Talk:Kent Hovind


This article is poorly written and extremely biased

This is probably one of the most embarrassingly non-objective articles I’ve seen on Wikipedia. The person who wrote this clearly hates the individual they are writing about and it shows in every word of the article. And seriously, the mug shot photo? If I could report this article I would. Someone needs to scratch this whole article and rewrite objectively. Yikes. 2601:603:381:C100:F180:EB5A:B058:497 (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to propose specific new content and a different image. The article is what it is because those who wrote it based on it on the sources that are available. DMacks (talk) 16:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They even have it semi-protected to insure no one tampers it. Bugs312 (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "feel free to propose" thing holds for you too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:05, 7 July 2024
Well Kent Hovind promotes several disproven and unscientific ideas. It wouldn't make sense to treat the round earth and flat earth model the same, as the former has significantly more evidence to support it. 208.184.162.156 (talk) 20:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely!!! Biased majorly!!! 24.100.11.147 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "feel free to propose" thing holds for you too. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not notice any bias. There seems to be just action words such as ‘became” (At the age of 16, Hovind became a born-again Christian)
There is the word “created” (In 1998, Hovind created his Dr. Dino web site and began producing articles and selling video tapes, books, and fossil replicas.)
There seems to be just pieces of facts collected from different sources.
This is an encyclopedia. Everyone is welcome to improve articles.
We aren’t stupid. Just coming here and saying “it is biased” doesn’t improve the article. It just shows that you are likely a follower of Kent Hovind and you are protesting on his behalf. ~~~~ Vmelkon (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

06452-017

Historically significant federal prisoner number - needs to be preserved here, should be in article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Tiptopper (talk • contribs)

How at all would his prisoner number be historically significant? --Onorem (talk) 17:01, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How wouldn't it be?Tiptopper (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What information does the prisoner number gives us besides "this is the prisoner number"? In what way would the world be different if the number was different? It's hard to see what it signifies. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Outcome?

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

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

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

The material you just quoted didn't match the source, which only says that a jury trial was "demanded", not that it was received. I have adjusted our text to match. Neither a Google news search nor a newspapers.com search finds any later mention of the matter. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler - Thank you for your reply. The last sentence of the article (under the Domestic violence section) now reads - your change?:
"A request for a retrial was denied, and an appeal requesting a jury trial was filed in the Alabama Circuit Courts."
You are correct about searching - I cannot find any reliable news source for information on a "jury trial" demand or appeal or request.
Thank you, 50.48.50.222 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NatGertler - Ooops! That's me again. Wordreader (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my change. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 July 2024

The opening states that he is "controversial within the Young Earth creationist movement twice. The second mention of this is redundant and reads poorly. "He is a controversial figure within the Young Earth creationist movement... he is also controversial in the Young Earth creationist movement." It should be removed. 2603:8001:20F0:6960:15FB:5A5C:EDEB:E21 (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Makes sense. Removed the second use of the phrase as redundant. [´— Preceding unsigned comment added by Butlerblog (talk • contribs) 19:04, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted sentence and the remaining one are both in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the body of the article. The body of the article does not say he is "controversial within the Young Earth creationist movement", so the deleted one was unsourced while the remaining one is not. Good job. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is far TOO nice.

The man is a convicted felon, a wife-beater, a liar, a charlatan, a kook, a whackjob, a loony, a nutter, a dingbat ect. ect.

I propose his felon status be mentioned in the first sentence, lest someone gets the wrong idea.

Oh yeah, didn't a child die at his crappy theme park? Smcke (talk) 07:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His criminal history is not what he is primarily known for; as such, it does not belong in the first sentence, per MOS:CRIMINAL. It is well covered in the introduction.
The death of a child is mentioned in his biography section. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He most certain is known for being a tax protestor. LittleJerry (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kent_Hovind