Talk:Kent Hovind

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Kent Hovind, has edited Wikipedia as
216.248.142.73  (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.


Archive
Archives


Contents


[edit] Mug shot/picture

It is commonplace on wikipedia to include a mug shot of criminals. I don't see any reason why it should be removed. C56C 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the most part, only for those who are famous for being criminals. This guy is famous for being a crank Young Earth creationist, as well. Wasn't Bill Gates's (alleged) mug shot for a drug traffic undetermined violation in New Mexico removed under WP:BLP. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You are comparing Gates' DUI to Hovind's 58 felonies? For one, the majority of press about Hovind is many legal battles. I think a good argument can be made that is just as famous for his tax battle than for his anti-science beliefs. I mean Jim Bakker only got 18 months, and he is known more for his convictions than the PTL. Hovind got ten years and never grew to having the support that Bakker did.
But anyway, the Gates article does not cover his arrests, criminal past, and conviction. As such, such a mug shot has little importance Why? Because Gates is known for much more than a single arrest. Gates' misdemeanor (or whatever it is) is much different than a 10 year (out of 250+ year possible) conviction and 10+ year legal battle over taxes.
Since you want to compare articles, Paris Hilton's booking photo is included. Hilton served 22 days in jail for a misdemeanor, and is known for more reasons than those 22 days in a county jail.
The mug shot of a currently imprisoned felon who was described by an attorney as a "danger to the community" is worth keeping in an detailed article that deals with his various convictions and prison life. A mug shot for a famous person who has a misdemeanor is not. NNtw22 05:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
There are many, many wikipedia entries that do not contain mug shots of truly infamous individuals known mostly for their violent criminal history, unlike Hovind's white collar crimes. I have listed some above in the neutrality section of this article. Simply finding one person (Paris Hilton) is not sufficient argument for placing a mug on this page. It might just be argument for removing the mug shot from Hilton's page. Further, mug shots do not add any encyclopedic value to any entry except those where the only photo available of a person is a mug shot. Also, this supposed attorney that describes Hovind as a danger? I'm curious about that. Hovind was found guilty of white collar crimes. I'm not sure he's a danger to anybody unless you let him do your taxes. Anthson 20:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to wikipedia. You are wrong on several accounts. Hovind was not convicted simply of a white-collar crimes. I suggest you read the 58th charge as well as his past false declarations to the IRS. But what does that have to do with anything? Finding articles without a mugshot proves what? That the pictures haven't been uploaded to wikipedia? The Hovind picture is available and Hovind is a felon with 10 years to serve. Why not include the link? NNtw22 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The page states he was convicted of 58 counts of tax fraud. Last I checked, tax fraud is not a violent crime. If the page is wrong and Hovind was convicted of something other than tax fraud that you have knowledge of, I suggest you correct the error. Finding articles without mug shots sets a precedent. Welcome to Wikipedia. Discussion pages often refer to other pages as a guideline. Also, "why not" is not a sufficient argument, even though the question has been addressed. Explain the encyclopedic value of a mug shot if you wish to make the case for it being on this page. Otherwise, it should stay removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthson (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
You seem confused. Where did anyone mention "violent crime"? Again, "I suggest you read the 58th charge" or the wikipedia article as it wasn't just "tax fraud" charges. I see no problem of a mug shot in article about someone who was convicted of 58 felonies and will be in prison for the next decade. NNtw22 05:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

1) Hovind is a convicted felon. 2) Wikipedia has his mug shot. 3) No reason or policy has been given that this available image of a felon should be removed. NNtw22 06:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Anything placed within a wikipedia entry must have encyclopedic value. In order for the mug shot to remain, you have to argue how the shot has any encyclopedic value at all. Otherwise, we could go on listing the names of Hovind's horses and his shoe size because there's no policy against it. You have not made such an argument. Several others have agreed the mug shot has no value on this page, yet despite their edits and my edits, you continue to replace the photograph. You should quit doing that. Anthson 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The picture is of the subject of article getting booked for his ten year prison conviction. The conviction takes up a fair amount of the article. Lots of details about a certain event allows for a picture or illustration of part of the event. The picture is ALREADY on wikipedia, you have given no reason for removing the link. Until you prove that his prison sentence is of little importance, the booking photo of the sentence will stay. NNtw22 03:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to indulge you here and ask you to explain how one can prove that anything is of no importance. The fact is, you have to prove the photo is of importance and display to the other editors of this article its encyclopedic value. Time and time again, you've been asked here to do that, and despite the editing of several editors including myself, you continue to replace the mug shot. This is bordering on vandalism, the way I see it. Anthson 16:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Its relevance is clear. Get consensus before reverting anymore, these reverts are the bulk of your activity. If you want to close your eyes to the reasons already offered and refuse to get consensus, be aware you appear to be WP:SPA and your edits meet WP:DE. C56C 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of my edits have nothing to do with the single purpose you're referring to and most have occurred well before any edits on the Hovind Wikipedia page. Anyone bothering to check for themselves would realize this. As for reasons already offered, there are none. The only person replacing this photograph is simply stating that others who have removed the photo (others besides myself) need to provide a reason to remove it. Check the history page. There is only one person replacing the mug shot, yet multiple people have removed it. The WP:DE problems are occurring on the end repeatedly replacing the image. The fact remains that the image's purpose is not clear and needs to be explained. If you cannot offer any explanation other than "the purpose is so obvious I don't need to explain," then the image needs to be removed.
You can find a list of my edits here if you have any further questions or doubts as to the purpose of my account. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Anthson Anthson 05:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I looked at your edit history. You have less than 50 edits in the last year (you registered in August 2006). Half those edits are about the Hovind article. Your edits on this article have all been about downplaying criticism in some way and now your focus is the picture. You have little editting history and have repeatedly reverted other people. C56C 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
If you're looking for a vote, I say get rid of the mug shot. It does not seem all that relevant to me and it does seem to convey an emotive content that is contrary to our aim. If we want a photo for the article, maybe someone can take a picture of Dinosaur Land or something. I know it's tough to find public domain photos of living persons, but I don't like the use of a mug shot in this article. Phiwum 03:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
OK, but Wikipedia does not "vote." The picture is of an important event in this man's life: booked for ten years in prison. Can you explain the reasons for not "liking" a mug shot of a convicted felon in the section on the man's criminal past? "I don't like it" is not a good enough reason. Does it have relevance to the section? Yes, it marks a specific and important moment in his life. Is it public domain? Yes. Was this related a serious charge and a long prison term? Yes. C56C 19:16, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
It is disingenuous to claim all I said is I don't like the mug shot. Let me say it again, slowly. I do not find the mug shot informative or relevant to the article and what relevance it has is outweighed by what I consider non-negligible prejudicial and emotive value. And I say this as a longtime user of Smoking Gun. It's not that I don't like mug shots or that I think Hovind is a fine man, but that I don't see the mug shot as appropriate for an encyclopedic article about Kent Hovind. I appreciate Ashmoo's and Stevens's points that there is a dearth of public domain photos in this article, but I still think that this particular photo is in bad taste. Phiwum 00:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You also talked about emotion too, but that wasn't addressed because its your opinion. There was no point in addressing emotion about the picture because it is a personal opinion and cannot be weighted with facts. As someone else said it doesn't even appear like a mug shot and is a higher quality image. As such, I too disagree with your analysis. In your most recent claim that it is "in bad taste," much like your emotive opinion can only be discussed so far as they are your perceptions. If you want to cite policy that can be discussed at length beyond personal attitudes about an image. Your opinion and emotive/taste critiques cannot be handled in a similiar to policy. C56C 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
My "emotive opinion" I suppose means my opinion that the photo conveys more emotive content than is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. You're quite right that all I have stated is my personal opinion about the appropriateness of this photo, just as you have expressed yours. Indeed, I don't see any particular facts that would support the claim "This photo does/does not belong in a WP article," without further judgments about appropriateness, what counts as encyclopedic, and so on. You may well disagree with my analysis, but it makes little sense to call my analysis mere opinion and pretend that you've come with cold, hard facts settling the issue. Phiwum 04:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Since when was "this content is too emotive" a reason from removal of content from an article? It's notable, it's relevant, it's sourced. That's all that matters. johnpseudo 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Johnpseudo. C56C 20:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
The question is whether the emotive effect outweighs any particular informational value—especially in the case of a living person in which the emotive effect is negative. At least that's how I see it. Now, it is good to have a recent photo of Hovind in the article and it is good to have a few photos to break up the text. It is, in my opinion, bad to use a mug shot because it tends to exaggerate his current status as a convict and thus prejudice the reader. Of course, persons of good will can disagree about the degree of this negative effect and the relevance of the mug shot. My opinion is that the mug shot is not particularly relevant nor notable and that the article is arguably more biased with it than without. I appreciate Johnpseudo's comments, but I humbly disagree. Phiwum 04:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Umm, no. That's not the question. The question is, "What is Wikipedia's policy regarding the inclusion of material on biographies?". And the answer to that question is right here. It says that biographies should be written "responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone". A picture of a mug shot, when that person has just been sentenced to 10 years in jail, is of course notable and relevant. If his "current status as a convict" is important enough to occupy half of this article, then it is certainly important enough to include a relevant picture. johnpseudo 16:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears to me that consensus is generally in favor of the mug shot. I do not agree and I don't think that the mug shot is in keeping with a "neutral, encyclopedic tone" (nor that the status as a convict should take up half of an article about an interesting creationist and conspiracy theorist). Nonetheless, I defer to the apparent consensus. Phiwum 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Just to add another voice to the debate... I'm in favour of keeping the photo. If only to break up the text with another picture. It is a longish article and only has one illustration. Also, the mugshot isn't terribly unflattering. It is not like it's one of those shots that has the subject with one eye half closed, unshaven and looking like a serial killer. If someone could supply photos of him engaged in other activities, I think they should take precedence though. Ashmoo 01:12, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I am somewhat in favour of keeping the photo (I guess you can count me as a "yes" vote). I appreciate that there's a valid argument for not having it (perceived tone etc), and I wouldn't be particularly upset if it was left out. However: the article isn't exactly overburdened with pictures already, Hovind is probably about as notable as a criminal as he is as a creationist, and it's actually a clearer photograph of Hovind than the rather poor one in the infobox. --Robert Stevens 10:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

...Just to clarify, the encyclopedic value of the mug shot is clear in the context of describing Hovind's legal problems. Namely, it illustrates that Hovind is a convicted fellon, which is the central theme of this section of the article. If the article was related solely to Hovind's CSE work, earlier posts might have had better justification for removing it. -MacGriff —Preceding unsigned comment added by MacGriff (talk • contribs) 01:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Overemphasis?

Sammy Gravano has a much shorter article, with much much less detail. Is Hovind really that much more of a heindous criminal that Gravano? And Gottis is much shorter. And Capones is shorter. Dontletmedown 14:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Most probably because Gravano was convicted before the newspapers went online, making researching such things far less easy than with more modern events. But by all means contribute additional detail to Sammy Gravano -- or any article at all for that matter. Your sole activity to date has been asking not particularly helpful questions on talkpages. Are you here to improve wikipedia or just to tie up other editors answering your questions? HrafnTalkStalk 14:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that if I thought changes should be made I should bring up those ideas on the talkpage and getting some sort of feedback before changing the articles. I see in my mind many errors in articles but do not want to make changes until I get feedback. If you feel I should make that changes first and then get feedback I will do that but I hope I will not be accused of a wrongdoing by doing that. Dontletmedown 15:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BRD for another view as to the "proper" mechanism for editing. However, please discuss the matter at Talk:Sammy Gravano, rather than "here". In general, if you think a person's article is longer than that of those you consider more notable, the proper approach is to add to the other article, not remove acceptable content. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
That would be true if your talkpage questions were related to suggesting edits. However, this does not appear to be the case. HrafnTalkStalk 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


<<<This is a phrase in the 'evolutionism' article. Now since the term 'creationist' would include old earth creationists. it seem that it implies that people like the Pope and other non-bible-literalists use this term wrongly. And Dawkins also used the term. I think perhaps it sh Aould be

"Bible literalists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate."

or

"Young earth creationists tend to use the term evolutionism in a misleading sense in order to suggest that evolution and creationism are equal in a philosophical debate.">>>

Here are edits I suggested in another article. Dontletmedown 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Except:
  1. you didn't say this in Talk:Evolutionism, you said it in Talk:Creationism, making the whole suggestion irrelevant; and
  2. this 'suggestion' is sufficiently incoherent and illogical as to be non-actionable.
Now, if you're quite finished attempting to justify your unhelpful past comments, please either do something useful or depart. HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It seems like you are saying that an article can never be too long. And give too much detail. Are there any guidelines on articles length or is it as you say there is no optimum length. Dontletmedown 15:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not as long as the detail is notable, relevant and well-sourced. Where, even with these restrictions, the articles get too long, more detailed sub-articles on specifics can be split off. HrafnTalkStalk 15:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a saw a suggested length somewhere. I have seen people talk about other articles being too long based on number of bytes. Dontletmedown 16:06, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

There is (but more as a guideline than a hard & fast rule) -- where articles get too long, parts of them get split off into sub-articles, as I mentioned above. However this is a talkpage for Kent Hovind. If you want to discuss style guidelines go to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. HrafnTalkStalk 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hovind Theory

My only point regarding this section of the article is that it should be well-written and backed up with RS. I do not think the current version is any better progress toward this goal. We had,

Hovind summarizes his highly controversial version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

and now we have

Hovind summarizes his meritless version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

What is wrong with

Hovind summarizes his version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

followed by a summary of his ideas and a sourced critique pointing out his argument's implausibility? I would even think

Hovind summarizes his implausible argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

would be better grammatically, although it should cite Bartelt immediately after this sentence. Ursasapien (talk) 10:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding, "is this better?"

Hovind summarizes his non-scientific version of the argument for Young Earth creationism into the self-titled “Hovind Theory."

My first issue is the "version of the" piece. This sentence would be less redundant if it just said, "Hovind summarizes his non-scientific argument . . ." My second issue is it needs to be sourced. Ursasapien (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What was wrong with "highly controversial"? There are plenty of references in the article to reputable sources that disagree with Hovind: hence, "controversial". Even other YEC's such as "Answers in Genesis" disagree: hence, the "Hovind theory" is even more controversial than standard YEC beliefs. The fact that Hovind's views are "controversial" (or even "highly controversial") is not itself controversial.
BTW, I don't like "his non-scientific version of the argument for Young Earth creationism", because this implies that there is an alternative scientific version: and there isn't. --Robert Stevens 12:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you Robert, on both points. Ursasapien is distorting WP:RS in demanding the exact wording from the source before he'll 'permit' it. HrafnTalkStalk 14:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree per Robert. NNtw22 03:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The group think/piling on is asinine. The assumption of bad faith is getting in the way of any rational attempt to improve the article. As has been demonstrated time and time again, I have no ability to permit or deny any text in this article. Additionally, I am in no way distorting WP:RS nor am I demanding that we use the exact wording of any source. I do think WP:BLP and WP:RS would inform us that an article about a living person that states someone is or has beliefs that are highly controversial should be backed up by some reliable source that demonstrates the controversy. It should not be difficult to find a source that demonstrates that parties disagree with Hovind's ideas about the origin of the universe. I still like implausible better and we already have a source for it, but YMMV. I think the whole "version of" text is just a holdover from previous versions of the article and needs to be changed when the sentence is changed. Ursasapien (talk) 04:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
"Implausible" appears to be even less pristinely sourcable than "highly controversial" -- and it is a rather passive and pallid word to my mind, and thus a highly imperfect descriptor of Horvind's over-the-top and purposefully-controversial style. The "controversy" has already been "demonstrated" -- both scientists and Horvind's fellow Creationists are of the opinion that his claims lack legitimacy. You may think that the consensus against you is "asinine", I won't be drawn into likewise violating WP:NPA by responding to this mud-slinging. HrafnTalkStalk 05:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You mean you are not going to make any more personal attacks like "Ursasapien is distorting WP:RS"? That would be great! I draw from your response that you would not have a problem with me copying a couple of references to support "highly contoversial" then. I still think "controversial" implies that Hovind has a valid side of an argument, but if that is consensus, so be it. Ursasapien (talk) 05:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
When you make an argument that is, in my opinion, a distortion of wikipedia policy, I will say as much, per WP:SPADE. I will however attempt to refrain from expressing in precise detail how low an opinion I have of you, your judgement and your reasoning skills. HrafnTalkStalk 05:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
And yes, Ursasapien, I do have a problem with you cluttering up the section intro sentence with pointless re-references to points already established in the section body. As per my previous comment, I will not hesitate from pointing out that such an interpretation of WP:RS is idiosyncratic, counter-productive and disruptive. HrafnTalkStalk 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Compliments to all for your hard work!

Whoever did the Legal section did a superior job! Good research and thanks for your hard work! Ekulwyo 04:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow there is a lot of speculation and violation of privacy in this. Though I don’t believe it all or the citations this is hardly a neutral or simply fact citations more like a popular options beat down O22Y 13:33, 1 Febuary 2008 (UTC)

Hovind is a public figure, and his trial received substantial publicity, so no "violation of privacy" is involved. If you have any specific substantiated complaints to make about unsubstantiated statements (i.e. "speculation"), unreliably sourced statements, or violations of WP:NPOV in the article, please make them. Vague and unsubstantiated complaints are "as useful as tits on a bull". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrafn (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cite for "no copyright required" change

I've looked at the wayback machine, and I can't find any point at which the copyright notice said anything other than "all material copyright (unless otherwise noted)". Perhaps there used to be individual portions of the website that did have an exception to the copyright notice, but I think the IP is right that we can't include unsourced claims like that. Even if the current citation used to be valid, it isn't anymore. johnpseudo 18:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the claimed date is within the wayback machine's view; doesn't it have a 6 month minimum? In any case, I think you're probably right; we can't include it unless, in addition, a WP:RS noted the site disclaimed copyright. But just taking it out changes the meaning of the rest of the paragraph, so we need to rewrite, or at least remove the clauses which refer back to that sentence. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Will the wayback machine be able to archive the page stating nothing was copyrighted? I have a screenshot of the page stating in September that none of the material was copyrighted but can't find the site stating that on the wayback machine. There is no doubt that CSE's website did recently state that, we just need a citation. The wayback machine DOES have archives of the website not having a clickable copyright notice, though. Does this image provide enough evidence? http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3830/csexi5.jpg The most recent archive is from August, 3 months ago. Anyways, finally, will the wayback machine be able to archive them waiving copyright? If so, when it does, can we use that as a citation? 68.175.106.168 (talk) 22:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
If the wayback machine is indexing the current version of that page, it probably did index the archive stating that nothing was copyrighted (unless it was only there for a short period of time, between index updates), and it will eventually report that archive. However, because this is derogatory information toward a living person (the webmaster, if noone else), we may need an external WP:RS even if the wayback machine does report such an archive. As for clickable copyright notices, copyright notices have not been necessary since at least 1978 in the US. Damages may be limited to actual damages if copyright registration wasn't filed within some time (6 month?) of creation, and willful copyright violation may be difficult to prove without a copyright notice, but copying my personal web page would be a violation, regardless of the absence of a copyright notice. (That is, if you can find my personal web page. I haven't updated it since 1999 or so.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
According to Wired, CSE said, "creationist ministry's own website said that 'none of the materials ... are copyrighted, so feel free to copy these and distribute them freely'."[1] The URL that is on there is correct and I added the image, which is free to do since they said it was not copyrighted. TYie34 (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conspiracy theories

One thing that Kent Hovind has made clear in his seminar videos is that he is a conspiracy theorist. He hasn't used those words specifically, but he has said that he believes there is a conspiracy among Evolutionists to keep any pro-Creationist evidence out of classrooms and away from the public at-large. Should this be added to this article as well, with proper citations, of course? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcturis (talk • contribs) 23:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If he theorises about conspiracies, including the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion, UFOs being demons, the 'new world order', fake moon landings etc. then I think it's fair to label him a 'conspiracy theorist'. Alot of his 'wikiquotes' page deals with his conspiracy theory, considering his notability he is a prominent conspiracy theorist and the article should reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.128.84 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
We can't label him a conspiracy theorist just because you think his beliefs add up to that label. It is both a violation of WP:V as it has no source and a violation of WP:NPOV as it is a loaded term. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Then surely the 'conspiracy theory' article on wikipedia should be flagged for deletion immediately.195.195.128.84 (talk) 04:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Kent Hovind certainly is a conspiracy theorist, but I'm not sure if Hovind has given himself that label. Maybe he doesn't even consider them "conspiracies" because he believes it's common sense that they're true. He believes a wide range of conspiracies, including certain groups (United Nations, Council on Foreign Relations, the Bilderberg Group, Federal Reserve, IMF, etc.) being part of the New World Order and 9/11 conspiracy theories. He also believes that the Oklahoma City Bombing and the 1993 World Trade Center attack were both staged by the US Government in order to pass gun control laws or "anti-terrorism" laws that take away civil liberties. As I'm sure we all know he also has lots of conspiracies about the tax system. I've also heard him mention lots of other minor conspiracies in sort of "off the cuff" remarks in videos, such as the media frenzy around the O.J. Simpson trial being a planned diversion from "President Clinton wanting to sell an American port to China." Interesting that there was insane media coverage about the potential sale of American ports to Dubai a bit later :)
He also has lots of beliefs that tie in with premillennial dispensationalism, in which he believes the mark of the beast is a microchip that a one-world government will be placing in people very soon to track them and make them buy and sell only if people have it, etc. He has said that Mondex will be a big player in this supposed coming technology. These conspiracies are a very integral part of his ministry. Any sort of mention about his conspiracies should be kept. Clinevol98 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] birthday

Is there a reference for Hovind's birthday in the infobox? Bueller 007 (talk) 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It could be sourced to any of the legal documents/databases. C56C (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy in article

First, I am an atheist and believe in evolution, so please don't call me a YEC.

This part of the biography:

He holds three degrees in Christian education (1974, 1988, 1991) from unaccredited institutions. He is married, and has three adult children and four grandchildren. His son, Eric Hovind, travels doing creationist presentations and debates using many of his father's arguments.[5]

Starting in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[6] Then in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored.[6] Teachers at public schools must have an accredited degree and a state teaching license,[7] but this is not always required for private schools. Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degrees from accredited institutions.[8] In 1989, Hovind started his Creation Science Evangelism.[9]

In the first paragraph, it is mentioned that he holds degrees from unaccredited institutions, so there is no need to mention it again so explicitly in the second paragraph ("Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degress from accredited institutions"). That not only is bad writing but it seems like an attempt to inject POV.

Here is my proposal for how the second paragraph should read:

Because some private institutions do not require teaching and acadamic credentials from accredited institutions, in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools, and in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored. In 1989, Hoving started his Creation Science Evangelism.

Is that okay? Hazillow (talk) 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, scratch that. My proposal is:

Starting in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[6] Then in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored[6] (it is not always required for instructors in private schools to have accredited academic and teaching credentials).[8] In 1989, Hovind started his Creation Science Evangelism.[9]

(I also fixed my original post which sounded more abrasive than I intended) Hazillow (talk) 07:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I think your [first] version is more problematic than the original. It implies that he was at the three schools simultaneously, and places WP:SYNTH emphasis on a causal relationship between his lack of qualifications & working in private schools. I would suggest:

Starting in 1975 Hovind became an assistant pastor and teacher at three private Baptist schools.[6] Then in the 1980s he opened a Baptist school and church at which he taught and pastored.[6] As these were private schools, Hovind did not require any teaching credentials or accredited qualifications (which he lacks).[8] In 1989, Hovind started his Creation Science Evangelism.[9]

[Your 2nd version isn't so bad, but a tad heavy on the amount in parentheses.] HrafnTalkStalk 08:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I like yours better than mine. If no one else has a problem (I don't see why they would), let's do it. Hazillow (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Changed. Thanks for the suggestion, Hrafn. Hazillow (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinoff proposal

This page is about 80KB. According to Wikipedia guidelines on article size, a split should be considered if the article grows above 60KB. The "Legal issues" section seems like a natural target for a spinoff. The four subsections in this article would become sections of the new article, tentatively titled "Kent Hovind's legal issues." The current section would, of course, be summarized in this article and a "Main article:" note would preface the section. What are your thoughts? Hazillow (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if there is enough meat to make a worthwhile article. The legal stuff is important to the article and may be too difficult to summarize. And the legal article will be fairly small and will only put the article under 60 kb by a little. Splitting off isn't necessary in all articles, take a look at some of the other articles in related fields (evolution, creationism, ID, c-e controversy) and they are all quite large. I just don't think there is enough for make a quality article. Baegis (talk) 06:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Baegis that spinning off a legal issues article makes no sense. I better solution would be to attempt to distil the article down a bit. It is really too detailed a treatment (probably due to disputes leading to extra detail being dumped in) for a second-tier (if very colourful) creationist. HrafnTalkStalk 06:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The reason why the articles you mentioned (evolution and the like) are so large is because they cover very broad subjects (from WP:Article length: "Two exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields.). Regardless, the ID and c-e controvery articles probably should be split anyway. If we can wittle this article down, then fine. But everything seems to have a source and, as Hrafn mentioned, extra detail was dumped in as a compromise. I don't think we should remove things that are sourced and were agreed upon without the input of the major contributors (if they are still active). I'll see if I can hunt them down. Hazillow (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Such 'compromises' tend to be of the type of one side putting stuff into the article, so the other side adds balancing information. Any WP:CONS is for the balance, not the level of detail. It should be possible to summarise (both sides equally) or move (again both sides equally) supporting information into footnotes without disturbing this consensus. HrafnTalkStalk 07:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

THis article is ar from neatural. THough it may be the common opinion, its not NPOV.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 21:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

And what exactly in the article is POV? If the facts about Kent Hovind's life paint him in a disparging light, perhaps that is his fault, and not the editors'. Hazillow (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
It clearly POV aside from whether or ot you share his beliefs. I feel a rewrite is in order, see Kent Hovind/NPOV for writting of a new NPOV version of this page to later be merged in to existing page.--71.217.206.152 (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh?
You didn't answer my question. What is POV about this article? It is probably good to bring up what you feel is POV before you suggest "complete rewrites" and link to a page that doesn't exist, expecting us to go with it. Hazillow (talk) 04:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, please understand that WP:NPOV means we report the POVs expressed in reliable sources without giving our own POV one way or the other. Do any major sources extol him which we've missed? Anynobody 05:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Having the chance to read the whole article it seems their is only two small issues with it, I just nticed the first one right at the beginning and tagged it, but I'll fix them.--L33t-Geek (talk)
16:49, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Changes made, I removed the unsourced claim of him being a conspiracy theorist and replaced it with a simple description of his belief or disbelief actually in evolution, speciifically macroevolution. I also removed the Scandal related categories as I don't belive they were valid for this article, unless someone can explain.--L33t-Geek (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
And I have reverted your changes. His conspiracy theories are documented in Kent Hovind#Controversial remarks; given that he is a YEC, to say that he rejects macroevolution is redundant; for a prominent Christian apologist to be convicted & imprisoned would surely count as a "religious scandal". HrafnTalkStalk 17:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I would revert it back because thats is so bogus, but you would do the same so I just taged where needed with {{Proveit}}.--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with L33t-Geek that the "religious scandal" claim is dubious. I'm not at all sure that I'd count Hovind as a "prominent Christian apologist", but regardless, the scandal is not religious in nature, is it? I can accept that a sex scandal involving a famous evangelist, say, is a religious scandal, since it involves a pretty blatant hypocrisy, at least if the evangelist has repeatedly and publicly condemned sexual misbehavior. But tax evasion? Well, surely most religious persons condemn lying, but that doesn't seem to justify calling this a religious scandal.
Does "religious scandal" include any legal troubles in which a preacher-man is on the wrong side of the law?
Unlike L33t-Geek, I'd say that the conspiracy theory category is defensible. Phiwum (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I did an NPOV rewrite.--168.156.174.49 (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that I've moved L33t-Geek's NPOV fork over to Talk:Kent Hovind/temporary. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

L33t-Geek, KHrulz, and Kentisawesome seem to be intimately connected. In an edit comment, Kentisawesome referred to the TALK page to which he himself did not comment, but L33t-Geek did. Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Too bad thats not true, and i am sure ther is a way to check ips to prove it. Also where did all my tags go?--L33t-Geek (talk) 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I consider the current emphasis on his behavior in prison, and--indeed--the details of the legal difficulties, such as the argument over his passport, to be somewhat excessive. I think they do serve only the purpose of trying to lengthen the bulk of the negative criticism against him--hardly necessary in this particular instance. People where should know the amount of sympathy I am likely to have with any portion of his career, but it still isn't fair. A correct article should discuss it--it is a notable part of his career. L33t's version is too far in the other direction. DGG (talk) 04:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
My version is not finished so why even bring it up?--L33t-Geek (talk) 19:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
What DGG said. I removed the booking photo as being gratuitous and problematic per WP:BLP. Fact is, we really don't need to rub Hovind's nose in his own mess - he's done a bang-up job of that without our help. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally fine with leaving the booking photo out, but falsely claiming it is a copyvio and disrupting the page in order to make a point is where I draw the line. 2nd Guy's motion to leave it out. Baegis (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Also FYI booking photos are ARE copyrighted.--L33t-Geek (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that it's a copyrighted image. Copyrighted images are allowed on Wikipedia, completely in keeping with US and other countries' copyright laws. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey i'm no lawyer, I was just doing what I though should be done. Someone needs to WP:AGF.--L33t-Geek (talk) 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it appears that booking photos taken by the FBI are not copyrighted. At least we have a template which makes that claim, and it's plausible, as documents generated by the Federal Government are not copyrighted. However, the claim that it should be removed as a copyvio is a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines. But, as long as you don't do it again.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

(undent)AGF gets tossed out the window when you decide to sock your way to changing the article. Baegis (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

What????-L33t-Geek (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If we're agreed we don't want to use this photo, why argue over its copyright? if L33t intends to continue his version to cover the later part, I'd like to see it.--I assumed it was intended to be complete as was. DGG (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey l33t, great work on the NPOV article, it was taken down but i'm putting it back up for you.--KHManiac (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The blocked my other IP and accounts, but I got plenty of IPs to edit from, gotta love the uni network,--168.156.174.90 (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that too much emphasis is put on the procedural aspects of his various legal troubles, although I believe most of those edits were made by a tax lawyer who pronounced himself uninterested in the whole creation-evolution debate (and does great work on this and the tax protestor articles incidentally), so I wouldn't ascribe it to attempts to make Hovind look bad. However, I disagree that an article is POV simply because it is unflattering. The reason the article reads the way it does is that virtually all the material available on Hovind in reliable sources is negative.

When I first came across this article (one of the first I edited here) I was completely unfamiliar with its subject. It sounded to be a bit biased to me, so I tried to find positive or neutral material about him, perhaps discussing missionary work abroad or other simple facts about his life, but did not find much. His "mission" seems mostly just peddling merchandise and speaking wherever he can get a sufficient honorarium from a sponsoring group or "free will offering" from the congregation. He seems to be regarded as a joke among biologists and an embarrassment to Young Earth Creationists. I was convinced that the article was, if anything, too nice to him.

On the other hand, I think a more extensive discussion of his views would benefit the article. He's fairly well known for his claims that the dragons or monsters in old legends are actually dinosaurs and continuing to push the claim that rotting basking sharks are in fact plesiosaurs. There is no doubt other material from him ubiquitous videos we could mention, as well as his exchange with Answers in Genesis on arguments that AiG thinks creationists should not use.

I'd really like to see the Hovind Theory section developed a bit more, along with his criticisms of evolution, but the problem is that the man has no published works and his videos are often contradictory or simply misstate the scientific principles he is trying to criticize ("The Big Bang was the explosion of a spinning dot," for example). It's tough to see how we could synthesize them, even if such were not explicitly prohibited. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Semiprotected

I have semiprotected for two weeks to stop the high rate of anonymous vandalism to this article. Guy (Help!) 21:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tax evasion?

Tax avoidance and tax evasion#Tax evasion states "By contrast tax evasion is the general term for efforts by individuals, firms, trusts and other entities to evade taxes by illegal means. Tax evasion usually entails taxpayers deliberately misrepresenting or concealing the true state of their affairs to the tax authorities to reduce their tax liability, and includes, in particular, dishonest tax reporting (such as declaring less income, profits or gains than actually earned; or overstating deductions)."

This would appear to be the common usage of the word, and clearly covers Hovind's criminal acts. Unless a WP:RS can be produced stating that this isn't 'Tax Evasion', then I would suggest that this is the clearest characterisation of Hovind's offenses. HrafnTalkStalk 16:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

If 'tax evasion' can be proven to be inaccurate, then the slightly-vaguer 'tax fraud' would also be appropriate. HrafnTalkStalk 16:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

First, Wikipedia articles are not themselves sources, especially when you can only get your conclusion through novel synthesis. A scholarly or professional journal article would never use that definition. Just to take the first thing that popped up when I did a search for this, the BNA Tax Management Portfolio Tax Crimes (a standard professional reference), "Tax evasion, the most frequently charged crime under the Internal Revenue Code, is a felony defined in § 7201 as the willful attempt to evade or defeat any tax imposed by Title 26."
Second, that's not the way it works. If you want to say that he's guilty of tax evasion, you need to provide a source saying so, especially when you're saying a living person is guilty of a crime. However,even if you are able to find a newspaper reporter who used the term colloquially, there's still a problem with using "tax evasion." Hovind was not convicted under Sec. 7201. Saying that he was guilty of tax evasion implies that he was. This would be inconsistent with the generally conservative approach taken on biographies of living persons.
If you look through the talkpage archives you'll see that I'm no fan of Hovind, but I think it is important for WP to be precise on these things. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
We are clearly using tax evasion in the manner described by Hrafn. It is a much more generalized term than the specific crime committed. For example (a bad one), there is clearly a line between murder one and murder two, but in the opening of someone's entry on WP, we don't make that distinction. We just say murder. Tax evasion is clearly the best way to phrase his charges even if it is technically not the crime he was charged with. Baegis (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles need to be accurate. This is especially true when the article is about a living person.

The news media often confuses the term "tax evasion" by using it to refer to any "tax crime." Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia does not need to be incorrect or imprecise merely because some members of the news media are incorrect or imprecise.

The analogy using "murder one" and "murder two" is not on point; both crimes are "murder."

The distinction between tax evasion and other tax crimes is also an important one for the simple reason that because the things you have to prove to obtain a conviction for tax evasion and a conviction for, say, some other tax crime, can be very different. When a federal prosecutor is reviewing the evidence in a tax case and deciding which charges to ask the grand jury to make, the prosecutor is keenly aware of the substantial difference in difficulty in proving say, "willful failure to file" (26 USC 7203) and "tax evasion" (26 USC 7201).

Sorry, but "tax evasion" is clearly NOT the best way to phrase the charges in the Hovind case. The best way to phrase the charges in the Hovind case, or any other case, is to state accurately what those charges were. Being accurate imposes no hardship on any Wikipedia reader, and certainly not on any Wikipedia editor -- especially when the correct information is right there in front of us. Famspear (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Regarding the comment that tax evasion "would appear to be the common usage of the word, and clearly covers Hovind's criminal acts" - no, sorry, that is not a judgment that we as Wikipedia editors are allowed to make.

And we as Wikipedia editors are NOT under some burden to "prove" that the term "tax evasion" is "inaccurate" as applied to Hovind. He was not charged with tax evasion; he was not convicted of tax evasion. Period.

The burden of proof is not on the editors wishing to keep out inaccurate, unsourced material. Further, in this case, the court record is already available -- and is sourced in the article itself.

In my personal opinion -- and I have studied more tax evasion and other criminal tax cases than I care to try to shake a stick at -- what Hovind allegedly did would indeed constitute tax evasion. However, I am not a previously published third party source for purpose of Wikipedia. I am just a Wikipedia editor. As a Wikipedia editor, I cannot presume to write, in a Wikipedia article about a living person (or in any other Wikipedia article), that this person committed tax evasion without proper sourcing, where he was neither convicted of that, nor even charged with that. My being right about my belief is not enough. Famspear (talk) 19:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


Since the disagreement here seems to stem in part from whose pool is being pissed in, perhaps I can offer our friends an analogy:

There are two different types of elementary fermions, quarks and leptons. You tend to hear the term quark discussed in popular media, but not so much leptons or fermions. However, it would be incorrect for Wikipedia articles to call all fermions quarks under the rationale of "Hey, close enough." You would never advocate that I be allowed to go through articles changing lepton and fermion to quark under the rationale that that term was the one likely to be recognized by the average reader. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


When people are quite finished with this pissing contest:

  1. I was NOT using a "Hey, close enough" definition. I was using a common and ubiquitous definition. See (for example) here and here. I would therefore like to thank ObiterDicta for his gross violation of WP:AGF. It really adds to the tone of these talkpages.
  2. That being so, if the US tax-law slices the definition more finely than this ubiquitous definition, it is up to challenger to establish this, by citing it, as they (eventually) did.
  3. This being so, while calling Hovind's offences 'tax evasion' is not 'incorrect' (per ubiquitous definition), it is confusing (per conflict between ubiquitous definition and tax-law definition), so should be avoided.
  4. It therefore makes sense to look at alternatives, such as "tax fraud" (which I suggested above). Is this sufficiently close to the common and ubiquitous definition of 'tax evasion' to be appropriate? Does it have any hair-splitting definition in US tax law to conflict?

HrafnTalkStalk 04:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hrfan, I'm sorry you misunderstood my attempts at levity. I'm sure you're acting in good faith. To rephrase, I think it is important to use technically accurate terms in articles, rather than the colloquial ones that would be used on about.com or investopedia. You, I'm sure, would insist on such if it were a scientific term being (mis)used. My example was simply intended to compare misusing the legal term to misusing a scientific term. And since the sentence talks about Hovind's incarceration for violating federal laws, it is the legal definition, rather than the colloquial one, that is the important one here. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 22:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear editor Hrafn: Maybe I missed something, but I don't see any remarks by editor ObiterDicta that would constitute a gross failure by him/her to assume good faith on your part.
I do think you are raising some very interesting points - especially about what you refer to as the "ubiquitous" definition versus the more technical U.S. law definition. Actually, the U.S. tax law definition -- the one that would apply to Hovind IF it, uh, well, actually applied, is already shown in the article Tax avoidance and tax evasion.
Regarding "tax fraud" -- I agree that we should think about that. Tax fraud is generally under 26 U.S.C. § 7204 through 26 U.S.C. § 7207, with 26 U.S.C. § 7206 being the typical statute that is used. Some people are charged with tax fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which is a more general statute and not limited to "tax" matters.
Now, let's look at what Hovind actually was convicted of:
1. Twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and FICA taxes under 26 U.S.C. § 7202.
Mere failure to do something like this probably does not, in and of itself ordinarily constitute "fraud." Had Hovind actually signed and filed a tax return knowingly and falsely reporting the amount of his employees' wages (and thus the amount of federal payroll tax due), THAT could have been tax fraud (under 7206). But I see nothing in the article that indicates that the government alleged that he did that. Fraud has been defined as "a false and material misrepresentation made by one who either knows it is falsity or is ignorant of its truth" (Barron's Law Dictionary, p. 194, 2d ed. 1984, italics added).
2. One count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws under section 7212.
If I recall correctly, this may have related to making threats against government personnel, endeavoring to impede or intimidate a federal officer. That's what the statute is talking about. Again, this would not necessarily be "fraud."
3. Forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade the reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324, 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11.
This is where it gets dicey. This involved Hovind evading (there's that word! - but I agree that it's OK to use it in this context) the Treasury reporting requirements by making multiple cash withdrawals just under the $10,000 reporting requirement (a technique known as "smurfing". I have little doubt that it was probably Hovind's INTENT here to engage in tax evasion -- but as a Wikipedia editor I cannot justify putting that in the article on that basis alone. The question is: Does deliberately and repeatedly making bank deposits of $9,500 rather than $10,000 to evade the requirement that the bank make a "currency transaction report" to the U.S. Treasury, in and of itself, constitute FRAUD? What "material misrepresentation" was Hovind making when he made those deposits? All he was affirmatively saying was: Here's $9,500, Mr. Banker, please take it and credit my bank account for that amount."
I guess you could argue that Hovind was IMPLYING that "hey Mr. Banker this is the only money I have to deposit today -- and that additional $9,500 deposit I intend to make in a couple of days is not really just part of the total $19,000 I have today and I'm just trying to avoid the Treasury reporting requirements so the Internal Revenue Service won't know I got this income...."
I believe it was obviously Hovind's INTENTION to evade having to pay the tax -- but does the mere making of a deposit under the $10,000 reporting requirement constitute FRAUD?
Any thoughts? Famspear (talk) 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

PS: Just so no one will get confused, the reason that the use of the term "evading" is perfectly OK in relation to Hovind's conviction under 31 USC 5324 is that the statute in question provides (in part):

No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508—
(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

--(italics added).

That's not tax evasion, that is evasion (or attempted evasion) of the currency transaction report requirements. Hovind was convicted of that. Just wanted to make that clear. Famspear (talk) 14:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


Having thought about this a bit, I don't think that trying to characterize Hovind's crimes is a particularly good idea. The article should just state the facts. As Famspear has noted, "tax fraud" typically refers to statutes other than those Hovind was convicted under. We could change "crimes" to "felonies" I suppose, or simply note the three laws that he violated. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing legal issues

I added the information about the ongoing legal issues: Feds still looking to force Dinosaur Adventure Land into extinction. Paper45tee (talk) 23:08, 16 May 2008 (UTC)