Talk:Kent Hovind

message: Wikipedia's stance on mugshots as photos are the following:
Depending on the photo, the mug shot may preserve, in its unique and visually powerful way, the subject individual's brush with the law for posterity. Since a mug shot's stigmatizing effect can last well beyond the actual criminal proceedings, mug shots should be used with care within Wikipedia and in recognition of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons and Neutral point of view policies.
Are there any alternate photos suitable to Hovind's article, which would avoid any possible interpretation of contradiction in regards to the Biographies of living persons and Neutral point of view policies? The mugshot is regardless unappealing, even from the perspective of a staunch evolutionist here. Josias-Zygmont (talk) 12:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Although possibly unappealing, the photo of relevant to the article and is in the public domain. 184.146.47.17 (talk) 15:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: But why use that as opposed to a regular photo?  Dangdude11 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative photos instead of a mugshot? 

message: Could this be used?  LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no hard consensus on reliability of the Daily Beast (WP:DAILYBEAST).  It's an opinion site, so it's not really all that useful, IMO... depends on what angle you're taking as using an opinion source may be WP:UNDUE if you're trying to present the material in the same way as the source. ButlerBlog (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daily Beast article 

message: "The Hovind Theory is entirely rejected in the scientific community, and its plausibility has even been criticized by other young Earth creationists."
Regardless of your personal feelings of the man himself, the vapor canopy concept has not been rejected by the scientific community. Rather, it has been given credibility by having been observed on other planets. Additionally, young Earth creationists may believe a number of things, including the vapor canopy concept. This is not neutral nor is it correct, but rather is written to discredit the man himself. Cactuscatonline (talk) 14:46, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  Are you proposing a change to the article? If so, please specify that request in the form "I'd like to change X to Y" with the source(s) you are citing to back up that change. If you are not proposing a change, then please read WP:NOTFORUM. --McSly (talk) 15:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

text: In case you want to give undeserved credit to the vapor canopy nonsense in the article:  It is simply an ignorant layman's unrealistic idea. See  and . --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a neutral POV 

message: This is probably one of the most embarrassingly non-objective articles I’ve seen on Wikipedia. The person who wrote this clearly hates the individual they are writing about and it shows in every word of the article. And seriously, the mug shot photo? If I could report this article I would. Someone needs to scratch this whole article and rewrite objectively. Yikes. 2601:603:381:C100:F180:EB5A:B058:497 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to propose specific new content and a different image. The article is what it is because those who wrote it based on it on the sources that are available. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is poorly written and extremely biased 

message: Why aren’t there any sources for the opening paragraph? Dangdude11 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In a cursory overview of the lead, it looks like it pretty much summarizes what is in the body of the article (as it should).  Per MOS:LEADCITE, the entire lead, and especially the opening paragraph, should be a summary of what is contained in the article, and therefore it should already be cited in the article body.  If it is sourced in the body and the lead is a summary of that, it is not required to repeat the citation in the lead.  So... while not required, it's also not necessarily discouraged.  Ultimately, it's a combination of being a matter of taste (and consensus) while balanced with the need to make sure contentious topics are verified.  Usually, if it's contentious or a source of edit warring, citations will be enforced to prevent article instability. ButlerBlog (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  No source for the opening paragraphs  

message: Historically significant federal prisoner  number - needs to be preserved here, should be in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tiptopper (talk • contribs) 
:How at all would his prisoner number be historically significant? --Onorem (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: How wouldn't it be?Tiptopper (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 06452-017