Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 2

message: "As most of the world now seems to know, due to the planned media blitz by the IRS, my wife and I were arrested 12 days ago in a highly publicized raid on the church ministry. The three “charges” against my wife and I are ludicrous as will be shown in the next few weeks but I have been advised by counsel not to discuss the case openly yet. There are, however, several things the world needs to know before rushing to judgment, condemning me as an evildoer or lawbreaker."
More at  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeolmeun (talk • contribs) 
From the blog: "Dinosaur Adventure Land is still flooded with visitors." Does anyone know if this is the case? Several media reports cited in the article describe it as 'defunct'. I think this is a significant fact and while a blog is not a credible source, if anyone in the area knows the true situation it would be very helpful if you could let us know. --Davril2020 20:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The DAL never said it stopped operating even when that news article came out. Like JChap, I wouldn't want to change something just because Hovind's blog claims its true. C56C 00:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just FYI, they are still activaly adding peices to Dinosaur Adventure Land. Last time I drove by there was a new set of (I think) duckbllled dinosaur statues being put up and new paint on the fence (I live about half a mile from it). What you need to understand that its not a "park" but really just a meduim sized playground, but it is mildly popular for childrens birthday partys. They also had a few summer camps that used them for outings this last year. I'm not sure that his "flooded" and most peoples ideas of "flooded" is the same thing though...all I know is they are still open and active---— Possible single purpose account: FG3001 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 20:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  As much as I don't agree with everything Kent Hovind has said, I can't help thinking this is a Government conspiracy in some way.... in any case, thanks for the article. Yoda921 11:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What's your evidence for a conspiracy theory? Blind faith? FGT2 08:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

text:  I don't have "evidence", I just suspect it given that many people would want to censor his comments.  Yoda921 06:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "What is happening? I saw you in the news! July 25"

message: I don't get it.  Last I checked, the government throws you in prison for evading taxes, why not him?  — Possible single purpose account: Inforazer (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 14:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hovind's trial for 58 felonies is in October. You can compare it to Ronald Isley who got three years in prison last week for being convicted of 5 counts. It remains to be seen. Arbusto 02:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, but I would suspect that one or more of the usual reasons people get away with crime are involved (you know, money, powerful friends, etc.)  Kasreyn 05:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He isn't in prison because he hasn't had his trial yet. When the trial is complete he will probably get to be a long term guest of Uncle Sam. JoshuaZ 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If convicted on all counts, what would be a typical sentence for this sort of thing? --Davril2020 16:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: According to the Al Capone article, Capone was found guilty on five of twenty-two counts and sentenced to eleven years in a federal prison for tax evasion. Arbusto 22:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why isn't he in prison?

message: The reason given for Hovind's tax evasion isn't very clear.  His basis is that incorporating a ministry as a 501c3 non-profit corporation gives government power over the church, and as such violates the First Amendment.  For example, 501c3 corporations are not allowed to speak on politics.  Thus a minister is not allowed to endorse or criticize any particular candidate.  Many Christians believe that it is unconstitutional for the government to tell a minister what he can or cannot say during a sermon, yet forcing a religious organization to incorporate as 501c3 in order to have tax exempt status also imposes government rules on what a minister can say.  On the other hand, a religious organization incorporating as a for-profit organization gives the government power to tax the organization.  So either way, the religious organization needs to get the government's permission to exist - or face criminal charges for tax evasion. -Dan 14 September, 2006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.33.5.54 (talk • contribs) 
:Or not get tax benefits (many would argue that there is no good reason that religious establishments should be non-taxed). There are a multitude of other problems with the above but in any event this is all wildly off topic and essentially original research. JoshuaZ 02:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks lioke a clear case of "render unto Hovind that which is Caesar's" ;-) Guy 15:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, 70.33.5.54 where's some links to Hovind's polititcal comments. Arbusto 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: His reason for tax evasion

message: The following was taken out a few times: "although his numerous critics consider the challenge to be spurious because evolutionary theory has nothing to say about how the universe came about or how life began."  This is a fair and factual statement to leave in the article though.  Evolutionary biologists and others do not argue that evolution has anything to do with the origins of the universe or how life began.  It should be left in.  --Havermayer 18:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Arbusto 20:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree; The man is an idiot who claimed dead sharks were dinosaurs. I hope he gets education in jail. - Sparky 01:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolution and the origins of life

message: Hovind is 53 years old could we update the picture or date the picture provided? This article has a picture of him in July, and he looks much different than the photo in the article. Arbusto 06:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that photo, he seems to be waving some sort of "dino-dollar" around.  But, it's certainly copyrighted by the paper or photographer or both.  Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask for permission to use it.  There's a form letter around here somewhere.  I'll draft a request and send it to the the article's author for forwarding (traded e-mails with him a while back). — Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 19:11, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, only ten edits and you already plan on using a wikipedia form to request usage of a picture. Did you edit on wikipedia under another name? Arbusto 23:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Had you planned to make the request? — Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.] 15:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: PS. PNJ/Gannett says no, never, not ever, ah well...— Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 20:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It is from an unknown source and will be deleted in seven days(how ironic) if it is not given verifiable copyright by an experienced editor. --24.22.212.250 02:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is his booking photo (looks better when pasted). DodgerDean 23:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I see that no one has answered my criticisms of that paragraph.  No one has offered any explanation for its organization.  No one has really said why Hovind's social conservatism is relevant at this point (hint: that paragraph does not discuss his broad conspiracy theories at all).  And on these grounds, I think I would be justified in removing the material again.
But no matter.  We don't have to argue on these grounds!  The claim that he's a social conservative is unverified and so should be removed according to WP:V.  Without that claim, the discussion of political cartoons is irrelevant as well.  Thus, we are left with a paragraph that has an actual point: Hovind claims that biology textbooks are full of lies.  Moreover, this claim is in fact controversial. Phiwum 12:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "He has a social conservative stance and his presentations are include many socially conservative political messages."? Are grammar may still need work... — Possible single purpose account: DodgerDean (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic. 16:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your point?  (Thanks, I fixed that there thingy.) Phiwum 16:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP:V issues

message: No one has argued that this very short subsection is essential to the article.  (At least, I don't think that Arbustoo said so.)  Therefore, I am removing it since it is redundant, short, confusing and almost certainly violates WP:RS. Phiwum 12:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we can do without the subsection. Arbusto 18:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed subsection

message: I think that the legal issues section is a bit too long.  I can accept that Hovind's legal issues are worth discussing, but right now they take up a considerably longer part of the article than the theory + criticism sections.  But Hovind isn't particularly notable for his tax fraud.
I also thought that perhaps the legal problems section should be moved.  It comes before any of the interesting bits of Hovind's story, namely his young earth creationism.  But I have to admit that, for the sake of article flow, it makes sense to follow up the biography section with the legal problems.  Where else would it go?  Maybe after criticism?
Any thoughts appreciated. Phiwum 02:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would make sense. Presumably should be between the controversial remarks section and the trivia section maybe? JoshuaZ 02:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a few weeks (his trial begins next week) before doing any serious editting/removing. If Hovind is found guilty on the majority of the charges his fame will be more about tax evasion and religion then on creationism and evolution. The rest of his life will be about jail for tax evasion instead of making speeches in churches. --Arbusto 05:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll wait before serious editing, but I seriously doubt that Hovind will be more famous for tax evasion!  Tax evaders are a dime a dozen.  Hovind's not influential, near as I can see, in the area of tax evasion (unlike some Republic of Texas and other militia tax evaders).  But he is influential as a young earth creationist, a fairly rare flavor of creationism; and he's also interesting because other young earth creationists disavow his work. Phiwum 10:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right now Hovind is only notable to the creationist fringe. If gets more than 20 years in prison, he'll be known as a tax cheat who made a bunch of money off religion for his own need. Thus, he'll make mainstream news headlines to that affect. Hovind has never made news headlines for his "theories." Arbusto 00:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The legal issues

message: I dont remember seeing this much slander in a wikipedia article since.....actually, I dont think I've ever seen this much slander before. I'm not taking any sides here (although I personally believe Dr. Hovind's evidence on creation), but just from standing back and looking at the content, this article is rediculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldwings (talk • contribs) 
:By all means, give examples of what you consider to be slander!  It won't be fixed unless you are specific.  (By the way, "slander" usually refers to falsehoods maliciously spread.  So if this is what you mean, please be sure to mention why you believe the offensive material is false!)Phiwum 16:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, it's some of the best-cited slander on the site :-) Guy 21:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Think about it though. The page has to be like that for his words to be true. It's all part of the conspiracy.--68.119.173.26 23:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wow

message: I removed a sizeable portion of the information under the Education section and placed it where it belongs: under Criticisms. Also, under the Education heading, I found it a little easier to simply say that both places where he received his degrees from were not accredited rather than describing each place as "the unaccredited  ---"Jlujan69 05:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the changes.  The original statements had more information and were supported by references - this is a good thing.  In addition, moving specific information from the relevant section to an all-purpose "criticisms" section is bad formatting.  Structuring articles in that way is generally frowned upon.  Specific issues should be dealt with in the appropriate section.  Critiques unrelated to any specific section could go in a criticms section (although it would probably be better to work them into sections that deal with specific issues, rather than making them general-purpose "criticism" sections.  Guettarda 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor corrections

message: As Phiwum noted, the tax issues/legal problems are taking up much room and make the article awkward. However, such well-sourced and publicized information shouldn't just be pulled off. How about we content fork/Article spinout Hovind's legal problems to its own article? Arbusto 23:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections. Phiwum 00:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer it this way, I think they are important enough that it should stay here. The page is still within the recommended page size. If it gets much longer though I might change my mind.  JoshuaZ 06:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When I click on edit, at the top of the editing section it says "Note: This page is 56 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." Since Hovind's trial is over I figure we can do without trial specifics on the main page. Arbusto 06:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See below. Arbusto 07:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Content forking/Article spinouts

message: I have made a few minor edits to add more detail on the tax problems facing the person who is the subject of this article. I have not yet had a chance to research this matter in depth. The changes I have made so far are based just on the criminal tax case in Florida.
In that case, Mr. Hovind has not technically been charged with tax evasion (which is ). I have therefore deleted most of the specific references to "evasion." Some of the specific conduct with which a person is charged may or may not constitute tax evasion, and may or may not be the subject of criminal charges like the ones Hovind is now facing. I would argue that we just want the Wikipedia to be precise in legal terminology, especially in an article about a living person who is innocent until proven guilty. This guy has enough problems facing him (by my quick and dirty arithmetic, he could theoretically get over 285 years in prison if convicted on all counts). Yours, Famspear 21:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the revisions. I notice you cited the court document. Could up please post it at www.wikisource.org so it can be referenced in the future? Arbusto 00:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's easy to use Wikisource, a database for documents/books like wikipedia. With the PDF file, go to the tool bar under "edit" and use select all. The copy and paste the document into wikisource:United States of America v. Kent E. Hovind and Jo D. Hovind. Arbusto 03:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ooops, I just noticed that there is a "tax evader" label on the bottom of this article. The individual who is the subject of this article was neither charged with nor convicted of tax evasion. He was convicted of a veritable mountain of tax crimes and tax-related crimes, but not tax evasion. The government never charged him with that; it's probably not appropriate for Wikipedia to label him with that. I'm removing the "tax evader" label. Yours, Famspear 03:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax problems

message: Odd that Davril2020 continues to remove a good link here. 1)It is entirely appropriate since the sub-text is responses to Hovind's challenge. 2)Your original reason for deleting this was that I was editorializing; the editorializing has now been removed thus there is no good reason for the sentence's removal short of censorship.  3) It is all of ONE sentence long.  4)It is an actual, systematic response involving organismal biological evolution, not just pointing out contradictions in Hovind's ideas as the preceding argument appears to be from the reading here.  IOW it is the kind of evidence that Hovind has been saying that he wants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.246.203.115 (talk) 
:If you're talking about this, "one can judge for oneself..." is not encyclopedic language.  Also, please read WP:EL and make your case based on those criteria.  I couldn't care less what Hovind wants. In the future, please sign your posts with four "~."  You might also consider registering for a username. JChap2007 00:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, one needn't register; at the same time, doing so demonstrates an ongoing interest in the project.  Not doing so can raise concerns that an editor is here for a very limited purpose -- such as, in this case, repeateadly inserting a detail that doesn't really add much to a thorough preceding discussion, drawn from a source already included as an external link. Robertissimo 04:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: As it stood, the detail you would like to add was both extraneous and not well presented (in-text, off-site references are distracting at best when presented as "here is," virtually forcing the reader off-site to know what is really being discussed).  Because you clearly feel passionately about this issue, I have taken the liberty of trying to include the link in a way that reads more smoothly and follows standard practices.  I hope it is satisfactory, although I also feel that other editors will likely continue to excise the passage as unecessary, and I would not disagree with them. Robertissimo 05:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the link is now fine in that context. Cheers Rob. --Davril2020 07:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Message from IP address

message: Okay so Hovind is found guilty and faces a maximum of 288 years in prison. The tax section is long and should be split off. So let's get it started at Talk:Kent Hovind/Taxes 1. Arbusto 03:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With a guilty verdict, is any of the information terribly necessary? The verdict, the sentence and the charges yes, but besides that I'm not particularly convinced any of the rest of it deserves to remain. --Davril2020 08:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my point. If we content fork the tax/legal issue to another page it will take up less room on this article, but still provide details on another page for interested researchers. Arbusto 09:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a valid content fork to me.  Of course, the information in the court documents about Hovind's operations should not be excised from this article. These are useful reference materials, apart from the cases that produced them. JChap2007 18:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Arbusto 07:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest not splitting. It is not so long that it is necessary, and this situation is not concluded. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Oh good grief. I just saw the working page (/Taxes 1). Never mind, split if desired. I'll hush up now. KillerChihuahua?!? 18:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone, feel free to mess around with the test page. Arbusto 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hovind found guilty on all charges/ Article split for tax information

message: As JChap wants, and I agree, if we split the article the court/wikisource documents should still have links on the main page. What does everyone else think? Arbusto 08:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Document links

message: Hey, I'm new to this page, but it looks like someone added "adult" right before videos and "dildos" somewhere in the sentence telling what they sell. I checked the source so as to remove it, but it looks fine in the source. Perhaps someone with more experience than me can correct? Thanks, Kale —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.186.20 (talk • contribs) 
:Hi, Kale. What you saw was vandalism--an unfortunate occurrence here on Wikipedia. By the time you were looking at the source, another user had already reverted the vandalsim, so what you saw was after it had been corrected. Justin Eiler 23:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Download his indictment here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:HovindIndictment.pdf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HPBible (talk • contribs) 06:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the link, anonymous user :p
Yoda921 13:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: View Kent Hovind's federal indictment

message: FGT2 deleted it and said: including that A gun was seized isn't important and its mentioned elsewhere if people care
First, The inclusion of the gun information and Hovind may not be important to you but Google has 37,600 sites which associate the two .  So it would seem that other people might like to know it.  Second, you say that it's mentioned elsewhere so people can search the web if they want to know.  Well duh.  Every bit of information on Wikipedia is "mentioned elsewhere".  In fact it's supposed to be.  But one of the purposes of this encyclopedia is to gather it together so people don't have to look all over the place to find it!  The mention of guns and Hovind is relevant considering his rightwing stance on guns QUACKY QUOTES GUNSand the fact that the judge feared for the safety of the IRS personnel enough to remove them before he did a Waco on them.  Third it wasn't "a" gun but "More than a half-dozen".
You also give as a reason that  you do not cite in the proper format.  In what way?  If you can see a deficiency in my citation you should correct it not just delete it. 4.246.206.57 18:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the information about the guns should be kept, as it is covered in reliable sources, but NB, citing number of Google hits or an attack site as a reason to keep information is generally not valid. JChap2007 18:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks JChap.  The only reason I cited the Google info on this talk page is to show that the Hovind/gun information is important enough to the public that there are many web pages that discuss it.  So why not include it?  What if he had gotten to the guns first and had done a Waco on them (which the judge obviously feared), it would be a national event.  Then in retrosprect we might think that his stand on guns was important.  I wouldn't call the site I cite an "attack page", it's mostly made up of Hovind's own words. 4.246.206.57 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: The Removal of the Hovind Gun Information

message: Some of the links from the Pensacola News Journal news stories are dead, as most news sources do change the links and archive the older stories to charge people a fee for archives.  I think we should remove the links, and leave the article title, journal name, date, and author to make the article pass WP:V while removing dead links. PatriotBible 02:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the dead links. The articles are at the pensacolanewsjournal.com archives for purchase now. PatriotBible 00:51, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: Despite the title, answersincreation.org is a pro-evolution website. It does not support creation -  it believes that the "days" are a metaphor for evolution.  I took it from "Pro-creationist but critical of Hovind" to "Anti creationist and hovind."  Most people would associate "creationist" with a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Yoda921 13:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Literal interpretors of bible are called "young earth creationists". Creationist theory is any theory which believes God created the universe.
answers in creation is critical of YEC, but it is still an example of a creationists theory. They believe in "God created the world" claim, but only say that it is possible to believe both the bible and science, but suitably re-interpreting the bible.
--Amit524 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yoda, you don't even know what you are arguing. You wrote "Answers in creation is an anti-creation website," but that simply isn't true as AiC believes "the Word of God is without error, and its account of the creation story in Genesis is perfectly in line with the scientific record." Yoda, keep your personal opinion and bias out of your editting. Evolution is science, and does not deal with theology, such as Christian or Sumerian creation. AiC accepts more of science than AiG, but still relies on creation theology. FGT2 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Fine, whatever. Majority rules. Well, not always. But I'll concede to this now.
Yoda921 02:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Answers in creation is an anti-creation website 

message: According to Hovind's blog from December 1, 2006:
I’ve been here about a month now.  I am fine physically and even getting in a little better shape since I have time to work out several times a day.  The food is tolerable and the room is well lit and comfortable.  The five new converts that are in this pod with me are meeting with me four to five times each day for Bible study and prayer.  This is a pastor’s dream!  It would take most churches a year to cover what we cover every week. Our group has been through, verse-by-verse, Matthew, Mark and Acts as well as most of Proverbs.  I started with the 6,000-year time line and gave several days of general overview of the entire Bible.  It is awesome to see the spiritual hunger in these men.
Hovind says he read Matthew again, which includes Render unto Caesar... in Matthew 22:21. Should we include Hovind's unBibical interpretation of Matthew as commented in the newspaper articles? PatriotBible 19:42, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While amusing, I don't really think such a distinction is encyclopedic. Justin Eiler 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hovind reads Matthew, but doesn't comment on [[Render unto Caesar...]] 

message: To the person who incorrectly inserted Hovind was due a max of 14 years. I do not know why you disbelieve the Pensacola News Journal, which said 288 years.
But here's some math:
*The first 12 counts he was convicted of (26 U.S.C. § 7202) EACH received a maximum years of 5 years.
*The next 45 counts are U.S.C. § 5324 with EACH a max of 5 years.
*Obstruction and threats 26 U.S.C. § 7212. Section A is one year and Section B is two years, which is three years total.
*5 years -times- 12 counts = 60 years
*5 years -times- 45 counts = 225 years
*2 years
*1 year
*Total = 288 years
Most judges would allow him to serve them concurrently so all offenses are served at the same time. In sum, the judge was kind enough to let Hovind to basically serve for only two out of the 58 charges. C56C 03:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a thought. Does "He had PREVIOUSLY been threatened to a maximum of 288 years" still need to be in the introduction? It doesn't seem necessary given that it's 'old news,' and should remain in the "legal problems" section. Unless this isn't the end of his trial.
Yoda921 00:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; I have removed it. Indeed, I had thought all the "288 year" references had been deleted already. Yours Famspear 00:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  288 years 

message: There is a dispute as to whether the is a NPOV dispute.  One editor has placed a tag asserting that the NPOV of this article is disputed; at least three other editors, including an administrator has at one point objected to the adding of the tag.  As of the post of this RfC, there is at least one clear objector to the placing of the tag. Taco325i 01:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All you have to do is give evidence of what you disagree with. That would be reason enough for the tag. However, you have not. FGT2 04:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: If you have a specific statement that you feel is not neutral, say what it is.  We can work on it.  If you feel that it should be tagged as non-neutral for factual, accurate statements, then this isn't a case of the article being NPOV but the tagger being NPOV. Harvestdancer 17:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Comment

message: See this sentence in the last paragraph in the section about the current tax case:
One conversation with Eric Hovind, Kent Hovind's son, showed the two plot to hide a motor vehicle title and property deeds to prevent the government from collecting the property to pay for owed debt.[58]
This sentence should be reworded.  Should the word plot be changed to plotting?  Maybe more information should be added.
JBFrenchhorn 21:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's confusing? "Plotting" would be in the present tense when it should be in the past tense (plot). FGT2 03:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing wording in article 

message: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial.
Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikipedia principle. According to Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales, NPOV is "absolute and non-negotiable."[1]
This page, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, is one of Wikipedia's three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these policies are based are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus. Their policy pages may be edited only to improve the application and explanation of the principles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.72.213.193 (talk) 05:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please specify what, in your opinion, is wrong with the article? janejellyroll 05:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...Obviously, nothing.  A look at the history file reveals that this editor began with a bogus assertion that Hovind "hasn't been proved wrong" (he has, many times over), followed by massive deletion of factual and well-sourced information about Hovind.  Sometimes, the facts aren't flattering.  Indeed, the page of another famous tax-evader, Al Capone, describes him as some sort of gangster... --Robert Stevens 10:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The page 71.72.213.193 quotes  also says Facts ... are not Points Of View and Sometimes, a potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it.... A different approach is to substantiate the statement, by giving factual details that back it up.  I also read The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to delete texts that are perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem? In many cases, yes. Many of us believe that the fact that some text is biased is not enough, in itself, to delete it outright. If it contains valid information, the text should simply be edited accordingly Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete.  Ya gotta love people who are exercising an agenda under the guise of editorial purity.  63.196.193.26 02:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Read the rules then rewrite this article as it breaks the laws of Wikipedia