Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  Changes in "Hovind and other creationists" section 

message: :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)
replies: text: 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.
*For what it's worth Patriot University isn't an accredited institution, so whether Kent Hovind actually did or did not complete his dissertation there is moot.  Either way he's not a "real" PhD.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 23:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Dissertation?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Precedent for reference to Ali G

message: 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)
replies: text: Lying in the edit summary is foolish. --Jason Gastrich 06:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Please stop lying in the edit summary

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Thanks Cyde. Nice to see you!--Jason Gastrich 21:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larvatus' False Accusation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think Mark makes good points here. I agree it should be removed. David D. (Talk) 16:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see the show before making this call. I have provided a link to a privately maintained copy , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Is the "floater" necessary? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Gastrich busted again for POV pushing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Fair enough.  WarriorScribe 20:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI to all Involved 

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: * What is noteworthy (as absolutely hilarious) but not encyclopedic? Larvatus 08:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text:  I have already done so: nothing notable happened during the interview. --Pierremenard 00:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text:  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)

text: *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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: * I say that in this case, notability of criticism is a consequence of its prominence. Larvatus 13:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So every time someone notable criticizes Hovind, it deserves a place in the article? --Pierremenard 19:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

text: "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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Ali G again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Your temporary block is expired, Gastrich.  You don't need to use socks. Harvestdancer 17:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  [[The Protocols of the Elders of Zion]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semi-protection 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: 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)
replies: text: Blocked per WP:NPA. Just zis Guy you know? 09:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Are we sure that that is Jason? The tone seems a bit different than Jason. JoshuaZ 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Gastrich uses cuss-words. Just zis Guy you know? 15:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: * Not normally, no...but he has no problem with them  when it suits him.  - WarriorScribe 06:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That theory is inoperative, biblically; anyone can say "Lord, Lord" yet work iniquity.  --Ruby  05:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: <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)
thread_title:  An editor's bullshit 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Changes to the Education Section

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Some Questionable Creationist Credentials" link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Citation of KJV-Only-ism 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Links to debates need not be included 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "High school teacher" is the claim in question. He makes the claim here, 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)
replies: text:  Question answered. He started a Christian school and taught at it for fifteen years. Then he started his current ministry and got his "PhD" in the mail two years later. Arbusto 04:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  "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)
thread_title:  A high school science teacher? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Kent State and Dinosaur Adventure Land

message: 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)
thread_title:  In the same city as Hovind and DAL? 

message: ===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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It is sourced by his critics. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I disagree. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Make sure the links add something of research value and add to it. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Make sure the links add something of research value and add to it. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It's talked about in the seminar notebook, you could mention that, I suppose.  --Yakkai 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay so improve it. Make sure your edits are nPOV. Arbusto 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some Comments

message: 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)
thread_title: Introduction

message: 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)
thread_title: Biase

message: * 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It is sourced by his critics. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I disagree. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Make sure the links add something of research value and add to it. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Make sure the links add something of research value and add to it. Arbusto 20:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: A few Examples of Biase

message: 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)
thread_title: Lead Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Credentials

message: 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)
replies: text: So add to it with WP:RS. Add the, as you said, "otherside." Arbusto 20:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Education, Tax Evasion and Assault Charges

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: It's talked about in the seminar notebook, you could mention that, I suppose.  --Yakkai 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hovind Theory

message: 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)
replies: text: Okay so improve it. Make sure your edits are nPOV. Arbusto 20:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Summary

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Grammar

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ali G Section rewrite 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ali G in America 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Reverts for POV, Relevance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: This page is sad

message: 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)
thread_title: Focus on Hovind's disagreements with modern science

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: "Jack Chick's brand" non-NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title:  Laughable 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Kent Hovind Debates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Kent Hovind's Seminar Transcripts 

message: 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)
thread_title: Recent edits by [[User:Occcam]] and [[User:Jasonwatch]]

message: "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)
thread_title:  sic 

message: 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. For example, Hovind supports his claims with material written by fellow Young Earth Creationist Walt Brown, which contains serious scientific errors.
Ashmoo 03:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hovind Theory criticism

message: 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.
*"Throwing stones in the dark" is certainly a good description of what Hovind does for a living.  JChap (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * 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)
thread_title: Comment moved from article

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What Slander! 

message: Substituted at 20:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment