Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2015
Kent Hovind is not a tax protester. Listen to his recent telephone interviews. He says "I am not a tax protester!"

2601:8:A800:17D9:2850:B515:5EF8:FFBE (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, he is a tax protester. Many tax protesters claim that they are not "tax protesters" -- in part because the term has negative connotations. However, that is the term that the courts use, and that is the term that legal scholars use (along with the term "tax denier"). Famspear (talk) 02:41, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all claims by subjects are taken at face value. We go by what independent sources say. --Neil N  talk to me 02:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "I am not a crook" by any other name is still a crook. WP:RS wins as always. DMacks (talk) 02:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Some of this is already covered in the article, but I note here that Hovind has been repeatedly designated by various U.S. federal court judges as being a tax protester. Example, from the U.S. Tax Court:


 * On August 13, 2004, petitioner [Kent Hovind] mailed back to respondent [the Commissioner of Internal Revenue] an envelope containing respondent's June 4, 2004, notice to petitioner of the tax lien filing with the words stamped on the first page "REFUSED FOR FRAUD". Also included in petitioner's envelope mailed to respondent was a letter making various bizarre arguments, some of which constitute tax protester arguments involving excise taxes and the alleged "100% voluntary" nature of the income tax.

--from Kent E. Hovind v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-143, CCH Dec. 56,562(M) (July 6, 2006).

And, from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Hovind's 1996 bankruptcy case:


 * The evidence presented at the hearing paints a clear portrait of a tax protester whose sole purpose in seeking relief under chapter 13 was to obtain the release of property seized by the IRS. [ . . . ] While in his correspondence to the IRS he [Hovind] denies being a tax protester, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes otherwise.

--from In re Kent E. Hovind, 197 B.R. 157 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1996). Famspear (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The definition of a crook is one who has been convicted of an offence. What's Hovind's address right now? Oh yes: jail. He's a crook. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Anthony Jaworski lawsuit and testimony against Hovind
I think the article should add mention of Anthony Jaworski (youtube interview interview here), who purchased the Hovind property and started getting letters telling him he'll be sued. Jaworski filed a lawsuit and also testified at Hovind's 2015 mail fraud trial.

Also it seems the Hovind's have a connection with Jim Bob Duggar and Josh Duggar as there are photos of them together and Eric Hovind defended the family (titled "Why I Love Josh Duggar"). If this get newsworthy it should added too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maiihpen (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * No reliable sources have discussed these matters. Those sources listed are blogs and lack the editorial oversight necessary to be considered as reliable sources. One of the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia is notability, and unless reliable sources have established the relevance of a topic, it is inappropriate for inclusion.BiologicalMe (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Coming Home
I came across this announcement regarding his prison release on July 8th: https://www.facebook.com/events/1666542516908311/. Not a reliable source, I understand, but the release will probably be covered by regional newspapers. Liz Read! Talk! 23:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * While it seems highly plausible, the BOP inmate locator still lists his release date as 08/09/2015. It is likely that he will be released to home confinement on the date you listed, and the status in locator should be updated the following day, and local news coverage of the release or a homecoming event are likely. There is a past history of announced release dates that did not materialize, so we can wait on the reliable sources.BiologicalMe (talk) 23:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the blog post about it said that he would be confined to the home at first and had to later have permission to leave the local area for speaking engagements. I'm new to this article and there has been so much work put into it, I defer to those who are more familiar with his story. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:30, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kent is now out of jail. Can we use the Forbes article as a source for that?--Cms13ca (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure. The Forbes material is normally a reliable source. In this case, though, I don't see any other reliable source confirming the Forbes material (but there are lots of UNreliable sources today that he was released today, July 8). Federal prisoners are often sent to a facility a few weeks prior to official release, where they are no longer behind bars -- but they're not officially released until the scheduled date. That may or may not be the case here. If he was indeed released today, we should see some reliable source confirming the Forbes material pretty soon. Famspear (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Did you mean to say that the Forbes material is notnormally a reliable source? I get that impression from the context and it is a blog. It's a high quality blog, but it lacks editorial oversight. If the rumors are correct, the term will be finished out as home confinement. I expect the BOP inmate finder will reveal an updated status tomorrow, but even that is problematic as a source because it is volatile. You cannot use it to find past status information.BiologicalMe (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The inmate locator now reads "NOT IN BOP CUSTODY" with release date "08/09/2015".BiologicalMe (talk) 10:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I meant that Reilly, the author of the Forbes weblog in question, is normally reliable. However, in this particular case, I think we should wait until we get a confirmation.

Regarding the BOP (Federal Bureau of Prisons) web page, my experience is that normally when a prisoner is released to a halfway house or something like that (where the individual is no longer confined and presumably can come and go within certain restrictions), the BOP will still show the individual as "in custody", with a release date being some day in the distant future, usually just a few weeks. Technically, the individual is still in "BOP custody" until he is released from the halfway house or community facility, or whatever they call it.

The BOP web site is not always updated as quickly as perhaps it should be. The reference to "NOT IN BOP CUSTODY" (on the web site right now) might or might not just be a reference to the fact that Hovind was not in BOP custody during his most recent trial. Maybe he's been back in BOP custody for several months, and the BOP just hasn't updated its web site -- I don't know.

Based on the postings from Hovind's followers I saw last night, including a recording where Hovind says he just got out of jail, my guess would be that he has been sent to some sort of BOP community center. If that were the case, he would still be technically "in BOP custody" (i.e., not yet "released") even if he's not behind bars and doesn't have to spend all his time at the facility.

I suspect he might technically still be in BOP custody (and thus not truly "released") until August 9, 2015, even though for all intents and purposes he might have been "freed" yesterday.

In short: I don't have any special knowledge of how the Bureau of Prisons works, so for the article, I would say: wait for some sort of confirmation from a reliable source. Famspear (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My understanding is there will be home confinement until the August release date, but I don't have a reliable source. With only internet rumors, I agree that we should wait for WP:reliable sources, not just sources that tend to be reliable (sorry about misinterpreting your wording) before updating the article.BiologicalMe (talk) 14:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * PNJ has reported, so we have a source to work with.BiologicalMe (talk) 18:34, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No more "Controversial remarks"
I've just done some fairly heavy reorganization to eliminate "Controversial remarks" (see WP:CRITS) as a section heading. I promoted the "Politics and conspiracies" subheading, but it could probably use a better name now that the context ("controversial remarks") is lost. Are there any thoughts about alternate headings, preferably those that do not promote indiscriminate additions? Also, I've created several subheadings under "Creationism". Are there any opinions about order or nomenclature? Then again, is there any opposition while it is still relatively easy to undo?BiologicalMe (talk) 18:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In a similar vein, I took the piecemeal portions of the property forfeiture battles and placed them in a single section directly ahead of the related second criminal trial.BiologicalMe (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

When I the moved anti-evolution statements into the Creationism activities, I dropped two sentences pertaining to Genesis, which were not strictly "Hovind theory", into a generic other claims section. While slightly interesting (at least to me) on their own, I didn't find a clean way to incorporate them as more that musings. As result, I've deleted the section], but am "parking" it here in case someone sees an informative use for the content or references.

Other claims

 * He has surmised that the Great Pyramid was built as a stone version of the Bible, not by the Egyptians,[1] but "could have been built by Adam's relatives".[2][3] His dissertation says that the serpent taught evolution to Adam and Eve.[4]


 * 1) name="Forrest"
 * 2) name="DinosaursExistGuardian"

He has surmised that the Great Pyramid was built as a stone version of the Bible, not by the Egyptians, but "could have been built by Adam's relatives". His dissertation says that the serpent taught evolution to Adam and Eve.

As always, I anyone has ideas, I'm all ears.BiologicalMe (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2015
Greetings...I think this man is arrogant and at times teeters on obnoxious; however, as I researched a little bit on this man I learned that he is not a tax protestor, he was accused of "structuring" which I understand is a post 911 law that gives the IRS the power to seize assets if that person or business habitually deposits and withdraws just under $10k per transaction (to avoid scrutiny). I look to wiki as the ultimate authority and have never seen anything that would cause me to discourage others from relying on your articles so please repair these errors... for the sake of your credibility, for if we all start seeing your personal opinions coloring what is considered truth you all will quickly harm your stellar reputation of what is considered a great institution...please help. Thank you24.209.128.149 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

24.209.128.149 (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. It already says that he was structuring. "Kent began serving a ten-year prison sentence in January 2007 for federal court convictions for failing to pay taxes, obstructing federal agents, and structuring cash transactions" Cannolis (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dear user at IP 24.209.128.149: Yes, Kent Hovind is a tax protester. Read the article. He has promoted tax protester arguments, and his arguments have been specifically designated as tax protester arguments in federal court cases. So, there's nothing endangering the "credibility" of Wikipedia here. Read the article again. Famspear (talk) 00:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This. Also, please note that secondary sources have described Hovind as a tax protestor and ultimately, that's what Wikipedia uses. Ravensfire ( talk ) 00:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

And, the structuring statute is not a "post 9-11" statute. The law (31 USC section 5324) was enacted under section 1354(a) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Public Law No. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207, at 3207-22 (Oct. 27, 1986). This was back when Ronald Reagan was president. That provision has been amended from time to time. Famspear (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, IP says his concern is based on "structuring" which I understand is a post 911 law, but we already link to structuring, so one can see that this premise is indeed incorrect as Famspear notes. One of wikipedia's strengths (besides credibility based on cited refs) is the ability for readers to immediately improve their understanding of related topics. DMacks (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that several people (often supporters of Hovind) have claimed to have "researched" Hovind and, astoundingly, have come to the completely erroneous conclusion that he is not a "tax protester" or, even more astonishingly, that he somehow was not convicted of federal tax crimes at all. Yet, I have never seen anyone actually try to claim that Hovind has not made the tax protester arguments he has in fact made. Obviously, Hovind himself has not denied that he has made those arguments. And, to argue that Hovind was not convicted of federal tax crimes -- where the actual court record (which is available for anyone to see online) obviously shows that he WAS convicted of federal tax crimes under the Internal Revenue Code (and not just "structuring") -- is just nonsensical. I believe some of these people are simply repeating the internet babbling of Hovind's followers, even though the Wikipedia article is clear, correct, and properly sourced to both primary and secondary sources. Famspear (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Early release
The article should mention that Hovind was released from prison as early as July 8th, as he is now making YouTube videos again and has jumped right back into the fray challenging the Drunken Peasants. Ender and  Peter  23:21, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just reviewed the previous conversations on this and I figured I'd make this new conversation for the issue. I'd say that a very brief mention of his early release from prison to home confinement is worthy of mention, if only to catch this article up with his current activities. The Forbes and PNJ articles are good sources, for sure. Ender  and  Peter  23:33, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If you were to mention it in the article, you just would not want to leave a false impression. This release procedure is common for federal inmates. The last few weeks of the incarceration portion of a prison term are typically served outside the prison, in the custody of a residential reentry management field office of the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Technically, Hovind is now in the custody of the Orlando, Florida Residential Reentry Management field office, until August 9th. Famspear (talk) 00:11, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that his release is already mentioned in the article -- at the very end. Again, it's not "early" release in the sense of some sort of unusual event. He was simply released from physical custody, but he is technically still in the custody of the residential reentry management field office. Standard practice.


 * In another sense, though, Hovind was released "early," as are many or perhaps most federal inmates. That is, many or most federal prisoners are released after serving at least 85% of their sentence behind bars. My understanding is that this is standard if the prisoner has not gotten into serious trouble while behind bars. Famspear (talk) 03:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 August 2015
I would like to add new Details about Pastor Kent Hovind including New Images, new Social Media etc

Jjnewey (talk) 02:24, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 02:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

New photo/portriat
I have a picture that Kent Hovind has allowed me to use on Wikipedia to replace the current photo. Do I need approval for this? Here is the photo http://kenthovindblog.com/?page_id=380 Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacob A. Henderson, we do not accept fair use images of living people unless there's a compelling reason like showing a historic event. Hovind will have to email permissions-commons@wikimedia.org releasing the photo under a completely free-use license or add a note on his blog saying the photo is in the public domain or has a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. Either way, it's important that he understands releasing the photo in this way means anyone can use it for any purpose. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, he should be aware that he is giving permission for anyone in the world to do whatever they want with that photo. Alter it and add text of any nature, sell it, whatever... he will no longer own that photo or be able to withdraw permission for people to use it.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  19:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of the heady days of Gastrich. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have an image that was taken from Kent Hovind's debate at Wayne State University that says in the beginning of the video that anyone can freely use this image. <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SssNsdr2IGBXeYb72ecfA5sf6_0vWT9c1QyZrSkEq-k/edit> Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kent Hovind has also granted me permission to change his Wikipedia picture with a better one. Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacob A. Henderson, what's the link to the original source? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:17, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN Here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5x1oM57Gnw&list=PL6-cVj-ZRivpHQhRLUXmLV3nxZ_kWtND-&index=8 Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 22:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And where did Hovind release this image to be used under CC or public domain?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacob A. Henderson, that video does not have a free-use license. Up above I give you an email address where Hovind or his representative can email proper permission. Although I do not doubt your word, the WMF has no way of verifying that editor x has been given permission from the copyright holder to release an image under a free-use license. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * NeilN & Jess - I will contact his representative, but I must ask what gives the indication that this video is copyrighted? It says at the very beginning of the given video, "These videos are intentionally not copyrighted. Please feel free to copy them for free distribution to reach others. We only ask that you observe the following: 1. Do not sell copies for any amount. See I Tim. 5:18 2. Consider supporting our ministry financially if you make copies so we can continue to produce new materials. 3. Consider ordering multiple copies from us at discounted rates. (Call our office for details) Our first generation copies will be better quality for testimony sake and will help us continue as well. We have worked hard and spent a large fortune developing this video series. See I Tim. 5:18" Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Jacob A. Henderson, free-license videos will state that in the "Show More" section (example). Hovind's video has the "Standard Youtube license" which keeps copyright. Also, for use on Wikipedia, photos of living people must be licensed under a license which allows for commercial reselling. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hovind doesn't understand copyright. By saying that you must observe certain terms to use his content, he's saying it is copyrighted, and he's licensing its use. The content can be copyrighted, it just has to be released under a different license than he's currently releasing it under. &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * No, you don't understand copyright, or what Hovind said. The disclaimer says "we only ask" not "you must observe." It's not a license. It's not anything other than a request. It has no force of law, and no legal effect. You just don't want to use any photo other than his mug shot, because it fits your prejudices, which are as clear as day.§  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.99.226 (talk) 16:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it really is you that doesn't understand. Basically, without Hovind formally forfeiting his claim on ownership of the photo in its entirety, we can't use it.  Its that simple.  And no one knows its a mug shot unless they come here and see people like you endlessly complaining about it.  Without you talking about it, it looks no different than a yearbook photo.Farsight001 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note, also, that it would be fairly easy for anyone to append a section to the beginning of a video saying "This may be freely distributed." Formal release is a necessary precaution for the protection both of the copyright holder and Wikipedia.  --BRPierce (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


 * BRPierce: The image is from a video from "Kent Hovind OFFICIAL" YouTube Channel so the copyright cannot be from anyone other than Kent Hovind. Mann_jess: So if I was to obey the specific terms given by Kent Hovind then would I be allowed to post the image? Jacob A. Henderson (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No. You have to obey the terms given by the WMF. See WP:DCM. Kent Hovind has to donate the image under a license which is compatible with wikipedia. The license he is using now is not compatible.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2015
"unaccreditated" should be inserted before "private Baptist schools, including one he started."

Mookiewak (talk) 00:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Is there a source that describes them as "unaccredited"? Stickee (talk) 00:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing for including anything. I just felt like doing some research. Longview Christian Academy, (Longview, TX) is a K-5 - 12th school. Texas Baptist College,(Longview, TX) is still run by Longview Baptist Temple, but now called Texas Independent Baptist Seminary & Schools, it isn't accredited. []. Realize these aren't RS, but it's tough to cite the non-existence of something. Calvary Baptist Christian School (Fairfield, CA) is a K-5 - 12th school. The one he started, Bethel Baptist Academy (Pekin, Illinois), doesn't appear to exist, at least under that name, anymore. It was likely also grade/high school as it shows up on classmate finding sites. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I will advise that you not put the cart before the horse. You need to complete the research before making an edit. I've been able to find indirect evidence of the existence of Bethel Bible Academy: an obituary including a reference to teaching there. I've also seen alumni forums and evidence of yearbooks. That said, even if you could show by an exhaustive search that none of the institutions were accredited (which would not be surprising), could you get it into a format a reader could readily examine? That is the criterion of WP:Verifiability. This is not easy. I've been researching the topic for a while, and the pickings are slim. If you are interested in doing research, be advised that there are many "dry holes". On the upside, sometimes you look for something and while you don't find it, you come across more interesting.BiologicalMe (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't arguing for including anything, wasn't interested in making an edit. Grade/high schools aren't "accredited" in the first place. He taught at an unaccredited college, Texas Baptist College (now known as Texas Independent Baptist Seminary & Schools), but again, citing a RS for an absence of something is tricky. Mookiewak's requested edit wouldn't make much sense as written when Hovind's teaching at grade/high schools are lumped into a comment about accreditation. I put the cart before the horse merely to illustrate if it's a cart worth pulling. 173.228.118.114 (talk) 20:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, many private and religious schools, at all levels, are accredited, so the adjective "unaccredited" is not meaningless. If a strong source, one likely to have done the research to exhaustion and stating the conclusion, had been published, that would support the edit. I concur that there no supporting grounds for the edit. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * All the degrees we list, are form unaccredited institutions, I have checked the sources. Guy (Help!) 20:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

infobox biography vcard
--TaSwavo (talk) 22:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Look at the infobox biography vcard for this page

It clearly emphasising issues the poster wanted mentioning as DEFINING issues in this person's life. Important yes, that is why they should and have to remain in the body of the text - but not defining. They must exist in the body of the text. But I think not a MAIN items in infobox biography vcard

You look at Wesley Snipes and some other celebrity people that have been criminals. Their criminal issues DO NOT exist in their infobox biography vcard entry.

But they do not exist as entries in their text. As they should be. As facts.

I think this guy (Hovind) is wrong on almost all he believes. But this is a matter of Wikipedia solidity. This is victimization. The facts may be true - but the positioning is WRONG! And not done on other pages. This is not IN the definition of a person who is Wesley Snipes (infobox biography vcard) - but it is for this record? Very poor Not OK. The person that added it THERE needs not to be able to do that. We shouldn't do it for Mick Jagger (lots of well know people have criminal record but we don't put it as 40% of their 'main' left statement) or other well known people. This guy is wrong - but should not be treated unlike others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TaSwavo (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is an infobox biography vcard? -- ‖ Ebyabe  talk -   Union of Opposites   ‖ 22:14, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Infobox. <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 22:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Based upon the preponderance of reliable sources, the infobox is appropriate. Coverage of legal battles accompanies, if not overshadows, many accounts of the subject's other activities. The argument that some people have had run-ins with the law that do not define their notability does not imply that all persons who have been convicted of felonies (Wesley Snipes, used as an example, was only convicted on misdemeanor counts) are not most notable for criminal activity; while The Expendables 3 may not have had the success of the Blade trilogy, reliable sources indicate that Wesley Snipes's incarceration was a hiatus in his Hollywood career. To use an example from the other extreme, Bernie Madoff would have been notable for his career (e.g. on the NASD board) if his financial criminal activity did not overshadow his accomplishments. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Another attempt at fringe pushing
"...flaws in various theories..." that are pointed out in the Bible, no doubt. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Impartial tone Policy shortcut:

WP:IMPARTIAL

Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.

Current article does not come up to standard. I will report anyone who engages in edit warring.

Rolusty33 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)rolusty33


 * WP:FRINGE: "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views. While pseudoscience may, in some cases, be significant to an article, it should not obfuscate the description or prominence of the mainstream views." We clearly label Hovind's views as fringe and treat them that way per the guideline. Junk science does not get equal billing with mainstream science. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:34, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit in question gives no undue precedence to Creation Science over Evolution as if it were proven fact. Reference to :WP:FRINGE: irrelevant. Article fails to comply with standards of :NPOV: in tone and information of subject.
 * See first post. Who's saying there are flaws? Hovind and his junk science. And he's not dismissed by only "evolutionary scientists". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 04:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't edit this wiki!? ...strange.
Why do my edits keep getting rollback my? I don't it's a fair statement to say that the entire scientific community discredits all of Kent Hovind's claims. Michaelcadcock (talk) 23:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Statistics on this would be interesting, but I'd wager that the number of scientists who agree with Hovind is incredibly small in comparison to the number of those who think his claims are completely incorrect. There is a very similar debate on Talk:Ken Ham. Ultimately, Hovind's views are overruled by overwhelming evidence and the vast majority of the scientific community, so saying it's just a few scientists who have a different opinion than him is intellectually dishonest. clpo13(talk) 23:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see... Thanks for the clarification. Michaelcadcock (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelcadcock (talk • contribs) 23:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Mug shot redux
Per WP:MUG mugshots cannot be used out of context to misrepresent the individual. The image cannot be used in the info box as he is not known primarily for being a criminal, but for his eccentric views. The image is appropriately used in the section relevant to its creation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would dispute that he is just as known about his criminal record as creationist views. How does the mug shot give a false or disparaging light impression of Hovind or is taken out of context? I wouldlike to get the opinion of other people's thoughts on whether the mug shot of Kent Hovind should be removed from the infobox. Unless a current photo can be provided, it should stay as it is relevant to the article.--Cms13ca (talk) 15:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)--Cms13ca (talk) 15:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Even "just as known" is NOT "primarily known" - particularly since the shot appears to be from an incident not at all related to the tax arrest. And no, we most certainly do not throw out BLP because the subject doesn't provide us with a good photo. That is just insane blackmail. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is something we've already talked about a lot. My opinion might be a little different if the photo actually looked like a mugshot, but it doesn't. It looks like a normal photo against the wall. I don't see how it's being taken out of context, or that it's representing Kovind as a criminal. I don't think it's doing either of those things. I do think having a photo of Hovind in his bio is important; he's a public speaker, and a recognizable portrait is significant to his bio.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there is NO EXCEPTION for "if the mug shot does not look like a mug shot it can be used willy nilly." Mug shots can only be used within appropriate context. In this instance the context is the Escambia County arrest. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please stick to the actual policy text and do not make up your own. "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light." Looking at the photo, there's nothing about it that presents Hovind in a false or disparaging light. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * OF COURSE utilizing a MUG SHOT as the primary identification is presenting the subject in a disparaging light. And anyone with a slow connection sees the MUG SHOT title of the image as it is loading. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  17:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There are an infinitesimal number of cases where mugshots should be used. This is not one of them. Collect (talk) 17:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The policy does not say "don't use mugshots" or even "avoid mugshots when possible". The policy says don't use photos "to present a person in a false or disparaging light." If the photo is not recognizable as a mugshot, then it is not "false or disparaging". TRPoD, what if we change the photo name? Then viewers on a slow connection won't see "mugshot" before the image loads. Frankly, I don't think that's a problem to begin with - a very substantial part of this article is now about his conviction, but if we rename the photo, it'll be even less recognizable. Would that work for you?  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 17:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * IMO - We should not include a mugshot, even if it is the only image we have of his face. Whether the reader can determine if the image is a mugshot or not isn't relevant. It may not appear like a mugshot to you, but it may to other readers. The fact is, it is a mugshot and should not be added, especially to the infobox. Meatsgains (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Include unless a free alternate one is available. If he was only arrested then NO, but he was convicted. It doesn't even matter as the photo is a crop of a mugshot, and isn't recognizable as one. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited and renamed the photo. It is now less noisy and in no way can be determined to be a mugshot. It's still a low-quality photo, so I'd still love to replace it with something else, but it's all we have available at the moment.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Since he is so litigious I do not recommend using a copyrighted fair-use image as an alternative. It is not an unflattering image like the mugshot of Nick Nolte. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The image claims to be from Kent_Hovind where the charges were dropped. It is a complete misuse of the mug shot completely out of context. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  19:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Which you know because you researched where the image came from, not from looking at the image. I don't see how his face could be out of context for his bio. It isn't a portrait of him in a jumpsuit. He isn't holding a placard. It isn't a silly or stupid photo that makes him look bad. If we took a photo of him at Disney World, that wouldn't be taking the photo out of context because "he usually isn't at Disney World". Yes, this photo happens to have been taken while he was incarcerated. It isn't our fault as editors that he was incarcerated, and we aren't trying to hide that fact (it's right in the lede!). But this photo doesn't portray him as a convict. It's just a portrait.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 20:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Red Pen of Doom's comment, I don't have an opinion about the mug shot issue, but just about everyone with whom I interact who has heard of Hovind (outside of Wikipedia) probably knows of Hovind because of his criminal background, not because of his views about evolution, creation, etc. I myself had never heard of the guy until he popped up on my radar for his criminal troubles. However, I hang out with weird people (i.e., people who are really into the study of U.S. federal criminal tax law). I guess it could be difficult to determine what he is primarily "known for" today -- without doing some sort of survey or poll. Just my two cents worth...... Famspear (talk) 20:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If he is "primarily " noted as a tax criminal then 3/4 of our article needs to be cut. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The image can be used in the section about his arrest, but not in the infobox.-  Cwobeel   (talk)  22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * While normally not OK, this mugshot is ok because: (1) It is flattering; (2) it is not obviously a mugshot; (3) he was indeed convicted, with the fact featuring significantly in the article, including the lede and main infobox. Presuming that this image is the only reasonable quality free portrait of Kent, and noting an abundance of portraits on the web, the subject should be invited to provide an alternative.  A similar portrait, but wearing a jacket and tie, would be good for all.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep. Several people supposedly in contact with Hovind have been here and we've made the offer to replace the image to each one. If my recollection severs, Hovind was supposedly contacted but had difficulty understanding copyright, and we couldn't get a suitable image released. I've never tried contacting him myself, but I suppose if someone wanted to try, that couldn't hurt.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think if at all possible another photo would be better. Had he not been convicted, I'd say no photo would be better than a mugshot.Red Fiona (talk) 12:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm no fan of this guy, but I agree that it would be better if the mugshot were swapped/removed. It made sense to use a mugshot while he was actually in prison, but now that he's free, it seems unnecessary/unfair. It is quite recognizably a mugshot, and it is almost 15 years old in any case. Surely a more recent photo has to be available. If not, I'm rather certain that if someone contacted him and asked for a photo, he would gladly provide a more recent one so that his Wikipedia page no longer uses an outdated mugshot. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is the image has to be free use if a free use image is available. The mug shot, by virtue of being a picture taken by a government agency (oversimplified), is automatically free use. There are no other images that are free use.  Written permission to use an image someone possesses is still not enough.  They (in this case Hovind) would have to completely release it for free use, something he's skeptical to do ever since he did it with his creation videos and people cut and snipped and tore them to shreds verbally on youtube.  Hence, we are stuck with a mug shot.Farsight001 (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * That explanation of why he would be afraid to release a photo into the public domain doesn't make a whole lot of sense. (Which doesn't really surprise me.) If anyone wants to slice-and-dice a photo to Photoshop Kent into something, the public-domain mugshot is already available to them. There's no benefit to him not to release a more recent photo that's not of him being arrested. You raise a valid point though. Since he released his early creation science videos into the public domain for people to "spread 'em around", there should be no copyright problem in taking a screen cap from one of those and using it as the profile picture.  He explicitly says, "They're not copyrighted" in the videos.  Since those videos are how he's best known, it would make sense. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But they are copyrighted. "Free use" doesn't mean "not copyrighted". It means that copyrighted work has been licensed in a way we can use it. This is a distinction Hovind appears not to understand, and it's why he filed a series of DMCAs and threatened legal action against people spreading his "not copyrighted" videos. Not only do our policies not allow us to use photos on the promise they are "not copyrighted", but even if we could, Hovind's history of making legal threats over their use would make it irresponsible.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 18:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Picture
I've tagged the photo as a copyvio on Commons. It does not have the proper permissions. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:59, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. Good work. Thank you Neil. Dr.   K.  01:19, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

As it says in the wikimedia commons' explications, the picture added can be use because it's someone else's work with the author granted permission to copy it. It is actualy a picture from a 1999 videotape where the author explicitly mentionned that there is no copyright on his product. The tape is from the Creation science evangelism collection and is titled Creation/evolution debate; Genesis: History or Myth By Dr. Kent E Hovind (1999). 104.221.72.180 (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been deleted there. Doug Weller  talk 11:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Developments on Kent Hovind (April 2016)
Over the past several weeks, there has been some interesting developments regarding Kent Hovind and was wondering should they be added to article. Apparently, his wife is divorcing him and Kent is going to be evicted from his Pensacola property as his son, Eric, now owns it and Kent has been looking to acquire property near Range, Alabama. Also, he was in court over stalking complaint.--Cms13ca (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Without coverage in reliable sources, none of these will have risen to notability. It can be verified that Jo Hovind has filed for divorce, but unless it is finalized, there would be no basis to change basic biographical information. If there were a reconciliation and no reliable sources ever covered the troubles, it never would have reached notability. (I wonder if I can be booted from Wikipedia for excessive use of conditional verb tenses.) There may be some usable coverage on the property, but I'm still working on verifying it exists. Thanks, but let's not get ahead of the sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear BiologicalMe: If your use of conditional verb tenses exceeds the Officially Designated Maximum Prescribed Level of Use as described in the Official Wikipedia Commission on the Excessive Use of Conditional Verb Tenses and Other Overly-Wrought Nomenclature and if your conduct is as described in the Official Wikipedia Manual of Stuff Regarding Excessive Use of Different Things and if an official determination is made by the aforementioned Commission in conformity with the Official Wikipedia Interpretive Rules applicable thereto, then it's possible you might be in trouble! However, what YOU would need in such a case is representation! Of course, we here at the Law Firm of Famspear's Fabulous Foolishness are here to fight for you -- all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court! For a nominal fee, of course! Famspear (talk) 02:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Now I now why no one has built a time machine and used it to go back in time to raise the funds to build it: lawyers. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have to think about that for a while. Famspear (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ummm, errrr, gah ... brain is exploding! <b style="color:darkred;">Ravensfire</b> ( talk ) 15:31, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I am a new editor and I was considering adding 1) New developments such the divorce and Kent Hovind's claims that Eric and Jo conspired against him. It seems appropriate since Kent makes his money from evangelism and supposedly telling people what is right and logical. Or is that not a good reason to add something to a Wikipedia page? I also realize that this page may be a little too active and controversial for a new editor to dive into. ScienceExplains (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that is "seems appropriate", seems being the operative word; the problems is sourcing. While there has been a bit of activity on the internet, blogs and such, no publishers which engage in fact checking have found it newsworthy. As such, most of the content fails both verifiability and notability. The change in marital status documented by the court order, a verifiable primary source about an intrinsically notable basic biographical datum; it is mentioned as a basic fact without further discussion which would require a strong secondary source.
 * Being a new editor is not a problem. Wikipedia has a set of operating guidelines that take getting used to. (I'm still working on that.) If you are willing to work collaboratively, other editors will keep you on track. Listening is the best way to avoid problems. Wikipedia editors are encouraged to be bold (but not reckless). The area in which the least boldness should be exercised are biographies of living people. There are several ways to go about things. Asking first on this page is a good way to find out if you are hitting a dead end before you expend a lot of effort. If you are sure things aren't going to far, try a test edit. Other editors may revert you. If you think you are right, put forth your best argument on this page; other editors can evaluate what you have said in the context of Wikipedia guidelines.
 * If I had found any reliable sources, I would have made edits similar to the ones you are suggesting. Maybe you can find a source I missed, but my guess is that anything you find will not qualify as a reliable source. If I'm wrong, I will be pleasantly surprised. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The Escambia Court records are available for the God Quest Inc vs Kent Hovind "Eviction with Damages" (2016 CC 001545) case. Also on the docket in the records are the Kent and Jo Hovind "marriage dissolution" case.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brrojn (talk • contribs) 18:14, 17 July 2016 (UTC)


 * There are no third-party sources that establish the notability of the eviction and the divorce is already included. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Acording to himself, he were never a tax protestor
Would you like to change the title to 'according' and 'was'? 62.232.124.186 (talk) 17:57, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Kent Hovind does not view himself a tax protestor, and were charged because of structuring, not because he didn't pay taxes. Here is a link to an article were he say he isn't a tax protestor: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/01/20/is-kent-hovind-a-tax-protester/#4a15ed2f1784. He has also said this on his youtube channel. 80.212.44.121 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but the legal system has found otherwise. His claim that he didn't not-pay taxes, is his obvious defense, is mentioned. It was rejected, whicih is also mentioned. It's a rare criminal who does not protest his own innocence and mis-characterization. WP:RS says otherwise. DMacks (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * He also says the earth is 6,000 years old. His mechanism for distinguishing truth from fiction is broken. Guy (Help!) 21:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * While he has developed a fair amount of expertise on the subject of Kent Hovind, Peter J. Reilly, in his own words, is "just a tax blogger". There is insufficient editorial oversight to make his blogs a reliable source. The article already mentions that Hovind denies being a tax protester, based upon a reliable source, but is presented with due weight given to multiple statements, also published in reliable sources, which have found the label appropriate. Several are cited in the article, and there are more. Additionally, he was convicted for willful failure to pay taxes and obstruction, so the "charged because of structuring, not because he didn't pay taxes" argument is patently false. If my math is correct and I accurately followed the sentencing transcript (in which the judge notes on page 107, "...you steadfastly insisted today that you are not a tax protester. The evidence is to the contrary, sir."), eliminating all the structuring charges (counts 13-57) would have reduced the sentence from 120 to 96 months (page 113). BiologicalMe (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Hovind also claimed in a letter to the IRS back in 1996 that he was not a tax protester.

Of course, he was indeed a tax protester.

He used many of the same tax protester arguments that other -- well -- other tax protesters have used over and over and over and over and over and over again. For example, here is the text of a letter from Hovind to the IRS, dated February 1, 1996, in response to a summons issued by the IRS. This letter was admitted into evidence as document OBS-8 in open court in United States v. Kent E. Hovind, case no. 3:2006-cr-00083, United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, on October 18, 2006. This is not for inclusion in the article, but is provided instead to illustrate the point that he was indeed a tax protester, with my comments inserted in brackets in various places:


 * "I, Kent Hovind, am somewhat confused after doing some research on the IRS Code and the numbers on the forms you are sending me, as well as the notices.


 * "For instance, this summons indicates that you assume that I am a taxpayer per the IRS code. Sir, I am a preacher of the gospel of Jesus Christ and that is my full-time vocation, which is not an excise taxable activity [false; a tax protester argument; generally, the compensation you receive from preaching the gospel is taxable for Federal income tax purposes]. You are assuming that I receive income and that tax is due on this income. I cannot confirm nor deny that I receive income, nor that I am a taxpayer per the IRS Code [typical tax protester rhetoric]. However, if you have determined that I am a taxpayer, I demand that you provide me with the regulations of the IRS Code that make me a taxpayer.[typical tax protester demand]


 * "I also demand that you produce the treasury delegation order, per U.S. Supreme Court rulings, that give you the delegated authority to begin an investigation on me, Kent Hovind. [typical tax protester demand]


 * "Also, the form you are suggesting I file, 1040 per the IRS Code is for federal employees. [false; the Internal Revenue Code's application is not limited to "federal employees"; another tax protester argument] I am not a federal employee. My standing, as far as I can determine from the code, is as a nonresident alien to the federal government [false; Kent Hovind was a resident and citizen of the United States], and I cannot find any forms for filing as this type of being. [a blatant lie by Hovind; typical tax protester rhetoric]


 * "Can you send me the forms for a nonresident alien? Please help me, as I intend to pay all lawful taxes applicable to me. Would you please send me the determining documents or regulations that make me liable for the taxes you assume I owe. [typical tax protester "show me the law" rhetoric"] It would be most helpful to me to help clear up this matter.


 * "I need the above named information to help determine from the tax code if I am liable for the taxes stated in your summons. I am not a tax protester. [typical tax protester statement] However, as a steward over the property and funds that the Lord supplies to me, I must not carelessly dispense funds, but must determine without a doubt that a debt is owed.


 * "In the IRS Code implementing regulations, your authority to seize property and levy is under Chapter 27 for the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms. [false, and typical tax protester argument; the IRS authority to seize property does not come from "Chapter 27 for the Bureau of Alcohol and Tobacco and Firearms"] For the record, I am not now, nor have I ever been, involved in any of these businesses or ventures. If your records indicate otherwise, they are mistaken and I request a copy of them so I can perfect the record. I appreciate your cooperation in this matter.


 * "If I do not have a response within ten days of receipt of this response, I will consider this matter closed and that I am correct in my assumption that I don't owe the taxes that you assume I do and that my standing is correct." [typical tax protester rhetoric -- an impotent attempt to unilaterally impose a deadline on government personnel]

I have been studying tax protesters for over seventeen years. Hovind was correctly designated as a tax protester in federal court, as noted in the article. Famspear (talk) 04:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * According to Hovind, the Earth is 6,000 years old. Wikipedia is not obliged to report delusional nonsense as fact. Especially when it's been tested in court and rejected. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit by User talk:Jaminhubner removing https, using first name
We decided to convert Google urls to https a while ago, see Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_127. We also use surname only once the full first name is given in the lead. I've asked the editor to fix these. I'm also not sure why his divorce was deleted. Doug Weller talk 09:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Given the lack of supporting discussion, I've started reviewing the edit. I changed the residence field back to the current residence and replace hyphens with en dashes. Instead of checking "show changes" to confirm the dashes changed, I saved without an edit description. I'll leave things where they are for a bit—at least until I've had more coffee. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I prefer Diet Coke first thing in the morning. Famspear (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * My definition of a balanced meal: a breakfast consisting of a Hostess Twinkie balanced on the top of a can of Diet Coke. Famspear (talk) 15:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * A pumpkin spice Twinkie and Pepsi Max. Doug Weller  talk 16:33, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Coffee, back, no sugar for me, and my definition of a balanced diet is a beer in each hand. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I decided that complete reversion was the best approach to the edit in question. There was so much monkeying with references (changing https to http, altering dates, changing templates and fields) that any good ideas in the edit were outweighed by the chance of burying errors. There is a strong possibility that the edit was based on an an older version. The first line was an alteration of a page protection template with a expiry date in the past. I recognized the template I put in at one point, but removed when the website stopped playing music on launch. The edit changed "pleaded" to "pled" and I remember doing a Google search on that when it had been changed the other way. It won't match an older version because it contains some fairly recent information but also restores some more out-of-date information. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

And I found the version:. It was a one line modification of the which overwrote more than seven months of edits. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kent Hovind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215317/http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx to http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215317/http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx to http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215317/http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx to http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215317/http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx to http://www.escambiaclerk.com/clerk/coc_online_public_records.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Archived versions display. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Use of self-published sources about wedding
There is evidence to support a statement to the effect that Kent Hovind married Mary Tocco on September 24, based upon self-published materials. (Additionally, there are some blogs, but I see no reason to use them as sources.) An invitation was posted KH's official site. Ceremony video was posted to the YouTube channel.part 1part 2 I do not know of any third-party reliable sources that have covered it and a fair amount of time has elapsed. As basic biographical information, I think a very brief entry is warranted, but would appreciate additional input about sufficiency of sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 03:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

IP comments
As of September 2016 Hovind has remarried. In several videos, available on Youtube, he states that his wife Jo started pulling away from him after his conviction and left him a few years ago. This has caused a large stir among the Independent Fundamental Baptist circles, due to the subject of "divorce." Not sure if anyone wants to add a section for this on this article, as it updates some of Hovind's life events since leaving prison. The events of this are public record, as seen on Youtube, with some videos of Hovind talking about it. 97.85.91.212 (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, while there's a buzz in a few corners of the internet and I'm sure a number of churches, no reliable sources have picked this up. If I had any good sources, I would have incorporated them into the article. If you have any sources (blogs and YouTube don't qualify), article improvements are always welcome. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for responding. So, even Youtube videos made by him, sitting there with his new wife, Mary, cannot be used? I'm still learning about how Wikipedia works. Are the videos not reliable because they can be removed from the Internet and then the citation "trail" is gone from the article? Just a side note on the Independent Fundamental Baptist camp that has long followed Hovind, there is now a controversy among them because so many of them are against him for having gotten divorced, something considered scandalous to them, and there are several people that have come out accusing him of corruption with former employees who probably have a bigger bias against his remarriage than they actually have against being fired by him. It seems controversy follows Hovind these days. If I can find any reliable sources (that sounds hard to do in regard to this topic) I'll share them here. Thanks!97.85.91.212 (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Patriot University photo? (Again?)
I mean, personally I love it, but it seems like a photo of the subject's alma mater would not make sense in 99% of our biographical articles, and here it kind makes the page look more like a satyrical work by the NCSE or some other anti-creationist group with a sense of humour than an encyclopedia article. It should really be enough just to say it is unaccredited and that he got his degree through correspondence, and to link to our article on it that provides further detail.

It also seems kind of WP:UNDUE when our article on Kent Hovind includes one photo of the subject himself, two photos of institutions specifically associated with him, one screenshot of his website, and one photo of an institution probably best known for its association with him but in reality having a general reputation as a diploma mill.

Thoughts?

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Hovind's Federal tax convictions
It's amusing that some people are so bothered by the fact that Hovind is a tax protester, and that he was convicted of Federal tax crimes in addition to the structuring convictions. Just since early October, we have seen several edits, obviously made in attempts to remove mention (mainly at the beginning of the article) of Hovind's tax convictions, here: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;.

To those who are having a such hard time with the truth of Hovind's past: Wake up. Hovind's convictions are a matter of public record, and are accurately reported in the article. Famspear (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is yet another one of these edits:. Famspear (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet another:. Famspear (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

They're still at it:. Famspear (talk) 19:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet another: Famspear (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is currently under pending-changes protection, which means these edits are annoying and require manual rollback, but mostly invisible to readers. Should it be bumped up to semi-protection? DMacks (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is probably always going to be an advocacy magnet. Semi-protection for a couple of months would not be a bad thing, tho, imho. -- ‖ Ebyabe talk - Welfare State  ‖ 23:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Semi'ed 3 months. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Section needed for the article on why Kent Hovind's ministry was selected for tax prosecution and other creation ministries were not. IOW there are many ministries that have workers who are tax free.75.120.185.250 (talk) 16:11, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. And what source discusses this? Please keep in mind wikipedia is not a place for original research.  &mdash; Jess &middot; &Delta;&hearts; 16:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No, there are not "many ministries" that have workers that are "tax free." Hovind was not selected for prosecution because of his ministry. You're repeating the big lie that some of Hovind's followers have been perpetrating over the years. The evidence against Hovind was overwhelming. He was a cheater, and he got caught.


 * The vast majority of people who commit U.S. Federal tax crimes are never even charged -- but that has nothing to do with "ministries" or "creation ministries." I know. I've been studying the subject for many years. The vast majority of people who are KNOWN by the Internal Revenue Service to have committed Federal tax crimes are never even charged. Let that sink in. Famspear (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Another one:. Famspear (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And another one: . BiologicalMe (talk) 03:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And another one: . BiologicalMe (talk) 12:41, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

More than a two week hiatus, but it doesn't seem to be stopping. BiologicalMe (talk) 13:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The article is currently set at pending-changes to prevent these sorts of things from becoming visible in the live article. If there's a sense that semiprotection (completely preventing IPs from editing it) would be worthwhile, please say so. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Can't see the point personally, but wouldn't argue further than that, or complain if page protection was increased. -Roxy the dog™ woof 16:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think pending-changes level is sufficient for now. If the pace picks up again, it would be time to reconsider. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:46, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yet another one: .... yaawwwwwn.... Famspear (talk) 22:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Here's another:. Famspear (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

More nonsense:. Famspear (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Another: Famspear (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Another:. Famspear (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Another:. BiologicalMe (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: BiologicalMe (talk) 16:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Another: BiologicalMe (talk) 01:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Another: Famspear (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Another: BiologicalMe (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Two more: and  Famspear (talk) 11:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

More: and. Famspear (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I forget who said it, but it's a profound statement: "Facts are stubborn things." No matter how many times his supporters try to change history, the facts remain: Kent Hovind is a tax protester, and Kent Hovind spent several years in prison for Federal tax crime convictions. Famspear (talk) 01:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

God favors man and he that thinks he stands could lose it all sure, but to make a mountain out of a mole hill over what he did is just sad. Everyone one on this earth has lied at some point and been envious of another. If you played a tape recording of your thoughts for the week in front of an audience you would be ashamed. All have come short of the glory of God and you people who want to take a man who should be admired for his works and willingness to devote his life to helping others and make SURE people know his word and teachings could be doubted do to this criminal activity honestly work for the world and not for themselves. Showing a man's shortcomings will never make your argument right, and if your not sure today if your going to heaven or hell when you die there is a way you could know 100%. All have fallen short of the glory of God, but God has a gift for you. Not of works lest any man boast. A gift is literally a gift... you don't have to pay for it or give money to receive it. Jesus died so that you could be forgiven of your sin that you were born with that was handed down to you from your parents that was given to them by their parents. That if you believe in the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ you will be saved and be presented in front of the father faultless. He came to save that which was lost. You can pay for your sin yourself and die twice or let Jesus pay for your sins and die once and live twice. Selah Twin Seed (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "What he (Kent Hovind) did" was not a "mole hill" -- and there have been no "mountains" made out of "mole hills" here. The purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article. Please stay on topic. Famspear (talk) 18:20, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned in advance of any discussion that recent income tax failures on a massive scale seem almost godlike in their recriminations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3yPyrsO6S8 It is fairly obvious that senior Income Tax Inspectors or Directors -or whatever they are called; don't seem to turn up for work at the known offices that pay them. Ever! Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Would it help you to help us if you clarified for us Unamericans just what taxes relions have to pay the US Federal Government and how reprehensible are those who advise them of their legal standing?

Weatherlawyer (talk) 17:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Dear Weatherlawyer: You probably should not be trying to learn anything about the work habits of what you call "Income Tax Inspectors", etc., based on something you saw in the youtube video.

Regarding your second post --the one containing your cryptic question about "those", "them" and "their" -- there is no such thing as a "relion." Your question does not make any sense. Let's stick to the topic at hand -- which is discussion of ways to improve the article on Kent Hovind. Famspear (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, Hovind tried to argue that his work was exempt as a religious activity, and that was explicitly evaluated in court and found to be unsupportable. Given that there is a finding of fact which is a necessary condition to the conviction, the question of what taxes religions have to pay, is moot. Guy (Help!) 00:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Specifically, section 501 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for an exemption from Federal taxes imposed under Subtitle A (sections 1 through 1563 of the Code) for a religious organization that qualifies. But, Subtitle A deals with Federal income tax.


 * Even if Hovind's organization had qualified, section 501 did not and does not exempt Hovind's organization from Federal employment taxes.


 * Federal employment taxes are imposed under Subtitle C (sections 3101 through 3510 of the Code). Subtitle C includes the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), imposing the Social Security and Medicare taxes on employees (section 3101), and requiring the employer to deduct and collect the tax from the employees' compensation, under section 3102. Being a qualified religious organization under section 501 would not magically make Hovind's organization "not be an employer" under section 3102, nor would it magically make the employees "not be employees."


 * For Federal employment taxes, it generally doesn't matter whether Hovind's activity was a religious activity or not. Now, there is a possible exception to this general rule, in the form of a section 3127 exemption, but I don't remember whether Hovind tried to claim section 3127 or not. Famspear (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2018
They wrote Jo instead of Kent in the bibliography section Username33334 (talk) 20:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Jo was Hovind's wife. <b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Sources regarding second marriage
There are some blogs that would no rise to the level of reliable sources and primary sources supporting that Kent remarried, as discussed last year. Currently, there are some rumors that the marriage is over, but I am not aware of anything that reaches anything of even approaching reliability as a source for that. There were two recent edits asserting a 2017 end the info box. A look at adequacy of sources is in order. BiologicalMe (talk) 05:12, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Kent has spoken several times in his YouTube videos about that he is no longer married, however I am not sure if the videos can constitute as a source.Cms13ca (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Forbes has this article by PeterJ.Reilly regarding Hovind and his divorce, remarriage and 'marriage troubles'. He links to his own blog (Reilly's) where he discusses the second divorce and his thoughts on why it occurred, so I'd say that the 2nd divorce has a legitimate citation in Forbes, but a more experienced editor who is more familiar with wikipedia standards should have a look to confirm - it's a little hazy in the Reilly article or book review.  Perhaps it's in the book he's reviewing?  I didn't take it that far. al (talk) 17:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvinmoneypit (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. While your Peter J. Reilly has done some in-depth research, the link to Forbes is "sites". Those are good quality blogs, but lack the editorial oversight to qualify as reliable sources. As for the book, it isn't in there. (One of my more recent edits used the book as a source.) One of the more frustrating aspects of Wikipedia is knowing something and not having a suitable source. Again, thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Now we have a reliable source which mentions a third wife by name ("Cindi"), but offers no details. BiologicalMe (talk) 18:40, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2018
Please change

"He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement and his ministry focuses on attempting to convince listeners to deny scientific theories in fields including biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible."

to

"He is a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement. His ministry focuses on alternative scientific theories in the fields of biology (evolution), geophysics, and cosmology as a method to share the Gospel." Mckinm12 (talk) 15:19, 5 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The alternative theories he focuses on are not scientific, so it would be unverifiable and against policy to word it that way. <b style="color: #393;">Rivertorch</b> FIREWATER  16:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Source for new DAL opening
The new Dinosaur Adventure Land opened on April 21, 2018. I haven't found much third party coverage other than a few blogs discussing the advertising prior to opening and one by an attendee. I got a copy of the Evergreen Courant from the Thursday after (April 26) and searched the Monroe Journal website to no avail. The promotional flyer is no longer on the events page. At present, the drdino.com website says coming soon (in reference to the page, I assume), as does the website linked from the Facebook page. While a small delay might be necessary, I'd like to avoid the page becoming excessively out of date. If anyone has thoughts on what would be an appropriate non-volatile source, please make a suggestion. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Proved innocent after completing sentence.
I think it is absolutely appalling that despite Kent Hovind being proven an INNOCENT MAN, this Wikipedia page still says that he is a convicted criminal. Kent served 10 years for a crime that he was falsely accused of. On top of this the government took money from him, 430,000 to be exact, for the supposed tax he haden’t paid. This needs to be fixed immediately, it’s tainting the name of a great man. Innit Fundamentalistinthefleshbrah (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

can you prove reliable sources for his being proved innocent of his 2006 conviction? Doug Weller talk 11:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Fundamentalist, but that's utter baloney. You are wrong. The Wikipedia article is correct, and is well-documented with reliable sources. Famspear (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Eugenics supporter?
"I think there is something in the genetic code that deals with the disposition towards gentleness or meanness, and I think in God's perfect law, if we would continually eliminate, execute people that do these certain crimes, we would gradually get a much better society that... not so many people have this "mean gene" in them."

Based on this, can we add "Category:American eugenicists"? LittleJerry (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * No. The quote says it would be a consequence of the behavior, not the purpose. BiologicalMe (talk) 05:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are trying to say, but I also say no. "If we would do this, the results would be good" is different from "let's do this". One could have moral scruples; one could reject "the purpose justifies the means". --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Independent of that, we cannot draw our own conclusions. If you have a reliable source saying Hovind is a eugenicist, ok. Otherwise, no. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Denial?
I'd say rebuttal is a better word, calling him a denier of reality is not really being objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olimpus344 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Denial is an appropriate, objective term when the it is a question of such well grounded science. If "calling him a denier of reality" (which the article does not say) is not objective, your suggestion would be to describe him as offering a rebuttal to reality, and that is neither accurate nor more objective. Objectivity is met by using terms that best match the extremity of the topic. Watering down terminology to make things seem blander is not objective. (Over-hyping something would be similarly unobjective.) BiologicalMe (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)