Talk:Kent Hovind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015[edit]

"unaccreditated" should be inserted before "private Baptist schools, including one he started." Mookiewak (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Is there a source that describes them as "unaccredited"? Stickee (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for including anything. I just felt like doing some research. Longview Christian Academy, (Longview, TX) is a K-5 - 12th school. Texas Baptist College,(Longview, TX) is still run by Longview Baptist Temple, but now called Texas Independent Baptist Seminary & Schools [1], it isn't accredited. [[2]][3]. Realize these aren't RS, but it's tough to cite the non-existence of something. Calvary Baptist Christian School (Fairfield, CA) is a K-5 - 12th school. The one he started, Bethel Baptist Academy (Pekin, Illinois), doesn't appear to exist, at least under that name, anymore. It was likely also grade/high school as it shows up on classmate finding sites. (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I will advise that you not put the cart before the horse. You need to complete the research before making an edit. I've been able to find indirect evidence of the existence of Bethel Bible Academy: an obituary including a reference to teaching there.[4] I've also seen alumni forums and evidence of yearbooks. That said, even if you could show by an exhaustive search that none of the institutions were accredited (which would not be surprising), could you get it into a format a reader could readily examine? That is the criterion of WP:Verifiability. This is not easy. I've been researching the topic for a while, and the pickings are slim. If you are interested in doing research, be advised that there are many "dry holes". On the upside, sometimes you look for something and while you don't find it, you come across more interesting.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't arguing for including anything, wasn't interested in making an edit. Grade/high schools aren't "accredited" in the first place. He taught at an unaccredited college, Texas Baptist College (now known as Texas Independent Baptist Seminary & Schools), but again, citing a RS for an absence of something is tricky. Mookiewak's requested edit wouldn't make much sense as written when Hovind's teaching at grade/high schools are lumped into a comment about accreditation. I put the cart before the horse merely to illustrate if it's a cart worth pulling. (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, many private and religious schools, at all levels, are accredited,[5] so the adjective "unaccredited" is not meaningless. If a strong source, one likely to have done the research to exhaustion and stating the conclusion, had been published, that would support the edit. I concur that there no supporting grounds for the edit. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
All the degrees we list, are form unaccredited institutions, I have checked the sources. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

infobox biography vcard[edit]

--TaSwavo (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the infobox biography vcard for this page

It clearly emphasising issues the poster wanted mentioning as DEFINING issues in this person's life. Important yes, that is why they should and have to remain in the body of the text - but not defining. They must exist in the body of the text. But I think not a MAIN items in infobox biography vcard

You look at Wesley Snipes and some other celebrity people that have been criminals. Their criminal issues DO NOT exist in their infobox biography vcard entry.

But they do not exist as entries in their text. As they should be. As facts.

I think this guy (Hovind) is wrong on almost all he believes. But this is a matter of Wikipedia solidity. This is victimization. The facts may be true - but the positioning is WRONG! And not done on other pages. This is not IN the definition of a person who is Wesley Snipes (infobox biography vcard) - but it is for this record? Very poor Not OK. The person that added it THERE needs not to be able to do that. We shouldn't do it for Mick Jagger (lots of well know people have criminal record but we don't put it as 40% of their 'main' left statement) or other well known people. This guy is wrong - but should not be treated unlike others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaSwavo (talkcontribs) 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

What is an infobox biography vcard? --Ebyabe talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 22:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Infobox. Ravensfire (talk) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Based upon the preponderance of reliable sources, the infobox is appropriate. Coverage of legal battles accompanies, if not overshadows, many accounts of the subject's other activities. The argument that some people have had run-ins with the law that do not define their notability does not imply that all persons who have been convicted of felonies (Wesley Snipes, used as an example, was only convicted on misdemeanor counts) are not most notable for criminal activity; while The Expendables 3 may not have had the success of the Blade trilogy, reliable sources indicate that Wesley Snipes's incarceration was a hiatus in his Hollywood career. To use an example from the other extreme, Bernie Madoff would have been notable for his career (e.g. on the NASD board) if his financial criminal activity did not overshadow his accomplishments. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Another attempt at fringe pushing[edit]

[6] "...flaws in various theories..." that are pointed out in the Bible, no doubt. --NeilN talk to me 04:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Impartial tone Policy shortcut:


Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

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.

Current article does not come up to standard. I will report anyone who engages in edit warring.

Rolusty33 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)rolusty33

WP:FRINGE: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." We clearly label Hovind's views as fringe and treat them that way per the guideline. Junk science does not get equal billing with mainstream science. --NeilN talk to me 04:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit in question gives no undue precedence to Creation Science over Evolution as if it were proven fact. Reference to :WP:FRINGE: irrelevant. Article fails to comply with standards of :NPOV: in tone and information of subject.

See first post. Who's saying there are flaws? Hovind and his junk science. And he's not dismissed by only "evolutionary scientists". --NeilN talk to me 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't edit this wiki!? ...strange.[edit]

Why do my edits keep getting rollback my? I don't it's a fair statement to say that the entire scientific community discredits all of Kent Hovind's claims. Michaelcadcock (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Statistics on this would be interesting, but I'd wager that the number of scientists who agree with Hovind is incredibly small in comparison to the number of those who think his claims are completely incorrect. There is a very similar debate on Talk:Ken Ham. Ultimately, Hovind's views are overruled by overwhelming evidence and the vast majority of the scientific community, so saying it's just a few scientists who have a different opinion than him is intellectually dishonest. clpo13(talk) 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see... Thanks for the clarification. Michaelcadcock (talk)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcadcock (talkcontribs) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hovind's Federal tax convictions[edit]

It's amusing that some people are so bothered by the fact that Hovind is a tax protester, and that he was convicted of Federal tax crimes in addition to the structuring convictions. Just since early October, we have seen several edits, obviously made in attempts to remove mention (mainly at the beginning of the article) of Hovind's tax convictions, here: [7]; [8]; [9]; [10]; [11]; [12]; [13]; [14]; [15].

To those who are having a such hard time with the truth of Hovind's past: Wake up. Hovind's convictions are a matter of public record, and are accurately reported in the article. Famspear (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)