This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 |
This
edit request to
Kent Hovind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Not done 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)
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
Done 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)
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)
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 [1] 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
References
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. See response below. |
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
. 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
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. Wikipedia: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)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 06452017. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 3#06452017 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)
This
edit request to
Kent Hovind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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:
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)
This
edit request to
Kent Hovind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Biographies 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)
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). ButlerBlog ( talk) 16:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
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
73.240.141.48 ( talk) 01:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
References
See this YouTube video by him. [9] Doug Weller talk 10:11, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Kent Hovind has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
What's with the dates Troopersho ( talk) 08:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Could this be used? [10] LittleJerry ( talk) 19:41, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
"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)
the vapor canopy concept has not been rejected by the scientific communityIt is simply an ignorant layman's unrealistic idea. See [11] and [12]. -- Hob Gadling ( talk) 19:34, 22 May 2023 (UTC)