Jump to content

Talk:Kent Hovind

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by K Watson1984 (talk | contribs) at 10:30, 12 September 2007 (reference). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive
Archives

Bogus Categories

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

Conspiracy theorist and pseudoscience are supported by reliable sources. I don't see evidence of a scandal, so would consider removing the scandal categories, but, because of this specific edit, but I haven't reread the entire article recently. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What definition of the word "scandal" would not include conviction on 58 federal charges resulting in a 10-year prison sentence? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I don't see a WP:RS that used the word "scandal", but it seems close enough. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Word

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

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

Boo-hoo. I guess you've never heard of WP:AGF, or perhaps you've heard of it but decided acting like a brat gets you more attention. Whatever the reason, your tone is completely unwarranted, as are your accusations. Perhaps instead of wailing about changes you made being reverted, you should try to establish a consensus on this talk page. I'm also curious how someone can support neither creation nor evolution. I assume there is a third option when it comes to origins of life? --Agamemnon2 06:47, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His opinions about evolution and creationism aren't really relevant for the discussion of his changes. Let's talk about the changes themselves. I assume that they were reverted because he added uncited material and deleted cited material—although, I don't see a reference for the following claim:
"Hovind has no recognized teaching credentials nor academic degrees from accredited universities in the subjects he taught."
This claim is very likely true, but needs a citation. As for the anonymous editor's contribution:
"...because he believes the American schooling system to have been irreparably corrupted."
This text cannot be added unless we have a reference stating that Hovind purposely avoided accredited schools for exactly this reason. Phiwum 16:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, his opinions have nothing to do with why I reverted his edit, as you rightly pointed out it was because he added uncited content and removed cited. Though on that last point, while patriot being unaccredited is fairly uncontroversial and cited in numerous places in this article and others, looking further into the matter I was unable (after an admittedly superficial search) to find a direct reference to Midwestern Baptist College being unaccredited. The best I could come up with is the fact that it is not in this database of accredited US tertiary institutions. ornis 02:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not Hovind choose to get an accredited degree is beside the point (for the record, I doubt it was a choice). Accreditation is done privately it is not state controlled, and there are 3 Christian accreditors. Most seminaries and theological schools are accredited. That his degree is not accredited means it is worthless to anyone outside the place he received it. As such, it is important.
If something is incorrect let us know and it will be fixed. C56C 16:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That his degree is not accredited means it is worthless to anyone outside the place he received it. - FALSE Harvard was unaccredited for decades. It does not mean a degree from Harvard was worthless.
  • Most seminaries and theological schools are accredited. - I would like to see your references or statistics to back this up. I think this may not be true. I believe many "Christian" schools are not accredited or were not accredited when they started out.
  • Accreditation is done privately, it is not state controlled. - This is disingenuous. If a school is accredited by some "private" accrediting body then it is often considered unaccredited or lacking valid accreditation. There are many Christian accrediting bodies that oversee schools, but most are not given validity by outside (state) agencies. Ursasapien (talk) 09:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Confusing statement needs clarification

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

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

Neutrality?

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

The edit you reverted to was anything but an "innocent attempt to correct the balance", it was unsourced POV pushing by one of his supporters. The most notable things about Hovind, are his legal troubles, and his near total ignorance of even the basics of the subjects he lectured about. Every occurrence of the terms unaccredited or accredited, is justified, as they are all attached either to the specific institutions he ( or in one instance his son ) attended, a statement demonstrating he has no qualifications in the subjects he teaches, an explanations of why his doctoral dissertation should be available to the public, or explanations of the terms themselves. As for his religion, I don't have any issues with changing it to Independent Baptist, and born again, it's all the same to me. Why does it seem to be antagonistic to the subject? Well the subject is fairly antagonistic to begin with, it just states the facts, and unfortunately those don't speak much in his favour. ornis (t) 10:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "unsourced POV pushing by one of his supporters," please assume good faith. I do not know this man nor much about his life or case. I can clearly see that you bear a good deal of animosity toward him. Does it have to do with his creationist arguments, his tax evasion, or the very fact that he is a Christian? I think there is plenty to show the negative side of this man. After all, he is spending 10 years in prison and he has been criticized, even by other Young Earth creationists. Nevertheless, this article needs to be trimmed (perhaps with some sections summarized and put into sub-articles) and balanced. As Jimbo has been wont to say, "NPOV applies to everyone and WP:BLP is an important policy in cases like this." Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ursasapien, several of your recent changes appear to be POV-pushing. The "evolutionist community", for instance: Hovind's nonsense has been condemned by experts in relevant fields of science, but calling those "evolutionists" implies they're some sort of religious sect. --Robert Stevens 10:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF? Puh-lease.. did you actually read some of the crap they inserted? Here's my favourite: He is widely hold by conservative Christians as a valiant Christian and a "hero of the faith" for his work to establish people's faith in the truthfulness of the King James Version of Holy Bible. Now what would you call that but POV pushing by one of his supporters? As for my animosity, it's just his dishonesty and anti-science agenda. I've reverted those of your changes I thought violated NPOV, but for the most part they seem ok. ornis (t) 10:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding (or is it thirding?) Robert Stevens and ornis. Many of these edits are flagrantly POV. Hence our reversions/edits. --Plumbago 10:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with most of Ornis' changes and you will notice that I took a lot of the POV stuff out myself. I am all for intellectual honesty and I think this article can be made NPOV. The problem with saying "scientist disagree" is that it implies universality. Does this mean that all scientist disagree? Do non-scientist agree? I think we need another word (not evolutionist or scientist). (On a side note some evolutionist do operate with all the zealousness of a religious sect.)
As an example, this edit:
"The park depicts humans and dinosaurs co-existing in the last 4,000-6,000 years and also contains a depiction of the Loch Ness monster, and depicts humans and dinosaurs coexisting."
Talk about redundant just to make a point. And why do evolutionists anti-creationists people with an opposing view seem to have ownership of guardianship over this article. Ursasapien (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops... that was my mistake, I've reverted that. As for the scientific community, I would suggest a look at Level of support for evolution. 99+ percent of scientists in relevant fields and 95+ percent of all scientists... that's as damned near universal as you're going to get. ornis (t) 10:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 95-99 percent of scientist may hold to some/most components of evolution. However, 95-99 percent of scientist do not (necessarily) disagree with this one individual. It sounds like many that you would not consider scientist disagree with this guy (i.e. Ken Ham). Perhaps, "most scientists"? Ursasapien (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strike that! I re-read the section in question and it is fine. Ursasapien (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

On that note, it needs to be also included that it is a "correspondence education." Which also is unusual. Sssssdadad 01:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that I agree with you completely or in every situation, but I certainly see why this is included in the "Education" heading. Although, again, it seems pretty redundant when they call it a "diploma mill" a few lines later. Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source that Hovind is an independent Baptist? Sssssdadad 20:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His website. ornis (t) 03:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


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

Actually I disagree, because according to Wikipedia rules we (as editors and writers of the articles) must not give Undue (I don't know how to set up a link for it) weight to minority beliefs. Thus in a controversial article such as this.
A- the controversy must be explained (thus the "negative" you speak of)
B- The majority view (the criticizing of his stuff), should be given due weight. BCapp 11:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Improving this article

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

It's own article? No, there are already numerous articles on Young earth creationism, creation science, and flood geology that cover that. As for the cat's I don't know about paranormal, but the crytozoology, yes, his belief in things like, nessie and Mokele-mbembe alone qualify him for that dubious honour. ornis (t) 11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, I am looking at how to improve this article. One way is to make this article shorter and more concise. Do any of the article's on Young earth creationism, creation science, and flood geology contain details Mr. Hovind's particular theory? If so, we could add a link and summarize the section of this article. Second, I am not sure I agree that his belief that some dinosaurs may still exist puts him in the same category as the "Big Foot" believers, but I guess that is a longer discussion. Does anyone object to removing the paranormal cat? Ursasapien (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that puts him in exactly the same category as big foot believers, and in any case he talks about cryto-zoology on his website. As for his "theory", what you see is what you get, the elements it has in common with YEC and flood geology, are better enumerated there, and the ice meteor is fringe, even by YEC standards, this is the best place for it. Also, I really don't see a problem with article's length, at seventy-one kilobytes give or take, when compared to something like Charles Darwin ( a featured article, I might add ) which is over ninety-nine kilobytes, it's not so very long at all. ornis (t) 11:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article does not include the cat for the paranormal, only the talk page. The only reason that it is so categorized is that Wikiproject Paranormal tagged this as an article they keep up. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "Prisoner" among Mr. Hovind's title. I really do hope this was okay. Simply Winter 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reverting. It's not a title. Nothing personal. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, prisoner is not job, and title is for things like, Sir, Dr, Right Honourable etc. In any case this is covered by his place of residence being a federal correctional facility. ornis (t) 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, the $250,000 challenge belongs under "legal problems", as one court required him to pay it. But I see your point. That he is presently serving a felony conviction belongs in the lead and infobox, as is done; where the details go in the article may indicate bias. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have more information about the court case? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Regarding "assault and battery" reference

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

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

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

Actually I get the f16s too, when I follow the direct link, but when I use a proxy I have no problem. Could it be something to do with being outside the US? ornis (t) 21:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just to confirm, I get redirected to the F-16s, and I am also outside the US. The proxy works fine. GSlicer (t • c) 23:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Did you read the section in question? There are two secondary sources for the claim:
ornis (t) 23:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The CSICOP article (the citation that immediately follows the court record citation) also mentions the charges, albeit very briefly. To be honest, I've never been comfortable with the prominence given to mere charges, of which Hovind was never convicted. Even more troubling is the "e-mail correspondence" cited at the end of the paragraph. The problem is that when you click on it, it doesn't look like e-mail correspondence, but is in chart form. Can we confirm that this was accurately reproduced? It's on an attack site, which I doubt can be considered a reliable source. The article claims that the e-mail is "widely available on the Internet." Perhaps TalkOrigins has a copy we could link to? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Talk origins, no. They provide a link back to www.kent-hovind.com. ornis (t) 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with removing the assault and battery stuff from the article entirely. They were dropped before ever going to trial. He should not have to continue to answer dropped charges and they are not appropriate in this article.
This article attracts considerable dispute. On one side there are people who despise the man completely and are keen for the article to include every disreputable detail. On the other hand there are people who continue see him as a martyr, and want to defend him through the article. Therefore I think we should see if there can be some kind of consensus on this point. The Wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them, lean strongly towards caution in the case of a biography of someone still living; and I think that is appropriate. My own POV is that Hovind is a charlatan and an idiot. That comes through just fine without needing to dig dirt with giving prominence to unproven charges never brought to trial.
If there can be a consensus for removing the reference, then it should be replaced with a hidden comment to say that there was a consensus for removing the reference to assault and battery. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 00:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all for removing the "assault and battery" etc stuff altogether. The only evidence that it is still of any relevance is, as Quartunciae says, in an alleged email from the victim published on an attack site, which is not a reliable enough source for such a serious claim. If it stays, then the court order/F-16 reference should be re-added, with a note that it might not work for people outside of the US. Thanks for debugging the problem, guys. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 06:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The charges are plain as day at the court's database and are in the CSICOP article. I don't think there is any reason to doubt the court and/or Committee for Skeptical Inquiry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wqqqs123 (talk • contribs) 21:44, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

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

What are you talking about? The man is a crook and a felon. He lacks a valid education. He accepts donation though he does not run a non-profit. He lacks real credentials in ANY field he talks about. Despite all this, he attacks real academics and scientists.
Reality is not biased. What are you suggestions to make it "neutral"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wqqqs123 (talk • contribs).
Everyone knows reality has a strong liberal bias. ornis (t) 22:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The anonymous contributor makes a comment similar to others on this talk page. Like those comments, he fails to explain how exactly this article does not neutrally reflect the reliable sources about the subject. In fact, the article is probably not a neutral representation of the man's life and career. With "arguments" like "Monkeys are still having babies, why don't they have a human today?" he is a joke among evolutionary biologists. With his support for conspiracy theories, quack cancer cures and discredited cryptozoology urban legends, he is an embarrassment to creationists. A "fair" article would be much more negative. Hovind (and his supporters) are lucky that His conviction on tax charges in connection with using some of the flakier tax-protestor arguments are simply icing on the cake. Even if we were to throw WP:NPOV out the window, how precisely would we make a silk purse out of this particular sow's ear.

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

Removing the assault and battery material entirely

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

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

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

Fair enough I suppose. ornis (t) 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the right thing to do. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should have stayed. The assault was mentioned by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry[1] and Christianity Today[2] as well as being linked to the court records, which documents it. Wqqqs123 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, so do I, but DQ is right, in a BLP we should exercise a little discretion. ornis (t) 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Combining Financial Information

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

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

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

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

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

Dinosaur Adventure Land

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

The notability of a business isn't necessarily related to its size. I suspect that any notability DAL has would be drawn directly from the infamy of dr dino. ornis (t) 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So that's a "go for it"? I'm a bit confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamanderson (talk • contribs)

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

Not many businesses were shut down because they were never properly zoned. I think it should be kept here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it will be fine. I mean, I'll surely include Kent Hovind's name in the article, and that would link back to this page. So the people could get here by searching "Dinosaur Adventure Land", easily. However, I know this sounds naive, but I don't know how to prevent "Dinosaur Adventure Land" from sending you to this page. Can somebody help?
I see... that being the case, perhaps it might be wise if you started something in a sandbox first, then when you feel it is ready to go into article space, leave a note here so we can have a look, and make sure it's properly sourced and formatted. ornis (t) 04:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DAL doesn't need its own article. There's not enough material to warrant it. Anyway since the property is going to be taken away for owed debt, it would be merged back here shortly regardless. Wqqqs123 21:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'll make something in the sandbox. Also, you're speculating that Dinosaur Adventure Land is going to be reposessed, but it hasn't happened yet, and I don't think it will. Besides, even if it does, that's just more to write about in the Wikipedia article.

He is inmate number ....

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

DarthSidious 12:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)DarthSidious[reply]

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

Adding Prisoner as a title

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

I'm afraid prisoner is not an occupation (at least for most people, probably even most prisoners). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed prisoner from Jeffrey Skilling's occupation, as well. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with editor Arthur Rubin. "Prisoner" does not seem like an occupation to me, at least not in the ordinary sense. Famspear 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SimplyJessica, and welcome! You might notice the conversation with similarly named User:Simply Winter, above, that explains why adding "prisoner" is not good editing. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, but the account User:Simply Winter is also my account. I forgot my username and registered this account. SimplyJessica 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

May Need Attention

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've just reverted a set of POV edits by a creationist, hence some of the changes you mention are now gone ("which indeed they are", "respondent did not submit science worthy evidence" etc). --Robert Stevens 09:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Although I generally agree with much of your revert, please be careful regarding your descriptions. You have no idea of the previous editors beliefs regarding evolution. You may have some basis for your assumption that the "POV edits" were done "by a creationist," but your statement seems unecessarily perjorative to me. Ursasapien (talk) 09:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was someone pushing a creationist POV, I for one can't think of anyone but a creationist who would do that can you? ornis (t) 10:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The editor inserted pro-Hovind POV in the article. You insist on making the article as anti-Hovind as possible. However, I would be wrong to infer that you were a godless anti-theist just because you are biased against Mr. Hovind. By the way, I noticed that we do not put the Gomel Chesed Cemetery as the "residence" of Allen Ginsberg or even the low security federal prison in Waseca, Minnesota as the "residence" for Jeffrey Skilling. However, in the latter they have a "convictions" category because they use the "Infobox Criminal" template. Perhaps we should use that on this article. Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

My issue has little to do with being pro or con of Hovind. I think "Infobox Criminal" is perfectly apt, although I see your point that his criminal activity is not his primary source of notability (I would argue that he may not have achieved the notability to be in an encyclopedia if it were not for his criminal behavior). My issue is it seems like a silly use of the "residence" category/line. We do not list the cemetery as the "residence" for deceased individuals. Could you point to one other biography in Wikipedia where the subject's residence is listed as a prison? Ursasapien (talk) 04:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is relevant. It's a somewhat unusual place for a person to be. I think this case is unusual already, so looking for similar cases is beside the point. What is silly or not is a subjective call. The actual description of the "residence" field in this infobox is
Residence: Location where the person resides, if notable.
It is one of the fields which would often not be used at all; but in this case the location where he resides is extremely notable. I'd say it is an ideal way to give important encyclopedic information in the box that is intended to be a brief summary of just this kind of broad detail. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 05:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think listing the prison in which he is incarcerated as his residence is patently ridiculous and requires a special reading of the infobox description . . . YMMV. I think this is evidenced by the inability to point to a single example of where this is done elsewhere. Regardless, I have run out of energy. This article, as with so many other creationism-related articles, is tirelessly defended by editors with a POV agenda but this gentleman has given his critics more than enough ammunition. From this point on, my only edit to this article will be to maintain the NPOV tag until the article rises to some degree of neutrality. Ursasapien (talk) 05:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Banning Controversy

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

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Hovind&oldid=157348790"