Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 10

Edit Section 4: Controversial Remarks

I really think you may need to edit the controversial remarks section. I don't think the New World Order or one world government concept is a conspiracy anymore when even the mainstream media is acknowledging this agenda. I believe the current information is out of date and needs to be brought up to speed with the current events of the world today considering current actions and policies of the U.S. and United Nations among others. I mean it's not really a conspiracy anymore if they're telling us straight out they want to accomplish this goal now is it? Amdhtpc (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

The mainstream media is acknowledging this agenda and the U.S. and United Nations are telling us straight out they want to accomplish this goal? Sources please? --NeilN talk to me 17:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed]... Nefariousski (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, various prominent national leaders have used the term "new world order", but this refers to an era of hoped political change, and not the conspiracy theory. Colin MacLaurin (talk) 09:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I have yet to hear the term "New World Order" used with a positive conotation. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 12:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should watch the news more. I don't even have tv and I've seen it used that way before.Farsight001 (talk) 00:56, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hovind on a TV Show?

In a couple youtube series (Why to people laugh at creationists, and Fundamental falsehoods of creationism), Hovind is seen on what looks to be a tv show, or possibly a documentary. He's wearing a white lab coat, and in one scene he's actually in a labratory mixing chemicles. In another clip he's being introduced to what looks like a crime scene investigator, by someone who's listing his "credentials" as a scientist.

Sorry i cant provide more information than that. both series are 30+ episodes long, and i cant remember which episodes have the clips. The reason i bring is up though is because i cant seem to find any reference to this. If he was on a TV show or Documentary, then it's probably worth noting somewhere. SeanBrockest (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Found One! http://www.youtube.com/watch#v=bFm8uCZ6Uoc Watch the first 25 seconds of this video, it contains the clip. SeanBrockest (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an intro (a skit) to one of his CSE Seminars (2001 Edition), The first scene in the video you linked is from the first video in the series call "The Age of the Earth". - Bobby —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.56.72.185 (talk) 01:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

What really happened

[1] is interesting. No place in this article because it is not V or RS - but interesting anyway. - Kittybrewster 11:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.SeanBrockest (talk) 14:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Why is this listed as a cryptid article? Surely Kent Hovid is not a cryptid? - Kittybrewster 14:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm no expert, but i'm going to take a guess that this has to do with Kent's assertions that dragons were dinosaurs, and that dinosaurs (in hiding) still roam the earth. I could be wrong though SeanBrockest (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
Myths cannot be substantiated by evidence. The Genesis account has been proven by much legal/historical proof and is therefore not a myth. See Ron Wyatt's discoveries. Of course these discoveries are attacked by secularists due to their vested interests. On the other hand evolution has no scientific evidence whatsoever to support it. Evolution is therefore a myth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.223.29 (talk) 23:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Lawyers can now prove Genesis? Is there anything they can't do?? Also, see Evidence of common descent. --NeilN talk to me 23:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hovind's dissertation online, Patriot Bible University denies

I think the article needs to mention that Hovind's purported dissertation has been linked online. I understand the copyright concern and agree the article shouldn't link to the PDF. However, now that Patriot Bible University has commented on it as well as his critics, it seems like there are multiple sources/perspectives, leading to mentioning the leak.

With the unveiling of Wikipedia’s new site “Wikileaks”, which seeks the “Latest Leaks and Censored Media”, has come the “never-before-revealed” Kent Hovind dissertation from Patriot Bible University. But is this the real thing?
...

2. Hovind’s dissertation was part of a graduate “project”. Thus, the paper being posted online was only a portion of Hovind’s initial research notes for his dissertation requirements. It is obviously not a finished product.

Yes, it's actually his thesis. I've also seen the copy that NCSE has in their offices.[2]

I don't think there is any reason to exclude a mention of this controversy. DD89crid (talk) 05:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then add it. This is wikipedia. SeanBrockest (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, add it if it's in line with policy. And SB, perhaps WP:SOFIXIT is a relevant link here. --King Öomie 14:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I've added it. I'm new to this, so someone interested should probably check that I did it right --nerdiah (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that comment is a joke. The full quote is:
Posted by: PZ Myers | December 9, 2009 12:22 PM
Yes, it's actually his thesis. I've also seen the copy that NCSE has in their offices.
Actually, in the bathroom at the NCSE office.
The bathroom part is the punchline, of course. None of this is reliable or verifiable. Eh, I think that the whole thesis thing is overblown. What's the quality of the PUBLISHED and available material? Not good -- so who needs a thesis that may or may not even exist?EGMichaels (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that while he can add it himself, he shouldn't do so unless it SHOULD be added. --King Öomie 16:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I don't think Myers was joking. Secondly, PZ Myers just posted a response to Patriot's claims about the dissertation. DD89crid (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
If I recall correctly the leak happened about the same time that a copy of On the Origin of Species was found in someone's bathroom. Presumably PZ was just having a bit of fun with that coincidence (after the preceding serious comment). Cheers, Ben (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

does he really have a degree at all?

an odd bit of vandalism caused me to notice this line in the article: "After receiving his first correspondence degree, he started Creation Science Evangelism", the first line of the Creation Science Evangelism line. I don't really have a way to check the source provided, so I was wondering if it actually said that he got a degree. Last I heard, other than his fake degrees which obviously don't count, he doesn't actually have any. can anyone confirm?Farsight001 (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, he only has the fake degree(s). — TheHerbalGerbil(TALK), 11:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
While I can't personally source it, the information is accurate. He has the proper certificates from Patriot, and i've heard them confirm that in interviews. Sadly, anyone can give out degrees. I could give you a degree in Rocket Science right now. This is why people with serious degrees usually say "I have a masters from X", or "I have 3 degrees from Y". Who gave you the degrees is far more important than the nature of the degree itself. SeanBrockest (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Well there's the thing - a degree from patriot is fake. It is not a real degree with any necessary real education behind it. So can we really call it one in the first place? We could say "After attending Patriot, he started Creation Science Evangelism". But I can't really do anything without being able to read the source for it and make sure I don't attribute something to it that isn't actually there.Farsight001 (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing fake about his degrees. He studied at institutions for years to get them. I'm assuming you're referring to them being unaccredited institutions, because they are christian universities. No christian universities ever get accredited by the state, because the state supports evolution and not creation. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 18:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

You say that like they're equally plausible. It's not even close. This is like complaining that a college dedicated to teaching people that Kangaroos run Wall street can't get accreditation because of "bias." --King Öomie 18:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
As usual, facts and reality make a mockery of claimed bias/oppression by the ID movement: Liberty University is accredited. DMacks (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
That is not even remotely true, cobyjak01. First of all, as even Hovind himself admits, his college "education" lasted 6 weeks, not years. And his "college" was literally a double wide trailer with one staff member, no course requirements, no actual courses, and exactly one textbook - the bible. To claim that his education is on par with people who spend tens of thousands of dollars and study for years for their education is not only silly, but insulting to those of us with actual proper educations. Second, there are many Christian universities with accreditation. Catholic colleges all over the world have no trouble with accreditation and even the very popular, yet strictly young earth creationist school Bob Jones University has accreditation. And those are just a few examples. The truth is that most Christian colleges, even the YEC ones get accreditation quite easily.Farsight001 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In his seminar series from CSE he stated that it took him "years" to attain his degree. I don't know what you're citing. Obviously, if the Pope supports evolution, the Catholics will too. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Then that's another one of his lies, just like everything else in his seminars. And the pope does not support evolution. The pope has declared that belief in evolution does not contradict the Catholic faith. That is neither support or opposition. Whether the individual Catholic wants to accept it or not is up to them. I have met more than one Catholic that is not only a young earth creationist, but a fan of Hovind's seminars as well.Farsight001 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

move to Responses section

The claims that Hovind's ideas are contradicted by scientific evidence and that another Creationist group disagrees with him, written in the opening paragraph, needs to be moved to the section entitled "Responses" or create another section for criticisms. The opening paragraph appears to only state his views, not opposing viewpoints.Jlujan69 (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Because there are already sections dealing with the criticisms of his teachings, so those two belong there, not in the opening paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlujan69 (talkcontribs) 23:25, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

More details should probably be added to the criticism section, but that's no reason to remove it from the lede. It would WP:POV not to include the fact that his critics outnumber his supporters. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:LEDE, "The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.". Criticism of his views is an important aspect of this article. --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
Common new editor mistake - the first paragraph is part of the lead, which should accurately and succinctly summarize the article, including how he's scientifically incompetent, an embarrassment within the already sad and embarrassing world of creationism, and a tax fraudster.
By the way, it's not that there are "claims" his ideas are contradicted by evidence. They are contradicted by the evidence, there is no evidence behind any of his claims. Hovind is wrong, and has been proven consistently wrong for several decades now. He was never right. His ideas never had merit. The claim is that he understands science, when the reality is he neither understands the theory, nor the details of science. Hovind is either incredibly clueless, or has been lying for years. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed Hovind's ideas are contradicted by scientific evidence myself. It is bias to say that Hovind's ideas are contradicted by scientific evidence. We need verifiable evidence to prove that his ideas really contradicts scientific evidence. It is not enought to say that he is wrong. The fact is, he was able to present several scientific proof to support his accusation agains evolution. If he really did not present any proof and if he is really wrong, we must list it down and use scientific proof to refute it. It is not enough to say that he is lying. So if we are accusing someone of anything, we must prove it and let him be innoccent until proven guilty Larcen357 (talk) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hovind's ideas ARE contradicted by scientific evidence. This is common knowledge. He is a lying, idiotic, fraudster. It is, in fact, bias to remove/hide this fact. This is an encyclopedia article. As such, we are not supposed to go into great detail about every little thing. It is sufficient to point out that he is wrong. There is proof. There has actually been proof that Hovind's ideas were false since before he was even born.Farsight001 (talk) 01:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Listen Farsight001, all you are doing is slandering. Yes this is an encyclopedia article, not an opinion article. Wikipedia has alot of available space for adding more information. Therefore, we must present more referrence. Every little thing counts. Readers are the one who is supposed to decide. If we will present more evidence, then we don't need to state that he is a liar, idiot and a fraudster. In fact, your statement shows that you are taking him personally. It would be nice if we can add several referrence on the topics that he stated so we can condemn him on each and every statement that he said evolution is not true. For the mean time, we have to be fair, otherwise, we are the once that are going to be condemned Larcen357 (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Farsight001. Hovind's ideas ARE contradicted by scientific evidence, and the opinions of even most Young Earth creationists. There should be a reference, but it's not absolutely necessary, even under BLP. However, some of Farsight's comments above do violate BLP; we don't know that he's lying about his creationist beliefs, or that he's idiotic, although logic suggests he must be one or the other. (He has been convicted of fraud, so we can call him a "fraudster".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Slander is a specific legal term. I highly doubt that you mean that I broke the law with what I said. This article is already well referenced, sans the lede, which is ideally supposed to be without references because it is just supposed to be a summary of the article. My statement shows that I know what I'm talking about. He IS a fraudster. What else would you call someone in prison FOR FRAUD? This article already is fair. Yes, it makes him sound like an idiot, but that's because he IS one. It's just like how the Hitler article makes him sound like a genocidal maniac - because he was one. Per policy, we report what reputable sources say and we weigh the article according to the weight of the reputable sources. Since pretty much every reputable source exposes him as the liar he is, we are, per policy, to weigh the article in the same manner. So what, specifically, in light of policy, do you see as a problem here?Farsight001 (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok then. Since two heads are better than one, list down all of Hovind's statement that contradicts science together with brief explanations as well as links to a wikipedia topic. Don't state it is not necessary because it is necessary. Readers need to know these things. How can readers know how to defend science from these liars if they can't even point out some facts. Take this for example. If I can remember it correctly, Hovind stated that the Fossil Lucy (Australopithecus)was proven false. Why don't we have any referrence here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larcen357 (talkcontribs) 21:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I will state that it is not necessary because it is not. You just have a problem understanding the purpose of the talk page and of articles. For articles, we report what reliable sources say. If all reliable sources said that the earth was flat, then we report that the earth is flat, even if we know otherwise. The talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for satisfying your demands that we prove he's a fraud. Such as Hovind's statement that lucy was fake. Where did this claim come from? What is his justification for it? You've listened to his lectures. What is the evidence he has provided? NONE! I have personally seen Lucy. It's quite real and it's dna is quite distinct from a human's. Again - HE IS LYING TO YOU. You are underestimating exactly how much he does this. And let me say one more time - this is not the purpose of a talk page. If you want proof, I'm sure you could find some of it by actually visiting some of the links in the article, or googling for it, or just visiting talk origins, and even if not, it is irrelevant. I don't mean to sound rude, but wikipedia does not care.Farsight001 (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. Ok, well here's the deal. Articles are supposed to be unbiased. In order to do that, the article needs to reflect BOTH points of view. I personally think that there should be an entire section devoted to this very controversial topic, with lists/references given BOTH to those scientific facts which contradict Hovind's theories, AND lists/references given for those scientific facts which support Hovind's theories. I honestly believe that you will find that some of each is true. And since this is SUPPOSED to be an unbiased Encyclopedia, both should be listed, with the appropriate references for each. Let the readers decide for themselves once they are given the proper facts to decide with. Isn't that the point of this entire website??? Astrohm (talk)astrohm —Preceding undated comment added 18:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC).

Hovind's point of view is of such a minority (because it's utterly unsupported by anything except the bible) that we don't need to portray it in any meaningful way. Per WP:UNDUE, emphasis should be on the mainstream scientific point of view and not the absurd nonsense spouted by creationists (including Hovind). The article is unbiased in that it appropritately supports the mainstream point of view, and doesn't give any credit to Hovind's unsupported assertions. Your suggestion would be original research and therefore inappropriate, in addition to giving the inappropriate suggestion that there's merit to Hovind's point of view. If Hovind's statements are true, this is incidental.
As far as the encyclopedia goes, I don't think you'll find Brittanica giving any support to Hovind's nonsense. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, but I think that you may be stating an Opinion when you say that evolutionists are the mainstream. When I google "how many americans believe in creationism?", the very first link that comes up [3] says "Approximately 40%-50% of the public accepts a biblical creationist account of the origins of life, while comparable numbers accept the idea that humans evolved over time." Sounds to me like neither belief system has the majority opinion here. So why list facts pertaining to only one of them? That is called bias. it is unprofessional, and does not belong in an Encyclopedia.Astrohm (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
My opinion is substantiated by numerous high-quality sources, from peer-reviewed articles. Popularity of an opinion doesn't matter; the average person isn't a biologist, let alone an evolutionary biologist. The obvious comparison is of course, that the sun was thought to revolve around the earth, which was itself flat. The vast majority believed in a geocentric universe, with a flat earth at the center. Hugely popular. Also considered substantially wrong.
Also, I'm not a professional, but I've at least done some reading. I've even read Darwin on Trial and The Edge of Evolution. Both were terrible, so bad that even a nonspecialist like myself could refute the points. Johnson's work in particular is simply a rehash of older material that was rejected by both science and the American supreme court decades ago. Before you bring up topics like "belief in creationism is popular", you should familiarize yourself with basic science (which requires evidence, not authority). Your time would be best served by reading the index of creationist claims found on talk.origins. It addresses the majority of the standar tropes trotted out by creationists, and will save you a lot of time in the future. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like a plan! Does that mean that editors on this page will stop reverting it whenever someone tries to reference such "evidence"? And I mean both sides, which is EXACTLY what I have been asking for all along . . .Astrohm (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
See WP:LEAD, so long as the information is sourced in the body, the lead section does not need citations. Note WP:RS which discusses the requirements for sources on wikipedia. Also note WP:FRINGE, which covers fringe theories and pseudoscience such as creationism. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 22:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
It should be moved. Obvious biased views from users who want the article to be a anti-Hovind article, but this is a biography. Ken Ham, and Answers in Genesis, who Hovind cites regularly, has no such negative introduction. Hovind also cites sources for all his work in his Seminar series as well as his ministry's website. I've read the details of his so-called tax fraud charges, the vast majority have to do with alleged cash structuring or smurfing during the construction phase of his ministry. Wikipedia article on "Structuring" even states problems with normal business practices being labeled as structuring, when structuring is designed to detect money-laundering. They cite Forbes magazine on that page. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Why would it be moved? And yes, Hovind cites sources, but if you ever sat down and read most of them, you would discover that either A) They are not qualified to be sources, or B) he has intentionally quoted them deceptively. I say again, I think you are severely underestimating the extent to which Hovind is lying. Also let me point out that saying in his seminar "there was this paper written a few years ago that said..." does NOT qualify as a cite. A proper cite includes name of paper, name of authors of paper, year published, publication in which the paper was found, and specific page on which the information is found.
In addition, Hovind's reason for structuring is irrelevant to the fact that he was structuring and thus broke the law. What it is designed to do is irrelevant. Hovind's purpose behind breaking the law is unrelated to the fact that he broke the law. His lawyer could provide Hovind's reason for structuring as a reason to have the sentence reduced, but the law was broken irregardless.Farsight001 (talk) 01:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree with you on the law being broken. But a law being legal and a law being just are two different things. That's why laws get amended or new laws get made. Ever hear of Civil Rights laws? I work in the finance sector and I know the reasons behind the laws he broke--to stop money laundering and terrorism funding. As much as you hate what he stands for, he is doing neither.
As far as his sources go, he cites his sources but just doesn't take the time to spell them all out for everyone. He has fast-paced lectures with a lot of information and simply doesn't have the time. If you were only LISTENTING to his lectures, I would understand. But he displays his lectures using slideshows EVERYTIME, and on the slides is where you find all of his sources, all of which are legitimate. I haven't blindly followed what he said, I've researched his sources. It's easy enough to press pause while watching them to check them out yourself.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 18:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I would agree that a law being "legal" and a law being just are two different things. However, we cannot make value judgments like that here, so we cannot call it unjust. You might think it's an unjust law. I certainly don't.
And to his source - I don't know what you're looking at, but no, he does not list his sources regularly. And as I already mentioned above, when he actually does, he then uses the source selectively - to convince the audience that said source makes a statement that it in no way actually does. If you think he makes legitimate arguments, then I really have to doubt how deeply you checked his source. Running through a source to find the exact quote he mentioned only shows that he can quote mine, not that he can accurately represent the source he cites.
Lastly, let me say this - the talk page is not for discussing things like this. It is for discussing improvements to the article only. If you do not have reliably sourced material that meets the standards here (and no, Hovind himself does not and never will meet those standards), then we cannot add what you want, end of story.Farsight001 (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This a a section about moving negative material in the introduction to Kent Hovind's page to a different secion. You and other atheists attempts to discredit him in the opening paragraph is what the discussion is about, whether you kept track of that or not. You're trying to persuade us all that these opening statements are consensus facts, when even the language shows, with all it's vagueries, that it as just an attempt to discredit someone who has a strong following of his own, as well as multiple other organizations' support.
The law he was convicted of has nothing to do with his credability as a teacher or lecturer. I believe the law he broke is just if it is used to prosecute it's original intended targets: mafia and terrorists. Structuring is used by those who wish to avoid raising red flags with the government in such operations as money-laundering and terrorism funding. It CAN be misused for a number of things. It's not like he missed paying any taxes. So, if you want to discuss his legal battles, keep that discussion for the appropriate section, because it doesn't belong in the intro.Cobyjak 01 (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Your accusation that the article 'discredits' Hovind is a little odd. He is only notable for teaching things that are not true, and for breaking the law. He discredited himself; Wikipedia isn't responsible for that, and can only report it. Teaching that science is false and illegal tax practices are the two things he's known for, so they should be in the lede, where readers who are wondering who he is will find them most easily. You don't have be an atheist to recognize the things for which he is significant; he has the support of only a tiny fringe even among Christians. I don't agree that the things he is known for should be downplayed or moved in order to make him look like a better person; he is who he is, he's done what he's done, and it wouldn't be useful to try to clean up his reputation here when it hasn't yet been redeemed in reliable sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Hovind's tax advisor gets 15 years in prison

It might be worth including a sentence about Kent Hovind's tax advisor Lindsey Springer (of Bondage Breaker Ministry) who was convicted of tax fraud and given 15 years in prison (Springer sold "tax protester rhetoric and legalistic gibberish" under the guise of a ministry.) Hovind often cites Springer is his creation seminars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AliceThemNot89 (talkcontribs) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, this should be included, but i'm not eloquent enough to do it SeanBrockest (talk) 03:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't quite understand why the advisor got a jail sentence. I say that if it is either because A) he duped Hovind and that lead to Hovind going to jail, or B) if Springer helped hovind commit tax fraud, then we include it. If the reason for the advisor's jail sentence is unrelated to Hovind, then there is no reason to include this information in the article.Farsight001 (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Although i don't have anything to back this up right now, it's quite possible that without a man like springer filling his head with this nonsense, it's quite possible hovind wouldn't be in jail right now. I think that's what alice was pointing to SeanBrockest (talk) 12:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Which would definitely be of note to us here. In fact, I'd call such a statement very important for this article. But we do need an independant reliable source to make the connection for us or it's just WP:SYNTH on our part.Farsight001 (talk) 00:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC

It wouldn't make sense for them to convict Hovind AND his tax advisor for the same charges. They would do one or the other. But googling Lindsey Springer shows some decent material to work with. 15 year sentence after being convicted for 3 counts of tax fraud and 2 for willfully failing to submit tax forms. Not to mention the rest of his crazy track record. Apparently labeled as another "tax protestor" and seems to have been indicted originally for "federal income tax conspiracy" using the ministry name "Bondage Breakers Ministry" to solicit and receive money. Hovind appears to have been used as well. http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/lindsey-springe http://www.fraudsandscams.com/OscarStilley/Stilley.htm http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=3939 Cobyjak 01 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense.
In general, if they both did the same thing, or if Springer assisted Hovind in preparing Hovind's bogus tax returns, then both should be prosecuted for the same thing.
However, if we can find a reliable source which said that Springer led Hovind astray, that might be of interest. (I don't see any way that Hovind's failure to pay property tax can be laid to Springer, though. He wasn't convicted of that, but the property was seized by Florida before it was seized by the IRS. That seems to have disappeared from the article, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Subject as source of information

I have been reverted twice by User:Arthur Rubin after I inserted some childhood information about Hovind sourced with a video lecture by Hovind published on YouTube. The applicable section of WP:RS on Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves reads as follows:

Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Even after pointing the user, who also happens to be an administrator, to this policy page, I was again reverted. I hope spelling out the text in full here without requiring having to go to that page and actually read the referenced policy will ensure I'm not reverted again after I have now reinstated the original addition. The last reverting edit summary read: " Even if the video weren't (obviously) edited, it is not a source for anything except Hovind's (and Jones's) opinions, so is not valid for material)". Based on what I have now demonstrated I assert that this argument is meaningless. __meco (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is it important that Hovind's parents started a kids' wheelchair club when Hovind was a child? That seems to be beyond trivial, which, I'm guessing, is why no one has written about it, not even Hovind, as far as I can see. It's as insignificant as the name of his father's hamster. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not significant except that Hovind in the video states that he spent a lot of his time growing up in the company of those kids. His brother having suffered polio I suppose was one reason why their parents started the club. I think this gives some valuable insight into his background and the kind of family cohesion and human values of his family probably having some bearing on what kind of adult person he is. __meco (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
So the purpose of the information is to make it clear that he is a good, nice, kind person, with good "family cohesion and human values?" That would seem to be adding a point of view to the article. Especially since there isn't any obvious chain that leads from spending some time with kids in wheelchairs to tax fraud. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
The point is to give a condensed insight into his early years. That's part of writing a biography. __meco (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
It seems very clear to me that you're adding information which is utterly inconsequential, with the explicit purpose of biasing the reader to think of Mr. Hovind positively. I disagree with you very strongly. I also want to warn you about the rules regarding edit-warring- if you're right, then you should not repeatedly undo others' edits, but wait until it's clear that there is consensus that this edit should be made. We also have really clear rules against adding our own point of view to articles. I think those rules are relevant here, and I want to make sure you're familiar with them. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I rest my case in the face of an obvious case of "the cat calling the kettle black", editors who disregard guidelines and what in my POV biased opinion is a consensus based on ill willed ignorance. For the record I'll add the contentious snippet which I wanted to insert here:

Kent Hovind grew up in Peoria, Illinois. His parents had started a club for kids in a wheelchair, "The Wild Club – walking or wheeling", possibly as a consequence of Hovind's oldest brother having contracted polio, and Hovind spent a lot of time in the company of this group as he was growing up.<ref>{{Cite video |title= Kent Hovind-The New World Order and the Depopulation Agenda- part 3/3 |url= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ip0IERdAZu8&feature=related |publisher=YouTube |date= ca 2005 |accessdate= July 7, 2010}}</ref>

__meco (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Have any of his other biographers thought this information important enough to write about? If you can show a source other than a video of Hovind mentioning it in a speech, that would be helpful. You haven't really offered any reason to include this information other than your explicit statement that you think that understanding the 'family cohesion and human values' of his childhood would be relevant to explaining what kind of adult Hovind is- which seems to be a clear statement that the purpose of the information is to bias- to create the impression that Hovind himself must have the positive qualities by describing what his parents did. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've done something I don't think others have- I've watched the video clip. Hovind did not tell the story about the wheelchair club to explain or make a connection to his family's cohesion or values. He told the story to illustrate the great human suffering that has been caused by doctors who put poisons into our medicines. For example, he says, HIV was spread in the polio vaccine. Polio was never cured; they just renamed it 'multiple sclerosis.' Pasteurization of milk does not do anything positive for health. Autism is caused by vaccines. Vaccines also cause SIDS. (After this, he changed the subject to the subject of why Masons are Satanists, so I stopped it as no longer being relevant to this discussion). I definitely oppose using this trivial information out-of-context; the subject of this detail is not Hovind's positive family values, but his ardent opposition to modern medicine. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
A few things to say. First of all, Meco, you bold facedly lied in your edit summary multiple times. First you added the info, which was, according to you in the edit summary, per a talk page discussion. However, the talk page discussion (this one) did not yet exist at the time, as the time stamps clearly show. Then I reverted, ALSO before this discussion existed. Then about 15 minutes after you started this discussion, you reverted me, complaining that I don't pay attention to the talk page discussion which, again, did not exist at the time of my reversion. Lying like this in edit summaries is not going to get you anywhere around here, especially when it is intended to be defamatory towards other editors.
Second, what you want to add is, I say relevant and important enough for this article. It is about a person and however rotten said person is, his young life is relevant to him and understanding him. So this information could be useful to learn about his youth, but NOT his morals. We cannot use a Hovind seminar as a source. The man, to put it bluntly, is a lying sack of s***. Nothing he says can be trusted to be true, even about himself. We cannot use his words or claims as a source, even for information about his personal life. If, however, we saw confirmation of this act from another source, then I say put it in - but again, not in regards to development of his morals for that would be WP:SYNTH, but rather as a history of his life. Farsight001 (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It's true that every other statement of fact I heard on that video is demonstrably false... which makes it hard to pick that one out as not needing verification. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro

There is one sentence in the opening paragraph that needs to be removed: "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research."

Do some research. That's completely false. You might possibly be able to say that a few of his views are contradicted by evidence, if any. To leave out any type of adjective, whether it be "Some of Hovind's view" or "Most of Hovind's views," is a blatant lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunshineRhea (talkcontribs) 04:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should be the one doing the research here. It is hardly a lie or even an exaggeration to say that Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence. I mean, the guy thinks sunlight causes old age and can't tell the difference between a gene and a chromosome.Farsight001 (talk) 05:38, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Continuing; perhaps you could provide one of his views which is not contradicted by scientific research? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't think it causes old age, sweetheart. He says it speeds up the process of your skin looking and feeling aged....which it does. And he has plenty of theories that make logical sense, like the water canopy that Earth had towards the beginning, and the opening of the fountains of the deep. Those theories ARE supported by scientific evidence. And I don't really know that many of his theories that aren't. If you'd like to give an example.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunshineRhea (talkcontribs) 05:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to trick me. I've seen the footage of him saying it from his own mouth. He says that it causes old age. He also says, in similar fashion, that if there were no sunlight, we would never grow old. In addition, none of his theories make logical sense. A water canopy is scientifically impossible. Is it liquid? Then it would rain to earth. Is it solid? Then it could not possibly stay in one piece. And where are the openings for the fountains of the deep? Surely they would be left over somewhere and yet...nothing. They are not theories supported by scientific evidence. You can't even call them theories. They are wild speculation in the face of literally mountains of proof to the contrary. Just because you don't know whats wrong with his claims doesn't mean they're not wrong.Farsight001 (talk) 06:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Omigosh, you have a valid point. A liquid canopy or a solid canopy doesn't make much sense. I guess you got me there. Of course, if something isn't liquid and it isn't solid, there's absolutely nothing else it could be. Cause we all know there are only two states of matter, right......yeah. And honestly? There's no proof of the fountains of the deep? Have you heard of an oceanic trench? There's a pretty big one in the Atlantic Ocean called the Puerto Rico Trench. You could try looking up how that came to be about. There's an even bigger one over in the Pacific. The Mariana. You might find that one interesting too. :) So why don't you show me some of these "mountains of proof?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.8.159 (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah...there are equally large problems with a gaseous canopy as well, though Hovind never talked about gaseous canopies - only liquid and solid ones - so I don't know why you're bothering to bring it up. And as deep as ocean trenches are, they are not openings in the earth. As for showing you the mountains of proof - there are a few problems with that. One is that there is so much proof that it would require several YEARS of education to fit it all into a person's brain. Obviously, I cannot show you such a massive amount of info on the talk page here. Second, giving proof to the ignorant is not the purpose of the talk page, but rather for article improvement only. If you want a good "intro" to the mountains of proof, then I would suggest you A)take biology and geology 101 classes at a respectable accredited college, spend some time on the talkorigins archive, and check out the "why do people laugh at creationists" videos on youtube. And keep in mind that even after you've done all of that, you've still only gotten your feet wet. You'll still have many more years of study ahead of you.Farsight001 (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
If your claim is that Hovind hypothesizes a 'gaseous canopy,' and that has been confirmed by peer-reviewed science journals, the burden of proof is on you. I invite you to cite your sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hovind is a clear, blatant example of pseudoscientific creationism and there is absolutely no merit to any of his claims. This is well documented, he's one of the best-known creationists in the world and his claims are nothing new, and certainly not founded on anything remotely resembling science. There's no reason to portray them as anything meaningful, in the intro or body. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 08:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Dude. Have you actually looked into his claims or gone to any of his sessions, or are you assuming because he calls himself a creationist that every word that comes out of his mouth is wrong? Prejudiced, much? And yeah, I guess you're right, this page isn't meant to start anything, just offer suggestions on how the article can be improved. My original point was you cannot accruately say that every one of his theories aren't scientific. It's just not true. I'd still like you to give me at least one valid example of your "mountains." :)

By the way, just throwing it out there. The fountains of the deep thing? Have you heard of a sea vent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.8.159 (talk) 03:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have looked into his claims, which gives him far more credence than he gives evolutionary biologists, geologists, paleontologists, cosmologists, physicists, and every other area of science he attacks which he has done no investigating into. You think I'm the prejudiced one? What have YOU done? I would bet a ridiculously large amount of money that you haven't investigated the evolution side of things half as much as I have the creationist side. We can accurately say that every one of his theories aren't scientific. Just because you don't know why they aren't scientific is no reason not to make this clear and obvious declaration of fact. As for the mountains of evidence - I already told you where to go. I have already explained, and you and I both know that this talk page is not the place for this kind of conversation. If you really and truly want the mountains of evidence, then do what I already suggested - but I suspect you have no intention of actually looking.
And yes, I've heard of a sea vent, which is no where near large enough to spill the volume of water in the time allotted. Every sea vent, many of which don't actually spill water in the first place, combined, does not provide even remotely enough. Do the math.
Listen. The game is over. The match between creationism and evolution ended several decades ago. Before the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, before Behe thought up "irreducible complexity", and before Hovind was even born. There is no real other way to say it. Evolution is true. It is fact. It has been proven. The game was such an utter trouncing that the referee called it early. If you want to keep kicking a ball around on the field, go ahead. But the game has ended. Creationism has already lost. If you don't have a suggestion for article improvement that holds merit and perhaps has a reliable source to back it up, then there is no point to this conversation and it should be archived.Farsight001 (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Anon, I've actually done a lot of reading on the creation-evolution controversy, from Paley to Young-Earthers like Hovind and Ham, to Old Earthers, to the latest round of nonsense with Intelligent Design. I even watched his grossly misnamed "Creation Science Evangelism Debate- At a University!" which wasn't a debate and wasn't "at a university". It's not prejudice that makes people laugh - its a combination of the scientific illiteracy of the preachers, and the belief that somehow a book written by a bunch of iron-age Semites contains information of relevant to modern science. It doesn't, and there's no more reason to think the Bible is an accurate description of the history of anything but a tiny tribe in the Fertile Crescent, than to think Raven pulled the Earth from the Watery Depths of Otter's Home, or we go through billion-year cycles of creation and destruction on the whim of lord Brahma, or any other prescientific religious belief.
The fountains of the deep probably relate to the freshwater springs found around what used to be Dilmun, probably modern Bahrain, where "the sweet and the salty waters mix". You can swim to them, and actually drink fresh water from them while floating in salty ocean water. They're not talking about the Mariana Trench. If you really want to understand the origins of the Bible, you should probably read up on Sumerian creation myths since that's where the Noah legend came from. Once you've boned up on that, you could start looking into histories of early Jewish beliefs.
Also, I am quite prejudiced against Mr. Hovind. In addition to being a convicted felon, he actively lies to people. You are being mislead by him - and if you don't believe me, try looking on Talk.origins, they have a whole list of his claims and why every single one of them is a deception [4]. That's probably the most accessible mountain you could start climbing, but their index to creationist claims is also a really good one. His arguments are even considered discredited by other creationists, that's how bad they are. You very, very much can say his arguments are not scientific - for one thing, he does not research. For another, he starts with an assumption - that the Bible is literally true. Specifically the English Bible, specifically the version codified in probably the King James Version, specifically the Genesis account. This ignores the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament, which were translated into Greek, which were translated into 17th century English, ignoring other versions of the English Bible, and selectively choosing which texts were considered orthodox. This also ignores the Greek New Testament - since it was first written down from oral traditions in Greek, not English. Also, since there were multiple versions both when the "original" Bible (old and new testament) was put together around the 3rd century AD, as well as the multiple versions found when the "first" (read, Jewish) Bible, the Old Testament, was put together into an orthodox version between 200 BC and 200 AD - and ignoring transcription errors, scribal column notes integrated as text, etc. You should look into the history of your bible. First off, there is not a single "bible" - the number of books varies according to which sect and doctrine the bible descends from. Second, the scribes who copied the many different books made frequent errors, inserted their own commentaries, corrected "unorthodox" versions, added their own stories, and generally ensured that we wouldn't have a single "bible" to work with. So, in addition to being very selective about which "bible" he is using, he's assuming it is 100% true and works backwards from there, ignoring information that contradicts his assumptions, and selectively citing information that does. Science is about selecting the best theory that explains the most observations, and all theories are subject to revision. Hovind's theory, that the Bible is 100% true in all details (specifically the ones he knows about and wants to be true), can never be disproven - it doesn't matter what he finds, he will never change his theory. So no, Hovind is not a scientist, and is not doing anything scientific. The only interesting thing he is doing is trying to co-opt the authority science carries in modern society to justify a religious set of beliefs. In other words, he's not sufficiently confident in the Bible alone as the word of God - he has to bring in a totally separate discipline to "justify" the Bible. That's morally weak, deceptive and philosophically incoherent. You can't take an evidence-based discipline like science and use it on a faith-based set of beliefs like religion. They don't work. The only reason he's doing so is because he's unable to justify his own faith to other people using just his own faith. Weak. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest removing the sentence, "Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and research.", from the lede for four reasons:

  1. Most evidence and research is against Young Earth creationism in general and not Hovind's views in particular.
  2. People convinced of the truthfulness of Young Earth creationism will probably not change their mind by this sentence, even if it is supported by lots of talk page discussion.
  3. People convinced of the falsity of Young Earth creationism do not need this sentence to deduce that his views are contradicted by science.
  4. Debates about the wording and sourcing of Young Earth creationism vs. Science more properly belong to Talk:Young Earth creationism.

--Kevinkor2 (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

  1. Hovind is a YEC. If there is scientific evidence opposing YEC, there is hence evidence opposing his views. When he says there isn't any, this becomes pertinent.
  2. WP is not about changing people's minds. It's about reporting reliable sources.
  3. WP is not targeted to any specific demographic, nor should it be.
  4. If a major part of this article were about YEC generally, I would agree. But we're talking about one sentence specifically addressing Hovind. It is an important fact, and not including it when multiple reliable sources have published it would be disingenuous. 06:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It can just as easily be said that "scientific evidence exists to support Hovind's views." The fact is, this article is written by someone with an agenda, and is not objective even in the slightest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.178.156 (talk) 18:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Please put your comments at the end, not the beginning, of the section. I can't address your proposed addition; the best available sources indicate that there is no scientific evidence supporting Hovind's views, and you haven't indicated what sources you've read that say otherwise. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
(EC) I was about to say basically the same thing as FisherQueen, so now I'm just largely noting that I agree. Can you present any peer-reviewed, reputable science that supports YEC? There is plenty of reliable source material stating that science flatly contradicts YEC, so that is not our original synthesis, nor is it a viewpoint of editors—it is, according to every source I've ever seen, the viewpoint of scientific consensus. The "agenda" here is to make it clear what reputable sources say on the matter, and that's exactly what that line does. Can you present sources of equal reliability that state otherwise? Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:26, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hovind back at United States Penitentiary

Hovind's been moved to United States Penitentiary, Atlanta, according to "Locate a Federal Inmate: Kent Hovind". Federal Bureau of Prisons. 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-11.  and his son's blog. My guess is he has been again disobeying prison rules.

The article needs updated with his current location in GA since he is no longer in SC. HHUckop89RJK (talk) 01:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I made the change to the article with this edit.
Also, I removed the list of Kent Hovind's previous addresses.
For one, the information is not verifiable with the "inmatefinder" reference because it only lists his current location, not his previous locations.
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Humor is intended in the following two sentences:
How often do they move this guy anyways?
Will this section end up reading like a tour page for a U.S. band?
--Kevinkor2 (talk) 03:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear Kevinkor2: You are correct when you say that the inmatefinder does not list prior addresses. However, removing a list of prior addresses is problematic to the extent that those prior addresses were in the article for a while (I don't know if that's the case, though). I follow the stories on several federal inmates, and sometimes they do get moved around a lot. I don't know how we solve the problem of documenting histories of the changes in locations, as the source material (the "old" information at the inmate locater page of the Federal Bureau of Prisons web site) is essentially always erased every time a prisoner is moved. Famspear (talk) 04:03, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Article length is way out of proportion to so-called importance

Long rants which mostly fall under WP:PA and have little to do with the article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have posted this query several times over the years and each time it gets deleted without an answer... can someone please answer it without just deleting it? ANYONE? or are you all too embarrased?
This article in not encyclopedic - it is basically a rediculous promotion or subtle attack of a person who happens to be a creationist and happens to be in prison. I'm sure there are many that fit that criteria, but whether you agree or disagree with his views is irrelevant. For goodnees sake - he's locked away for 10 years!!! why is he so important?
Compare the length of this article to other people who are CLEARLY more IMPORTANT.
There are more famous creationists who have done more important things with their lives, with more important things to DOCUMENT and yet their articles are shorter
eg Ben Stein, Ted Haggard, Chuck norris, George Washington Carver, even Joel Osteen amazingly, Mike Huckabee, and the biggest creationist or surely the most important one - ie the guy who had such a prominant role in the SCOPES TRIAL mr. William Jennings Bryan.
Why don't people spend their resources improving those articles?? I posted some of these names before but they get deleted each time....why? when I first asked this question Adolf hitlers page was shorter and so was charles manson (ie criminal importance) - but its still longer than Ted Bundy (criminal importance), Mother Theresa(spiritual importance) The kennedy family(political Importance),Mel Gibson(entertainment importance) helen clark (prime minister of new Zealand), in fact you can type in virtually anyone famous and chances are THIS article is longer. Its filled with mindless drivel that just shouldn't be in an encyclopedia! Its not important to ANYONE unless they are in insanely inlove with this man or are equally insane regarding their hatred of this man - PLEASE SHORTEN IT!Steveswikiedits (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we make this article less informative because other articles aren't as complete? Jesstalk|edits 02:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
(ec) It may be mindless drivel, but it's his mindless drivel. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To Mann_jess I'm suggesting people take what I wrote seriously enough to answer why virtually any article you look up is shorter than Kent Hovinds on ANY topic you can choose and for ANY classification of importance like I outlined above. This is not an issue of completeness or being informative! It is something else.... This article is already 10,000+ words! Thats not an encyclopedia entry, its a small book! Is Hovind more important than any of the people I listed above? Apparently he is! Why not call it Hovindapedia!

To Arthur Rubin - Excellent we've made some progress. So we admit it! This article IS mindless drivel.. Now the next step in the healing process of addiction is to start REMOVING the drivel and leave only the relevant sections. One place to start would be the criticism section.. why have a criticism section if this article pretends to be neutral? wouldn't that also require a "Praise" section as well...but I don't see that happening here.... Even Hitler did some wonderful things that historians are not afraid to mention! likewise for Mao zedong - in fact ANY NORMAL PERSON reading the wiki entries for Hovind, hitler and Mao zedong (the biggest mass murderer in history) would be forgiven for thinking that Hovind was the more evil figure! After all Mao Zedong & Hilter don't have a criticism section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Steveswikiedits (talkcontribs)

Which specific section do you think is not appropriately sourced, or should be removed from the article under one of Wikipedia's other guidelines? I'm not sure why you keep talking about Adolf Hitler- any suggestions you have about that article should be made at Talk:Adolf Hitler. This article is about Kent Hovind, so the only discussion that's useful here is discussion about making this article better. You suggest adding a 'praise' section (that would be part of the 'criticism' section, since 'criticism' can be positive or negative. What independent, reliable sources have published significant praise of Hovind? There's nothing to discuss yet in what you've said; you need to be more specific about what you want to add, and what sources support your proposed changes. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:19, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

ok great!(sarcasm) you PRETEND to be ignorant of my point to dodge the issue it seems. People here know very well that this article is outside the stated guideline of wikipedia. see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and the 6 points below

  • For one, Wikipedia accepts that "Criticism" is an emotive word and the guideline tells us that. ie it says there are MANY words you can use instead eg. eg "critism of drugs" should be worded "societies views on drugs". So don't pretend to be enlightend by using a common word in a uncommon way to advance an agenda. it is against wikipedias guidelines!
  • 2) Wikipedia has 3 guidelines for articles - Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and no original research. Many parts of this article fall under Original research. see the sections "primary secondary and tertiary sources" & "Synthesis of published material that advances a position" this article is using quotes and references to advance a position and making the argument that Hovind is a terrible person among many other things and this article is clearly violating those principles.
  • 3) Finding endless "sources" for the sole purpose of showing a person in a bad light is against official wikipedia guidelines. people here claim that everything they say is referenced, but the overall effect is to cast this person in such a light that you would believe EVERYTHING he did was about fraudulent and that he is some kind of career criminal rather than being sincerely deluded or some other neutral characterisation.. eg the sections on his education, etc. continually pointing out at every stage that his education is unacredited etc. For the same amount of energy you could find sources giving him praise for his achievements and putting him in a positive light.
  • 4)finding obscure references while ignoring easy to find ones (ie ones that are easy for a normal person to find - the guideline speaks of this) or presenting minority views about a person (ie the opinions of small groups such as "the NATIONAL centre for science education" a VERIFIABLY tiny organisation with a VERY MISLEADING name, but which spends a disportionate amount of time focusing on Kent Hovind) or tax supporters who personally knew this man which is also a tiny minority, while ignoring the views of 10,000's of people who evidently believe this person, attended his shows, laughed at his jokes and became passionate about what he said and believes.
  • 5) not showing anything positive about this person, ie that he is loved by thousands of people, that he was great entertainer, comedian, educator (science teacher), constitutionist, libertarian, presenter and debator and winning every debate he debated (or atleast thought so by those who attended his events - & this is easy to verify or document if anyone wanted to - whether you think so or not) This is what kent hovind was and is famous for to the average person....and should be what the vast majority of the article should be devoted to. At the moment it is like having a page on Tom Cruise and spending 90% of the article on his ability to fly airplanes... its rediculous! Its not what he is or was famous for! But wikipedia has made this so that it is what he is going to become famous for. Everyone here knows this! and each discussion point just verifies this!
  • There are many more things - but I think is fruitless to carry on, but should be sufficient to make disparate comparision to Hitlers and Mao Zedongs pages. These two pages are pretty neutral for admittedly two of the most evil people to have ever lived. They are good encyclopedic articles that show relevant facts abouts a persons life and how many people viewed these two people - compare this to hovind. A person reading this article would be fooled into thinking that hovind had NOTHING to offer on any level - which is patently absurd

Steveswikiedits (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that anything be removed; I just noticed that what you call "mindless drivel" was written or said by Kovind, hence relevant in the article. What you (sorry if I'm not sure which anon you are) are removing seemed to be relevant criticism, rather than "mindless drivel". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
We don't make our article on carbon short just because the one on gadolinium is shorter and they're both elements. If you think a specific part of the article shouldn't be there for some reason having to do with this article, by all means, suggest it. If you've got any reliable sources that indicate he's any of the things you suggest (I'd be interested indeed to know who calls him a "science teacher" or said he "won debates"...), present them. Going on and on won't get you anywhere. Cite the reputable sources you're getting this stuff from. The article already does. It's not like having a page about Cruise and talking about him flying airplanes. Hovind is best known for two things—his creationism, and his conviction for tax crime. So of course the bulk of the article is about those things. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:41, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with editors FisherQueen, Seraphimblade and Arthur Rubin. Rather than talking about article length, it would probably be more helpful to make specific suggestions for improvement of specific passages in the article. Famspear (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
@Steveswikiedits For one, please sign your posts using four tildes (~~~~) so we know who we're talking to. Secondly, your answer to my question above appears to be "yes"; you want content removed from this article because other articles don't have as much content. We don't do that. This encyclopedia isn't in a finished state -- it's constantly being edited and improved, and as a result, different articles are at different stages. Your replies thus far have been extremely long rants about stuff that doesn't have anything to do with this article. Please tackle one thing at a time. Find a specific part of the article you think should be removed, and propose its removal here. That's something we can work with. (Also, please see WP:AGF and WP:PA. Let's keep the conversation civil, shall we?) Jesstalk|edits 03:24, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Mann_jess wrote to me: "when you add or change content, as you did to the article Kent Hovind, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you." Well, you're welcome. I would have thought that "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term and not at all objective (BTW, I saw the way you automatically assume Creationism is not backed by any science whatsoever -- you are not objective, and the history of this article is proof of your "vandalism"). Therefore, I'm opening up an NPOV dispute. Now let's dispute. (My prediction, though, is that you'll try to take it down.) 207.238.52.162 (talk) 03:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

We have references for "conspiracy theorist", don't we? If not, perhaps it shouldn't be here, although he clearly was a conspiracy theorist when he was out of jail.
And, objectively, creationism is not backed by any science whatsoever. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Re: Citation No. 92: "An often repeated claim about the New World Order conspiracy as described by Hovind in 'Seminar Part 5 - The Dangers of Evolution.' [...](Retrieved 2009-07-24)." "New World Order" is a legitimate political term, made famous by U.S. President George H.W. Bush, and interpretations of what this means vary. Because one believes in a move toward globalism does not make that person a "conspiracy theorist" but a theorist regarding political reality. There are plenty of organizations which promote globalism -- whether trilateralism, universal currency, open borders, etc. Is anyone who addresses these movements, therefore, a "conspiracy theorist?" I'd hope not. 70.124.63.101 (talk) 03:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe it was made popular by other presidents before him. Regardless, what G.W. was talking about and what Hovind was talking about are two completely different "New World Orders". They are alike in name only. G.W. was talking about world unity and peace. Hovind is speaking of the conspiracy theory. There are even separate articles here on wikipedia for them.Farsight001 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
If "The New World Order" was the only example of conspiracy theory evident in Hovind's work, there might be a valid argument against calling him a conspiracy theorist. However, he also perscribes to:
...amongst others. My personal favourite is that Prince Phillip is in control of 95% of the world's food supply and is planning to kill everyone. That, or that Disney are planting subliminal messages in our kids' minds... I think WP:DUCK is appropriate here.
Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 09:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


Got attribution? 207.238.52.162 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
They're cherry-picked and clearly inadmissible as reliable sources without falling foul of WP:OR, but this web page gives some examples of quotes from his radio shows. Maybe the quotes are out of context? Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 22:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
The term "conspiracy theorist" is a pejorative term. That is, the term has a pejorative connotative meaning. That in and of itself is not a valid objection to the use of the term in the article.
Further, the use of the term in the article is arguably objective to the extent that the article cites previously-published third party sources for the proposition that Hovind has espoused various conspiracy theories. (Note: Some of the references are in an area of the article covering critics of Hovind, and other references are in other areas of the article.)
Wikipedia editors themselves cannot take the position that Hovind is a conspiracy theorist. Wikipedia can, however, cite to reliable previously published third party sources that actually say that Hovind is a conspiracy theorist or that Hovind has espoused conspiracy theories, and put that information in the article.
The three basic tenets are: Verifiablity, No Original Research, and Neutral Point of View. And Neutral Point of View (NPOV) does not necessarily require that we never use terms that are pejorative. In an article on Adolf Hitler, it does not violate the NPOV rule to refer to Hitler as a "Nazi" if a reliable source supports that assertion, even though the term "Nazi" has a pejorative connotation for many people. In an article on a person convicted of a felony, it does not violate the NPOV rule to refer to that person as a "convicted felon", even though that term has a pejorative connotation for many people.
Dear user at IP207.238.52.152: Perhaps it would be helpful if you explain your objection a bit more. Thanks. Famspear (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
However, it has become largely pejorative... [5] -- or so it says on the Conspiracy Theory Wikipedia article entry itself, with citation. So we must not make a decision: Will we use a pejorative term in an encyclopedic article on a controversial figure, or use objective language? 70.124.63.101 (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Is there a non-'pejorative' term that is synonymous with the term 'conspiracy theorist?' I'm not aware of such a term. If the term is perceived negatively, it may be because many people think a conspiracy theorist is not a good thing to be. But that is what Mr. Hovind is, nevertheless. And, yes, 'creationism' is a theological study, and not backed by any science whatsoever. Wikipedia is not able to change these facts; we can only publish information that is accurate according to the best available sources. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If Creationism is the category of conspiracy-theorizing Mr. Hovind is guilty of, then perhaps its best to just leave it at "Creationist" and let the link to the Creationism article tell the reader that some of you think Creationism is based on "no science whatsoever." (Note: I'm not defending Hovind or literal Creationism in general -- but I am shocked by the aggression I've discovered on this page today against those who don't subscribe to Darwinian Evolution.) From my standpoint, this article could use a little work in terms of neutrality. Perhaps we can consult a professional journalist. 70.124.63.101 (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
You appear to be confused; creationism is not a conspiracy theory. Hovind is both a creationist and a conspiracy theorist. For more information, you can read the section of the article on Hovind's conspiracy theories. This talk page is really only for discussion of making the article better; if you are looking for a discussion of why evolution has not happened, you'll need to look elsewhere, since Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a discussion forum when it comes to resolving a dispute. Quit trying to shut out opposition, please.70.124.63.101 (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
FisherQueen is right. If you don't have a specific suggestion for article improvement, then there is no point to this conversation and it can be hatted/archived. Talk pages are for article improvement only.Farsight001 (talk) 04:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I do. Remove the description of "conspiracy theorist" from the lede. 70.124.63.101 (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
And the problem with that is that he is, by definition, a conspiracy theorist. I even vaguely remember him describing himself as one once, though I might be wrong about that. Refusing to call him a conspiracy theorist would be like refusing to call Hitler a Nazi.Farsight001 (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Attribution, please. "Vaguely" doesn't cut it. 207.238.52.162 (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It is also not a violation of NPOV to call someone what sources state they are. It's not my personal opinion that Hovind is a conspiracy theorist, that is the opinion of the reliable sources we use. NPOV does not require that we never say something that might reflect negatively on someone. Rather, it requires that any negatives be verifiable by being backed up by a reliable source. It may be considered "negative" to be a convicted criminal, too, yet it is factually and verifiably true that Hovind is one. So it does not violate NPOV for the article to discuss the issue, nor does it violate NPOV for the article to discuss his conspiracy theorism. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
The attribution is in the freaking article, IP207. It would help the process if you would actually look at what's right in front of your face instead of blindly complaining.Farsight001 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Even if you don't accept he is a conspiracy theorist by defintion (with his 9/11 conspiracy, New World Order claims, Muslim-Catholic conspiracy, anti-vaccine conspiracy, anti-germ theory conspiracy and so on), there are many WP:RS calling Hovind a conspiracy theorist already in the article: [6][7][8] and from a creationist website: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATTsss56 (talkcontribs) 16:42, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the original claim: Is the IP doubting that the New World Order (conspiracy theory) is a conspiracy theory? If so, that IP should probably take it to the talk at New World Order (conspiracy theory). —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATTsss56 (talkcontribs) 22:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Possible Additional Info

I wonder if these two things could be added to the article;

Joshua Joscelyn, who had been running Kent's blog, has decided to resign from Creation Science Evangelism because it has become a corporation.

Also, Resurrection Pictures is about to start the biopic of Kent Hovind in early 2011. Cms13ca (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The movie is old news. Eric Hovind blogged about in 2009, when it was supposed to be made in 2010. Also its not made by a reputable company, but rather a person who is making the movie for a hobby/fundamentalist religious reasons and wants investors (see the "If you are interested in getting involved with this amazing project, please consider making a donation here.") to profit. If anyone is interested in investing in a film, you put up the money, and I'll make the profit. Seems like a good deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ATTsss56 (talkcontribs) 19:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
When there is a movie to talk about a line along the lines of "a film was made about Kent Hovind. . ." would be in order. I wouldn't use it for a source but if there is actually a movie produced in biographical style then a simple mention is in order. Bring it back up when it is out in theaters (more likely released on DVD, still more likely published online) and we can talk about the worth of it then.Donhoraldo (talk) 14:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Joshua Joscelyn‎

It seems like a bunch of blogs had commented on Joshua Joscelyn‎'s resignation letter:

Why I can no longer support Creation Science Evangelism
By Joshua Joscelyn‎
...
I managed Dr. Hovind's blog through those years, and communicated frequently with him. He is a Godly man. But from the time I had begun there, I had noticed a subtle attitude of disagreement with and even scorn for many of Dr. Kent Hovind's beliefs and methods for managing the ministry.
...
I grieved when I had to assist in overseeing the gutting process whereby the Seminar Series and College Series were stripped of so much that was deemed "controversial" or "irrelevant." The idea was to remove all content that might seem radical or offensive. His father's longstanding policy to never ask for money (since God always provided anyway) was overturned, and marketing and fundraising became more and more commonplace.

Should part of this be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phggg56 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The material in that post seems to not be relevant to the topic, not even looking at the questionable content there in. Simply put, no it doesn't belong in this article.Donhoraldo (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This material would appear to clearly fail the restrictions on WP:SELFPUB. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 15:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Myth?

Some of the language used in this article is very biased... creation "myth". please, at least try to be a little scholarly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thechessstick (talkcontribs) 08:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

"Myth" IS scholarly. The scholarly definition is basically a spiritual or supernatural story pertaining to a system of belief that may or may not be true. Myths can, in fact, be true! Myth is the correct and scholarly term. Just because some people were misinformed about the word's real meaning doesn't mean we are going to cater to their misconceptions.Farsight001 (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The article to which that link points is entitled "Genesis creation myth", and contains scholarly information exactly supporting Farsight001's statement. We're an encyclopedia here, so we might as well use precise wording (especially if it helps everyone learn precise meanings of words that are sometimes misused or have different academic-vs-conversational meaning!). DMacks (talk) 08:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
People keep removing this word so I've inserted a hidden comment explaining why it is a legitimate term. Hopefully that'll sort it out. Hadrian89 (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Shameless soapboxing; hidden WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

<span id="Shameless soapboxing; hidden WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:53, 11 May 2010 (UTC)"> answer; if the creation is a myth... the evolution is as well what other explanation can you possibly give to this: no one yet, has even tried to gain, the 250.000 dollars from DR. Kent Hovind, by giving an evidence For evolution. If no one has got one, it needs a giant leap of faith to believe in evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.86.253 (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of the $250K offer as a bad-faith/publicity-stunt is so well documented we even have a section specifically answering your question in the article. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
IP 217 - you are not understanding the term myth. It does NOT mean false, but rather that it has a supernatural explanation. I am a devout Christian myself. Myth is still the correct term. And it does not apply to evolution, even if it is false, because evolution does not call upon the supernatural to explain it. Second, Hovind is no doctor. To call him a doctor when all he did was spend 6 weeks hanging out with a friend in his double wide trailer is an insult to all real doctorate holders out there who had to study for years to get the education necessary. Third, that 250,000 dollar offer is a farce, as even Hovind himself has been forced to admit. Plus he doesn't have the money to pay, so why should anyone bother to try even if they do have proof? You should read that 250k offer more closely. The requirements of it demand that someone provide proof that God does not exist and that the entire universe came about by chance. In addition, Hovind reserves the right to crop this proof to any length he wants before presenting it to the panel of judges that HE picks. He has intentionally worded it so as to be unwinnable even if there were proof, and he himself has admitted as much.Farsight001 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Well then, the theory of evolution would be a myth as well! Since it may or may not be true. Myth is a derogatory term, and very unprofessional. The theory of evolution is waning, especially with the ID movement, which I must note is NOT a christian movement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobyjak 01 (talkcontribs) 17:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

There may be a word there which is accurate, but I would have difficulty finding it.
  1. The term "Myth" means that it has a supernatural explanation, not that "it may or may not be true".
  2. It is not derogatory, and, in fact, in comparative religion, it is the "professional" term used.
    1. The theory of evolution is not waning.
    2. ID has been ruled to be "religion" by at least one US Court.
    3. If ID is not an (evangelical) Christian movement, please provide evidence to the contrary. I have not seen any.
Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, let's start with the FACT that the theory of evolution is still a THEORY. It may be the predominant theory in classrooms, but CBS recent Gallop poll states that 61% of Americans DON'T believe in evolution. The ID movment, which I became familiar with to the point of boredom with speakers on the subject, state specifically that it is NOT Christian. If you were familiar with the movement you'd know that. It actually incorporates aspects of evolution, but other loopholes in evolution it makes up for by saying that there was intelligent design, never saying who that was. See the movie Mission to Mars? An ID movie. Many people believe that ancient aliens were responsible for these aspects. What started as a christian movement has a quarter century later been secularized into an alternative godless approach to evolution's unexplainable's. Cobyjak 01 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobyjak 01 (talkcontribs) 06:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry but you are misinformed.

First you are misrepresenting the word theory. In science the word theory is a term for an explanatory collection of models and facts that has made predictions that were later confirmed. There isn't anything that can be referred to as "just a theory" for a theory is the strongest form of scientific knowledge, and among them the theory of evolution is one of the strongest, right up there with atomic theory, the theory of gravity, and the theory of relativity. The argument ad populum you make is not only fallacious (the popularity of any idea has no baring on it's accuracy, in opposition the growing body of evidence in all areas of biology suggesting that evolution is accurate is concrete) and wrong (many studies show that the popularity of creationism is stable.) Further the claims about the secular nature of ID are wrong on their face. you need look no further then the fact that many of the leaders of the ID moment say things akin to "we don't know who the designer was" is meaning less when the arguments and people promoting ID are the exact same ones that have promoted special biblical creation, and that the ID is literally in at least one case a cut and paste for creationism. Claiming that the ID movement could be just talking about any intelligent agency is incorrect. The nature of the claims limit it to a intelligent agent that exists out of the universe and requires no intelligent agency to produce it(in opposition to everything else in the ID claim) do not match any natural situation and there for it can only refer to a supernatural being(I.E. if not a god then a situation indistinguishable from a god), or force witch is a matter of faith not science.Donhoraldo (talk) 06:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC) I will give you the myth one. But you have to admit that colloquial english treats the term differently.

Now, that is a myth, Cobyjak. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually Evoultion is a hypothesis! A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and there is no way one can test evolution! Any way I'd much rather be a Creationist Christian than an evolutionist. If I'm wrong oh well I'll go into nothingness when I die. If you're wrong you are going to be in hell forever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.177.222 (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Evolution can, in fact, be tested. See here. (And no, it's a theory, not a mere hypothesis. Everything in science supports it.)
Furthermore, you will find pretty much any argument you have for creationism debunked on this page, so that should end this discussion.--Mithcoriel (talk) 08:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


Pascal's Wager notwithstanding, Wikipedia is not a discussion forum
Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)