Talk:Kent Hovind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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)

Another: [21] Famspear (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [22]. Famspear (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [23]. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [24] BiologicalMe (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: [25] BiologicalMe (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Another: [26] Famspear (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Another: [27] BiologicalMe (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more: [28] and [29] Famspear (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

More: [30] and [31]. Famspear (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I forget who said it, but it's a profound statement: "Facts are stubborn things." No matter how many times his supporters try to change history, the facts remain: Kent Hovind is a tax protester, and Kent Hovind spent several years in prison for Federal tax crime convictions. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

God favors man and he that thinks he stands could lose it all sure, but to make a mountain out of a mole hill over what he did is just sad. Everyone one on this earth has lied at some point and been envious of another. If you played a tape recording of your thoughts for the week in front of an audience you would be ashamed. All have come short of the glory of God and you people who want to take a man who should be admired for his works and willingness to devote his life to helping others and make SURE people know his word and teachings could be doubted do to this criminal activity honestly work for the world and not for themselves. Showing a man's shortcomings will never make your argument right, and if your not sure today if your going to heaven or hell when you die there is a way you could know 100%. All have fallen short of the glory of God, but God has a gift for you. Not of works lest any man boast. A gift is literally a gift... you don't have to pay for it or give money to receive it. Jesus died so that you could be forgiven of your sin that you were born with that was handed down to you from your parents that was given to them by their parents. That if you believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ you will be saved and be presented in front of the father faultless. He came to save that which was lost. You can pay for your sin yourself and die twice or let Jesus pay for your sins and die once and live twice. Selah Twin Seed (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"What he (Kent Hovind) did" was not a "mole hill" -- and there have been no "mountains" made out of "mole hills" here. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Please stay on topic. Famspear (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It should be mentioned in advance of any discussion that recent income tax failures on a massive scale seem almost godlike in their recriminations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3yPyrsO6S8 It is fairly obvious that senior Income Tax Inspectors or Directors -or whatever they are called; don't seem to turn up for work at the known offices that pay them. Ever! Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it help you to help us if you clarified for us Unamericans just what taxes relions have to pay the US Federal Government and how reprehensible are those who advise them of their legal standing?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Weatherlawyer: You probably should not be trying to learn anything about the work habits of what you call "Income Tax Inspectors", etc., based on something you saw in the youtube video.

Regarding your second post --the one containing your cryptic question about "those", "them" and "their" -- there is no such thing as a "relion." Your question does not make any sense. Let's stick to the topic at hand -- which is discussion of ways to improve the article on Kent Hovind. Famspear (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, Hovind tried to argue that his work was exempt as a religious activity, and that was explicitly evaluated in court and found to be unsupportable. Given that there is a finding of fact which is a necessary condition to the conviction, the question of what taxes religions have to pay, is moot. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Specifically, section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for an exemption from Federal taxes imposed under Subtitle A (sections 1 through 1563 of the Code) for a religious organization that qualifies. But, Subtitle A deals with Federal income tax.
Even if Hovind's organization had qualified, section 501 did not and does not exempt Hovind's organization from Federal employment taxes.
Federal employment taxes are imposed under Subtitle C (sections 3101 through 3510 of the Code). Subtitle C includes the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), imposing the Social Security and Medicare taxes on employees (section 3101), and requiring the employer to deduct and collect the tax from the employees' compensation, under section 3102. Being a qualified religious organization under section 501 would not magically make Hovind's organization "not be an employer" under section 3102, nor would it magically make the employees "not be employees."
For Federal employment taxes, it generally doesn't matter whether Hovind's activity was a religious activity or not. Now, there is a possible exception to this general rule, in the form of a section 3127 exemption, but I don't remember whether Hovind tried to claim section 3127 or not. Famspear (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Sources regarding second marriage[edit]

There are some blogs [32][33] that would no rise to the level of reliable sources and primary sources[34][35] supporting that Kent remarried, as discussed last year. Currently, there are some rumors that the marriage is over, but I am not aware of anything that reaches anything of even approaching reliability as a source for that. There were two recent edits[36][37] asserting a 2017 end the info box. A look at adequacy of sources is in order. BiologicalMe (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Kent has spoken several times in his YouTube videos about that he is no longer married, however I am not sure if the videos can constitute as a source.Cms13ca (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Forbes has this article by PeterJ.Reilly regarding Hovind and his divorce, remarriage and 'marriage troubles'. He links to his own blog (Reilly's) where he discusses the second divorce and his thoughts on why it occurred, so I'd say that the 2nd divorce has a legitimate citation in Forbes, but a more experienced editor who is more familiar with wikipedia standards should have a look to confirm - it's a little hazy in the Reilly article or book review. Perhaps it's in the book he's reviewing? I didn't take it that far. al (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinmoneypit (talkcontribs) 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. While your Peter J. Reilly has done some in-depth research, the link to Forbes is "sites". Those are good quality blogs, but lack the editorial oversight to qualify as reliable sources. As for the book, it isn't in there. (One of my more recent edits used the book as a source.) One of the more frustrating aspects of Wikipedia is knowing something and not having a suitable source. Again, thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018[edit]

They wrote Jo instead of Kent in the bibliography section Username33334 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Jo was Hovind's wife. NeilN talk to me 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018[edit]

Please change

"He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement and his ministry focuses on attempting to convince listeners to deny scientific theories in fields including biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible."

to

"He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement. His ministry focuses on alternative scientific theories in the fields of biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology as a method to share the Gospel." Mckinm12 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The alternative theories he focuses on are not scientific, so it would be unverifiable and against policy to word it that way. RivertorchFIREWATER 16:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Source for new DAL opening[edit]

The new Dinosaur Adventure Land opened on April 21, 2018. I haven't found much third party coverage other than a few blogs discussing the advertising prior to opening and one by an attendee. I got a copy of the Evergreen Courant from the Thursday after (April 26) and searched the Monroe Journal website to no avail. The promotional flyer is no longer on the events page. At present, the drdino.com website says coming soon (in reference to the page, I assume), as does the website linked from the Facebook page. While a small delay might be necessary, I'd like to avoid the page becoming excessively out of date. If anyone has thoughts on what would be an appropriate non-volatile source, please make a suggestion. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Proved innocent after completing sentence.[edit]

I think it is absolutely appalling that despite Kent Hovind being proven an INNOCENT MAN, this Wikipedia page still says that he is a convicted criminal. Kent served 10 years for a crime that he was falsely accused of. On top of this the government took money from him, 430,000 to be exact, for the supposed tax he haden’t paid. This needs to be fixed immediately, it’s tainting the name of a great man. Innit Fundamentalistinthefleshbrah (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fundamentalistinthefleshbrah: can you prove reliable sources for his being proved innocent of his 2006 conviction? Doug Weller talk 11:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Fundamentalist, but that's utter baloney. You are wrong. The Wikipedia article is correct, and is well-documented with reliable sources. Famspear (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)