Talk:Kent Hovind

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


I feel this article doesn't reflect a neutral point of view. Much of the article's text is used to criticize his viewpoints, which, first of all, is irrelevant and splits off greatly from the article's subject (Kent Hovind as a person), and second, gives the article a rather unbalanced tone, reading more like a criticism of his thoughts than an informational article about them.

Let's take the "Education" section as an example. A good 4/5 of it are spent criticizing him, rather than providing neutral information. The parts about Patriot Bible University's overall business practices have no place in an article about one of its students. Kent Hovind's spelling and grammar skills are hardly relevant in an encyclopedic article. Barbara Forrest's comment about his "lack of academic training" is just unnecessary. The problem is, most of the article does this, not just one section.

I personally feel this article severely needs to be rechecked if it is to be taken seriously. The introduction to the "Biography" section almost perfectly lays out how to point out his shortcomings, while remaining neutral regarding his views and him as a person. The entire article should read like this in an encyclopedic context, not as it is now. (talk) 03:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If Hovind wishes to portray himself as an academic or postulate scientific theories then what mainstream academia opines about his credentials is certainly relevant. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Please take some time to read and understand the NPOV policy. WP represents what has been published in reliable sources about a subject. If 4/5 of the published material in reliable sources is critical of the subject that is what the WP article reflects. If reliable sources find Hovind's spelling and grammar skills relevant enough to publish content about them that is what a WP article reflects. Neutral information is not what WP presents, what WP presents are the significant views in reliable published sources as due. Comptency is required, please read and understand at least the core policies Verifiability, WP:Neutral point of view and No original research. The last of which will explain why an editors idea of neutrality is not appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is not neutral. Although it is relevant to address criticisms of the subject and his work, especially by the scientific community, it is not OK for an encyclopedia entry to be framed as a critical piece. The degree of bias in this entry is simply too much SamuelN77 (talk) 07:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that you do not like that kent hovind has made himself out to be a crook, a scammer and more. I suggest you take that up with Hovind when he comes out of prison in 2015. About your edits, you changed the lead without consensus tin what is not reported by our reliable sources. Secondly you tried to add some sympathetic pov at first as well, with him having a tearful farewell. Which is also not ok. Pov pushing that is not based on reliable sources is never ok. If you want to change the lead. I suggest you make a suggestion here and back it up with reliable sources. Good luck you are going need it. NathanWubs (talk) 08:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
First thank you for taking the time to respond to my edits, I really appreciate that. And I apologize if I have not followed the proper procedure to make the edits, I assure you I did not do that knowingly in order to bypass any rules. That said, I am not a supporter of Kent Hovind. I found this entry researching a few years back and on a revisit I thought of correcting some mistakes I thought were 'obvious'. I stand by my edits (not my procedure) and I think your response here proves my point further. I can understand Kent Hovind may not be that important of an entry for some senior editor of Wikipedia to notice but the entry is way off from something that goes into encyclopedia. SamuelN77 (talk) 02:14, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm an evolutionist, but also agree that this article lacks neutrality. "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence". Hovind does not base his views on Biblical accounts alone, but provides scientific evidence for his beliefs on ALL accounts making this statement factually false. His conclusions, based on scientific evidence, differs from mainstream evolutionist beliefs, but this does not mean his views are contradicted by scientific evidence in-and-of itself when Hovind does provide such evidence. A more appropriate statement would be "Hovind's views are contradicted by mainstream (or popular) scientific beliefs". Legitreport (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)Legitreport

Please see the Neutral point of view policy at § Fringe theories and pseudoscience and the Fringe theories guideline. You will see clear guidance on this issue. I am not posting extensive quotes from that policy and that guideline as I find them both very clear and their direct applicability to the issues raised obvious. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Why is article image Hovind's mugshot? Horvind considers himself to be a man of religion, science, and scholarship. How is it fair to use this as his main image? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:13, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Wiki policy says that when available, we use a freeuse image. The mugshot is the only freeuse image anyone's been able to find of him. Since its not obviously a mugshot, we don't care too much to avoid using it, and since its freeuse, there's no legal issue with it, so its pretty much our only option for now. If you know of a better freeuse one, show us.Farsight001 (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the phrase "contradicted by scientific evidence" needs a source. Just flat out saying that doesn't prove anything, it just makes the article seem biased and untrustworthy. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Source 1, 2, 3. All from the article.   — Jess· Δ 01:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

And I could quote ten articles by Kents cult members stating how evolution is "contradicted by science". Do you see how this is quickly devolving into a war of subjective views? Again, I believe it is much more proffesional to leave out the whole statement, but that's just me.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Read up on our policies about fringe views. Creationism is a fringe viewpoint within the scientific community, and wikipedia is biased towards science, per NPOV.   — Jess· Δ 02:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Lol, okay then. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 02:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hovind's 2006 trial transcript available online[edit]

Hovind's trial transcipt from 2006 is available online.--Cms13ca (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

More transcripts from Hovind's trial.--Cms13ca (talk) 20:01, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that shows (as if it wasn't evident already) the evidence against him was pretty overwhelming. Meanwhile Eric Hovind is quietly editing the Kent Hovind tapes, removing all his father's tax refusals and anti-government conspiracies. Someone should take note of this as it seems a new group of Hovind supporters, who don't know his past statements, are rushing to defend him with limited knowledge about the man's long anti-tax history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cattpeoo (talkcontribs) 16:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not rushing to defend him. I don't know anything about him but wasn't his country established on the ethos of no taxation without representation>

Weatherlawyer (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The "no taxation without representation" is an elementary school summation of history. For the record, there is representation. Ever heard of the United States Congress, for example? It as well as police, roads, courts and fire departments are paid for with taxes. While Hovind failed to pay income taxes for 30 years, that wasn't what he was convicted of. In 2006, he was found guilty by a federal jury of his peers for willful failure to withhold employee tax, structuring and obstructing government administration. Ronneyy (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually, he was found guilty of willful failure to withhold and pay the taxes, but editor Ronneyy is essentially correct. Famspear (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
And, the "failure to pay" for which Hovind was convicted was the failure to pay the withholding taxes, not his own personal income taxes (although some of the taxes he should have both withheld and paid might very well have been withholdings for his own income taxes).
I did make a correction to the article on criminal tax terminology. The news media (of which I am a former member) has a bad tendency to refer to any federal tax conviction as a federal "tax evasion" conviction. That's erroneous. Federal tax evasion is a specific kind of tax crime. Hovind was not charged with that. A tax criminal may have the intent to evade federal taxes and in connection therewith may willfully refuse, fail or neglect to withhold and pay those taxes -- but all that by itself simply will not support a conviction for tax evasion. Federal tax evasion (26 USC 7201) also requires a specific affirmative act -- not a mere failure to do something you're legally required to do (as Hovind was required to do). Mere intent to evade is not enough for a tax evasion conviction. So, while Hovind's tax convictions were very serious, it could have been even worse for him had the government charged and proved tax evasion. Famspear (talk) 17:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal opinions and bias[edit]

Why is the article on Wikipedia so bigoted? Surely if the theory of evolution had facts and poofs, it would stand on its own and not need to be pre-empted by the word theory?

I have nothing against anyone wishing to believe in evolution but I do object to biased Wikipedia articles. Get it fixed!

Weatherlawyer (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing to fix. Look up Scientific theory. --NeilN talk to me 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Evolution does stand on its own, but this article is about Mr. Hovind, not evolution, so that is irrelevant. Do you have a specific suggestion for improving the article? I mean a specific sentence you object to and a good WP:RS we can use to improve the sentence?Farsight001 (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. According to posts I've seen on Facebook, those posting the false information are looking at potential lawsuits from the Hovind's. The IRS is allreayd backtracking on his case, current content is clearly being posted by people with an agenda against Hovid. That this article has not been allowed to be clean up is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
And what information, pray tell, is false? Everything in this article is well sourced.Farsight001 (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This article reads like a character assassination sourced by antireligion hit pieces. It would be comical if it wasn't so defamatory. WP:NPOV (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Specifics, please. --Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 13:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this really Neutral???[edit]

I think this article on Kent Hovind is more of a personal attack by someone who disagrees with his beliefs than an unbiased account of him. Is it really fair to portray him as a criminal and a fool, when he provides scientific evidence for everything that he says, and many people believe his charges were bogus? I think this article needs to be reviewed for a serious bias. Someone is trying to just knock his reputation in my opinion. Mathman314159 (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for coming to the talk page. On wikipedia, we go by what the sources say, exclusively. Is there a part of the article you believe is poorly sourced? Or, do you have another source to back up the addition of new content? Thanks.   — Jess· Δ 03:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
What Jess said is right - here we go by the sources - specifically reputable sources - say. See WP:RS If they are weighted against, so must the article. If the bulk of them say the sky is brown, we MUST report that the sky is brown, even though we can look outside for ourselves and see blue.
Also, as a man with a degree in geology (which is the jack of all trades of the sciences - we have to understand biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) who has viewed nearly all of his videos, I can say rather confidently that he provides exactly zero scientific evidence. To be blunt, I'm doubtful that he even understands what does and does not qualify as scientific evidence.Farsight001 (talk) 03:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mathman314159: At the expense of stating what should be obvious, Kent Hovind IS a criminal. He's in Federal prison, and has been for many years. He was found guilty by a jury. The evidence against him was overwhelming. He knew exactly what he was doing. Famspear (talk)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "knock his reputation." His reputation is that of a convicted criminal, which is what he is.

In my view, the article does need work on Neutral Point of View, but I am in the minority on that point, probably. The article spends too much time on the creationism versus science stuff, and that's where the neutrality (notice that I said "neutrality," not "bias") in the article is relevant. Famspear (talk) 11:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And, editor Farsight001 has hit on a good point. Neutral Point of View (NPOV) does not mean giving equal weight to every point of view. Rather, NPOV means presenting each significant point of view with a weight in relation to what reliable, previously published third party sources have provided. Example: In an article on The Moon, if the overwhelming bulk of the reliable sources say that The Moon is made of moon dust, we do not give equal weight to a few other people who might claim that The Moon is made of green cheese. NPOV does not mean straining to give equal weight to all points of view in an attempt to be "unbiased." In Wikipedia, we as editors have to edit articles with all this in mind. We do not give equal weight to Green Cheese arguments. Famspear (talk) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

It is fair to portray him as a criminal since we have verifiable sources showing he was convicted of a criminal offence. It is not fair to portray him as a fool, because that is not possible to verify. I do agree however that the criminal conviction section is too long. It contains a lot of detail about the various institutions he was housed at and minutiae of his legal proceedings that do not seem to be encyclopedic. That section should be pared down to just the basics of his trial and incarceration. Ashmoo (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

..........Hmmm. I have a quite different perspective. I sense that the legal troubles section is about right, and that there is wayyyyyyy too much space devoted to all the "creationism v. science" stuff. I had never even heard of this guy until his criminal issues became known. For me, the emphasis on the "creationism versus science" stuff, if anything, is unencyclopedic (and, bluntly, sort of boring). However, I am a "tax geek," so I may be in the minority on this. Famspear (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: Hovind's nutball beliefs about the U.S. federal tax laws and the structuring laws under which he was convicted -- the beliefs that are documented in the article -- are the very things that make Hovind notable. Famspear (talk) 14:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing to consider: The bulk of the coverage of Hovind among reliable sources in recent years has been about his legal problems, his criminal convictions, not about "creationism" etc. Indeed, he or some of his followers (or both) have tried to paint a false picture of the very reason he was again indicted, and why he was charged with criminal contempt (for which he has now been found guilty). He and his followers have tried to claim that the reason the lis pendens documents were filed (in violation of a court order) was that there was still some sort of on-going legal dispute about the ownership of the property, when (to my knowledge) there was no such dispute. He had already appealed that issue, and had lost. His latest conduct (for which he was found guilty a few days ago) occurred in 2013 -- several years after his last appeal became final. Hovind, and others like him, simply refuse to accept the fact that he lost the legal battle. That refusal to accept defeat resulted in further criminal activity, for which he has now been found guilty. Again, I would argue that it is his criminal activity, not so much the "creationism" stuff, that makes Hovind notable today. Famspear (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

PS: I do agree with editor Ashmoo's point about the different prisons at which Hovind has been housed. The article could mention his current location and projected release date, but a history of the prior places has been imprisoned is somewhat immaterial. Famspear (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Mann Jess, I see you have mass reverted my edits. I *have* discussed them on talk (see above). It seems to be agreed to pare down the legalistic details of his incarceration. I am not debating the veracity or sources, just notability and text clarity. I'll start making the changes one by one so they can be discussed. Ashmoo (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking over your edits again, I don't have a problem with any except the first change. In the lead, removing "contradicted by..." dramatically softens the statement we are trying to be very clear on (since it is what our sources discuss most). The other removals I have no objection to, so I should have done a partial undo. Feel free to make those other edits again. If you'd still like to make the first change, I'd prefer it was discussed first, since it has been a perennial discussion here, and consensus has always been to keep it in.   — Jess· Δ 18:01, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hovinds views in regards to scientific evidence.[edit]

Does this article, in ANY way, shape, or form, benefit from the phrase at the beginning about his views being contradictory to scientific evidence? I highly doubt that this article would be any less credible if that statement was removed. One can see that his views are contradictory to scientific evidence by simply reading what he believes. No need to tell the reader whether his views are scientific or not. The reader is smart enough to come to that conclusion on his own without it being dictated to him/her. That phrase in no way adds to this article at all, in my opinion, and therefore should be removed. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Many people [1] would just say, "oh, that's just a different opinion" --NeilN talk to me 20:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
But this is an article about Hovind, not creationism. Save that statement for the creationism article if you want. It's redundant and somewhat irrelevant here, imo.
Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The lede summarizes the contents, so it is not redundant. He is known as part of the, umm, fringiest elements of a fringe group, well, that and being a criminal. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:41, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah... And? My question was how that statement in ANY way helps the article. If anything it just turns people off. Put that statement in the "Beliefs" section of the article. No need to place it randomly to introduce the guy. I also think the statement needs some clarification. Hovind also believes the earth is round. That isn't contradicted by scientific evidence, is it? Again, does the statement being removed in any way damage the integrity of the article? On top of all of that it is my opinion that it simply reads better without it, but that's just me.
Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:09, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
It is not randomly placed, the lede of the article summarizes its contents. The contents are about a person who thinks dinosaurs lived with people and who is a tax fraud. We are not here to turn people on or off, we are here to write an encyclopedia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
The only reason why Hovind has an article is because his views are controversial enough to be covered by reliable sources. The lead tells the reader why they're controversial. --NeilN talk to me 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Then state something like "Hovinds views are very controversial within the scientific community as they are viewed by many to be both scientifically and factually inaccurate." The reason Hovind has an article is because his views are ridiculed by the scientific community, not because his views are inaccurate. His views being inaccurate is not what makes him interesting,(plenty of people have inaccurate views) it's the fact that he is a tax criminal and is widely disputed by mostly all major scientists. That should be the lead. The article in no way benefits from the current phrasing.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 17:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
See WP:YESPOV. Hovind's views are not controversial within the scientific community. They are squarely rejected.   — Jess· Δ 17:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Controversial was the wrong wording, I admit. I was kinda rushing to type that out as an example, just scratch that part out. However, WP:YESPOV refutes nothing in my argument. If I stated his scientific beliefs were strongly contested in the community then yes, that would apply, but that's not at all what I'm arguing. Please read the rest of what I've said. Surely you can see my point.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 17:55, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Blackgate, I find that the opening quote is quite silly, tbh. Saintliveyourlife33ad (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a policy based reason for this opinion? Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@Black YESPOV says "Avoid stating facts as opinions." It is an uncontested fact that Hovind's views are contradicted by the scientific evidence. Attributing the fact to just an opinion of some group (in the case, the scientific community) would be inappropriate. By the way, you are arguing about due weight; we determine weight by sources, so arguing about weight without referring to sources is a waste of time.   — Jess· Δ 21:01, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why are giving me YESPOV. I am not, and never have, advocated for the fact that Hovinds views are unscientific to be stated as an opinion. Of course, Hovind's views are squarely, flat out, and utterly rejected by nearly every respected researcher within the scientific commuity. I am not denying that! You can state that later in the article. ALL I'm arguing is that to put that in the opening statement to introduce Mr Hovind is downright unnecessary. Per WP:MOSINTRO we should NOT give undue weight to the fact that Hovinds views are "contradictory to scientific evidence". That is not, and never has been, what makes Hovind notable and to assert such is plain silly. Thus, I think that phrasing should be removed. Save it for later in the article. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
What, in your opinion, makes Hovind notable? --NeilN talk to me 21:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
His tax related criminal charges and his status as probably the most popular creation science teacher in America. The fact that he has debated many leading scientists over the world, and his divisive status within religious circles. It's certainly not the fact that his views are opposed to scientific evidence. To assert that is absolutely absurd. Many people hold odd scientific views. That does not mean they are notable enough to have a wikipedia article. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You are not understanding YESPOV. Here's a fact: "The Earth is round." Here is that fact written as an opinion: "The scientific community considers the Earth to be round." You are advocating we do that in this article, which is explicitly prohibited by WP:NPOV.   — Jess· Δ 21:59, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

True. As I have stated, that example I used earlier was rushed. I am advocating removing the mention at the opening altogether per WP:MOSINTRO. You may be referring to my earlier section I made here. I made that before I was aware of the wiki rules, so for that I apologize. This section is relating to an entirely different argument I have, so I suggest you read the rest of what I've said.. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright. Well, I oppose that suggestion. It is not neutral to simply state his views in the opening without their scientific reception. He is well known for his self-described "scientific theories", and it is our job to summarize that in the lead.   — Jess· Δ 22:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Jess. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:41, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Except the current opening is not neutral. In fact, I'd argue that the very phrasing "contradicted by" is giving undue weight to Hovinds strange theories. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 05:05, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
The words you're using, "neutral" and "weight", require sources.   — Jess· Δ 15:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:VALID states, "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible, but currently unaccepted, theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. " I would say that is in direct opposition to the opening statement on this article. Also, WP:MOSINTRO states, "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources.". I do not think Hovinds views being opposed to science is what makes Hovind notable, and thus, doesn't "reflect its relative importance to the subject."Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 23:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────So, you believe that "pseudoscience...should not be legitimized" means that we should present Hovind's views without even mentioning their reception in the scientific community? No. That's not what that means.   — Jess· Δ 01:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not at all what I believe. You can and should present Hovinds views along with his reception in the scientific community. As is, the article states Hovind's reception among the community at least a dozen times. However, to state it in the opening creates a false balance and seems to indicate that Hovind is taken seriously among scientists. It legitimizes him too much to even state that his views are contrary to evidence in the opening; one can come to that conclusion by simply reading what Hovind believes! Furthermore, according to WP:MOSINTRO, the validity of Mr. Hovind's views have no relevance to the topic at hand (and are not at all what makes Hovind notable), and thus the statement should be removed. To use an extreme example, concerning the article on Adolf Hitler, do we have to include a statement within the introduction on how Hitler's view on the superiority of races was downright unscientific and opposed by scientific evidence? No, stating such would be irrelevant. I have supplied WP rules for my statements this far, and I hope you can see my point. Thanks.Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree that the validity of Hovind's views (or lack thereof) are not what makes him notable. Plenty of people don't believe in evolution. They're not called out specifically by the National Center for Science Education. --NeilN talk to me 20:21, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Other that satisfying Godwin's law, your Hitler reference is irrelevant; Hitler did more than espouse views. In the case at hand, we are dealing with an article in which fringe views are a major topic and the intro reflects that.BiologicalMe (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
You say we cite the scientific reception at least a dozen times in the body... great. So your suggestion means the lead would fail to summarize the body. That's the entire purpose of the lead. Your suggestion that removing the scientific reception from the lead somehow places more emphasis on the scientific community is silly.   — Jess· Δ 21:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
First off Jess, while it is true that the lede should summarize the whole body of the article, the fact of Hovinds views being contradictory to scientific evidence is not even remotely a main topic of the article, but rather a supporting topic, and is thus irrelevant to the lede, which should be solely about Hovind and what he believes. For instance, within the article it is stated multiple times that Hovind went to an unaccredited institution. However, this fact would be irrelevant to the lede, which should focus on Hovind himself, not his academic credentials or lack thereof. Furthermore, BiologicalMe stated that the article should be about Hovinds fringe views. This is simply not true! Reserve that for an article on Hovinds fringe views (I.e. Creationism ) but the validity of his views do not need to be stated in the opening here as they are irrelevant. Now, I must ask, why is it that the articles on notable figures such as →Grover Krantz Samuel Shenton state nothing about the validity of their views? I find it curious that the article on Mr. Hovind is one of the only I could find which had stated explicitly how wrong their views are in their opening phrase. Heck, even lead on the article on Creationism doesn't outright state that it is unscientific unlike Mr Hovinds article. WP:IMPARTIAL states "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" and I am strongly convinced that the phrase in the opening contradicts this. We are not here to convince anyone of any view, but the lede of Hovinds article outright states that he is not to be trusted rather than simply letting the reader come to that conclusion on their own by reading the evidence within the rest of the article. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Do not misrepresent my views and argue against straw man versions. I have never stated that "the article should be about Hovinds fringe views". As I stated, his positions being contrary to both other Creationists and scientific consensus is a significant part of the article, and is reflected in the summary.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Woops, sorry about that. I was typing by memory, as the platform which I'm using to type this is really clunky to use. I do hope my original point stands though about the validity of Hovinds views not being a notable enough topic to be stated within the lede. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Apology accepted, and I hope I didn't overreact. This is not a question of "notability"; the issue is about summarizing the article, and presently, the article content supports the phrase in question.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Not to brush you off BiologicalMe, but I believe I already discussed your argument earlier. Now Jess, Dbrodbeck, and Neil, could you guys give your thoughts on my earlier statements which you have not commented on? I think I've made my case well enough, and I hope you will have an open mind and at least slightly see where I am coming from. I would really like to come to a consensus on this issue so that we can further improve this article. (I think we can all see that this article has a few flaws, I.e. Too much irrelevant info, tremendous length, etc) Thanks. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 05:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've already shared my thoughts. You're just repeating yourself, and I don't care to follow suit. To summarize: 1) the lead summarizes the body, and this is listed prominently in the body, 2) his "scientific views" are an important part of his notability, which is determined by their prominence in the sources, and 3) the scientific reception of his views must be stated alongside his views to respect due weight. There's no sense in covering this ground further. Consensus has already formed; it's time to move on.   — Jess· Δ 06:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You still haven't answered my counterpoint of how even the Creationism article doesn't outright state that it's directly opposed to scientific evidence in the lede. Now, I know you did not write that article but it is certainly really odd how an article on a man seems to be more critical of Creationism than the actual article on the subject at hand. You also didn't adress my point that this article also mentions how Kent has gone to an unaccredited institution multiple times but that's not stated in the lede. I am not just repeating myself but am rather constantly bringing out new arguments that clearly show how unnecessary the comment in the lede is but whatever. Look, with all due respect, it seems you are more content with ignoring my points than dealing with them first-hand. If you have such a strong case and we have reached a consensus then please, show me how I'm wrong. I am not a defender of Hovind nor am I really interested in him. I'm new to Wikipedia and am trying to really get the hang of things here and make this a better place, so please, if you have any refutation of my points show me. I am open to all suggestions and I hope you will be to. Thank you. Blackgateamericanindian (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


I feel the continued revisions on edits to people trying to make this article unbiased are open vandalism. Someone has an agenda against Hovind. Rather than turn that into a "conspiracy", lets just say that this is a living person and people are using a Wikipedia biography to defame him. That's not acceptable. Hovind has pending court cases, likely a great deal of ligation and a growing base of support that believes he is a victim. Regardless of how those people feel on his teachings, a basic decency is needed here.

I have tried to be unbiased in edits and simple clean up the very biased statements that are turning this page into an attack. I'm not an expert editor here. Maybe someone with more experience can help get this thing on track. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrilqstman (talkcontribs) 08:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:LEDE requires that the lead summarize the key topics of the article, especially with respect to what makes the subject notable. That's all about his WP:FRINGE theories and how they are contrary to mainstream science, and how he's got legal troubles. WP:BIAS is very clear that the article must take the position that reliable sources have. They are strongly one-sided, so the article here must be also (in this case, 50/50 would be a strong bias against reliable source!). These issues have all been hashed and rehashed dozens of times over many years here, and they always seem to lose on those and other policy and guideline basis. You'll need to find some new point to raise after reading those discussions if you want to make any headway. See also WP:VANDALISM to make sure you aren't mis-using words with technical meaning for emotional impact. DMacks (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You should also read WP:V, WP:RS and what is defamation, a term which you've used incorrectly. --NeilN talk to me 14:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
You can cite all the pages you want. Anyone who reads the current edits and says they are not unfairly biased is openly taking part in this smear job of Mr. Hovind. Don't try and get me with technical meaning and rule books. It's a bottomless pit and if you mean to debate the facts of integrity I don't have time for it here. What's happening on this article is wrong. Simple as that. If you want to support WP being a platform to smear political opponents, that's on you. We need to stop making excuses and get the get the article corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrilqstman (talkcontribs) 17:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Don't follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines on Wikipedia" is not a convincing argument. --NeilN talk to me 17:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK I'm starting to see how this works. Those that are more experienced here use their knowledge of the rules and pages to intimidate and get users in trouble so they can get their agenda accepted. I guess I had hoped for better from WP. The bottom line is this. If you research Hovind and the look at what's being written about him him it's clearly an unethical article. This is integrity 101 and all the WP buzz phrases won't change that. Take care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ventrilqstman (talkcontribs) 13:58, March 31, 2015‎
There has been no misconduct here, if you believe there has been there are remedies such as WP:ANI but, trust me, there has been no misconduct here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2015 (UTC)


I removed a paragraph that was original research about original research[2], a clear violation of WP:BLP. I might work through more references and remove content. I have no opinion on the veracity of claims, but this article is littered with references that are not reliable sources that are framed to disparage and discredit the subject, which is not a neutral point of view. Keegan (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'll clarify that I'll likely not dive in more, because this article is just ugly and I don't have the available time to work on fixing it much further, but I invite others to review not what information is presented, but how information is presented. Keegan (talk) 09:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Would noanswersingenesis even count as a reliable source? I'd lean towards no. If so, then that source should be removed from the article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)--Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't follow, Keegan. A source cannot engage in original research. Our policy on OR applies to editors. If the content is sourced, and we adhere to the source, then it's not OR.   — Jess· Δ 15:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
@Mann jess: my apologies if I wasn't clear, it was late and words were hard :) Here's the ultimate problem with that source: it's a scathing critique of Hovind's thesis without even making the thesis that the author had access too available. I hardly think it's within the bounds of WP:BLP to provide an entire paragraph devoted to this topic with this single source that we have no way of verifying that the author's interpretation is correct. It's simply wrong to include it if we're just supposed to take the author's word for it. I hope that makes more sense. Keegan (talk) 19:09, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, ok. But it's not our job to verify if a source is correct. If we have good reason to believe it's not (for instance, other contradictory sources), then we need to take that into account. However, I'm not aware of other sources contradicting our summary. As wikipedia editors, it would be OR for us to do our own research to verify or disprove the claims in a source. If I've misunderstood you, let me know!   — Jess· Δ 19:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
WP does not verify that an author's interpretation is correct. We may evaluate the reliability of the source, but an editor making an interpretation and analyzing an author's interpretation to see if it is correct is original research. We do indeed take the author's word for it if the source meets criteria as a reliable source. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


I got rid of a bunch of violations of MOS:WTW, such as the use of "claimed", "alleged", and "noted". These are not neutral terms, and one should simply use "said". When you use "claimed" or "alleged", it throws doubt upon what is being reported. I also fixed a few basic citations errors (we don't link to articles in the author field; that's what authorlink is for) and other minor MOS violations, such as WP:SPECIFICLINK. But what really bothers me is the overwhelming amount of boring, unnecessary detail dumped on readers. This article is over 8000 words! Really, why are every one of Hovind's beliefs detailed and then refuted? It's incredibly boring to slog through all that, especially when the sourcing is so weak. For many of his beliefs, the only citation is to one of his own websites. If no independent reliable source has seen fit to comment on his belief in some fringe theory, then we shouldn't be detailing them like this. Skeptic Magazine is good, and anything by Michael Shermer or PZ Meyers is pretty much golden. However, random criticisms from chemists who are quoted in No Answers in Genesis? I would dump that. The article is too long, overly detailed, and frankly a bit boring... especially when it descends into excruciating detail about how often he was moved from prison to prison. Is there any reason to keep that? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I've advocated getting rid of the prison movement stuff in the past. --NeilN talk to me 14:56, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
WP:SAY does not indicate that "claim" is always inappropriate, only that it must be used with care. There are cases where "claim" is the correct word, and this article is a fairly good example. For instance:
  • He claims that the cyanide-releasing compound laetrile is a "cancer cure"
  • he has claimed that the U.S. government was behind the 9/11 attacks
  • Hovind also claims that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), HIV, West Nile virus,... and Alzheimer's were all engineered by "the money masters and governments of the world" for the purpose of global economic domination
  • He claims, "Satan is using evolution theory to make kids go to hell.
In these cases, all the available evidence contradicts Hovind's claim, so we don't need to (and shouldn't) take great pains to make his claims seem reasonable. They are, in fact, claims.   — Jess· Δ 15:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
This article does not have to go to such pains to constantly refute every statement and belief. It's pretty obvious what the scientific consensus is, and hammering people over the head with it isn't going to do any better than using simple, neutral wording. That would be a major first step in NPOV cleanup here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
It's not taking pains to use the right words... those bullets above are quite clearly claims Hovind has made. It is perfectly neutral to call them claims. To say "Hovind says that laetrile is a cancer cure" gives the idea an air of legitimacy, when in reality, Hovind is the only one claiming that and it's obviously nonsense. "Claim" perfectly contextualizes the statement without having to add additional wording. Neutrality doesn't mean equal time or weight, and where Hovind is the only claimant of a widely disputed idea, it is most neutral to describe it as such.   — Jess· Δ 17:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
We're not here to soapbox about how fringe theories are wrong or save the world from itself. We're here to write a neutral encyclopedia. There's nothing wrong with explicitly stating that his beliefs are fringe and outright rejected by the scientific establishment, but repeatedly hammering it isn't going to help. I doubt anyone will think, "Wikipedia used neutral language to describe Hovind's beliefs, so maybe they're true!" If he makes a claim that is rejected by mainstream science, just neutrally report both the claim and the refutation. If there isn't a specific refutation, just let it go. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you're reading what I'm writing carefully enough, because we seem to be having two separate conversations. I'm not suggesting we use non-neutral language; "claim" is the neutral word here. The MOS says it must be used with care, and it has been. Even according to your last reply, these are, in fact, claims. Neutrality doesn't mean providing equal weight, it means following the sources, and this is what the sources say.   — Jess· Δ 23:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I have also noted that we don't need a mention of his prior prison residences. A reference just to his location at the current time is OK. I am admittedly a tax geek, and I had never heard of this guy (or his beliefs about evolution, etc.) until he popped up on the radar for federal criminal structuring and tax violations, so I also find the other stuff to be a bit long and tedious. I might be in the minority on that, though. Famspear (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You're not alone. I think many details could be cut from the Legal section. --NeilN talk to me 18:35, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
No! No! Don't cut the legal section! That's the best part!
Seriously, though, I would argue that if we're going to trim the article, we should at least start with the evolution versus creationism stuff, and leave the legal stuff in for now. Just my opinion. Famspear (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Certainly not. His entire profession and notability revolves around his ministry, which is the "evolution vs creation stuff". He would be notable for that if he hadn't gone to prison, but he wouldn't be notable for going to prison without that. There may be cruft to cut out, but if we're speaking just in general terms, we certainly can't prioritize his prison sentence over his ministry. As a note, I very often hear things like "I'd never heard of this until X"... that's a really terrible way of determining what's most significant to wikipedia. Our sources place a lot of emphasis on his views about creationism.   — Jess· Δ 18:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Mann jess: Ummmmm... I was trying to make a stab at humor -- perhaps unsuccessfully.

Although I disagree with the statement that his entire notability revolves around his ministry (I assure you that he would definitely be notable because of his federal criminal problems alone, even without the ministry stuff), I agree with you that we should not prioritize his federal criminal aspects over the ministry stuff. And, I agree that we don't actually make editorial decisions based on what a particular editor has or has not heard of before.

Look, this is Friday. I guess all my good comedy for the week was used up by Tuesday or Wednesday..... Famspear (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PS: My serious comment was that we should start the trimming with the ministry-evolution stuff. My idea is that if we're going to trim, it's the ministry-evolution stuff that needs it more than the "legal problems" materials. I don't really consider that to be prioritizing the criminal stuff over the ministry stuff; it's just that I view the ministry stuff as having more fluff in it right now than does the criminal stuff. Believe me, if the criminal sections included the extent of detail currently found in the ministry-creationism-evolution portions, this article would be huge. Compared to the evolution-creationism-ministry stuff, the article barely touches on the substance of the legal/criminal stuff.

Hovind is a notorious tax protester and, in the legal and accounting communities, that is a much bigger deal than the creationism stuff. Famspear (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I got the humor in the first part. I was responding to the second (the "serious comment"). Again, I don't have a proposal to look at, so I don't know if it'd be appropriate or not - fluff should be trimmed, regardless of the topic. But generally speaking, I don't want to see the article shift weight toward his legal troubles and away from his ministry. If that's not what you were suggesting (it appears not!) then I think we're on the same page. :) Instead of speaking generally, since that seems to be getting us into trouble, I'll wait for someone to propose a concrete change to comment on.   — Jess· Δ 22:27, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems like I'm the only MOS fanboy here, so I'll just leave the "claimed" vs "said" thing alone for now. The debate isn't going anywhere productive with two stubborn editors arguing back and forth. Do we at least have consensus to remove the "he went moved to this prison #1, then prison #2, then prison #3" paragraph? It's incredibly trivial. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Barring a source that establishes relevance, I'd say it is extraneous detail. I'm also going to remove an interest rate as an extraneous detail, as previously proposed.BiologicalMe (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I also agree about the interest rate and the history of prison locations. They're pretty tangential. I would suggest: keep just his current prison location (which is what many other Wikipedia articles on notable persons in prison show). Famspear (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Yea, I don't see why his prison moves are significant. I don't really have much thought on it either way. Have at it! :)   — Jess· Δ 15:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Creationism section[edit]

I pulled three paragraphs of criticisms which were more about his other views than Creationism. I made no effort to move any of the content to the "Controversial remarks" section as there is some coverage there. I'd appreciate any opinions if some (or all) of the text should be added back, and if so, where.BiologicalMe (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Can we try to merge that content into the appropriate section, then? As an aside, I think we have too much criticism that's not integrated into the main content. It might be a reasonable time to trim and integrate a bit, so the article isn't dominated by massive criticism / legal troubles sections. This stuff might be a good candidate for that. I'd have to review the whole article again.   — Jess· Δ 17:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I took a very rough stab at moving the content to new sections. Does that look better to you, Biological? I didn't integrate it with the existing text at all, and the "conspiracy theories" section is now incredibly long. We'll have to address that at some point.   — Jess· Δ 17:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a little better. If we can sort the content into distinct sections, it should help in reducing the redundancies.BiologicalMe (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

CSE management in creationism section[edit]

I deleted some text regarding criticisms of CSE that did not pertain to Kent Hovind himself. It was restored on the basis that it contained relevant statements about his son taking over. I think that aspect is redundant with the "Creation Science Evangelism and Creation Today" section.BiologicalMe (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, you're right. Reading the whole section again in context, it doesn't fit there, and I'm not really sure where else it would be more appropriate. I've removed it again. Thanks!   — Jess· Δ 16:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


Hovind and his supporters object to the use of his mug shot used at the top of the page. This however is used simply because it is the only one we have which is in the public domain.

Another image could be used. At which time the arrest photo could then be moved down to the "Legal problems" section. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: Please explain the reasoning behind your NPOV tag. Thanks. --NeilN talk to me 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
Harizotoh, your summary about his mug shot is correct. Are you proposing some other image to be used?   — Jess· Δ 21:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

If another image is uploaded, and it is a quality image showing Hovind clearly, I would suggest it to be used at the top of the page. His ministry could perhaps release an image under the GNU license--Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC).

If Hovind's people are reading this, the image needs to be released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. A GNU license won't be accepted. --NeilN talk to me 13:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing:[edit]

There's a lot of sources that I would deem questionable.


A now defunct website which appears to be a personal website critical of Hovind. Who wrote it? Are they experts? It looks like a personal website, with no editorial review. I don't think it would pass as a WP:RS.


I removed that, but I don't think that would be controversial.


Personal blog. Also used to source a statement that had tons of other citations, so it was not even needed. I also really, really, really think it's dangerous to declare personal blogs as WP:RS. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a personal blog per se and the removal is controversial (obviously, as I reverted it). Please have a look at PZ Myers. --NeilN talk to me 16:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I, BiologicalMe, and several other editors have been doing extensive cleanup of the article by trimming redundant prose (and sources). I assume this will continue. If there is now content in the article cited incorrectly, or to a low quality source, we should remove that source and {{cn}} tag the statement so a better source can be found. For example, there are many, many sources to back up the statement that Hovind rejects fossil evidence, including words from Kent Hovind directly. IIRC, that blip about rejecting fossils mid-sentence is taking the place of a large swath of unnecessary content elaborating on it further which I removed. Removing the prose doesn't help; fixing the source does. Let's do that.   — Jess· Δ 21:29, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Should "Dinosaur Adventure Land" be abbreviated as DAL?[edit]

As a stylistic consideration, should we abbreviate throughout (with occasional exceptions such as direct quotes) or write it out? It appears roughly a dozen times in the text, excluding references.BiologicalMe (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to avoid abbreviating. Readers often skip around, instead of reading the whole article from start to finish, and abbreviations can be confusing. In this case, I don't think it's too incredibly long, and to avoid redundancies, we can say "Hovind's park", "the theme park", etc, in some cases. Just my opinion, though.   — Jess· Δ 16:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
...or simply "the park".BiologicalMe (talk) 17:24, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jess. Overuse and misuse of abbreviations can be a problem.

Recently, I was scanning the article and saw the abbreviation "DAL" -- which at the time wasn't explained anywhere. I was trying to figure out what the heck it meant. I found a reference earlier in the article to "Dinosaur Adventure Land," and so I added the "DAL" abbreviation to that reference.

Even with that improvement, the frequent, repetitive use of an abbreviation in an article may tend to cause problems that outweigh the benefits. Famspear (talk) 18:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd argue that it is infrequent use which becomes problematic. CSE is used more heavily and I think the abbreviation is helpful. Its repeated use is self-reinforcing. There are reasons other than frequency. At least to my eye, CSE looks like an a business TLA. (On the other hand, DAL could be a giant lentil.) The other reason is that CSE tends to be mentioned in ways that give contextual clues (e.g. "leadership role in CSE") where the details are not important.BiologicalMe (talk) 13:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)