Requests for comment/Gotquestions and Tektonics

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

This is a subpage; for more information, see the Requests for comments page.

---

---

---

---

---

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) [reply ]

1. Support Support as nominator. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
2.  Weak support Ahri.boy (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
3. Support Support Support. 20250326031344

   Comment Comment Vote shouldn't count. User is logged out/not signed in. Additionaly, they went around xwiki enforcing enwiki rules onto other independent wikis. I will revert your removals. BR,--A09 |(pogovor) 09:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

   eugh, not another one of those users that import non-existent policies and undermine project independence. Thanks for reverting that IP, A09. //shb (t • c) 09:33, 26 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Comment Comment I was banned for 3 months globally for removing unreliable sources? It's been settled for now that GQ is unreliable as it's been outvoted. IP users are humans too. Oh well, guess I'm gonna have to change my IP address, a very minor inconvenience.

1. Oppose Oppose This sounds like something to be dealt with locally on individual-language Wikipedias. --SHB2000 (talk | contribs) 23:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC) [reply ]
2. Oppose 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) [reply ]

   every editor, who believes the presented portals are RS, is a fundamentalist Christian—I never said that. Quote or it didn't happen. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

   " 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". A09 (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

   I have repeatedly cited Marcus Borg. It does not mean I'm a fan of Marcus Borg.

   E.g., if I cite https://www.gotquestions.org/three-days.html , my purpose is showing that Bible believers cannot agree among themselves when was Jesus crucified. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

3. Oppose Oppose I have no opinion on T, but I oppose blacklisting Got Questions. Most of its content is theological, not academic. Its articles are not scholarly sources about historical/academic topics. It is, however, a reliable source on the "general consensus" on theological issues from the standpoint of conservative Christianity and for a broad overview of certain church-related doctrines and theologies.

Got Questions does not "hide its affilliation with a certain denomination" because it is inter-denominational (within a certain framework). It makes no secret that it is a conservative, Calvinist, evangelical website. Baptists are not the only ones who fit that bill. Many conservative Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, First Christian, Pentecostal, etc all fit the same bill. Even some Lutheran synods would fall into that category.

As for their authors, I wouldn't go as far as saying they are amateur theologians either. It's authors come from a number of backgrounds, and some of them are undoubtedly laymen. However, many are also clergymen with formal training, professors at Bible colleges, etc. It's not peer-reviewed scholarly journal material, but it's not some random blog written by armchair critics living in their mommy's basements either.

Wikipedia is not a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, nor should its sources have to be restricted to such parameters, especially on matters that mainly boil down to personal opinions, personal beliefs or personal politics.

To frame this in an allegorical sense, consider this similitude: If I am writing an article on the American Nazi Party, would the American Nazi Party website not be considered a reliable source of information on the beliefs and practices of the American Nazi Party? I would certainly think it would be a reliable source. That does not, however, mean that the American Nazi Party website is a reliable or accurate source of scholarly information, but it is a relevant source for discussions related to its opinions, beliefs, etc.

Reliable sources and academic, peer-reviewed scholarly sources are not the same thing. Wikipedia is not a scholarly journal.

And, yes, for the record, I am both a conservative Christian and a Bible scholar who has published peer-reviewed literature. But that's not why I oppose blacklisting Got Questions. I oppose blacklisting it because it is illogical. I disagree with many of Got Question's theological positions. They are Calvinists/Evangelical WASPs, and I am a Syriac/Nestorian Christian of MENA descent. Using a source does not mean that I agree with its theological or political views.

BalearicSlinger (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Comment Comment I assume this is a proposal to add these sources to the global spam blacklist. You should state that at the beginning to make this RfC as clear and specific as possible. I agree that wikipedia should be a secular website, but you haven't presented any links or evidence to show that these sources are being abused. Otherwise I would vote in favor. Yes, I see the link search, but it's mostly talk pages and userpages. Lastly, the scientific method rests upon objectivity and not bias, so sentences like "we are biased towards science" are patently absurd and there's no reason to cite a terrible essay like w:en:WP:GOODBIAS. I should also add that nobody really takes catholic fundamentalists very seriously, or at least nobody I've met. There are many deceptions and falsehoods more dangerous and more widely believed. AP295 (talk) 09:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Comment Comment In fact, Wikipedia treats experts and scientists quite poorly, which is probably why the math and science category has fewer FA-status articles than any other, last I checked. Wikipedia has no fair business hosting a self-indulgent (and tellingly absurd) essay like w:en:WP:GOODBIAS in the WP namespace. AP295 (talk) 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

   Maths FAs are rare because there's much smaller editorial mass than it is at politics or historical topics. It's not about Wikipedia denying scientists any editing but rather how porportional are maths editors to other topical editors. WP:GOODBIAS is not hosted in WP, but in a User namespace. Also, did you read just the name of the redirect or also its content? Including every possible conspiracy theory is against NPOV, which is part of the 5P. In my opinion any further discussion on this matter is likely going to be offtopic for this request for comment. A09 |(pogovor) 13:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

   "In my opinion any further discussion on this matter is likely going to be offtopic." Fine in this case, but then don't ask a question if you're going to forbid me from answering. "Also, did you read just the name of the redirect or also its content?" I'm not sure what you mean by that. AP295 (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

   Isn't there a section in w:en:WP:GOODBIAS where it states it should only be linked when someone says "Wikipedia is biased"? Bis-Serjetà? (talk) 15:38, 28 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

1. Comment Comment Also, the Got Questions website clearly says who the owner/publisher of the website is, and he is indeed a qualified theologian (even if I disagree with him).

https://www.gotquestions.org/S-Michael-Houdmann.html

QUOTE

"Prior to launching GotQuestions.org, I earned a Bachelors of Arts in Biblical Studies from Calvary University and a Masters of Arts in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary. I later earned a Master of Theology with an emphasis in Christian Apologetics from Dallas Theological Seminary. I am currently pursuing a Doctor of Ministry degree from Dallas Theological Seminary."

END QUOTE

It's not some blog being run out of someone's basement. BalearicSlinger (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_comment/Gotquestions_and_Tektonics&oldid=28479133"

Categories:

• Requests for comments (open)
• Requests for comments in 2024