Requests for comment/Gotquestions and Tektonics
This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.
gotquestions.org
tektonics.org
Excessive spam - editors are well meaning, but the source is apologetics en:WP:CB. Gotquestions is written by anonymous and often amateur theologians. It's a 100% fundamentalist Protestant website, not claiming to speak in the name of any particular denomination. Rumor has it they are Baptists, but they never overtly claim that. Reason: Baptism is the only denomination they do not lambast.
Reason for blacklisting: many Wikipedians are misled into thinking it is a reliable source, while it has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. The only reason for them thinking that it is a valid source is because it agrees with fundamentalist Christianity. This is a fishy website, unlike, say, quoting the President of the Southern Baptist Convention for what Southern Baptists believe. Because then there is someone having authority speaking, and the claim can be attributed to a specific denomination. Gotquestions has no authority, be it academic clout or religious leadership, and has no mandate or credentials of publicly representing any Christian denomination. They are a bunch of fundamentalist Christians who lie by omission, namely through concealing their religious affiliation.
Christians in China, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia have to conceal their faith. The website is not registered in North Korea. Nor, speaking of Christians persecuting Christians deemed heretical, in Eritrea ([1] and en:Religion in Eritrea). It's not written in the stars that Christians support bourgeois freedoms. I can assure you that until a few centuries ago, most Christians absolutely didn't.
On LinkedIn they state they are "non-denominational". They also state "We are Christian, Protestant, conservative, evangelical, fundamental," but these do no go together with "and non-denominational." Of course "non-denominational" is a concealed denomination. I am prepared to believe they are an autonomous church, but not that they don't have theological dogmas. And having theological dogmas is a denomination in nuce. If we take their claim at face value, it means they are the church of the theological en:WP:RANDY. Meaning they are entitled to speak for a single church out of 380000 churches in US (church as in building, not as in denomination). If they are a denomination, they may speak in the name of many churches, if they aren't a denomination, they may speak in the name of a single church. So they either conceal their affiliation, or they are utterly unrepresentative (they speak in the name of 50 people, but no more than that, and none of those 50 people is a Bible scholar or a theology professor).
And, above all, Gotquestions is quoted for statements of fact, in the voice of Wikipedia, instead of getting their views attributed to fundamentalist Christianity. This has happened for many years, and has spread to Wikipedias in many languages—it is time to stop it.
Saying that it's against the rules to block it is like saying it's against medical ethics to cure cancer with a genetically engineered virus.
This isn't your business as usual spammer. It is a source of major abuse, for many years. And the abuse will continue for many years, unless the website is blacklisted. If it gets blacklisted, I'll break the champagne.
Blacklisting Tektonics: for pretty much the same reasons.
Let me say this: I understand why people want to quote Joel Osteen or James C. Dobson and, using en:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, that isn't a problem. But Gotquestions and Tektonics are way below their level of notability. Their (G and T) only merit is that they are fundamentalist Protestants (not otherwise specified). As far as I know, the ministers of G and T could be running those ministries from their parents' basement. And if they do earn a lot of money, that could be because they are nevertheless affiliated to a bigger movement or denomination. If those websites look too professional, they can't be the products of amateur theologians. Comparing them to Wikipedia: Wikipedia is written by amateurs, but actually running it as a website costs millions, and it is a highly professional operation. E.g. I routinely run Linux and FreeBSD, but running Wikipedia is way above my pay grade.
Think about citing a random, unaffiliated, non-famous pastor, not having a PhD, publishing at his own website or at a vanity press. Why would we cite him? He certainly fulfills no criteria for writing reliable sources.
Could anyone tell me why Lulu dot com is blacklisted but this isn't? Why Xulon Press is blacklisted but this isn't?
Wikipedians could cite an evangelical full professor for each and every claim now verified to G and T, which renders citing G and T unnecessary and useless. And that would be way more honest, instead of whitewashing or concealing its evangelical provenance.
Morals: G and T are not en:WP:RS and certainly not en:WP:IS. They are thoroughly biased for fundamentalist Protestantism.
You might then ask me what is my own bias. See the reply at en:WP:GOODBIAS. Or at en:WP:CHOPSY. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments edit
Support edit
Support as nominator. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Weak support Ahri.boy (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose edit
Oppose This sounds like something to be dealt with locally on individual-language Wikipedias. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)- Oppose Local communities have various policies revolving around the definition of a reliable source and they might come into conflict with eachother. If enwiki has determined a blacklist append is best, let them have it, but forcing results of a local community onto all wikis without proper global community is bad at least. Your arguments are also weak, not every editor, who believes the presented portals are RS, is a fundamentalist Christian and please do not make such allegations in the future.--A09 (talk) 15:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
