Talk:Kent Hovind

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 16:52, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Hovinds owe I.R.S. over $3,000,000

From Forbes:

Mr. and Mrs. Hovind did not file returns. They were both involved in the financial transactions of the enterprises and they lived together. That makes it hard for the IRS to sort out which of them should be taxed on the unreported income. They are married, but filing a joint return is an election. The solution is for the IRS to send a deficiency notice to each of them for 100% of the tax. With interest and penalties the balance for the years 1998 to 2006 is over $3,000,000.

US Tax Court (JO DELIA HOVIND, Petitioner y. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent):[1] --Cms13ca (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The Frorbs article links to court documents. If I'm reading this correctly, there is $1.5m in taxable income spread over several years and they both need to independently pay tax on this income. Can anyone confirm? Any ideas of how to integrate this? TippyGoomba (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to take a look at it, but right now I'm dealing with real world tax problems for my own clients (and trying to get some sleep). The rule, by the way, is that the IRS can collect the tax from either or both parties, but each party gets credit for each dollar the IRS collects from the other person (in other words, the IRS does not get to double-dip). It may be at least next week before I can get to this. Famspear (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Science Backed

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Dr. Kent Hovind fully embraces science and scientific evidence. For those interested, You should watch his series, where he uses scientific evidence not only to prove Creation, but also in direct correspondence with the Scriptures. He also shows 'proof' that Evolution uses and shows you outright why it isn't really proof. Do not discredit the man until you have heard from his own mouth what he believes and why he believes it. You can find several of his lectures here. If you have a desire for true science, education, and truth than watch the videos all the way thoroughly, you'll find it completely fascinating as I did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceFusionVideos (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Hilarious. --Onorem♠Dil 21:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC) I remember reading that article of his in Nature, or was it Science, oh yeah, no...... Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC) Mr. Kent Hovind doesn't know the first thing about science, scholarship, or academic credentials. His series is worth watching though, it's quite funny to see inside that head of his. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:24, 11 October 2012 (UTC) We have watched his series. We have watched his videos all the way through. They are the imaginings of a five year old, not serious science. They contradict several scientific fields at large, and multiple laws of physics. He doesn't "show" a thing, except to the ignorant and easily duped by substance-free charisma. He's also not a doctor. He went to "school" for six weeks in a "school" that's literally a double wide trailer with one staff member, no class curriculum, and no textbooks. His "thesis" would not have gotten me a passing grade in junior high, let alone at the doctorate level. He's a fraud literally in prison for fraud. Why anyone would believe him now is beyond my comprehension.Farsight001 (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Kent has been moved again.

According to Bureau of Prison inmate locator, Kent is now at MDC Brooklyn. He was transferred there from Oklahoma City and, according to several of his supporters, he may be moved to a new prison in New Hampshire. -- Cms13ca (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Update: Kent is now at FCI in Berlin, New Hampshire, which is a medium security facility housing male offenders. An adjacent satellite prison camp houses minimum security male inmates. -- Cms13ca (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

• Is it normal for a federal inmate to be transferred from prison to prison as often as Mr. Hovind has been? In other words, is this a notable number of transfers, or is it common enough to be non-notable? -- Davidkevin (talk) 00:38, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

More balanced intro paragraph

Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American young Earth creationist. Hovind has spoken on creation science and has aimed to convince listeners to reject the encompassing theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Some of Hovind's views, however, have been criticized by other young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism in 1991, and frequently spoke on young Earth creationism at seminars at private schools and churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions (depositing amounts less than $10,000 to avoid IRS paperwork). As of October 2012, Hovind is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Berlin, New Hampshire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCE5:D220:3CEA:8ABD:F4F7:C38C (talk) 00:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

You've removed the observation that Mr. Hovind's absurd ideas are contradicted by science. That removes balance. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The intro summarizes the article as it is; if the content is not 50/50, then the intro is not either (because it would not be a faithful summary of it). Per WP:NPOV policy, articles are explicitly forbidden from trying to attain a 50/50 balance if the weight of the sources are not, but instead must use the same (non)balance per the sources. DMacks (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's old website 216.248.142.66

Kent Hovind's old website, before he paid for a domain, was 216.248.142.66 . The old website can be search for further documentation about Hovind's business and beliefs. SalHamton (talk) 00:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hovind

Is it about time for a seperate Eric Hovind article? It seems he has tried to pick up where his father has left off. Thoughts? Mophedd (talk) 09:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't' think Eric is as notable as his dad. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Eric Hovind's not nearly as notable as his dad. No need for a wiki article on Eric. SalHamton (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist That is what it can be seen on the page as now Hovind's views are contradicted by Evolutionists views and some of his ideas have also been criticized by young Earth creationist Kent Hovind clearly says in many of his videos, he likes science but he doesnt like evolution. Please change ASAP JoeDavidson1 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, frankly, Kent Hovind is a lying fraudster who is, literally, in prison for fraud. He is caught lying and making stuff up red handed in his videos all the time. We can't really trust what he has to say. Instead, we use credible sources. So this requested change is simply not going to happen.Farsight001 (talk) 00:50, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Kent Hovinds quote.

http://www.creationism.org/english/HovindSem1Text_en.htm

I like science, folks; I collect science books.

Wikipedia is heavily evolutionary biology propaganda biased. I will insert his comment from the above source in there.

Jinx69 (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no question that he said it. The problem is that he is full of crap, and thus leaving the statement as a stand alone in the article without clarifying that he is full of crap gives a false impression of his statement and misleads the reader.Farsight001 (talk) 04:39, 17

December 2012 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHAH Yes his words from his own mouth with source= 'full of crap' because you say so. It is sourced. They are from his own mouth. If you do not believe that i do not care nor does the public who logs on to this page. Wikipedia is HEAVILY evolutionary biology propaganda biased. Just because the atheism/evolutionism religions are baseless and can not tolerate criticism no even slight questioning/balanced views(as witnessed by your comment) does not mean as a editor of wikipedia i will allow ignorant disregard for balance.

Jinx69 (talk) 07:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki articles are not based on the atheism religions 'beliefs' ie 'The problem is that he is full of crap'. It is sourced from his own mouth.

Jinx69 (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus to add this to the article, edit warring will get you nowhere. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no consensus against it other than deleting it with no explanation and the opinion of someone. A citation has been provided as requested. As editors of wikipedia we do not make adjustments based on OPINION. The atheism religion dominates this article and gives it non NPOV. I am going to make adjustments to bring in some NPOV. Edit warring will get you nowhere.

Jinx69 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

First of all, there is no need to bring up religion or atheism. It is irrelevant here. I myself am a devout Christian. I attend church almost daily, am currently transcribing the bible by hand, and surround myself with likewise devout Christians. My faith has nothing to do with why I am removing the quote by Hovind, and no editor's faith needs mentioning here at all. As I already explained, Hovind consistently lies and makes things up in his videos. He will even go so far as to call some of his speeches "debates" even though he has no opponent. It is for this reason that we cannot trust his words. He says he is not against science, and yet his ideas contradict half a dozen fields of science and several laws of nature. For example, he claims that the grand canyon could have been carved in about five minutes by water. This necessitates that the water be traveling roughly five times the speed of sound, a velocity at which its friction with the air would vaporize it in a matter of seconds. The notion also violates the law of conservation of momentum because the grand canyon is extremely sinuous and the water would not willingly bend like that. Any cutting of water traveling at such high speed would necessarily cut in a straight line (though again, the water would nearly instantly vaporize at that speed). There is no atheist propaganda or evolution propaganda. Hovind is just THAT off the wall with his ideas. I know he is quite charismatic and confident in his speeches, but facts he does not have, and I'm sorry to burst your bubble like this. You clearly were a fan.Farsight001 (talk) 14:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Second, I believe you should read the NPOV policy more closely. It necessitates not that we give equal credence to both views, but that we reflect the balance displayed in reliable sources. That is our job at wikipedia - to simply report what reliable sources say. If every reliable source said the earth was flat, we would report that the earth was flat. Since nearly every reliable source on the issue considers Hovind a liar and a fraudster, we are REQUIRED to reflect that in this article.Farsight001 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

'Hovind consistently lies and makes things up in his videos.'

We do not care what your 'opinion' is. Again NPOV with sources. As you opened the discussion to science which i will not go any further with than saying- 'evolution'/neodarwinian 'theory' NEVER HAPPENED and is the greatest myth EVER. But that is for another time and place. I am here to bring some MINOR balance to this article and remove the overt evolutionary biology propaganda. You may add your opinion ( that you 'believe' he is (insert attack based on complete lack of scientific intelligence and research here)) after the quote with reference i provide. I understand the atheism religions faith is so fragile that it must eliminate all balance but as editors of wikipedia we have a duty to bring the public NPOV non biased articles. NOT the atheism religions 'opinion'.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nor does my opinion, or your opinion, matter as to what the content of the article should be. I was only trying to help you understand why the article is the way it is. If you don't want to accept my help, then you are going to have problems of the blocked account kind. That is not a threat. I am just saying that if you don't start following policy, which I am trying to help you do, you will find yourself blocked from editing quite quickly.

The sources for Hovind's scientific illiteracy are already in the article. And I am not opposing any sort of discussion of science. Rather, I would relish it. But again, what Hovind posits is in no way science. You can call evolution the greatest myth ever, but I personally own scientific proof of it, and I could head to the nearby library and find a house sized room filled, wall to wall, with scholarly scientific journals and studies with evidence supporting the idea.

And once again, NPOV dictates that we balance the article to reflect the balance of reliable sources. Since reliable sources unequivocably reject Hovind as a liar, we MUST reflect this attitude in the article. Not add "pro-hovind" material as you are trying to do would actually BREAK npov policy.

And again, please do not bring up religion. It is irrelevant here. I myself am a devout Christian, so to attack me as atheistic is simply laughable. You cannot simply take anything that challenges your personal world view and accuse it of being something you don't like.Farsight001 (talk) 15:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You can call evolution the greatest myth ever, but I personally own scientific proof of it, and I could head to the nearby library and find a house sized room filled, wall to wall, with scholarly scientific journals and studies with evidence supporting the idea.'

You obviously have not even read the bible of the atheism/evolutionism religions (Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species'). I was only trying to help you understand why the article is the way it is. If you don't want to accept my help, then you are going to have problems of the blocked account kind. That is not a threat. I am just saying that if you don't start following policy, which I am trying to help you do, you will find yourself blocked from editing quite quickly.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the origin of species. Darwin paved the way for evolutionary ideas, but he is like Freud is in the psych world today. They paved the way, but their ideas are outdated and overly simplistic. We have far more up to date, in depth, and precise sources to read today.

And once again, I must ask you to refrain from making statements about the religious beliefs of other users, especially when you repeatedly accuse a Christian like myself of being an atheist. It is irrelevant here and frankly, insulting to me. Now do you have anything real, reasonable, and useful to add to the article or not?Farsight001 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I would encourage everyone on the planet to read Charles Darwins 'On the origin of faeces i mean species'. Less people would believe the most dogmatic, scientifically inhibiting, mass delusion, in the history of mankind. This applies to atheists also.

'Now do you have anything real, reasonable, and useful to add to the article or not?'

I am not here to show the complete absence of empirical science underlying the neodarwinian myth religion but to bring some non evolutionary biology propaganda POV to articles.

Jinx69 (talk) 15:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If that is your goal, then you will have a hard time accomplishing it. As I explained twice already, we are required to reflect in the article the general perspective of reliable sources. Since they unequivocably consider Hovind a lying fraudster, we are REQUIRED, regardless of our personal views, to reflect this in the article. If you want the pov of the article changed, the only way to do that is to inspire the authors of the reliable sources themselves to change.Farsight001 (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I enjoy the Kent Hovind quote that "I like science, folks; I collect science books." If you notice Hovind "likes" science and "collects" books. So it's not that he understands science or has any science education, but simply he "likes" it similiar to a child liking an airplane without understanding it. Furthermore, he "collects" books. Specifically, he "collects" outdated children's textbooks. Note that he doesn't say he read or understands them, but merely he has a shelf full of unread books that are written by people with PhDs in science. He's not only a liar about science, but an anti-intellectual or the worst degree who hates those educated people who have expertise on a subject he fails to understand. He doesn't brag about reading and critically analyzing peer-reviewed technical papers because he doesn't understand them.

Anyway as funny and telling as that quote is, I agree with Farsight001's points on everything. The quote adds nothing we don't already know and is misleading. This is mainly because it's a primary source being used in a way to establish an authority and neutrality in the subject, which is at best misleading and at worst just one more lie Hovind tells. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JacronE (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 January 2013

Hovind established the Creation Science Evangelism in 1991, and frequently spoke on young Earth creationism at seminars at private schools and churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted of 58 federal counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. He is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution at Berlin, New Hampshire. Since his incarceration, he has led over 400 men to Christ. Abuenafe (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Needs citations. Also need an actual request. Eg. do you propose pasting it right at the bottom below the citations? Inside the caption of the image of a potato? TippyGoomba (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: Except for the last sentence, the content of the request appears to duplicate content in the lede of the article. As for that last sentence, it's unverifiable as well as being worded in a way that lacks objective meaning in the context of an encyclopedia article. Rivertorch (talk) 11:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 February 2013

Remove interwikilinks per WP:WDATA. They're at Wikidata now. 86.44.163.139 (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:22, 19 February 2013 (UTC)