has been moved again.

According to Bureau of Prison inmate locator, Kent is now at MDC Brooklyn. He was transferred there from Oklahoma City and, according to several of his supporters, he may be moved to a new prison in New Hampshire. -- Cms13ca (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Kent is now at FCI in Berlin, New Hampshire, which is a medium security facility housing male offenders. An adjacent satellite prison camp houses minimum security male inmates. -- Cms13ca (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is it normal for a federal inmate to be transferred from prison to prison as often as Mr. Hovind has been? In other words, is this a notable number of transfers, or is it common enough to be non-notable? -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hovind

Is it about time for a seperate Eric Hovind article? It seems he has tried to pick up where his father has left off. Thoughts? Mophedd (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't' think Eric is as notable as his dad. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hovind's not nearly as notable as his dad. No need for a wiki article on Eric. SalHamton (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist That is what it can be seen on the page as now Hovind's views are contradicted by Evolutionists views and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist Kent Hovind clearly says in many of his videos, he likes science but he doesnt like evolution. Please change ASAP JoeDavidson1 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, frankly, Kent Hovind is a lying fraudster who is, literally, in prison for fraud. He is caught lying and making stuff up red handed in his videos all the time. We can't really trust what he has to say. Instead, we use credible sources. So this requested change is simply not going to happen.Farsight001 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Kent Hovinds quote.

http://www.creationism.org/english/HovindSem1Text_en.htm

I like science, folks; I collect science books.

Wikipedia is heavily evolutionary biology propaganda biased. I will insert his comment from the above source in there.

Jinx69 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no question that he said it. The problem is that he is full of crap, and thus leaving the statement as a stand alone in the article without clarifying that he is full of crap gives a false impression of his statement and misleads the reader.Farsight001 (talk) 04:39, 17

December 2012 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAH Yes his words from his own mouth with source= 'full of crap' because you say so. It is sourced. They are from his own mouth. If you do not believe that i do not care nor does the public who logs on to this page. Wikipedia is HEAVILY evolutionary biology propaganda biased. Just because the atheism/evolutionism religions are baseless and can not tolerate criticism no even slight questioning/balanced views(as witnessed by your comment) does not mean as a editor of wikipedia i will allow ignorant disregard for balance.

Jinx69 (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki articles are not based on the atheism religions 'beliefs' ie 'The problem is that he is full of crap'. It is sourced from his own mouth.

Jinx69 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this to the article, edit warring will get you nowhere. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus against it other than deleting it with no explanation and the opinion of someone. A citation has been provided as requested. As editors of wikipedia we do not make adjustments based on OPINION. The atheism religion dominates this article and gives it non NPOV. I am going to make adjustments to bring in some NPOV. Edit warring will get you nowhere.

Jinx69 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to bring up religion or atheism. It is irrelevant here. I myself am a devout Christian. I attend church almost daily, am currently transcribing the bible by hand, and surround myself with likewise devout Christians. My faith has nothing to do with why I am removing the quote by Hovind, and no editor's faith needs mentioning here at all. As I already explained, Hovind consistently lies and makes things up in his videos. He will even go so far as to call some of his speeches "debates" even though he has no opponent. It is for this reason that we cannot trust his words. He says he is not against science, and yet his ideas contradict half a dozen fields of science and several laws of nature. For example, he claims that the grand canyon could have been carved in about five minutes by water. This necessitates that the water be traveling roughly five times the speed of sound, a velocity at which its friction with the air would vaporize it in a matter of seconds. The notion also violates the law of conservation of momentum because the grand canyon is extremely sinuous and the water would not willingly bend like that. Any cutting of water traveling at such high speed would necessarily cut in a straight line (though again, the water would nearly instantly vaporize at that speed). There is no atheist propaganda or evolution propaganda. Hovind is just THAT off the wall with his ideas. I know he is quite charismatic and confident in his speeches, but facts he does not have, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble like this. You clearly were a fan.Farsight001 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Second, I believe you should read the NPOV policy more closely. It necessitates not that we give equal credence to both views, but that we reflect the balance displayed in reliable sources. That is our job at wikipedia - to simply report what reliable sources say. If every reliable source said the earth was flat, we would report that the earth was flat. Since nearly every reliable source on the issue considers Hovind a liar and a fraudster, we are REQUIRED to reflect that in this article.Farsight001 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

'Hovind consistently lies and makes things up in his videos.'

We do not care what your 'opinion' is. Again NPOV with sources. As you opened the discussion to science which i will not go any further with than saying- 'evolution'/neodarwinian 'theory' NEVER HAPPENED and is the greatest myth EVER. But that is for another time and place. I am here to bring some MINOR balance to this article and remove the overt evolutionary biology propaganda. You may add your opinion ( that you 'believe' he is (insert attack based on complete lack of scientific intelligence and research here)) after the quote with reference i provide. I understand the atheism religions faith is so fragile that it must eliminate all balance but as editors of wikipedia we have a duty to bring the public NPOV non biased articles. NOT the atheism religions 'opinion'.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor does my opinion, or your opinion, matter as to what the content of the article should be. I was only trying to help you understand why the article is the way it is. If you don't want to accept my help, then you are going to have problems of the blocked account kind. That is not a threat. I am just saying that if you don't start following policy, which I am trying to help you do, you will find yourself blocked from editing quite quickly.

The sources for Hovind's scientific illiteracy are already in the article. And I am not opposing any sort of discussion of science. Rather, I would relish it. But again, what Hovind posits is in no way science. You can call evolution the greatest myth ever, but I personally own scientific proof of it, and I could head to the nearby library and find a house sized room filled, wall to wall, with scholarly scientific journals and studies with evidence supporting the idea.

And once again, NPOV dictates that we balance the article to reflect the balance of reliable sources. Since reliable sources unequivocably reject Hovind as a liar, we MUST reflect this attitude in the article. Not add "pro-hovind" material as you are trying to do would actually BREAK npov policy.

And again, please do not bring up religion. It is irrelevant here. I myself am a devout Christian, so to attack me as atheistic is simply laughable. You cannot simply take anything that challenges your personal world view and accuse it of being something you don't like.Farsight001 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You can call evolution the greatest myth ever, but I personally own scientific proof of it, and I could head to the nearby library and find a house sized room filled, wall to wall, with scholarly scientific journals and studies with evidence supporting the idea.'

You obviously have not even read the bible of the atheism/evolutionism religions (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species'). I was only trying to help you understand why the article is the way it is. If you don't want to accept my help, then you are going to have problems of the blocked account kind. That is not a threat. I am just saying that if you don't start following policy, which I am trying to help you do, you will find yourself blocked from editing quite quickly.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the origin of species. Darwin paved the way for evolutionary ideas, but he is like Freud is in the psych world today. They paved the way, but their ideas are outdated and overly simplistic. We have far more up to date, in depth, and precise sources to read today.

And once again, I must ask you to refrain from making statements about the religious beliefs of other users, especially when you repeatedly accuse a Christian like myself of being an atheist. It is irrelevant here and frankly, insulting to me. Now do you have anything real, reasonable, and useful to add to the article or not?Farsight001 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone on the planet to read Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species'. Less people would believe the most dogmatic, scientifically inhibiting, mass delusion, in the history of mankind. This applies to atheists also.

'Now do you have anything real, reasonable, and useful to add to the article or not?'

I am not here to show the complete absence of empirical science underlying the neodarwinian myth religion but to bring some non evolutionary biology propaganda POV to articles.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If that is your goal, then you will have a hard time accomplishing it. As I explained twice already, we are required to reflect in the article the general perspective of reliable sources. Since they unequivocably consider Hovind a lying fraudster, we are REQUIRED, regardless of our personal views, to reflect this in the article. If you want the pov of the article changed, the only way to do that is to inspire the authors of the reliable sources themselves to change.Farsight001 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I enjoy the Kent Hovind quote that "I like science, folks; I collect science books." If you notice Hovind "likes" science and "collects" books. So it's not that he understands science or has any science education, but simply he "likes" it similiar to a child liking an airplane without understanding it. Furthermore, he "collects" books. Specifically, he "collects" outdated children's textbooks. Note that he doesn't say he read or understands them, but merely he has a shelf full of unread books that are written by people with PhDs in science. He's not only a liar about science, but an anti-intellectual or the worst degree who hates those educated people who have expertise on a subject he fails to understand. He doesn't brag about reading and critically analyzing peer-reviewed technical papers because he doesn't understand them.

Anyway as funny and telling as that quote is, I agree with Farsight001's points on everything. The quote adds nothing we don't already know and is misleading. This is mainly because it's a primary source being used in a way to establish an authority and neutrality in the subject, which is at best misleading and at worst just one more lie Hovind tells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacronE (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism in 1991, and frequently spoke on young Earth creationism at seminars at private schools and churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Berlin, New Hampshire. Since his incarceration, he has led over 400 men to Christ. Abuenafe (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs citations. Also need an actual request. Eg. do you propose pasting it right at the bottom below the citations? Inside the caption of the image of a potato? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Not done: Except for the last sentence, the content of the request appears to duplicate content in the lede of the article. As for that last sentence, it's unverifiable as well as being worded in a way that lacks objective meaning in the context of an encyclopedia article. Rivertorch (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Remove interwikilinks per WP:WDATA. They're at Wikidata now. 86.44.163.139 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 February 2013

Sentence 3: "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis." This sentenced is biased. As Hovind's debates and videos have shown, there is not any scientific evidence to support Big Bang. This sentence should be revised to say, "Hovind's views are contradicted by supporters of the Big Bang theory"... and some of his ideas etc. The bias in this article is blatant. I use Wikipedia for a lot of things, but now have become quite aware of how easily it can be used to discredit a viewpoint that is not supported by certain individuals.

Find proof, scientific proof, of Big Bang. There is none. Absolutely none. Certainly there is proof of variation within kinds, Darwin's evolution. But if you have listened or read any of the materials, or investigated the debates, then you would realize Hovind conceded this type of evolution, but not cosmic evolution, nor chemical evolution etc.

Change the third sentence. Or you are truly not an objective contributor. 68.186.122.33 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

68.186.122.33 (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. We go by reliable sources on wikipedia. For scientific claims, we use scientific sources. Do you have a source to support your change? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:53, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Hovind's 2013 dissertation: "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's sake?"

Paul Hansen, Kent Hovind's legal director, is selling copies of Hovind's 2013 dissertation to raise money. The cover of "What on Earth is about to happen for Heaven's sake" says it is "a dissertation on end times according to the Bible." Hovind writes in the introduction that: "I wish to thank Patriot Bible University for the excellent courses they offered as I passed this degree." Part of it is online here.

Hovind previously wrote:

For over four years I have been working on another degree. The last requirement is the writing of another dissertation. I have been writing this during the past several years. I was about 90% finished, and was having it mailed back to me for the final proof and additions before I submitted to the school. The mail room here sent the rough draft back saying that because I did not take the courses offered here at the prison, I could not receive it. For the last six months I have filed papers back and forth with prison officials requesting that I be allowed to be given all my mail.

Should this be added to the article in some way? SalHamton (talk) 18:19, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The bio of Kent Hovind is hostile nearly from beginning to the end.

hatted per WP:SOAP, if you have a change to suggest, please do so

The bio of Kent Hovind is hostile nearly from beginning to the end. To have then put it in a semi-lock condition is frightening in what it implies of those who wield authority at Wikipedia. Additionally, a similarly hostile page about a gay marriage amendment in Minnesota is under the grip of liberal overlords. I made an edit there, only to come back and discover that truth was over-ruled on Wikipedia. So while liars own ABC, NBC, NPR and CBS (Comedy Central too), while dopey liberals control Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other information sharing operations, apparently Wikipedia must be added to the list of compromised if not entirely deceitful organizations. Pity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randalusa (talk • contribs) 18:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) This article appears to be factual and is well sourced. It appears the facts may be hostile to Mr. Hovind. thx1138 (talk) 18:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC) The facts may be hostile, but the tone doesn't have to be. I'm not Hovind's biggest fan by any stretch, but the tone of this article really and truly is overly hostile. Hovind isn't a baby-killer and didn't burn a box of puppies. His biggest crime is that he's a tax cheat. His beliefs, OTOH, earn him HUGE scorn even when it's clear (if you do any internet research) that he's not the only person who holds these beliefs. It wouldn't hurt to add some balance to the overly-harsh tone this article takes. Scarletsmith (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC) A few examples rather than conspiracies about media ownership would be more helpful. How should an article about a convicted felon with diploma mill "degrees," who misrepresents science, present someone? Are you suggesting that wikipedia lie about Hovind's academic qualifications or omit that he is serving a ten year prison sentence? Also I disagree that Hovind's beliefs have earned him any "scorn." There are many creationists, like Hugh Ross how have scientific credentials and pay taxes, but experts disagree with them. The difference between someone like Ross and Hovind is Hovind's criminal behavior, false credentials, promotion of tax evasion, conspiracies theories (like the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion), profiteering and lies about scientific references he hasn't even read. SalHamton (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not talking about media conspiracies; I agree that Hovind's a criminal. He was convicted of crimes related to his tax evasion; that makes him a criminal. I 100% agree Hovind isn't the kind of guy you want to hold up as a shining example of anything, frankly. And I've been on the other end of this discussion; I wrote the vast majority of the Robert Tilton Wikipedia entry, and got jumped by Word of Faith adherents for only focusing on the man's negative traits. (Tilton is as dishonest a televangelist as they get; he uses FUD to get $1000 donations from viewers and hides under the religious umbrella to do it, so it's all tax-free.) What I learned from that experience is that there are ways to write about a despicable person without turning the article into a screed. There are places in this article that really need an editor who doesn't have an axe to grind about Hovind's personal beliefs doing a serious rewrite to make them make more sense. For example, the first paragraph in the Creation Science Evangelism page jumps from Hovind's founding to a mention that Hovind's son joined in 1999 and his daughter was in training to be Hovind's secretary (whatever...) to Hovind's 2006 conviction to Eric talking over in 2007 to a completely different topic entirely (Eric's education) to the change in name to God Quest in November 2007 before backtracking to July 2007. That's ONE paragraph. And it's a mess. That paragraph at a minimum needs to be broken up into multiple paragraphs. The bit on Eric's education looks like it was just dropped in from somewhere and left there; if it's deemed to be relevant (and I do think it is, just not in the mess of that first paragraph, it needs to be better explained and broken off into its own paragraph that would better flesh out the transition from Kent Hovind to Eric Hovind. I'm really worried that this article is becoming, or has already become, one of those Wikipedia articles that is more or less useless in its current state, because there are defects that need to be fixed and nobody can fix them because of this policy to get talk page approval for everything. The article really isn't NPoV; there's a PoV throughout that is very negative, and it is possible to write an article about a nasty person without leaning so hard on their nasty traits. It worries me that the article has some structural elements that could really stand to have a bold writer go through and bring them up in quality, yet this constant need to have everything "approved" on the talk page makes that nearly impossible. There's an open hostility to even using Hovind's own words from his own videos as any kind of source, even if all they do is quote the man (because Hovind's a "lying fraudster", to use one quote from further up the talk page). That's a PoV position, and it ends up coloring what eventually ends up in the article. It frustrates me to see an article that could be so much better if it was just a little better balanced.Scarletsmith (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Your replies and edits are all over the place, focusing on many different claims and issues. I'm not going to cover all your points because correcting all the misstatements will take too long. Above it says: "... liars own ABC, NBC, NPR and CBS (Comedy Central too), while dopey liberals control Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and other information sharing operations." That is a conspiracy. A conspiracy means: "any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result." I asked that user for a specific example, not conspiracy. I'll explain it one more time. 46% of the United States believe in creationism. So nearly half the country share the similar creationist beliefs that Hovind does. They are not treated as criminals. The reasons why Hovind's biography, in your words, are negative is because of these facts: Hovind's 58 felonies (including threatening federal officials), his diploma mill credentials, his belief in conspiracy (including promoting anti-Semitic conspiracies), running an unlicensed business to earn millions from creationism without paying tax, his deceit (either his lies about scientific papers, scientific principles, his lack of scientific qualifications using the Dr. title, teaching history, his contradictions-starting CSE in 1991 or 1989, rejecting natural selection then saying natural selection is part of God's plan) and so on. The Creation Science Evangelism section: It mentions when his son and daughter became involved in a multi-million dollar business that got Hovind sent to prison for ten years (his daughter's employment was cited in the trial as proof Hovind had employees and he was sent to jail). The full discussion about the legal issues surrounding Creation Science Evangelism are in the section below about his legal problems. If we merged the CSE section with the legal problems, you'll no doubt complain about the length of the legal section and say the Creation Science Evangelism material (Eric Hovind's registering of names, education, daughter and the like) doesn't deal with the legal problems and want it removed. (If you search the archive here, people-like above want the legal section removed because its "negative".) Eric Hovind (and his credentials) is mentioned later in that section because 8 years later he took control of the business and finally legally registered it after his dad went to prison (again legal issues mentioned in another section). His credentials should be mentioned whenever we discuss the head of an organization. You said it then "backtrack[s] to July 2007." You need to take that up with Eric because he filed a Doing business as using the CSE name months after registering another name that it now does business as. The antecedent is first because that's what the paragraph is about. If the antecedent were last then maybe you'll complain about that part of the sentence not being connected to CSE and use it as an excuse to get when it was finally registered removed from the article. Lastly, I want to discuss one your changes. You edited the article using a summary that said:"smattering of verbiage cleanup". What you actually did was make a long convoluted sentence, asserting "Because it claims not to retain ownership of its students' theses and dissertations..." This is a red herring at least and a strawman at worst. No university ever owns the copyright of a dissertation/thesis and nowadays they don't even keep hardcopies of the material, but only a digital file. University libraries have a copy of the completed graduate work for the academic community because the whole point of graduate degree is to develop new research. UMI/Proquest make dissertations from the last 100 years downloadable on its website and most universities in 2013 require students deposit an electronic version that anyone can download from the university library to read. That is why libraries are useful: You can read material for free. That Patriot "University" doesn't make anything available (assuming it even has a library) is very telling as well as the fact that Patriot University says it is not a research university, but awards doctorates (research degrees) and requires dissertations (research). Thus, your change misrepresents the actual issues. That is but only one of your changes. You didn't cleanup "verbiage," but completely misrepresented the issues. That is why it was reverted. If you want to make changes, put your proposal of what you want it to say on this talk page and editors will discuss it. SalHamton (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Kent Hovind is a birther

Kent Hovind writes:

Maybe someone with better research capacity than I currently have can verify this for me but there sure seem to be a few odd things about Obama's "birth certificate" that the White House FINALLY released after a LOT of foot dragging. Here are some things that su-u-u-u-ure seem strange to me (if they are true):

His claims are just a rehash of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. SalHamton (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

While it is hardly surprising that he would believe such nonsense, I wonder if it is notable? (I'm not saying it is or is not, I am just wondering aloud.....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. Frankly, among the American public at large, these opinions aren't that uncommon, and Kent Hovind isn't known because he has these opinions, so I don't think this deserves mention. Phiwum (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Needs a new image

It seems the image used is the absolute worst possible one available. It is pixelated and not a true likeness due to the pixelation and unusual expression. There are countless other higher definition pictures available, such as this http://www.humanfossil.se/hovind.jpg or this https://si0.twimg.com/profile_images/3174784320/813fc0efc29ebea1dd879ea68e82fa19.jpeg

Davelaneward (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Due to wikipedia policy and copyright laws, free-use images are strongly preferred when available. The current image is free use. The other two you provided appear not to be.Farsight001 (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2013

I request that the last sentence in the fist paragraph of the article be removed. Here is the sentence:

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

There is no support given for the two statements. I request that either the sentence be removed or that support would be given for the two claims.

Thank you. :)

Bradyn.cole (talk) 03:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Not done: As per WP:LEAD, the lead is a summary of the article. This information is cited in the main body of text. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Necessary alterations

(rewritten because i forgot to tilde)

"Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible."

Should be changed to

"Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject prevalent theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his alternative science-based arguments which, in his opinion, allude to the Genesis narrative of the Bible possessing literal truth."

This is a more informative and accurate representation of the facts, as Hovind does not directly try to annul the prevalent theories of evolution, geophysics and cosmology by simply claiming they contradict Biblical authority, as the original version suggests. Rather, he uses science-based arguments to try and confirm the Biblical narrative and refute the prevalent theories. The word "prevalent", is necessary for clarification. One might ask "what theories?", with the current version. "Prevalent", or "mainstream", gives the insight that the theories he attempts to refute are the ones most subscribed to, and not borderline theories.

"Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence"

This should be removed entirely, as no source is cited. Also, it has already been stated that Hovind's views are contrary to mainstream science in the first sentence (which should read):

"Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject prevalent theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his alternative science-based arguments which, in his opinion, allude to the Genesis narrative of the Bible possessing literal truth."

In each sentence it is clear Hovind's views are contrary to mainstream scientific opinion. The same thing does not need stating twice.

"some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis."

Again this should be removed. It is asinine because Wikipedia is not for the opinion of a subjects compatriots. If it were, each entry could go on forever. It is not about whether the subject is right or wrong, but simply a non-biased, non opinionated documentation of what they said and believed, the opinion of Joe Bloggs is irrelevant, and stating the opinion of Joe Bloggs in attempt to discredit the subject clearly demonstrates the author is biased and patently breaking community guidelines.

Davelaneward (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

"...in favor of his alternative science-based arguments" - Wild speculation is not "science-based". And take a look at Charles_Darwin#Responses_to_publication and Stephen_Hawking#2000.E2.80.93present. Both contain opinions of their work by others. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It is not wild speculation. Provide a source to assert your claim please. His claims are irrefutably based in science, whether you think it is good science or bad, is irrelevant. He argues in favour of Creation using science to back him up. Here is a Ministry still in support of Hovind, http://yecheadquarters.org/kent_hovind.html I expect you to include it aside the one which doesn't.

You failed to reply to "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence" - request for removal as it has already been stated. "Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible." - Request for re-wording

You are abusing your powers, and unless these alterations are made or a substantive argument against these alterations is shown then i will open a dispute.

188.222.221.0 (talk) 17:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources are cited for "Hovind's views are contradicted..." within the body of the article. We avoid repeating sources within the lead when possible. Any additions like what you've requested would need to be accompanied by reliable secondary sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:24, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

'Noah's family and two of every "kind" of animal (including young dinosaurs) safely boarded the Ark before a −300 °F (−184 °C) ice meteor came flying toward the Earth and broke up in space.' is something, but it's not science. Perhaps science fiction. I can make up theories too. There's an advanced civilization living at the center of the Earth and occasionally their power sources malfunction which causes volcanoes to erupt. Is that based in science? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:42, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

1: You are mixing my requests and failing to acknowledge them as i have presented. 2: You have offered no reason why you should not remove a statement which is made twice in the leading paragraph. 3: WHAT additions in particular need to be accompanied by "reliable secondary sources"? See point 1 4: You have given an example of a statement which is clearly just a personal theory, and not an example of even an attempt at science. Again your horrible bias and abuse of power is shining through. 5: Whether or not scientific theory turns out to be fact or fiction, the process is still termed "science". Scientists have undoubtedly been wrong about many things, being wrong does not make them any less of a scientist. It is the process which matters "The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.[2]" A scientific theory does not have to be proven correct to remain a scientific theory, as it is the PROCESS which makes it scientific. 6: Pertaining to 5: An example of Hovind's scientific base for his arguments is that the second law of thermodynamics makes macro evolution impossible. What is this if it is not a science-based argument? 7: I will give you one more chance before opening this up for dispute, and if i have to, i will force through many more corrections than i have suggested here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.221.0 (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

188.222.221.0 (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

IP188, you need to take a chill pill. No one is trying to silence the opposition or abuse power. They're just trying to figure out what you want changed and what your justification for this change is, as they can find no merit in your statements. I also fail to see how Hovind's claims are in any way scientific. The other user's idea that there is a civilization at the center of the earth that causes volcanoes to explode seems, frankly, about as scientific as Hovind's ideas to me, which is not at all. For something to be scientific, one must present a genuinely testable hypothesis, test it, and explain how it was tested so that others can reproduce the results attained. Hovind has done none of these things with any of his ideas ever. He says that the second law of thermodynamics makes macro evolution impossible? Ok. How? Where is the paper he wrote on the issue, or the extensive research and mathematical formulas that come standard with scientific theories? What experiment has he run to determine that this hypothesis is true?

You can open this up for dispute if you want, but you're not going to get anywhere. Dozens of people have tried to do the same thing you are doing in the past and gotten nowhere because they have failed to grasp the situation, complaining about a conspiracy or a power hungry user when in reality their proposed changes just don't meet the standards of wikipedia.Farsight001 (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

More importantly, whether or not Hovind's views are scientific, we can't report they are unless we have reliable secondary sources deserving of that kind of weight. Right now we have a lot of sources saying the opposite. Neutrality on wikipedia means following the sources, and we're doing that. If you have other sources you believe we should consider, you should present them.   — Jess· Δ♥ 03:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Addition to opening paragraph

"While free Hovind was a prolific debater, participating in over 20 debates arguing Creationism and Biblical inerrancy against an assortment of professionals ranging from Biologists to Geologists [1]. He also gave seminars on the subject of a variety of Creationist topics such as: The age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, evolution and others covering what he believes are inaccurate claims made in some textbooks used to teach evolution [2]."

It should be added, as this is what he is known for to the majority of people.

[1]http://kenthovind.yecheadquarters.org/wp/ [2]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8GgrUposII

Davelaneward (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

We require reliable independent sources per WP:RS. Neither of your sources even comes close. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

More specifically, youtube doesn't count as a source, and the kenthovind source seems to be his website/blog, which we also can't use as a source. What you need are secondary, or better, peer-reviewed sources. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The claim is that he had debates. Video reference OF these debates are FIRST HAND sources and you are abusing your powers refusing to acknowledge them. Again, a complaint/dispute will be opened if you continue to abuse your powers. We don't need peer reviewed sources verifying these debates took place when the claims are unequivocally proven by VIDEO evidence. 188.222.221.0 (talk) 17:27, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You're not just claiming he "had debates". We discuss his debating extensively in the article, and mention it in the second paragraph of the lead as well. We need reliable sources not just to verify that the claims are true, but also to assign them appropriate weight within the article. Primary sources and original research typically get little to no weight. Placing this information in the lead would assign it substantial weight. We can't do that with our present sources, and I'm not convinced it's necessary even with proper sourcing given our existing coverage of it.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You only have references to debates when detailing something which discredits him, again a demonstration of bias because you have not included the hundreds of statements which are accurate. 9 times the word "debate", is used, and 8 of those is in an example used to discredit him. His debates are undoubtedly what he is best known for, and so you have not given appropriate weight to them in the opening paragraph. Once again, i recommend you include the line.

"While free Hovind was a prolific debater, participating in over 20 debates arguing Creationism and Biblical inerrancy against an assortment of professionals ranging from Biologists to Geologists [1]. He also gave seminars on the subject of a variety of Creationist topics such as: The age of the Earth, Dinosaurs, evolution and others covering what he believes are inaccurate claims made in some textbooks used to teach evolution [2]."

This would be informative, apt and accurate. Do you prefer only to mention that he debated when giving examples used to discredit him, without first even outlining the fact that he debated these people? It is absurd. The opening paragraph should mention his numerous debates, and the kinds of people they were against, the basics of what was argued, and then you should go into more detail in the following paragraphs.

188.222.221.0 (talk) 02:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's new 2013 "dissertation" from Patriot "University" for download

Apparently, Kent Hovind wrote another dissertation while in prison. Hovind's first dissertation introduction said it had 16 chapters, but really had only four. Despite this, the Patriot conferred a "degree" on an incomplete dissertation. While in prison Hovind wrote a dissertation about rapture (which he claims will be in 2028) with lots of images taken from the internet and used emoticons in the text. He managed to write his second dissertation without any chapters, using appendices and demonstrating he has no idea what an appendix is.

The second dissertation makes no mention of the committee/people who supervised or approved the work. There is no explanation if his previous sole committee member, Wayne Knight, supervised the new dissertation after pleading guilty in a child molestation case last year. Also, no explanation of how one can attend a dissertation defense while in prison.

Anyway, the article should mention that he wrote another dissertation for the diploma mill.

The new dissertation is downloadable here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2013/07/05/kent-hovinds-new-dissertation

I may go ahead and add a link to this dissertation. The http://2peter3.com site really looks like his sort of handiwork. I'm confused why the blog posts are PDFs, though. It looks like his other http://KentHovindBlog.com isn't so active. I suppose we'll keep on the lookout in case these aren't what they seem. Ender and Peter 15:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like there are already a lot of links up there, so I just added what appears to be his new official site. I'll be sure to check out his new dissertation. Ender and Peter 15:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

On page 239 of "What on Earth Is About to Happen for Heaven’s Sake?" Hovind is certain that it is likely that his guess is firm on the second coming:

When is The Lord Coming Back? Brother Hovind, I know you will say that you don't know for sure and all that what is your 'guess' on when the Lord is coming back?”
SHORT ANSWER- During the feast of Trumpets in 2028. Proverbs 18:13 says “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.” BEFORE you write me off as a heretic...here are my reasons for making this GUESS:

Hovind writes like a high school student. And he goes on and on about "what ifs" pointing to 2028, never realizing that he starts with an assumption to base an assumption that supports his "guess." That is really hacky, even for the work of a diploma mill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobinBnn (talk • contribs) 02:45, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Even though it's tempting, please do not forget our WP:BLP and WP:NOTFORUM policies. --<fonTS>

="#003F87">NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

All the more reason we NEED to writ an NPoV version for this article reviewing Hovind's six books that he's written in prison. If he's using his time @ taxpayer expense to spread academic lies and still earning money hand-over-fist without really giving a dime to the IRS (now taking bets on the "tax" he's paying on any "income"; step right up) and showing provably that his degrees aren't worth the ink used to print them, let alone the paper they're printed on. No matter your opinion of Hovind, his attempt to spread his message didn't end with the last of his current appeals. It would be like ending the story of the Watergate conspirators when Woodward/Berstein published their first investigation. The Watergate Saga really reached it grand climax when Nixon died; until then, people still wanted to know what Nixon had been doing all those years and was he actually guilty or was he really no worse than any other president who lied about worse things. Pepole still want to know what Kent Hovind's up to, and he's not just servin' time and witnessing for Jesus. He's proclaiming he was set up in the allegory The Kennel. He's spreading his life philosophy ostensibly to his grandkids in books dedicated to them that are available for others to read, too. And now he's writing "Appendices" about The Rapture, receiving even more obiously purchased, phony "Ph.D"s, and misleading yet more Christians about what The Bible really says about the future. I volunteer to write it. Scarletsmith (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Mention of the dissertation/degree has been added and sourced to the dissertation. RobinBnn (talk) 02:36, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be added as an external link too. Any opinions? RobinBnn (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELDUP doesn't read quite how I remember it. I won't remove the link again myself, but really don't think it's needed. --Onorem (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 June 2013

I agree with many others in saying that the sentence 'Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis' should be changed to 'Evolutionalists disagree with his views, however, both sides are not likely to agree any time soon' or something similar because the sentence 'Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence...' is clearly biased. Also, the sentence " As these were private schools, Hovind was not required to have any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications." should be cut out completely, as it implies that he was not qualified and did not deserve his job. As well as this, statements like "Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level." are biased, as there are no statements that support his theory. There are many other sentences which are biased, such as "About the Hovind theory in particular:

Karen Bartelt, a chemist, commented that Hovind's "message appeals to those who are unaware that his 'evidence' is without merit." Furthermore, the plausibility of the Hovind Theory has been criticized by both scientists and other young Earth creationists. ""

Negative, critical sentences such as these should be removed.

37.26.25.17 (talk) 13:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

'Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence...' -> How is stating the facts biased? What about "Hovind's views are rejected by the scientific community..." Also, we are stating people's opinions of his theories, and not using Wikipedia's own voice. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done: These sentences are sourced within the body of the article. WP:NPOV requires that we report information based on the relative weight of the reliable sources. Removing well sourced information just because it is negative or critical would be contrary to our definition of neutrality.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct that critical, negative information should not necessarily be rejected. Rather the problem here is that they don't belong in *this* section, which is a description of Hovind's version of creationism. The sourced criticisms should moved to the "Criticism" section... with the Bartlett quote going to the subsection on "From non-creationists" and some of the other part to the subsection on "From creationists." Similarly, it would be wrong for laudatory quotes from Hovind's advocates appearing in this section. They would belong elsewhere... BTW, where are the laudatory quotes from Hovind's adovcates?Lapabc (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Where are the laudatory quotes? We don't do fair and balanced here, we follow sources. This edit request was answered, changing it back to 'no' was not appropriate. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

That was joke... if anyone can have sympathy for this guy, the sad thing is that over the years many of his supporters have turned against him, so no, there aren't laudatory quotes. In any case, the point still stands. That material does not belong in this section and needs to be moved to the "Criticism" section (see WP:CRIT). Note that Wikipedia guidelines state that it is proper for some articles to have a "Criticism" section, giving *Creationism* as a specific example (see Approaches to presenting criticism). This article (properly) has a Criticism section and the criticisms in "The Hovind Theory" section should be moved to the "Criticism" section.Lapabc (talk) 20:08, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, sorry I missed the joke. I think criticism sections are just sloppy writing. I think integrating criticisms into the article is much better. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

This topic needs more neutral editors

I have been a reader, member, and financial supporter of Wikipedia for a long time - yet this is the first time I have ever felt the need to comment in the talk. The reason is that I stumbled onto this page by accident and was stunned to read a topic which was written with such obvious negative opinion. There is condescension oozing from so much of it I don't know where to begin - the non-neutral wording is everywhere. Aside from the glaringly obvious omission of a topic area for any support of his theories (only showing opposition comments, not only confined to that section), the descriptive words form the non-neutral tone even of the content which is there. Even the very first paragraph is an example:

"Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis."

The words 'convince' and 'reject' are not neutral words because they infer preference and weight upon one set of theories against another. The second line doesn't belong at all in the primary intro to the bio, but instead should be placed in the criticism section. That line, however, is also a problem because it rewords from the first line 'theories' to 'evidence' and again places more word preference weight on those he opposes instead of remaining neutral. The second line might make a good start for the criticism section, but needs to be followed up with neutral information in that section. Unfortunately not only is that criticism section malformed and filled with irrelevant information (such as the background of AIG and CIM groups it mentions - why is this important outside of their pages?) but as mentioned before, there is not a balancing section related to the support of his theories.

Another major issue I noticed was the section on politics and conspiracy theories. It's just... excessive. A link to New World Order conspiracy theory would have sufficed to cover most of what this section repeats needlessly.

As I said at first, this thing really needs a total rewrite by people not so closely attached to the opinion he opposes that they cannot distill this thing down to a neutral page. Hopefully I've left this comment in the correct section - if not, I apologize in advance for that and hope it can be moved to the right place. Txnicole (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you said about excessive verbiage, but I disagree with the root of your neutrality concerns. The article has several problems, most of which could be solved simply by significantly cutting it down in length and detail, and adding description of Hovind's current advocates.

First, not only are the politics and conspiracy theories too long, the whole tax evasion and criminal trial story is way too long. There have been a couple instances when my hard work that was well written and well referenced got reduced to a couple of sentences by someone else... and as much as I really hated it, those edits were correct. That needs to be done here. The "Legal" section here has about 28 paragraphs. This could easily be reduced half that amount and *should* be reduced to a quarter of that amount. I encourage the Wikipedians who wrote this to pare it down themselves because of the choice of certain details can add to the article or make it so bland that it induces reader to skim the content... and we *do* want people to read the articles. For example, the detail about the individual who reported Hovind to the IRS might be an unnecessary detail in an ordinary criminal case but here it was a potentially sympathetic evangelist who did so, countering the impression that the government is trying to "get" him, and lending to the impression that Hovind is so far out there that he lacks support from his natural allies. That very minor detail might enriches the piece but do we need to know every jail transfer of Horvald and his wife? Please edit this section down, way down.

Second, there is a difference between NPV and a tone of one-sidedness. It is necessary to carefully apply NPV to creationism and even "creation science" but NPV is not the problem with this article. It is important to distinguish the reasons for the seemingly unending negative information about Hovind. For example, if someone lies and cheats it is not wrong and a use of "non-neutral wording" to state that the person "lies and cheats." That would not be a violation of NPV; it's simply accurate. In the case of the Hovind article, he is a convicted criminal whose brand of creationism is rejected by "established" creationists and evangelicals who have distanced themselves from him. To state that is not a violation of NPV, it is simply accurate. Read carefully the language of the article and you will not find NPV *language* but you will find a relentless and overall *tone* that is a problem.

For a specific example, take the first paragraph that you find fault with. The Wikipedian author's use of "convince and reject" is not the author's bias, rather it accurately reflects Hovind's self-stated actions and goals. Hovind is a self-made evangelist who is not passively putting forth an intellectual paper on creationism that an individual can dispassionately evaluate, rather Hovind *preaches* and *evangelizes* with the self-stated goal to "convince and reject." That's not non-neutral language problem, rather they're statements of fact and have an element of summarization that is appropriate for an introductory paragraph.

In my judgement, you're completely right about the overall tone but you're off the mark about the article oozing with condescension. Parse the language carefully throughout the article and nowhere will you find specific condescending statements. Instead, what is happening is an overuse of Hovind's quotes that is gratuitous, and overly excruciating and unnecessary details of Hovind's misdeeds that are gratuitous. The result could be perceived a condescending *tone* without actually using condescending language. On the other hand it could also be perceived as tragic, or comical, or many other things... all of which give weight to your valid criticism that the article has serious problems. But the right remedy requires the right diagnosis. The overuse of Hovind's quotes that make him look like an knucklehead could perhaps be because (i) the author is selecting only the ones that make Hovind look bad, (ii) the author is really trying to make Hovind look bad, (iii) Hovind is actually a kuncklehead who doesn't need the author's help in looking bad, and (iv) any combination of the above. The solution is not to carefully edit the quotes, because different people take away different things. Hovind's words might seem paranoid and absurd to some people but to others truth about the illegitimacy of the government, science, etc... thus including them could have value. There are too many quotes and the weight of them is negative. The solution is simple: Pare down the quotes and pare the down article, way down. Doing so will solve several problems at the same time. It will retain the factual information while reducing the relentless negativity and therefore reduce the perceived problems with tone.

Also, you're on to something with your statement about a "glaringly obvious omission of a topic area for any support of his theories." While there is an entire section on "The 'Hovind Theory'" in which his version of creationism is described, it contains criticism that you point out appear in many sections where they don't belong... here the last 5 sentences are criticisms that belong elsewhere, if at all. But you touch on the larger issue about a lack of any indication of support for Hovind in general. There are some details here and there in the article but it is remiss to dwell on his conviction and imprisonment without stating that Horvind has a legal defense fund which although old still has an active web presence. Apparently the FreeHovind.com site was included in former versions of this article back in 2007-2008, but was removed after some discussion. It belongs back in the article, not out of advocacy but out of a completeness of a historical record. Further, Hovind's former website drdino.com now re-directs www.creationtoday.org which is an organization run by his son Eric among others which clearly states its support for Kent Horvand. And of course, Horvand maintains his own blog, www.kenthovindblog.com, apparently from prison and with assistance from Creation Today. Horvand is not without supporters and it is remiss for this article to ignore that.

Like Txnicole, I call on the page editors to fix this page and have given specific suggestions on the manner in which to do so.Lapabc (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

He is a tax evading pseudoscientist. The article does a nice job explaining that. I see no real problems. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:33, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The article is tedious and overkill. It would benefit by addressing the criticisms raised by me and Txnicole. It does not do a nice job if it gets in the way of itself, and you have two reasonable people politely and constructively pointing that out.Lapabc (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the article is fine. Here is the situation of the sources: Most of Kent Hovind's fame comes from his legal issues. The media coverage/news sources reported on this, including daily reports about his trial, sentencing and appeals. Before this coverage, Hovind had an even more marginal existence as a speaker at fundamentalist Christian churches where he sold his home produced video tapes. Kent Hovind has no academic or peer-reviewed publications. Thus, it is not surprising that the legal section is longer and more detailed than other parts. In addition, complicated issues, such as explaining Hovind's odd tax protesting, takes space to accurately describe it.

Regarding User:Txnicole's concerns about language: "The words 'convince' and 'reject' are not neutral words because they infer preference and weight upon one set of theories against another." Please read WP:UNDUE. Creationism is a religious conception. Evolution is a scientific theory supported by entire academic disciplines and overwhelming evidence. Wikipedia cannot and should not lie to readers by pretending Hovind's religious statements and beliefs carry the same validity as science.

Above, Lapabc "calls" on editors to change the page and says "There have been a couple instances when my hard work that was well written and well referenced got reduced to a couple of sentences by someone else." I viewed Lapabc's history and saw few edits for 2013 and a handfull for 2012. I was wondering what these edits were and what year they were made.

Also User:Txnicole says "I have been a reader, member, and financial supporter of Wikipedia for a long time." However this is that editor's second edit and no edits since. If that user has another account and has been a member "for a long time," I might remind that reader to actually read WP:NPOV, specifically WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. Wikipedia does have a bias and its in favor of reporting based on WP:RS. Wikipedia does not treat the flat Earth idea on the Earth page the same as the scientific fact of a oblate spheroid.

In short, the page is fine and the above complaints have to do with failure to understand the aforementioned policies. RobinBnn (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated prison information

I updated his located based on the records of the Federal BOP--Adam in MO Talk 08:13, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Does his biography really have to detail all his prison movements? Wouldn't "He has been incarcerated at x, y, z and is currently housed at w" be sufficient? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I do think the dates would be necessary if the places are listed. One without the other doesn't tell the whole story. Scarletsmith (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

That link says he is at BERLIN FCI, or Federal Correctional Institution, Berlin. Has he already been moved from Georgia or did an editor make a mistake by changing the article? RobinBnn (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

It read Georgia yesterday. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:50, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

As of 3AM -6GMT it said FCI Jesup.--Adam in MO Talk 17:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's theology

Having looked into it a little now, I feel that it would be of value to add another section to this article looking into Kent Hovind's biblical exegesis and theological worldview beyond the brief descriptions of the conspiracy theories he believes to be true. Here we could in more detail make some notes on Kent Hovind's eschatology (the role of the New World Order will play, his speculations that the Second Coming will occur in 2028, etc.) and his unconventional, self-tailored soteriology (which he describes as lying "between the two extremes" of Calvinism and Arminianism and postulates the existence of a special reward for faithful believers based on their work and faithfulness). One cannot help but be intrigued by Hovind's rather unique version of Christianity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.238.152.72 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know about that last statement, but otherwise I agree that expanding on his beliefs (and possibly starting a new section within the article) would be suitable if someone can find reliable sources on such information. Do you happen to know of any? — |J~Pæst|  20:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

While no theologian has yet found it expedient to produce a full scholarly evaluation of Mr. Hovind's opinions, of course, the creationist's own statements on these matters are quite clear and exist in abundance. I hope that that would qualify as reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.178.12 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood. We first need to have a reliable resource from which we obtain this information, possibly including quotes by Hovind, regarding his theology. Do you know of any? — |J~Pæst|

Central to any discussion of Hovind's theeology would have to be the "Hovind Theory", his version of the flood story and the Biblical account's scientific correctness, which is already covered here in the existing article text. A section on Hovind's frequent use of II Peter 3 (the "scoffers[...]willingly ignorant" verses; see uniformitarianism) in his eschatological discussions (this is where the title of his newest "dissertation" website originates), however, might be a worthwhile addition and could also provide a starting point for a section on his most recent doctoral efforts (and any opinions that might be available from outside sources). Remember, just because Hovind's in jail doesn't mean he's stopped distorting both the Bible and science to spread his increasingly irrational belief system. Scarletsmith (talk) 00:59, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

It would appear that the user Scarletsmith has already made a reply covering the resource. I believe I understand what you are referring to now, JPæst. The source I have in mind is Mr. Hovind's second dissertation, the link to which is already provided in the article, but for completeness, I include it here as well: http://www.2peter3.com/Books/What%20on%20Earth.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.102.31.150 (talk) 13:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Eric Hovind making Kent Hovind supporters remove Kent's statements

Kent Hovind's wacky defense for his felonies is getting removed following requests by Eric Hovind. Maybe Eric Hovind is embarrassed?

The Examiner writes:

At about 6:45 p.m. Friday 27 September 2013, Mr. Eric Hovind, son of Kent Hovind, asked CSHF to take down his father's letter. He declined to specify a reason.

CSHF will comply with that request and apologizes for any inconvenience that anyone might have suffered.

Creationist Hall of Fame:

Update

At the request of Mr. Eric Hovind, son of Kent Hovind, the Creation Science Hall of Fame removed the open letter from Kent Hovind on his tax battles. Mr. Hovind asks everyone to respect the privacy of the family and not ask for a specific reason. CSHF apologizes for any inconvenience that might have happened to the Hovind family or to anyone else. We wish only to do what is right by the Hovind family.

It might be worth mentioning that Hovind still has conspiracies that he doesn't owe taxes. RobinBnn (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 Oct 2013

The problem with the article is it opens up with someone's opinion, fears and concerns about Hovind. Nobody that came to this article gives a lick about your views and concerns about Hovind, not anyone, pro or con. All that does is go DING DING DING the person that wrote this article strongly disagrees with Kent Hovind! It looks really bad, and stupid too for a wikipedia article.

This article should open up something like this,

"Kent Hovind is a Christian author and speaker best known for his views on Young Earth Creationism and a literal interpretation of Genesis, including, a literal six creation days taking place 6000 years ago, and a literal global flood. Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism in 1991, and frequently spoke on young Earth creationism at seminars at private schools and churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Hovind's written works include........"

AND THEN, later in the article IF you have a recognized SOURCE critical of him that would be good information to include in the article. Such as something like "Dr. Don Wan of Scientific America has expressed his concerns over Hovind's views in the educational system.... source cited..."

That's how an article like this should look. Hovind is a polorizing figure and it is very important to dismiss yourself if you cannot disconnect your feelings pro or con. People that do this really hurt the credibility of Wikipedia. Aim to write about people and events you have a clear head about.

"Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence..." CITATION NEEDED!!! No matter how thuderingly obvious this may be, YOU are not a source for this article.

Okay? Thanks and have a good one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.46.202.246 (talk • contribs) 14 October 2013

The article is pretty ok the way it is, it is well sourced. If you don't like that he is a tax evading pseudoscientist, that is your problem. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry 50.46.202.246, read WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT. RobinBnn (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2013 (UTC)