Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Info regarding convictions, and pending Feb. 28th hearing

I have updated the details on Kent Hovind's convictions. The actual court judgment reflected a different amount than was reported in the newspaper on the restitution amount, and I am going with the actual court judgment.

Also, the court has set a hearing for Feb. 28, 2007, on Hovind's contention that the convictions on the "structuring" counts should be thrown out. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. The main effect -- if Hovind were to convince the court that those counts should be thrown out -- would be to reduce his prison time from ten years to five years. Stay tuned. Famspear 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear non-lawyer readers (i.e., normal people): Also, please note that in the citations, for brevity, I usually style the case as Kent Hovind being the defendant, even though husband and wife are both defendants and are so named in the captions of the documents filed with the court -- e.g., United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Kent E. Hovind, and Jo D. Hovind, defendants. Also, proper Bluebook citation form for this would actually be United States v. Hovind, etc., (dropping the phrase "of America" and just using the last name of the first defendant listed in the caption). Also, one of the motions referenced in the footnotes is actually by Jo Hovind, not Kent Hovind. Please don't let these technicalities be confusing; it's just lawyer stuff. Yours, Famspear 16:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Evil lawyers and their "lawyer stuff." :D Seriously, thanks for the update. Justin Eiler 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks to Famspear for working hard to keep this article up to date with regards to the Court Case and also for the many reverts of vandalism. For some reason, this article attracts some pretty strange edits, blanking and vandalsim. The last vandal blanked the article and typed in MEOW. okaaaaaaaaaay...Lisapollison 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Docket check: On Hovind's contention (Feb 28th hearing) that the convictions on the "structuring" counts should be thrown out -- I see no court ruling yet, as of 8 March 2007. Yours, Famspear 03:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Docket check. As of yesterday, March 26, 2007, I still see no ruling regarding the Hovind contention that the convictions on the "structuring" counts should be thrown out. Yours, Famspear 17:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the content under Hovind's offer appears to be incorrect

Yes, I'll admit that Hovind's offer was made to be "impossible" to win. That's why he made it in the first place! But what's written here is way-off:

The winner would have to convince Hovind that not only is evolution real but that it "is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence" [4], in other words, he/she would have to think up every other possible theoretical scenario in the universe for the existence of everything in the universe and then disprove it -- leaving only evolution standing at the end for Hovind to accept it as true. As an example, the submittee would have to prove that life on earth was not the result of, say, crafting by a race of space aliens

Kent Hovind's theory may be asking for more than evolution (he appears to believe that evolution is the same as atheism), as the "5 major events" do not seem to be associated with the theory of evolution under common scientific practices. But his 250k offer certainly does not constitute "thinking up every other possible theoretical scenario in the universe for the existence of everything in the universe and then disproving it"

He does say at the beginning that "evolution is ACCLAIMED as being the only process capable..." - it's incorrect to say that this equates proving "every other possible option." Hovind is really only introducing the topic in saying that. Read the article + quotation in context :)

And btw, "crafting by a race of space aliens" really doesn't need to be there, given the formal writing expected of an encyclopedia.

Yoda921 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Yoda

Definitely agreed on the aliens, I've removed that as it appears to be original synthesis. That whole section appears a bit problematic to me, I'll have a look over it when I have some more time if someone else hasn't first. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

NPOV revisited

Hello. I have been reading the article and the talk page on Kent Hovind, and it appears blatantly obvious to me that this article is not written from a strictly neutral point of view. The article gives its facts via a mixture of neutral information laced with criticisms/negative information and via strictly negative publicity/information.
I then sought to go behind the scenes and read the talk page, in which the majority of contributors outrightly call Hovind an "idiot" and defame him in various other derrogatory ways. It seems that this is a majority opinion among all who are writing this suposedly "NPOV" article.
From reading several other entries in Wikipedia, I know that it is possible to list negative as well as positive information about an individual while leaving the reader to form their own opinion about them. In fact, every article I've read has done this, except for this one! It seems that the contributors to the article are a bunch of people who either know of Kent Hovind and want to defame him in the most neutral way possible, or those who don't know him but have joined the bandwagon to do so anyway.
It is the standard of Wikipedia, is it not, to leave out personal agendas from articles? And as the talk page is public for all to see, should not these biased comments that have nothing to do with editing an article be left out of the talk page?
Thank you kindly. 12.134.210.198 00:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)ConcernedReader

As has been stated before, if you have any specific relevant positive or balancing information that can be well sourced, you are welcome to put it in. The fact that almost all reliable material about Hovind is negative doesn't make the article POV. JoshuaZ 01:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it is bad form to call the article's subject an idiot, even on the talk page. But as far as the article goes, could you give some clear examples of POV text? Or is it not that any particular claim in the article is too negative, but the article as a whole is too negative? If that's the problem, I don't see any clear solution.

An article on Hovind needs to present his theory as well as standard criticisms of that theory. We should also mention some of his broad conspiracy theories, at least insofar as he has publicized them in promotional materials, sermons, speeches, etc., but not too much detail on those I think. There are other more notable conspiracy theorists. I suppose, we should mention his legal troubles. I think we've gone overboard on those troubles, but others disagree. For me, Hovind is interesting because he's a young earth creationist who has founded a theme park that espouses his views. I don't really care about his tax issues, but I'm not the only editor who matters. Phiwum 01:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear editors: I agree with editors JoshuaZ and Phiwum; we really need clear, specific examples of non-neutral point of view.

I bring a somewhat different perspective on Mr. Hovind, as I had absolutely never even heard of him (or his ministry, etc.), before I came across this article in connection with my interest in taxation. (I am of course familiar with the concept of creationism versus evolution, but not with Hovind's particular philosophy.) I have absolutely zero knowledge of the guy, beyond the information I've read here, plus the information I have collected and added to the article regarding his tax problems. For me personally, he is interesting only for his criminal tax problems and tax protester arguments, and my focus with the article is with the tax stuff -- so in that sense I guess I have the opposite perspective from editor Phiwum. Oh well. Yours, Famspear 02:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

These drive-bys are fairly common, as a review of this page and the archived page make clear. They have yet to be able to make any specific, cogent criticisms citing specific problems with the article or relevant, positive information we are excluding. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 03:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't expect a response so quickly. Well, I have revisited the article, and here are some specific suggestions I have thought of to make it more NPOV.

Firstly, it would be most appropriate I feel to not begin the biography with legal problems. This first section sets the whole tone for the article. Secondly, it would be more NPOV to save all criticisms for the criticisms section. All creation scientists, as well as evolutionists, have their fair share of critics, and it is of course valid and important to list these in a NPOV article. But they should be separated entirely, not integrated with unopinionated facts. And example would be, do not include 3 paragraphs of the criticism of his education under the education tab. Simply put his education under the eduation tab. The 2ndm 3rd, and 4th parahgraph are all critical, whether directly or indirectly. Simply state he got his degrees from Patriot, and leave out other people's opinons about Patriot. Also, I feel that listing people's opinions about his dissertation makes the article POV rather than NPOV. Also, the 3rd paragraph is POV because it unnecessarily causes further skepticism on Hovind's education and therefore the validity of his scientific claims-- it is not necessary to put in opinions about a school's policy on dissertations in a person's biography. If one wishes to give criticisms of the school, it should be segregated. But Encyclopedias should not be filled with people's opposing opinions, but rather facts. So I think it could be left out all together.
Thirdly, it is not in good sport only to give a person's income and how much merchandise a ministry sells as the only information about a ministry. In this section the information about how he encourages people to duplicate his materials and share them should be added (I think it is elsewhere on the page and just needs to be re-organized). I do not necessarily have anything to add here, I just feel the whole article is organized in such a fashion as to make it into a biased article. And if one is going to use the IRS as a source for his income in the article, I think it only right that they include as well Hovind's argument that the IRS is listing his entire ministry's income as his own personal income, so that it does not cause him to unnecessarily appear to be a money-hungry, tax-evading thief. It is apparent the "conspiracy-theory mind-set", if you could call it that, is the motive behind the tax evasion.
Again, under the Dinosaur Adventure Land heading there are tax/legal problems listed. These should not be under this category, but under the "legal problems" category. The whole article would more more NPOV if it were organized differently, even if the "legal problems" portion were a large part of the page. It is also in good sport to list the legal problems last, as the more prominent of the cases/his being sentenced to 10 years is the most recent happenings in his life, and because it is only proper to not gossip and slander a person by focusing on the bad things they've done. Even if you can't find more "positive" things to say, don't immediately jump in on all a person's problems. This isn't a newspaper trying to sell headlines and catch people's attention, it's an online encyclopedia trying to share information (not opinions).
Moreover, why is the second paragraph of his biography so detailed about his specific convictions and fines? Put this in the legal problems section.
In conclusion, my case is thus: I am not arguing whether or not there are too many criticisms on the page, but that the organization of the page leads it to be entirely biased and not NPOV as it should be. I am voting for a re-organization of facts-- and that people have criticisms is a fact. Put the ministry/regular life info first, then the legal stuff, then the criticisms. (And on the amount of criticisms, I know of far more prominent men in Christianity who have plenty of criticism and not one bit of it is named in their Wikipedia articles-- maybe reconsider this amount of criticisms lest the article become slanderous vs. informative.) That is all for now. Thanks for reading my thoughts on the matter. 76.212.172.5 06:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Concerned Reader

The bogus nature of Hovind's "education" is entirely appropriate for the "education" section: splitting it out would make the article very disjointed (we'd be bringing up the subject twice). And as for "I know of far more prominent men in Christianity who have plenty of criticism and not one bit of it is named in their Wikipedia articles": can you give some examples? If it's deserved criticism (or even undeserved, if it's from a notable source), then it should be in ther Wikipedia articles. The page for Jim Bakker, for instance, is dominated by his misdeeds. --Robert Stevens 09:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The article's intro could do with being trimmed to the most pertinent of his legal woes though. This rather dominates at the moment, making the article appear ungainly. Further, while his legal problems are highly significant, it would be better to structure the article so that his creationist ideas appear earlier. They are, after all, more notable than his convictions (notable, that is, in that special creationist way). --Plumbago 10:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose "Concerned Reader's" suggestion that criticisms be segregated. Putting everything in a criticisms section makes for bad reading and is likely to mislead casual readers. I know that I often visit articles and read only one section. If I read only the education section, for instance, I should be told in that section that Patriot University is an uncredited institution and that his dissertation is curiously unavailable.

The article could probably use some attention to organization, but I don't like this suggestion. Phiwum 13:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The comment about the "bogus nature of Hovind's 'education'" shows bias and motive in the education portion of the page: the point of that section is to show his schooling for biographical purposes, not to convince the reader that he knows nothing because his correspondense school is unaccredited. A person's knowledge is not based upon whether a school is accredited or fishy in their dissertation policy. Perhaps leave the comment about his dissertation being hard to obtain... But "Dr. Barbara Forrest, a critic of intelligent design, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level" does not need to be in there. Adding this only adds bias against his credibility. The fact that he has legal convictions and critics in both creationist and evolutionist camps, this does not prove that he does not know anything. There are several camps within Christianity alone that have opposing viewpoints on varying matters, one of which is the creation account. There are also opposing viewpoints amidst evolutionists (for example, the book "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe seeks to disprove Darwinian Evolution on a biochemical level, while at the same time not advocating creation).12.134.210.198 21:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Concerned Reader

It's also not to convince the reader he can be trusted because of his advanced education. WP articles generally contain relevant criticism of the subject, but that is not an attempt to prove or disprove anything. This isn't a fanpage, or spin control. The article seems to me to fairly represent the reliable sources available on the man. Simply suppressing negative information is not going to get very far here ... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooops - An editor's comment on a talk page regarding the allegedly "bogus nature of Hovind's education" does not show "bias and motive in the education portion of the page" if we're talking about the Wikipedia article itself. It arguably might show bias on the part of the editor who made the comment here on this talk page. But I and all other Wikipedia editors have biases and motives. The question is: How can we, each of us, with our own biases and motives, improve the article with respect to how the material is presented, to assure that both positive and negative facts are presented neutrally?

I agree with Concerned Reader that the purpose here should not be to convince the reader that Mr. Hovind knows nothing because his school is unaccredited. The reason for including a reference about accreditation is, in my view, to allow the reader to have sufficient relevant data to make his or her own assessment about Mr. Hovind. I also agree with Concerned Reader if he/she is saying that a person's knowledge is not necessarily based upon whether a school is accredited, or is fishy in its dissertation policy. But we're not here to assess Mr. Hovind's level of knowledge or state any "Wikipedia conclusion or assessment" (if you will) of such knowledge in the article -- we're here to assure that the article presents information relevant to what his knowledge may or may not be in a neutral and verifiable manner.

Regarding the Barabara Forrest issue, adding her comments does not in and of itself add "bias," as I see it. What it adds is an outside party making her own assessment about Mr. Hovind. This is not Wikipedia's assessment, it's Forrest's assessment -- and it's labeled as such. Presenting it neutrally is one of the goals.

It is correct to say that the fact that Mr. Hovind "has legal convictions and critics in both creationist and evolutionist camps" does not in and of itself prove that he does not know anything. As in a U.S. criminal case, no one piece of evidence "proves" anything in the sense that I suspect Concerned Reader is thinking about. Indeed, even several pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant do not, in and of themselves, "prove" anything. Why? Because, in a criminal case, it's always up to the jury to accept or reject any or all of the evidence, and make the ultimate determination in the form of a conclusion about guilt or lack thereof. In this case, the Wikipedia reader is the jury.

No, Hovind's criminal convictions don't "prove" anything -- but that does not mean that inclusion of that information is not appropriate for the article.

I do agree that the article still needs work to improve neutral point of view. If and when I come up with specific suggestions for changes, I'll make the suggestions or changes. And if other editors don't like my changes, those changes will be shot down -- just like those from any other editor. Working for consensus is part of what makes editing Wikipedia interesting. Yours, Famspear 22:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in addition to any specific changes to the article, it may be useful to discuss any positive information from reliable sources about the subject the article leaves out or if the article is in any way misrepresenting the information contained in the numerous sources it cites. If you want to do some reading in these sources and then comment, I'm sure your input would help improve the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerned Reader: Hovind insists on using the title "Doctor", a title to which he is not entitled, as he does not have a genuine PhD. And it is a fact that Hovind is largely ignorant of science, as is evident from the many scientific errors in his material (which, incidentally, he does not correct). Certainly, his "degree" is not remotely scientific in nature or subject matter. He pretends to be something he is not: an expert. As for your reaction to Barbara Forrest's comment: why do you imagine we have an obligation to preserve "Hovind's credibility" at all, and especially by removing citations from relevant sources? That would be pushing a pro-Hovind POV which the facts do not warrant. As I've already pointed out on this page, Al Capone's page says some unflattering things about him: it isn't censored as you'd apparently like this page to be. And the same applies to Jim Bakker's page (who, unlike Capone, is still alive), which includes a quote claiming that Bakker is "the greatest scab and cancer on the face of Christianity in 2,000 years of church history." --Robert Stevens 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that does sound unbalanced. Certainly the Crusades were pretty bad too... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I actually read Bakker's page, and not previously knowing anything about him I felt I left the article with a good idea of what his ministry was about, where he went wrong, and how he's changed his errant teachings which he said were the result of taking verses out of context.
In regard to making the page a "pro-Hovind" POV, I don't think that is appropriate either. Perhaps the format of the page should be more like the format of Bakker's-- Intro, brief mention of convictions as are relevant, ie,
"Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is notable for his speaking engagements and debates on the topic of young earth creationism. He spoke frequently in private schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts until January 19, 2007, when he was served a 10 year prison sentence for tax evasion, as convicted by a federal court in Pensacola Florida.
"The self-styled "Dr. Dino" established the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry in 1989. He also runs a theme park based on dinosaurs and creation-science called Dinosaur Adventure Land, located in Pensacola Florida."
Then show the table of contents. This I feel is a more than sufficient introduction. The reader has been introduced to several main points in the article and can then choose whether to read about his ministry, Dinosaur Adventure Land, his convictions, etc. That's my only suggestion for now. Ciao for now. :) 76.212.172.5 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Concerned Reader

I agree that it isn't necessary to have so many details of the crime in the intro, however, I think it may simply make more sense to move the second paragraph of the intro as it currently stands into the main section on his convictions. JoshuaZ 07:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am the editor who inserted a lot of the crime materials near the top of the article, and I agree with JoshuaZ. I don't have time to get to it right now, but if another editor wants to take a crack at moving the material down to the main section on Hovind's convictions, with reorganization (if any) etc., that might be needed, I would say go for it. Yours, Famspear 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"Trivia Section"

The trivia section seems to be nothing more than an excuse to poke fun at Hovind and seems pretty childish. I really doubt you would find that kind of section in any respectable source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmurtbergx (talk • contribs) 23:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Since when is the Wikipedia considered respectable?

Sentencing for Jo Hovind

Dear fellow editors: I note that the article mentions that Jo Hovind's sentencing was set for March 1, 2007 (today). However, I recall seeing somewhere in a recent document filed in the case that the court intended to delay her sentencing -- I think because of the Feb. 28th hearing. I didn't see a court order where the court actually did that, but I just may have missed it. Since I haven't seen any solid sourcing yet, I have not removed the reference to the March 1 sentencing (at least not yet) -- but I doubt that Mrs. Hovind will be sentenced today (March 1). Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"A date for Jo Hovind's sentencing has been delayed pending a ruling by U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers on the request for acquittal on the bank structuring conviction."

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070301/NEWS01/703010325/1006

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluesheadop (talk • contribs) (on 3 March 2007).

Dear Bluesheadop: Thanks! I've incorporated your material into the article. Yours, Famspear 16:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Kent Hovind jail recordings for download

http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-prison-calls-part-1

http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-phones-calls-part-2

http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-jail-calls-3-of-4

http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-jail-phone-calls-4-of-4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesheadop (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Hilarious! Mr Christopher 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Young Earth?

Is it "young Earth" or "New Earth" that this guy promotes?

perfectblue 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
It's "young earth" - it's a common theory among creationists. Concerned Reader 04:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Concerned Reader

Undue Weight?

I was reading different things on Wikipedia and came across the guidelines for Undue Weight, and wondered if maybe there might be an undue weight issue in regards to this article. I am not saying there definitively is, but am bringing it up to look into it.

Just as a referrence, here's the "rule" from Wikipedia:

"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."

I can see that perhaps the great amount of Hovind's legal problems being spoken of here might fall under the notion of the weight "appropriate to its significance of the subject"; however, I believe that Hovind's theories and scientific views are of (approximate) equal prominence as his legal troubles. Should these not then occupy said "equal" space in the article? Yours Truly. Cr4JC 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, they might if we had more sources. Unfortunately we have very little in the way of reliable sources who have bothered to talk abput his viewpoints in any great detail. JoshuaZ 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Would it be possible to read up on Hovind's website (www.drdino.com) and gain information on his views there? There are several articles listed on various topics available there. It would take a lot of reading though to put together a general summary of these views, and would only be a summary of what his ministry is teaching, not necessarily him personally. If it is a biography, isn't it acceptable to use his own website or recordings of his teachings as a source? Cr4JC 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Views are disparate and sometimes contradictory. Synthesising them would require way too much judgement for WP:OR purposes. I think we have summaries in the article of most of hte major ones such as KJV-onlyism. JoshuaZ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

FreeHovind.com

I recommend we remove the FreeHovind.com link. That is basically a link to Hovind's websites and posts (which are linked on wiki). The website contains a biography that the author has admittedly taken from wikipedia [1], but purposefully has removed facts such as his education is not accredited and lacks information on his past criminal behavior. Hence, it is material taken from wikipedia, but twisted to misled readers. The website is ran by a sixteen year old homeschooled student who trying to organize a petition to overturn 58 federal convictions (signed by six people including petition's author). The website says "call the President" and contains the White House phone number. I see it has no value pertaining to WP:EL. Arbustoo 16:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And its display of the Wikipedia content violates the GFDL to boot. It's moderately interesting in that it shows some level of ongoing interest from his supporters, but does not really add any new information about Hovind. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:18, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• Re: FreeHovind.com

I disagree, and believe the FreeHovind link should be left on. I have re-added it because:

1) FreeHovind.com is much more than links to other sites: it includes a custom video gallery that is very intuitive and easy to use, a forum, a very handy downloads page, seminar transcriptions and articles (more coming soon), a custom petition, and lots of resources for Hovind supporters.

The videos and (coming soon section) don't offer anything that isn't on the page already. Arbustoo 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

2) Saying the biography has been taken from WikiPedia with no changes but purposefully removing Hovind's criminal history is deceptive. The 2 part biography [2] AND [3] contains portions of Hovind's WikiPedia article, but is significantly different. Hovind's biography on FreeHovind does mention most of the criminal charges on Hovind's WikiPedia article, but also contains explanations of the charges from the perspective Hovind often refers to them from. This is certainly not to mislead readers, but rather to give them the opportunity to see "the other side of the story". If FreeHovind was trying to mislead readers, why would it link to Hovind's WikiPedia article so often?

Much of what is taken from this article is twisted and purposely misleading. If FreeHovind wasn't trying to mislead readers why not include the true status of his "education"-- that it is worthless. He has no expertise or education in science. NONE. Arbustoo 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

3) The age of the person who "ran"s the FreeHovind website should have nothing to do with it's placement on WikiPedia, but if it did the homepage you mentioned contains links to quite a few other sites that should demonstrate that the 16 year old in question is fully capable of creating professional sites.

The age is just one part of it. If the author were, say, a person with a background in science, law or religion the website might have more validity. The point is, anyone can create a website and post what they want. However, it should always be linked on wikipedia. Arbustoo 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

4) The "16 year old" who runs the site is not "trying to organize a petition". He HAS organized a petition, which is being commented on in the forums right now, but is NOT open for signatures yet. The reason it has six signatures at the moment is because it was accidentally open for signatures for a short period of testing, and six people jumped at the opportunity to sign it.

The petition is currently 6 people (including someone who signed it "Shawn" and the author herself.). Forums again are meaningless. What does this have to do with adding anything to the article? No doubt petitions can be and are organized for all sorts of criminals with a devoted audience. Just because the criminal is notable that doesn't make the petition notable. Arbustoo 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

5) Even if you won't grant anything else, the website certainly has "link value" as the easiest and best source to watch and download Hovind's movies. Speaking of "link value", on the page you referenced it mentions "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view". Right now (without the FreeHovind link), the page has links to 3 non official pro-Hovind sites and 14 anti-Hovind sites.

Hovind's website is more valid as a place to download Hovind's videos. However, should we link every website that posts Hovind's videos or just yours? By the way, have you ever purchased Hovind's DVDs? If you have, I recommend you look at the back of the DVDs. He clearly states they ARE copyrighted. Arbustoo 01:38, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

For example, on the back of his presentation of volume 1 DVD: "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2005 CSE MINISTRY." The DVDs clearly state that it is ILLEGAL to use his materials for public performance, to copy and distribute for free, or to sell copies. Arbustoo 01:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

5) Since the site is not copyrighted at all, I don't see how including portions of Hovind's WikiPedia article on the biography pages violates the GFDL. If the site does violate copyright laws, please say how and I am sure the site's author would be glad to fix it.

Roburmow 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Its WP:SPAM. No reason to have it. The videos and other media are available via other links; the only possible reason for having this link is to promote the petition, which is a violation of Wikipedia is not a soapbox. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You can view the full text of the GFDL at WP:GFDL. The main provisions there would be that the text must still remain licensed under the GFDL, a copy of the GFDL must be provided, and some author attributions must be given. (This would be satisfied with a link back to this page or to the page history as author credit.) Also, please note that all websites are copyrighted unless the copyright holder explicitly states otherwise. Under US copyright law, all work is copyrighted the moment it is "fixed in a tangible form", which putting up a website counts as. (Of course, the copyright holder may certainly state that others are free to reuse the information, either with or without conditions, the GFDL is a reuse-with-conditions license.) As to including the link here, make that the opinion of two puppies, it doesn't seem to fit WP:EL, and we really don't need links to petitions. (Imagine what George W. Bush would look like if we started allowing petition links!) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 00:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My favorite part of FreeHovind, besides the omission that Patriot University is a diploma mill and that referring to him as Dr is highly inappropriate (and insulting to people with real doctorates), is that the webmaster wants Hovind released from 58 felony convictions on the basis of his ignorant views of science. Yeah, let's just give all criminals a pass on the law who use fraudulent arguments to attack scientific FACT...

Also I'd like to know how this Hovind defender used his first ever wikipedia edit to reply on my talk page. Very advanced for a first ever edit. Arbustoo 01:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• "Answering the Critics":

Thanks everyone for the suggestions and comments! You can see my replies below:

KillerChihuahua: Your statement that "The videos and other media are available via other links" is completely wrong. The only other link on the page that has Hovind's videos is his official site, which only offers Hovind's seminars in WMV format. FreeHovind offers Hovind's seminars, college courses, answering critics, and a couple other movies in streaming embedded flash video on the watch page, and Google video, flash video, and bittorrent on the download page. FreeHovind is also the only pro-Hovind forum linked on WikiPedia, and contains a transcription of Hovind's 1st seminar. Many more resources are soon to come on the "Info" page, and the petition was actually requested by the site's visitors.

SeraphimBlade: Your information on copyright law is very helpful! A "this site is not copyrighted" notice has been added to the site, along with links to the GFDL on the biography pages. It looks like a couple other Pro-Hovind links were just removed from the article. Using your "George Bush" example, please imagine what the George W. Bush page would look like if it only had 1 non official (and somewhat affiliated) link to a pro-George W. Bush site and over ten times that many negative links!

Arbustoo: Since it bothers you so much, FreeHovind now does mention that Patriot University is unaccredited. Your statement that "the webmaster wants Hovind released from 58 felony convictions on the basis of his ignorant views of science." seems to indicate you forgot to read the petition. The fact Hovind teaches creation has nothing to do with Hovind supporters wanting him released from prison for ridiculous alleged "crimes"! No, I am not a "Sock Puppet" as you imply. It was actually wasn't that advanced, as I didn't realize you were talking about the article's talk page and not your talk page :-)

Roburmow 02:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The website still 1) doesn't add anything of relevance to the article, and 2) contains errors such as errornously calling him "Dr. Hovind" and failing to mention serious questions about his false assertions on science. You have set up a petition for ideological reasons in support of pseudoscience and lies. That is, Hovind committed crimes, but you want those crimes ignored. You failed to answer my question about copyrights and purchasing videos. Lastly, I didn't call you a sock puppet, but I would like to know how you learned to sign your username with your first post. Have you had a previous account? Arbustoo 03:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

To address what you've stated-Hovind's "official" site is linked, but to be quite honest, the vast majority of material out there on Hovind is negative. He's mainly notable for questionable (and that's the nicest word I can think of) pseudoscientific theories, and being convicted of tax crimes. Most of what's out there that's positive contains information that's contradicted by reliable sources. (For my part, I couldn't care less if you have another account, you haven't done anything I can see that violates the rules for secondary accounts anyway.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me Please review me!} 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I figured out how to sign my name after my first post... It's not hard. Cr4JC 04:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There was someone who is banned from wikipedia from San Diego/Oceanside who was caught using sock puppets[4] on this very page. His goal was to give the impression that more people wanted the content change when that wasn't true. Arbustoo 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's a lot of user names... Cr4JC 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Cr4JC

That person behind that sock puppet has many more including Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich. This article was one of his favorites. Yes, 150+ is a lot for one person. Arbustoo 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

1) FreeHovind is the only site linked that contains Hovind's college courses, answering critics series, and a couple of Hovind's other videos. It is also the only Hovind site that offers Hovind's movies as streaming embedded flash videos. It is also the only Hovind site that offers Hovind's videos in Google video, flash video, and bittorrent. It also contains an "Info" page, which has information about Hovind from a different perspective than the WikiPedia article which many readers would be interested in. The info page also has a transcription of Hovind's 1st seminar, and more are coming soon. FreeHovind also contains a petition (which is the only pro-Hovind one on the net) and a forum (which is - believe it or not - actually a helpful resource for Hovind supporters).

2) Aside from the info section, which ADDRESSES most of the accusations against Hovind, FreeHovind provides Hovind's "Answering the Critics" series and College Courses, which answers pretty much all of the accusations against him.

3) The petition has nothing to do with "pseudoscience and lies" [5]

4) I didn't "Fail to answer your questions" - honestly the way this discussion works is totally confusing. I just figured out how to put colon symbols in front of each paragraph to make my replies readable, and now you are putting text inside my original post. Yikes! This WikiPedia formatting is hard to learn :-) Regarding copyrights, Hovind always says his materials aren't copyrighted. I don't know why it would say his DVD is copyrighted, but I will email the CSE staff about it.

5) I have not had a previous account, nor posted to WikiPedia previously. I design web applications all the time, so I guess my learning period is a bit shorter. On every singe page it says "Sign your username with 4 tildes", so that part was easy to figure out. :-) Now the reply formatting - that is hard... The people who write WikiPedia should take some pointers from the threaded comment viewing system I wrote for PlexPedia.com (which powers the FreeHovind forums).

6) Right now, link space is biased VERY heavily to anti-hovind material, which as far as I understand is against WikiPedia policy. Other portions of this talk page are discussing bias in the article, and I believe it is being reflected in the links section. Claiming FreeHovind has nothing useful on it when (at the very least) it is the only linked site that allows people to watch Hovind's "Answering the Critics" series is quite a statement.

7) I am not quite sure what to make of your post "The age is just one part of it. If the author were, say, a person with a background in science, law or religion the website might have more validity. The point is, anyone can create a website and post what they want. However, it should always be linked on wikipedia." I think you meant "shouldn't always be linked on WikiPedia". If that is what you meant, I would like to provide my opinion that using the website's author as credentials for linking to the website or not is discrimination.

8) It's kind of funny how you speak of the petition's author as a "she" when AubreyFalconer.com provides direct evidence to the contrary. :-) Just because someone signed the petition as "Shawn" doesn't mean it isn't valid. The petition collects much more information which isn't shown, such as phone number and address

9) What you say is "Twisted and misleading" is not twisted or misleading, it is just the other perspective. Again, by saying that FreeHovind doesn't deserve a link because it is twisted and misleading you are expressing the opinion that anyone who differs from your opinion should be silenced. When you said "If FreeHovind wasn't trying to mislead readers why not include the true status of his "education"", you ignored the fact that the "worthless" "Answering the Critics" series on the site discusses Hovind's education very clearly.

10) Yes, the majority of sites talking about Hovind are negative. But now people are working hard to keep all the non official pro-Hovind sites off the links section to make it look like the disparity is even greater. :-(

11) The San Diego sock puppet isn't me, so why even mention it? :-)

Have a Great Day, Roburmow 05:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The critics have been silent for a couple days, so now what? (I am new to WikiPedia). Do I re-add the link again, are there moderators who make a decision, does the community "vote" - what happens? Roburmow 19:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It has been three days since I posted my last response which I believed answered all the items brought up by critics, and I have still not got a response. I don't know the official WikiPedia policy regarding such matters, but three days seems like a fair amount of time to await a response - especially when responses were coming in nearly hourly prior to my last post. Therefore, I have re added the FreeHovind link to the "Pro Hovind" section, and tidied up the descriptions of all the links in the "Official and Pro-Hovind" section. Roburmow 16:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright...here's the thing. The main guidelines for links are at WP:EL, but generally, we should only include a site if it at least potentially includes some reliably-sourced material that may be useful to the article. Also, for the decision-making process, please see WP:CONSENSUS. If you do something, and everyone who notices objects, it generally means you shouldn't do it again (at least until consensus has clearly changed), not to ask several times and wait until no one is noticing to say no again this time. I just don't see that FreeHovind adds anything of value to the article, contains any reliable information, or is usable as a source. If you disagree, you're welcome to file an article request for comment and get some more people's opinions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Roburmow, you haven't added anything new. You've responded basically with "no it isn't." That doesn't address the concerns of the editors nor is it worthy of a reply (this will go back and forth). Its a fansite for Hovind. Imagine if we linked every fansite on the Britney Spears article. The link adds nothing new. By linking the webpage, it would serve to promote that website rather than add anything that isn't already in this article or available from Hovind's website. Also did you read the comments on copyright? Hovind DOES copyright his DVDs. Do not readd the link. Arbustoo 18:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

(I am not sure how reply formatting should work, but I have "reset" the indent level as the text was getting squished :-)

Seraphimblade: I disagree that the site has no value, please see items below. I have filed a request for comment in the "Biographies" section. Thanks for the "consensus" link - it has helped me to better understand how WikiPedia works! It was not trying to "ask several times and wait until no one is noticing to say no again this time", but rather felt that I had answered all questions and was being greeted by silence (I am not trying to Ask the other parent). Now that I understand WikiPedia better, I can see it would have been better for me to file a RFC instead had I known about them.

Arbustoo: Please see numbered items below.

A) Site Worth:

1) FreeHovind is the only site linked that contains Hovind's college courses, answering critics series, and quite a few other of Hovind's videos.

His "College" courses, "Answering Critics" are all videos (see below). Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree - the videos I mentioned are all videos (see below). Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2) FreeHovind also is the only site linked that contains Hovind's seminar notebooks, seminar workbooks, time graphs, and a seminar transcription.

1) Many, many, many sites have transcripts, videos, etc.[6][7][8] with various videos at google and so on[9]. All of these videos are on youtube as well. But again, there is YOU DO NOT HAVE THE COPYRIGHT OF THESE VIDEOS. THEY ARE NOT YOURS! Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So why can't you link to the videos and let people hear Hovind's side of the story instead of just linking to all the aethiest "debunking" sites? Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Because they debunk Hovind's false claims they are atheistic? Arbustoo 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

3) FreeHovind also contains an "Info" section, which has information about Hovind from a different perspective than the WikiPedia article which many readers would be interested in.

A different perspective of MATERIAL FROM WIKIPEDIA. It offers nothing new other than a few omissions of fact and some misunderstanding of law. Nonetheless, it is material which is more accurate here and is taken from here. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What omissions of fact? I believe the misunderstandings of law you are referring to are commentaries on the charges against Hovind that people can actually understand, such as structuring is getting pulled over for deliberately not breaking the speed limit. I would not say this is a misunderstanding of law, but rather a logical simplification of the laws down to how ridculous they actually are. I believe people should at least have the opportunity to hear the other side of the story Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

4) FreeHovind is the easiest site on the net to view Hovind's materials. (FreeHovind offers online embedded Flash based video viewing, Google Video downloads, Flash Video downloads, BitTorent video downloads, etc)

1) That is your opinion, and 2) people can go to google video or Hovind's website. BitTorent's are hardly a reason to link to a page. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I already said very clearly, FreeHovind is much easier to use and contains way more materials than Hovind's website. It is not only my opinion, but it is also easily demonstrable! If "people can go to google video" to find Hovind's Videos, then why don't they also have to go to google to find anti-hovind material? You are admitting that right now it is much easier to get to anti-Hovind material from this article than pro-Hovind material. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

5) FreeHovind is almost certainly the largest Hovind fan site on the net.

Maybe, but so what? Like I said we don't link to fansites just because they are designed nicely. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. You link to fansites because they are relevant to the article and useful to visitors. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

6) FreeHovind also contains a petition (which is the only pro-Hovind one on the net) and a forum (which is actually a helpful resource for Hovind supporters).

Again, this no reason for includion. Should every wesbite that has a George W Bush petition get a link or just yours? Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have already changed your position a bit, because at the start of this discussion you were saying it was reason for exclusion :-) Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

B) Site Eligibility:

1) Right now, the article has 0 non official pro-Hovind sites and 14 completley anti-Hovind sites. From what I understand, this is at odds with WikiPedia's Avoid undue weight on particular points of view policy which says: "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views."

If you have links that are in support of Hovind and if they meet the criteria then we will add them. The majority of the stuff about Hovind is negative because the scientific community and many creationists don't take his claims serious. This isn't a reason for YOUR website to be included. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe a complete lack of pro-Hovind sites in the links would be a great reason for adding FreeHovind! As far as I can tell, FreeHovind does support Hovind and does meet the criteria. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

2) The site contains no advertisements or solicitations, and does not even accept donations. I am not trying to promote the site for my benefit in any way, but rather to give people interested in Hovind a chance to see all his materials.

No ads yes, but interest in getting people to sign a petition. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The petition doesn't benefit me - It benefits Hovind - who is what this Article is about. Besides - the petition is not the main reason for the site Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

3) (For Arbustoo) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOT#LINK Says: "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines."

What makes your website "major"? Because you have more videos that others? Posting someone else's work hardly makes your website fit this criteria. You took other people's work (Hovind's and wikipedia's) and made it your own simply by putting it on your webspage. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

What makes FreeHovind "major" is that it is the best site for people seeking Hovind's materials and information about Hovind from Hovind's perspective. Regarding simply "taking" other people's work, I and "Alaina" put a significant amount of work into the Hovind articles, and another Hovind supporter hand typed the outline for Hovind's entire 1st seminar. We are working on some more projects at the moment. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

4) One one guideline page, I remember reading that it is "bad form" to add your own site. For the record, I don't know who originally added FreeHovind. I noticed it one one day, and then noticed it disappear, then signed up and started the discussion :-)

You added it today.[10] And put it right near Hovind's webpages instead of adding it at the end.Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I added it today because I had waited three days for a response and got none. Now that I know about RFCs, I will be sure to do that in the future. I added it down below the middle of the links, but if it bothers you I will add it at the end next time :-) Really though, why add it under the one page article on there that just told a little about him? If there is some WikiPedia policy about new links on the bottom, I will be sure to follow it next time. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

C) Possible Site disqualifications:

1) Video Copyrights: The CSE team responded to my letter and said that they liked the site and said they would send me a letter written by Hovind that gives full permission for distribution provided the content is provided free and unaltered. I will be posting the letter on the site once I get it.

How about avoid breaking copyright law until getting a written statement on your webpage? Or waiting before adding your link? Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know when CSE copyrighted their materials, but I own Hovind's seminars on VHS and they do not say they are copyrighted. In nearly all his materials Hovind specifically says they are not copyrighted and encourages people to spread them, so I had no idea that CSE started copyrighting materials. Now that I do know, I would be fine with waiting to re-add the link until after I get the letter from CSE if it really bothers you. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You don't know when? At the bottom of each page on his store it says "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2005 CSE MINISTRY." So according to Hovind's website at least since 2005, which would be two years ago. Arbustoo 18:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

2) It seems that everyone feels FreeHovind violates the External Links policy, so I will put the "Links normally to be avoided" section below with (comments) on why FreeHovind doesn't:

  1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. (FreeHovind contains Hovind's videos and tons of other material)

Your website is not a unique source for Hovind's material. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

It is the best source for it, and does contain unique material. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Wikipedia:Attribution#Reliable sources. (If there is any inaccurate material on FreeHovind, let the critics come fourth!)

Wrong. Your website contains many errors. I'll point out one. You wrote, "Richard Dawkins, and the late Stephen Jay Gould, have in the past refused to debate Hovind."[11] This assertion is completely bogus. Please provide a WP:RS for this claim. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Note: You have several errors, wikipedia is not here, nor am I, to proof read a webpage. You wanted an example of an error there it is. Arbustoo 03:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

See Why I won't Debate Creationists, WikiPedia Richard Dawkins Article Section on "Creationism", and WikiPedia Creation V Evolution section on "debates". I thank you for you attempt at finding an error, but I don't see it to be one. I understand you have better things to do than proofread webpages, but if there are any other things you notice I would be glad to investigate them! Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  3. Links mainly intended to promote a website. (The link is so people can view Hovind's material)

You link promotes your petition. That is, "freehovind.com" has a petition to free hovind. This is not by itself bad however. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. (FreeHovind doesn't even accept donations)

Here you have a link[12] that says "Donate to CSE online". CSE is an unlicensed BUSINESS it is NOT a church nor a non-profit. Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, that text is buried on the bottom of the Action page, and second of all I have no affiliation with CSE whatsoever. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

  5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising. (FreeHovind has no advertising)
  6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content. (Nope)
  7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser. (FreeHovind is optimizer for all major browsers)
  8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required. (FreeHovind is very accessible)
  9. Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. (Nope)
 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (Nope)
 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. (Not a Blog)
 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. (Nope)
 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. (FreeHovind is VERY applicable to an article about Kent Hovind

I am looking forward to comments by other editors! Roburmow 02:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Responded. 1) I would like to see a source for the one error I picked. 2) Do not add your own link. The fact you are arguing to put your own link in isn't a good sign. 3) Also re-read undue weight; The reason there is so much criticism about Hovind is because everything science is does not agree with Hovind. Thus, criticism on a pseudoscientist is not "undue." It is reality.Arbustoo 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo: Thank you for your response! (1) Sources included under your request. (2) I agree - it is not a good sign that I have to defend the pro-Hovind link section on my own. It is a sign that there are very few if any other editors actively working of this topic who support Hovind. :-) (3) As Hovind would say, I have no problem with criticism. It's the tons of links to anti-Hovind sites and none to pro-Hovind ones that bothers me. Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

You haven't addressed my issues. Again, you've basically replied, "No I disagree."

You have not shown any proof that Dawkins or Gould "refused to debate Hovind." Provide a source. Those links say they don't debate creationists. Do you understand the difference? Arbustoo 06:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree that I failed to address your issues. If there is a specific issue you feel is left unanswered, please mention it! Those links say they not only don't debate creationists, but that they refuse to debate creationists "because they feel it will give them credibility". Since Hovind is a creationist (and one whom many aethiests often question), it is quite logical that Dawkins refuses to debate him along with the rest. It appears the people on Dawkin's forum agree: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=128236&sid=7927f88a4960cd88d36e1b158b0f0534 Roburmow 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay from now on I will refer to you as someone who purposely misleads people. You know he hasn't refused to debate Hovind anymore than he refuses to debate a dairy cow. Hovind and his moronic claims don't even appear on Dawkins' radar. You, however, feel the need to insert a famous scientists name and give the impression he refuses to debate Hovind. You are a liar. You know he hasn't refused to debate Hovind. Another fine reason why we shouldn't add your webpage. Your crap is as bad as Hovind's lies. Arbustoo 14:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Dawkins state that he refuses to debate dairy cows? no. Did Dawkins state that he refuses to debate creationists? yes, and the article you are speaking of clearly explains why he says he won't. I am certainly not trying to "purposely mislead people". You claim I "feel the need to insert a famous scientists name and give the impression he refuses to debate Hovind", and yet you at this very moment are working hard to keep all Hovind supporting sites off the links section to make it look like Hovind has less support than he does. Roburmow 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins doesn't debate dairy cows. I am not aware of any dairy cows he has debated. Thus, because he has never done it, and has never claimed to have any interest it in one can assume he's not interested in it. Shame on you for trying to tie a famous biologist to Hovind's garbage. Shame on you for passing on Hovind's bogus claims. Arbustoo 20:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I want to focus on your above claim:

What omissions of fact? I believe the misunderstandings of law you are referring to are commentaries on the charges against Hovind that people can actually understand, such as structuring is getting pulled over for deliberately not breaking the speed limit. I would not say this is a misunderstanding of law, but rather a logical simplification of the laws down to how ridculous they actually are. I believe people should at least have the opportunity to hear the other side of the story Roburmow 05:50, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hearing the otherside is fine. The wrong/misleading details is not. You wrote

Please note that Dr. Hovind did not break the law. He was charged with "structuring" his financial withdrawals in such a way as to "evade" the law requiring reporting of transactions of over $10,000. Suppose you were pulled over for going 55 miles and hour in a 55 zone. The officer says, "I have clocked you everyday for a month going 55, so I am stopping you for speeding. I know you were purposely going 55 to avoid going over the speed limit. So since you were "structuring" your driving habits to deliberately "evade" the speeding regulations, I am going to give you a ticket."[13]

That statement makes no sense regarding what Hovind was convicted of. NONE. Also on that same page your comments that America: From Freedom to Fascism (which argues "Federal income taxes are unconstitutional or otherwise legally invalid.") is a good source for tax details shows you are promoting inaccurate details in defending Hovind. Arbustoo 06:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe it makes perfect sense, and there are quite a few people who agree with me. I also believe that Freedom to Fascism is an excellent movie, and I even have it on the site to watch. The WikiPedia page on Freedom to Fascism mentions nothing in the criticism but a couple simple quote issues. Since you appear to have some proof that America: Freedom to Fascism "promotes inaccurate details", I would be very interested to hear it. Until you actually say what it is that I or Freedom to Fascism is promoting that is inaccurate, all your talk is an unfounded personal opinion which is not particularly useful in this discussion. If there are a significant other number of editors who agree that any site which mentions America: Freedom to Fascism should be discriminated against, I would be perfectly happy to give up on trying to help straighten out this article and report on FreeHovind that it is censored by WikiPedia. Roburmow 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Roburmow: it "makes no sense" because Hovind was NOT convicted of that. He was convicted for not paying his taxes, and this particular issue was merely evidence of his knowledge of his own wrongdoing. To use your earlier example: it's as if a driver was convicted for driving at an average of 80 mph, and tried to pretend that his speedometer was defective, but the cops have proof of him slowing down to the limit whenever he saw a police car (and then speeding up again when he thought he was unobserved). --Robert Stevens 15:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Roburmow, logically it makes no sense. Withdrawing $10,000 isn't illegal neither is withdrawing $9,500. Hovind was avoiding the IRS, which can seize money in bank accounts. He knew this, as the jury attests, and tried to avoid the money laundry requirements. Withdrawing money in a systematic pattern to hide wrong doing is illegal.

It's like going under 10 MPH under the 55 MPH limit when you don't have a license or insured car. Impeding the speed of traffic is illegal, and so is the other factors. Arbustoo 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The article says "...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,...". As Arbustoo kindly pointed out in the "Freedom to Fascism" complaint section, I do mention the tax charges as well. Arbustoo 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"Knowingly" refers to that knew what he was doing was wrong, and was avoiding attracting attention. Your analogy only embrasses yourself. As for "Freedom to Fascism" there is much fact in that movie as Dude, Where's My Car?. Those are Tax protestor arguments that were discredited long ago. If you do believe taht movie instead of legitimate lawyers you will wind up where Hovind is. Arbustoo 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. (Not a Blog)". It is, however, a personal website not written by a recognized authority.

...And, scrolling up, I see "Right now, the article has 0 non official pro-Hovind sites and 14 completley anti-Hovind sites". Apples and oranges. It has several pro-Hovind sites, and the anti-Hovind sites are dominated by "official" ones (scientists, notable publications etc): recognized authorities. Furthermore, the "external links" section is for sites that provide relevant additional information: a site which merely provides Hovind's materials and recycled information from this article does not provide relevant additional information. --Robert Stevens 12:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

If you had looked carefully, you would see that there are actually 0 pro-Hovind sites in the links section and 4 official-Hovind sites, which brings the total number of pro-Hovind sites to 0. There is obviously a difference between "official" and "pro" sites, because it mentions both in the title of the link section as separate items. I fail to see how Hovind's all published materials are not relevant additional information. I also looked at some of the anti-Hovind links, and the Kent Hovind page really jumped out at me. The page is very poorly designed, contains hardly any content, and over 50% of it's links are off-site. If the anti-Hovind section had half as stringent of requirements as everyone is imposing on the pro-Hovind section, it would almost certainly be gone. Roburmow 17:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

That is not reason to include your BORROWED material. The page you refer to as poor may not be aesthetically appealing to you, but it is written by someone who has 1) a wikipedia article about his work (see that that work has been cited by various science groups), and 2) contains material written by credentialed scientists. Thus, it is to be included as containing important information about Hovind's bogus claims. Arbustoo 18:08, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Roburmow, you're not classifying official Hovind sites as "pro-Hovind"? I'm inclined to agree, but perhaps not in the way you mean... --Robert Stevens 18:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying that official sites are not "for Hovind", but rather that they fall into the "official" category and not the "pro-Hovind" category. The "official" category is for sites officially run by Hovind, and the "pro-Hovind" category is for sites that are run by non official people who support Hovind. Right now a reader of this article would be left with the impression that there are no sites supporting Hovind besides his own, which is completely wrong. I suggest we either add some pro-Hovind sites back, or change the title of the "Official and pro-Hovind" section to "Hovind's Official Sites" to avoid giving people a false impression that Hovind has no community support. Roburmow 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Roburmow, just a reminder since you ignored it. You have not shown any proof that Dawkins or Gould "refused to debate Hovind." Provide a source. Those links say they don't debate creationists. Do you understand the difference? Arbustoo 20:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't "ignore" it, please see discussion on in the appropriate section - Regarding copyrights: the article itself RIGHT NOW says Hovind's material is not copyrighted, so why are you blaming me for not knowing? Roburmow 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is Hovind, as usual, contradicts himself. His website says his material is not copyrighted, but when you purchase his DVDs it clearly says otherwise. At the bottom of each page on his store it says "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2005 CSE MINISTRY." The problem is that Hovind is a liar. He tells people want to hear, and at the same time wants to make money. That is why he is where he is.

Your response to the Dawkins claim is enigmatic. Hovind's website is not a reliable source for anything. Not his education claims, not his copyright claims, not his evolution claims. Nothing he says is believable. The problem is he tells people want they want to hear, and because they don't care about truth they go around following him. His DVDs are copyrighted, as stated on the back of the DVDs, that's a major source of income for him. Arbustoo 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fellow editors:

We have been continuing this discussion for quite a while, and I can not see that stretching it out further would be productive. If there are any new points brought up I would be glad to continue the discussion, but right now there are only a couple editors participating who are not likely to sway each other's views. Before leaving, I would like to list my standing concerns about this article:

1: Right now, readers are left with the impression that Hovind has no community support whatever. This is completely wrong, and is a good example that the article fails to be "unbiased". Saying "prior to his incarceration, spoke frequently in private schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts arguing for young earth creationism" does not count.

So find a WP:RS and add it in. There is going to be no scientific support for pseudoscience. Arbustoo 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

2: Every time I check on this article it gets more negative - it seems that most the editors working on this article are more interested in making Hovind look bad than presenting his case objectively.

Specifically, what are you talking about? Give an example. It's not wikipedia's fault he makes crazy claims and is a convicted felon. Arbustoo 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

3: The links section is weighted orders of magnitude heaver to the anti-Hovind side, which I believe violates WikiPedia's "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view" policy which says: "On articles with multiple points of view, the number of links dedicated to one point of view should not overwhelm the number dedicated to other equal points of view, nor give undue weight to minority views."

Again this is not going to get YOUR website added. If there are WP:RS they will be added. This man is on fringes of soceity that is why there is no academic support for his claims. Now he is a community outcast for obstructing federal agents and breaking 58 FEDERAL LAWS. Arbustoo 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

4: Not only does the article defame Hovind as much as possible, but it also tries to silence all other views. Saying that the majority of sites online being against Hovind is reason for all the ones in the links section to be beside Hovind's official sites is convoluted logic.

Where does it defame him? What part is wrong/misleading? Its not wikipedia's fault that there are no reliable sources for information praising his false claims. It is unreasonable to believe a pseudoscientist with fake credentials who was sentenced to 10 years in prison will have many positive reliable sources about him. Arbustoo 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Farewell, - Roburmow 18:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you came to wikipedia merely to add your personal website. Wikipedia shares reliable information, but does not exist to promote personal websites. Your bias is preventing you from understanding that academic and social communities don't consider this man in the mainstream. That is why a 16 year old is the one who created a webpage devoted solely to promoting videos, and is devoid of any relevant information(also I saw at freehovind.com a link to a woman's blog that has some very incorrect things about the trial). He is an outcast among creationists. Simply claiming otherwise won't get your link added. Arbustoo 18:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate legal terminology

Dear editors: Hovind was neither charged with nor convicted of tax fraud or tax evasion. I changed the text accordingly. I know that the links to various media sources, or the sources themselves, are sometimes using the terms "tax fraud" and "tax evasion," more or less indiscriminately, and there's nothing we can do about that. The precise counts on which he was convicted are, however, accurately described in the article (checked against the actual court documents), with citations to the statutes and links to the texts of those statutes at the Cornell University Law School web site. Yours, Famspear 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Prison location

Dear editors: I added detail on where Mr. Hovind is currently imprisoned, with a link. The Federal Bureau of Prisons web site does not show any information for Mrs. Hovind at this time. PS I put the material near the top of the page. Not sure if that's where consensus will develop on where the info should be, though. Yours, Famspear 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is Jo Hovind in prison now? Arbustoo 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, she is not in prison. She is awaiting sentencing on the charges on which she was convicted. I guess I should have made that clear when I said that the "Federal Bureau of Prisons web site does not show any information for Mrs. Hovind at this time." I wasn't trying to imply that she is in jail at this time. Sorry about that. Yours, Famspear 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Any update? Its been a month since the hearing was delayed. Arbustoo 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I checked today (10 April 2007), and there is nothing posted on the Federal District Court docket as of yesterday (Monday, April 9, 2007). As a side note, Hovind is also appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the clerk of court for the Eleventh Circuit specifically requested notification from the District Court clerk of any ruling on Hovind's Davenport arguments. I see no ruling entered on the District Court docket, and I see no indication (at least on the District Court docket) that the Eleventh Circuit clerk has been notified of any such ruling. The wheels grind slowwwwwlllllyyyy. Yours, Famspear 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Slanted Journalism

This has got to be the most slanted journalism I've seen since (dare I say?) New York Times. Darwin married his cousin and Karl Marx starved his children. Liberals have no class, only their selective "intelligencia" cliques. And they don't even understand themselves. I doubt you will really understand what Christianity is all about. What happened to the precious life. What is so wrong with the Christian message? Is it good to be evil? Is our mirror to bright for you? Maybe we should make it brighter to burn your eyes with your own evil works and imaginative thoughts of sick dillusion. You were decieved by such a simple process. One thing you will never understand is what true love is... True love will guide you home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.102.88.145 (talk • contribs).

What are your examples of bias? Arbustoo 22:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's one. "Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American evangelist and prominent Young Earth creationist who is serving a ten-year term in U.S. federal prison for 58 tax offenses, obstructing federal agents and related charges." This is a slanted statement. There is no purpose in putting the criminal record at the start of the article. It needs its own separate section, if mentioned at all. By starting with the criminal record, you are starting with a bias already in mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.231.144 (talk • contribs)

Another, there are no Pro-Kent links, only ones that argue against him.

I can't speak toward the second (although I recall seeing pro-Kent links before), but his criminal convictions (and his previous incarceration for contempt of court) is a significant part of what makes him notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

His current status is very important to included in the introduction. It is included because 1) he is no longer free to do anything, 2) the majority of his press is because of his fraud, and 3) saying what he is currently doing should be said up front. Is that your only complaint? His current status is behind bars? That isn't bias. If WOULD be bias to remove mention of his felony convictions from an introduction about who he is. Arbustoo 23:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the "Pro-Kent links" please list all ones that conform to WP:EL, and we'll add them in. I haven't seen any ones that conform to policy, but maybe you have. So let's see them. I do think you'll be hardpressed to find reliable websites defending this man though. Arbustoo 23:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Slanted? It's much worse than slanted. It's continued existence shows the lack of objectivity of Wikipedia's editors.24.160.126.137 04:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

If you can present some prima facie evidence which demonstrates a bias on the part of any of the editors of this article, please do so. Wikipedia, by its nature, biases articles based on the particular beliefs and ideals of the originator and subsequent editors of those articles. The only way to keep those biases in check is to insist that all editors adhere to the "neutral point of view" standard (WP:NPOV). If an article is found not to be consistent with that policy, it is up to the editor or editors who find that article to be non-neutral to rewrite whatever part of the article seems to be in violation of that policy, subject to further editing and rewriting at a later time. Alan 15:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this piece containing slanted journalism. Also, for those who think evolution is scientific, please consider the following logic. I would like to point out that neither creation or evolution is actually science in the strictest sense of the word. Science, by definition, and as Hovind often says, is repeatable observable fact. Proof that evolution could occur (although I don't know of any on the genetic level) does not prove that it did occur. On the other hand if it were possible to prove that evolution could not happen, this would still not be proof that Biblical Creationism occured. All that any historical science can hope to do is fit the observable fact as accurately as possible. My personal opinion is that evolution does this poorly and Creationism does it quite well, but this is neither the time nor place.... So please eds, let's just present facts Steveupsidedown 23

47, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Stephen Keim

Yes, evolution is scientific (especially when "evolutionism" is assumed to encompass a huge body of science that has little or nothing to do with actual biological evolution, such as geology and astronomy). It is supported by an ever-increasing accumulation of repeatable observations: DNA analysis, radiometric measurements, the steady accumulation of fossils that fit the evolutionary "tree of life" of common descent, and so forth. Whereas Biblical creationism cannot account for this evidence without special pleading (e.g. "Satan planted the evidence to fool us" or whatever), and has therefore been effectively disproved. But this is beyond the scope of this article, which is about Kent Hovind specifically. As far as I can see, this article does indeed "present facts": what is non-factual in this article? --Robert Stevens 08:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Assault and Battery incorrect information

The alleged victim was never Hovind's secretaryTweetybirdhowareyou 12:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You should contact the webmaster of http://kent-hovind.com/ and have him correct the error. Arbustoo 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Court rejects Hovind's "unit of the crime" argument: Some minor points

Dear fellow editors: The Wikinews story and, indeed, the actual newspaper story regarding the latest April 2007 developments incorrectly refer to the resolution of Kent Hovind's "unit of the crime" arguments (the Davenport arguments) as being a rejection of Hovind's "appeal." Technically, this was not an "appeal;" it was a decision by the trial court itself that the convictions stand. An appeal would be something decided by an appeals court, not by the trial court. Also, according to the court docket the date of the decision (at docket entry 192), was April 18, not April 20. The newspaper story was dated April 20, which may have led to the confusion.

I have made some of the needed changes, but maybe an editor with more expertise should consider making some additional appropriate changes in the Wikipedia article with the link to the Wikinews item, and in Wikinews itself. Otherwise, I will try to get to this at a later time. I just don't have experience with Wikinews. Yours, Famspear 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Gramatical Error and Reference Request

While reading the updated version of this page I noticed a couple things that caught my eye. In the "Creation Science Evangelism Ministry" section where it is speaking about Eric Hovind, it says, "Eric attended Jackson Hole Bible College[18] a only one year[19] non-accredited institution." It should not say "a only one year", but either "an only one year" or "a one year only".

Also, I feel that a reference is needed to maintain the statements made in the 2nd paragraph of the biography portion which speaks of how his own website contradicts itself about copyrights. Using the reference given (number 7) and simply looking at Hovind's website one can only plainly see the notice at the bottom of each page which states, "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2007 CSE MINISTRY". If this said contradiction is going to be mentioned at all (and I don't feel it's necessary to include at all, but that's another discussion), a referrence to the exact page where the contradiction is made should be listed. His site has dozens of pages, finding such a contradiction is probably very difficult (from what I can tell as I go through its pages). Without a referrence it appears that perhaps someone was spending way too much time looking for a way to defame Hovind.

Thanks! Cr4JC 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, The exact page of the contradiction is listed. Scroll to the bottom. Arbustoo 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• It was myself and another individual that lead to the change in Kent Hovind's stand on copyrighting his materials. During the summer of 2004 I was conversations with David Campbell ( [here is a list of David's audios and videos relating to Kent] ) about Kent Hovind. Besides both of us calling Kent's "Creation Science Hour and a Half" on a regular basis, I was also helping David understand the difference between what science really says about a particular topic and what Kent was saying in his seminars, radio shows, and debates. David then came out with a series of videos, and audio clips, which he posted on the Infidel Guy website/blog, his own site, and advertised on many newsgroups. *After a while of doing this David called me one day to say that Kent was threatening to sue him over copyright violation because David had used his videos. I called and talked to Kent, Jonathan Sampson (Kent's old radio sidekick), and Kent's lawyer at [Remedies at Law], Glen Stoll. Although Kent and Jonathan's could only answer my question of "I thought you had no copyright" with "what David did violated our copyright" and that they were going to sue him if he did not take the videos down, I had a great conversation with Glen Stoll. Glen said that Kent's materials were intellectual property and therefore had an automatic copyright on them even if he put "not copyrighted" on every video. When I brought up to Glen that my understanding of the [fair use for criticism] clause in copyright law and that David's videos were either parody or critical analysis of Kent's works, Glen admitted that he had not watched the videos yet and that if David's videos were really just that then he had nothing to fear.

You should cut Hovind's "lawyer," Glen Stoll, a break. I mean its not like a lawyer is expected to be educated in law. Arbustoo 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• About 2 weeks after this conversation (during this time Kent was on his radio show bringing up copyright law on a regular basis) Kent Hovind started putting on his materials that they were now copyrighted and made the an anouncement on this radio show about this fact. Although David took his videos off the original site they were posted on, Kent convinced the owner of the site (one of David's friends) that he was going to sue the owner of any website that carried David's materials, they were posted in many other places and were never taken off the Infidel Guy website.
• So there is the why Kent changed to copyrighting his materials and here is the proof that he still contradicts himself [here]. I have taken the liberty to copy this URL as well as make a screen shot of it (and find the same article on www.archive.org) because I have found that Kent and CSE have on numerous occasions taken down or changed articles when myself or others have shown that what they say is incorrect, etc… A perfect example of this is you cannot find the article about Baby Dima or the article titled “Doesn’t carbon dating or Potassium Argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old?”
• I also found the statement by Concerned Reader “His site has dozens of pages, finding such a contradiction is probably very difficult…” interesting since finding this took me less than 10 seconds. I simply went to drdino.com, clicked on articles, and typed “copyright” into the search bar. I do thank Concerned Reader for making sure that Wikipedia is as accurate as possible by demanding references to any claim and for the oppurtunity to share my part on this topic. RiverBissonnette 13:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Its also worth pointing out that all his DVDs are copyrighted and are stamped with a clear indicated they are copyrighted. Any copying of the disc to distribute is illegal. Arbustoo 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for putting a link to the referrence in question on this talk page so I could find it. I did not type in "copyright" on the search bar (didn't notice the search bar as I was looking through the text). So thanks for finding it and posting a link. Cr4JC 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The link was in the article to begin with. Arbustoo 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing more frightening than ignorance in action!

I have found Wikipedia to be a highly subjective fraternity of cronies that appear to be stuck in a humanistic world where society needs no moral code and the truth is no longer desired or sought. I have ignored Wikipedia since seeing their mishandling of previous truths and facts pertaining to other subjects not related to this particular subject relating to Kent Hovind (for example: the true inventor of "Karaoke".)

The venom is all but dripping right out of my monitor as I read from the heavy-handed Bio page at the top of this Kent Hovind section. The editorial sarcasm and bias is very obvious to all intelligent people, so no one is fooled. Only the blind leading the blind may feel good by this incredibly self-absorbed "hit peice" Wikipedia tries to pass off as factual news.

Wikipedia is redundant in a world full of half-truths, sensationalism, and humanist philosophies. Too bad the editors misinterpret their function and offer subjective rather than analytical facts to demonize, slander, and libel a man who dared to speak the truth about the false teachings of evolution. Wikipedia goes to great labors to try to nit-pick the specific types of accredidations or educational labels about Hovind's educational background - much in the same way one political candidate tries to tear-down and discredit their opposition through negative advertising. Tell me, if this is the litmus test for all people now being cross-examined by Wikipedia, then why don't they use the same, analytical procedures for discrediting the academic backgrounds of other orators whom go about the world prostelitizing their views? Where is the same skepticism when talking about Rev. Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even Former presidential hopeful John Kerry, who had an over-all lower grade point average than President George Bush ever had? The answer is all too obvious. Wikepedia tries to veil its agenda and political base with laborious retorts and rebuttals to anything that I say, yet they would never consider applying their same caustic examination to other public orators of whom their political and religious views they are more in sync with on a personal level. Objectivity will never be the norm for Wikipedia reporting, no matter how much they deny it. I could go on, almost line-by-line in the Hovind piece and illustrate very easily the editorial edge and tone used in certain words, or in the statements being made.

Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't affect the overall scheme of things. I shall continue to ignore this tedious website as merely an overly-hyped blog full of God haters and under-educated college grads who have learned, but still they do not see. 76.21.14.243 08:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Scott Ebright

• Wikipedia is open for anyone to change any aspect of an article to make that article more factual and non-biased in nature. You can think of it as a murder mystery. You start out with just some bare bone observations that might lead you to the wrong conclusion, but by filling in missing parts of the puzzle and following the facts where they lead you (without bias) you will come to the conclusion based on filling in every dead end. This article about Kent Hovind does not leave out any information that Kent himself has expressed publicly or have come into the public realm by his actions. Every piece of information has been confirmed with references to back up the facts presented. If you have any input into how the article is incorrect in any way you can fix these errors and point out why you find them to be demonizing, slanderous, or libelous in nature. RiverBissonnette 13:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott Ebright, if you see factual errors, please DO list them here on the talk page and cite the sources you used to determine them as false. The editors here are not involved in some conspiracy against Kent Hovind - they can only work with facts that can be confirmed by reliable sources. As for belief on God and religious issues, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and cannot comment on the validity of any one religious view over another. All wikipedia can do is describe beliefs of various groups as represented in their sacred writings, public statements or historical documentation. The article on Kent Hovind is about what he has done with his life and the pproblems he has encountered as a result of his actions. Please list for us any errors you find with evidence of their falsehood and we'll do whatever we can to fix it. However, if you really are serious about ignoring wikipedia, I guess we won't hear from you again.LiPollis 16:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Scott Ebright, please back up your claims with examples. Arbustoo 23:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Good riddance. Bueller 007 11:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Scott: I thought you were "ignoring this tedious website"? But, as you've chosen not to do so (today, 15th May 2007, you have expanded on your earlier 29th April post without indicating in the text that you have done so): do you have any evidence whatsoever that any of the other individuals you have just mentioned have any bogus credentials from unaccredited institutions, or do you have quotes from experts in relevant fields who have testified that any of these individuals are severely deficient in knowledge of any field in which they claim expertise? If so, that should indeed be mentioned on their respective pages. But when has Hovind ever given "the truth about the false teachings of evolution" anyhow? Can you cite a single case where he actually did this? --Robert Stevens 10:14, 15 May 2007

If you could, "go on, almost line-by-line in the Hovind piece and illustrate very easily the editorial edge and tone used in certain words, or in the statements being made." then please do so. Otherwise, your argument seems like the rant of a POV pusher.--NeoNerd 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Removal of infobox

I have removed the infobox from the article, retaining the photograph it contained. I did not see what it added to the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Info boxes are pretty standard. I thought it was helpful to haveall that basic info. in one place. Arbustoo 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The only information the box contained were his date of birth and occupation (which we could learn by reading the first paragraph right next to the box) and the names of his family members. While two of his family members are important in telling his story, we don't learn why until further down the article. In my view, it's pretty unfortunate that infoboxes are standard: they clutter the article and don't provide any information that couldn't be obtained by actually reading the article (which itself is a brief introduction to a topic). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hovind in solitary confinement for breaking prison rules

According to a posting at his blog Hovind got in trouble for breaking prison rules despite being told not to hold meetings in numbers greater than 4 or 5.[14] If you scroll down to this comment, it discusses his holding for "administrative security." Should this be added? Arbustoo 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Neither is a reliable source. If it gets mentions in a relibale source then we should include it, but not before then. JoshuaZ 04:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to tax protestor of the month

I am removing this link about Hovind's 1996 case when had his vechiles seized because it doesn't seem important. Thoughts? Arbustoo 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it's pretty interesting. However, I deal with both bankruptcy and taxation in my job every day, so I think almost anything that has to do with bankruptcy or taxes is important, especially if it's almost kinda funny and at the same time sad (as it is in this case). Anyway, no objection from this corner. Yours, Famspear 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved into the upper portion as a source. It seemed out of place. Arbustoo 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Prison Location?

The intro to the article states that "Hovind is currently located at United States Penitentiary, Atlanta (USP) in Atlanta, Georgia, a high security prison.[2]". However, in his blog, he states "Federal Marshals arrive to transport me to a Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola. This minimum security federal facility was designed for 300 but houses 700 men. All these men work to help maintain military bases in the area." (http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=66). He also speaks of how greatful he is to be able to see his family, who lives but 10 miles away from the prison camp. Can someone please look into this contradiction? Thanks! Cr4JC 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no contradiction. If you look at his blog, the entry was made way back in March. Since then he's been moved a few times. Atlanta is his latest location. See the Bureau of Prisons web site (linked in the article) -- much more up to date than Hovind's blog entry. Famspear 22:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as Famspear noted. Please look at the dates. If you read further down the article it explains his prison history. Arbustoo 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)