Content deleted Content added
m |
|||
Line 760: :::"FreeCopts is a major source of reliable information for the majority of the Coptic minority worldwide." This is a simple truth, and I'm not sure how exactly you want me to support it!!! When any Copt wants to read about unbiased and non-governmentally-tainted news concerning the Copts (especially in English), they refer to either A) FreeCopts or B) CoptsUnited. You can ask any Copt in the world about that, but I don't know exactly how to prove it. It's like asking us to prove that it's the earth that rotates around the sun and not the opposite. --[[User:Coptic101|Coptic101]] ([[User talk:Coptic101|talk]]) 02:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC) :::: Even if 100% of Copts believe it, that still doesn't nessesarilly make it WP:RS. I'm not sure why. I personally don't like WP:RS belief that only "mainstream media" is capable of reporting the truth. Indeed, I'm inclined to blieve that the main stream media is not the best source of truth. However, just imagine if every bit of slander from a hypothetical sect of Islam was taken as truth on wikipedia, and that sect of Islam published things in their newspapers such as "The Copts kidnapped, beat, and raped two women who attempted to free themselves and convert to Islam..." and was quoted in this article. I'm sure I could find an article which said that. I could also find an article from a source believed by 100% of athiests which said that god does not exist. Or from sceptics which said that faith is nothing more than guess work. Or from radical sceptics who questioned whether the attack even happened, and whether Egypt exists or if reallity is nothing but illusion(I'm pretty sure there are more people who believe that then there are Copts, so...). [[User:Tim.thelion|Tim.thelion]] ([[User talk:Tim.thelion|talk]]) 03:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC) ::::I'm going to have to argue against that Tim. See, it's unlikely a 10% minority would, in a country whereby Islamic law (mandating severe punishment for apostasy, proselytism or criticism of their religion) is at the least a great influence in the laws of Egypt, kidnap 2 women from a 90% majority. As for the other papers you've cited, I think it's a fallacy to assert their reliability with freecopts. '''That is not what you are doing''', I see that -you are merely playing the devil's advocate. But I think we can escape any risks of going down a slippery slope, due to the fact that the "unreliability" of freecopts, if it has any, which it has not been shown to have (and therefore is innocent being not proven guilty) is far removed from the bias and unreliability a website might have concerning women being kidnapped by a Christian minority against a Muslim majority. In fact, these cases clearly testify to the opposite: *http://www.asianews.it/index.php?l=en&art=17231&theme=5&size=A *http://www.worthynews.com/8119-breaking-news-saudi-forces-free-kidnapped-christian-girls-in-yemen *http://www.crossrhythms.co.uk/articles/life/Christian_Girls_Kidnapped_In_Egypt_And_Forced_To_Convert_To_Islam/22375/p1/ *http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Kidnapped-Christian-girls,-judge-ratifies-marriage-and-conversion-12771.html *http://aknews.com/en/aknews/3/206413/ [[Special:Contributions/98.176.12.43|98.176.12.43]] ([[User talk:98.176.12.43|talk]]) 04:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC) == a military as a reliable source on their own targets == | |||