Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 4

message: wow is all i could say, hovind bashing at its best, but as his critics might say he probably deserves it and much more. The writing is unquestionably biased, remind me to see a professional site next time. im not a creationist but this article is a bit much good work evo dorks.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.80.196.218 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is not at all "angry," nor is it "biased" except in that it is "biased" toward telling the facts. I found nothing in the article that even hints at being negative, or "angry," or "biased" in the sense you are using the word. In other words, grow the fuck up. --- Desertphile  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.19.14.34 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <sarcasm>Thank you for witty and helpful response.</sarcasm>  Perhaps, we would all get farther if you both would make specific recommendations at the RfC below.  Ursasapien (talk) 03:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

text: What's the point in being annoyed? Only the most fundamentalist of atheists (for instance, that IP address that calls itself "Desertphile") would consider that this page is written neutrally.... but they seem to be the largest percentile of WP.
DarthSidious 07:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: what?!

message: There is no proof he is a Conspiracy theorist, Scandalist (religious or other), or what he does can be called Pseudoscience.  This is verry POV, and simply not true, just like the text books that say the earch is millions or billions of years old, but thats another story.--71.221.199.29 18:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Conspiracy theorist and pseudoscience are supported by reliable sources.  I don't see evidence of a scandal, so would consider removing the scandal categories, but, because of this specific edit, but I haven't reread the entire article recently.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What definition of the word "scandal" would not include conviction on 58 federal charges resulting in a 10-year prison sentence? ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  I don't see a WP:RS that used the word "scandal", but it seems close enough.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

text: A psuedoscientist is defined as one whom does not use the scientific method; he uses firm research, solid facts, and bases his theories upon them, which is what the scientific method calls for. Therefor, he is not a pseudoscientist. There is no denying he is a conspiracy theorist, but to use such a term negatively is ludicrous; there have been conspiracies since large groups of people (not even formal governments) have existed, and will be until man's time on earth is over. And we all know that the court system is a joke; it's really become nothing more than a competition to see who can hire a better lawyer.--69.252.221.116 05:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kent Hovind uses firm research and solid facts? Like that whole Vapor Canopy iceberg-from-space thing, right? Knight of BAAWA 15:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you would actually watch the college seminars, you would find he gives ample proof for his theories. I would suggest watching his seminars before assuming he says nothing in them. The only videos of his I've seen that don't give proof for creationism are his "Redeeming the Strawman" and "The Bible and Health" videos, neither of which are relevant tot he subject. If you really wish to learn, then you would take a purely objective view on the subject, as opposed to assuming "the guy went to jail, he must be wrong".--69.252.221.116 10:20, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have watched his seminars. Your claim is downright laughable and borders on dishonesty. The seminars speak for themselves: vapid nothingness repeated often, and are on the level of "evilooshuns r frum satin!" It's quite clear that Hovind does not use firm research and solid facts. What he demands is a complete lack of facts (HHGTTG reference). Knight of BAAWA 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Categories 

message: In discussion of the geological events related to The Flood, the article says that Hovind believes the Biblical account is literally true, but goes on to describe events that happened "in the first several months of the flood." According to the Biblical account, the flood lasted 40 days, not several months. Does Hovind's theory stretch time? Calaf 06:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rains are supposed to have lasted forty days and nights, but the waters covered the earth 150. ornis 06:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing statement needs clarification

message: How can we improve this article?  One way would be to pare down this article and make it more concise.  Should the "Hovind Theory" have its own sub-article?  (and does this truly belong in cryptozoology or paranormal?) Ursasapien (talk) 11:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's own article? No, there are already numerous articles on Young earth creationism, creation science, and flood geology that cover that. As for the cat's I don't know about paranormal, but the crytozoology, yes, his belief in things like, nessie and Mokele-mbembe alone qualify him for that dubious honour. ornis (t) 11:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I am looking at how to improve this article.  One way is to make this article shorter and more concise.  Do any of the article's on Young earth creationism, creation science, and flood geology contain details Mr. Hovind's particular theory?  If so, we could add a link and summarize the section of this article.  Second, I am not sure I agree that his belief that some dinosaurs may still exist puts him in the same category as the "Big Foot" believers, but I guess that is a longer discussion.  Does anyone object to removing the paranormal cat?  Ursasapien (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually that puts him in exactly the same category as big foot believers, and in any case he talks about cryto-zoology on his website. As for his "theory", what you see is what you get, the elements it has in common with YEC and flood geology, are better enumerated there, and the ice meteor is fringe, even by YEC standards, this is the best place for it. Also, I really don't see a problem with article's length, at seventy-one kilobytes give or take, when compared to something like Charles Darwin ( a featured article, I might add ) which is over ninety-nine kilobytes, it's not so very long at all. ornis (t) 11:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does not include the cat for the paranormal, only the talk page.  The only reason that it is so categorized is that Wikiproject Paranormal tagged this as an article they keep up. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have added "Prisoner" among Mr. Hovind's title. I really do hope this was okay. Simply Winter 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm reverting.  It's not a title.  Nothing personal. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 20:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, prisoner is not job, and title is for things like, Sir, Dr, Right Honourable etc. In any case this is covered by his place of residence being a federal correctional facility. ornis (t) 00:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Might I suggest small edits and suggestions rather than sweeping changes, and removal of sourced content. I've reverted you for the moment, it would be better if you discussed this first. ornis (t) 07:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, the $250,000 challenge belongs under "legal problems", as one court required him to pay it.  But I see your point.  That he is presently serving a felony conviction belongs in the lead and infobox, as is done; where the details go in the article may indicate bias.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have more information about the court case?  ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 09:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving this article

message: I have removed all mention of assault and battery entirely. The charges were never investigated, and were dropped before going to trial. It is not appropriate, in my view, for an encyclopedia to give public prominence to such dropped charges. I think this this subverts the legal system and presumption of innocence, and does not belong in the biography of a living person.
This is not because I am a fan of Hovind. I have a long history of activity fighting creationist pseudoscience, and consider Hovind to be one of the most disreputable and ridiculous figures in the whole shoddy creationist movement. He is a charlatan and a huckster and brought his current unfortunate situation upon himself.
I think it is best to try and uphold strong encyclopedic principles in this matter. Hovind's character and status come through just fine in the article, and material of dubious credibility detracts from a neutral analysis. Neutral analysis shows up Hovind's flaws best. I am not disputing in the least that the charges were actually brought; but I do not think this is sufficient to justify their discussion in the article. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough I suppose. ornis (t) 01:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It was the right thing to do. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 02:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should have stayed. The assault was mentioned by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and Christianity Today as well as being linked to the court records, which documents it. Wqqqs123 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, so do I, but DQ is right, in a BLP we should exercise a little discretion. ornis (t) 01:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the information should be put back in.  If it's a celebrity or politician or any other publicly recognized figure, it's okay to leave it in.  Why not for Hovind?  The legal system isn't the issue here.  Jparenti 11:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing the assault and battery material entirely 

message: I've combined information from three different areas of the article on Hovind's earnings.  I have not read the links to verify the figures but assume that since they've been here this long they are correct.  Pehaps someone can find a better source on his number of properties and other assets, he may have had more.  These earnings and assets relate to the case against him.  They also show that he had the money to pay those who successfully met his challenge.  He still should be required to pay IMO, especially since neither his original $10,000 nor later $250,000 challenge contained his later added restrictive conditions (which info I'm adding to the "Hovind's $250,000 offer" section).  There is an initial * but it links to nothing later. 4.246.201.23 17:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining Financial Information

message: The introduction states what "inmate number" Kent Hovind is. This certainly isn't relevant for a formal encyclopedia article... and certainly not in the introduction! Most people who read this article don't intend visiting him or anything. Why's it there?
DarthSidious 12:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed!  Such details seem to be indulgent gloating. Phiwum 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  He is inmate number .... 

message: I would like to ask that Prisoner be added to Kent Hovind's titles, just as it was done for Jeffrey Skilling of Enron SimplyJessica 00:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid prisoner is not an occupation (at least for most people, probably even most prisoners).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs) 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I removed prisoner from Jeffrey Skilling's occupation, as well.   — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with editor Arthur Rubin. "Prisoner" does not seem like an occupation to me, at least not in the ordinary sense. Famspear 01:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello, SimplyJessica, and welcome!  You might notice the conversation with similarly named User:Simply Winter, above, that explains why adding "prisoner" is not good editing. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 02:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but the account User:Simply Winter is also my account. I forgot my username and registered this account. SimplyJessica 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Prisoner as a title 

message: This information needs to be cited.  If a "future lawsuit is now being discussed" then there should be some documentation somewhere.  On a side note, why did you revert my changes to citations (changing them back to links instead of inline citations)?  Ursasapien (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for reverting the links I did not see that.  I have a reference to the possible law suit now... http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rational_response_squad_alerts/rational_response_squad_alerts/9978  But I am unsure of how to properly insert it into the article.  I would appreciate some help. K Watson1984 10:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The easiest way to cite is to use the   tags.  Try cutting and pasting the text below:
===YouTube Banning Controversy===   
On September 10, 2007, a user called "RabidApe" was banned from YouTube. Creation Science Evangelism accused him of copyright violation for using clips from Kent Hovind's video series. Many other users doing the same thing were banned, including users posting Kent Hovind's calls from jail.    
    
The response has been almost universally negative. Opposers of this act cite Kent Hovind's statement that works produced by Creation Science Evangelism are not copyrighted and the fact that only opposing videos are flagged for removal. 
Best of luck, Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a forum, not a WP:RS. Do you have any other sources? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with KC. I also don't see the "Rational Responders" as a particularly good source, nor do I find any independent sources that have considered the threat credible and serious enough to pick up on. (I'll just put as an aside here the irony of a group which uses "rational" in its name and the term "assfucks" to refer to people.) But in all seriousness, we don't add to an article every time someone saber-rattles about suing. If the suit gets filed, and reliable sources start reporting on it, then we got a case to add it in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now on Panda's Thumb, although it does not support the original assertions from the blog, it is coverage of the incident. I suggest we keep our eyes open, this may become notable enough for inclusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slashdot has now picked it up. See . I'm not convinced that's enough, but PT and Slashdot together may be enough to make it notable. JoshuaZ 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  I added an article by Wired. When it comes to computer news it doesn't get much better than get it mentioned by them. FFthird 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just noticed the line "that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government" in Controversy section, is this referring to the 2001 WTC attack? Does it need a correction? Eleccy 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no.  See World Trade Center 1993 bombings.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, thanks for the clarification Eleccy 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube Banning Controversy

message: On September 10, 2007, a user called "RabidApe" was banned from YouTube. Creation Science Evangelism accused him of copyright violation for using clips from Kent Hovind's video series. Many other users doing the same thing were banned, including users posting Kent Hovind's calls from jail.    
    
The response has been almost universally negative. Opposers of this act cite Kent Hovind's statement that works produced by Creation Science Evangelism are not copyrighted and the fact that only opposing videos are flagged for removal. 
Best of luck, Ursasapien (talk) 10:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a forum, not a WP:RS. Do you have any other sources? KillerChihuahua?!? 10:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed with KC. I also don't see the "Rational Responders" as a particularly good source, nor do I find any independent sources that have considered the threat credible and serious enough to pick up on. (I'll just put as an aside here the irony of a group which uses "rational" in its name and the term "assfucks" to refer to people.) But in all seriousness, we don't add to an article every time someone saber-rattles about suing. If the suit gets filed, and reliable sources start reporting on it, then we got a case to add it in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is now on Panda's Thumb, although it does not support the original assertions from the blog, it is coverage of the incident. I suggest we keep our eyes open, this may become notable enough for inclusion. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slashdot has now picked it up. See . I'm not convinced that's enough, but PT and Slashdot together may be enough to make it notable. JoshuaZ 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added an article by Wired. When it comes to computer news it doesn't get much better than get it mentioned by them. FFthird 17:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just noticed the line "that the 1993 World Trade Center attack was staged by the US Government" in Controversy section, is this referring to the 2001 WTC attack? Does it need a correction? Eleccy 13:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no.  See World Trade Center 1993 bombings.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, thanks for the clarification Eleccy 08:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: YouTube Banning Controversy

message: Ursasapien, your current version reads "Hovind's teaching credentials are not recognized by any government schools and he has no academic degrees from accredited universities".  But does Hovind have any "teaching credentials" of any sort (accredited or otherwise)?  Apparently his degree in "Christian Education" was an essay on the evils of teaching Darwinism to children.  I work in a college which offers teacher-training: though I haven't taken such a course myself, I have a rough idea of what is involved in teacher certification (discussion of various teaching methods, observation of trainees teaching a class, legal matters relating to "duty of care", health and safety etc), which leads to credentials which indicate that the teacher knows how to teach and is competent to lead a class.  I have seen no evidence that Hovind has any teaching credentials.  "Being a Christian" is not a credential as the term is generally used (i.e. a certificate of competence in teaching techniques and related issues), even if this is deemed sufficient by some Christian schools.  Without such evidence, I don't think we should presume that Hovind has teaching credentials. --Robert Stevens 09:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, I have made some assumptions and for that I apologize.  I assumed that his degreee in Christian Education involved more than one essay.  I know of many colleges and universities that offer "unaccredited" degrees.  However, these "unaccredited" degrees, though not recognized as a credential to teach in a public school, do consist of discussion of various teaching methods, observation of trainees teaching a class, legal matters relating to "duty of care", health and safety, etc.  I think the term "teaching credentials" is a little too close to weasel-words, implying different things to different people.  Logic would tell you that he had "credentials" that were accepted by the school at which he taught.  I am quite dubious that their sole credential was "being a Christian."  Regardless, when I re-read the statement, "Hovind has no teaching credentials or academic degrees from accredited institutions," I see it can be taken in two ways.  Either, Hovind has no teaching credentials or Hovind has no teaching credentials from accredited institutions.  I believe the latter is born out, whereas the former is not.  Ursasapien (talk) 08:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrary section break 1

message: I hope something constructive comes out of this RFC; there has been too much disagreement and not enough change here. Per Famspear, I would like to suggest that some/most of the Controversy over education section be removed. Wikipedia has no place for criticisms of its subject's dissertation's spelling and grammar, no matter how well sourced. I am prepared to demonstrate if the cabal approves if I can be of assistance. –Sarregouset (Talk) 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely disagree. A dissertation is the single most important work done by anyone who calls themself a Dr. (eg, Dr Dino). As such, it being so poorly done is an indication of the school and work completed by Hovind. That is why numerous scientific sources cite it and mention it. Just read this by Dr. Ingrid H. Shafer, who cites Hovind dissertation as being a reason not to take him seriously and to doubt Hovind has any knowledge of the subjects he makes money off of. NNtw22 02:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree per NNtw. This is well-sourced and relevant. JoshuaZ 15:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Disagree as well. A doctoral candidate SHOULD know how to spell properly, or at least use a proof-reader. To not even bother with proper spelling is such a cavalier attitude to an important moment that I wouldn't give the person the time of day if I were on the doctoral degree committee for that person. It's not a 1st-grade book report; it's a doctoral dissertation. The standards are high. Hovind's dissertation doesn't even qualify as disseration in the first place; it's just a rambling diatribe against evolution. Knight of BAAWA 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a doctoral candidate SHOULD know how to spell properly. But I don't see why that belongs in a Wikipedia article. A dissertation is not the most important work done by someone, nor is its character a unique indicator of their character. I can find no other examples of using a dissertation to criticize someone on Wikipedia, which is as it should be. And while many sources mention his thesis, there exists only one recorded critique of it, the one by Karen Bartelt. As she admittely has other reasons not to like Hovind, that doesn't count as well-sourced. However, I don't expect to persuade you, just to provide another viewpoint. –Sarregouset (Talk) 22:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It belongs because Kent touts his PhD every single chance he gets. Thus, if he wants to tout it, people should know as much about how he got his "degree" as possible. If that means showing the shoddy workmanship of his thesis, then so be it. As I mentioned about Peter Popoff above, his fraud was exposed and it's written up in Wiki here. I see no difference between that and discussing Hovind's thesis. Knight of BAAWA 23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Spelling is just one factor mentioned. It isn't even complete and has duplicated pages: "However, there is no 250 page dissertation; when one subtracts the duplicated material, the document is 95-96 pages." Anyone who knows how a thesis works, knows there is no way this would be approved by the committee, department, or graduate office. "References are absent," "no original research presented," "writing style . . .is typical of high school-level writing." This is not common for dissertations. NNtw22 03:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dissertation

message: I, too, hope something constructive comes out of this RFC, but that hope is waning.  Editors have already started to assume bad faith and consider me disruptive.  This saddens me because I simply want a good encyclopedia, and I truly believe this article, in its present state, is not worthy of Wikipedia.
Let me try, one last time, to be clear.  I am not advocating that any information be removed.  I also do not believe that we achieve neutrality by having equal amount of positive POV and negative POV.  What I am speaking of is, in some ways, subtle.  Let me try to think of an example that does not have to do with creationism or Christianity.  How about this old story:
The parents scooped their small daughter out of bed in the middle of the night.  She was frightened and confused. She began to cry, then wail, then scream.  Her parents did not speak but drove furiously, delivering her to a gray building on the other side of town.
A woman took the child's clothes off and put her in a special gown.  Then she began to probe and examine the child.  The woman took a sharp object, stabbed it into a child and then filled a container with the child's blood.  The girl struggled as she was in excruciating pain, so the woman strapped her to a table and forced drugs into her.  As the girl began to succumb to the powerful drugs, the last thing she saw was the man wearing a mask and holding a knife.
The preceding story was about a child suffering from an appendicitis attack.  Although it is perfectly accurate, it is deceptive because of the perspective of the story.  I think the article builds on its self (i.e. Hovind doesn't like the government . . . and he went to unaccredited schools . . . and he has no state accredited degrees or teaching credentials . . . and he doesn't want anyone to see his dissertation . . . and besides all that he does not believe in macro-evolution which is laughable).  I am sorry that some have chosen to question my good faith, but I genuinely see this article as biased.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But your example involves the careful and selective omission of relevant information, in order to create a false impression.  What relevant information have we omitted, and what false impression has this article created?  If it has neither omitted relevant information nor created an unjustifiably negative impression: then it isn't unbalanced. --Robert Stevens 09:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would argue that I omitted nothing, I just told the story using a particular frame of reference.  I think this article is written from a particular frame of reference.  Again, I do not believe we acheive neutrality by adding equal parts negative and positive POV.  We achieve neutrality by presenting notable information in a straightforward, neutral fashion.  I have decided to take this article to my sandbox and work on it there.  Then, when I have achieved neutrality in a section, I will bring that section back to this talk page.  Ursasapien (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But you did omit much. You omitted the reason why the girl was "taken", what the building was, and what happened after, for starters. The article on Hovind here omits nothing. Again: Hovind touts his PhD. It is relevent to know how he got that PhD. Knowing that is not negative POV. It is simply what happened. Knight of BAAWA 12:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, in that vein the article omits that he loved his children, was kind to animals, taught his students in a thoughtful way- but all of that is irrelevant and not notable.  My point with the story is that the article is written in a non-neutral tone.  I can say, "Despite a mountain of evidence pointing to his guilt, a mostly black jury acquitted O.J. Simpson of the murder of Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman."  I would be accurate but not neutral.  I point the reader to a conclusion. Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is written in a neutral tone. Look: should we eliminate from the Peter Popoff article any mention of how he was exposed as a fraud just because that might be "not nice"? That's really what you're asking to have happen here. You're asking to have omitted certain facts about Kent just because they're not nice. Well so what? Eliminate all mention of the holocaust from Hitler's page? Eliminate all mention of the pogroms and such from Stalin's page? The fact of the matter is that Kent touts his PhD wherever he goes. Not mentioning how he got it actually would be POV, since it's clear that he does not have a valid PhD, just as it was clear that it was Peter Popoff's wife, and not god, who was speaking to Peter Popoff. Knight of BAAWA 17:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  If you feel that positive material should be included about Hovind then add it from WP:RS. However, removing the status of his schools and quality of his academic work is whitewashing criticism. You haven't provided any citations for what is "missing," but you seem to only want information removed. NNtw22 15:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What part of, "I am not advocating that any information be removed." and "I also do not believe that we achieve neutrality by having equal amount of positive POV and negative POV." do you not understand?  Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Above you wrote the "education section is filled with redundancies" and cited the mention of accreditation. If you are not "advocating that any information be removed," but complain things are redundant, where do want these supposed "redundancies" moved to? You can't have it both ways, and it still unclear what these "inaccuracies" are. C56C 15:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You can't start a website called Dr. Dino, call yourself a Dr on EVERY page of that website, bill yourself as a PhD holder in videos and speaking engagements all the while having earned it from a diploma mill of dubious quality without expecting people to review your work. More details is better than less. If you can find positive information about it then add it. C56C 18:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

text: The dispute was that the article did not maintain neutrality, not any claims of "inaccuracies."  The last round of discussions occured less than 72 hours ago, so I do not see how you could say the discussion was not ongoing.  There is certainly more than one user who disputes the neutrality of this article.  I am at the point that I am considering requesting mediation.  I feel that I am at an impasse with this discussion and the RfC has not resulted in any attempt to understand my perspective.  Ursasapien (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the only other people who dispute the neutrality of this article are employees of CSE and the dupes who believe every word Kent Hovind says. What you're suggesting is no different from saying it's not part of neutral POV to say that Hitler despised jews and wanted as many as possible killed. Facts are facts, regardless of your feelings about them. Deal with it. Knight of BAAWA 12:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I have to question your neutrality on this whole thing. You are pushing a POV which really doesn't stand up to the facts. Further, I shall cite a quote you made on User_talk:199.66.3.5 : "I would be happy to work with you to get a consensus for neutrality on Kent Hovind. Please feel free to join in the discussion on the talk page. Please also ignore the atheistic POV pushers who feel they own this article. Ursasapien (talk) 09:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Knight of BAAWA 13:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It's just as I mentioned with Peter Popoff. How can one talk about Kent (or Peter) without portraying him in the way his actions have lent? He has invited the research into his claims about not only evolution, but his education with his constant harping about how he has a PhD. I do not see how it is either our fault or problem that Kent's claims do not match up properly with reality. IMO, this mediation request and neutrality "dispute" are merely disruptions to make an unfounded point. - Knight of BAAWA 15:52, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ursasapien, you have not proved that this article lacks NPOV. Hovind is a fringe minister with no scientific education who was found guilty of 58 felonies. Expect the page to reflect that his credbility, education, and views to be challenged by real scholars. Calling people "atheistic POV pushers" does not change the fact that you have failed to prove your claims. C56C 17:59, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Finding Value in the RfC