Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive 12

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2019
Please change "Tax Protester" to "Convicted Tax Evader" in the following text: Kent E. Hovind (born January 15, 1953) is an American Christian fundamentalist evangelist and tax protester.

My justification of the is his conviction for Structuring (see this article). In this, he attempted to hide his tax evasion rather then make a statement out of it. It is therefor unreasonable to call his activity a protest. PhillyPhysics (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The term tax protester is "someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid", in other words, someone who protests the law. That fits. On the other hand, in the US, tax evasion is a specific crime and he was not charged with tax evasion. BiologicalMe (talk) 06:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Summary
In the summary there is the following sentence: "He has been criticized by Young Earth Creationist organizations like Answers in Genesis for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement." While true, I think it is important to update the sentence in light of Answers in Genesis' current relaxed stance cited in source # 45. It also needs to be updated because there is only one example of a Young Earth organization criticizing him in this article, so using the plural is false. This section of the summary should now say: In 2002, he was criticized by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Young Earth Creationist organization, for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement. However, in 2009, AiG was "really pleased to report" that Kent Hovind's website, Creation Science Evangelism (CSE), "has been completely revamped and it no longer espouses a number of the “don’t use arguments” defended by Kent Hovind in 2002" and; therefore, their 2002 article no longer accurately reflected their stance on CSE.

Or, if a more condensed version is desired: In 2002, he was criticized by Answers in Genesis (AiG), a Young Earth Creationist organization, for his continued use of discredited arguments that have been abandoned by others in the movement; however, in 2009, AiG reported that Kent Hovind's website had been revamped and their 2002 article did not reflect their current stance.

In fact, I would argue the sentence itself is entirely a moot point and should just be deleted since AiG's stance has changed, but understand if others feel a sentence is necessary to capture the subject, as it is referenced later in the article. Citizen4Liberty (talk) 17:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Citizen4Liberty

✅ Creation Ministries International was discussed in older versions, but the CMI/AiG split was getting off-topic, so that left AiG as the only listed organization. The article is based upon the secondary sources (NYT, OCweekly, a book, and possibly a few others. Trying to reinterpret the AiG/CMI criticism, a primary source, based on the Eric Hovind era CSE-AiG reconciliation would be original research, and would be drifting off the subject of the article. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hovind's Marriages
Couldn't help but notice that the infobox still says that Kent Hovind is married to Mary Tocco. In fact, they split up already in November of 2017: http://kehvrlb.com/mary-tocco-on-leaving-kent-hovind

Though they are not legally divorced, that can be explained by the fact that they were never legally married in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.82.74 (talk) 16:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ It is unclear if they are legally married. Their marriage ceremony occurred when common-law marriage was legal. Common-law marriage in Alabama ended shortly after the ceremony. Dud their ceremony qualify as a common-law marriage? Uncertain. If it was legal, there is no evidence they have dissolved it legally. If Wikipedia were social media, I would write "it's complicated", but Wikipedia is not social media. Based on precautionary principle, I am removing all details past Jo, since the divorce is on file. Reliable sources should support all changes. The blog you cite is not a reliable source. It is probably accurate, but has no assurance of fact checking. I may add the name "Cindi", based on a reliable source, but the source is so sparse on details as to be of little value. BiologicalMe (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I attended one of his lectures this year and he talked about how we could purchase items from his wife out in the lobby. I never thought to catch her name, but, after looking at pictures of Cindi Lincoln online, I have no doubt that is who I interacted with when making a purchase. While it is firsthand knowledge, I know I can't be verified so it might not be all that helpful, but I thought I'd pass it along. Citizen4Liberty (talk) 18:02, 2 October 2019 (UTC)Citizen4Liberty

CHALLENGE TO ABOVE:

It is most assuredly NOT ″unclear if Mary Tocco and Kent Hovind were legally married″. What is unclear is whether or not they are STILL married. Details of their common-law marriage, claims to being married, and living as married are readily available for those willing to look. I operate the website referenced above, and there are many articles there, with documentation, regarding the marriage of Mary Tocco and Kent Hovind. I have found no record of any legal, civil, on-the-record divorce; suggesting Kent Hovind is a bigamist if now married to Cindi Lincoln, or an adulterer. While the common-law marriage of Kent Hovind and Mary Tocco, beyond any reasonable doubt, was legal, there is no provision in law for any common-law divorce such as Kent Hovind appears to want to claim.RLBaty (talk) 01:18, 5 October 2019 (UTC)RLBaty

I am not married to Kent Hovind, he is remarried as of 2017.
Request edit on January 6, 2020 I was married to Kent Hovind with a religious marriage covenant, not a legal marriage license, for 9 months. I left Kent on Biblical grounds in July, 2017 and am no longer married to him. He is now married to Cindi Lincoln, who lives as his wife at Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL) for the last year or so. I posted a public statement about this break-up in 2018 with details. Please update this information, I do not want to be associated with him. (We all make mistakes!) Thanks You, Mary Tocco
 * Hi Mary,
 * I don't see you currently mentioned in our article...only Jo Delia Hovind (married 1973⁠–⁠2016). Are you asking to be listed as marriage #2 (and listed correctly as no longer married) and to list someone else for marriage #3 also? As a ref, seems WP:RS to support your involvement, but not Lincoln's. DMacks (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

. My apologies for my limited skills regarding Wikipedia features, but I was advised of this attempted edit and wish to protest the claims of Mary Tocco as false and/or misleading as a matter of law. Mary's and Kent's common law marriage in 2016 was legal and binding under Alabama law. Mary would do well to consult an attorney and obtain a similarly legal and binding divorce, as there is no provision for a common law divorce such as she claims. The legal relationship between Kent and Cindi Lincoln remains unknown to the public as there has been no record or other evidence as to any marriage they may have contracted, civil, religious, common law, whatever. 2601:282:8380:3230:453E:71A7:2583:150E (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2020 (UTC)RLBaty

I contacted Mary Tocco personally via FaceBook Messenger and asked her if she was the person who actually made the edit attempt noted above. FaceBook advised me that Mary had read my message and she has been active on FaceBook since that time. However, I have yet to receive a confirmation as to whether or not she is the same person requesting the above edit. 2601:282:8380:3230:453E:71A7:2583:150E (talk) 23:42, 12 January 2020 (UTC)RLBaty

Categories Anti-vaccinationism and climate change denial
I am sure Hovind believes in lots of other crazy shit besides YEC, but categories should have corresponding text in the article, with reliable sources. Categorization says "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." YouTube links in the edit summary just don't cut it, and I could not easily find any reliable sources that connect him with any of those subjects. His baseless opinions on those things do not seem to be a notable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The article states "He has denounced democracy as "evil and contrary to God's law",[65] and called global warming a communist conspiracy.[100]". LittleJerry (talk) 00:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

"06452017" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 06452017. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 14:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 October 2020
In section "Creationism" > "The Hovind Theory" > beginning of the 2nd paragraph contains "Hovlind" instead of "Hovind". 78.8.62.207 (talk) 12:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Good eye. Thank you. BiologicalMe (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Undue weight to criminal convictions
The amount of space given in this article to trivial and unimportant details of Hovind's history is ridiculous. These include irrelevant arrests made for which charges were dropped, full details of an incident that resulted in a paltry $675 fine, and an absolutely absurd level of detail related to his tax conviction.

First, this gives undue weight to his criminal activities. The only reason Hovind's tax convictions were noteworthy in the first place is because he was a well-known (and controversial) creationist. Primary sources (court documents) are sometimes inappropriately used as references for some of the statements. Second, the writing style is horrendous with long rambling sections that seriously reduce the readability of the article. The article needs serious editing to greatly condense/summarize much of the material, particularly his criminal convictions. Bueller 007 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I would argue that one of the two main reasons Hovind is notable is the history of his criminal activity. The other reason is his activity in the evolultion-creationism debate.


 * I would also argue that the use of primary sources in this article is not only appropriate, but is also very helpful to a reader. The main reason that Wikipedia counsels the use of secondary sources and is cautionary about (but not prohibitive of) primary sources is that Wikipedia wants to avoid "original research" -- a term of art in Wikipedia that does not bear its ordinary, every day definition. The use of the primary sources in this article is not "original research" as that term is used in the Wikipedia rules. The text of the article follows precisely what the primary source says.


 * Hovind's U.S. Federal tax convictions are noteworthy because he is a tax protester (also known as a "tax denier"). I have been studying tax protesters for over 20 years, and that's how I discovered Hovind years ago. I had never heard of him before, and I certainly had no knowledge of the evolution-creationism aspect of his life before I came across him in studying tax law. I would argue that the main reason he is "famous" and "Wikipedia noteworthy" is his criminal history, not his views on evolution versus creationism.


 * I agree that the information on arrests for which charges were dropped is something to review. I'll have a look at that. Famspear (talk) 21:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your opinion about primary sources is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy specifically says you generally shouldn't quote court documents in articles about people here: .  In numerous articles about criminals, such as Rodney Reed, it has been successfully argued that the relevant court documents cannot be used as references, even though it is known with certainty that the court documents refer to the individual in question.  Besides, Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  If something raised in the court case is such a minor point that it has never been raised by a reliable secondary source, then it doesn't belong in the article.
 * As an evolutionary biologist, I can tell you that Hovind was notable long before his criminal activity, and the history of the Wiki page backs that up. It predates his criminal convictions because he was notable even then.  Both the DMCA issues and the tax issues arise from his having been a notable and financially successful creationist. Bueller 007 (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I totally agree with you; this had been bothering me about the article as well, but I wasn't sure or assertive enough to do something about it.  However, could we reinstate some of the removed information that is typically found in many articles about people on Wikipedia—things like spouse and occupation?  Also, I appreciate your position as an evolutionary biologist when it comes to making these type changes on this page, as you would be more objective than some of the people that have tried to edit this page!  And for the record, despite the "007" on the end of both of our usernames, I assure anybody wondering that I do not know this person or have any affiliation with them.  I will assume, like with myself, that "007" refers to an investigative nature à la James Bond.  Cheers, Techie007 (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I wondered whether a negative BLP should be cut down as the sources and commentary became old. However, https://www.google.com/search?tbm=nws&q=%22Kent+Hovind%22+-wikipedia shows that it is not old but continuing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Dear Bueller 007: No, I would argue that my "opinion" (your characterization, not mine) about primary sources is relevant. And no, Wikipedia policy does not specifically state that an editor generally shouldn't quote court documents in articles about people. The quote you provided does not that "policy". Further, even if a Wikipedia rule did such a thing, the use of the word generally in such a rule (if that word were used) would connote a general rule -- which is a rule which may have exceptions.

At any rate, here is the text of part of the rule:
 * "Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher.


 * Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source, such as when you are supporting a direct quotation. In such cases, the original document is the best source because the original document will be free of any errors or misquotations introduced by subsequent sources..

Because Hovind was convicted of the crime of X, a citation to the actual court documents for the X conviction does not violate a Wikipedia rule -- and Wikipedia articles are full of such citations. By definition, a correct, non-misleading citation to such a primary source is actually more reliable than citation to a secondary source, even though Wikipedia does favor the use of secondary sources.

Hovind's criminal convictions are not "minor points". And no, the fact that a secondary source such as a newspaper article has not provided information from a primary source does not mean that the primary source material does not "belong" in the article. A decision that was made about the Rodney Reed article does not bind Wikipedia in other articles. As a former broadcast news reporter myself (and as an attorney who has studied the laws under which Hovind was convicted), I can tell you that the failure by a newspaper or an internet news report to cite to a primary source in a report about a criminal conviction is common -- and it's a material journalistic failure where it happens, even in the case of major news organizations. Such a failure by a news organization or other secondary source does not make the corresponding primary source material objectionable under Wikipedia rules and guidelines.

I get your point about the fact that the Hovind article may have originally focused on the evolution-creation aspect of his life, and that you are an evolutionary biologist. However, I come from the legal world, and in the world of the people with which I deal, Hovind's "claim to fame" (so to speak) is his criminal history.

I don't disagree with the idea that the article does need work. Famspear (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2021
Want to update the picture as the current one is > 15 years old. I uploaded a suggestion to an image hoster which can be viewed here: https://ibb.co/Yf89cF6 YoungKingCole (talk) 02:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Any image would have to meet open-license requirements, which means you would need to document the origin of this photo and demonstrate that whoever owns the license has released it freely. DMacks (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Kent Charged with Domestic Violence
The Monroe Journal is reporting that Kent was arrested on July 31, 2021, with third-degree domestic violence.Cms13ca (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As has Religion News Service. It also mentions his now-dismissed civil case against the government. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * And Washington Post picked up the RNS story. BiologicalMe (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Convicted felon in opening sentence
Manual_of_Style/Lead_section states that the opening should indicate why the subject is notable. Being a convicted felon is not a reason this subject is notable - if it were not for all the other stuff, we wouldn't have an article on this person just due to their troubles with the law, so that doesn't have any place in the opening sentence. Thoughts? MrOllie (talk) 18:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not in the opening sentence, nor the lead. -Roxy the sceptical dog . wooF 19:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * "Convicted felon" is too vague. Specific criminal and civil legal issues might belong in the lead, but the natures of his legal issues are so diverse that a single descriptor is not applicable. Additionally, domestic violence in the third degree is a class A misdemeanor (not a felony) in Alabama and matches his sentence. BiologicalMe (talk) 19:58, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Sovereign Citizen
I recently removed the "see also" link to Sovereign citizen movement. Having this link in there as a "see also" implies association, and as far as I can see at this time, there is no direct association. Yes, Hovind's tax protestor position is consistent with those ideas, but that's not the same as a personal declaration. Besides, there is a "see also" to tax protesting, which then leads a reader to sovereign citizen articles. But unless there is a direct link as a WP:RS, either that I have missed or comes up later, it is best to avoid inclusion at this time (and so far, all I've seen is WP:SELFPUBLISH sources). Butler Blog  (talk) 16:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Mark Pitcavage and Hemant Mehta specifically use this label, not simply "tax-protestor". DMacks (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The article mentions him renouncing this United States citizenship and Social Security numbers to become "a natural citizen of 'America' and a natural sojourner". Hovind's association with the Sovereign Citizen movement is also discussed in reliable enough sources like Forbes here, here and here. LittleJerry (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm good with it based on the mention of renouncing citizenship/calling himself a natural citizen along with the tax protestor element. I clearly missed that in the article - thanks for pointing it out. Those things coupled together are a hallmark of sovereign citizens. However, those Forbes articles are not a reliable source.  You would think Forbes would be, but those are "contributed" articles.  They operate that part of their publishing like a blog - soliciting articles from basically anyone (including me - I've written for them a number of times).  If it's a staff article, it's WP:RS, but if it says "contributor", it's not.  (see WP:FORBESCON)   Butler Blog   (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Source 189
Is there an alternative source for this besides a low res scan of a small newspaper?2601:19B:8401:7E0:1921:1E58:90B:1688 (talk) 14:48, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I would assume you mean this one: "Dr. Dino Files Appeal"? Please be specific because source numbers will change if/when another source is added ahead of this one (numbers are automatically generated and can change). I would assume that's the best version at this time until someone else provides an alternative.  Feel free to look for one and add it if/when you find one (WP:BOLD).    Butler Blog   (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It isn't a "low res scan". It is the online edition, but zooming is behind a paywall. I suspect the same article can be found in the Evergreen Courant (available in print only) as well. Monroe County neighbors Conecuh County where the initial trial took place. I am not aware of any other coverage of the appeal in reliable sources. BiologicalMe (talk) 16:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Christian?
Hovind is identified as a born-again "Christian." The wife-beating apart, he also has a criminal conviction for falling short in the "Render unto Caesar" department. Might the article note that Hovind's Christianity is purely notional, a boast without accompanying evidence?

Lord Fnord (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:ETHNICITY, we report self-identified religion if relevant, and in this case, it is. If there were challenges to that identity by relevant authorities, published in reliable sources, they could be discussed. Any interpretation without relevant sources would be original research. It is not the role of Wikipedia to interpret religious doctrines. BiologicalMe (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Request edit on 9 February 2022
Here's an updated link (though the pdf doesn't load in the page, it needs to be clicked to be downloaded and read) https://web.archive.org/web/20170705125338/http://reports.ncse.com/index.php/rncse/article/download/85/78
 * What I think should be changed: Reference #33 to "Dinosaur Adventure Land, or How Max Defeated the Creationist Swing Set". Reports of the National Center for Science Education.
 * Why it should be changed: Because the link is dead, Jim!

73.240.141.48 (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Done!  Butler Blog   (talk) 05:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

King James only
See this YouTube video by him. Doug Weller  talk 10:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Doug. I didn't doubt at all that he's KJV-only; but the article needs to support this directly for categorization to be verifiable.  There's probably more beyond just that video that would provide enough material for expanding the article in this area.   Butler Blog   (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2022
Remove 'allegedly' from Domestic violence section (Hovind was arrested in Alabama on July 30, 2021, for allegedly throwing...), as he has been found guilty 5.44.210.151 (talk) 11:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * this request is in reference to the first sentence of . A later sentence in that paragraph has a cite verifying the guilty verdict and that a request for a retrial was denied. I think it's an editorial decision, since an arrest is technically for an allegation that only later gets confirmed by the legal process. But once it's confirmed, we can state in WP voice that it actually happened. DMacks (talk) 16:12, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah gotcha. Yeah, at this point it's an editorial decision. I don't really have a strong feeling one way or the other. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: Not a Christian fundamentalist
Whilst Kent Hovind claims to be a Christian, examination of this claim shows it to be mere self-promotion as part of his scamming. This is widely attested by multiple sources already linked on the page.

Please correct. I suggest something like 'purports to be a' should be inserted. If anyone has a RS to make the point he is actually a Moloch-worshipper, or if WP:Common Sense is sufficient, that should be substituted. 2A00:23C5:CF17:FD01:5893:F8FE:6587:C7A2 (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No source provided to backup the claims. --McSly (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What's with the dates Troopersho (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Daily Beast article
Could this be used? LittleJerry (talk) 19:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)


 * 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.   Butler Blog   (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not a neutral POV
"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)


 * 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)
 * In case you want to give undeserved credit to the vapor canopy nonsense in the article: the vapor canopy concept has not been rejected by the scientific community It is simply an ignorant layman's unrealistic idea. See and . --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)