Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 3

message: I have updated the details on Kent Hovind's convictions. The actual court judgment reflected a different amount than was reported in the newspaper on the restitution amount, and I am going with the actual court judgment.
Also, the court has set a hearing for Feb. 28, 2007, on Hovind's contention that the convictions on the "structuring" counts should be thrown out. It will be interesting to see how that turns out. The main effect -- if Hovind were to convince the court that those counts should be thrown out -- would be to reduce his prison time from ten years to five years. Stay tuned. Famspear 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Evil lawyers and their "lawyer stuff." :D Seriously, thanks for the update. Justin Eiler 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Many thanks to Famspear for working hard to keep this article up to date with regards to the Court Case and also for the many reverts of vandalism.  For some reason, this article attracts some pretty strange edits, blanking and vandalsim.  The last vandal blanked the article and typed in MEOW.  okaaaaaaaaaay...Lisapollison 23:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Info regarding convictions, and pending Feb. 28th hearing

message: Yes, I'll admit that Hovind's offer was made to be "impossible" to win. That's why he made it in the first place! But what's written here is way-off:
The winner would have to convince Hovind that not only is evolution real but that it "is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence" [4], in other words, he/she would have to think up every other possible theoretical scenario in the universe for the existence of everything in the universe and then disprove it -- leaving only evolution standing at the end for Hovind to accept it as true. As an example, the submittee would have to prove that life on earth was not the result of, say, crafting by a race of space aliens
Kent Hovind's theory may be asking for more than evolution (he appears to believe that evolution is the same as atheism), as the "5 major events" do not seem to be associated with the theory of evolution under common scientific practices. But his 250k offer certainly does not constitute "thinking up every other possible theoretical scenario in the universe for the existence of everything in the universe and then disproving it"
He does say at the beginning that "evolution is ACCLAIMED as being the only process capable..." - it's incorrect to say that this equates proving "every other possible option."  Hovind is really only introducing the topic in saying that. Read the article + quotation in context :)
And btw, "crafting by a race of space aliens" really doesn't need to be there, given the formal writing expected of an encyclopedia. 
Yoda921 12:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agreed on the aliens, I've removed that as it appears to be original synthesis. That whole section appears a bit problematic to me, I'll have a look over it when I have some more time if someone else hasn't first. Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 12:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the content under Hovind's offer appears to be incorrect 

message: Dear fellow editors: I note that the article mentions that Jo Hovind's sentencing was set for March 1, 2007 (today). However, I recall seeing somewhere in a recent document filed in the case that the court intended to delay her sentencing -- I think because of the Feb. 28th hearing. I didn't see a court order where the court actually did that, but I just may have missed it. Since I haven't seen any solid sourcing yet, I have not removed the reference to the March 1 sentencing (at least not yet) -- but I doubt that Mrs. Hovind will be sentenced today (March 1). Stay tuned. Yours, Famspear 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sentencing for Jo Hovind

message: http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-prison-calls-part-1
http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-phones-calls-part-2
http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-jail-calls-3-of-4
http://media.putfile.com/Kent-Hovind-jail-phone-calls-4-of-4 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bluesheadop (talk • contribs) 07:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hilarious!  Mr Christopher 23:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kent Hovind jail recordings for download 

message: Is it "young Earth" or "New Earth" that this guy promotes?
perfectblue 12:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Young Earth? 

message: I was reading different things on Wikipedia and came across the guidelines for Undue Weight, and wondered if maybe there might be an undue weight issue in regards to this article. I am not saying there definitively is, but am bringing it up to look into it.
Just as a referrence, here's the "rule" from Wikipedia:
"Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. 
"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them — Wikipedia is not paper. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, it should not be represented as the truth."
I can see that perhaps the great amount of Hovind's legal problems being spoken of here might fall under the notion of the weight "appropriate to its significance of the subject"; however, I believe that Hovind's theories and scientific views are of (approximate) equal prominence as his legal troubles. Should these not then occupy said "equal" space in the article?
Yours Truly. Cr4JC 22:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they might if we had more sources. Unfortunately we have very little in the way of reliable sources who have bothered to talk abput his viewpoints in any great detail. JoshuaZ 22:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it be possible to read up on Hovind's website (www.drdino.com) and gain information on his views there? There are several articles listed on various topics available there. It would take a lot of reading though to put together a general summary of these views, and would only be a summary of what his ministry is teaching, not necessarily him personally. If it is a biography, isn't it acceptable to use his own website or recordings of his teachings as a source? Cr4JC 23:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Views are disparate and sometimes contradictory. Synthesising them would require way too much judgement for WP:OR purposes. I think we have summaries in the article of most of hte major ones such as KJV-onlyism. JoshuaZ 23:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Undue Weight? 

message: Dear editors: Hovind was neither charged with nor convicted of tax fraud or tax evasion. I changed the text accordingly. I know that the links to various media sources, or the sources themselves, are sometimes using the terms "tax fraud" and "tax evasion," more or less indiscriminately, and there's nothing we can do about that. The precise counts on which he was convicted are, however, accurately described in the article (checked against the actual court documents), with citations to the statutes and links to the texts of those statutes at the Cornell University Law School web site. Yours, Famspear 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccurate legal terminology

message: Dear editors: I added detail on where Mr. Hovind is currently imprisoned, with a link. The Federal Bureau of Prisons web site does not show any information for Mrs. Hovind at this time. PS I put the material near the top of the page. Not sure if that's where consensus will develop on where the info should be, though. Yours, Famspear 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Jo Hovind in prison now? Arbustoo 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Any update? Its been a month since the hearing was delayed. Arbustoo 15:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked today (10 April 2007), and there is nothing posted on the Federal District Court docket as of yesterday (Monday, April 9, 2007). As a side note, Hovind is also appealing to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the clerk of court for the Eleventh Circuit specifically requested notification from the District Court clerk of any ruling on Hovind's Davenport arguments. I see no ruling entered on the District Court docket, and I see no indication (at least on the District Court docket) that the Eleventh Circuit clerk has been notified of any such ruling. The wheels grind slowwwwwlllllyyyy. Yours, Famspear 19:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prison location

message: The alleged victim was never Hovind's secretaryTweetybirdhowareyou 12:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should contact the webmaster of http://kent-hovind.com/ and have him correct the error. Arbustoo 23:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assault and Battery incorrect information 

message: Dear fellow editors: The Wikinews story and, indeed, the actual newspaper story regarding the latest April 2007 developments incorrectly refer to the resolution of Kent Hovind's "unit of the crime" arguments (the Davenport arguments) as being a rejection of Hovind's "appeal." Technically, this was not an "appeal;" it was a decision by the trial court itself that the convictions stand. An appeal would be something decided by an appeals court, not by the trial court. Also, according to the court docket the date of the decision (at docket entry 192), was April 18, not April 20. The newspaper story was dated April 20, which may have led to the confusion.
I have made some of the needed changes, but maybe an editor with more expertise should consider making some additional appropriate changes in the Wikipedia article with the link to the Wikinews item, and in Wikinews itself. Otherwise, I will try to get to this at a later time. I just don't have experience with Wikinews. Yours, Famspear 19:42, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Court rejects Hovind's "unit of the crime" argument: Some minor points

message: While reading the updated version of this page I noticed a couple things that caught my eye. In the "Creation Science Evangelism Ministry" section where it is speaking about Eric Hovind, it says, "Eric attended Jackson Hole Bible College[18] a only one year[19] non-accredited institution." It should not say "a only one year", but either "an only one year" or "a one year only". 
Also, I feel that a reference is needed to maintain the statements made in the 2nd paragraph of the biography portion which speaks of how his own website contradicts itself about copyrights. Using the reference given (number 7) and simply looking at Hovind's website one can only plainly see the notice at the bottom of each page which states, "ALL MATERIAL (UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED) IS COPYRIGHT © 2007 CSE MINISTRY". If this said contradiction is going to be mentioned at all (and I don't feel it's necessary to include at all, but that's another discussion), a referrence to the exact page where the contradiction is made should be listed. His site has dozens of pages, finding such a contradiction is probably very difficult (from what I can tell as I go through its pages). Without a referrence it appears that perhaps someone was spending way too much time looking for a way to defame Hovind.
Thanks! Cr4JC 03:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, The exact page of the contradiction is listed. Scroll to the bottom. Arbustoo 02:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should cut Hovind's "lawyer," Glen Stoll, a break. I mean its not like a lawyer is expected to be educated in law. Arbustoo 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Its also worth pointing out that all his DVDs are copyrighted and are stamped with a clear indicated they are copyrighted. Any copying of the disc to distribute is illegal. Arbustoo 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The link was in the article to begin with. Arbustoo 15:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gramatical Error and Reference Request 

message: I have removed the infobox from the article, retaining the photograph it contained.  I did not see what it added to the article. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Info boxes are pretty standard. I thought it was helpful to haveall that basic info. in one place. Arbustoo 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only information the box contained were his date of birth and occupation (which we could learn by reading the first paragraph right next to the box) and the names of his family members.  While two of his family members are important in telling his story, we don't learn why until further down the article.  In my view, it's pretty unfortunate that infoboxes are standard: they clutter the article and don't provide any information that couldn't be obtained by actually reading the article (which itself is a brief introduction to a topic). ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of infobox 

message: According to a posting at his blog Hovind got in trouble for breaking prison rules despite being told not to hold meetings in numbers greater than 4 or 5. If you scroll down to this comment, it discusses his holding for "administrative security." Should this be added? Arbustoo 05:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither is a reliable source. If it gets mentions in a relibale source then we should include it, but not before then. JoshuaZ 04:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hovind in solitary confinement for breaking prison rules 

message: I am removing this link about Hovind's 1996 case when had his vechiles seized because it doesn't seem important. Thoughts? Arbustoo 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think it's pretty interesting. However, I deal with both bankruptcy and taxation in my job every day, so I think almost anything that has to do with bankruptcy or taxes is important, especially if it's almost kinda funny and at the same time sad (as it is in this case). Anyway, no objection from this corner. Yours, Famspear 04:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved into the upper portion as a source. It seemed out of place. Arbustoo 17:37, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to tax protestor of the month 

message: The intro to the article states that "Hovind is currently located at United States Penitentiary, Atlanta (USP) in Atlanta, Georgia, a high security prison.[2]". However, in his blog, he states "Federal Marshals arrive to transport me to a Federal Prison Camp in Pensacola. This minimum security federal facility was designed for 300 but houses 700 men. All these men work to help maintain military bases in the area." (http://www.cseblogs.com/?p=66). He also speaks of how greatful he is to be able to see his family, who lives but 10 miles away from the prison camp. Can someone please look into this contradiction? Thanks! Cr4JC 21:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as Famspear noted. Please look at the dates. If you read further down the article it explains his prison history. Arbustoo 02:52, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prison Location?