Misplaced Pages

Talk:Salon.com: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:13, 17 March 2012 editCallmederek (talk | contribs)345 edits →Requested move← Previous edit Latest revision as of 05:53, 8 January 2025 edit undoExtraordinary Writ (talk | contribs)Administrators75,315 editsm Extraordinary Writ moved page Talk:Salon (website) to Talk:Salon.com without leaving a redirect: Requested by Pythoncoder at WP:RM/TR: IceWelder moved this article unilaterally, with "Consistency; revert earlier swap" as the rationale. This goes against the consensus from the most recent RM, which was closed in favor of the WP:NATURAL title. If the mover would like to r...Tag: pageswap GUI 
(125 intermediate revisions by 58 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talk header}}
{| class="messagebox plainlinks" style="width: 75%; background-color:<!--#e1d1ff-->#FFFAEF;"
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|1=
| align="center"|This notice should appear on top of the talk page. Please do not remove
{{WikiProject California|importance=Low|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=mid}}
''']'''
{{WikiProject Companies |importance=Low}}
|}
{{WikiProject California|class=start|sfba=yes|sfba-importance=mid|importance=}} {{WikiProject Websites |importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject Companies}} {{WikiProject Journalism |importance=Low}}
}}
{{WikiProject Websites}}
{{Old move
{{WikiProject Journalism}}
|from1=Salon.com |destination1=Salon (website)|result1=not moved|date1=17 March 2012|link1=Talk:Salon.com/Archive 1#Requested_move
|from2=Salon (website) |destination2=Salon (magazine)|result2=not moved|date2=15 January 2013|link2=Talk:Salon.com/Archive 1#Requested_move_2
|date3=10 June 2021|from3=Salon (website)|destination3=Salon.com|result3=moved|link3=Special:Permalink/1028013574#Requested move 10 June 2021
}}
{{merged-from|Salon Book Awards|24 January 2013}}
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
| age=2160
| archiveprefix=Talk:Salon (website)/Archive
| numberstart=1
| maxarchsize=75000
| header={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minkeepthreads=5
| minarchthreads=1
| format= %%i
}}


== Change of position ==
==Topics==
The following is the previous content of this article. Apparently, it refers to a feud between John Ivring and John Updike. Salon.com appears to have reported on it. I fixed the formatting (the letter part began with several spaces). What is its significance (if any?) ] 16:56 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)


I believe, from what I've gathered, that Salon no longer is writing "from a politically progressive or left-wing perspective" as the article says, but rather a right to far-right perspective. Not only is there the previous section about antisemitism to back that up, but also its endorsment by the alt-right (). I strongly encourage further research to be made in this direction, specifically how and why it changed its political stance. ] (]) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Dear Mr Updike,
: Please see ]. ] (]) 00:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
::This position is not factual, Salon.com just today called the Republican Party a "Terrorist Organization". Is Salon.com considered a reliable source? ] (]) 02:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
:::{{replyto|66.68.178.180}} There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon per ] ] (]) 02:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


== Infobox: website or newspaper ==
<nowiki>
From the letter you address soecifically to me, ( 30 Aug. 1998) I can only ascertain that you hold my own humble opinion, in what can only be regarded as low esteem. This is, as an author of your venerable stature is no doubt aware, your peroragative, but is one in which your own weakness for unsubstantiated hyperboyle, a flaw often found in this young country amoung our old men of letters, is unmistakely revealed.
</nowiki>


There's an RfC on whether a news website should use {{tl|Infobox website}} or {{tl|Infobox newspaper}}: ]. --] (]) 14:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yours in cahoots Old Gore
== Not just fannish, but subjective all over ==
This article is in need of being rewritten to be objective. The definition in the first sentence calls it a 'liberal magazine.' That is not an objective or universal term.


== Curious what the original URL was ==
As the poster below asked 'by what standard?'


It wasn't salon.com until well into 1999:


- Hairstylists
I'm confused on why saying this magazine is a "liberal magazine" is not subjective?
Many magazines and blogs do have political leanings and i think this information would be important towards the wiki
Is there not a way to make this statement and still stay within the wiki rules?
] (]) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC) hippydog


- Newsmagazine
== this article is pretty fannish, isn't it? ==


] (]) 03:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
There are a few things in this article that stood out to me as being biased in favor of a "Salon is great!" definition. Here they are:


: salonmag.com - ] (]) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
1. "Though providing several services, it is best known for its online magazine, with content updated each weekday."


== Requested move 10 June 2021 ==
What are these services? Stating they exist without defining them just seems to be bragging that Salon.com has other services aside from web journalism.


<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top -->
2. "Salon's magazine covers a variety of topics. American politics is a major focus, but by no means the only one. It has extensive reviews and articles about music, books, and films. It also has articles about 'modern life' in all its forms, including relationships and sex. It covers technology, with a particular focus on the free software/open source movement."
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ] after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. ''


The result of the move request was: '''moved.''' <small>(])</small> ] (]) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Again, this entire paragraph seems to be apoligist, seemingly trying to convince the reader that Salon is something special. Verbiage such as "but by no means" and "extensive" seem redundant, inserted only to praise Salon.
----


] → {{no redirect|Salon.com}} – The last discussion of this article’s title was in 2012 (]), over whether to move the article ''from'' "Salon.com" ''to'' "Salon (website)", and it closed as "not moved" (though maybe "no consensus" would have been more accurate). However, the article was then moved to "Salon (website)" after the admin that closed the RM appears to have changed their mind and moved the article to "Salon (website)", the current title. Aside from this, my rationale for proposing a move back to Salon.com is as follows:
*While just "Salon" is probably the most common title, ] disambiguation is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation (as is currently used). For reference, the policy text describing natural disambiguation is: "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title." The policy text clarifies that natural is preferred to parenthetical disambiguation: "In a similar vein, hand fan is preferable to fan (implement)."
*"Salon.com" is still commonly used even on the website itself: the <title> ] of . Same goes for articles — example: “”.
*In addition, the name of the company that publishes the website is Salon.com, LLC.
For these reasons, I believe the article should be moved back to "Salon.com". —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 20:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


*Courtesy ping to proposer and closer of previous RM: {{u|UtherSRG}}, {{u|DeLarge}}. The user who initially made the ] move referenced in the first RM is indef blocked. —]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;]) 20:18, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
3. "Its online subscription-only discussion boards, Table Talk and The WELL, are quite popular."


*'''Support''': Seems logical, they clearly use the ".com" in their branding and naming conventions. ] (]) 20:39, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Quite popular to who? By what measuring standard?


*'''Support''': I second the motion (so to speak). -- ] (]) 22:33, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


*'''Support''' per nom. Makes sense. ] (]) 03:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
4. "As one of the earliest and most prominent web-only media outlets"
*'''Support''' per ].<sub><small>] (])</small></sub> 04:24, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
<div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.</div><!-- from ] -->
</div><div style="clear:both;"></div>


== Passed away ==
where is the cite for this claim?


There are quite a few people listed as staff on this page who passed away in the last 5 years. ] (]) 04:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
5. "On 25 April, 2001 Salon.com launched Salon Premium, one of the first online content subscriptions. Salon Premium, having successfully signed over 130,000 subscribers, defied critical expectations and staved off discontinuation of services."
:]? And the page isn't protected so you can ]. — ] (''']''') 10:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't update it because of a conflict, but the information on current staff can be easily found by looking at the site's masthead. Particularly troubling is none of the current staff or management of color are mentioned anywhere in this article at all. ] (]) 15:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Where is the cite of this 130K figure, or for that matter, "critical expectations"? Where is the evidence of any of this?

This article to me comes across as pretty biased. And the screenshot of the homepage doesent refelct the recent horrible redesign Salon.com got.--] 01:53, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

::Are you kidding? Literally half of this aricle is devoted to Salon.coms monetary woes. Although it's money problems are certainly relevant and deserve inclusion, they overwhelmingly bias the article against Salon. I'll try to add some additional content (]) sometime soon. ] 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

== New screenshot? ==

Am newbie to this and don't want to attempt images - but can we update the screenshot since the re-design?


==Chief executive editor is not ] anymore==
Can somebody please update? Thanks. ] 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

== Much information out-of-date ==

Hello! Much information on this page is out of date. Current information can be found at these sources:

*
*
*

Thank you.



] (]) 18:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Technical Project Manager, Salon.com

==New York Times==
It would be interesting if we could indicate that Salon has some kind of link to the New York Times. ] (]) 03:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

== Update please, has this magazine folded or what ==

Could someone refresh and update this article. First of all, it makes it sound like the magazine should have filed bankruptcy protection by now if it was $80 million in debt in 2003. I assume some magics happened that it survives today, so what happened. Also "liberal politics" as a writing topic could use more summary, does this mean Salon advocates for it or is critical of it, and if it must exclusively write about "liberal" politics does this mean it takes a conservative or liberal position. ] (]) 12:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

== History to prose ==

There is a tag requesting that the History section of the article should be changed to prose. I have done so, but I have not edited the Business Structure, as it does not seem to require an edit.

Can I have feedback on the article's changes so that I can remove the tag.

] (]) 00:29, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

==Blog==
I'm removing the use of blogs as a means of criticizing Salon.com. If the criticism is reliably sourced, then it should be published by a third party.''']''' <sub>]</sub> 19:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
* Make sure the blogs you removed are not official newspaper blogs... ] (]) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

==Archives==
Here's an archive of content that may not be on Salon anymore:
* ""
] (]) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

== Requested move ==
{{requested move/dated|Salon (website)}}

] → {{no redirect|1=Salon (website)}} – Previously moved boldly to this new title. I reverted and brought it here as a matter of procedure after unsuccessfully encouraging the page mover to do so himself. See also ]. ''--] (]) 12:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)''

* '''Oppose'''. Violates the MOS guideline ], namely ''"if an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed."'' The TLD suffix is widely used as a disambiguator for websites (see ] and its many subcategories). ] does not make any insistence on using a word in parenthesis as the primary style of disambiguation, and in fact offers several alternatives. Page mover cited three other recent move requests where the ".com" was removed after he'd added it, but that was in cases where the title did not need disambiguation. See also ], where the legal status suffix (e.g. LLC, inc., Ltd, etc) is recommended as a disambiguator where required, but not used at all when this is not the case. ''--] (]) 12:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)''
*'''Support'''; .com should only be used if it's part of the site's branding. ] <sup><small><small>]</small></small></sup> 14:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
*'''Support'''; As DeLarge himself contested to remove ".com" at ], ], ] and ], the name of the site is the name of the site, and should be treated as official and sacrosanct. "Website" and ".com" are synonymous &mdash; they mean exactly the same thing. So it's proper to use the version that ''doesn't'' change the name of the site. ] allows changes if there ''is'' a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason.--] (]) 16:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
* '''oppose''' for precision. Its not lots of domains like google or yahoo would have, its just salon.com. ] (]) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 05:53, 8 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Salon.com article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconCalifornia: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
WikiProject iconCompanies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Companies To-do:

 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.
WikiProject iconJournalism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

Discussions:

The contents of the Salon Book Awards page were merged into Salon.com on 24 January 2013. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.


Change of position

I believe, from what I've gathered, that Salon no longer is writing "from a politically progressive or left-wing perspective" as the article says, but rather a right to far-right perspective. Not only is there the previous section about antisemitism to back that up, but also its endorsment by the alt-right (proof). I strongly encourage further research to be made in this direction, specifically how and why it changed its political stance. 7dare (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This position is not factual, Salon.com just today called the Republican Party a "Terrorist Organization". Is Salon.com considered a reliable source? 66.68.178.180 (talk) 02:19, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
@66.68.178.180: There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon per WP:Perennial sources Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: website or newspaper

There's an RfC on whether a news website should use {{Infobox website}} or {{Infobox newspaper}}: Talk:The Times of Israel#RfC on infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Curious what the original URL was

It wasn't salon.com until well into 1999:

February 21, 1999 - Hairstylists

April 23, 1999 - Newsmagazine

Immigrant laborer (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

salonmag.com - Immigrant laborer (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Salon (website) → Salon.com – The last discussion of this article’s title was in 2012 (link), over whether to move the article from "Salon.com" to "Salon (website)", and it closed as "not moved" (though maybe "no consensus" would have been more accurate). However, the article was then moved to "Salon (website)" after the admin that closed the RM appears to have changed their mind and moved the article to "Salon (website)", the current title. Aside from this, my rationale for proposing a move back to Salon.com is as follows:

For these reasons, I believe the article should be moved back to "Salon.com". —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Passed away

There are quite a few people listed as staff on this page who passed away in the last 5 years. Spoonpassport (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Sources? And the page isn't protected so you can update this yourself. — Bilorv (talk) 10:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I can't update it because of a conflict, but the information on current staff can be easily found by looking at the site's masthead. Particularly troubling is none of the current staff or management of color are mentioned anywhere in this article at all. Spoonpassport (talk) 15:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories: