Jump to content

Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Opening para

I propose changing this:

Kent E. Hovind (born 15 January 1953), the self-styled Dr Dino, is an American Young Earth Creationist (YEC) evangelist who is currently offering US$250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose, although some of his critics consider the challenge to be spurious. Despite having no formal science qualifications, he established the Creation Science Evangelism ministry in 1989. Hovind now speaks frequently in schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts, and is the subject of much controversy and public scrutiny.

To this:

Kent E. Hovind (born 15 January 1953), the self-styled Dr Dino, is an American Young Earth Creationist (YEC) evangelist who is currently offering US$250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution "is the only possible way" that the Universe and life arose, although his numerous critics consider the challenge to be spurious. Despite having no formal science qualifications, he established the Creation Science Evangelism ministry in 1989. Hovind now speaks frequently in schools, churches, university debates and on radio and television broadcasts, and is the subject of much controversy and public scrutiny.

I can't imagine a Hovind critic who doesn't consider the challenge spurious. Unless, perhaps, there are some critics who approve of the challenge but criticise Hovind for not being enough of a creationist? Either way, "some of his critics" seems to imply that only some of those pro-evolution critics reject the challenge as spurious. In fact, I'd say every single one of them does.

I also added the word 'numerous' prior to critics. Kent Hovind is probably one of the most well-known, notorious and "rebutted" of the main personalities in creationism. I accept that this may be controversial however, and will welcome any discussion on the addition of this word. I'm pretty convinced, however, of the need to change the sentence away from implying that only some of his critics reject his challenge as spurious. JF Mephisto 12:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph should be changed further to clarify the reason his critics consider Mr. Hovind's challenge spurious by changing the phrase although some of his critics consider the challenge to be spurious to although some of his critics consider the challenge to be spurious becuase evolutionary theory has nothing to say about how the universe came about or something similar in order to clarify the statement and save users from having to do an extra hour of research to find out why. We can save them that time and effort with a few simple words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.211.177.243 (talk • contribs)

Biased Article

This does not appear to be a balanced Encyclopaedia entry but rather a misuse of Wikipedia to perform a character assissination of an individual thus undermining the value of the tool. A balanced entry should reference or represent, without obvious bias, both viewpoints where opinions may differ and should present a substantive overview of the life and work of the subject. If I bought an encyclopaedia that contained entries written in this way I would return it for a refund. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs) 19:36, February 7, 2006. Moved the following, italicized discussion down the page. --JChap 06:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) I agree. This is some of the most slanted journalism I have ever seen. Have you looked at the sources cited for their information? Most of them are anti Hovind/anti creation websites. Hardly authorities on the subject or the man. Jonbrady 09:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and the cites to the most damning material are all neutral (court documents and local daily newspapers). However, the cities to anti-Hovind websites (which are mostly for neutral material, by the way) should be cleaned up as they do not meet our standards. --JChap 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JChap. I'm very new to wikipedia, and perhaps I should not have tried editing so much----at least until I figure it out. All I was trying to do was put fact in, and erase suppositions. As far as the most damning material, the charges were dropped by his office worker, there exists a seperation of church and state, so no, he shouldn't be paying income taxes, and finally, he doesn't need a building permit------again I refer to the constitution's "seperation of church and state." He runs a non profit organization, so I don't understand how this is absolutely relevant material for his article on wikipedia. It sounds like this: "If I go out looking for dirt, I'm eventually going to find some." Jonbrady 10:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I encourage you to edit aggressively, but in a way that reflects a neutral point of view. You may find it helpful to discuss any changes on the talk page before making them. You may also find Wikipedia:Tutorial useful. To respond to your point above, a subject's legal difficulties are important to include in an article, and that point does not change whether the article is on Kent Hovind or Al Franken or Miles Davis. The article notes that the A&B charges were dropped. Any problems he has with taxes or legal difficulties with one of his major endeavors should be included. Your belief that he shouldn't be having those problems is just that, a belief. The article notes the actions that were taken against Hovind and his disagreement with them. That is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia. If you do research on Hovind, you do not "eventually" find dirt on Hovind, you find it immediately, as even creationists think he is a charlatan. --JChap 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to sway you one way or the other, but I would encourage you to view his tapes, and then decide if this is the most biased markup on Wikipedia. There are, according to Dr. Hovind, "more than 400 websites whose content revolves on me going away." www.drdino.com You do make a point above about eventually finding dirt.....You are correct.....you immediately find dirt. And yes, I do agree...some creationists have their own view, or a view different than Hovind's. I have tried to edit the section topic of "He wants creation in the textbooks, and evolution out." That is not fact.....He has stated to the contrary: "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I am trying to do, is get the lies out of the textbooks." www.drdino.com I tried to edit this, with citation, but to no avail. Both evolution and creation are beliefs, theories, and religions. Niether have been proven. Jonbrady 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia, you can have your money back and welcome to it. Do feel free to mention on this page precisely what the nature is of the supposed bias: as it stands it appears to me to accurately reflect the orthodox view that the man is a fraud and a charlatan. Per WP:NPOV that is exactly as it should be. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This guy is in the journalism program at Carleton University in Ottawa, you'd think he'd bring good prose to the table. Instead it looks like he'll just be bringing good trolls. Sigh David D. (Talk) 00:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I find this article hardly as condemnatory as it should be, so think of it as a compromise.200.163.11.164 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not here to condemn. It is here to give the facts as reported in the real world per WP:NPOV. No need to underestimate the reader. AvB ÷ talk 23:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Why wont you let me edit the page then JzG? I find these lies very "contentious" as you so bodly put it yourself.

Article is very POV--Wasabe3543 16:54, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, and rewrote it a bit, hopefully that will help. --Fastfission 23:52, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It could be even more biased, if someone would include his claim about some dinosaurs breathing fire, and the speed of light not being the highest possible velocity. (Can be found in http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Pier/1766/hovindlies/index.html , on pages D and N, respectively) Superknijn

The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to present facts, not the "orthodox view". Readers are supposed to make up their own minds. The fact at this point is that this article is blatantly POV. Look at it: it doesn't even say where he was born, but we've got plenty else, mostly to do with "unaccredited" institutions, which seems to be this article's favorite word. Adolf Hitler is more NPOV than this. POV template attached. KEM 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

No, see WP:NPOV#pseudoscience and WP:NPOV#undue weight. — Dunc|☺ 18:14, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
In the words of Stephen Colbert ... Wikipedia isn't being biased in this instance, the facts are. --Cyde Weys 18:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, 'there is a strong inductive argument that, if a page is in an NPOV dispute, it very probably is not neutral. The salient point is that one side—who cares enough to be making the point—thinks that the article says something that other people would want to disagree with.'
As requested, I've read WP:NPOV#pseudoscience - I don't think that's relevant here. It's quite possible to write an unbiased biography on Kent Hovind whether or not his beliefs are Pseudoscience - it's not a discussion about HIS belief system
As requested, I've read WP:NPOV#undue weight...I assume you are referring to Hovind's views on creationism as a minority argument. That's an OPINION which I for one certainly don't feel strongly enough about to debate. Again, though, it is unnecessary as this is a biography not a discussion on HIS beliefs.
I agree entirely with Cyde Weys. If the facts are biased, then it's still possible for it to be a fair article - I think, however, we've got a way to go to having all the facts. There's certainly enough debate on this talk page to warrant KEM's insertion of an NPOV dispute tag so Dunc if you don't mind, I've reverted, your revert. I see no harm in a simple tag. PappaG 22:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Apparently he does mind, as he's reverted it again without comment. As per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes I have not simply reverted (again), and have left a message on his talk page. The trouble is that, especially given recent developments, i believe we can all agree that at the very least we have a dispute. The POV tag itself simply states that the POV is being debated both ways, and that certainly seems to be the case. If nothing comes of the situation within the next two days, i will re-post the POV distpute template in light of this talk page and contact the mediation channels, again per Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. Let's keep our cool about this... KEM 22:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
In the meantime, lets ignore the tag issue and concentrate on substantial ways we can improve the article. Are there any specific issues you'd like to point to about the article that you find problematic? JoshuaZ 22:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Good thinking (though i do hope the tag issue doesn't simply stall).
What strikes me about this article is not a concern over factual accuracy, but the degree to which it seems to mix factual and editorial anecdotes (some of the latter being factual, sure enough), particularly in the biography section. No individual anecdote can be said to be overtly skewed, but the mixing gives the piece a markedly persuasive, rather than informative, tone. Take, for instance, the three-time use of "unaccredited," the first usage of which precedes the education section entirely. This stands in stark contrast to other personality articles, Charles Darwin for instance, which use sections to clearly separate biographical information and reaction and/or detractions. I'm sure plenty of Wikipedia users come to Kent Hovind to find criticism (as i did), and it would certainly be inappropriate to leave such a considerable facet of the subject out, but it might serve both the integrity of the page and those searching for criticism to put such information in its own section. I will take a stab at rearranging things in the next few days. We'll see what comes of it. KEM 00:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussion started on May 26, 2006

This does not appear to be a balanced Encyclopaedia entry but rather a misuse of Wikipedia to perform a character assissination of an individual thus undermining the value of the tool. A balanced entry should reference or represent, without obvious bias, both viewpoints where opinions may differ and should present a substantive overview of the life and work of the subject. If I bought an encyclopaedia that contained entries written in this way I would return it for a refund. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.117.254.250 (talk • contribs) 19:36, February 7, 2006. I agree. This is some of the most slanted journalism I have ever seen. Have you looked at the sources cited for their information? Most of them are anti Hovind/anti creation websites. Hardly authorities on the subject or the man. Jonbrady 09:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and the cites to the most damning material are all neutral (court documents and local daily newspapers). However, the cities to anti-Hovind websites (which are mostly for neutral material, by the way) should be cleaned up as they do not meet our standards. --JChap 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks JChap. I'm very new to wikipedia, and perhaps I should not have tried editing so much----at least until I figure it out. All I was trying to do was put fact in, and erase suppositions. As far as the most damning material, the charges were dropped by his office worker, there exists a seperation of church and state, so no, he shouldn't be paying income taxes, and finally, he doesn't need a building permit------again I refer to the constitution's "seperation of church and state." He runs a non profit organization, so I don't understand how this is absolutely relevant material for his article on wikipedia. It sounds like this: "If I go out looking for dirt, I'm eventually going to find some." Jonbrady 10:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, I encourage you to edit aggressively, but in a way that reflects a neutral point of view. You may find it helpful to discuss any changes on the talk page before making them. You may also find Wikipedia:Tutorial useful. To respond to your point above, a subject's legal difficulties are important to include in an article, and that point does not change whether the article is on Kent Hovind or Al Franken or Miles Davis. The article notes that the A&B charges were dropped. Any problems he has with taxes or legal difficulties with one of his major endeavors should be included. Your belief that he shouldn't be having those problems is just that, a belief. The article notes the actions that were taken against Hovind and his disagreement with them. That is entirely appropriate in an encyclopedia. If you do research on Hovind, you do not "eventually" find dirt on Hovind, you find it immediately, as even creationists think he is a charlatan. --JChap 12:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to sway you one way or the other, but I would encourage you to view his tapes, and then decide if this is the most biased markup on Wikipedia. There are, according to Dr. Hovind, "more than 400 websites whose content revolves on me going away." www.drdino.com You do make a point above about eventually finding dirt.....You are correct.....you immediately find dirt. And yes, I do agree...some creationists have their own view, or a view different than Hovind's. I have tried to edit the section topic of "He wants creation in the textbooks, and evolution out." That is not fact.....He has stated to the contrary: "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I am trying to do, is get the lies out of the textbooks." www.drdino.com I tried to edit this, with citation, but to no avail. Both evolution and creation are beliefs, theories, and religions. Niether have been proven. Jonbrady 02:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


I've seen one of its conference (available through google video), and I am now absolutely sure that he is totally dishonest. So if you want the article to be "nicer" with him, asking people to see its videos are not a good idea!
I moved your message to the bottom of the section to try to keep a consistent timeline. CyrilB 08:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved it back to where it should be......And thank you for your opinion. If I were you, I'd stick with the whole kite, string, key, and the jar thing you have going. Jonbrady 10:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I don't understand your last sentence. Could you please explain it? Also, I don't understand the logic in you positioning of the messages in the section: It makes really difficult to find what replies to what... CyrilB 10:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Jonbrady, you made some changes to the Hovind article, including inserting the above quote: "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I am trying to do, is get the lies out of the textbooks." I honestly don't believe this makes Hovind sound any better. Since he believes that creationism is the truth and evolution is lies, this sounds disingenuous and will undoubtedly be perceived as such by the average reader. The quote seems more like an applause line for his supporters and not a real statement of his political goals. And no, I don't think the fact that it was added by someone sympathetic to Hovind is particularly relevant. Our goal should be to produce an accurate encyclopedia article, not give Hovind and his supporters enought rope to hang themselves with. I have decided not to revert these particular changes, pending further discussion. --JChap 05:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • BTW, you inserted the following in the edit summary: "many citations needed. NPOV absent in many categories. Opinions inserted randomly by the authors. NPOV absent." Kindly provide specific examples of NPOV and opinions. --JChap 05:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I'll start with a question. How can all of those other people's quotes be relevant, but mine is not? An appearance on the AliG show is relevant information, but a specific quotation about the intent of his ministry with citation is not? As far as the NPOV accusations, kindly look over the markup. Any place where it says "citation needed," could be construed as opinion until cited, which renders it non NPOV. I know your a watchdog, attorney, and writer, but please, do not let your personal beliefs enter into the editing of wikipedia. You'll notice I am not the only person making the accusations. Just read below for about 300 pages. As far as the quote I tried to insert for the second time, if you think that is a sentence to try to make him look good, you're sadly mistaken. I could go through this entire article, and insert things to make him look good. (But the mainstream would change it back, because that is not their belief.) So, in essence, I'm stating fact, which you won't let stand, while others post opinions, and you let them stand. You are probably a defense attorney.Jonbrady 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • OK. Flame war challenge declined. I think you misunderstand my last post. Once again: I don't think your addition to the article makes the article any friendlier to Hovind. As Hovind uses a lot of humor in his arguments, I think his statement is meant ironically. In the context of an encyclopedia, the irony is stripped away. His statement that, "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I am trying to do, is get the lies out of the textbooks." makes him sound disingenuous at best because he believes that creationism is true and evolution is a lie. However, I will not delete this, as you think it's fair to him. The {{Fact}} tags are for things like his family and the number of his children. You keep describing the article as biased and POV. I have asked you repeatedly to list on the talk page things that you disagree with in the article. The only thing you have said you think should be deleted is the information about the assault and battery and his other legal and tax problems. I have pointed out to you that this is all sourced to either local daily newspapers or court documents, credible, unbiased sources. POV != "inconvenient fact." --JChap 02:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

This will be my last post. As you stated above, "I don't think your addition to the article makes the article any friendlier to Hovind." I think that is opinion. What you think or what your beliefs are has no merit in this article. Item two: "As Hovind uses a lot of humor in his arguments, I think his statement is meant ironically." I think that is opinion. What you think or what your beliefs are has no merit in this article. Item three: "His statement that, "I'm not trying to get evolution out of the textbooks, nor am I trying to get creationism into the textbooks. What I am trying to do, is get the lies out of the textbooks." makes him sound disingenuous at best because he believes that creationism is true and evolution is a lie." This makes him sound disingenuous to you, therefore your opinion is once again incorporated. Additionally, Hovind believes in microevolution, It's macroevolution that he believes is a lie. Example, a rock producing a human being, or zebra. His THEORY is that one kind cannot produce a different kind. There is no evidence whatsoever that a zebra produced a non zebra, or an amoeba produced a non amoeba. Item 4: The {{Fact}} tags are for any information that needs a source. Where are people getting their information? There are many cites in the article already. Unreliable, usually, and are actually websites dedicated to the demise of Dr. Hovind, or creation in general. That is fine, but biased as hell. I have no disagreement with newspaper articles, or court records. And finally, Item 5: There dozens upon dozens of disagreements listed below, so I'm not specifically going to state them. I'd be here for three days straight. I've looked at other online encyclopedias, and you know, a funny thing occurred to me. They are all virtually identical to this one. Let the copying and pasting continue!Jonbrady 09:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

  • If this is your last post, farewell then. You criticize me for posting my opinions on the talk page. You don't explain how you think they are reflected in the article. I've left your Hovind quote in the article. I think it makes the guy sound like he drinks his own Kool-Aid and if I were trying to defend him would try to pass it off as an applause line, but that is for the reader to judge. You cite "dozens and dozens" of statements below (in conversations that I did not participate in) about problems with the article but have not been able to identify one false statement in the article. Too bad. The identical articles you mention are Wikipedia mirror sites. --JChap 13:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Patriot Universtity

Patriot University has been widely acknowledged as a diploma mill (or degree mill), due to unreasonably easy graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and suspect tuition costs, among other issues.

What is the basis for this statement? Widely acknowledged by whom?

Every hit for "Patriot University" on Google comes up with a statement about it being a diploma mill, with the exception of its own website and websites specializing in other unaccredited universities. That being the case, can you provide any reason to not think that Patriot University is widely acknowledged to be a diploma mill? Their own website has an entertaining bit about how it's not that they couldn't be accredited, they just don't want to be -- after all, it just serves to "boost the reputation" of the universities in question! (I don't want to be in your club anyway, nyah nyah). That being said, I do understand that there are a number of unaccredited religious universities which have quality curricula (there was a good article in the Chronicle of Higher Education on this about a month ago), however there seems to be no evidence that PU is one of them. Hovind's own defense of his degree is (not surprisingly) very weak, especially when put up against the opposing evidence. (see, e.g. [1]) --Fastfission 02:43, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I can't think of any reason that Patriot University is not widely considered a diploma mill, but the burden of proof on such matters rests on those who make such claims. That being said, I am convinced that the university could accurately be described as a "diploma mill." But it seems that most of the websites referring to the university as a "diploma mill" are explicitly anti-creationist sites. This claim would have better support if either 1) websites with no explicit position on the creation/evolution debate which make the claim could be pointed out; 2) the term "diploma mill" were substituted with a not-so-loaded phrase; or 3) the claim were changed to something like "Patriot University is widely acknowledged by opponents of Kent Hovind to be a 'diploma mill.'
I'm wary about softening this up too much (given the fact that there seem to be no great defenders of Patriot University except Hovind himself, and even he just equivocates, I'm not sure what factual ground that puts on on), I've re-arranged the sentences a bit, and put a link to PU's own statement on accreditation:
Critics of Hovind have charged that Patriot University is a diploma mill (or degree mill), as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme, among other issues. The university has varied its policies over the years, and no longer offers the Ph.D. Hovind received. However, their current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees and even "Doctor of Ministry" degrees in months, rather than years, for less than $40 per month (the university offers a monthly fee, unlike most universities, which only charge per-credit fees[2]). The University itself has claimed that it simply does not "choose" to be accredited.[3]
How about that? --Fastfission 05:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think that sums it up.
By the way, I really like the "No!" responses on the university's accreditation page.
I am a graduate of Patriot University. The school was renamed recently to Patriot Bible University to better refelect its mission of serving as an independent Bible College. I updated the wiki page to reflect the new name. I hold a Bachelor of Biblical Studies degree from Patriot (received in August 2004). I did have to do extensive work to get this degree. Unlike "diploma mills" where you just send in money and a CV to get your degree, Patriot Bible University is a *real* school. It is indeed distance education based, but I have several times personally visited the school's offices and seen their well run operation. I have visited and spoken with the staff, registrar and dean on many occasions both in person and via the phone. I wouldn't have spent money on tuition and my time completing my degree program if I wasn't satisfied that both the school and my degree were 100% legal and above board. I learned a lot from the many classes I took via distance learning from Patriot University. They are a small college and only graduate about 50 to 80 degree students per year, so it is unlikely that you would have heard from any graduates before. You can check out the archived PDF format issues of the school magazine, called the Patriot's Progress on their web site for the last year or so and see the names and degree awared to the graduates each month in the back of the school's magazine. I am going to attend their annual graduation commencement this June 1st. I have been told that there will be 17 people attending the commencement ceremony in person who received their degrees from Patriot Bible University this past year. If it were truly a "diploma mill" as some of Kurt Hovind's critics claim, they would likley "be minting" tens of thousands of degrees per year and advertising them for sale for a fixed price in magazines and on the Internet. Issuing less than a hundred earned degrees a year hardly would be worth it for a "diploma mill" which would normally operate on high volume.
I can understand why some might try to knock the school, but it is a real religious school with very sincere people running it. It has been in operation for about 30 years here, and was formerly a Bible school run from inside a local church. Now they have moved to Del Norte, Colorado into their own administrative building and are growing, but their standards are still quite high. You can't "buy a degree" from Patriot. I dare you to go ahead and call them and try. They will require coursework to be completed, the amount of classes and credits needed will vary on your existing college credit transfer hours, etc. See their degree requirements and course descriptions on their site. Let me assure you that their coursework is real and requires reading one or more study texts per course and completing a written test covering the subject book(s) for that course. Then you have to submit your written tests and wait to receive it back graded. This is a real school with real books and tests. They are economical, but since when is that a crime? If you want a Christian education and can't afford to travel to a tradional Bible College, Patriot is well worth it in my opinion. I have also added a line to the wiki that Patriot is fully approved by the state of Colorado to operate their Bible College and also is approved tp issue legal religious degrees by the State of Colorado Higher Education Commission. I can't spreak for Kent Hovind, as I don't know the man, but judging a school based on one of their graduates is really insane if you ask me. What if a serial killer went to Harvard? Would you blame the school for his/her actions and attack it? I think not. Suffice it to say that Patriot in an independent, non-traditional religious college that offers an affordable Bible based education via distance education. Please drop the "degree mills" and "diploma mills" attacks against Patriot Bible University as they are not true according to the State of Colorado's own web site defining "diploma mills". The state shows Patriot as an approved school to issue degrees, and not as a "diploma mill". In fact they list it as a legitimate school, so unless you can argure with our state's higher education licensing commission, please don't badmouth Patriot. That only causes doubt upon my degree (and others with validly earned Patriot degrees). Thank you. --Ministry 23:42, 21 Apr 2005 (MDT)
A serial killer did graduate from Harvard. As his fellow alumnus, I'll gladly trade you the ensuing imprint of Theodore Kaczynski on my alma mater, for the reciprocal discredit imparted by Kent Hovind upon Patriot University, and vice versa. Larvatus 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
    • The real issue here is what statements we can verify and what statements we have to just attribute. At the moment all criticisms of it being a diploma mill are properly attributed to his critics and Patriot's own stated policies are attributed to them. On Wikipedia, all of our sources must be attributed to whomever is giving them, and we have a policy against original research, which means we can't just go on your personal testimony on it. If you find a good source which says what you have said about, I'd be more than happy to include a line and link to it. However the line about critics calling it a diploma mill must stay, because it is accurate: critics do call it a diploma mill. Such is a statement about what critics say, not about what the school actually is-- surely you can see the difference. Being licensed by a state to operate is not the same thing as being accredited for your educational standards. It simply means that the school meets a bare minimum in business practices but even those requirements can vary from state to state. --Fastfission 14:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let us not forget (or at least begin to realize) that, diploma mill or not, he still taught high school math and science for 15 years. He also has a PhD in education. I'm not certain where he got this PhD from, but I'm sure it wasn't Patriot. That should be worth something to his credit.--JEmfinger 07:50, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Um, he claims he got an MA and PhD from Patriot. And depending on what state you are in, the requirements for teaching high school subjects are not necessarily rigorous (often if you have a BA in ANY subject you can teach). Anyway, the entire education question is just whether or not he misrepresents himself about his educational credentials, not whether he can do basic math or science (the fact that he often can't is born out by his arguments, it is not necessary to point to his phoney diploma for that). --Fastfission 14:54, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A lot of statements are biased (I am not in favor, nor against mr Hovind.). If researched correctly, one can find evidence that mr. Hovind has given proof of his dissertation and that some people have studied his dissertation after having been sent a copy with consent of mr. Hovind. Therefore, biased sentences in 'Education' should be deleted.
"If researched correctly" -- please provide some evidence of this "correct research." We're not just going to take your word at it. The one person who has claimed to see it was given it by the University, apparently, but they no longer provide it. --Fastfission 15:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The critic you cited, was the same one who claims that the copy of the dissertation was given with Hovind's permission. Therefore, the claims you make in 'Education' are proven wrong by the same critic you cited.

After reading this article, I can only conclude that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but the mouthpiece of some lobby.

Well then, you conclude incorrectly. Such is life. --Fastfission 17:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Seriously, Kent Hovind is nothing more than a tool who continually and knowingly spreads misinformation. -- Shawn M. O'Hare 11:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Kent Hovind claims to have an IQ of 160. That right there proves he is no dummy. http://www.uwf.edu/tprewitt/rebuttal1.htm

You might want to look up what "proof" usually means. Come on, surely you're smarter than you appear. --Fastfission 02:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hovind said his IQ is 160; I was just repeating what he said. Assuming he is telling the truth, that means he is pretty intelligent, as a 160 IQ is very high. I've seen plenty of debates where he has gone up against 1 or or more opponents (with PhDs and degrees you would respect) and won. In any event, the Wiki entry for Hovind is terribly one-sided and not NPOV. I thought that was against Wiki-standards. Also, there is no reason to insult me personally.

If someone--not just Kent Hovind but anyone--has a 160 IQ, that would be indeed very high, but it doesn't mean that they can't be wrong. I imagine that he probably has gone up against opponents in debate and won, but debates aren't what science is about. Science is not and should not be a zero-sum game where one person is a winner and another a loser. Debates, such as the ones Hovind engages in, have a tendency to give poor representations of scientific truth, because the perceived truth can fluctuate based on personal charisma and oratory skills. --Justin Hirsh
Yes, but I think that it more likely, given his track record, that he is fibbing. Dunc|☺ 20:38, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As a point of interest: Is discrediting Patriot university (which I'm not saying this article does) in order to somehow discredit Hovind's arguments not similar to the argument that his intelligence is high, therefore he must have *something* right? I'm not certain if opinion posts such as the one I'm typing right now is welcome here, but the tack I described above sounds like a Logical Fallacy (ad hominem, perhaps?). --The Extremist 15:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes in "Hovind and other creationists" section

Changes in "Hovind and other creationists" section

I removed the following three sentences from this section.

  • "From a purely scientific standpoint, those dates are ultimately unknown to man at this point in history...the debate continues." I understood this sentence to say the age of the earth has not been scientifically determined.
  • "One would be hard pressed to find creationist organizations that fully agree on all points." The first paragraph ("many creationists disagree on many points") said this already.
  • "Nevertheless it should be noted that there are many scientists siding with both creation and evolution who consider many of Hovinds arguments to be either plausable, theoretically improvable, debatable or false." I.e. there are many people who either agree or disagree with him; adds no information. Perhaps the original meaning was that there are scientists who find his arguments plausable and creationists who find his arguments debatable/false. Alternatively the word plausable should just be removed.

syndicate 19:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Dissertation?

Although Patriot University will not provide copies of Kent Hovind's dissertation, it is on file and available for viewing at the National Center for Science Education. The NCSE is located in Oakland, California. Incidentally, they will not allow it to be copied and they will not send copies to anyone.

Someone just added this to the page. Can anyone verify it? There doesn't seem to be anything on the NCSE web page substantiating it and no evidence seems to have been presented. TheIncredibleEdibleOompaLoompa 17:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

And even if true, it shouldn't be surprising; it's a copyrighted work, and like any other shouldn't be freely distributed or copied. Unless something more interesting or relevant can be said here, the text should be deleted.
Yes, NCSE does have a copy of Hovind's dissertation. I have seen it, and I know that young-earth creationist Jason Gastrich is among those who have stopped by the office to examine it. Those who want to know a bit more should read Karen Bartelt's review. She also delves into the copyright and distribution situation. I suspect that Patriot University no longer distributes Hovind's dissertation for the simple reason that they sent what appears to be the original copy to Skip Evans at NCSE when he requested the dissertation. There are figures that have graphics that were cut from magazines in the copy at NCSE; this was not a photocopied document. My dissertation, by contrast, is available both from University Microfilms and also is freely downloadable as a PDF from the Texas A&M Thesis Office digital archive. Wesley R. Elsberry 03:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ali G Incident

I'm not sure what purpose this serves. It doesn't give any factual information except that Hovind is nervous when being made fun of. Is this necessary? I've left it for now but without a good reason to include it I'll delete it later on. --Davril2020 15:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There are excellent reasons to include the Ali G incident in this article. For one thing, it is a factual record of an outcome of controversialism precipitated by Hovind, only to be turned against him. More importantly, it shows that Hovind is incapable of standing his grounde even on the sophistical bases of ad hominem argumentation against credibly established and factually attested scientific theories. Larvatus 22:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC) larvatus
Is it worth mentioning that Ali G is cousin of the scientist Simon Baron-Cohen, who may have influenced his choice of target? Joe D (t) 06:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I think it's interesting, but not relevant for this article. Hovind has been in countless debates and on all kinds of radio shows and such. He has had far more interesting and stimulating experiences than this one. To cite this one like it's something special is a bit of a stretch. I'm guessing it was added as an attempt to embarrass Hovind. In reality, the Hovind quotes are quite ordinary for him and Ali G comes off as crude/offensive. --Jason Gastrich 06:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Ali G is crude and offensive. That is the point of his show. David D. (Talk) 07:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Please abstain from corrupting the factual transcript of exchanges between Kent Hovind and Ali G. Your judgment of what constitutes unnecessary color is no excuse for contaminating a straightforward account of the event at issue with your own editorial discretion. Larvatus 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
At the least the reference to the 'floater' is entirely unnecessary. If you wish to include an example of Hovind's debating style and errors during debates, why not draw on a number of sources? It seems odd indeed to base this entirely on the act of a comedian, who has mocked people across the social and political spectrum in this fashion. Should we cross-reference every incident where Ali G has mocked a serious figure and made their views look foolish? --Davril2020 18:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
The mention of the floater was essential to demonstrating that the laddie doth protest too much. The rhetoric is par for the course. Larvatus 18:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
It is basicly pointless. it serves no factual stuff. and Ali g is just a guy that does stupid stuff to make fun of people during interviews. btw, anyone know what episode number this is. like Season 1 - Episode ?

The thing thats kinda funny is that when hovind was called to do the interview he had absolutly no idea who Ali G was. nor had he ever heard of his show. so he was tricked into getting on by being told that he was going to debate 5 evolutionists.

But that's of little consequence, either, since nobody coersed him to say what he said in the show. But either way, this section is completely pointless. To catch people off guard is precisely what Ali G does, and is the reason why his show exists. As mentioned above, Ali G has done it to plenty of people, well-respected and authoratative folks and otherwise. Having that section there informs the reader nothing about Hovind, other than that he's liable to be duped by Ali G. And excuse me while I uncloset my POV here, but Hovind has plenty of quotes that reveals his sophistry without needing Ali G's provocation. Uly 19:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Larvatus' Color Commentary

The following comments are inappropriate for an encyclopedic article. They are considered color commentary.

"At that point, Ali G was able to cast doubt on Hovind's objections to evolution by asking his guest:"

"In response to Hovind's nervous objections to his method of proof,"

"Hovind's protestations of fecal innocence were unavailing."

These things read like a gossip column and need to be removed, immediately. I took some time and wrote an nPOV contribution, but he kept reverting it completely in favor of his own. --Jason Gastrich 21:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Your wish is my command. "Just the facts, Ma'am." Larvatus 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
As for your latest edit, I never said the things above were offensive. I said they weren't encyclopedic. Your latest edit is a step in the right direction, but hasn't went far enough to make the entry read professionally instead of child-like. --Jason Gastrich 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I cleaned it up some more. Are there any quotes from Hovind in response to the whole interview. Did he find it funny once he relaised that AliG is a hoax interviewer? David D. (Talk) 22:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
Looks good. I'm glad you want this section to maintain Wiki's high standards. I don't have any more details about the interview. I found the transcript I put in the reference section, though. --Jason Gastrich 22:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I maintain that the reference to a 'floater' is childish. Really, Ali G does this to every single guest he comes across; should we edit the biography of every major figure he has interviewed in order to include a reference to this fact? Someone keeps deleting/editting it as it stands. It's clearly generating a lot of bad feeling and is very childish. I'll say again; why can we not edit together a collection of statements on/by Hovind, from a number of sources, including a mention that he was interviewed by Ali G with an external link to a site detailing the encounter? It would then be balanced, and useful as a reference source. Do you object to that Larvatus? --Davril2020 00:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The point that needs to be made is that Ali G trumped the creationist argument and humiliated its proponent on the same ad hominem grounds that the latter relied upon for making his case against evolution. More generally, the Ali G interview deserves to be commemorated herein as Kent Hovind's most significant exposure to popular culture, and vice versa. Larvatus 01:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
This point wasn't made. I don't think you see it, but the whole thing comes across as childish. In fact, Ali G humiliated himself the moment he opened his mouth. Look at the way he talks. As far as this being "Hovind's most significant exposure to popular culture," that's nonsense. What you've written is a joke, Ali G is a joke, and the thing needs to be scaled way back or removed. Davril2020 made a good point. If this should stay, then Ali G's stupid remarks and purposefully bad English should be added to every Encyclopedia entry for every celebrity with an entry. I don't think anyone would agree that this would be a good idea.--Jason Gastrich 05:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
First Ali G is meant to be a joke. He did not humiliate himself that is what he does for a living.
Encyclopdia articles aren't jokes. And he humiliates himself for a living.
Second Ali G is a huge hit in the popular culture and for Hovind to be on such a show is actually quite an honor. Has Hovind ever been on such a large show before? David Letterman or similar?
I've never seen the show and probably never will. It reaches a smaller audience than most shows as it's on HBO. Furthermore, nobody could have felt honored by going on that show. Get real. I'm sure Kent Hovind wished he hadn't come on the show after Ali G's nonsense.
Thirdly, with regard to whether an AliG appearance should be noted for all his guests that have a page in wikipedia, it depends. For those that are regularly in the public eye (i.e. mainstream TV appearances), then may be no.
Exactly. The answer is no.
But for Hovind, who does not appear on TV, as far as i know, it does represent a major point with regard to his prominence in the US. Whether he was ridiculed is irrelevent and should not be part of the article.
In no way was it an honor for Hovind. Ali G is a joke and it did nothing whatsoever to further what Kent Hovind holds dear: faith in Jesus Christ and creation science. For 99.9% of Ali G's audience, it was a worthless endeavor on Hovind's behalf.
There seems to be a presumption here that Hovind sees this as a negative on his resume, therefore, we should remove it. This seems to be a hasty conclusion and I think many users will be interested in his appearance whether one views it as a negative or positive. As long as the description of the show is NPOV there should not be a problem here. David D. (Talk) 06:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not assuming anything, I'm just calling it as I see it. I know Kent personally and I think my comments about his intentions and feelings are very likely right on the mark. I'm sure he will never see that appearance as a feather in his cap.
The section on Ali G does absolutely nothing. Nothing at all. It certainly doesn't hurt Hovind because he gave his usual defense of YEC. It only makes Ali G look like a jerk for talking in slang and putting down Hovind. If that's what Hovind's Encyclopedia entry needs, then so be it. You can look at the contributions and see that I never removed it. I just tried to make it read like an article one may find in an encyclopedia. Perhaps we can scale it down to one paragraph. Those who are interested in Hovind are likely much more interested in debate rhetoric than the Ali G transcript. I posted a link to it in case they are interested. There may be more, though.--Jason Gastrich 06:30, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sacha Baron Cohen poses as Ali G to bring out the fellow buffoon in his interviewees. To the extent that he either demonstrably fails or clearly succeeds in doing so, his schtick reflects on their character in a way worthy of encyclopedic note. As to whether or not a sense of humor belongs in this venue, show me a directive requiring Wikipedia narratives to hew to the dull and dour. Larvatus 07:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Precedent for reference to Ali G

Well i just did some research and the following all have their appearance on the AliG show mentioned on their page. James Broadwater (politician), Pat_Buchanan (evangelist/politician), Shaud Williams (american football player), Buzz Aldrin (apollo 11 astranaut) and Sammy Wilson (politician).

Whether Hovind thinks it was an honor to be on the show should not be considered. What should be considered is why was Hovind, of all the YEC apolgists in the US, selected to be on the show? It is a clear statement of his fame, or notoriety, in the US. More so than any of the speeches he gives at various religious organisations or debates.

With regard to Ali G humiliating himself, I think this says more about ones own interpretation of the show than his professional or personal status. The show has had an Emmy nomination and won a BAFTA. His comedy lineage is from the Cambridge University footlights, who also gave us the Monty Python team and Douglas Adams among many others.

With regard to popularity, while some may not watch HBO, many do. I do not know what the ratings are for the show, but the fact it is getting awards and has had multiple seasons would imply it is successful. All said, i see no reason for Hovinds appearance on the show to be deleted. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

If it stays, do you really think the dialogue should stay? Is the dialogue on the other entries you linked above?--Jason Gastrich 07:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The entries have no dialog that i noticed, although, I didn't study them too closely. I don't think they even had their own section but were woven in with other relevent text. I have no problem about modeling the entry on those articles above. I do have a problem with removing the reference to the show for no reason other than some think it is silly. Besides what a chance for Hovind to influence a new audience, isn't that what evangelism is all about? David D. (Talk) 07:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Of course. That .01% is probably praying right now. Weaving it into the entry and removing the dialogue sounds reasonable. Seeing Ali G speak just makes the entry look like a comic book or something. --Jason Gastrich 07:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Jason wrote:, "makes the entry look like a comic book" and Dino Adenture land does the same for me. David D. (Talk) 09:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Ali G episode under discussion may be found here: [4]. Larvatus 07:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Thanks. I downloaded it, but I had to stop it when he wouldn't stop saying "9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9 ......". --Jason Gastrich 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Please stop removing the summary of the exchange edited in response to your criticism, especially if you cannot bear to view the original broadcast. Also, we are not allowed to link articles to a site infringing HBO's copyright. I posted the link to the show for your benefit only. If it is unhelpful, so be it. But your failure to inform yourself is no qualification for insisting on a large cut of relevant narrative laid out accurately and dispassionately. Larvatus 11:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Please stop lying in the edit summary

23:35, 20 December 2005 64.230.108.103 (→empircal -> empirical)

00:44, 20 December 2005 64.230.108.207 (→Fixed typo)

Both edits made by the same user. Both were major deletions. Both were described as minor edits. Please don't do it. David D. (Talk) 05:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Lying in the edit summary is foolish. --Jason Gastrich 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Larvatus' False Accusation

How can you call my contribution to Hovind's entry vandalism? You need to apologize and retract that false accusation. I offered a sensibile paragraph that resembles the other paragraphs about Ali G in other celebrities' entries. Furthermore, I didn't know the link YOU posted in the talk page was copyright infringement. Why did you post it if it was illegal? I thought you posted a legal link to the .wmv file, so I put it on the entry. --Jason Gastrich 19:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Please look into the doctrine of fair use. Posting a link to a copyrighted file for the narrow purposes of private communication is perfectly legal. Referencing it for public use is illegal. As to your latest contribution to this entry, its main consequence was a summary deletion of a narrative summarizing the performance at issue, created by a collaborative effort. In doing so, you bypassed the ongoing discussion of merits and relevance. Please abstain from further unilateral action, pending our achievement of an editorial consensus in this matter. Larvatus 20:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
  • Jason Gastrich, is that really you? I don't know if you remember me or not, but I talked with you online awhile ago. As for calling it "vandalism" - pretty much anything on Wikipedia that is reverted is called "vandalism". Definitely do not take it personally. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 19:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks Cyde. Nice to see you!--Jason Gastrich 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Should the Ali G Dialogue Be Included?

This is a conversation with Larvatus (the author of the dialogue contribution). I think we have consensus that there should be a mention of Ali G. Let's discuss whether or not the dialogue should be in the entry. Here is our conversation. Please contribute.

I think that the exchange between Ali G and Kent Hovind, as currently summarized in the article dedicated to the latter is both relevant and meaningful. I see no legitimate public interest in suppressing it from Wikipedia. Larvatus 21:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Well, we need a reason for its inclusion. Saying you can't see why it shouldn't be included isn't a reason for its inclusion.
I have several reasons why the dialgoue should be deleted.

1. Ali G doesn't speak in regular English, so it "dumbs down" the entry.

2. The other celebrities' entries that contain an Ali G episode mention do not include dialogue.

3. It does nothing to stimulate the creation/evolution or belief/unbelief interests that Kent Hovind is known for. --Jason Gastrich 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  • I think the Ali G dialogue as it is right now is good. Two short paragraphs is enough to get the point across. Adding any more would not serve much illustrative purpose. I think a good compromise would be to prominently display an external link to the rest of the dialogue in the section that already briefly covers it. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 00:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't have any objections to the present text. Perhaps an expanded comment on how it was one of Hovind's more prominent appearances, but it's lost the childish tone and that's the main thing. --Davril2020 01:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I see the recited reasons for deleting the dialogue as supporting its retention:
    • 1. The alleged dumbing down brings out the stupidity of arguing against evolution on the basis of monkeys' failure to have human children.
    • 2. The other celebrities' entries that contain an Ali G episode mention might as well be expanded to include dialogue.
    • 3. It engages Kent Hovind on the ad hominem basis for which he is known, and gets the better of him as a result. "I ain't pointing any fingers, but shame on you."

Larvatus 03:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

I can side with Davril and Cyde and leave the 2 paragraphs. However, the "floater" nonsense has to go. Plus, it needs to be nPOV; nothing about "refuting Hovind" or "echoing Hovind's standard for truth" or else it's POV. How do you know Hovind's standard for truth on his show wasn't just a joke, too? He obviously considered his audience and spoke accordingly. Don't say it's his standard for truth as if that's his only argument or standard.
I think I finally see why you want this in here so badly. You think it's damning to Hovind. It took me a long time to see that because all it looks like is a juvenile trying to conduct an interview. --Jason Gastrich 05:20, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The "floater" comment is an integral part of the show and an accurate conclusion to its recounting. I neither know nor care whether Hovind makes logical arguments in other venue. The fact remains that he has been publicly bested as a maker of ad hominem arguments by Ali G. This event deserves to be commemorated. Larvatus 06:15, 22 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
Larvatus, we only need a descriptive explanation of what happens and we should strive to avoid childish remarks. It is a humour show. The idea is to be funny and to mock others. I cannot see your obsession with the point when Hovind has also been shown to make ad hominem arguments by far more reputable sources. What is the significance of the fact a comedian did this for you? Why not replace it with an academic source, an expert on evolution if it is important (and I think it is)? --Davril2020 21:43, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Horses for courses. In my opinion, the relevance of the Ali G episode is in demonstrating Hovind's nature as an affable comedian, as distinct from a polemicist focused on making a scientific claim. This vocational choice makes unconclusive his engagements with academic adversaries such as Coates. But by the same token, it makes him susceptible to a comic reductio by Ali G. Larvatus 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus

Is the "floater" necessary?

I suppose we've concluded that Ali G's dialogue, although painful to read, is potentially acceptable. Do we really need the random statement about the floater? What is the point? I say we delete it. Thoughts? --Jason Gastrich 07:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I never thought I'd see the day but I agree with Gastrich. I understand making points with satire and parody but the description of the Ali G interview (I have not seen the show itself) reads as rather juvenile. I question spending so much time on it here. And the "floater" thing is absurd. Toilet humor in a publication that aspires to be encyclopedic? Sorry, don't see it. And, mind you, I'm an atheist neo-Darwinian who thinks Hovind is a dishonest, foolish, buffoon. With all that, my reaction remains "toilet humor in an encyclopedia?" Mark K. Bilbo 16:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think Mark makes good points here. I agree it should be removed. David D. (Talk) 16:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Please see the show before making this call. I have provided a link to a privately maintained copy [5], which should not be referenced in the article under discussion, lest we cross the boundaries of fair use. I will abide by informed editorial consensus. Larvatus 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus
I agree with the consensus on this one. Frankly, I'd be happier if the Ali G section was just about his notable appearance with Ali G, and the scientific refutations of the arguments were strengthened in other sections. Saying he left a "floater" really doesn't prove anything either way. --Cyde Weys votetalk 16:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I saw the link you provided the first time. I appreciate the humor, personally i find it quite amusing to see the reaction of those interviewed when Ali G just spouts idiotic comments. They try to be serious and calm but its obvious their brains are running amok trying to figure out what the hell is going on. If you look at the Ali G entries on other biographies in wiki they are quite small with only a few lines of analysis. I think it is appropriate to discuss the interviews evolutionary contect of the discussion. I also think it is appropriate to have some quotes in that context. With regard to an analysis of the humor or an analysis of political points scored by Ali G i think this should be presented on the Ali G wiki page. David D. (Talk) 16:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm holding back on seeing the clip on purpose. My point being if someone who knows little about the matter(s) in question (which is part of the point of an encyclopedia of any kind) comes here, what impression would they obtain? And, frankly, I think it's not good. The interview could be the funniest thing that ever happened on TV but the description here reads seriously juvenile. Particularly with the "floater" thing. Frankly, I think it makes the Wikipedia come off looking rather, well, amatuerish. Mark K. Bilbo 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Good discussion. Me and Mark agreeing on this reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where George has nothing in common with the girl that looks like Jerry, but they both like chewing gum. *smile* All joking aside, it's good that diverse people like David, Mark, Cyde, Larvatus, and I can find common ground, compromise, and even agreement; especially in a controversial entry like Hovind's. --Jason Gastrich 17:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm shocked lemme tell ya. Guess it's snowing in hell just in time for Christmas? Mark K. Bilbo 18:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Alleged anti-semitism and humor to hide willfully false "claims"

WarriorScribe has such a problem writing nPOV, I'm not sure where to start.

  • Wiki rules warn against using language like "claims". The same should probably go for "established" when referring to a viewpoint that something is established when it's actually disputed.
  • The mention of anti-semitism and the willfully false "claims" needs to be made nPOV if they are to stay.
  • The information about the book for sale is true because I noticed it on his site. However, its mention and the book's contents still needs to be nPOV.
  • The paragraph regarding Hovind's humor shouldn't be used as an opportunity to POV the article.

--Jason Gastrich 05:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich is fully incapable of inculcating a nPOV, as his recent antics with the Biblo page demonstrate.
I'm not going to bother reading below this line. The administrator rebuked WarriorScribe with his ruling regarding the Bilbo entry; which was in favor of my contribution and against paragraph after paragraph of WarriorScribe's whining and opining and personal attacks. If someone can't write nPOV it's certainly Dave Horn/WarriorScribe. --Jason Gastrich 09:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, a mediator made a decision with which I disagree. I was not "rebuked." Leave it to Gastrich to spin it, but, as near as I can tell, the episode is one that explains why real encyclopedias have professionals editing them. The Bilbo episode was clearly a successful attempt by Gastrich to infuse his POV into a biographical article, and the comments that he insisted be added are of no merit.
I had little doubt that Gastrich would gloat over the Bilbo episode, as it's very much in character for him. It doesn't mean a thing. As they say, "the sun shines on even a dog's ass once in a while," and "even a stopped clock is right twice a day." Gastrich's gloating is fully within expectations of such an unsavory character and certainly not indicative of a Christian. Let him gloat. It's one "win" against many, many losses so far, and many losses to come.
As for my "whining and opining," my case stands. One mediator made a decision, doubtless due to the fact that I wasn't really willing to compromise with Gastrich on the issue, but one with integrity doesn't compromise with the likes of Gastrich. He was still wrong, and the mediator decision was wrong.
The fact is that I'm exposing Gastrich's attempts to infuse Wikipedia with his POV whereever I see it. He has no intelligent response to any of it, so he'll pretend that he's not reading it (of course he's reading...he's too arrogant not to read it); but he's a child, used to getting his own way. Regardless, I will continue to oppose his efforts, fully expecting that, now and then, I won't always be successful. That's life. But given that Wikipedia has been taking some pretty serious hits in the press, lately, given the means by which articles are composed and edited, it's the likes of Gastrich that will, sooner or later, have to be weeded out. WarriorScribe 09:33, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is an established hoax, and this is well known among historians and scholars of the subject matter. It was widely used as a justification for anti-semitism, just as I noted in the article, by, among others, Adolph Hitler. Hovind is something of a personal hero to Gastrich. He should be happy I don't mention the Hitler connection in the comments.
  • Gastrich complained that one shouldn't make comments that include "established" when a comment or claim is "disputed." There are lots of people who dispute that the Earth is not flat, too. We don't defer to them in encyclopedia articles that deal in facts or what is understood to be fact. We don't defer to self-serving, self-ordained "ministers," either.
  • The mention of the fact that the book is used as justification for anti-semitism does not violate nPOV. The problem is that it puts Gastrich's hero in a worse light, knowing that. It's not a problem for the facts if the facts point to something that some may not happen to like. By concealing such things, it's Gastrich whom is trying to perpetuate a POV. After all, why mention that it's a problem for Hovind to be selling the book if we don't explain why it's a problem?
  • The comments about Hovind's humor were not adjusted to inculcate POV. The comments were added as pertinent to Hovind's debate "tactics" and those of other creationists. The facts of the matter have been fully established and the Talk Origins Archive is one of the more reliable sources that one may find on the web, having been praised by many scientific organizations and periodicals. If we can talk about Hovind's "humor," his "challenges," and his "methods," we can expose the problems with all of those things, and more, as long as they're relevant.
  • Gastrich needs to spend a little more time in his Bible, and a little less time in hero-worship; and he is the last person to presume to lecture anyone on the subject of "neutral point of view." All one has to do, again, is look at the situation with the Mark Bilbo article to see that. WarriorScribe 06:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Gastrich busted again for POV pushing

You can't miss it. Check the history on the "humor" entry for the Hovind article. At first, Gastrich wanted to edit it back a little, and use the link that I provided (as a reference) to indicate that there was only dispute about the bones of Lucy.

But whoa, nelly! Then Gastrich must have actually read the link, or at least scanned it, and noticed that, not only does it refute the claims about the bones of Lucy, but it also exposes Hovind as having been told about this false claim as far back as 1993! And Hovind agreed to stop making the claim, yet subsequently made it again. Well, that must've been quite a shocker to Gastrich, but did he figure to go ahead and change the comments about humor, then, to reflect this new information? Or maybe we could just take out the whole paragraph...? Nope. Instead, he removed the whole section that I added--twice! He didn't want the readers to even see the reference, because of what it exposes.

Now, it seems to me, with all of this whimpering about POV, that Gastrich (or whoever wrote the "humor" paragraph) opened the door. Why? It's simple. Whoever wrote the paragraph, no doubt, wanted to portray Hovind as some folksy, down-to-Earth type that uses humor to endear himself to the audience. It's a debate tactic, pure and simple, it's very common (can we all say, "Ronald Reagan?"), and, by itself, there's nothing wrong with it. But as that's the case, then it's perfectly reasonable to examine that a little bit deeper, and expose the reasons why that sort of tactic is often used by creationists in these debates.

The fact is that Gastrich tried to push the POV that Hovind is just some honest guy out to make a joke or two while pinning a few "evilutionists" to the wall. That's POV pushing folks, of a more subtle kind. And he all but proved it when he let the reference get by him, then decided it needed to go, entirely.

Fool me once, shame on you...

I think we know the rest...don't we? WarriorScribe 06:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Humour/Humor Section

I'm not entirely happy with the 'humour' section at the moment. The main emphasis should be to note that one of Hovind's key strategies is to attempt to pose as a 'folksy' and 'down-to-earth' type of person against 'ivory-tower' evolutionists. I think the particular Hovind quote explains that quite well yet it requires more accompanying text.
It might be better if we were to rehash the section more heavily, creating a big section on 'Hovind's debate and strategies' or something similar. Humour could be dealt with as a subset of it, as it is undoubtedly fascinating how Hovind (and others) attempt to use a warm and engaging personality to win scientific debates.
I'll start something tomorrow, but if anyone has particular points they'd like to see covered on the subject of Hovind post them here (or a draft if you like!). Please try not to over-reference Talk.Origins though; a couple of references are fine, but it looks very bad when you have dozens of them in a single article. --Davril2020 20:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. In fact, what I think happened was this: The incident was included within the "humor" context to sneak in a creationist critique of evolutionary evidence in such a manner that it would, presumably, not be challenged or refuted. Of course, this piece of "evidence" was refuted years ago. So if we're going to include the specific episode so that the creationist writing the piece can wink at us and imply that that this is how Hovind makes fun of those silly evolutionists, we can respond and show why that debate tactic, using that specific example, is a bit less than honest. This shows that Hovind's attempts at humor are not always effective with all whom might view them, and may be dissected to reveal the deeper issues involved. That restores balance, which leads to a more neutral POV.
In simpler language? Not everyone thinks that Hovind is funny. WarriorScribe 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, Hovind uses a lot of humor in his lectures. Without using the section to state one's POV about his intentions, his humor should be mentioned. It's an integral part of his personality and his lectures. I see nothing wrong with the original paragraph on his humor. --Jason Gastrich 00:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hovind attempts to use humor in his "lectures." So do lots of other people, as noted. Sometimes they use humor to belittle others or to cover lies, as Hovind also does. If it's nPOV to claim that he uses humor, it's more nPOV to explain why he does it. This has already been explained in greater detail, and Gastrich, as usual, ignored it. WarriorScribe 00:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I've done a partial rewrite and changed the section from Hovind's humor to debating style. I don't think his humour is significant except in the context of his debates so the new title is more appropriate. Let me know what you think. --Davril2020 14:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It works better...less POV than the previous heading. WarriorScribe 17:34, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hovind Merely uses humor in his seminars to get the point across and to make his seminars fun, not to cover lies. --Yakkai 6:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI to all Involved

I have requested arbitration for this page. It seems that Gastrich takes much pleasure in reverting/deleting edits by people that do not agree to his particular point of view. As it is, I'm almost sickened to the point of quitting Wikipedia, but someone has to defend the Christian name against the repeated slander of "christians" like Gastrich. Icj tlc 20:10, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2 January 2006/Kent Hovind Decided to use Gastrich's methods this time...easier than getting myself blocked again. Icj tlc 20:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
As it turns out, the "cabal" has no enforcement power, and I'm not sure that arbitration is necessary, at this point. However, I am considering an RfC with regard to Gastrich and his purpose here, as far as it may be discerned. Given his antics over several months, as well as some of the comments I've saved and his, well, let's just call them "creative editings" on talk pages and such, that may be the way to go. I'm seeking advice on that from more established (and less volatile, more objective) Wikipedians. WarriorScribe 20:43, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know the cabal has no power to enforce, but when I was trying to get arbritation, it was suggested that I follow the procedure listed in resolution settlement. I try to do as little editting myself as possible, as I don't consider myself to be "read up" on a lot of topics, I'm a minister and I mostly use Wikipedia in preparing lessons and I'm tired of seeing Gastrich's POV on all these pages related to christianity issues. It's really frustrating me. I like to use NPOV when I prevent things in my classes, so Gastrich is really binding me up. Icj tlc 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. WarriorScribe 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


Ali G again

Let me pipe in and say that I have serious doubts about the inclusion of the Ali G material. Yes, I know other entries have material on Ali G appearances. The issue, however, is whether anything notable happened during the appearance. This may be the case for other people, but is demonstrably not the case with Hovind.

On the Ali G show (a) Ali G maintained that eating a banana proved evolution (b) badgered Hovind about not flushing his toilet. Absolutely hilarious if you ask me, but notable? Encyclopedic? Come on. If Britannica had an entry on Hovind, and moreover if there were no space limitation on such an entry, do you think this appearance would be included there? --Pierremenard 01:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

  • As they say in the old country, if my aunt had a cock, she would be my uncle. This is not Britannica. What's the point of judging encyclopedicity on the basis of a paper and ink competitor that we are aiming to supersede? Larvatus 16:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
  • We are not like Britannica in some ways and like Britannica in other ways. It may be inappropriate to make comparisons between encyclopedias in areas where they are different - e.g. wikipedia not having space limitations. On the other hand, its perfectly appropriate to make comparisons where the two encyclopedias are similar - for example, whether some fact is encyclopedic enough to deserve inclusion. And, by thw way, we are definitely not trying to supersede Britannica. --Pierremenard 01:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Merely because something is hilarious does not mean its noteworthy. I fail to see how Ali G's badgering of Hovind about not flushing his toilet is noteworthy in the slightest. Care to explain? --Pierremenard 21:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The floater comments are not part of the article at this time. The banana refutation remains here by hard-earned editorial consensus. If you object to its presence, it is up to you to present an argument for exclusion. Larvatus 22:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
I have already done so: nothing notable happened during the interview. --Pierremenard 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what percentage of the editors have to agree to be able to claim a consensus for something - but in your determination of the percentage agreeing with the inclusions, please count an oppose vote from myself. --Pierremenard 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I was involved in the editing that section. I do think this is a notable event, but not becuase it is hilarious (assuming you find AliG funny). I think anyone who is on the radar screen for an Ali G interview is obviously prominent in popular culture. His appearance on the show is evidence that his voice is heard, whether we like the message or not. David D. (Talk) 00:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
If that is the rationale for inclusion, then the section ought to be reduced to a mere mention of his appearance - perhaps among mentions of his other appearances at prominent tv/radio shows. The content of the interview - "has you ever eaten a banana?" - does nothing to further to goals you have described here, i.e. demonstrating prominence in popular culture. --Pierremenard 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with David D. regarding the prominence factor. Additionally, the banana exchange notably reflects the logic of Hovind's refutation of evolution on the basis of monkeys' failure to have human babies. Larvatus 00:38, 30 January 2006 (UTC)larvatus
Thats an attempt to bunch two statements into one. Its clear how the exchange reflects the logic of Hovind's refutation of evolution....but, again, why is this notable? Is every time someone criticizes Hovind's logic - perhaps in form of mockery - notable? --Pierremenard 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
So every time someone notable criticizes Hovind, it deserves a place in the article? --Pierremenard 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Concur with David D. and Larvatus. I objected to the 'floater' comment as well and that is gone. The significance of the interaction is quite profound, not because the interview criticises Hovind but because it is by a notable media personality. Indeed, most people outside the US probably know Hovind only through this incident. I would be amenable to a rework of the section which ran 'Hovind and the media' and used this as one example of many, but I don't see any reason to remove it. I would consider it NPOV just to mention that the comedian interviewed Hovind as it is quite a significant point that the comedian criticises Hovind's views in a manner in which he cannot quite respond to. --Davril2020 14:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

"Indeed, most people outside the US probably know Hovind only through this incident." Do you have some sort of source for this assertion? --Pierremenard 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that a section on prominent media appearance that would include Ali G would be OK. For the record, I consider the current version to be NPOV, but unencyclopedic. --Pierremenard 19:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
I'd be happy to see you experimet with a Hovind/media rework of this section. It could be better than what we have at present. David D. (Talk) 19:53, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a reference for the suggestion that Hovind is widely known in parts of the world through his Ali G interview (hence my use of the term 'probably' rather than 'certainly' - I can elaborate more if you wish, but I don't feel the point needs to be overtly raised in the article). As for the recent changes, Hovind's response to Ali G is interesting, though the comments about the interview being editted down seems a little superfluous. That's surely going to occur with every comedy interview where the target is the butt of a joke? --Davril2020 03:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it smacks of trivia, but I also agree that there are a lot of people who have heard of Hovind solely because of this interview. Ali G is huge in the UK, Young-Earth Creationism is smaller than a small thing which has been shrunk in the wash. Just zis Guy you know? 13:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Reversion

Admin reverts carry no edit summary. Repeated reinsertion by one sockpuppet of material added by another and removed, is vandalism. Admin reverts are appropriate in cases of vandalism. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll need to do better than that. It's a pertinent link. You have no good reason to revert. If you did, you would have said so. --LinkChecker 10:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
No, I will not need to do better than that. Nor am I the only one to have reverted this. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 10:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Just because you're an admin, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. And I'm not the only one who has reverted and added the link, either. --LinkChecker 10:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually you are the only one who has reverted and added the link. You've just been using multiple accounts to do it with, thus attempting to avoid WP:3RR. It ain't gonna fly. --Cyde Weys 10:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Your temporary block is expired, Gastrich. You don't need to use socks. Harvestdancer 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion

An anon. user has removed the note that the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (from Czarist Russia) is a hoax. (The work claims there is an international conspiracy of Jews.) Just so that person knows, it was shown to be a hoax very early on. Notaby as early as 1921 by The London Times. In fact, the majority of it is stolen from a 1864 pamphlet Dialogue aux enfers entre Machiavel et Montesquieu. While many anti-semitists have continued to cite it nonetheless (Hitler refers to the Protocols in his Mein Kampf, chapter XI: Nation and Race, Vol I, pp. 307-308.). After the fall of the Soviet Union, the Russian government researched it and came to the conclusion it is false. Russian Court Rules 'Protocols' an Anti-Semitic Forgery By Michael A. Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times, November 28, 1993 [6]. Kent Hovind sells this book without commentary on its origins or that it has been proven false many times. Arbustoo 03:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Gastrich and a couple of his socks have tried to remove this, claiming it's not nPOV. - WarriorScribe 01:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Hovind on the subject:

"There was a book written called The Protocols of Zion [sic]. Now, it was written by the rich guys, but they said, “If this book ever gets found we want to blame it on the Jews.” So they called it Protocols of Zion [sic]. But it’s actually the plan of how to control the world. It’s about seventy some pages, you can, I don’t think you can print it off my website but you can get it in a lot of places.

And some people saying, “Hovind, Hovind mentions The Protocols of Zion [sic]. That means he is anti Jewish.” No, I’m not anti Jewish, okay. I love the Jews. But The Protocols of Zion [sic] was written to explain how to control the world, I mean, it lays it all out. But it’s really carefully done so that if it is ever discovered the Jews take the blame for it. Interesting. Well, read the book and see what you think."

Can someone clarify what Hovind believes the book to say or represent? He seems distinctly evasive in this section and I can't work out what he's trying to pin the book down as, though it does seem he doesn't consider it to be an actual fabrication. --Davril2020 23:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Davril. To the best of my understanding, Hovind's view on the Protocols is that they are a genuine "instruction manual" about taking control of the world, but that they were written in such a way as to point to the Jews as a scapegoat to distract attention from the "real" power-seekers. Now, I'm not sure what group he points to as the "villains" in his particular beliefs, but that's a not uncommon common minority view in fundamentalist Christianity--frankly, considering some of the other stuff he's spouted, I wouldn't be too surprised to find Hagbard Celine listed as a source. Justin Eiler 17:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I restored semi-protection for a while due to the efforts of an anon vandal, with a credible threat of continued vandalism (dynamic IP, can be changed easily and quickly as we all know). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:49, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I just wanted to say, this is one of the most amusing talk pages I have ever seen. Over half of it appears to be devoted to Ali G... am I the only one who thinks that's funny? The Taped Crusader 03:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You're being a little unfair, I think Sacha Baron-Cohen's mum finds Ali G funny as well. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 09:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the George W. Bush talk page. Several thousand words on whether it is or is not appropriate to include the word "nukular" in an encyclopedia entry. --Davril2020 09:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The Loch Ness monster, UFOs, and Native American brain surgery

I added a section on Hovind's beliefs that "UFOs are apparitions of Satan" and that the US government possess and flys some UFOs.[7][8] This section should be expanded eventually.

Also, as a young earth creationist, Hovind believes the earth has created by God 6-4,000 years ago. Consequently, Hovind believes dinosaurs are not extinct reptiles from millions of years past. Rather Hovind claims that not only human and dinosaur co-existed 6-4,000 years ago, but that the Loch Ness monster exists, is a dinosaur, and is proof that dinosaurs and humans have and can coexist.[9] I find it interesting that his self appointed title as "Dr. Dino" is mentioned as well as his dinosaur adventure land, but no one talks about this name and what Hovind teaches about dinosaurs.

Another interesting fact is in 2005 Hovind claimed, "Spanish conquistadors" in 1571 found drawings of dinosaurs on stones, and "on them you will see people doing brain and heart surgery as well as every known dinosaur clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together."[10] It would be nice to have these beliefs examined further. Arbustoo 00:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

More on Dr.Hovind's Beliefs about UFO's, and the Loch Ness monster are outlined in his Seminar notebook that is included in the DVD set of his 7 seminars. Yakkai

An editor's bullshit

This motherfucker reverted my contributions and said I can't link "Jason Gastrich's site." He left that on my talk page. Who does this jackass think he is? My contribution took time and work and for some dickweed like Guy to revert it, for no good reason at all, is fucked up. --Jack White1 07:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:NPA. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
It's Gastrich, again. It's not unusual for him to use a sock with a name that reflects someone known, as he did with "HRoss." "Jack White" happens to be the name of a veteran San Diego area TV reporter. - WarriorScribe 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure that that is Jason? The tone seems a bit different than Jason. JoshuaZ 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think Gastrich uses cuss-words. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Meat or sock, the edits fit. I wouldn't put it past Gastrich to swear like if he thinks his identity is protected as an anonymous editor. Don't forget his forged gay urges post designed to embarrass Farrell Till, that he did while thinking he was anonymous. Of course he forgot his IP could be traced, then spent weeks denying he posted it and eventually admitted he did it. Now, he is more sophisticatd and can use anonymisers, so don't be surprised if he attacks the "godless" in this manner. He believes in the theology of 'once saved always saved' so he thinks that behaving in an unChristian way to achieve his goals is acceptable. David D. (Talk) 19:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
That theory is inoperative, biblically; anyone can say "Lord, Lord" yet work iniquity. --Ruby 05:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
<rant> Not to mention counterproductive and logic-defying. If Jason is saved indefinitely, then so am I. If being saved included a license to kill, we would be left with "survival of the fittest" and only the law (in this case Wikipedia rules) to protect the weakest. In this case Jason; he has no idea what I'm capable of if not constrained by such lofty things as society compatible mores, a conscience, humility in imitatione Christi and other assorted things that keep us all from killing one another and apparently don't equally apply to him. All fed by the good old megalomaniac conviction that God is always on his side and never on mine or indeed anyone else's except those who believe that anything Jason says and does is inspired by the entire Trinity. </rant> AvB ÷ talk 09:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Time to talk

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing nothing but inflammatory edit summaries and no attempt to establish consensus, so I've sprotected it again in the hope that those anons who have some kind of issue with the article will come and engage with the other editors on the article. Remember, WP:NPOV does not mean that no POV may be expressed, only that all relevant and significant POVs should be adequately and fairly represented, with the balance reflecting informed opinion. I'm quite happy to believe there are things here which are wrong or at least wrongly interpreted, but without proper dialogue it's just a game of "is/is not" which I get quite enough of from my kids, thanks all the same. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The inflammatory edit summaries and personal attacks by newbie user:80.177.20.202 are somewhat understandable since the edits done from that IP number were minor copyedits diff that - not unlike dfg's LBU edit - were reverted (1) along with the biased JG-type edits diff by user:Jack White1, user:24.54.31.19, user:24.99.36.146 followed by a reversion of the same improvements diff, this time with obnoxious edit summary:
(1)
(cur) (last) 09:54, 23 February 2006 Arbustoo m (revert to DayCD; uncommented changes and additions)
(cur) (last) 09:05, 23 February 2006 80.177.20.202 (→Education)
(cur) (last) 09:00, 23 February 2006 80.177.20.202 (→Education)
(cur) (last) 08:58, 23 February 2006 Jack White1
(cur) (last) 04:55, 23 February 2006 24.54.31.19 (→Dinosaurs, the loch ness monster, and brain surgery in the 1500s)
(cur) (last) 02:43, 23 February 2006 24.99.36.146 (→Dinosaurs, the loch ness monster, and brain surgery in the 1500s)
(cur) (last) 23:06, 22 February 2006 Daycd (rv whole scale deletions thjat should be discussed on the talk page)
(2)
(cur) (last) 13:53, 24 February 2006 Pierremenard (rv to arbustoo: personal attack, edit goes against consensus on talk page.)
(cur) (last) 11:25, 24 February 2006 80.177.20.202 (→Education - you can't revert a change just because it's not commented, you ignorant fool)
I think you know my opinion on user accounts and IP numbers whose edits follow the Jason Gastrich pattern (in this case user:Jack White1, user:24.54.31.19, user:24.99.36.146): revert on sight, block on sight. An opinion that seems to be shared by two ArbCom members so far. AvB ÷ talk 09:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Changes to the Education Section

There's a lot of material here that seems verbose, and a number of excessive details. In the section on Hovind's dissertation for instance, is it necessary to state precisely what the errors were? Can't we just note that it is considered incomplete by experts and reference the claim? Does anyone have any objections to me trimming the section slightly?

I think it may be important to expand Hovind's defence of his credentials (assuming we can find sources for it) as it seems a little biased towards an anti- perspective now. --Davril2020 14:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A slight pruning of the details of critiques of Hovind's credentials is not a problem for me as long as it continues to make clear that his credentials as a paleontologist, scientist and educator are essentially non-existent. As to a defence of his credentials - no. I do not see how neutrality would be served by including a load of special pleading. Let the facts stand on their own merits, and allow the reader to decide. Hovind's website is linked, after all, and on there he can say what he likes. Just zis Guy you know? 17:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Trimming is fine as long as the essence of the critiques is still there. As for a "defence of his credentials" I do not see a problem with it as long as the source is academic and not POV. That is, you should not post a quote from someone who themselves has a dubious or questionable academic background. The chances are very slim you will find, say, an anthrolopologist from an Ivy League defending him. It is not relevant to the article to post a defense from a Hovind support who lacks academic credentials because that is not descriptive or helpful. Arbusto 20:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've made some alterations, let me know what you think. The only problem I have with it now is that there is no source for the comment on Florida law but that can easily be fixed. As for a defence section, I don't mean an apologist who whitewash's Hovind's record; rather I think this his specific comments on the issue may be worth including (he usually turns the question aside with a joke, but if Hovind has ever tried to give a rigorous defence himself it may be worth noting what he has to say about it). --Davril2020 21:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Looks OK so far; I can't visualise what you mean specifically - be bold :-) Just zis Guy you know? 22:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
Chiming in—I'm looking forward to more of your edits. Most of the regulars here are just weary of bad faith ones. AvB ÷ talk 23:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added a (very) short section on Hovind's typical responses to critics. I'm not sure how to expand it since he basically makes the same statement every time. I may add in a counter-response to his accusation that the attacks are ad hominem if I can find a reliable stable reference for it. --Davril2020 16:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Let it stand as a statement of fact. The fact that this is an evasion is sufficiently obvious as to make pointing it out redundant. Just zis Guy you know? 17:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the link for being too general--Hovind is only one section of the page, and the article is not specifically about him, but about a limited sub-group of creationists. Justin Eiler 03:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Citation of KJV-Only-ism

I included the information (a link and a quote) citing Hovind's KJV-Only stance, but I don't what tags to use to wikify it. Could someone take a link and format it properly. (And if someone could also point em towards the citation help...?) Thanks! Justin Eiler 21:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

He talked about it while at a seminar that I attended, but I also believe it is talked about in extent to his videos, so a link doesn't need to be put up for that. --Yakkai 22:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The links to various debates and videos that include Hovind were removed because all the videos/debates are available at Hovind's webpage, which is linked throughout the article. Interested parties can view that material on his page because, as the article notes, the material is made available without copyright. The article does not need 10 links to various debates, which Hovind editted. Arbusto 03:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

A high school science teacher?

Hovind could not have been "a high school science teacher" at any public school because 1) he lacks a teaching credential 2) lacks ANY accredited degree (his BA, MA and PhD are unaccredited) 3) his BA, MA and PhD are in "Christian education" NOT science.

This means that IF he was a teacher (the article has no source for that) it was from a religious school, which should be noted. Leaving the line as-is is misleading. The line should be qualified as a "science teacher for a religious school" if a source can be found or removed altogether. Arbusto 04:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The claim that he was a science teacher is pretty common, among other places I think it shows up somewhere on drdino.com, I'll try to hunt it down. JoshuaZ 04:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
"High school teacher" is the claim in question. He makes the claim here[11], but does not mention the religious or public nature of the school. That needs to be made due to the requirements to be a "teacher" or the claim should removed because it is VERY misleading for the reasons I noted above. Arbusto 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Question answered. He started a Christian school and taught at it for fifteen years.[12] Then he started his current ministry and got his "PhD" in the mail two years later. Arbusto 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
"He started a Christian school and taught at it for fifteen years." Not precisely. As the link you gave shows, he worked at several Christian schools over a 15 year period, but not for very long at any individual school. You've suggested (maybe inadvertently) that he held a job for 15 years, which he didn't. He hopped around the country and switched jobs several times. 32.97.110.142 02:42, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kent State and Dinosaur Adventure Land

As I am a somewhat inexperienced Wikipedia contributer, please feel free (and please do) edit my entries regarding the KSU issue (found in "politics", also started by me) and the DAL issue. I admit... I'm not the best with this Wikipedia code. Also, just an FYI on the KSU thing: I was at the presentation and will get a source as soon as the Kent Stater publishes something about the comment.

EDIT: Ok... thanks for the info. --Jfahler 15:28, 8, April 2006 (EST)

Thanks for your helpful and informative edit. Please post your username after each method with two dashes and four tildes so we know who you are without looking it up. I have altered what you said slightly, mainly to compact it. I've moved the original DAL section to your new section to avoid it being repetitive. --Davril2020 03:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Whats the Point of the court records

is that something thats really needed? come on, bankruptcy records. who cares? so he had some financial problems, no ones perfect. is this just a pathetic attempt to discredit him? if so then this is more pathetic than the idiots saying "you cant trust charlie sheen for thinking the government was involved in 911 cause he had some bad alcohol and other problems 10+ years ago" (even though 83% of usa thinks the gov was involved. but thats another topic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.55.207.87 (talk • contribs)

A biography must contain all relevent and notable information, but each significant item does not necessarily affect any of the others. It would be absurd to suggest that you cannot listen to Hovind on the basis that he once filed for bankruptcy. However, since such a filing is a notable life event it should be chronicled. --Davril2020 00:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what Charlie Sheen has to do with this, but court records involving tax evasion and battery are important to include in the biography. It's not like his traffic violations are posted, but rather charges of battery by this "minister" and other charges surrounding failing to get permits due to "religious" reason are notable. If you are concerned about Charlie Sheen's article you posted on the wrong talk page. Arbusto 06:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
As detailed in the article, Hovind lied about his financial situation when filing bankruptcy. His claim was duly rejected as a bad faith tax evasion attempt. It seems he paid up in the end so I gather he did have the money after all. This is important information for people trying to decide what Hovind is all about. It's part of the full picture. AvB ÷ talk 09:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. It's not like we come out and say he is a crook and a charlatan, we merely present the evidence and let the reader make up thier own mind :-)
Dont just go killing the messenger (Kent Hovind) based on history, instead listen to the message. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.173.40 (talk • contribs)
That's one of the more hypocritical things I've ever heard. "Don't ignore Kent Hovind even though he is a crook and a thief, because the message is good." LOL, yeah right. You're the kind of people who turn around and do the exact opposite for people you don't agree with. How many times have I seen attempts to discredit scientists as "godless", "atheistic", "heretical", etc.? C'mon. --Cyde Weys 16:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The ends doesn't justify the means. Arbusto 03:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with that, after all, I think like most people here, that it is merely put there to make him sound like a horrid person. 1). Their intentions are not 'For the purpose of record' but to discredit him, rather. 2). I would suppose the good he's done far outweighs the bad. I'm sure some of the mothers of the people who posted here have done more. :) --Yakkai 23:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I deleted a link to a court record about the Assault and Battery that no longer exists. It seems kinda pointless trying to point to a website that doesn't exist any more. the link the site referred to was http://www.clerk.co.escambia.fl.us/'s  ::: Lucky Foot 11:06 17 May 2006 (EST)
I found the correct link and re-added it. - CobaltBlueTony 15:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing most important info

This article is missing the most relevant information about Hovind. He makes his living debating creationism. Is he successful? How successful? Has he debated any famous people? How often does he "win"? Does he have a radio program? Has he appeared on any famous radio programs? On television? Has he done any work with notable people? Has he done any work with notable creationists (like Carl Baugh)? (IMHO, this article needs some work. I wish I had the time/knowledge/energy to contribute.) Rljacobson 22:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1) Debates are subjective. However, if you insist on a "winner" it should be based on evidence of argument. Evidence and science support evolution. 2) Again subjective. 3) We do not need a list of his debates. He has an unofficial list/mention on his webpage (linked). 3) There is mention of his radio show. 4) The notable TV appearance his mentioned. 5) What do you mean by "work"? Serious scientific research? Arbusto 09:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

1) I was under the impression that debates are often adjudicated by a judge or a panel, or the audience sometimes votes at the end in some way. Is this not so? 2) Success might be measured in several ways: the size of his listening audience, or the size of his subscription base (if such a number is relevant), or whatever. Anything like this would be worth mentioning. As the article is, I have no idea why this guy is important. Is he a "big shot" among young earth creationists? Or is he someone nobody has ever heard of? 3) Of course, we don't need a list of debates. But if he has ever debated notable people, it is worth mentioning. 3b) Woa! I totally missed that. It was not clear at all from the article body that Truth Radio was HIS program. When did he start it? Where does it air? I would guess that a radio program would be a major part of his "ministry", yet the only place it even mentions he has a radio program is in the external links section. Why? Is his program syndicated? What is the content/format of the program? Has anyone of note appeared on his program? How wide of an audience does the program reach? (It might be that these questions are unanswerable or that the answers are uninteresting. If so, fine. But there's nothing.) 4) Is this really his only tv appearance? Well, ok then. 5) Surely not scientific research, but publications, "museum" projects, events, foundations, "expeditions". . . ? 216.171.248.82 01:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC) (oops, forgot to sign in.) Rljacobson 01:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I think the degree of his success can be measured by the fact that there is still no significant informed dissent in the scientific commuity from the Darwinian view. This inculdes among scientists who are Christians. You can't have an adjudicated winner in a debate where one party includes as a fundamental premise the assertion that any evidence which conflicts with their ideas is false, as Hovind does. Just zis Guy you know? 08:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are saying. In sentence 1, are you saying that because Hovind is not successful using that particular metric therefore it is not worth mentioning, say, how large/small his church attendence is (if he leads a service)? I mean, if 50% of American laypeople think this particular guy is spot on correct about the loch ness monster, it's worth mentioning in the article, regardless of the fact that the scientific community thinks he's a crank. In sentence 2, are you saying that Hovind has not participated in such an event? Or are you saying that such an event does not exist? Or are you saying that if he participated it would be really silly? I don't really know much about the guy, and frankly, after reading this article I still don't have a clue how he fits into the creationist scene or why anyone would care enough about writing an article about him except that they think he's a slug. Why is this guy important? Why is he in wikipedia? Rljacobson 00:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
JzG said that Hovind is starting with an incorrect conclusion and trying to support that conclusion with evidence. However, he does not have scientific evidence nor the proper expertise to discover or discount scientific research. Thus, his predetermined conclusion is always going to be "correct" because he wants it so. Clearly, his lack of education, his dishonesty as shown with the legal cases against him, beliefs in conspiracy theories, and ineptness surrounding the scientific method make him impossible for a scientist to reason with.
He is in wikipedia because so many people send him their money to watch his videos in order to reaffirm their attitudes surrounding evoluton, which they came to for religious comfort, not scientific reasons. Arbusto 03:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

In the same city as Hovind and DAL?

I am. I even know him and his kids personally, having gone to high school (PCA) with them. I always knew there was a little something off about Dr. Hovind, even though he's a great guy to talk to and be friends with; I even went over to their house a few years before I graduated (in 1997)... It's sad that such a cool guy could have such... odd beliefs. And yes I read the whole article. A little disillusioning to know that Dr. Hovind really thinks UFOs are "apparitions of Satan" and that the government flies a few around... there's no way that can be taken out of context, the statement is what it is, and it's just dumb, to be blunt. Never thought a good well-centered guy like Dr. Hovind could be drawn in by conspiracy theory, let alone one this ludicrous.

I guess the point of this little discussion is to ask if anyone else knows/knew Dr. Hovind personally and what they think of him. If this discussion is inappropriate for Wikipedia, feel free to ignore/delete it; it's fine by me. :)

I met him at a seminar, shook his hand and talked to him for a bit. XD If that even counts. --Yakkai 23:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Some Comments

Introduction

I will probably make a few amendments to the Hovind article in the future so I felt I should introduce myself before opening up a few discussion topics. A few weeks back I was given, as a gift, the full 7 DVD set (!!) plus a debate DVD of Kent Hovind’s. The gift was from a work colleague who is a Christian who felt I should learn more about evolution and creationism. I was particularly daunted by the many hours of viewing ahead to justify the gift but as luck would have it an operation gave me time off to watch most of it. (One DVD to go…but all Dinosaured out at the moment!)

To learn more and to follow up on a comment made on the DVD about 1000’s of anti Hovind websites, I ran a search on Google. Wow! – the anti-Hovind movement is alive and well and I’ve battled to find many pro-Hovind websites to provide a balanced few.

This is how I arrived at Wikipedia and learnt more about it. I absolutely love the Wiki concept and could certainly spend time contributing in the future.

I was initially saddened by the biase in the Hovind article but began understanding when working through the history and discussions. Again encouraged by the general quest for a neutral article, I decided to join in as a result and have even amended a few other articles on entirely unrelated subject matter. I will, however, always be eternally grateful to Kent Hovind for introducing me to Wikipedia :)

So in summary, I do not consider myself an evolutionist or creationist and to date I had not even considered the debate much less entered into it. I have never met Kent Hovind.

I am a solid newbie with my profile only having been set up this week, so excuse any mistakes I will undoubtedly make and don’t be shy on the advice.

PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Biase

I hope you’ll agree that fresh perspectives are always useful and having read the Hovind article for the first time this week, my knee jerk is that it is still quite biased. I will include some links below and hopefully some other editors can help provide the more neutral point of view Wikipedia seems to strives for. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A few Examples of Biase

  • Statements like “Hovind has no teaching credential or academic degrees from accredited universities in the subjects he taught” are misleading. It would be more appropriate to state that he has a PhD in education …albeit detailing why it is questionable. In addition, this statement is in the biography when a more detailed section is duplicated under education – I think it should be limited here to provide the fact that he spent that portion of his life studying for a PhD..details later on in the article PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Its not misleading. It says "Hovind has no teaching credential or academic degrees from accredited universities". On the other hand "he spent that portion of his life studying for a PhD" is POV and isn't every PhD the result of "life's work." This article should not mispresent higher education for Hovind supporters to feel better about Hovind and their beliefs. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement would be appropriate as long as it is balanced with a statement that he does, in fact, hold degrees, which it seems to be. On the other hand, to say that "he claims three degrees" suggests in my mind that there is some doubt that he actually holds three degrees. If there is no such doubt, I think the word "claims" should be changed to "holds". Rljacobson 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
"Holds" is rather strong a term for an unaccredited degree. It really doesn't matter if you grant it to yourself or pay someone else to "award" it to you - if it's not from a reputable institution, you can't really call such a person the "holder" of a degree. Guettarda 17:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You must be working off of a definition of the word "holds" that I am unfamiliar with. What are your thoughts on the word "has"? Rljacobson 17:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • The biography is certainly not a chronological list of the highlights of Hovind’s life otherwise it would include such events as marriage, kids etc. etc. Most paragraphs have a negative connotation. (1) no teaching credential (2) failure to observe (3) charged with felony assault (4) selling his products to the mass market (6) the claim in itself is false……surely the man has done something right in his entire life? I think some entries under a section which should be provide a chronological account of his life should be moved elsewhere. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
It mentions kids and his wife. We don't need to go into detail unless we have WP:RS of something important. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The issue here might be a lack of available information. However, to include the jab that he has no scientific background when mentioning when he began his Creation Science Evangelism is not only unnecessary, but possibly false, and definitely misleading, since he taught science in his school for 15 years as well as completed degrees in Christian education, albeight from unaccredited institutions. His academic background is explained elsewhere and doesn't belong in the sentence. Rljacobson 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It is sourced by his critics. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Then it should be quoted and a specific reference cited. The reference given is confusing, as it is to Hovind's own online store where one can purchase a DVD of Hovind explaining his theory. Rljacobson 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with PappaG as far as the first sentence goes. That Hovind is a social conservative, or that his statements paint him as such is an opinion that the reader may draw for themselves. That is, let the facts speak for themselves. Rljacobson 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Under $250,000, the statement “The vast majority of scientists so not take Hovind’s work very seriously” is a sweeping statement which I would personally discount when reading the article. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Provide a citation that proves otherwise. The fact that the vast majority of scientists don't take Hovind seriously is quite obvious. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with PappaG insofar as the phrase "vast majority" is emotive. I move that the sentence read, "The majority of scientists do not take Hovind seriously." Rljacobson 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
  • There is hardly any mention in the article of any pro-hovind support whilst I am sure that Hovind has many many thousands of supporters. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Make sure the links add something of research value and add to it. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
  • The External links section contains 2 pro Hovind sites other than his own and 18 anti-hovind links. This should be more balanced. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Make sure the links add something of research value and add to it. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no need to amass a collection of anti-Hovind links. Four would balance the pro-Hovind links and should more than suffice. Rljacobson 17:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Lead Section

The article Wikipedia:Lead section provides guidelines that a lead section for a medium sized article should be 2-3 paragraphs and a longer article, like Hovind’s 3-4. I found the lead section too short, a little biased and not providing a good precis for the longer article. Attempts on my part to add facts such as Hovind teaching Science and Maths for 15 years were deleted stating “this is more for the body than for the intro.” I disagree but didn’t revert the deletion. I think this is particularly relevant for an intro which I will discuss separately below under Credentials. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Credentials

JzG….I added a reference to Chick Publications that Hovind speaks 700 times but you said that this is not a valid reference and the reference was deleted…I could use some help with that one because quite a few places state he does so happy to change but don’t want to make same mistake. Thanks. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

What JzG meant, and what I know, is that Hovind is Chick's source for information on Hovind. You need a better source. Arbusto 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
So? The fact is, Hovind claims to speak 700 times a year, which is certainly worth mentioning in an encyclopedia article about him. That it is Hovind making the claim does not diminish the relevance of the claim. Rljacobson 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In case it gets changed back, stating that Hovind has “no science credentials” is akin to stating that Michael Dell and Bill Gates have no computer credentials. They don’t even have a degree …accredited or not.

This article isn't about Dell or Gates. If you wish to discuss those people you posted on the wrong page. Dell and Gates don't attack an entire academic field with conspiracy theories while lacking serious credentials themselves. Arbusto 20:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The statement is not NPOV because it implies a judgement of want constitutes a legit "credential". We should state facts, namely that he has no certification or degrees from accredited institutions. (I think that the fact that Gates and Dell have no degrees/certification relevant to their business is significant and belongs in their respective articles.) Rljacobson 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that (Dare I say Doctor) Hovind has a PhD in Theology specialising in Evolution, taught High School Science and Mathematics for 15 years and has dedicated his life to debating some of the most intelligent minds on the subject some 700 times a year. That has to count for something? The article currently doesn’t contain these facts. To provide the balanced view, I’d be the first to investigate the institution from which he got the degree, more than happy to say 15 years was at a small Christian school, more than happy to say he uses debate tactics but to leave the above out is biased to say the least.

Ironically, Charles Darwin himself had no formal science qualifications and had a degree in Theology…that kind of fact I find interesting and entirely relevant and I think should be included in the article.

PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That is all YOUR opinion. This isn't the Darwin article nor is this the place to make wild comparisons (Darwin did have a science background in an era where few people had access to education). Arbusto 20:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The tone of this conversation seems to have mysteriously become elevated. Your comparisons are perfectly relevant, even if I draw a different conclusion, as they help us work through what the content of the article should be, and I appreciate them. As far as I can tell, the facts you listed ARE in the article with the exception of the 700 speaking engagements a year (a doubtful number, BTW, since it means two talks a day every single day), which I believe should be included as long as it is couched in the appropriate language ("Hovind claims..."). Rljacobson 17:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Education, Tax Evasion and Assault Charges

I must admit that for me, all three of these matters took the edge off of Hovind’s passionate arguments and I have Wikipedia to thank for outlining some of the facts. In my life, however, I have learnt that there are two sides to every argument but I had to search all over the place outside of Wikipedia to find these relevant facts and some questions remain unanswered.

Again, I’ve never met the guy…but if for a second we took our biased hats off and assumed he was a great man. It’s not impossible to conceive that perhaps he is highly intelligent and could easily have passed at an accredited institution had he sufficient funds. It is not impossible to conceive that, his work is mostly religious and should fall under tax exempt status (which I think it is now) but that his personal admin is so poor that he never got tax exempt status causing him to (rightly) fall foul of the law. That he doesn’t pay tax is avoidance NOT evasion when done with in the parameters of the law and doesn’t reflect poorly on his character. It is not impossible to conceive that his side of the story (which doesn’t appear in the article currently) regarding the assault charges were true and why the case was dropped…it’s her word against his. Just a thought….please don’t bother arguing the above points, they are not my view just a challenge towards a neutral point of view.

If we don’t know the answers, let’s just include the facts which are mostly omitted and let the readers decide for themselves. I don’t think readers should have to go searching for themselves. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So add to it with WP:RS. Add the, as you said, "otherside." Arbusto 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ali G

First off, I really enjoy AliG and (a little ashamedly) own one of his DVD’s. My opinion, however, is that this section makes a mockery of the entire Encyclopaedia. Whilst a single reference might be appropriate to provide a lighter side, I don’t see the relevance. Admittedly because of the huge debate around it, I tracked down the Hovind interview - hilarious but I pitied ALL 4 of the participants. AliG is funny because he takes serious people and refuses to engage them in any serious manner so by its very nature, it's irrelevant.

The bulk of the interview revolves around asking if a computer can multiply 9999999999…99 x 9999999999…99., trying to explain to AliG that a homosapien is not a homosexual & that Kent Hovind did not in fact leave a “floater” in the toilet. Hovind was astonished and annoyed as were some of the other participants….I would have been too had I not been informed in advance of the comedic nature of the interview. I don’t think it goes to explaining anything about Hovind other than he’s famous enough to get on the AliG show. Perhaps the most famous of AliG’s interviews is the Posh and David Beckham interview which is not in their biographies so why should it feature as a section in Hovind’s unless you want to mock him in a biased manner?

I think it should be removed or reduced to single sentence mention. (Nevertheless worth a watch if you can get your hands on it :) ) PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I don't see what it adds to the article. Rljacobson 17:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the interview should be mentioned, as it seems to be the widest exposure Hovind has had and is significant for that reason. However, the quotation of the argument between him and "Ali G" is out of place, as no serious debate Hovind engaged in was quoted in the article and it thus seems inappropriate to include a humorous "debate." I propose editing the article along these lines. (But I agree that the show is worth watching.)

Hovind Theory

I spent a some time yesterday transcribing a summary of Hovind’s theory. I hope you find it useful and that it stays part of the content. PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The source you added is a link to Hovind's online store. That is, the link does not support the content presented, but rather a way to buy a DVD of the presented material. Could we have a better source that lays out his argument? Arbusto 20:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The source would be the actual DVD, no? I'm sure there's a standard way to reference such a thing. Rljacobson 17:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's talked about in the seminar notebook, you could mention that, I suppose. --Yakkai 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

More Negative: Argument with other Creationists [[13]]

More Negative: Questioning Legal Validity of $250,000 challenge [[14]]

Positive: Hovind defends his credentials. JzG, could this site be a source to say that “Hovind claims he talks some 700 times a year”? [[15]]

Summary

I have never met Kent Hovind, don’t even live on the same continent. I don’t disagree with the bulk of the content in the article. Where I do disagree, is in the style in which it is communicated in some areas and the biase against Hovind. I think the facts speak for themselves without the editors having to add opinion, even if subtly. A simple search of Hovind on Google will yield more than enough Anti-Hovind biased evidence – I would hope that it is our job to provide the one place where readers can discover an unbiased view of the facts.

Thanks for reading!

PappaG 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay so improve it. Make sure your edits are nPOV. Arbusto 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, WP:NPOV requires that articles reflect the balance of informed opinion, which is soundly against young-earth creationism, which is not known to be a majority view even amongst Christians. The fact that Hovind relies largely on logical fallacy should not be lost. Just zis Guy you know? 17:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the rather odd text "Below is an exact transcript from his uncopyrighted DVD, “Part 6, The Hovind Theory” giving a summarised account of his hypothesis:"

Generally, if somebody says something is "uncopyrighted" like this, that means they made the usual mistake, thinking somebody has to register a copyright, or claim one, which they do not. Can we confirm the status of the text. --Rob 10:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

He has specifically relinquished copyright on all his stuff so people can copy and spread it. --Davril2020 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Above and beyond all the problems noted in this page concerning the content of the article, I'd like to note that as it currently stands there are a daunting number of errors in grammar. Given the edit history, I'm not inclined to spend a lot of time here working on it myself. It just does not read like an encyclopedia article yet. -- Wesley R. Elsberry 04:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Ali G Section rewrite

Since my attempted rewrite of the Ali G section was reverted, I would just like to make a few points about this section of the article.

1. The first sentence reads:

"Kent Hovind was interviewed by Ali G in the season 1 episode entitled "Science", broadcast in the USA by HBO."

This is a misleading reference. Ali G did a show for several years in Britain (on Channel 4) before coming to the United States and doing a show for HBO featuring interviews with Americans like Hovind. This sentence should state that the interview is from Season 1 of the HBO show "Da Ali G Show" to distinguish it from Sacha Baron Cohen's previous show on Chananel 4. "Da Ali G Show" was rebroadcast on Channel 4 as "Ali G in da U.S.Aiii."


2. The article does not clearly state that the interview was on a comedy show. Not everyone knows who Ali G is and that his interviewees invariably come off looking like buffoons.

3. The article implies that the point of the Ali G segment was a debate with Coates, an evolutionist. Coates is identified on the show as a "futurologist." The set-up of the segment was that it was about science and technology in general.

4. The quoted material does not significantly add to an understanding of Hovind or his work. At this point I think I should say that I am in no way sympathetic to Hovind and am a big Ali G fan. However, the quoted material seems superfluous and out of place in an encyclopedia entry, which is supposed to be a brief explanation of a subject. Anyone who wants can watch the segment can search for "Ali G" on Google video.

5. The section could better summarize the portions of the segment where Hovind speaks. The first part is quoted verbatim, but the later part, where "Ali G" accuses Hovind of not flushing a toilet is omitted. This can be discussed tastefully, without using the word "floater."

This section has a place in the article, as it shows Hovind's brush with fame outside the evolution-creation debate (as the butt of a joke on a television program), but should be significantly rewritten and the quoted material deleted.

  • I am rewriting the Ali G section consistent with the above, as it appears from comments on this page that editorial consensus at this point is in favor of including a reference to Ali G but omitting the quoted dialogue. But I agree, the interview is hilarious. Do yourself a favor and search "Ali G" in Google video. --JChap 01:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ali G in America

With regards to the most recent edit, it was changed from saying the Ali G show was made in America to it being broadcast in America. I believe the ones on HBO were actually recorded in America and are a different show than when Ali G was in England, so the previous version was technically more correct. --Kugamazog 16:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reverts for POV, Relevance

In the sentence:

"Critics of Hovind have charged that Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill as it has unreasonably low graduation requirements-according to who's standards are unknown, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme, among other issues,"

I removed the phrase "-according to who's standards are unknown," added by anonymous User:167.136.235.247 because it makes the sentence ungrammatical. If you believe the contribution is original research, it is better to take it up on the Talk page. --JChap 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed "who is an outspoken individual on the subject of intelligent design," because the description was vague. --JChap 04:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


I'm not sure why the paragraph merited removal:

"Finally, a webpage details Hovind's IRS and county permit battles, ostensibly created by a supporter, "Richard." Word documents reveal that "Richard" is a really a sock puppet (or shill) created by Hovind and his staff. [9] Critics claim this is yet another example of Hovind's lack of candor."

Certainly it's a POV, but it was in the 'criticism' section. It's sourced (as is the page it references) - and the information may be verified by anybody.

  • Thanks for your post. The deleted material does not seem relevant. His legal problems are certainly relevant, but a website allegedly created by him about those problems seems like minutiae. Incidentally, according to the cited source, the claims made in the deleted material are not strictly accurate. The source says that it really doesn't know who created the Word docs, but that because of the author's name, it was probably someone who has access to Hovind's computer, possibly an employee, or (less likely) Hovind himself. Saying "Hovind and his staff" misrepresents the source, as it asserts more certainty about the identity of the website's creator than can really be verified. In short, it is suspicion, not proof. --JChap 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This page is sad

This Wikipedia page is very poorly assembled. It is blatently slanderous to Kent Hovind and creationism in general. The above comments about irrelevance are completely correct. Instead of presenting a fair and balanced view of the tone and demeanor that Kent Hovind actually has when he presents his message, this page purposefully focuses on the bizarre and unusual beliefs of Hovind, as well as some ridiculously irrelevant legal matters. The assault and battery charge is completely bogus and anyone who reads the courtroom transcripts would know that. But by placing only a few key phrases about his legal problems, this page makes him out to be some kind of repeat criminal. Now certainly few people agree with Hovind's views; but that does not entitle anyone to make him out to be something he's not. He passionately believes and speaks out for his beliefs... that's all. He's free to do it. Bringing up legal troubles is just a cheap shot.

-- Well its worth noting that this is a biography of said preacher, and not a tribute or fanpage. When something major can point to his possible personality when hes not in the public eye it has more than justification to be here.

On a side note I'm removing that bracketed bit in praise of his argument against social security. Its not appropriate and remains without a citation to the point where I believe one isn't coming. If someone does produce a link we can put it back. --[[User:Thenormalyears|Thenormalyears]

All major life events must be cited in a biography and legal issues are major life events. To be slanderous the information must be incorrect, misleading, or wrong. Do you believe there are factual errors in the page? If so list them and they will be changed. --Davril2020 21:32, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I must agree with fellow wikis claiming character assassination. I've watched Hovind's videos and some information given contradicts what he said straight from his videos. Yes, I'm a Creationist, but even if he were a typical evolutionist, blatant lies do not belong in encyclopedias.--Philcarr 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Philcarr. Since your first edit was yesterday, let me welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contribution, but it would be helpful if you could provide a list of said "blatant lies." As you will observe from the above discussions, this is a common criticism of this page. The critics are then asked to provide examples of incorrect statements, but fail to do so, although they sometimes ask to have relevant, sourced information about Hovind's legal problems deleted. To reiterate, it would really improve the quality of the page if you could provide a list of the "blatant lies" you accuse the page of containing. --JChap 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth Kent Hovind doesn't have any formal scientific training, so I wouldn't put too much stock into anything you see in his videos. It's pretty much him versus the entire scientific establishment on most of the "issues" in those videos. --Cyde↔Weys 15:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't accusing the actual article of containing lies, rather the talk page. I have no source, but, being a Creationist, I have watched some of his work, and what I have seen contradicts some of the negativity written about him here. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I'd rather not hear bad things about people, especially if I know they are untrue.--Philcarr 15:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, please provide us with examples of untruth that you have found here in this page. It will help us make sure they don't get into the article. --Kristjan Wager 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The page is only sad because Kent Hovind is a sad, sad man. --Cyde↔Weys 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Focus on Hovind's disagreements with modern science

I have reorganized the portion of the article describing Hovind's ideas and have focussed it more on presentation of his theory and his disagreements with modern science. I've deleted the parts that discuss his political beliefs, as he is known for his "scientific" theories, not his politics. --JChap 19:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, when I did the partial rv I didn't realise you had deleted the reference to Hovind's political views. I'm not quite sure that they could be classed as non-notable; his social and political views are worthy of inclusion because he is a notable proponent of them (particularly strong attacks on centralised government and abortion for instance). At least, that is how it seems to me. --Davril2020 19:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • I went back and tried to find some notability for his views other than creationism. Websites devoted to Hovind discuss them, but other than that he seems to be known for creationism and not his views on abortion or centralized government. The SPLC calls his anti-Semitic because of his distribution of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, but that's about it. DailyKos's article on him only mentions his views on creationism, not his wider views on politics. His tax resister/protestor status could be incorporated into the section discussing his legal troubles. If I had known there would have been such a negative and sudden reaction to removing the section on his politics, I would have just made my other changes relating to improving how this is organized and adding the section on Hovind and the Big Bang. As it is, all of these changes have been reverted. I think the article, as it stands now, is factually correct but poorly written, repetitious and unorganized. --JChap 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Most definitely, if you've ever seen a Kent Hovind performance you'll know that only spends about half of his time on evolution. Kent Hovind isn't known for just being anti-evolution ... he's known for all of his views. This article is "Kent Hovind", not "Kent Hovind on evolution", so his views in other areas are most definitely relevant. I put them back in. --Cyde↔Weys 20:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

  • We seem to be on at about the same time. I discuss my problems in confirming his "notability" on matters other than creationism above, but would welcome any evidence you have of notability as to these matters above. I would like to talk about some of my other edits to the article which were reverted. I'll just take two examples. First, I deleted the word "much" from the description of his being the subject of controversy and public discussion. I don't think that adjective is justified with respect to Hovind, who is not ultimately that prominent. Second, you deleted the section I wrote on his "refutation" of the Big Bang theory. I believe this is relevant. Generally, my problems with the current version are that it is disorganized and repetitious, but you have deleted the changes I tried to make to improve these too. Please explain any problems you have with my changes on this page please. --JChap 20:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"Jack Chick's brand" non-NPOV

The trivia section contained the following: "Hovind's ideas on evolution, and science in general, have been published in Chick Tracts, comic strips intended to convert people to Jack Chick's brand of Christianity."

This is a little unfair - Chick does not publicly sponsor or advertise any specific church or "brand" of Christianity, nor do the tracts themselves. I've changed it to "convert people to Fundamentalist Christian Baptism." - Mule Man 22:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with your change, but Chich actually advocates an anti-Catholic view, which is rare outside his specific brand of Christianity. --Kristjan Wager 15:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth Kent Hovind advocates the same anti-Catholic view (as well as anti-Jew, anti-Mormon, anti-government ... basically anti- everything that isn't exactly the way he wants it according to his narrow worldview). --Cyde↔Weys 15:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I added the original sentence. I figured that some people might not know what a chick tract is, so I tried to define it as succintly as possible. Saying that Chick favours "Christianity" isn't nearly specific enough, because he is trying to convert a lot of people who think they are already Christians: Catholics and Mormons, for instance. He is also trying to convince people that Young-Earth creationism is true, although a lot of christians accept an old Earth. I'm not saying Chick advertises a particular church, but that he does favour a particular variety of Christianity. I used the following sense of he word "brand" (from dictionary.com): brand 1(c): A distinctive category; a particular kind: a brand of comedy that I do not care for. I could make a reference to Sarah Silverman's foul-mouthed 'brand' of comedy, but that didn't mean she invented it (she borrows from comedians like George Carlin and Howard Stern), or that no other comedians have a similar style. 32.97.110.142 03:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Laughable

This article is absolutely laughable it is so biased against Kent Hovind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluegrassblake (talk • contribs) .

Describing seriously negative facts can't be laughable. Perhaps you mean more positive information has been omitted? If so, and if the info is available from reliable sources, by all means try to build a consensus here on the talk page or be WP:BOLD and add it to the article (but expect to be reverted if you don't provide sufficient sources). AvB ÷ talk 00:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Debates

I've added several links to Kent Hovind's debates. Any objections? I think this is a good place for them, so people can find them and hear them. --Occcam 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As you've seen there are objections. Discussing your disputed edits here is alright; reinserting them after being reverted is not. This is how edit wars begin. Please revert your additions for now. AvB ÷ talk 08:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's Seminar Transcripts

I've added the following link to Hovind's seminar transcripts.jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_introduction.htm Any objections? They tell what he espouses on his videos, so I see good reason for them to be here. --Occcam 08:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

As you've seen there are objections. Discussing your disputed edits here is alright; reinserting them after being reverted is not. This is how edit wars begin. Please revert your additions for now. AvB ÷ talk 08:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
You bet we object to you adding in the website jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_introduction.htm www.jcsm.org/Creation/Hovind/seminar_introduction.htm That Jason Gastrich webpage, who has a long history of sock puppets and has been banned, (welcome new user) is garabage was already removed. Along with all the other pointless links of his "debates." WP:ISNOT a link farm. If people are interested in those debates they can see them at Hovind's page. Fact is they serve no scholarly purpose in the article and are easily available without individual links to 10 odd downloads. BTW: Hi Jason. --Jasonwatch 23:07, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by User:Occcam and User:Jasonwatch

Occcam, Jasonwatch has reverted your edits without bothering to discuss this on the talk page. Although I personally want to give you the benefit of the doubt for now and do not support branding you a User:Jason Gastrich sock puppet at this point, you should realize there's only one person supporting your edits here: User:Occcam. Not exactly a WP:CONSENSUS. AvB ÷ talk 22:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Poorly written article

This article is, I am satisfied, basically factually accurate, but is poorly written and (in places) misleading. Specifically, it has the following problems:

  1. {{Fact}} tags have been sprinkled (I dare say) liberally throughout the article by Hovind supporters for such statements as "Hovind is married and has three children and 4 grandchildren." They then claim that the article is poorly sourced. These should be pretty easy to find refs for.
  2. The first paragraph refers to Hovind as "Dr. Dino." This is misleading for two reasons: (i) his Ph.D. is in Christian Education, not in paleontology and (ii) it is from an unaccredited university. Although the first issue is addressed obliquely and the second explicitly lower in the article, using this name in the first paragraph without a disclaimer stronger than "self-styled" could mislead the casual reader.
  3. This paragraph says he is the subject of "much" controversy and public scrutiny. This overstates his notoriety, which does not seem to be that great.
  4. The one sentence reference to his son Eric's speaking engagements is unsourced, does not seem relevant and should be eliminated.
  5. The section where Hovind claims that Social Security is a "Ponzi scheme" contains the following parenthetical claim "(many conservative and libertarian economists agree, e.g. Thomas Sowell)." This is a value judgment or an observation, not a statement of economic analysis as such. It would be more accurate to say "(a common view among conservatives)."
  6. The discussion of property taxes in the DAL section is outdated.
  7. The end of the Hovind theory section contains a statement of general criticisms of Hovind's arguments, stated as criticisms of the "theory" specifically. These should be moved to the "Criticisms" section. Any criticisms specifically applicable to the HT would be appropriate in this section.
  8. The "Other Beliefs" section contains many subheadings with only one or two sentences under them. These should be combined so that there are fewer subheadings with longer discussions under each.
  9. "Dinosaurs and the Loch Ness Monster" should be expanded. Hovind asserts that he is an expert in "cryptozoology" in his videos and "investigates" numerous claims of Nessie-like creatures, which he claims are plesiosaurs. He believes that the existence of plesiosaurs in the modern world proves creationism. (I confess his logic escapes me here.) he also claims that references to dragons should be understood as references to dinosaurs. Since he claims expertise in cryptozoology generally, it should be pointed out that his research is confined to potential modern dinosaurs, and does not extend to investigations into other areas of interest to cryptozoologists.
  10. I am still unconvinced, based on research and as discussed above, that Hovind's ideas on politics and on cancer cures have received much notice and do not believe that they are important to include in the article. However, two other users have objected to removing this material. In its current form, this material is especially poorly written and does not flow well with the rest of the article.

I finally have time to work on this again, but am reluctant to do so if the changes will just wind up being reverted again with little-to-no discussion. JChap 03:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I added some sources including a court document Hovind provided of his lifes stories. And I pushed the contro. remarks to a lower area on the page so the article reads better. It seems that is how they did it on the ann coulter article. I think the contro. remarks should stay as in the Coulter article. It gives people an idea of the types of person the article is by letting hir or her own words speak for themself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JjJjJj (talk • contribs)
If the controversial statements are going to stay, any idea on how to organize the section better? JChap (Talk) 05:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs work, but many other articles have lists of controversial quotes by people. Going back to the Ann Coulter article, it is clear that lists of crazy claims fine at the bottom. But it would be better to have a good way to tie them in.

sic

"Oklahoma City bombing was done on purpose. Did you know the Federal Government blew up their [sic] own building to blame it on the militias and to get rid of some people that weren't cooperating with the system?" Where's the error in spelling? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.196.235 (talk • contribs)

The label [sic] (Latin for thus) is applied to both spelling and grammatical errors. Here the issue is subject-verb agreement. "Their" should be "its." JChap (Talk) 10:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Hovind Theory criticism

The end of the Hovind Theory section contains a list of criticisms from 'websites', but the only website cited seems very non-notable and doesn't even identify the author. Because of this I chopped it out. This is the text I chopped:

Some anti-Hovind websites critically analyse various versions of the Hovind Theory. Included in these criticisms: Hovind uses contradictions, straw man, red herring, and flat out false arguments in his theory.[1] For example, Hovind supports his claims with material written by fellow Young Earth Creationist Walt Brown, which contains serious scientific errors.[1]

Ashmoo 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

There is a saying about "throwing stones into the dark" that says if you hear a squeal you have hit something. The following article has obviously cost a "Skeptic" many hours of research and writing - especially for someone whose work, the article claims, is unimportant. Please read on and see what actual convicted wrong Dr. Kent Hovind has done - apart from standing up to evolutionists and winning a debate against the Skeptic magazine editor. Note the use of inflammatory language through-out the article. I imagine that Dr. Kent Hovind has thrown a stone and this is the squeal we are hearing (reading!). The preceding comment was inserted into the article by User:Kiggen.

Hey wikipedia staff. Wikipedia sucks. What a load of inaccurate info. I use blender 3d software often and recently one of the creators got a translation from wikipedia that turned out to be a racial slur. It went into production of the DVD and got distributed to the nation offended. Go Wikipedia! Wikipedia is a pile of ranting lies and trash. Nice job boys!

Please erase this right away so people do not see the truth. The preceding comment was inserted into the article by an anonymous user.

  • Translations are always dangerous when you can't speak the language yourself. Lots of people have been bitten by babelfish or similar. That's an indictment of the blender guy as much as it is of Wikipedia. 32.97.110.142 18:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Trying to murder Dr. Hovind!

Ok, first of all it seems that almost 100% of all the comments here are to murder Dr. Kent Hovind. I would like to see proof of anyone here that has the education to prove their disagreements. It does not matter what his IQ is or if he received his education from an uncredited university. Dr. Kent Hovind has had debates against some of the worlds most knowledgeable evolutionists, and I certainly do not believe that any of you could even come close to matching any of those evolutionists. If you people believe that he is such a bad person why don't you debate him yourself and see how it turns out. By the way over 3,000 professors have refused to debate against Dr. Kent Hovind and I still haven't heard or seen anyone that has been paid $250,000 for proof of evolutionary evidence.

Do you have any comments on the actual article, or are you just making personal attacks on us? The later seems to be the case, and is inappropriate. --Kristjan Wager 11:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I always like to assume the best, but this little conversation has the potential to fall into the troll pit pretty quick. If you have something to say (either way), say it with verified, relevant facts. Let´s leave our hatchets buried and cut this off before it turns into another stain on this talk page... this wikipage is touchy enough already. --KEM 16:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hovind is not a "Dr." -An unaccredited "degree" is meaningless. I can set up C56C's State University and award myself a degree in Biology to call myself a doctor. However, is it deceitful and improper. Mailing ordering a degree from a school set up in someone's home is no different.
Hovind's poor grammar, lack of accredited degrees, lack of education, and refusal to pay taxes aside, his arguments and claims lack evidence and logic. Fact is he "preaches to the choir" and people who want to have their beliefs reaffirmed, and he makes over a million dollars income at it.
Most importantly, Hovind does children a great disservice. His homeschool DVD's and debates, which lack science and a rational view of the world create another generation of Christian zealots who believe they are right with a miscontrued understanding of how the world operates. These children grow up without a chance to understand the wonders of science and history. Well-meaning parents teach their kids grossly incorrect things about the world.
It's not a okay when someone in the middle east feeds religious extremists falsehoods over scientific fact, and its not okay when Hovind does it in Florida. C56C 08:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of the Dr. title

Hovind does not follow Florida law, and wrongly calls himself doctor. The citation is: [16]

Title XLVI

CRIMES Chapter 817 FRAUDULENT PRACTICES

817.567 Making false claims of academic degree or title.--

(1) No person in the state may claim, either orally or in writing, to possess an academic degree, as defined in s. 1005.02, or the title associated with said degree, unless the person has, in fact, been awarded said degree from an institution that is:

(a) Accredited by a regional or professional accrediting agency recognized by the United States Department of Education or the Commission on Recognition of Postsecondary Accreditation;

(b) Provided, operated, and supported by a state government or any of its political subdivisions or by the Federal Government;

(c) A school, institute, college, or university chartered outside the United States, the academic degree from which has been validated by an accrediting agency approved by the United States Department of Education as equivalent to the baccalaureate or postbaccalaureate degree conferred by a regionally accredited college or university in the United States;

(d) Licensed by the Commission for Independent Education pursuant to ss. 1005.01-1005.38 or exempt from licensure pursuant to chapter 1005; or

(e) A religious seminary, institute, college, or university which offers only educational programs that prepare students for a religious vocation, career, occupation, profession, or lifework, and the nomenclature of whose certificates, diplomas, or degrees clearly identifies the religious character of the educational program.

(2) No person awarded a doctorate degree from an institution not listed in subsection (1) shall claim in the state, either orally or in writing, the title "dr." before the person's name or any mark, appellation, or series of letters, numbers, or words, such as, but not limited to, "Ph.D.," "Ed.D.," "D.N.," or "D.Th.," which signifies, purports, or is generally taken to signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of a doctorate degree, after the person's name.

(3)(a) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (1) or subsection (2) commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(b) In addition to any penalty imposed under paragraph (a), a violator shall be subject to any other penalty provided by law, including, but not limited to, suspension or revocation of the violator's license or certification to practice an occupation or profession.

Looking over court documents linked, which Hovind calls himself doctor[17], he clearly violates Florida law. CaliEd 22:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

You should report your concerns about Hovind violating the law to FL authorities, not Wikipedia. JChap T/E 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
How about changing the wording of it. Since he goes by Dr. Dino and his official webpage is title as such, the law has relevance in relation to his education and title usage. CaliEd 22:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is the place of WP to draw a legal conclusion on this matter. Contrast this to the "legal problems" section of the article, which reports actions taken against him by the properly constituted authorities. Also, as User:John Broughton has pointed out (and I agree) the section you reference applies to institutions that award degrees, not holders of the degrees. JChap T/E 22:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


I removed the text about violating the law, regarding his PhD, from the article because, in fact, it appears to me that Hovind is NOT in violation of Florida law, as stated above. (Yes, I think he's a quack and a fraud, for the record.) My reading of the stated law is that his degree is per (1)(e) - his "PhD" is in "Christian Education", I believe, from a clearly religious "institute".
[edit conflict] I agree a legal conclusion is not proper, but a mention that it is limited in a legal sense should be mentioned. Also in reference to the law: "No person awarded a doctorate degree from an institution not listed in subsection (1) shall claim in the state, either orally or in writing, the title "dr." before the person's name." That doesn't refer to an institution. CaliEd
Note that (2) does NOT require Hovind to disclose ANY details of his PhD, which seemed to a point of the argument of the text I removed. Certainly it's misleading when he does not so disclose (which is why I left that part in the article), but I also have no disagreement with the removal of that argument (which just happened), since there are so many more important points to make (and the point that he's not a scientist is made repeatedly, elsewhere in the article.) John Broughton 22:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

? Which part of: "(2) No person awarded a doctorate degree from an institution not listed in subsection (1) shall claim in the state, either orally or in writing, the title "dr." before the person's name or any mark, appellation, or series of letters, numbers, or words, such as, but not limited to, "Ph.D.," "Ed.D.," "D.N.," or "D.Th.," which signifies, purports, or is generally taken to signify satisfactory completion of the requirements of a doctorate degree, after the person's name." CaliEd 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

As Patriot University does appear to "clearly identify" the religious nature of the education on its degree "nomenclature" (i.e., calling it "Religious Education"), it appears to meet (1)(e) and thus Hovind would not be prohibited from using the title by section (2) (which states that a person may not use the title "Dr." if not awarded a degree from one of the institutions listed in (1)). JChap T/E 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you are correct. CaliEd 23:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What Slander!

This article is a personal debasement of character by a coward who hides behind a username! An encyclopedia is supposed to be a resource for unbiased , true material, not a pack of libelist half-truths. I demand that this article be removed for false content! —Preceding unsigned comment added by stoic0209 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any specific points in the argument that you object to? JoshuaZ 23:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Judging from the history of "new" users making similar conclusory accusations on this talk page, probably not. The article is better sourced than I've seen it in months. The complaints seem to have increased since Hovind (i) lost a Tax Court case and (ii) was indicted on federal charges last month. The court case offered new information into how Hovind operates his ministry. The problem with the article, from the perspective of Hovind's supporters, is not that the article contains untruths, but rather that it contains well-documented truth that is harmful to Hovind's reputation. JChap T/E 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Kent Hovind/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
9/10 This article is fairly comprehensive and well-sourced. The potentially controversial elements for a living person's biography, such as details of Hovind's encounters with the law, are supported by court records and non-editorial newspaper articles. 32.97.110.142 17:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Extremely well sourced on his legal woes--but nothing at all on anything else he has done. One reading gets the impression that everything Hovind touches ends up in court. I think we need a little more balance here for everyone's sake. Hovind is a controversial figure mainly because he is a Young Earth Creationist and like other religious or politically charged bios it opens the door for a debate on the issues while neglecting the point of the article--to give a balanced biography without the smear.— Possible single purpose account: Lord9Genesis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 05:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This article is too heavily focussed on the negatives of Kent. His theories may be wrong but he is definitely well-meaning and a profound human being that has many exemplary traits, but regardless, I don't find much centraility in this article which is derserved for everyone. - Chance —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.56.75 (talk • contribs)

9/10 for being well-sourced, researched, and presented. Could use some minor clean ups. The main trouble is the constant attacks from Hovind defenders that enjoy removing his legal problems. Arbustoo 01:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 13:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b "The Hovind Theory". Kent Hovind.com. 2002.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kent_Hovind/Archive_1&oldid=1088833462"