Talk:Kent Hovind

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

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: [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]; [5]; [6]; [7]; [8]; [9].

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)

Here is yet another one of these edits: [10]. Famspear (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet another: [11]. Famspear (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They're still at it: [12]. Famspear (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another: [13] Famspear (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently under pending-changes protection, which means these edits are annoying and require manual rollback, but mostly invisible to readers. Should it be bumped up to semi-protection? DMacks (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
This article is probably always going to be an advocacy magnet. Semi-protection for a couple of months would not be a bad thing, tho, imho. --Ebyabe talk - Welfare State ‖ 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi'ed 3 months. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Section needed for the article on why Kent Hovind's ministry was selected for tax prosecution and other creation ministries were not. IOW there are many ministries that have workers who are tax free.75.120.185.250 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Alright. And what source discusses this? Please keep in mind wikipedia is not a place for original research.   — Jess· Δ 16:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
No, there are not "many ministries" that have workers that are "tax free." Hovind was not selected for prosecution because of his ministry. You're repeating the big lie that some of Hovind's followers have been perpetrating over the years. The evidence against Hovind was overwhelming. He was a cheater, and he got caught.
The vast majority of people who commit U.S. Federal tax crimes are never even charged -- but that has nothing to do with "ministries" or "creation ministries." I know. I've been studying the subject for many years. The vast majority of people who are KNOWN by the Internal Revenue Service to have committed Federal tax crimes are never even charged. Let that sink in. Famspear (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Another one: [14]. Famspear (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

And another one: [15]. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
And another one: [16]. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More than a two week hiatus,[17] but it doesn't seem to be stopping. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is currently set at pending-changes to prevent these sorts of things from becoming visible in the live article. If there's a sense that semiprotection (completely preventing IPs from editing it) would be worthwhile, please say so. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Can't see the point personally, but wouldn't argue further than that, or complain if page protection was increased. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
I think pending-changes level is sufficient for now. If the pace picks up again, it would be time to reconsider. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another one: [18].... yaawwwwwn.... Famspear (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another: [19]. Famspear (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More nonsense: [20]. Famspear (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Mug shot redux[edit]

Per WP:MUG mugshots cannot be used out of context to misrepresent the individual. The image cannot be used in the info box as he is not known primarily for being a criminal, but for his eccentric views. The image is appropriately used in the section relevant to its creation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • I would dispute that he is just as known about his criminal record as creationist views. How does the mug shot give a false or disparaging light impression of Hovind or is taken out of context? I wouldlike to get the opinion of other people's thoughts on whether the mug shot of Kent Hovind should be removed from the infobox. Unless a current photo can be provided, it should stay as it is relevant to the article.--Cms13ca (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)--Cms13ca (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Even "just as known" is NOT "primarily known" - particularly since the shot appears to be from an incident not at all related to the tax arrest. And no, we most certainly do not throw out BLP because the subject doesn't provide us with a good photo. That is just insane blackmail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
This is something we've already talked about a lot. My opinion might be a little different if the photo actually looked like a mugshot, but it doesn't. It looks like a normal photo against the wall. I don't see how it's being taken out of context, or that it's representing Kovind as a criminal. I don't think it's doing either of those things. I do think having a photo of Hovind in his bio is important; he's a public speaker, and a recognizable portrait is significant to his bio.   — Jess· Δ 16:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
No, there is NO EXCEPTION for "if the mug shot does not look like a mug shot it can be used willy nilly." Mug shots can only be used within appropriate context. In this instance the context is the Escambia County arrest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Please stick to the actual policy text and do not make up your own. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Looking at the photo, there's nothing about it that presents Hovind in a false or disparaging light. --NeilN talk to me 17:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
OF COURSE utilizing a MUG SHOT as the primary identification is presenting the subject in a disparaging light. And anyone with a slow connection sees the MUG SHOT title of the image as it is loading. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There are an infinitesimal number of cases where mugshots should be used. This is not one of them. Collect (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The policy does not say "don't use mugshots" or even "avoid mugshots when possible". The policy says don't use photos "to present a person in a false or disparaging light." If the photo is not recognizable as a mugshot, then it is not "false or disparaging". TRPoD, what if we change the photo name? Then viewers on a slow connection won't see "mugshot" before the image loads. Frankly, I don't think that's a problem to begin with - a very substantial part of this article is now about his conviction, but if we rename the photo, it'll be even less recognizable. Would that work for you?   — Jess· Δ 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
IMO - We should not include a mugshot, even if it is the only image we have of his face. Whether the reader can determine if the image is a mugshot or not isn't relevant. It may not appear like a mugshot to you, but it may to other readers. The fact is, it is a mugshot and should not be added, especially to the infobox. Meatsgains (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Include unless a free alternate one is available. If he was only arrested then NO, but he was convicted. It doesn't even matter as the photo is a crop of a mugshot, and isn't recognizable as one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I edited and renamed the photo. It is now less noisy and in no way can be determined to be a mugshot. It's still a low-quality photo, so I'd still love to replace it with something else, but it's all we have available at the moment.   — Jess· Δ 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Since he is so litigious I do not recommend using a copyrighted fair-use image as an alternative. It is not an unflattering image like the mugshot of Nick Nolte. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Which you know because you researched where the image came from, not from looking at the image. I don't see how his face could be out of context for his bio. It isn't a portrait of him in a jumpsuit. He isn't holding a placard. It isn't a silly or stupid photo that makes him look bad. If we took a photo of him at Disney World, that wouldn't be taking the photo out of context because "he usually isn't at Disney World". Yes, this photo happens to have been taken while he was incarcerated. It isn't our fault as editors that he was incarcerated, and we aren't trying to hide that fact (it's right in the lede!). But this photo doesn't portray him as a convict. It's just a portrait.   — Jess· Δ 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Red Pen of Doom's comment, I don't have an opinion about the mug shot issue, but just about everyone with whom I interact who has heard of Hovind (outside of Wikipedia) probably knows of Hovind because of his criminal background, not because of his views about evolution, creation, etc. I myself had never heard of the guy until he popped up on my radar for his criminal troubles. However, I hang out with weird people (i.e., people who are really into the study of U.S. federal criminal tax law). I guess it could be difficult to determine what he is primarily "known for" today -- without doing some sort of survey or poll. Just my two cents worth...... Famspear (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

If he is "primarily " noted as a tax criminal then 3/4 of our article needs to be cut. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The image can be used in the section about his arrest, but not in the infobox.- Cwobeel (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

  • While normally not OK, this mugshot is ok because: (1) It is flattering; (2) it is not obviously a mugshot; (3) he was indeed convicted, with the fact featuring significantly in the article, including the lede and main infobox. Presuming that this image is the only reasonable quality free portrait of Kent, and noting an abundance of portraits on the web, the subject should be invited to provide an alternative. A similar portrait, but wearing a jacket and tie, would be good for all. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Several people supposedly in contact with Hovind have been here and we've made the offer to replace the image to each one. If my recollection severs, Hovind was supposedly contacted but had difficulty understanding copyright, and we couldn't get a suitable image released. I've never tried contacting him myself, but I suppose if someone wanted to try, that couldn't hurt.   — Jess· Δ 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think if at all possible another photo would be better. Had he not been convicted, I'd say no photo would be better than a mugshot.Red Fiona (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm no fan of this guy, but I agree that it would be better if the mugshot were swapped/removed. It made sense to use a mugshot while he was actually in prison, but now that he's free, it seems unnecessary/unfair. It is quite recognizably a mugshot, and it is almost 15 years old in any case. Surely a more recent photo has to be available. If not, I'm rather certain that if someone contacted him and asked for a photo, he would gladly provide a more recent one so that his Wikipedia page no longer uses an outdated mugshot. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The problem is the image has to be free use if a free use image is available. The mug shot, by virtue of being a picture taken by a government agency (oversimplified), is automatically free use. There are no other images that are free use. Written permission to use an image someone possesses is still not enough. They (in this case Hovind) would have to completely release it for free use, something he's skeptical to do ever since he did it with his creation videos and people cut and snipped and tore them to shreds verbally on youtube. Hence, we are stuck with a mug shot.Farsight001 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
That explanation of why he would be afraid to release a photo into the public domain doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (Which doesn't really surprise me.) If anyone wants to slice-and-dice a photo to Photoshop Kent into something, the public-domain mugshot is already available to them. There's no benefit to him not to release a more recent photo that's not of him being arrested. You raise a valid point though. Since he released his early creation science videos into the public domain for people to "spread 'em around", there should be no copyright problem in taking a screen cap from one of those and using it as the profile picture. He explicitly says, "They're not copyrighted" in the videos. Since those videos are how he's best known, it would make sense. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
But they are copyrighted. "Free use" doesn't mean "not copyrighted". It means that copyrighted work has been licensed in a way we can use it. This is a distinction Hovind appears not to understand, and it's why he filed a series of DMCAs and threatened legal action against people spreading his "not copyrighted" videos. Not only do our policies not allow us to use photos on the promise they are "not copyrighted", but even if we could, Hovind's history of making legal threats over their use would make it irresponsible.   — Jess· Δ 18:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Acording to himself, he were never a tax protestor[edit]

Kent Hovind dies not view himself a tax protestor, and were charged because of structuring, not because he didn't pay taxes. Here is a link to an article were he say he isn't a tax protestor: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/01/20/is-kent-hovind-a-tax-protester/#4a15ed2f1784. He has also said this on his youtube channel. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

That's nice, but the legal system has found otherwise. His claim that he didn't not-pay taxes, is his obvious defense, is mentioned. It was rejected, whicih is also mentioned. It's a rare criminal who does not protest his own innocence and mis-characterization. WP:RS says otherwise. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
He also says the earth is 6,000 years old. His mechanism for distinguishing truth from fiction is broken. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
While he has developed a fair amount of expertise on the subject of Kent Hovind, Peter J. Reilly, in his own words, is "just a tax blogger". There is insufficient editorial oversight to make his blogs a reliable source. The article already mentions that Hovind denies being a tax protester, based upon a reliable source, but is presented with due weight given to multiple statements, also published in reliable sources, which have found the label appropriate. Several are cited in the article, and there are more. Additionally, he was convicted for willful failure to pay taxes and obstruction, so the "charged because of structuring, not because he didn't pay taxes" argument is patently false. If my math is correct and I accurately followed the sentencing transcript (in which the judge notes on page 107, "...you steadfastly insisted today that you are not a tax protester. The evidence is to the contrary, sir."), eliminating all the structuring charges (counts 13-57) would have reduced the sentence from 120 to 96 months (page 113).[21] BiologicalMe (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hovind also claimed in a letter to the IRS back in 1996 that he was not a tax protester.

Of course, he was indeed a tax protester.

He used many of the same tax protester arguments that other -- well -- other tax protesters have used over and over and over and over and over and over again. For example, here is the text of a letter from Hovind to the IRS, dated February 1, 1996, in response to a summons issued by the IRS. This letter was admitted into evidence as document OBS-8 in open court in United States v. Kent E. Hovind, case no. 3:2006-cr-00083, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, on October 18, 2006. This is not for inclusion in the article, but is provided instead to illustrate the point that he was indeed a tax protester, with my comments inserted in brackets in various places:

"I, Kent Hovind, am somewhat confused after doing some research on the IRS Code and the numbers on the forms you are sending me, as well as the notices.
"For instance, this summons indicates that you assume that I am a taxpayer per the IRS code. Sir, I am a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is my full-time vocation, which is not an excise taxable activity [false; a tax protester argument; generally, the compensation you receive from preaching the gospel is taxable for Federal income tax purposes]. You are assuming that I receive income and that tax is due on this income. I cannot confirm nor deny that I receive income, nor that I am a taxpayer per the IRS Code [typical tax protester rhetoric]. However, if you have determined that I am a taxpayer, I demand that you provide me with the regulations of the IRS Code that make me a taxpayer.[typical tax protester demand]
"I also demand that you produce the treasury delegation order, per U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that give you the delegated authority to begin an investigation on me, Kent Hovind. [typical tax protester demand]
"Also, the form you are suggesting I file, 1040 per the IRS Code is for federal employees. [false; the Internal Revenue Code's application is not limited to "federal employees"; another tax protester argument] I am not a federal employee. My standing, as far as I can determine from the code, is as a nonresident alien to the federal government [false; Kent Hovind was a resident and citizen of the United States], and I cannot find any forms for filing as this type of being. [a blatant lie by Hovind; typical tax protester rhetoric]
"Can you send me the forms for a nonresident alien? Please help me, as I intend to pay all lawful taxes applicable to me. Would you please send me the determining documents or regulations that make me liable for the taxes you assume I owe. [typical tax protester "show me the law" rhetoric"] It would be most helpful to me to help clear up this matter.
"I need the above named information to help determine from the tax code if I am liable for the taxes stated in your summons. I am not a tax protester. [typical tax protester statement] However, as a steward over the property and funds that the Lord supplies to me, I must not carelessly dispense funds, but must determine without a doubt that a debt is owed.
"In the IRS Code implementing regulations, your authority to seize property and levy is under Chapter 27 for the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms. [false, and typical tax protester argument; the IRS authority to seize property does not come from "Chapter 27 for the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms"] For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, involved in any of these businesses or ventures. If your records indicate otherwise, they are mistaken and I request a copy of them so I can perfect the record. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.
"If I do not have a response within ten days of receipt of this response, I will consider this matter closed and that I am correct in my assumption that I don't owe the taxes that you assume I do and that my standing is correct." [typical tax protester rhetoric -- an impotent attempt to unilaterally impose a deadline on government personnel]

I have been studying tax protesters for over seventeen years. Hovind was correctly designated as a tax protester in federal court, as noted in the article. Famspear (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Developments on Kent Hovind (April 2016)[edit]

Over the past several weeks, there has been some interesting developments regarding Kent Hovind and was wondering should they be added to article. Apparently, his wife is divorcing him and Kent is going to be evicted from his Pensacola property as his son, Eric, now owns it and Kent has been looking to acquire property near Range, Alabama. Also, he was in court over stalking complaint.--Cms13ca (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Without coverage in reliable sources, none of these will have risen to notability. It can be verified that Jo Hovind has filed for divorce, but unless it is finalized, there would be no basis to change basic biographical information. If there were a reconciliation and no reliable sources ever covered the troubles, it never would have reached notability. (I wonder if I can be booted from Wikipedia for excessive use of conditional verb tenses.) There may be some usable coverage on the property, but I'm still working on verifying it exists. Thanks, but let's not get ahead of the sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear BiologicalMe: If your use of conditional verb tenses exceeds the Officially Designated Maximum Prescribed Level of Use as described in the Official Wikipedia Commission on the Excessive Use of Conditional Verb Tenses and Other Overly-Wrought Nomenclature and if your conduct is as described in the Official Wikipedia Manual of Stuff Regarding Excessive Use of Different Things and if an official determination is made by the aforementioned Commission in conformity with the Official Wikipedia Interpretive Rules applicable thereto, then it's possible you might be in trouble! However, what YOU would need in such a case is representation! Of course, we here at the Law Firm of Famspear's Fabulous Foolishness are here to fight for you -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court! For a nominal fee, of course! Famspear (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Now I now why no one has built a time machine and used it to go back in time to raise the funds to build it: lawyers.[22] BiologicalMe (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm gonna have to think about that for a while. Famspear (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Ummm, errrr, gah ... brain is exploding! Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a new editor and I was considering adding 1) New developments such the divorce and Kent Hovind's claims that Eric and Jo conspired against him. It seems appropriate since Kent makes his money from evangelism and supposedly telling people what is right and logical. Or is that not a good reason to add something to a Wikipedia page? I also realize that this page may be a little too active and controversial for a new editor to dive into. ScienceExplains (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree that is "seems appropriate", seems being the operative word; the problems is sourcing. While there has been a bit of activity on the internet, blogs and such, no publishers which engage in fact checking have found it newsworthy. As such, most of the content fails both verifiability and notability. The change in marital status documented by the court order, a verifiable primary source about an intrinsically notable basic biographical datum; it is mentioned as a basic fact without further discussion which would require a strong secondary source.
Being a new editor is not a problem. Wikipedia has a set of operating guidelines that take getting used to. (I'm still working on that.) If you are willing to work collaboratively, other editors will keep you on track. Listening is the best way to avoid problems. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold (but not reckless). The area in which the least boldness should be exercised are biographies of living people. There are several ways to go about things. Asking first on this page is a good way to find out if you are hitting a dead end before you expend a lot of effort. If you are sure things aren't going to far, try a test edit. Other editors may revert you. If you think you are right, put forth your best argument on this page; other editors can evaluate what you have said in the context of Wikipedia guidelines.
If I had found any reliable sources, I would have made edits similar to the ones you are suggesting. Maybe you can find a source I missed, but my guess is that anything you find will not qualify as a reliable source. If I'm wrong, I will be pleasantly surprised. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
The Escambia Court records are available for the God Quest Inc vs Kent Hovind "Eviction with Damages" (2016 CC 001545) case. Also on the docket in the records are the Kent and Jo Hovind "marriage dissolution" case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrojn (talkcontribs) 18:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
There are no third-party sources that establish the notability of the eviction and the divorce is already included. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

[23] I've tagged the photo as a copyvio on Commons. It does not have the proper permissions. --NeilN talk to me 00:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Good work. Thank you Neil. Dr. K. 01:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As it says in the wikimedia commons' explications, the picture added can be use because it's someone else's work with the author granted permission to copy it. It is actualy a picture from a 1999 videotape where the author explicitly mentionned that there is no copyright on his product. The tape is from the Creation science evangelism collection and is titled Creation/evolution debate; Genesis: History or Myth By Dr. Kent E Hovind (1999). 104.221.72.180 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's been deleted there. Doug Weller talk 11:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)