Talk:Salon.com/Archive 1

Request to add this article to a category
Would it be appropriate to put Salon (website) in Category:Pedophile activism? They recently published two articles by a self-described pedophile. Josh (talk) 05:12, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

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?) Paullusmagnus 16:56 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Dear Mr Updike,

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.

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.

As the poster below asked 'by what standard?'

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? Hippydog (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC) hippydog

this article is pretty fannish, isn't it?
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:

1. "Though providing several services, it is best known for its online magazine, with content updated each weekday."

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.

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."

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.

3. "Its online subscription-only discussion boards, Table Talk and The WELL, are quite popular."

Quite popular to who? By what measuring standard?

4. "As one of the earliest and most prominent web-only media outlets"

where is the cite for this claim?

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."

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.--202.49.19.27 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 (neutral point of view of course) sometime soon. Freddie deBoer 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 David Talbot anymore
Can somebody please update? Thanks. Andries 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:


 * Corporate leadership
 * Press Fact Sheet
 * Investor profile

Thank you.

Louis.bennett (talk) 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. ADM (talk) 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. 75.72.165.211 (talk) 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.

Davidlive (talk) 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.VR talk  19:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Make sure the blogs you removed are not official newspaper blogs... WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Archives
Here's an archive of content that may not be on Salon anymore: WhisperToMe (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * "Ask Camille: Men and their discontents"

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. I suggest taking this to WikiProject_Websites and hashing out a single, common style guide via policy, instead of making a determination on each article. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Salon.com → 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 Talk:TMZ.com. --DeLarge (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Violates the MOS guideline WP:TITLECHANGES, 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 Category:Websites and its many subcategories). WP:NCDAB 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 WP:NCCORP, 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. --DeLarge (talk) 12:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; .com should only be used if it's part of the site's branding. Powers T 14:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support; As DeLarge himself contested to remove ".com" at Talk:Radar Online, Talk:Slant Magazine, Talk:Comic Book Resources and Talk:Comics Bulletin, 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. WP:TITLECHANGES allows changes if there is a good reason, and respecting the name of the site is a very good reason.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * oppose for precision. Its not lots of domains like google or yahoo would have, its just salon.com. Callmederek (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Then should it be "RadarOnline.com", "ComicsBulletin.com", etc.? Because the name of site is Salon per its indicia: "SALON ® is registered in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as a trademark of Salon Media Group Inc." --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a fight between you two? I dont want to get involved in anything. But I had a look at those pages you mentioned. Was that not just removing the .com because disambiguation was not needed? Callmederek (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * DeLarge believes website names should not have ".com" &mdash; except when I suggested it here, whereupon he declared they must have .com in disambiguation cases, even though that changes the website's name and though "(website)" disambiguates in exactly the same way without changing the name. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please stop misrepresenting my position on multiple forums? I believed that ".com" was unnecessary disambiguation in several cases, and the community overwhelmingly agreed with me when it was brought to RM. And I believe that changing from one disambiguation term to another (i.e. from Salon.com to Salon (website)) is a purely stylistic change, and therefore unnecessary. My opinion is entirely shaped by the guidelines of WP:TITLECHANGES in this regard, which I quoted above: "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." I have never once offered any opinion on whether a particular disambiguation term should "always" or "never" be used. --DeLarge (talk) 08:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You keep saying "no good reason" as if your opinion is irrefutable fact. Changing the title to retain the integrity of the name is a very good reason. Site consistency is a second very good reason.
 * You may disagree with these two reasons, but it is the height of hubris for you to declare that your POV is stone cold fact and that anyone who disagrees with you has "no good reasons." That is one more example of your bullying behavior. Other editors should know that on your talk page, where I was resolutely polite, you called me names &mdash; very mature &mdash; and even gave your amateur opinion of that I was mentally ill. That is the kind of hostile, irrational person we're dealing with in you. Someone who verbally bullies another person who has been polite as a lamb has no conscience and certainly not the empathy that all normal adults are supposed to have. Since you feel it's OK for you to make mental-health pronouncements, then it'd be hypocritical of you to object to my doing so: Someone without conscience or empathy is the definition of a sociopath. Perhaps you're in the shallow end of that spectrum, but a verbally abusive bully is a type of sociopath. Are you feeling what I felt now when you verbally abused me? I'm sure you don't &mdash; because you have no conscience or empathy for other people and you think it's perfectly OK to call people names and insult them. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment what is the WP:COMMONNAME ? I've seen this site referred to as "Salon.com" 65.92.181.184 (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's referred to as both, just as Radar Online is also frequently referred to as RadarOnline.com. This is all coming down to DeLarge's personal, POV preference.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Salon. They used to be branded Salon.com, iirc, but changed it. Obviously it can be difficult to google a comparison, but you can try by using some of their writers' names like "Alex Pareene". Most of the replies come back with their email addresses, but of the actual references to their articles, Salon seems to predominate. (In addition to simply being the actual, official name of the product). — LlywelynII  16:17, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Support, for precision. This article is not about a URL – it's about a website magazine whose proper name is clearly Salon (technically, they registered SALON, but there are wiki policies to ignore that & even they don't write it that way). This is not even a debatable case like TMZ.com whose managing company is in fact named that: Salon is managed by Salon Media Group, Inc. (If the article were altered to concern the company rather than the product, that'd make a fine name as well.) —  LlywelynII  16:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. The magazine is called Salon, not Salon.com. Shrigley (talk) 20:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some info is out of date
Some info on Salon's corporate structure is out of date. It is based on this 8-K form from July of 2011, but there is a more recent 8-K form here, from May of 2012. I understand that the new 10-K form should be available June 28, which will have even more accurate info. It would be good to have the correct CEO listed, etc. – Quadell (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Salon did announce a new CEO a week ago: http://www.salon.com/2012/06/06/introducing_salon%E2%80%99s_new_ceo/ Trinitresque (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The day pass I believe is long since gone. It would be good to know the timelines of all the editors i.e when did Joan Walsh start? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.10.71 (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

This fluff piece needs a critical section
Using an obscure cite to praise needs to be counter-balanced for NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.129.245 (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 2

 * The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Salon (website) → Salon (magazine) – Per WP:CRITERIA, especially consistency. I understand the current name, especially since it was moved from Salon.com. But an online magazine is a type of magazine. Compare to the other members of, where this is the only article disambiguated as a website. WP:NCDAB says to use general terms as qualifiers, but I'm concerned that "website" is too general. See also Jarry1250's study of dab terms, where "magazine" appears in the list of most used terms and "website" doesn't. --BDD (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It turns out that the article lead was wrong; the source given shows that Salon describes itself as a news site, not any sort of magazine: "Salon Media Group (Ticker Symbol: SLNM.PK) operates the pioneering, award-winning news site, Salon.com." I haven't found any recently published sources that describe it as a magazine. Trinitresque (talk) 23:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

American Journalism Review source
The AJR source added in this edit to justify calling Salon liberal on Wikipedia itself does not actually call Salon liberal. It calls it "a sort of liberal-libertarian salon" which is, well, rather different. It also says that other people, namely "critics", call it "predictably liberal", which sounds more like a whiney insult than an honest assessment. Furthermore, this article was published in 2001. That's a loooong time ago in the Internet world. Trinitresque (talk) 23:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sooooo, what you're saying is that references have a shelf life? Should I go through all the references on Fox News, Sean Hannity, Bill O, etc... and make sure they're not over 5 years old? Your position is, itself, whiney and insulting. You see what you want to see. You'd have a problem with my doing that becuase "CLEARLY Bill O is consevative!"...so says OTHER sources. Regardless of whether or not YOU think Salon is not liberal it doesn't change the fact that it IS liberal. More importantly, there is nothing on wikipedia that states a refernce has a shelf life, you're being self serving. If you want me to take that literally, then we should def remove ALL references to the AJR INCLUDING the accolades. I don't view that as necessary or reasonable. Now, I'll be more than happy to find an additional source that says this, would you be more than happy to accept it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.21 (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * My primary concern with the AJR source is that it does not actually say Salon is liberal. Find one that does. Trinitresque (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * ok, so you WOULD accept something saying that it is liberal? What sources would you accecpt from? Fox News? NyTime? I mean, as long as you're going to be the gatekeeper here I find it easier to negoiate with people like you as opposed to arguing the ACTUAL rules of wikipedia. So, again, if I find a source that says it's liberal will you accept that? 151.207.250.11 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well no one owns articles, so of course I'm not the gatekeeper. I'm just expressing my opinion, and I revert things when I think another editor missed an important point or I have a new important point to make on the talk page, and when I decide to exercise this guideline. Now if something is changed in a way that I disagree with, I revert it and insist that we solve the dispute on the talk page. But if I disagree with the way an article already is, and my change is reverted, then I usually don't make that change again until the dispute is resolved on the talk page, as I recently did in this dispute. Anyway, again, my problem with the AJR source is that it doesn't directly call it liberal. I would be fine with a reliable source from a more recent year that directly calls it liberal or progressive. And of course references have a shelf life. You wouldn't use 1850s sources to describe The New York Times' ideology today, now would you? A source from 2001 for Salon would be ok to use to say that in 2001, it was described as something particular, but a more current source would be needed to say that it is described as something particular now. Also on a side note, I don't think the ideology is something that should be introduced in the first sentence, since its ideology is not necessarily reflective everywhere. With a proper source, I would have the first introductory sentence in the lead, then have the ideology be mentioned later in the lead in a form such as this: "Salon has been described as..." Trinitresque (talk) 02:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's Fair. I agree that Ideology should not be in the lead of the article as it's better to keep to the facts (That includes subjects where they claim to state their political leanings). Unfortunatly this tends to not be a consesus here [wikipedia] given all the other articles where things are shoehorned into the lead to characterize the subject (maybe it should be a new rule). At any rate, I'll see if I can find a better source, and put it in a latter sentence. Thanks for being civil, it's unusual on here these days. 15:40, 26 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.250.11 (talk)

first sentence change
The first sentence is currently "Salon is a political liberal and progressive news website, with content updated each day." The link that follows it says nothing about its politics or that its content is updated each day; is it there to back up the statement that it is a news website? If there is a perception that Salon leans left, that's fine to mention in the article--even the lead if you have sufficient sources (see FOX News)--but it's not a "political liberal and progressive news website" such that it should be defined in those terms in the first words of the article. Removing it, but willing to be proven wrong (I'm not a particularly avid Salon reader). --Rhododendrites (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Statements like that are supposed to have a citation. But anyone familiar with the website knows that it's zealously PC progressive. It's really quite silly with articles all the time on topics like transgender children and even an article defending bestiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:DA8:D800:279:C143:6527:DAB:2B16 (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And it also has plenty of warmongering articles (e.g. No Gun Ri). What's your point? --User:anonymous

Far left category removed
This category is most inappropriate for this web magazine. Far left would indicate either positions way to the left, such as communism or methods that are far outside of the American establishment such as change through violence or revolution. Salon advocates none of these goals or methods. Far left strikes me as extremely POV.Dogru144 (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

the website's politics
I'm surprised there's no mention anywhere of the political views of Salon given it's highly partisan content. Maybe these websites could help:

http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-political-leanings-conservative-liberal-oreilly-msnbc-katie-couric-sean-hannity-2011-3#4-most-liberal-salon-7 http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=314

Royalenlightenment (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Will the US Supreme Court decide reliable sources for us?
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/birth-control-the-supreme-court-and-me Eden Foods isn’t questioning the accuracy of Potter’s quotes. Instead, it’s just trying to paint Salon as unworthy of citation. Its proof: Salon also published articles about sex and pop culture.


 * Does US case law have any baring on RS issues for us? Hcobb (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not quite sure what you're asking, but short answer: no. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  03:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * He's probably not really asking anything, and probably won't check back here to post a response, either. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Aside from the obvious problem with this being added to the article this morning, as pointed out by OuroborosCobra in reverting it, is that, you framed it as though "Obamacare" filed suit claiming Salon isn't a news source which is not at all what the sources say. Who cares of some company says it's not reliable? The case itself might be notable, but not for this article. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  |  16:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The US Supremes have chosen to decide the issue of Salon.com's worthiness as a news organization. How is that not topical for Salon.com?

Here's another ref on Salon's importance in deciding on the constitutionality of Obamacare:

http://jurist.org/forum/2013/11/ruthann-robson-puzzling-corporations.php

Hcobb (talk) 17:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see nothing in that ref regarding Salon's importance. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * "The court quoted from one of the several interviews Potter gave to a reporter published in salon.com" Hcobb (talk) 18:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, nothing on importance. I'd already seen that sentence, and it does not establish importance. It is a throwaway sentence in a rather large article. Salon barely received a mention as a side note. It happens to be the news outlet used, but it could just as easily have been USAToday or NYTimes or the Washington Post, and we wouldn't be adding this to their articles. What is the notability, Hcobb? Why will this be relevant to the history of Salon past a month from now? You have been attacking articles such as Eurofighter Typhoon for the seemingly scattered and snippet nature... well this is how they got that way. You need to stop adding these snippets that just happen to pop up in your news feed. They aren't notable. You also need to stop coming to talk pages to make snarky remarks, like you did here by making it about the Supreme Court having a say in Wikipedia RS, and take any response as agreement for an addition that you never actually proposed or even implied. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Salon.com - an online women's magazine
Salon.com is an online magazine containing many items written by women about women, women's issues, and women's concerns. See for example http://www.salon.com/topic/love_and_sex/ http://www.salon.com/2014/12/24/the_most_awkward_sex_ever_8_epic_holiday_hookup_tales/?source=newsletter http://www.salon.com/2014/12/28/the_year_in_sex_writing/?source=newsletter http://www.salon.com/2014/12/29/love_at_any_size/?source=newsletter

No mention of this in Wikipedia's article about Salon.com. Two recent attempts to include relevant information were labeled vandalism and deleted. The second attempt to get this into the article resulted in a threat to a Wikipedia editor. Suggest this be addressed. David F (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It took me all of two seconds to find male written articles on Salon.com . Their "about" page includes absolutely nothing about being "written by women about women, women's issues, and women's concerns." Their articles on business, tech, etc. have no gender centered issue, nor do most of their politics and news articles. That you found a few articles on women's issues and that you found many women authors does not support your claim, thus it has been removed. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 06:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * please don't make non-superficial changes to your own comments once others have replied (see WP:REDACT). It's not egregious, but by subtly changing your statement from "Salon.com is an online women's magazine" to "Salon.com is an online magazine" the responses make less sense. Doing any research whatsoever -- even simply visiting the website -- would show that Salon.com is no more "women's magazine" than it is a "film criticism magazine" or "law journal". Your persistence in this regard is bizarre, and I'm having trouble determining if the problem is due to a translation issue, some other kind of mix-up or disruption. Regardless, it's not a women's magazine. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 22:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhRUe-gz690 David F (talk) 23:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Deadly Immunity retraction must stay in
It is relevant, concerns an article by a public figure and criticism of its retraction by another public figure who founded Salon.com. It should be included. Realskeptic (talk) 03:41, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The only claim to WP:PROMINENCE is side commentary by David Talbot. That does not qualify as enough to be necessary for inclusion. jps (talk) 03:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And the fact that Rolling Stone didn't agree with the retraction, either.Realskeptic (talk) 01:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Salon (website). Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.enews.com/magazines/ajr/archive/960601-001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we come to some consensus as to what, if any, political inclination to include in the lead?
For years people have been modifying the lead to either add or remove adjectives like "progressive," "liberal," "left-wing," and "far left." There's been discussion of this in the past, but no clear consensus as far as I can see. The big question, as far as the lead is concerned, is whether there is consensus about this among the best sources that talk about Salon.com as a subject (I'm thinking journalism-related publications, academic studies of news media, etc.). Again, this is just about the lead. If there are several sources which characterize it in a particular way but not such that we can say there is a rough consensus within the body of literature, that's what the rest of the article is for.

As I type this my database access is not working, so just going by sources already in the article/mentioned above... :
 * American Journalism Review (2001) - this one is discussed on this talk page above. Most directly calls it "a sort of liberal-libertarian salon". Also says "(if predictably liberal)", which in the text is attributed to what "cynics" would say.
 * American Journalism Review (1996) - does not appear to call it any of the above

&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried finding sources for this a while ago and indeed, the newspaper's position was very rarely described in any RS so it's hard to attribute it. I tried searching for phrases like "Salon left-wing OR liberal OR progressive". You mostly find partisan sites with that search. However, after the Salon had this unionization issue it apparently has been described in some publications:
 * International Business Times: "stalwart of the progressive press"
 * Gawker.com: "..Salon’s left-wing political ideology"
 * The Raw Story (probably not RS? but self-identifies as progressive) "Progressive Salon.com"
 * Still not much but IBT is probably the best sources so far. --Pudeo' 01:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

In light of the weakness of the sources claiming Salon is Progressive or Left Wing, and the veracity of some to criticize calling it anything else, I think it is best to simply remove any mention of the political leanings of Salon. I will wait a few days for feedback before making the changes.

Here is just one example of many of Salon's non-progressive, non-Left Wing viewpoint. Here they are spreading false information to help Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders. 85.180.191.69 (talk) 19:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Supporting Hillary Clinton over Bernie Sanders by one contributor does not make a website non-progressive. That's like saying Breitbart is not conservative because a contributor wrote an article supporting Marco Rubio over Donald Trump. The sources are pretty well established. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

"Controversies" section
I deleted recently-added section labeled "controversies." I think that having such a section could be a reasonable idea. Salon does not shrink from the controversial. However the text I deleted was merely a list of articles that (presumably) the editor found to be controversial. There was no description of any controversy, and no reliable sources of same. M.boli (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The content included no secondary sources whatsoever. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 02:47, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're both right. It was sloppy editing on my part (I'm still a bit new at editing). I provided a list of articles that have been criticized by secondary sources as being controversial, yet I didn't site any of it. Epic Fail on my part. I believe Salon does need a controversy section. I'd like to try and rewrite that section, making sure to cite secondary sourcing.The Armchair General (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for adding secondary sources, but I'm afraid the section is still problematic. Most importantly, the sources are not very good. Breitbart, for example, is a reliable source for certain purposes, but when it comes to opinions it is only a reliable source for its own opinion. That sounds weird, I know, but the relevant guideline is WP:WEIGHT. We cover aspects of a subject with proportion to which the various perspectives are covered in reliable sources. An opinion covered in a peer reviewed academic journal lends credibility to the significance of that perspective. Once that significance is established Breitbart, etc. would make sense to include, but to dedicate a significant part of hte article to these sources is not due weight. I'm typing on my phone and don't feel like I'm explaining that particularly well, but I'll wait for your response to follow up. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for contacting me on this. You are right this does sound weird. I was simply trying to relay the fact that Salon's articles on pedophilia were criticized heavily by outlets and organizations that are considered "conservative" along with what they said. I'm actively trying to be a decent editor, but I'm still kinda new and learning. I saw a few more credible news outlets describing Breitbart's opinions. Would it work if I link to those? Please bare with me as I try to make my additions as accurate and acceptable as possible. The Armchair General (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll respond to this in a bit more depth later, but in the short term perhaps you'd consider just listing the sources here on the talk page first? That might let us get a better overall picture and would save you the trouble from recreating new prose. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 21:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that many of the controversies stimulated by Salon's articles will play out in some depth in right-wing or left-wing circles. If Breitbart has a good summary of the pedophilia controversy, that may indeed be a good source. In which case could be described as a controversy picked up by right-wing commentators, or something like that. M.boli (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The appearance of that section has resurfaced again. I'm inclined to delete it given this discussion in the talk section--after all, and as others stated above, pretty much any political magazine is bound to have hundreds of so-called controversies over the years, and it seems moot to include just one "new" one (as it does currently). If this were a big plagiarism case like the NYT's Jayson Blair it would seem more pertinent. Slugmaster (talk) 02:58, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

"neoliberal"
These scammers are not neoliberals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.159.77 (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)