Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

Should "Dinosaur Adventure Land" be abbreviated as DAL?

As a stylistic consideration, should we abbreviate throughout (with occasional exceptions such as direct quotes) or write it out? It appears roughly a dozen times in the text, excluding references.BiologicalMe (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to avoid abbreviating. Readers often skip around, instead of reading the whole article from start to finish, and abbreviations can be confusing. In this case, I don't think it's too incredibly long, and to avoid redundancies, we can say "Hovind's park", "the theme park", etc, in some cases. Just my opinion, though.   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
...or simply "the park".BiologicalMe (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jess. Overuse and misuse of abbreviations can be a problem.

Recently, I was scanning the article and saw the abbreviation "DAL" -- which at the time wasn't explained anywhere. I was trying to figure out what the heck it meant. I found a reference earlier in the article to "Dinosaur Adventure Land," and so I added the "DAL" abbreviation to that reference.

Even with that improvement, the frequent, repetitive use of an abbreviation in an article may tend to cause problems that outweigh the benefits. Famspear (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that it is infrequent use which becomes problematic. CSE is used more heavily and I think the abbreviation is helpful. Its repeated use is self-reinforcing. There are reasons other than frequency. At least to my eye, CSE looks like an a business TLA. (On the other hand, DAL could be a giant lentil.) The other reason is that CSE tends to be mentioned in ways that give contextual clues (e.g. "leadership role in CSE") where the details are not important.BiologicalMe (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinions and bias

Why is the article on Wikipedia so bigoted? Surely if the theory of evolution had facts and poofs, it would stand on its own and not need to be pre-empted by the word theory?

I have nothing against anyone wishing to believe in evolution but I do object to biased Wikipedia articles. Get it fixed!

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

There's nothing to fix. Look up Scientific theory. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Evolution does stand on its own, but this article is about Mr. Hovind, not evolution, so that is irrelevant. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? I mean a specific sentence you object to and a good WP:RS we can use to improve the sentence?Farsight001 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. According to posts I've seen on Facebook, those posting the false information are looking at potential lawsuits from the Hovind's. The IRS is allreayd backtracking on his case, current content is clearly being posted by people with an agenda against Hovid. That this article has not been allowed to be clean up is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.84.222.31 (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And what information, pray tell, is false? Everything in this article is well sourced.Farsight001 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This article reads like a character assassination sourced by antireligion hit pieces. It would be comical if it wasn't so defamatory. WP:NPOV 86.166.152.247 (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Specifics, please. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Stop deleting improved post

I have been editing the introduction paragraph for this post and the editors keep on deleting my edit and keep directing me to pages that I have no direction on. I read these pages and I see nothing I have done wrong. In my edit I use a neutral point of view, I provide a cite (this is something the original paragraph lacks), and I do not make claims that are contradicted by Kent Hovind in his creation seminar videos.

Here is my edit:

"Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners that many mainstream theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology are false. He provides scientific evidence, theories, quotes, and biblical scriptures in order to validate the claims made in the Bible as well as his own theories of some of those claims in the Bible.<ref>Past 18:30. Hovind, Kent E. "The Kent Hovind Creation Seminar (1 of 7): The Age of the Earth." YouTube. YouTube, 2 Nov. 2013. Web. 20 Apr. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0&index=1&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivqKeqAklhYfFFmmAdvwcnCT>.</ref> Hovind has also received much criticism from both Old Earth Creationists and Evolutionists such as Author Michael Shermer." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob A. Henderson (talk • contribs) 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Again, as above, scripture is not scientific evidence. Your assertion that "Any person can see that Kent Hovind only provides scientific evidence in his powerpoints..." is laughable. And the "assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand triggered WW I" is a mainstream theory. These are scientific theories. --NeilN talk to me 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
What's important are independent reliable secondary sources. Kent Hovind is not reliable for claims about science, and his lectures are not independent or secondary.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:57, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
NeilN I did not say that he was only providing scripture I said that he also provides scientic evidence, quotes, theories, and scripture to validate his claims. Never did I say that him using scripture was scientific evidence.Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Jacob. Kent Hovind has never provided scientific evidence. The only evidence he has ever produced is biblical references and pseudoscience nonsense. Also, please consult WP:RS for what is and what is not a reliable source. PS: Youtube is not a reliable source. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hovinds views in regards to scientific evidence.

Does this article, in ANY way, shape, or form, benefit from the phrase at the beginning about his views being contradictory to scientific evidence? I highly doubt that this article would be any less credible if that statement was removed. One can see that his views are contradictory to scientific evidence by simply reading what he believes. No need to tell the reader whether his views are scientific or not. The reader is smart enough to come to that conclusion on his own without it being dictated to him/her. That phrase in no way adds to this article at all, in my opinion, and therefore should be removed. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Many people [1] would just say, "oh, that's just a different opinion" --NeilN talk to me 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
But this is an article about Hovind, not creationism. Save that statement for the creationism article if you want. It's redundant and somewhat irrelevant here, imo.
Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede summarizes the contents, so it is not redundant. He is known as part of the, umm, fringiest elements of a fringe group, well, that and being a criminal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... And? My question was how that statement in ANY way helps the article. If anything it just turns people off. Put that statement in the "Beliefs" section of the article. No need to place it randomly to introduce the guy. I also think the statement needs some clarification. Hovind also believes the earth is round. That isn't contradicted by scientific evidence, is it? Again, does the statement being removed in any way damage the integrity of the article? On top of all of that it is my opinion that it simply reads better without it, but that's just me.
Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not randomly placed, the lede of the article summarizes its contents. The contents are about a person who thinks dinosaurs lived with people and who is a tax fraud. We are not here to turn people on or off, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reason why Hovind has an article is because his views are controversial enough to be covered by reliable sources. The lead tells the reader why they're controversial. --NeilN talk to me 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Then state something like "Hovinds views are very controversial within the scientific community as they are viewed by many to be both scientifically and factually inaccurate." The reason Hovind has an article is because his views are ridiculed by the scientific community, not because his views are inaccurate. His views being inaccurate is not what makes him interesting,(plenty of people have inaccurate views) it's the fact that he is a tax criminal and is widely disputed by mostly all major scientists. That should be the lead. The article in no way benefits from the current phrasing.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
See WP:YESPOV. Hovind's views are not controversial within the scientific community. They are squarely rejected.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Controversial was the wrong wording, I admit. I was kinda rushing to type that out as an example, just scratch that part out. However, WP:YESPOV refutes nothing in my argument. If I stated his scientific beliefs were strongly contested in the community then yes, that would apply, but that's not at all what I'm arguing. Please read the rest of what I've said. Surely you can see my point.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Blackgate, I find that the opening quote is quite silly, tbh. Saintliveyourlife33ad (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a policy based reason for this opinion? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Black YESPOV says "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It is an uncontested fact that Hovind's views are contradicted by the scientific evidence. Attributing the fact to just an opinion of some group (in the case, the scientific community) would be inappropriate. By the way, you are arguing about due weight; we determine weight by sources, so arguing about weight without referring to sources is a waste of time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why are giving me YESPOV. I am not, and never have, advocated for the fact that Hovinds views are unscientific to be stated as an opinion. Of course, Hovind's views are squarely, flat out, and utterly rejected by nearly every respected researcher within the scientific commuity. I am not denying that! You can state that later in the article. ALL I'm arguing is that to put that in the opening statement to introduce Mr Hovind is downright unnecessary. Per WP:MOSINTRO we should NOT give undue weight to the fact that Hovinds views are "contradictory to scientific evidence". That is not, and never has been, what makes Hovind notable and to assert such is plain silly. Thus, I think that phrasing should be removed. Save it for later in the article. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
What, in your opinion, makes Hovind notable? --NeilN talk to me 21:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
His tax related criminal charges and his status as probably the most popular creation science teacher in America. The fact that he has debated many leading scientists over the world, and his divisive status within religious circles. It's certainly not the fact that his views are opposed to scientific evidence. To assert that is absolutely absurd. Many people hold odd scientific views. That does not mean they are notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

You are not understanding YESPOV. Here's a fact: "The Earth is round." Here is that fact written as an opinion: "The scientific community considers the Earth to be round." You are advocating we do that in this article, which is explicitly prohibited by WP:NPOV.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

True. As I have stated, that example I used earlier was rushed. I am advocating removing the mention at the opening altogether per WP:MOSINTRO. You may be referring to my earlier section I made here. I made that before I was aware of the wiki rules, so for that I apologize. This section is relating to an entirely different argument I have, so I suggest you read the rest of what I've said.. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Well, I oppose that suggestion. It is not neutral to simply state his views in the opening without their scientific reception. He is well known for his self-described "scientific theories", and it is our job to summarize that in the lead.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jess. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Except the current opening is not neutral. In fact, I'd argue that the very phrasing "contradicted by" is giving undue weight to Hovinds strange theories. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The words you're using, "neutral" and "weight", require sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:VALID states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. " I would say that is in direct opposition to the opening statement on this article. Also, WP:MOSINTRO states, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.". I do not think Hovinds views being opposed to science is what makes Hovind notable, and thus, doesn't "reflect its relative importance to the subject."Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

So, you believe that "pseudoscience...should not be legitimized" means that we should present Hovind's views without even mentioning their reception in the scientific community? No. That's not what that means.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what I believe. You can and should present Hovinds views along with his reception in the scientific community. As is, the article states Hovind's reception among the community at least a dozen times. However, to state it in the opening creates a false balance and seems to indicate that Hovind is taken seriously among scientists. It legitimizes him too much to even state that his views are contrary to evidence in the opening; one can come to that conclusion by simply reading what Hovind believes! Furthermore, according to WP:MOSINTRO, the validity of Mr. Hovind's views have no relevance to the topic at hand (and are not at all what makes Hovind notable), and thus the statement should be removed. To use an extreme example, concerning the article on Adolf Hitler, do we have to include a statement within the introduction on how Hitler's view on the superiority of races was downright unscientific and opposed by scientific evidence? No, stating such would be irrelevant. I have supplied WP rules for my statements this far, and I hope you can see my point. Thanks.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that the validity of Hovind's views (or lack thereof) are not what makes him notable. Plenty of people don't believe in evolution. They're not called out specifically by the National Center for Science Education. --NeilN talk to me 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Other that satisfying Godwin's law, your Hitler reference is irrelevant; Hitler did more than espouse views. In the case at hand, we are dealing with an article in which fringe views are a major topic and the intro reflects that.BiologicalMe (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You say we cite the scientific reception at least a dozen times in the body... great. So your suggestion means the lead would fail to summarize the body. That's the entire purpose of the lead. Your suggestion that removing the scientific reception from the lead somehow places more emphasis on the scientific community is silly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
First off Jess, while it is true that the lede should summarize the whole body of the article, the fact of Hovinds views being contradictory to scientific evidence is not even remotely a main topic of the article, but rather a supporting topic, and is thus irrelevant to the lede, which should be solely about Hovind and what he believes. For instance, within the article it is stated multiple times that Hovind went to an unaccredited institution. However, this fact would be irrelevant to the lede, which should focus on Hovind himself, not his academic credentials or lack thereof. Furthermore, BiologicalMe stated that the article should be about Hovinds fringe views. This is simply not true! Reserve that for an article on Hovinds fringe views (I.e. Creationism ) but the validity of his views do not need to be stated in the opening here as they are irrelevant. Now, I must ask, why is it that the articles on notable figures such as →Grover Krantz Samuel Shenton state nothing about the validity of their views? I find it curious that the article on Mr. Hovind is one of the only I could find which had stated explicitly how wrong their views are in their opening phrase. Heck, even lead on the article on Creationism doesn't outright state that it is unscientific unlike Mr Hovinds article. WP:IMPARTIAL states "The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone" and I am strongly convinced that the phrase in the opening contradicts this. We are not here to convince anyone of any view, but the lede of Hovinds article outright states that he is not to be trusted rather than simply letting the reader come to that conclusion on their own by reading the evidence within the rest of the article. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not misrepresent my views and argue against straw man versions. I have never stated that "the article should be about Hovinds fringe views". As I stated, his positions being contrary to both other Creationists and scientific consensus is a significant part of the article, and is reflected in the summary.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Woops, sorry about that. I was typing by memory, as the platform which I'm using to type this is really clunky to use. I do hope my original point stands though about the validity of Hovinds views not being a notable enough topic to be stated within the lede. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and I hope I didn't overreact. This is not a question of "notability"; the issue is about summarizing the article, and presently, the article content supports the phrase in question.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to brush you off BiologicalMe, but I believe I already discussed your argument earlier. Now Jess, Dbrodbeck, and Neil, could you guys give your thoughts on my earlier statements which you have not commented on? I think I've made my case well enough, and I hope you will have an open mind and at least slightly see where I am coming from. I would really like to come to a consensus on this issue so that we can further improve this article. (I think we can all see that this article has a few flaws, I.e. Too much irrelevant info, tremendous length, etc) Thanks. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I've already shared my thoughts. You're just repeating yourself, and I don't care to follow suit. To summarize: 1) the lead summarizes the body, and this is listed prominently in the body, 2) his "scientific views" are an important part of his notability, which is determined by their prominence in the sources, and 3) the scientific reception of his views must be stated alongside his views to respect due weight. There's no sense in covering this ground further. Consensus has already formed; it's time to move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my counterpoint of how even the Creationism article doesn't outright state that it's directly opposed to scientific evidence in the lede. Now, I know you did not write that article but it is certainly really odd how an article on a man seems to be more critical of Creationism than the actual article on the subject at hand. You also didn't adress my point that this article also mentions how Kent has gone to an unaccredited institution multiple times but that's not stated in the lede. I am not just repeating myself but am rather constantly bringing out new arguments that clearly show how unnecessary the comment in the lede is but whatever. Look, with all due respect, it seems you are more content with ignoring my points than dealing with them first-hand. If you have such a strong case and we have reached a consensus then please, show me how I'm wrong. I am not a defender of Hovind nor am I really interested in him. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to really get the hang of things here and make this a better place, so please, if you have any refutation of my points show me. I am open to all suggestions and I hope you will be to. Thank you. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Are you just going to ignore my arguments? Is it not important to come to a consensus on this? Why are you ignoring me? Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
There is consensus. Consensus is not always unanimous. There's quite a bit to improve on wikipedia, it's time to move on to something else productive.   — Jess· Δ♥ 13:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:CON states "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines."

Thus, could you at least attempt to discuss my counterpoints I've stated in my past 4 paragraphs which you have not addressed? I think they are legitimate points and yet you are ignoring them. Seriously, I want to be proven wrong. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 16:48, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The Ken Ham is exactly like this article. "Ham advocates a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis. His claim that the universe is approximately 6,000 years old, based on his interpretation of the Bible, is contradicted by evidence from astronomy and from the Earth's fossil and geological records which show the Earth is over 4.5 billion years old." Wikipedia is not being biased, it is reporting the evidence. There is absolutely no scientific evidence what so ever for any of the claims that these two gentlemen are making. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 'legitimate' concerns. None have been raised. Really, let's move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
That's strange... Why doesn't the article on creationism itself outright state that it is opposed to science in the lede? One would think that statement is much more relevant to that article than this one... How bizarre... Anyway, please read MOS:INTRO. It is my humble opinion that this article is directly opposing that rule. Now, you might say "The validity of Hovinds views is stated multiple times within the body!". Should we also add Hovind going to an unaccredited institution in the lede? Because that too is stated multiple times within the body. Of course not! To do so would be downright bizarre and misplaced. Why then, is Hovinds views being contradictory to science stated within the lede? Is that really that important to use to summarize the man? In my opinion it is not. Read the WP rules I supplied in my earlier paragraphs. There I clearly outlined how the scientific evidence statement is unnecessary. Per WP rules we should present information in an unbiased and disinterested tone. The current lede is in direct opposition to that. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence in their brain can make up their own mind regarding Hovinds silly views. We should present the info and let the reader make up their own mind on whether Hovind should be trusted or not. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously you forgot to read the first line at the top. "Creation science refers to the pseudoscience movement in the United States." Now... the definition of pseudoscience is: "A collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method." With ALL your nonsense answered, as everyone has states, it is time to move on. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 20:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
"We should present the info and let the reader make up their own mind" No. This is absolutely, fundamentally opposed to NPOV. We represent the sources, we don't "balance" ideas equally and leave it up to our readers to figure it out on their own. Since there is consensus on this issue, I don't anticipate responding further, and I'd encourage others to do the same. If you have sources backing up a new content proposal, please present them in a new section. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Well, I never said we should present both sides equally at all, I was saying that we should present the evidence, giving due weight to Hovinds theories (that is, very little credibility) and let the reader decide. As for CanadianLion, perhaps we should say something like "Hovind is has been known to teach pseudoscience and many of his views are flat-out rejected by the Scientific communities." But I digress. I'll save that topic for another section. Anyway, thank you for answering my points. Now I can finally rest easy knowing you guys have at least heard me! Thank you all and keep on editin' ! 👴👍 Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Read the Kent Hovind article itself. In the section Creation. "The Hovind Theory is entirely rejected in the scientific community, and its plausibility has been criticized by other Young Earth creationists." Follow the sources explaining why everything he says is rejected by scientists. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing:

There's a lot of sources that I would deem questionable.

  • kent-hovind.com

A now defunct website which appears to be a personal website critical of Hovind. Who wrote it? Are they experts? It looks like a personal website, with no editorial review. I don't think it would pass as a WP:RS.

  • exchristian.net

I removed that, but I don't think that would be controversial.

  • scienceblogs.com/pharyngula

Personal blog. Also used to source a statement that had tons of other citations, so it was not even needed. I also really, really, really think it's dangerous to declare personal blogs as WP:RS. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a personal blog per se and the removal is controversial (obviously, as I reverted it). Please have a look at PZ Myers. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I, BiologicalMe, and several other editors have been doing extensive cleanup of the article by trimming redundant prose (and sources). I assume this will continue. If there is now content in the article cited incorrectly, or to a low quality source, we should remove that source and {{cn}} tag the statement so a better source can be found. For example, there are many, many sources to back up the statement that Hovind rejects fossil evidence, including words from Kent Hovind directly. IIRC, that blip about rejecting fossils mid-sentence is taking the place of a large swath of unnecessary content elaborating on it further which I removed. Removing the prose doesn't help; fixing the source does. Let's do that.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Also: PZ is an opinionated dick, and much less reliable than he used to be when he gave a monkeys about his reputation. I'd cite Shermer without hesitation though. Guy (Help!) 21:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Guy on this one. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The scienceblogs era is the time when he was more analytical and less opinionated than the freethoughtblogs era. Of course, it's moot, since the last PZ Myers reference is already gone. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

New lede

What is wrong with putting "Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind has been known to have taught psuedoscience and many of his ideas are largely disregarded by the scientific community." as opposed to "Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific 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 fellow Young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis." ? My edit was reverted without any reason given. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 00:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Read the Kent Hovind article itself. In the section Creation. "The Hovind Theory is entirely rejected in the scientific community, and its plausibility has been criticized by other Young Earth creationists." Follow the sources explaining why everything he says is rejected by scientists.CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand what your trying to explain. I AM saying exactly what you said. Read it again. I just reworded it as it flows better and is more clarified. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
You are obviously not seeing the "entirely rejected" part. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You're trying to soften the explicit statements that Hovind's theories are rejected by the scientific community, but our sources do not give us that kind of latitude. See WP:YESPOV and WP:DUE. Hovind's ideas are not the minority view, they are fringe, so we cannot say "largely disregarded." The current lead is perfect with respect to weight. It could be changed to add new content, reword, etc, but unless we have new sources, the weight must stay the same.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
"Hovind has been known to have taught psuedoscience" implies he has taught other things. --NeilN talk to me 00:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not trying to change the weight. How about we do "Hovind has been known to teach psuedoscience and many of his ideas are disregarded by the scientific community." And Neil, Hovind has taught things other than psuedoscience, you and I both know that. I would be hard pressed to find one man who teaches psuedoscience and nothing else. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Again, implication. Which of his ideas are accepted by the scientific community? --NeilN talk to me 04:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hovind teaches a Heliocentric model, he teaches a round earth, he teaches the law of entropy, he teaches that vitamins and minerals are essential in an average human diet, etc. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
He doesn't teach those things, he merely admits them to be true. In as much as he teaches (actually he is proselytizing, not teaching), he is teaching scientifically refuted ideas drawn from a minority literalist interpretation of the bible. Guy (Help!) 10:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The previous sentence identifies his fields of teaching as "scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible.", so the next sentence talking about rejection of his teachings seems pretty clearly to refer back to that. If I spent my life saying "My wikipedia account is 'DMacks'" while teaching that the day is 14 hours long, the sun rises in the west, and the sky is purple, one could say "your teachings are not entirely nonsense". DMacks (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Technical issue in references

I have marked a number of articles which have been archived, but have reappeared in a compilation with the following: "The story can be found in the collection: "The evolution of 'Dr. Dino'"." Would it be practical to replace the text with a {{ref}} tag to a one time comment either in the "Notes" section or at the bottom of the "References" section? BiologicalMe (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Trial cancellation

In a somewhat unusual move (on a Saturday), the government prosecutors have file a motion to dismiss various charges against Hovind and Hansen. Almost immediately, the Court (on Saturday, May 16) issued an order cancelling the jury selection and trial that had been scheduled for Monday, May 18, 2015. The defendants will be able to inform the Court on Monday as to whether the defendants support or oppose the government's motion.

Apparently, the prosecutor is concerned about some sort of issue regarding adequate notice. If, as the prosecutor is requesting, the charges are dropped by the Court, the prosecutor would apparently be free to seek a new indictment later. Famspear (talk) 02:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

More detail: The prosecutor's motion was filed in response to a filing on Monday, May 11 by Hovind's attorney. The May 11 filing (at docket entry 180) raises concerns that the superseding indictment is not specific enough in describing what conduct was allegedly engaged in by the defendants. Here's an excerpt from the May 11 filing:

In the instant case the defendant contends that the indictment fails to allege facts or conduct that, if true, would constitute a violation of the mail fraud statute or the statute prohibiting conspiring or attempting to violate the mail fraud statute. The indictment alleges events and conduct in the 18 paragraphs under the Introduction and the 3 paragraphs under Manner and Means in Count One. Paragraphs 1 - 6 under Introduction and paragraphs 1 and 2 under Manner and Means explain the background of the government obtaining title to the nine properties at issue and then attempting to sell them. Paragraphs 8 - 18 under Introduction and paragraph 3 under Manner and Means allege certain conduct by Hansen and Hovind subsequent to when the government obtained title to the properties. The first obvious problem with the allegations in these later paragraphs is the total failure of them to explain any relationship between Hansen and Hovind and their alleged conduct that would show concerted or conspiratorial conduct. There are allegations that Hansen did something and Hovind did something, but nothing regarding Hovind’s knowledge of Hansen’s conduct or vice versa. Another obvious problem is the lack of any allegation that the liens filed by Hansen in 2011 [ . . . ] were intentionally false or fraudulent, i.e., contained information of a material nature known to be untrue, or that his Quiet Title lawsuit included or contained any false or fraudulent representations. [footnote 1 not reproduced] [ . . . ] The same is true as to the Claim of Lien Affidavit of Obligation (with attachments) attempted to be filed in court by G.S. in April 2013 [ . . . ] and thereafter mailed by Hansen to the closing attorney [ . . . ] There is no allegation that this document was false or fraudulent (no allegation that Hansen or G.S. knew or believed it contained false information). The only allegation of conduct by Hovind is his filing of the Bivens lawsuit in South Carolina [ . . . ] and his subsequent filing of the four lis pendens after mailing a copy of them to the agent [ . . . ]There is absolutely no allegation that Hovind’s alleged conduct involved “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” There is no allegation that he filed the Bivens lawsuit and lis pendens in bad faith. Clearly, just looking at what his alleged regarding Hovind’s conduct, it is totally inadequate to allege a violation of the mail fraud statute which “requires proof of a material misrepresentation, or the omission or concealment of a material fact calculated to deceive another out of money or property.” U.S. v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009). See also U.S. v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1238-40 (11th Cir. 2011) (discussing elements of mail and wire fraud statutes and meaning of “scheme to defraud”.) The other allegations do not compensate for this total inadequacy.

Apparently, the prosecution would like to have the charges dropped for now, so the prosecution can have time to seek a new indictment with more specific wording. That's my guess. Famspear (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

As noted in the article now, the Court did, on May 18, 2015, dismiss the indictment against Hovind. The prosecutor requested this dismissal "without prejudice", and the defendant apparently agreed.

Also on May 18, 2015, the Court rendered a judgment of acquittal on the criminal contempt charge -- essentially overruling the jury's guilty verdict. The Court concluded that the specific order that Hovind had been found guilty of violating actually contained no language that prohibited Hovind from doing anything. Famspear (talk) 03:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

At this point I would be VERY surprised if they redo the trial. Looks like Kent'll be out of prison soon. Good for him! Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys. Just a reminder of WP:NOTFORUM. This page is for article improvements, please.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:55, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Add that Kent has received a masters degree and two more PHd's while in prison?

Should it be added in the article that Kent has earned three degrees while in prison?Cms13ca (talk) 02:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Facebook pages aren't going to be an acceptable source. Plus I'm willing to bet he "earned" them the same way he "earned" his other degrees - not at all.Farsight001 (talk) 03:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently he has four PhDs. If there is a reliable source supporting this then it should be added to the article. Of course, if the awarding institution is unaccredited, this should be mentioned. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, give a valid source. We should add it if we have a source. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This is a problematic claim, since there is no evidence he earned the previous ones. What degrees, what institutions? He does, after all, have form in claiming credit for worthless chequebook credentials. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality?

I feel this article doesn't reflect a neutral point of view. Much of the article's text is used to criticize his viewpoints, which, first of all, is irrelevant and splits off greatly from the article's subject (Kent Hovind as a person), and second, gives the article a rather unbalanced tone, reading more like a criticism of his thoughts than an informational article about them.

Let's take the "Education" section as an example. A good 4/5 of it are spent criticizing him, rather than providing neutral information. The parts about Patriot Bible University's overall business practices have no place in an article about one of its students. Kent Hovind's spelling and grammar skills are hardly relevant in an encyclopedic article. Barbara Forrest's comment about his "lack of academic training" is just unnecessary. The problem is, most of the article does this, not just one section.

I personally feel this article severely needs to be rechecked if it is to be taken seriously. The introduction to the "Biography" section almost perfectly lays out how to point out his shortcomings, while remaining neutral regarding his views and him as a person. The entire article should read like this in an encyclopedic context, not as it is now. 71.58.142.80 (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If Hovind wishes to portray himself as an academic or postulate scientific theories then what mainstream academia opines about his credentials is certainly relevant. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This is strange. Could we just remove the "name calling" Thats going on on this page under the guise of "criticism". The fact that someone says that "there are more arguments for flat earth" is just name calling if you don't give any of the arguments. This is one of the pages where the "talk" page is bigger than the actual info page. Whenever you see that the Wikipedia Censors are running in circles. Just don't believe anything you read on this silly page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.213.207 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Please take some time to read and understand the NPOV policy. WP represents what has been published in reliable sources about a subject. If 4/5 of the published material in reliable sources is critical of the subject that is what the WP article reflects. If reliable sources find Hovind's spelling and grammar skills relevant enough to publish content about them that is what a WP article reflects. Neutral information is not what WP presents, what WP presents are the significant views in reliable published sources as due. Comptency is required, please read and understand at least the core policies Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and No original research. The last of which will explain why an editors idea of neutrality is not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is not neutral. Although it is relevant to address criticisms of the subject and his work, especially by the scientific community, it is not OK for an encyclopedia entry to be framed as a critical piece. The degree of bias in this entry is simply too much SamuelN77 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like that kent hovind has made himself out to be a crook, a scammer and more. I suggest you take that up with Hovind when he comes out of prison in 2015. About your edits, you changed the lead without consensus tin what is not reported by our reliable sources. Secondly you tried to add some sympathetic pov at first as well, with him having a tearful farewell. Which is also not ok. Pov pushing that is not based on reliable sources is never ok. If you want to change the lead. I suggest you make a suggestion here and back it up with reliable sources. Good luck you are going need it. NathanWubs (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
First thank you for taking the time to respond to my edits, I really appreciate that. And I apologize if I have not followed the proper procedure to make the edits, I assure you I did not do that knowingly in order to bypass any rules. That said, I am not a supporter of Kent Hovind. I found this entry researching a few years back and on a revisit I thought of correcting some mistakes I thought were 'obvious'. I stand by my edits (not my procedure) and I think your response here proves my point further. I can understand Kent Hovind may not be that important of an entry for some senior editor of Wikipedia to notice but the entry is way off from something that goes into encyclopedia. SamuelN77 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Its very clear this whole page is a collection accusations and empty statement. I'm not even going to try to edit something here. It will be removed in a nanosecond by the crazy Wikipedia censors. Whenever you want to do an edit to a page, check the "talk" page first. If the Talk page is bigger than the actual article, just forget about making any change to the page. Its political. Somebody just has all the time in the world to watch and edit these pages. Its almost like they are getting payed to be a watchdog. You can recognize these crazy Wikipedia-censors by their profile pages and name. Their name will be in different colors, and their profile pages look like someone had way too much time on their hands: filled with little baubles and crazy stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.213.207 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I think you have this backwards. It's Hovind who wishes to delete the article and replace it with his own sanitized version. --NeilN talk to me 13:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. Please note the colors in his name and the fact that he responded within 5 minutes of me posting something on this Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.29.213.207 (talk) 17:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I must agree. Many Wikipedia articles are written in a way that suggests the author wants to inflict his opinion on the reader rather than provide neutral information and let the reader form his own opinion. I believe all encyclopedias are guilty in this manner, just consider Brockhaus entries about Africans or Jews during the NS era. However, an open "democratic" encyclopedia would be the chance to the world to provide information free from propaganda. Unfortunately Wikipedia fails on that matter. Everybody who has been introduced to the nature of science knows that Darwinism is merely a religion; if approached with scientific methods - create a theory, and then observe or experiment to prove or disprove - it does not stand a chance. Interestingly when I had my introductory class at university almost all of the examples of science fraud were in the evolution field. I do not agree with all of Kent Hovinds theories of the origin of earth and man, however I find his criticism of Darwinism reasonable and comprehensible, because he takes the time to quote the sources of Darwinist statements as well as the disproving findings. Youtube features a lot of debates with Hovind and evolutionist scientists, so the reader can refer to that and form his own opinion. Dafalias (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
"Everybody who has been introduced to the nature of science knows that Darwinism is merely a religion;" That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard today. It shows 1) You do not understand the theory of evolution and 2) You do not understand the scientific method or the term "scientific theory". Science does not prove or disprove. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm an evolutionist, but also agree that this article lacks neutrality. "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence". Hovind does not base his views on Biblical accounts alone, but provides scientific evidence for his beliefs on ALL accounts making this statement factually false. His conclusions, based on scientific evidence, differs from mainstream evolutionist beliefs, but this does not mean his views are contradicted by scientific evidence in-and-of itself when Hovind does provide such evidence. A more appropriate statement would be "Hovind's views are contradicted by mainstream (or popular) scientific beliefs". Legitreport (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Legitreport

Please see the Neutral point of view policy at § Fringe theories and pseudoscience and the Fringe theories guideline. You will see clear guidance on this issue. I am not posting extensive quotes from that policy and that guideline as I find them both very clear and their direct applicability to the issues raised obvious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is article image Hovind's mugshot? Horvind considers himself to be a man of religion, science, and scholarship. How is it fair to use this as his main image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.1.178.132 (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiki policy says that when available, we use a freeuse image. The mugshot is the only freeuse image anyone's been able to find of him. Since its not obviously a mugshot, we don't care too much to avoid using it, and since its freeuse, there's no legal issue with it, so its pretty much our only option for now. If you know of a better freeuse one, show us.Farsight001 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the phrase "contradicted by scientific evidence" needs a source. Just flat out saying that doesn't prove anything, it just makes the article seem biased and untrustworthy. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Source 1, 2, 3. All from the article.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And I could quote ten articles by Kents cult members stating how evolution is "contradicted by science". Do you see how this is quickly devolving into a war of subjective views? Again, I believe it is much more proffesional to leave out the whole statement, but that's just me.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Read up on our policies about fringe views. Creationism is a fringe viewpoint within the scientific community, and wikipedia is biased towards science, per NPOV.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol, okay then. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree that article is not neutral. The very first paragraph of the article criticizes Kent Hovind without providing sources, or evidence. Recently the article was able to be edited, I edited the article and corrected the first paragraph giving a neutral point of view, citing my sources, not lying of course, saying that Kent Hovinds goal was to prove that the world is only 6,000 years old, that the bible is completely true, and that all braches of evolution other than microevolution are false. They then deleted the edit immediately saying that it lacked proper citing, even though I provided cites from Kent Hovind himself! Also throughout the article they only show criticism toward Kent Hovind but nothing positive despite the fact that there are thousands of people who support Kent Hovind and have positive quotes. They use the quote from Michael Shermer stating that it is -"not an intellectual exercise", but rather "an emotional drama,"[78] and concluded, "Unless there is a subject that is truly debatable with a format that is fair, in a forum that is balanced, it only serves to belittle both the magisterium of science and the magisterium of religion." - This quote is not true because Kent Hovind only provides evidence, quotes from scientists, intellectual/critical thinking, and bible verses to support the Bible itself. The debate also had even timing for both sides, Kent Hovind just went through his material much faster than Michael, Michael even mentions that very thing in the debate. Michael also mentions that it is a debate between science and religion, but this is false because Kent Hovind only uses science itself to prove the Bible in his creation seminarsCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).. Another quote from William Reville, Director of Microscopy at University College Cork, wrote that - Hovind's ideas are not rational or scientific because they are not testable.- If you were to watch on of Kent Hovind’s creation seminar videos, you would be able to see that he provides evidence such as how in mosquito amber there are bubbles that show that there was much more oxygen on the early earth, and how there are trees that connect rock layers (last time I checked, tree’s don’t stand up for millions of years). Kent Hovind also provides in his creation seminars is evidences such as how there are man made artifacts embedded within coal. The claims he makes such as how the air pressure could be different also can be tested by putting an organism in an air compressed room. Mr. Reville’s claims are very hypocritical because the very THEORIES he believes cannot be tested themselves such as all types of evolution (other than microevolution), the big bang, etc.

It seems to me like the people who made this article ONLY want to criticize Kent Hovind and do not want the truth to be told. They only take a few quotes from Kent Hovind on his own life and the rest are people who are against Hovind’s teachings that come from the Bible. Wikipedians; either correct this article or take it down. This is a request from Kent Hovind himself. Link to Kent Hovinds request to take down or correct this wiki article: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8a8yknuc3I> Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 14:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The first paragraph, or WP:LEDE summarizes the article and needn't have sources as the article itself does. You should read WP:UNDUE. We don't do 'fair and balanced' here, we report what reliable sources say. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source to say that Kent Hovinds ideas are contradicted by scientific ideas and not provide a cite. Even if the cite was "reliable", it would be rendered unreliable if it is lying. Any person can see that Kent Hovind only provides scientific evidence in his powerpoints, he even cites his sources in his creation seminar videos. The Wiki rules also say that there must be neutrality, it is not reliable to only get critics and be biased on the subject. All the quotes that were in the critisism paragraph were from people that Kent Hovind debated and are clearly against what Kent Hovind believes. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I looked at Hovind's "Big Bang Dud" Powerpoint presentation. You realize that quoting scripture is not scientific evidence, right? --NeilN talk to me 14:59, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Neutrality means representing the sources, not giving equal time. See WP:NPOV. The citations for the lead are in the body.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
In the first paragraph alone it doesn't reflect NPOV at all. The writer does realize that their is some disagreement within the scientific fields mentioned even outside the creation/evolution debate? Does he also say that other scientists are in denial? 154.69.36.140 (talk) 11:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Examples please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Look guys, let's take a step back here. I'm new here, and I hope I can clear the air here while not being biased. To the people who say this article is not neutral: I am on Kent Hovind's side, but, it IS a fringe theory, and Wikipedia is biased towards those, and the article should reflect that his views are not accepted by the mainstream community. To those who say this article is neutral: many people, evolutionists and possibly creationists alike, have come forward saying that this article is not neutral, and it seems to be the same few people are denying that. When that many people from different backgrounds say the same thing, bells should go off.

The cold hard truth is that the article on Ted Bundy reads better than this one. This article reads like a personal attack, knocking him down at every turn. The article on Ted Bundy doesn't attack Ted Bundy, it just says that he was a murderer and a rapist. This introduction should introduce Hovind as a creation fringe theorist, known for denying many well established scientific theories and principles, et cetera. It should not attack him though.

I think what the issue is is not so much the content, just the wording of it. I think there's a fine line between describing someone who is not accepted, and attacking someone. When one reads the article on Ted Bundy, one gets the sense that he was a serial killer and a rapist. When one reads this article, one gets the sense that he is a criminal, not widely accepted, AND that Wikipedia doesn't like him. That's the problem here. Shicoco (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Shicoco, for the past eight years, the fact is that Kent's criminal record has been the focus for this article, rather than his creationism and conspiracy beliefs. I do not think the article is biased as some have claimed who tried to request the page be deleted and Hovind has threaten to sue (calling it "Wickedpedia").--Cms13ca (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
We've discussed some of these aspects of the article before, but I'll just repeat: I had never even heard of the guy (or his creationism organization, etc., etc.) before his criminal activities became news.
Certainly, he is a criminal on a huge scale (albeit a white-collar criminal, not a violent one), and an unrepentant one as well. And certainly, he is not "widely" accepted (whether editor Shicoco is referring to acceptance of his beliefs about evolution or acceptance of his supposed beliefs about tax law or the law of structuring transactions to avoid reports to the U.S. Treasury Department). In particular, his supposed beliefs about U.S. federal income taxes are frivolous.
But I take it that Shicoco is really more concerned with the tone of the article -- in terms of giving the impression that "Wikipedia doesn't like him."
What we need are specific suggestions about specific words actually found in the article. What specific words in the article are believed to be non-neutral for purposes of the Neutral Point of View rule? Famspear (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Kent Hovind opening paragraph suggestion

I wish to suggest this paragraph that is the opening paragraph for Kent Hovinds article on rational wiki:

Kent Hovind (or, to use his correct academic title, Mr. Kent Hovind) is a young Earth creationist and convicted felon from Pensacola, Florida. Before his current incarceration, he promoted young Earth creationism and dominionist views in lectures and videos sold through his Creation Science Evangelism organization, and started Dinosaur Adventure Land, a small amusement park in his backyard.

Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

rational wiki, while at time hilarious and on point, has absolutely nothing to do with wikipedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I doubt you want to quote Rational Wiki.... maybe we could grab some more from them? "Hovind promotes numerous anti-government conspiracy theories, literally connecting "evolution, Communism, the new-world order, and the IRS", and has even sold books promoting anti-Semitism. Among those theories is the ridiculous notion that Kent Hovind and KENT HOVIND are not the same person. According to this twisted logic, the strawman KENT HOVIND was indicted and not the flesh-and-blood Kent Hovind. Accordingly, at his arraignment, Hovind attempted to enter a plea of "subornation of false muster." - apparently an obsolete military term meaning "being ordered to say you showed up at roll call when you weren't actually there" - generating a fair amount of confusion and giggling among observers." CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
And open wikis are obviously not reliable sources.   — Jess· Δ♥ 02:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I was involved in the Creation/Evolution debate some years ago (mid-late 1990s). I'm frankly astonished that Kent Hovind still has any support given that he was regarded as a pariah by even the most ardent Young Earth Creationist back then.
That said, the lede as it stands is certainly vulnerable to criticism regarding neutrality and needs a bit of work. I'd propose something like this:


This is more neutral in tone than the existing lede but still accurately sums up the article and his place in the debate. I don't believe his leanings towards conspiracy theory are necessary in the lede as it's not what he's primarily known for. But we can discuss that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 09:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Jim, not sure if "He is a prominent figure... " still applies... he is in jail and does not do any debates like he used to. Ken Ham would be a prominent figure today. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 10:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that could be changed... "He was formerly a prominent figure..."? "He was a formerly a popularly influential figure..."? "He is a controversial figure..."? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The word frequently is inappropriate, at least at it's present position. He hasn't produced any impact on acceptance of any ideas in the scientific community. A qualification would be appropriate on "fellow creationists".BiologicalMe (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay we can adjust that slightly...
I would also suggest that "Genesis creation narrative" be written out and "Book of Genesis" be replaced by "the Bible". (I don't think we have any references that explicitly support "King James Bible".)BiologicalMe (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay we can do that.
My approach was going to be improve the article, then summarize, but serious consideration should be given to putting tax protester in the lede. There are sources which support it explicitly, and the bulk of his coverage is for his tax issues. I'm sorry for being a bit piecemeal in my thoughts, but because of machine glitches, I'm seriously behind on my coffee. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll just clarify that I think you've seriously improved this article and if I've stepped on any toes, I apologise. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. There are hurt toes here. You threw my timing off a bit, but I was already at a bit of an impasse. I'm waiting for a physical book. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"...by those who accept the mainstream theory of evolution..." We're not really interested in the opinions of John Doe. The lead should highlight that his arguments have been rejected by those working in the field (i.e., scientists). --NeilN talk to me 13:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I would not replace "those who accept the mainstream Theory of Evolution" with "scientists" because that isn't necessarily true... many scientists stick closely to a very narrow field of study and have no opinions about topics outside their field of expertise. I am personally acquainted with a small number of scientists working in closely related fields (eg genetics) who are YE creationists. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 14:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
"those who accept the mainstream..." is a very significant sticking point for me. Yes, it is absolutely true that his arguments are rejected by the scientific community - those scientists who accept his views are not the minority, they are the fringe. Just FYI: this conversation is getting really difficult to follow due to weird indenting and repeated blockquotes. I think we should take this one piece at a time.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree. beyond the general imprecision, the phrase "fringe theory by those who accept the mainstream Theory" is tautological. I'm mulling wordings that distinguish between scientists to the down to the last individual from ideas with extensive experimental and professional support. I feel like there is a clear prose to encapsulate the ideas, but haven't found a better phrasing, yet. BiologicalMe (talk) 14:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Individual proposals

Using Jim's suggested edit above (without endorsement), here are the differences I see from our current lead:   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Creation–evolution controversy a suitable link for the lead? Hovind is discussed there. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Add Christian fundamentalist prominently
I have no problem with this in principle.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Remove conspiracy theorist label
Was this intended? This seems to me to be a significant part of Hovind as a topic.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I feel it's secondary to his status as a YEC evangelist and to have it placed in such a prominent position affects the neutrality of the article, given that it's a term that is usually used disparagingly. Placing it further into the lede would balance it better. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to apply every conceivable link in the lead—just the salient ones. The subject has advanced numerous conspiracy theories, not including those related to taxes. The present article supports the passage, but a lot of the sourcing is iffy. On the other hand, there are enough solid sources with a "he also thinks..." passage, that I can't be certain how the article will look after further cleanup. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Remove mention of creation science
Was this intended? Maybe someone could expand on a rationale for me. His ideas seem to fall quite clearly into this category.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
No particular reason other than to make the text flow better.Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Remove link to Denialism#Evolution
I'm ambivalent on this one. It seems like the link covers the topic perfectly, but linking a simple word like "deny" may be unhelpful.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay we can do that Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one that put the Denialism#Evolution link so I'm biased :-D But I believe the link to the article does in fact summarize what the "deny" really means; that "These beliefs are viewed as pseudoscience in the scientific community and are widely regarded as erroneous." CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Add link to Biblical literalism
No problem with this in principle.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Change "views are contradicted by the scientific evidence..." to "Hovind's arguments are dismissed... by those who accept the mainstream Theory..."
This is a major sticking point for me, as discussed above.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Me too. Rest of the changes worked on here look good. --NeilN talk to me 19:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Remove mention of Answers in Genesis
I'm relatively ambivalent in principle, but I think the sentence could really use an example, and AiG seems to be the best example we have. We discuss them at length in the body.   — Jess· Δ♥ 14:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, how about something like:
"Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory are dismissed as fringe theory by the scientific community. Moreover, he has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organisations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement."
Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Since AIG is discussed in detail in the article, leaving it removed is also good. I'm ambivalent like Jess but we don't want a HUGE lede either. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Add tax protestor
The term appears six times in a sampling of articles from the Pensacola News Journal, alone. Most of his coverage is tax-related. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I added that in the block quote above. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
The change wasn't listed. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm in support of this. It seems to be most of his coverage nowadays.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Add Dinosaur Adventure Land / Pensacola, FL
The start of the second paragraph could be expanded to: "Hovind established Creation Science Evangelism in 1989 and Dinosaur Adventure Land in 2001 in Pensacola, Florida. He frequently spoke on..." Would that be more informative or more cluttered? BiologicalMe (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I think that would be a good addition. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll put a working version below Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Working version of lede

Possible wording change: "scientific theories of Evolution" to "scientific theories including Evolution..."BiologicalMe (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Possible adjective: in several places, I have seen "flamboyant" used to describe Hovind. Even if it doesn't belong in the lead, I will try to work the word into the article.BiologicalMe (talk) 13:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
First change made. I'm struggling to find a place to put "flamboyant" in the lede. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
I am in favor of these edits and thanks for taking at least some of my suggestions into account. However, I'm not sure flamboyant is a good term for him. That's definitely not the first think I think of when I hear "Kent Hovind" and nothing in the article supports that particular phrasing. It's a little bit weird. Also, I've had a few qualms about the AIG reference in the lede. I'm not sure it's notable enough to be in the lede of Mr. Hovind. If,tBlackgateamericanindian (talk) 00:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
One more thing, (and I'm not totally sold on this idea just thinking out loud) is it really fair to say Kents a tax protestor? Considering he has prided himself on being anything but? Any suggestions for why it should remain? I honestly can't tell either way yet. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
It depends... "tax protester" seems slightly more neutral than "convicted felon" and there is a lot of coverage where he is called a tax protester. Hovind is primarily known as the evangelical creationist who went to jail for avoiding tax. I don't think we can skirt round this issue. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 16:19, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Hovind definitely fits the legal definition of a tax protester as that term is used by the federal courts. Here are a couple of definitions, from legal scholars:

Daniel B. Evans has defined tax protesters as people who "refuse to pay taxes or file tax returns out of a mistaken belief that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, voluntary, or otherwise does not apply to them under one of a number of bizarre arguments." Daniel B. Evans, "The Tax Protester FAQ", at [2]. Evans also has an article on Hovind at his Tax Protester Dossiers web site (full disclosure: Please note that Evans has granted me rights at the web site, and I have contributed to many of those articles, including the article on Kent Hovind), at [3].

Law Professor Allen D. Madison has defined tax protesters as "those who refuse to pay income tax on the basis of some nonsensical legal argument that he or she does not owe tax." Allen D. Madison, "The Futility of Tax Protester Arguments," 36 Thomas Jefferson Law Review 253, at 256 (Vol. 36, No. 2, Spring 2014).

Hovind's arguments are definitely bizarre and nonsensical from a legal standpoint.

Many tax protesters do indeed try to deny that they are "tax protesters". If I were a tax protester, I would, too. They don't like the term itself, as the term does indeed have negative connotations, for the same reason that terms such as "Nazi" or "terrorist" have negative connotations. The arguments about U.S. federal taxes that Hovind has tried to make in court (some of which are mentioned and documented in the Wikipedia article) are indeed classic tax protester arguments. Famspear (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll add that one "bizarre" argument is cited the US Department of Justice's "Criminal Tax Manual" in the "Illegal Tax Protester" section 40.05[4][b].[4] Hovind v. Kelly (No. 3:96CV579/RV) was his lawsuit against the IRS agents investigating him. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
And from the Tax Bankruptcy Court's "Supplemental Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law: "The evidence presented at the hearing paints a clear portrait of a tax protester..." and "While in his correspondence to the IRS he denies being a tax protester, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes otherwise."BiologicalMe (talk) 00:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. It doesn't matter whether Kent likes the term or not, it still applies based on the definition. Furthermore, I don't really think the term is directly derogatory. I agree with using it. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Consensus for changes?

Just to check where we are on this... do we have consensus to make these changes to the lede or are there any significant objections to the most recent version? Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to suggest on more change. Drop change "private schools" to "schools". He did at least one event at a public school (current reference #106 [5]). Otherwise, this works for me.BiologicalMe (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Okay, change made... I'll place the new lede on the main article space... it can always be withdrawn. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 11:21, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Jacob's proposal

Okay so it says in the Wiki rules that you must provide a neural point of veiw and you must have reliable resources. SO why is it that the first paragraph only discredits Kent Hovind and only provides what his opposition thinks of him? They say his views are dismissed by the scientific community but where is the cite? The part of the scientific community that disagrees with his views of how the world is 6000 years old and was created by God is just shy above 50%, the facts that he provides in his seminars cannot be denied by the scientific community because they come straight from the scientific community, so why would they say this and why was that paragraph accepted by the articles editors?

They even say his his scholarship is a pseudo-scholarship, that means they are literally saying that his scholarship is a sham, and of coarse they do not provide a cite nor any evidence of this. They also continue to say that his arguments have been abandoned in the movement. Multiple questions for this one, Where is the cite? How would they know? And why is this even in the article? Please editors, follow the rules I beg of you. Please stop allowing such biased edits into the article, why would they only provide things that degrade him and not the positive things that are said about him? Why do they only cite from his opposers? I do not disagree wit everything thing in the article, just the opinions and bais that are directed towards him that are not permitted to be there by wikipedia.

Here's an edit that I am suggesting to replace the current paragraph:



The reason I say mainstream is because it is what is commonly accepted by the scientific community. The reason I say he provides scientific evidence, theories, quotes, and biblical scriptures is because thats what he does for instance, he quoted Adolf Hitler, and he provides scientific evidence such as what is found here in the section I created: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CanadianLinuxUser#Kent_Hovind.2C_Unscientific.3F Hovind also uses theories such as the flood theory, and the Hovind theory, and his primary goal is to prove the bible to be true. I also say he received much criticism form both Creationist and Evolutionists is because people such as Michael Shermer and Kyle Frazier criticize him or at least disagree with him. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

No As I said to you before, Hovind misrepresents or is not intellectually equipped to understand scientific claims. I gave you an example with supernova. --NeilN talk to me 19:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
There are too many things wrong with your proposal to discuss it in depth. Suffice it to say, you have misrepresented the due weight afforded by our sources. "Evolutionists" is not a proper label. Theory means something different in science than the way you are applying it. Youtube is not a reliable source, and primary sources are to be avoided. Basically, this is not "neutral" in the way wikipedia uses that word.   — Jess· Δ♥ 20:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
It could be worse: yes, we have formed an objective judgment that he's a charlatan, but unlike the last group of people to form this judgment, we don't have the power to lock him up. Guy (Help!) 20:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid it is worse than that, Kent Hovind as well as Ken Ham truly believe what they are peddling. As it states on their websites, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information." They are utterly blind to anything outside the Bible. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Just as well for them that the Bible isn't riddled with contradictions and provable historical inaccuracies then. Guy (Help!) 22:50, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
"We have formed an objective opinion that Hovind is a charlatan." That statement is not true in the slightest. I don't think he's a full-on charlatan. Sure, he's ridiculous, but I don't particularly dislike the man. To say we all are of the consensus that he's a charlatan is deceptive. I find that some of you are a little too harsh on him, imo. He's just some guy who believes the earth is 6000 years old and likes to share that belief. So what? Let's just edit this article in a disinterested tone, and move on. I'd prefer if this page doesn't turn into a Hovind-bashing fest. Let's relax. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, let's take this point by point...

  • The lede is a summary of the main body of text. See MOS:INTRO
  • As such, citations are generally not used in the lede. See WP:LEADCITE
  • YouTube as a reliable source... the relevant policy here is WP:NOYT. If these videos are on Hovind's official channel, they can be used (with care) as primary sources. This would require extremely careful use with a reliable secondary source within a section in the main body of text... absolutely no original synthesis of ideas is permitted. See WP:PRIMARY I cannot imagine a situation where a primary source from a YouTube channel would ever be appropriate in a lede.
  • With regards to Hovind's lack of acceptance in the scientific community... there are a number of citations in the main body testifying this fact. There are no references available that counter this... he is rejected utterly by the scientific community.
  • Pseudo-scholarship is entirely appropriate here. This is how his work is viewed. For instance, he uses a "doctorate" awarded by an unaccredited institution as a claim of authority... this is not considered acceptable in the scientific community. The reasons why are ably explained in List of animals with fraudulent diplomas. Accreditation of educational bodies is extremely important as it gives some guarantee of quality.
  • Neutrality is all important on Wikipedia, but it does not mean we give equal balance to all viewpoints. See WP:VALID.

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:55, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann jess, the main reason why I am wanting to post this article is because the lede ONLY uses what critics think of Kent Hovind such as "Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. Moreover, he has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organisations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement.".
This is not neutral, because it takes sides with his opposers only, and only quotes them. For instance, Chuck Missler is a scientist and biblical scholar who has the same views as Hovind - other than Hovind's personal theories - but Chuck Missler is not mentioned in the article though he is apart of the scientific community, only the opposers of Hovind are mentioned. Yes Hovind has people in the scientific community that disagree with him be he also has people in the scientific community that agree with him.
It also says that his arguments are discredited, that means that what they're saying is Kent Hovinds views are unreliable or seem to be false. Thats not neutral, and I suggest a change because in this the current lede they give their personal opinion towards Hovind. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 14:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
You haven't read what I've written. Please actually read our policies.   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Chuck Missler does not appear to be a scientist. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
When you say critics, it basically means the reality-based community. I don't think the world cares about whether he's kind to his mother, the fact is that he's a convicted criminal and self-aggrandising science denier. Guy (Help!) 15:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest another proposal for a new introduction paragraph. I have read the terms and I do believe that this would be an improvement.


I apologize if some of my previous edits have not complied with Wiki rules. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Better, but it still has a lot of the same problems, and I don't think it's an improvement over the current wording. This proposal entirely removes the reception of Hovind's idea by the scientific community, for example, which is not allowed per our policies. I'm not clear: what's the goal of a rewrite now? The current lead is already pretty short.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:34, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Mann_jess I do believe that you may have misunderstood what I have said in the article. I mentioned that he "claims" but I did not say he was right or wrong. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry... I'm confused. I have no idea how this comment relates to mine, above it. Have I missed something?   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Mann_jess Perhaps I should have explained myself. You sent me a link to Fringe Theory so this suggestest that I was using an idea that is only accepted by a small minority. I then responded "I mentioned that he "claims" but I did not say he was right or wrong", I thought you were saying that I am using bias towards a specific scientific belief.
Now that I have gotten that out of the way, I would like point out what you said in your reply. You said "This proposal entirely removes the reception of Hovind's idea by the scientific community", I would like to ask why would this would need to be in the summary/lede if it does not describe who Kent Hovind is but rather describes what the scientific community thinks of him. The reader can find these claims by reading later in the article but I do not believe that it should be mentioned in the lede. For instance, if a student was wanting to write an essay on Kent Hovind they would not want to know what others think of him, but rather his life, accomplishments, goals and current status.
Oh and if wording was an issue, I changed "many" to "multiple" and "...are false." to "...have been falsified." if it helps. Thanks! Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
"...if a student was wanting to write an essay on Kent Hovind they would not want to know what others think of him...." That's incorrect. How a person's ideas are received by others in the field is also important. As I've said above, Hovind's ideas aren't particularly unique. It's the reaction to these ideas that provoke independent sources to cover him and make him notable. Also, you're ignoring WP:LEAD again. Please read the first two paragraphs. --NeilN talk to me 23:38, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, by summarizing Hovind's views without discussing their reception, we are giving his ideas all the weight, and the scientific community none. That's nearly the opposite of what we are compelled, by policy, to do.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The policy says that the lede must be a summary of the article and must discuss the most important points, that does not mean to put the opinions directed towards Hovind in the lede. And I am not saying in the article that the scientific community is wrong, I am saying what Kent is claiming. And giving weight means to say that I am claiming he is right, or has more knowledge than the scientific community which is not what is my suggestion. Plus claiming that I am doing so means that the current lede must be redone because it says that Hovind's views are "dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship." 74.131.160.213 (talk) 19:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry, Jacob, but you're not understanding our policies as they're written. I wish I could help, but I've explained it the best I can. You are giving his ideas (which are fringe) more weight than their reception (the scientific community's opinion), and we can't do that. Also, the reception of his ideas in the scientific community is a significant part of the topic, not just a tangential detail we can skip. My best advice is to spend some time working on articles in another topic until you get a little more experience with how our policies are applied - ask all the questions you'd like - and then come back to this article with a fresh perspective. That's honestly the best advice I can give. Good luck!   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:33, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Mann_jess So what can I do to have my edit posted? 74.131.160.213 (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Jacob, Mann jess answered your question. Based on our policies, your edit can't be posted. Thanks and have a nice day. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 19:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Mann_jess I have made changes to my edit. I have removed how he "claims many theories in the scientific community have been falsified" and I have replaced it with "has travelled all around the world preaching on creation, evolution, and dinosaurs". I am sorry I have been a little misunderstanding but I wasn't really 100% sure what you meant by "my edit is weighted" but now I am pretty sure I understand. I knew what weighted meant I just didn't know how my edit was weighted until now. Thanks! Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jacob. It's coming along, but here's the problem: the fundamental purpose of your edits, as far as I can tell, is to remove discussion of the scientific community from the lead. We cannot accommodate that goal for the reasons I've explained above. Unfortunately, no slight wording adjustment is ever going to fix that problem. You're trying really hard to accomplish something that can't be accomplished. Sorry, again, I really wish I could help, but it's really best to move on. We can revisit this topic again at some point in the future.   — Jess· Δ♥ 19:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Mann_jess I have added "...and has sparked much controversy among the scientific community." If wording is an issue, just let me know. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 20:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
It isn't the wording; it's the non-concordance with the article. This proposal is long past dead. Drop it.BiologicalMe (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
BiologicalMe I am aware that it is not the wording, but is the non-concordance. That is why I am trying to correct my suggestion. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 20:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
You aren't going to fix it by parroting the Hovind narrative. It is flagrant. Describing his conviction on 58 counts of willful non-payment of taxes, obstruction, and structuring as "charged with structuring" is not related to the content of the article. The article mentions nothing about potential sentencing for upcoming charges (nor would it ever), yet you proposal does, and it is straight out of the pre-trial Hovind propaganda. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, so your best course of action is to stop right now.BiologicalMe (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Hold on, I wouldn't say Jacob is trying to "spread Hovind propaganda" (even if he is, very likely, a sympathizer of Hovind's.), I don't think he needs to "drop it". We should all be accepting of someone's proposal and I think Jacob makes some ok points. Let him adjust them a bit and have his say. No need to attempt to silence the guy, let him speak. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
BiologicalMe, Mann_jess If my lede suggestion is not accepted at this time, may I request some changes for the first paragraph and the "Criticism from creations" section. May you please remove the criticism from Answers in Genesis because in reference 52 they have said "The website of Creation Science Evangelism (CSE) has been completely revamped and it no longer espouses a number of the “don’t use arguments” defended by Kent Hovind in 2002. We are really pleased to report these developments. We considered removing our article altogether". http://creation.com/maintaining-creationist-integrity-response-to-kent-hovind Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

We used to mention that update in the article, but I'm not seeing it anymore. We need to be careful because "Kent Hovind" is not "CSE", but since we're discussing the issue already, there shouldn't be any problem with also mentioning the CSE's update.   — Jess· Δ♥ 21:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Given Kent Hovind was not running CSE at the time of the update, I don't see that is an argument. We still describe how AiG and CMI split, and AiG withdrew it at that point. We also have AiG's dismissal of the $250,000 challenge. Dropping "like AIG" from the lead might be appropriate.
On the other hand, I am am quite familiar with the current Hovind propaganda, and the points I mentioned made were straight out of it. The proposed text derived from the propaganda and had nothing, whatsoever, to do with the text of the article. That sort of advocacy is completely unacceptable.BiologicalMe (talk) 22:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I'm kind of torn on how much AiG's update relates to Hovind, but their update definitely relates to the criticism they leveled against the CSE. It might be worth contextualizing their update ("...retracted their criticism in 20xx, after Hovind had left the CSE", or whatever). My recollection is that Hovind's current ideas are not 100% consistent with the CSE or his son anymore (but I might be wrong), so Hovind may still be promoting the ideas they criticized... I don't know. I do like that we have an example of "like AiG", and I'd hesitate to remove it and render the sentence so vague.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2009 retraction was by CMI which had been part of AiG pre-split (2006). What I had taken out of the article was Hovind as the focus of the split, because the sources don't support that. What about a verb tense change: "had been criticized"?BiologicalMe (talk) 22:52, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
A wording change would not be correct for the article because it is labeled under "criticism from creationists", not "past criticism from creationists". A removal of the "he is criticised by Answers in Genesis" comment in the lede and "criticism from creationists" section would be necessary because CMI has said that their previous comments are now no longer relevant. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 01:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The fact the he had been too "out there" for other other Creationists remains a defining characteristic of his pre-prison career.BiologicalMe (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
First, it is in poor taste to modify your post after it has been replied to. Second, as noted above, Kent Hovind is not CSE. Third, even if they had changed their minds, a controversy with reliable coverage would not expire after the a resolution.BiologicalMe (talk) 01:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm okay with the controversy staying, but it should not be in the lede. And in the "Criticism from creationists" paragraph, should be edited it so that the people can see that CMI has noticed that CSE has changed, and that CMI is no longer criticizing CSE. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Except, they are. While they have softened their stance, "...it no longer espouses a number..." is not a ringing endorsement. There are reliable secondary sources that emphasize the "man bites dog" nature of the rift, which makes it suitable for the lead. I am yet to find any that support the concept that there was any reconciliation or even a ceasefire. A comment that they CMI eased back in 2009 might be in order, but so far the only thing supporting it would be the primary source.BiologicalMe (talk) 21:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
May I edit it to show that CSE has corrected themselves and CMI has acknowledged this correction? It will be very misleading to say that they are being criticized by CMI at the moment.

May I also suggest that Old Earth Creationists and Young Earth Creationists be separated because the two sides have opposing views that in no way agree with each other. I suggest this because it says in the article "Kent Hovind is criticized by fellow creationists" then it mentions an Old Earth Creationist that has an opposing world view and is not, in this case, a "fellow creationist" due to the opposite ideas. Old Earth Creationists believe the same thing as Evolutionists, the difference is that they believe God did it all. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

What we really need to do is incorporate the criticism into the article, not separate the content into even more "criticism sections". Anyway, regarding AiG's criticism, we should be careful not to imply that Kent Hovind adjusted his position, or that the CSI no longer finds his views objectionable. We should keep the topic on Hovind, and adjustments made regarding an organization he is no longer are a part of may not be relevant. In the body, it might make sense to say "...In 20xx, Eric Hovind updated the CSE's official position, and the CSI amended their statement to say "xxxx"." I don't know that belongs in the lead unless we can show a tie to Kent.   — Jess· Δ♥ 18:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with you Jess Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 19:03, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Hovind/Archive_10&oldid=1079704470"