Talk:Kent Hovind

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

Edit[edit]

Edit request:

Please add the latest PNJ article that explains Hovind "has been ordered to pay more than $3.3 million in taxes."

http://www.pnj.com/article/20130523/NEWS01/305230028/-Dr-Dino-ordered-pay-taxes-penalties

07:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to revert lede: Just creationist or creationist and conspiracy theorist?[edit]

Going through the history of this page, the lede (the article's first sentence) has been changed, but not discussed on this talk.

I propose we return the lede to mention that Hovind is a conspiracy theorist and a creationist, not just a creationist. A large part of his creationist seminars include conspiracy theories to support his views. There are a large number of examples of this, but one notable claim is that the New World Order is behind evolution, which appears in Hovind's The Dangers of Evolution video and in Hovind's 25 page diatribe about the New World Order and evolution.

More than that, many of his non-creation videos are built around a range of conspiracies. For example, his videos The Bible And Health is about a cancer conspiracy or Redeeming The Straw Man is about an weird anti-tax conspiracy. His website featured claims that the US government created AIDS and the New World Order is even featured in his nonsensical view of the Great Pyramid ("Satan has been using the great pyramid as his symbol for the New World Order").

Conspiracies are prominent in his creationist and non-creation videos, and wikipedia rightfully discusses Hovind's claims because many secondary sources reported them. Examples: [1][2][3][4]

Therefore, I propose we change the current lede sentence to what it was previously:

Current: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth creationist.
Previous/proposed change to: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist.

It is more accurate to describe Hovind as a creationist and a conspiracy theorist as he propagated not only creationism, but a variety of conspiracies in his videos and on his website. Not all creationists believe in the New World Order or that the government created AIDS, and not all New World Order believers think that Earth was created 6,000 years ago. RobinBnn (talk) 20:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Support - sources support this reversion/change. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - because the proposal is well sourced. JessicaSideways (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Support - Yup, makes sense. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
I made the change. As a note, however, the secondary sources listed above aren't great for this. They give examples of conspiracy theories Hovind has discussed, but they do not call him a conspiracy theorist generally. There is some discussion in the article of this issue (I'm not sure how much). I trust that proper sources are in there somewhere. If they aren't, we need to improve them. This will undoubtedly be challenged quickly and often.   — Jess· Δ 04:22, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


More conspiracies[edit]

Some more conspiracies, in Hovind's own words on his website:
  • Hovind claims global warming and "most of the environmental hype is really to help bring about Karl Marx’s dream (nightmare) of a Communist world. . . . I believe the real agenda is Communism, not saving the planet." (In Hovind's Seminar Part 5)
  • Hovind claims the Great Pyramid is Christian not ancient Egyptian. (Video)
  • Hovind believes the Bermuda triangle myth.
  • Hovind believes the bigfoot myth and it "may be an unidentified species of ape."
  • Hovind spreads the claim that some UFOs "are Satanic apparitions"
  • Hovind says that "It would not surprise me if 'big brother' was" making technology to allow "your television to watch you"
  • Hovind says "Microchips may play an important part in the mark of the beast" and "four people have called me from Arkansas and Missouri to report seeing customers at the grocery store pay for purchases by scanning their hand."
  • Hovind claims that you don't have to pay taxes or contribute to Social Security because the government capitalizes names. He says: "Actually, no real person has a social security number. Notice on your SS card that your name is spelled with all capital letters. This designates the STRAW MAN business, trust or corporation not a person as we discussed earlier."
  • Hovind says you don't have to pay taxes because "None of the taxes or forms apply to an individual's earnings" and "I sincerely believe that I am not a person required to file a Federal Income Tax Return."
  • Hovind on citizenship: He is not a citizen of the "United States of America," but "I am a citizen of the united States not any of the others above. Claiming to be a citizen of one of the others may cause someone to assume authority over you that they would not otherwise have."
  • Hovind on state taxes: "All state income taxes that I am aware of are based on you federal income tax. If you don't owe any federal tax you don't owe any state income tax either."
There are many more and in his videos. RobinBnn (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
While the man is very in to conspiracy theories; pseudoscience and cryptozoology, I think we should stay clear of a Time Cube-style comprehensive database on everything he's said. It's quite clear in his biology videos that he has no idea what some of these words are. The controversial YouTuber, 'Thunderf00t' made a video where he counts every time Kent makes claims such as procreation being when the DNA of both parents is separated into "half-ladders" and re-attached to each other, and that an entire human being can be cloned from a single chromosome (and then stuff where he confuses atoms; molecules and cells). It might be best to pick out things he has said repeatedly, like when he falsely described the circumstances of Lucy's discovery up to at least two years after being told he was incorrect by one of her discoverers. For people who thought "tl;dr" to that - use what can be understood as his 'arguments', rather than the cliche ravings of a lunatic..-- OsirisV (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply we should list every conspiracy he believes in the article or even mention "everything" he said about them. I was just listing some more conspiracies directly from his mouth, which might be relevant to the discussion above. RobinBnn (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Article should not be a list of every stupid thing he's said on his site. Secondary sources should dictate which views are notable enough to discuss. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Interviews with Kent Hovind[edit]

Not sure if this would be relevant but there are several online video interviews of Kent Hovind (part one) from Truth Serum Talk Radio Show where he talks about his beliefs.

According to the host, Kent Hovind told her that he cannot not know she is recording the call. Several of us who have been following Hovind's case are curious to know if this is because it is against prison rules as she plans to more interviews with him.Cms13ca (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What specific points do you think should be added to the article?--Adam in MO Talk 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hovind has repeatedly declined written debates where his claims would be scrutinized by scientists, for example, when offered by Dave Thomas[82] and Carl Marychurch.[83]

I, Carl Marychurch, am not a scientist nor have I ever challenged Hovind to a written debate. Even the citation referenced does not make any such claim (because I wrote the original source material). Please make the necessary corrections.

1.123.157.39 (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

False Statements[edit]

Hovind has repeatedly declined written debates where his claims would be scrutinized by scientists, for example, when offered by Dave Thomas[82] and Carl Marychurch.[83]

I, Carl Marychurch, am not a scientist nor have I ever challenged Hovind to a written debate. Even the citation referenced does not make any such claim (because I wrote the original source material). Please make the necessary corrections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.123.157.39 (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed that text. --NeilN talk to me 12:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible new legal challenges[edit]

It would appear that he's suing RationalWiki (that snarky wiki which is opposed to Young Earth Creationism and 'woo') for calling him a tax fraudster. Any chance he's coming for Wikipedia, next? His son's fans certainly don't like our article.-- OsirisV (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Any talk of legal issues regarding WP need to go through the legal department. --69.179.144.203 (talk) 09:09, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
RationalWiki is not affiliated with Wikipedia or Wikimedia. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I was concerned that they would be making a sweep across websites in general that refer to him as a tax fraudster, with the unrelated wiki being only one.-- OsirisV (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I won't comment on the RationalWiki article at this time. However, the Wikipedia article is in good shape. It does not refer to Hovind as a "tax fraudster" or as having committed "tax fraud." Those terms, or variations thereof, do appear in three footnotes -- but only as part of the names of the source articles, and those characterizations are only those of the source articles. The main text of the Wikipedia article accurately describes exactly what Hovind was charged with and convicted of. There's nothing that Hovind can do about that; under American law, if a statement is true, then generally that statement cannot be defamation (libel or slander).
Now, for a digression: Again, without commenting on the RationalWiki article, I have to say that as an attorney and a former broadcast news reporter myself, I am concerned with the way that reporters often use terms like "tax evasion" and "tax fraud" in a sloppy way. Not every tax-related conviction is a conviction for "tax evasion" or "tax fraud." For example, a conviction for failure to pay U.S. federal income tax (a misdemeanor), or for failure to file a U.S. federal income tax return (a misdemeanor), is not a conviction for tax evasion (a felony). Period. Famspear (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Correction: The article does state: "Hovind stated that he did not recognize the government's right to try him on tax-fraud charges..." That statement is documented by a footnote citation to one of the three sources I mentioned earlier. The source clearly uses the term "tax-fraud." It's unclear whether the source instigated the use of that term or, alternatively, whether Hovind himself used that term at some point and the reporter was simply reporting what Hovind said. Famspear (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
In the "Creation Science Evangelism and Creation Today" section, the sentence has a grammatical problem ("for taxes owned filed by Hovind"). It should be "for taxes owed by Hovind."— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWakefore (talkcontribs) 04:47, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Coincidentally, it turns out Kent is starting a trend of suing anyone for anything, given that he's now suing a prison warden.-- 194.81.33.17 (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources are found describing this, then it should be included in the article. Right now it has only been reported by blogs. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute[edit]

It is clear that the intent of this article is to disparage Kent Hovind in every manner possible. There exists no neutrality on any level whatsoever, and every point is made without any countering perspective cited. In the very first paragraph:

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

You are making a broad sweeping assumption here. Are all of Hovind's views contradicted by science? How can that be? If it were so, wouldn't evolution be a law and not a theory? There are plenty of areas in which science is left scratching its head in the evolution vs. creation debate.

And other places:

"Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done."

Including this quote in an encyclopedic entry is sophomoric, and argumentative. It is also clear that again, Mr. Hovind's character is being called into question. I'm sure that Mr. Hovind is not the PhD to adopt this practice. And I am sure that you could find other quotes from individuals on par with Professor Bartelt to offer a countering perspective.

"Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[11][12] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month.[13] "

Is this an entry on Hovind or Patriot Bible University? You are using your platform to now disparage Hovind's place of education. This editorializing has no place in an empirical environment.

"Bartelt has stated that Hovind's doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science.[9] She noted that Hovind's dissertation is incomplete (it contains four chapters totaling 101 pages, but Hovind's introduction claims the work is 250 pages with 16 chapters), of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.[9]"

It seems you have found a fellow ideological opponent in Professor Bartelt. Is there no other "expert" on this matter? Is her opinion the final say on Hovind's pedigree, education, and intellect? Again, this smacks of a hit piece on Hovind in every way, and is extremely childish.

"A 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article explored visiting Hovind's dinosaur theme park and concluded that the park is "deceptive on many levels".[39] The Southern Poverty Law Center noted the park also "claims that a few small dinosaurs still roam the planet."[40] George Allan Alderman wrote it was "essentially a playground with a few exhibits, several fiberglass dinosaurs, a climbing wall, and a couple of buildings."[41] He said it can be "summed [up] in a word: shabby. The dinosaurs looked shabby, the displays were shabby, the attractions and activities were shabby, and above all the ideas were shabby."[41]"

Once again, the clear attempt is to disparage Hovind. These opinions may be valid to include, but there is never any counter perspective offered anywhere in the entire article.

The entire section titled "Responses" under "Hovind's $250,000 Offer" is biased and opinionated. Only criticism is offered, no countering perspective whatsoever. "Scientists" are cited as having the final say on every matter, and no supporting position is ever cited. The following quote even uses the convenience of the topic to editorialize on evolution "Also, unlike Hovind, scientists in the field of evolutionary biology do not distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution as distinct processes, instead contending that evolution takes place as microevolution, and that macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.[74]"

"Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous: his FAQ states that claimants must "prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."[71]"

Again - unnamed "critics" have the final and authoritative say on subjects pertaining to Hovind. Never any counter argument is offered. You pose your editorialization as a paraphrased quote from your unnamed "critics". Very sophomoric and petty. The entire piece is designed as a character assasination, and not a encyclopedic entry on Kent Hovind.

It is humorous that you have entitled a section "Criticism" when there is never any other perspective offered in the entire piece.

The rest of the entire article follows the same modus operandi over and over again - Hovind is a lunatic fringe nutjob with no credibility or support anywhere. This piece is a disgrace, and would be more appropriately placed as a cover story in an anti-creationism magazine or newsletter.

Bcm924 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)bcm924

We go by sources here. What reliable secondary sources do you have to back up a change to the article? It also may be worth looking at Objections to evolution and Evolution as theory and fact.   — Jess· Δ 15:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I second Jess. There is also due weight to consider.Mophedd (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I third Jess's points. The material is sourced. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
From WP:NPOV: "In articles specifically relating to a minority viewpoint, such views may receive more attention and space. However, these pages should still make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant and must not represent content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view. In addition, the majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader can understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained." (emphasis mine). --NeilN talk to me 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

There are of course the issues of WP:Undue and WP:Fringe. However I do agree with this user, and believe they have pointed out some areas where the article could use some improvement, specifically with sourcing.

"Other critics of Hovind have pointed out that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[11][12]

Instead of unnamed critics, it should be more specific. Also there may be issues with the second citation from York Dispatch. I do not know if it is a reliable source or not, and the article is no longer available.

The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $25 per month.[13] "

This section I removed. The current policies of the school are irrelevant. The article and the source it uses has to discuss Hovind in some way.

"Critics argue that the offer is merely a publicity stunt designed to be impossible to win because it requires the claimant to disprove all possible theories for the origin of species, no matter how ridiculous: his FAQ states that claimants must "prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution ... is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence."[71]"

This section I rephrased. I added the name of the critic and reorganized it. I added tags for "who" and "cn".

"Chemistry professor Karen Bartelt has said that it is "very unusual for a person with a Ph.D., even a real one, to list oneself in the phonebook as "Dr Hovind", as Hovind has done."

I removed this entirely. It's completely trivial and does not even warrant being included in a Wikipedia article. This was later reverted by user MannJess.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

this series of edits identifies some areas where the article can certainly be improved, but it doesn't move the article in a positive direction. I've tried making some changes to those areas you've identified, Harizotoh. For instance, you removed a bunch of content on the claim it was unsourced or poorly sourced. In some cases, the content was sourced (to earlier or later sources in the paragraph); in others, it could have been sourced with a quick search. I've added sources to those areas. You changed some attribution, but in some cases we should just be removing attribution altogether, not honing it. You reintroduced creationtoday in the ELs, but that's already discussed and linked in the body, and you removed the ncse link, which seems appropriate at a glance. We shouldn't be attributing conspiracy theories in the body with "Hovind has stated", and so forth... "claimed" is more appropriate, given the lack of support for his claims in the academic community. I think that's everything. Hopefully the new version works for everyone.   — Jess· Δ 22:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Lede re-write[edit]

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

I think this needs re-wording. "Contradicted by scientific evidence" is too blunt and non-neutral. It's also simply poorly worded, as has been pointed out above. "Views" is simply too broad, as it technically means all of his views, and of course he has to be right about some things. Now for comparison here is a similar section from the article on Flood Geology that I believe is better written:

Flood geology contradicts the scientific consensus in geology and paleontology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, cosmology, biology, geophysics and stratigraphy,[1][2][3][4][5][6] and the scientific community considers it to be pseudoscience.[7][8]

I think this article should follow wording similar to this. Also it needs citations. I'm a big proponent that ledes should include citations. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think 'contradicted by scientific evidence' is just fine. I don't think we need cites in the lede as long as we have them in the body. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It's making a bold statement about the ultimate truth of reality rather than a more tentative statement referencing verifiable reliable sources. I can't say in some ultimate sense that Hovind is wrong, but it can be very verifiability said that Hovind's views are a fringe, minority opinion that is rejected by the vast scientific consensus. It is also, as I said poorly phrased. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Evolution by natural selection is in about as much question as gravity. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
See: Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia is about verifying, and summarizing the views of experts and academia. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Find me an expert who questions evolution. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. Wikipedia is not about writing what is objectively true, especially in some ultimate sense. Wikipedia is about summarizing current scholarly opinion. The difference is subtle, but key. Which means that when discussing fringe theory supporters, the phrasing used is not "they are wrong" but that their views are not held by the vast majority of academics. Which is why I believe the phrasing should follow more like the wording used in the Flood Geology article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
You say it is irrelevant, yet, you said we should summarize the views of experts. Experts don't question evolution. The Flood Geology page is irrelevant. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
It's Wikipedia policies. Also I'm citing the Flood Geology page because it is an article on a similar topic, but is also significantly better written. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Harizotoh9 is correct in every sense. It is clear that your firmly held personal opinion is dictating the direction of the article. Wikipedia is not the place for this. Who you consider an "expert" could easily differ from who others consider an expert to be. It's an arbitrary designation attributed by people to other people based on their knowledge and work as perceived by individuals. I can cite people I consider "experts" who firmly believe in creationism. Dr. Jason Lisle is one of the most brilliant mathematicians and astrophysicists on Earth; certainly an "expert" in my view, as well as many others; and his conclusions have been drawn to creationism. There are many more like him as well. However, that is only my opinion that they are experts. The article basically makes the claim that a belief in evolution, and an atheistic worldview is the determining factor of what makes a scientist or "expert" credible; and conversely, that one who holds a differing perspective cannot be an expert or a credible source, due to that belief. It seems apparent that your definition of a credible source or reliable expert is only someone who holds your own personal beliefs. The article begins to take shape as not a bio and encyclopedic entry on Hovind, but a hit piece on his beliefs. I think a truly objective party would most likely come to the same conclusion. I am not asking that a flowery piece on Hovind be concocted. Certainly he is a convicted criminal that holds controversial beliefs, and has been involved in things that have been suspect. These are elements that should be included in the piece. However, it reads such that at every turn, his beliefs, worldview, and academic credibility are being relentlessly attacked, calling the neutrality of the article into serious question. The web community deserves a neutral entry, as they are more than capable of determining their own conclusions as to the validity or lack thereof of Hovind's claims, perspective, and pedigree. Bcm924 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Let me add, WP's guidelines summarily support my contention here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Impartial_tone -

"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." (emphasis mine)

Bcm924 (talk) 18:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

@Bcm924 The language in this article can at times become POV. By saying "he is contradicted by the evidence" that is adopting a POV. In addition to NPOV however, there are two other major policies that are relevant to this article:

Hovind is someone who holds fringe viewpoints on a lot of issues. And we must not give undue weight to him or his supporters. So this article has to do a better job of balancing between the various WP policies. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

In terms of adopting POVs, there is no difference between "contradicted by scientific evidence" and "contradicted by the scientific consensus on...." The former simply summarizes the latter without the need for a long list of disciplines. Neutrality means representing what our sources indicate, and our sources very clearly indicate that Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence, and by scientific consensus, and so on. Since Hovind has such a large set of varied views, listing everything they contradict would be tedious, and is a task best suited for the article body, where each view can be discussed in depth.   — Jess· Δ 19:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Sources:[edit]

Sources can be improved in some areas.

Also, unlike Hovind, scientists in the field of evolutionary biology do not distinguish between micro- and macro-evolution as distinct processes, instead contending that evolution takes place as microevolution, and that macroevolution is cumulative microevolution.[9]

Source used: About.com

Not a reliable source. I removed it. Additionally it's too off topic. The sources need to discuss Hovind and his views, not creationism in general. Reading some of the posts on WP:RSN about About.com seem to say it's not a RS.

While Kent Hovind is in prison, Eric has continued operating CSE and has received criticism for errors in his claims. Biologist PZ Myers criticized Eric and CSE employee Jonathon Sampson for their comments on cephalopods, writing "We do have explanations of cephalopod evolution" and "they lack the intelligence to grasp it."[10] In his criticism, Myers criticized Hovind for failing to look up the evolutionary scholarship on cephalopods and linked to his blog article on cephalopod evolution.[10][11]

Source used: Pharyngula. Personal blog. Not reliable. I removed it, but it was re-inserted.

In particular AiG criticized Hovind for "persistently us[ing] discredited or false arguments"[12] and said Hovind's claims are "self-refuting".[13]

Sources: AIG, OC Weekly

OC Weekly I'm not sure about. It has been suggested on WP:RSN that it is an alternative newspaper, which means it would likely not pass as a RS.

Other sources:

  • Alberta: Evangelist says dinosaurs existed in God's world," The Guardian (Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island), December 2, 2000

There does not appear to be an online version of this source. Would like to review it to see exactly what it says. Also, it appears to be a small local newspaper. Is it a RS?

  • "Creationist speaker 'loose about the facts'". York Dispatch. March 13, 2006. Retrieved 2010-06-24.

Link is dead. Also can't find a copy of it on the way back machine. Need to review the source to see what it says, and whether it is being used properly, also not sure if it is reliable. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

About.com is not reliable. Pharyngula is, for some content. See WP:SPS; PZ Meyers is an expert in the area of biology. That OC Weekly is "alternative" seems irrelevant to whether it can source this very timid claim, but if you can find another source which discusses AiG's stance, feel free to replace it.   — Jess· Δ 22:53, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

External links[edit]

Myself and others have massively trimmed the external links. However I believe these two should also be removed per WP:ELRC since they were used as citations in the article.

Also, shouldn't creationtoday.org be added as it is the official site of his ministry? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No because Kent has made clear that creationtoday.org is Eric's ministry and he doesn't have a connection to it. Hovind, if you read his blog or listen to the recent interviews, says that he doesn't want to be involved with it and he might even not move back to Pensacola when he's released. He's planning on start a school or creation camp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterWakefore (talkcontribs) 06:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If he's not affiliated with the site, then Peter is correct that we shouldn't link to it. Harizotoh, you're correct that we shouldn't link to anything we've used as references in the ELs. However, I reverted the addition of links to archive.org for Hovind's old sites. I don't see how those are an improvement; the sites are dead.   — Jess· Δ 14:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

I have opened a peer review to get some outside input. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

It'll have to wait until the edit-warring (over a ridiculously insignificant paragraph, I might add) stops. Jinkinson talk to me 00:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

From my talk page[edit]

<Related to my removal of the phrase with numerous words "shabby" Staszek Lem (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)>


Before tossing out terms like "slander", please be certain you know what they actually mean. Defamation might help in this case. Specifically, opining the exhibit and ideas were shabby is not slander. There may be other reasons to remove the quote but defamation/slander isn't one of them. --NeilN talk to me 21:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't really care. But disparaging remarks, even if cited, are hardly encyclopedic content.Staszek Lem (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Criticism of a fringe viewpoint certainly is. --NeilN talk to me 01:01, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
it was not criticism of a fringe vpoint, it was criticism of workmanship or design skills. And it was not criticism, it was just disparaging remarks. In the case I lack Englsh again, let me clarify: criticism involves arguments (which may be contested by other arguments). Whereas the only kind of argument against "dinosaurs looked shabby" may be "your eyes were shabby (and your mama too)". Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Actually, it wasn't only that. The full quote: "summed [up] in a word: shabby. The dinosaurs looked shabby, the displays were shabby, the attractions and activities were shabby, and above all the ideas were shabby." --NeilN talk to me 01:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If you suggest "shabby" is a valid criticsm, then I say it is a shabby criticism not worthy of wikipedia. You did not comment on the second, more important part of my previous reply. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. Why would you assume that and above all the ideas were shabby is a "criticism" of a fringe vpoint? I say it is a criticism of the design of the theme park. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I have no problem with the quote, and Hovind's ideas, his crazy out there not supported by any science ideas, are indeed shabby. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist}} template (see the help page).