Talk:Kent Hovind

Alternative photos instead of a mugshot?
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)


 * 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)
 * But why use that as opposed to a regular photo? Dangdude11 (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We would need a photo that we have legal right to include, so either one in the public domain or one that has been released under one of the appropriate licenses that allows Wikipedia and those working from Wikipedia to make use of them. The only such photos that I find are three in Wikimedia Commons, and they are not great for the key photo - two of the three are at odd angles, and all of them are obscured by dark glasses. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

This article is poorly written and extremely biased
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)
 * 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)
 * They even have it semi-protected to insure no one tampers it. Bugs312 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well Kent Hovind promotes several disproven and unscientific ideas. It wouldn't make sense to treat the round earth and flat earth model the same, as the former has significantly more evidence to support it. 208.184.162.156 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The "feel free to propose" thing holds for you too. --Hob Gadling (talk)

No source for the opening paragraphs
Why aren’t there any sources for the opening paragraph? Dangdude11 (talk) 18:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.   Butler Blog   (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

06452-017
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)


 * How wouldn't it be?Tiptopper (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * What information does the prisoner number gives us besides "this is the prisoner number"? In what way would the world be different if the number was different? It's hard to see what it signifies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's Defense
Kent Hovind has stated his defense on several Youtube videos and it was also given in a book written by an attorney. Kent Hovind denies all charges. He says a colleage said the government broke one hundred laws to "lock him up". He claimed the transcript for his trial was tampered (and told of (7-8) witnesses) and it was not given until (15) months later, rather than the required (12). Kent complained that was to insure he couldn't go to a court of appeals. In prison he behaved very well and was usually always in "camp", the least security for good behaviour. Kent Hovind is a controversial figure and his side is rarely shown, which deems an unfare "media trial". Bugs312 (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Affidavit source
I have just removed the links for the source "Affidavit of Kent E. Hovind (2005) with Circuit Court of Escambia County August 10, 2005". It was sourced to Wikisource, but the item had been deleted from Wikisource, and the stated reason for deletion was copyright violation. As such, we should not replace it with an archive link, as that too would be a copyright violation and thus against WP:COPYVIOEL. I do not know about the general availability of affidavits in civil cases; if the material is not accessible in some form, we may need to consider deletion of content due to WP:V failures. The citation is not being used for anything visibly contentious -- date of marriage, when they had kids, work as a teacher -- so I do not feel the need to delete it immediately out of ultra-caution. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Outcome?
The last sentence in the article (under the Domestic violence section) states:

"A request for a retrial was denied, and an appeal triggered a jury trial in the Alabama Circuit Courts."

I have only a lay knowledge of the justice system. Does this mean that Hovind was subjected to another trial or not? I cannot enlarge the cited article, "'Dr. Dino' files an appeal", The Monroe Journal, enough to read. If so, what was the outcome? Thank you for your attention, Wordreader (talk) 04:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * The material you just quoted didn't match the source, which only says that a jury trial was "demanded", not that it was received. I have adjusted our text to match. Neither a Google news search nor a newspapers.com search finds any later mention of the matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2024
The opening states that he is "controversial within the Young Earth creationist movement twice. The second mention of this is redundant and reads poorly. "He is a controversial figure within the Young Earth creationist movement... he is also controversial in the Young Earth creationist movement." It should be removed. 2603:8001:20F0:6960:15FB:5A5C:EDEB:E21 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Makes sense. Removed the second use of the phrase as redundant. [´ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlerblog (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * The deleted sentence and the remaining one are both in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the body of the article. The body of the article does not say he is "controversial within the Young Earth creationist movement", so the deleted one was unsourced while the remaining one is not. Good job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)