Talk:Rama Duwaji
Whoever views Free Beacon as an unreliable source, see below:: Reply
| ← Previous revision | Revision as of 22:31, 22 April 2026 | ||
| Line 213: | Line 213: | ||
:@[[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] |
:@[[User:Kire1975|Kire1975]] |
||
:"Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to have become generally reliable during the editorship of [[Eliana Johnson]]. However, some editors consider it a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous articles which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. Some editors found articles by Andrew Stiles (The Stiles Section) generally unreliable." [[User:Pietrus1|Pietrus1]] ([[User talk:Pietrus1|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
:"Most editors considered the Washington Free Beacon to have become generally reliable during the editorship of [[Eliana Johnson]]. However, some editors consider it a partisan source. All editors should be aware that the Free Beacon sometimes publishes satirical or humorous articles which should be distinguished from their usual journalistic work. Some editors found articles by Andrew Stiles (The Stiles Section) generally unreliable." [[User:Pietrus1|Pietrus1]] ([[User talk:Pietrus1|talk]]) 21:51, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
||
:I was about to say that too. In the latest update, Duwaji personally acknoledged that she was indeed behind the old posts media reported on, although she was vague about the specific source. I think it’s safe to use the FB report in this particular case as far as attribution is concerned. ~ [[User:IvanScrooge98|'''IvanScrooge98''']] ([[user talk:IvanScrooge98|talk]]) 22:31, 22 April 2026 (UTC) |
|||
