Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia

message: According to Salon.com editor in chief  David Talbot:
Is Salon more tabloid-like? Yeah, we've made no secret of that. I've said all along that our formula here is that we're a smart tabloid.Talbot interview
Tabloids, should be used with caution, in particular in BLPs. If material published in a Salon.com is not available from any other source whatsoever,  and that material is controversial, great caution should be excercised by editors. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was also discussed by Jon Friedman who called Salon.com a "witty web site" that "thrives on liberal politics". And David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) called Salon.com a "progressive, smart tabloid" . SSS108 talk-email 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The newspaper Trouw is a quality paper, but also a tabloid. Andries 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Salon.com may have some great pieces here and there. That is not disputed. What is being explored is the use Salon.com exclusively to support controversial material in articles when Salon is the only source provided. If the material is explored in other sources as well as Salon.com, it should not be a problem. But if Salon.com is the only source, then caution need to be exercised, in particluar in BLPs. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When Salon.com has published truly original investigative journalism, it is going to be the only source or the main source for the claims made in those pieces. I have not seen a single report criticizing their investigative journalism.  I am not familiar with the specific debate on the "guru" that started this nonsense, but your standard that Salon should not be the only source to talk about an issue is unreasonable, as it would not be applied to other similar sources that publish original investigative journalism (such as Rolling Stone or Spin, for example, both of which have published outstanding examples of such journalism, but which, like salon, have a different primary purpose).  I'm not disagreeing that "caution should be exercised," but the main claim of this page seems to assert that Salon should be rejected as a source because it is a "tabloid" based on a quote taken entirely out of context.--csloat 19:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Salon.com - A tabloid? 

message: This is not a black and white question. And the question should not be "Is  Salon.com a reliable source?" The question needs to be made in  the context of a specific content dispute:
# Is Salon.com the only source available for the disputed material?
# If the answer is yes, use with caution, or maybe do not use at all, in particular if the material is highly controversial;
# If the answer is no, use a more reliable source such as a mainstream newspaper, or better, a scholarly source, if availabe.
≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ad 3.  I think salon.com is better than many mainstream newspapers. Andries 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is being asked is a simple question, if Salon.com is the only source for a highly controversial material, should editors excercise caution when using it, or not? in particular if the material is used in a BLP. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does exercising caution mean in practice? Andries 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly that. Be cautious. Do some research, try to find additional sources han just one tabloid article, etc. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have done a lot of research on the matter. Andries 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with Jossi's suggestion that scholarly sources are generally better sources in this particular dispute, because generally religious scholars do not themselves try to investigate sexual abuse claims. This is done by investegative journalists. Andries 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure. But an investigative journalism of a tabloid, needs to be taken cum grano salis. And if the allegations have any substance, these will eventualy picked up by scholars. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the awards given to salon.com listed hereabove. Clearly salon.com is generally quality journalism. I think that further discussion does not make any sense. Andries 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: And one must also remember that at the time Goldberg's article was written, there were numerous stories that Salon.com was fading and would go offline . Even at that time, Talbot frequently called Salon.com a "smart tabloid". SSS108 talk-email 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only source of the "tabloid" quote was taken totally out of context.  I find this discussion disingenuous.  The fact that Talbot used that phrase does not invalidate the journalism in the magazine.  It appears like an attempt to get more readers.  In fact, the very next sentences defend the investigative journalism of the magazine.  To use that one word to substantiate the claim that Salon is on its face invalid as journalism is simply mendacious.  I don't see a single mention on this page of a single fact that Salon.com got wrong anywhere.  Since this discussion is being used to invalidate Salon's use on other pages, it is also wrong to state that it is "not about Salon.com as an entity."--csloat 08:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context is needed to ask this question 

message: Andries, you are confusing Salon.com with the Salon.com article by Goldberg. The question that should be asked is: Are ALL of Salon.com articles to be considered reliable despite the fact that they refer to themselves as an online tabloid? It is clear that when it comes to critical, negative and potentially libelous information, WP:BLP and WP:RS lay out specific guidelines to determine the reliability of an article. I think it is abundantly clear that this Salon.com article does not fulfill Wikipedia's requirements because: 1) The online article in question has never been referenced by other reputable media; 2) It was written like (and sounds like) a tabloid article and 3) It contains negative, critical and potentially libelous information (which would require multiple sources to establish its reliability according to WP:BLP and WP:RS). Just because Salon.com may generally be considered reliable does not make ALL their online tabloid articles reliable. Goldberg's article, in my opinion, falls into the category of unreliable articles. SSS108 talk-email 03:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As, I said and as can be verified, salon.com is generally considered a reliable source throughout Wikipedia. If you think that the article on SSB by Michelle Goldberg is an exception then the burden of proof is on you. I think the article is an example of the generally good quality of salon.com Andries 06:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Reliability depends on the context, but when an editor wants to exclude a publication that is generally considered reliable, like Salon.com then the burden of proof that the specific article is unsuitable as a source for a certain article is on him/her. Andries 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No. The burden of proof is on the editor wanting to add material, not the one wanting to remove it. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Somebody who argues that a reliable source, like the New York Times canoot be used as source for an article has something to explain. Andries 18:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Andries is correct. Given that we seem to be in agreement that Salon is in general a reliable source and no specific argument has been given as to why it would not be reliable in this case, the burden is clearly on those who wish to remove it. The NYT analogy is a good one. JoshuaZ 18:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Salon.com is high quality journalism. Andries 18:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I would want to know the answer to this question: Are there any other sources to support  that specific material? If not, why? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure about specific material you are refering to, but the stance and the allegations voiced in salon.com do not differ much if they differ at all from those of other reputable sources. Andries 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that there are other, better sources, for the material that is currently supported by the Salon.com article? I so, why don't you use the better sources? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to check if I have time, but again I will not replace references to salon.com with references to ordinary mainstream newspapers because I consider salon.com generally better than ordinary mainstream newspapers. I may add references to mainstream newspapers. Andries 22:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? If there are requests from fellow editors to use mainstream media rather than Salon.com, why not to listen and agree? You believe that Salon.com is a better source than a mainstream newspaper, but I don't, for obvious reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jossi, finding alternative reputable sources is a lot of work that does not improve the encyclopedia. However if you want to add alternative reputable sources in addition to salon.com then please go ahead. I do not agree with replacing salon.com because it is fine reputable source. Andries 22:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No... I am not getting invovled in the editing of that article. The arguments here are not for the addition of more sources, but of the assessment of a source deemed by some editors to be suspect of being the only source for  controversial material in a BLP. This is the work of invlved editors, and I am, thank God, not one. ≈ jossi ≈ <smallt • @ 22:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor who considers salon.com suspect is free to add (not replace) alternative sources. It does not have my priority because it involves a lot of work without leading to an improvement of the article. I think that removing a reputable source, like salon.com makes the article worse. Andries 23:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No, were saying that unless you have a good reason to think something in Salon isn't reliable then it is (the above reads like human interest stories/opinion pieces which are for obvious reasons sometimes not as reliable in any magazine or newspaper. For example, the boldfaced names section of the NYT is probably not a reliable source even though almost everything else in the NYT is. ). JoshuaZ 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, you are completely right when you write that "Salon.com is NOT the same as The New York Times". In the case of Sathya Sai Baba, the salon.com article does not contain a factual blunder, unlike the NYT. Andries 09:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Mmmm... Salon.com is a secondary source. What we are discussing is if having only one source for some material, and if that source is Salon.com, warrants its use or not. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So what? Not even the New York Times or any other qualtiy newspaper mentions its references. Andries 21:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Salon.com is itself a reputable source, so the question whether there are any references to it is irrelevant. Andries 21:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108 confuses third-party sources with tertiary sources. Salon.com is a third-party secondary source. Andries 22:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: So what now? Revert two times three times a day until somebody drops dead? Andries 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm constructing an ongoing list of articles on my talk page about articles that could be cited if Salon.com is deemed a stand-alone reliable source. Needless to say, liberals are going to a have field day. They can justify any liberal, opinionated bias they may have on Wikipedia because "Salon.com said so": List Of Reliable(?) Salon.com Articles SSS108 talk-email 03:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question To Be Asked

message: * Given the editors' identification of Salon as a "tabloid" and wikipedia policy on tabloids, Salon should be used with care and other sources would be preferred.
* Given the nature of the awards (see criticisms above) Salon appears to have had some credibility by one legitimate journalism awarding agency, but only with respect to on-line journalism.   This suggests that when other sources are available they should be preferred.
* I note that when I have seen Salon used, it is used to insert a writer's opinion by proxy through a quote.  Quoting editorials and opinions, even from more reliable sources should be discouraged. From a biased source, they should be especially limited.
However, Salon apparently strives for journalistic competence and should not be considered to be on the same level as a single editor "Blog".  It might be considered on par with  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/resources/about_WND.asp World Net Daily.   In both cases a second source is a good idea and reliance on editorial types of articles expressing opinions should be discouraged. --Blue Tie 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that your counting and assessment of the awards given to salon.com shows an overly critical and dismissive attitude: I am not aware of any newspaper that has won so many awards. Andries 17:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, you think that.  I accept that as your view.  But many of these are not even real awards and of those that are, most are not for journalism but for website design.  Many sources have much better journalistic awards.  As I reviewed them, it became clear to me that Salon is gilding the lily regarding these awards, I think most probably for investor purposes, given what I understand was the precarious financial situation in past years (maybe currently too). --Blue Tie 18:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples of Journalism Awards include "Pulitzer Prize" (Several papers have more of these than Salon has of the Online Journalism Award), Peabody awards, and Edward R. Murrow Award. Scripps and Hurst both have Journalism Awards as do the Chapters and national organization of the Press Club.  --Blue Tie 18:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not think that Blue Tie's comments are over critical. He provided a good summary on why editors need to excercise caution when using a source such as Salon.com, and a second source is recommended. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Recommended," sure.  Not "required."  Let's get that straight.  If a quote from salon is used in an article, I don't see a problem as long as it is clearly indicated as being from Salon (or, even better, from the writer him or herself; it is after all the journalist whose credibility is on the line first, and some journalists have better reputations than others).  I don't see any reason not to use Salon as a source; the discussion about how many awards they have one is ridiculous nitpicking.  How many awards has worldnetdaily won?  The fact is that Salon is widely considered an outlet for credible and solid investigative reporting.  Opinion pieces are another matter, but they are fine as long as they are clearly cited as someone's opinion.--csloat 19:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those articles are clean journalism. --Blue Tie 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: First, we have already refuted the claim that it is a "tabloid." Please stop asserting that claim disingenuously if you expect your readers to WP:AGF.  The quote was totally out of context and I have shown why the claim should be rejected.  Second, the issue here is not "bias" but expertise.  Nobody has questioned the liberal bias of Salon's editors.  The issue here is whether it is an outlet for credible journalism, and it has been shown that it is.  Third, your comments about the various articles on your page are evidence only of your own bias.  Most of them look like opinion pieces to me.  I also don't see any blatant factual inaccuracies in any of them, though they certainly display strong opinions (which makes your claim that they are "not opinion pieces" questionable at best).--csloat 19:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop acting dense.  You took the quote blatantly out of context.  I showed you that he was not using "tabloid" in the same sense you were.  Your continued use of the term in this discussion to mean something on a par with the Weekly World News is disingenuous.--csloat 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure that awards matter per se.  Salon is not really festooned with them.  Neither is World Net Daily.  They are both types of "journalism with an attitude" that have not really garnered much in the way of real awards.  But a source can be reliable without awards.  On the other hand, I do not think that any source is really reliable for opinions and these should be discouraged and avoided as much as possible, though sometimes I suppose they would be appropriate (such as discussion of theories). --Blue Tie 19:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You claim awards don't matter, then you nitpick about what kinds of awards are "real." That's not the issue here; the issue is whether it is reasonable as a source for journalism.  As for opinions, they are fine if they are reported accurately and marked as opinions.--csloat 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SS108, care to cite Wikipedia policy to support your claim that opinions cannot be cited on Wikipedia on BLPs?--csloat 10:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, SSS108 is formally wrong. Opinions can be cited on BLP's from reputable sources, like salon.com, but this is an encyclopedia, so the focus on any article should be on providing facts and not opinions. Wikipedia articles should not contain only opinions. I have seen one large section of an article that contains only oppposing opinions which made uninformative and hence unencyclopedic. Andries 10:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed -- articles should not contain only opinions, and opinions must always be indicated as such.  The imbalance problem you mention should not occur, especially in BLPs, and articles should be as NPOV as possible.--csloat 10:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Michelle Goldberg sided with the ex-devotees after she found the evidence against Sathya Sai Baba convincing. She first talked to devotees in the ashram. Yes, her article in salon.com was biased: biased towards facts and evidence, but it remains a fine piece of investigative journalism. The subject of the article was scandalous in itself (India's biggest guru is a pedophile) which may have been the reason why the article sounds to some readers (but not to me) like a tabloid. Andries 18:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is exactly the issue, Andries. The article is reflects the opinion of Goldberg and should only be quoted as an opinion of Goldberg. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But many of the assertions sourced to the article are already voiced as "According to an article in salon.com". In spite of this, SSS108 wants to remove all information sourced to salon.com Andries 19:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only that, he wants to remove all information on Wikipedia sourced to salon, not just the stuff in this article.  I think that we have pretty clearly established that he is wrong.--csloat 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Your  arguments seem to indicate otherwise, but I will accept your position that you are only arguying against salon's use in BLP articles.  Nonetheless, you are incorrect.  As I have said, you have not established a reason why Salon should be presumptively less valid than any other source of such information.  Claiming that it is "liberal" is beside the point.  The question is, why do you think it is presumptively less reliable than Rolling Stone or Vanity Fair or Harper's?  If you cannot answer that with evidence, then I suggest you think about why you find yourself so committed to this argument.--csloat 01:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Csloat, I have only explained my position several times and cited Wikipedia policy (on WP:BLP) to support my viewpoints. If you don't get it now, I don't think you ever will. Once again, it goes like this: Salon.com is an online, opinionated and liberal webzine/tabloid (based on the words of several sources including the founder himself). Therefore: → In relation to BLP, a stand-alone reference that is critical, negative and potentially libelous must be validated with other reliable and reputable media as per WP:BLP (citations already provided on this page) → Since no other reputable and reliable media referenced Goldberg's article, it is a stand-alone reference whose reliability is not supported (in my opinion) by WP:BLP (citations already provided on this page). If Rolling Stones or Vanity Fair published a critical, negative and potentially libelous article about a person, as a stand-alone reference, the same would apply. The fact that Salon.com is openly opinionated and "tabloid-like" (Talbot's words), is even more reason to rightly exercise caution. SSS108 talk-email 02:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with everything you say up until the last sentence.  That is exactly what wehave been arguing about. Salon is no more presumptively invalid than any other source.  Certainly if something is "critical, negative, and potentially libelous" it probably runs afoul of BLP.  But this page (started by you I believe) is called "Talk:Salon.com/as a source for Wikipedia".  Not "BLP and Scurrilous charges against my favorite guru that just happen to be printed in Salon.com."  I came to this page because someone posted on another article on my watchlist that Salon.com articles might be inappropriate all over wikipedia and that the debate over that issue was going on here.  If your claim is that scurrilous attacks against living persons violate BLP, you will get no argument from me.  But you seem to be focused on Salon.com, and that is where I respectfully must disagree with you.--csloat 08:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Andries, you are simply spinning the article because you were the former webmaster (for over 3 years) for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba Site on the internet and are currently the "Main Representative, Contact And Supervisor" for the largest Anti-Sai-Baba site on the internet. Therefore, your comments that "Goldberg sided with ex-devotees after she found the evidence against SSB convincing" and that her article "remains a fine piece of investigative journalims" is spin. Anyone googling "Michelle Goldberg Bias" can find the relevant information on her poor research, embellished claims and her very disturbing Anti-Sai propagandizing behind her "Untouchable?" article. SSS108 talk-email 23:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's try to keep focus, OK? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Ekantik 04:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a great source on its own

message: My position on this whole salon thing is that we should cite the author of the article when necessary.  A piece of journalism by Daniel Ford is not made less credible when published in Salon instead of Rolling Stone, and the opinion of Gore Vidal is not made less authentic by being published in Salon rather than Playboy.  The "tabloid" comment, as I have illustrated above, refers to the various topics covered in Salon.com.  I believe it is incorrect and out of context to use that quote to compare Salon to the National Enquirer or to make Salon out to be some kind of "yellow journalism."  BlueTie, who has been arguing vehemently against Salon, has suggested that there was one error that Salon made in an article about Enron that it then retracted.  I would suggest that the retraction is itself evidence that Salon considers itself an outlet for responsible journalism.  It is no different from magazines like Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, or Slate in this regard -- it treats a wide variety of topics to aim at a number of different audiences.  Investigative journalism is one of the things it does.  I have also listed a number of quotations above that praise Salon specifically for its journalism.  Nobody has offered a single quote suggesting it is "yellow journalism" or an unreliable source.  I believe this entire discussion is a red herring. In any case, my position is that quotes from Salon are no more presumptively invalid than quotes from the other sources I have named, and that we really should be citing the author of an article rather than the magazine anyway.--csloat 01:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A slight digression, some of the best newspapers and journals print retractions and corrections regularly. An example of this is Time magazine. This does not make Time an unreliable source. Ekantik 02:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You will have to ask that on the Scalia page, which I do not edit.  Let me be clear: I never said any damn thing Salon prints can be quoted without any limits on any Wikipedia page whatsoever.  I said Salon.com is not prima facie invalid just because it is Salon.com.  You have not bothered to offer a single argument other than a totally out of context quote from Talbot.  That has been responded to, and I have offered a dozen quotes supporting Salon as a reliable source of journalism.  The fact that Salon has printed an article you don't think should be quoted on another page does not invalidate its use as a reliable source.  I think it's time for you to drop this debate, SS108.  Have a nice day.--csloat 08:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, the reason I am getting frustrated is you are mischaracterizing my position.  I am not arguing for the "undisputed reliability" of Salon.  Please re-read my points.  I am arguing against its presumptive unreliability. My point above - as the heading of this section should have clued you in on - is that we should be citing the author and not the magazine.  Your claim that allowing Salon citations will lead to a "systemic increase in liberal bias on Wikipedia" is silly; one can similarly say that allowing citations from the National Review will lead to a "systemic increase in conservative bias." You then claim you are not trying to remove Salon quotes from wikipedia -- if that is the case, we have nothing more to argue about.  But it does fly in the face of your claim about systemic bias.csloat 01:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, of course, I am not saying that you shouldn't cite the magazine at all - that is what the references section is for. I just mean for the purpose of determining reliability, a quote from Gore Vidal is not made less reliable because it is in Salon.com.  I assume you are conceding the rest of the points here, and that we can continue to treat Salon as a reasonable source of info (or, at least, as not a presumptively unreasonable source). Since we can agree on that much, I think the discussion is over.--csloat 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: SSS108, Of course editors should try to find the best author. The guidelines cannot go into such detail. I find it difficult to assume your good faith when you write that "this was never about the general reliability of Salon.com." The initially stated reasons why you rejected the salon.com article about Sathya Sai Baba was because salon.com was a self professed Tabloid and because salon.com was only published online.  Andries 08:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cite author, not magazine 

message: On the RfAr page, Fred said "I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the fact that there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regarding any particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony. Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not a tabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably considered unreliable". This seems like a reasonable compromise. Are we done now? JoshuaZ 06:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can I get a link to this statement?  I did not see it. --Blue Tie 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's on WP:RfAr now, search for "Salon" on that page. Or see the dif here. JoshuaZ 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: No. A decision is not based on one admin's opinion. SSS108 talk-email 06:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You wanted the opinion of the ArbCom. Often when giving clarifications the ArbCom does not formally vote on the matter but one or two arbitrators give their opinions and if no one speaks up it is accepted. You wanted to go to the ArbCom and you go the ArbCom's answer. The fact that you won't accept that ruling puzzles me. JoshuaZ 07:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You ay have misread Fred's comment. What he is saying is that it would be OK to say "there were numerous allegations rteported in aa Salon.com article", and that's it. He is saying not  to use material regarding particular allegations.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 21:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He also said that it is not a Tabloid with regards to lack of reliability. Andries 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I didn't say otherwise Jossi. That's precisely how I think we should use the source. Note I called this a "reasonable compromise"
[ JoshuaZ 00:18, 12 Nov 2006 (UTC)

text: Milo, you are repeating the same disinformation that csloat was repeating. I never said that Salon.com should be removed from Wikipedia entirely. Read my responses in case you missed them:   . Once again, my comments are in relation to stand-alone references from Salon.com on BLP. SSS108 talk-email 06:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um? I never mentioned you in this section. Paying no attention to individual signatures, I just mentally averaged and responded to the overall anti-Salon impression that the debate was having on readers. • Anyway, having some consensus is good. Both the arbitrator and I agree with your standalone reference issue, as applied to individual Salon testimonies. Milo 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Standalone references to salon.com on BLP should be treated no differently than standalone references to slate.com, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, or other similar magazines.  My point all along has only been that salon.com is not presumptively inaccurate or unacceptable.  As most everyone agrees at this point, this is a wrap.  Good night!csloat 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You may believe that declaring this is a wrap, makes it so, but there are others who do not agree with you. --Blue Tie 06:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Be sure to turn off the lights. Milo 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  I agree with Blue Tie. This is by no means a closed discussion.≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: On the specific case SS108 and Andries are bringing up, I woud suggest we stay with the Arbitrator's comment: I think the Salon article is a reliable source for the factthat there are numerous allegations. I would not use material regardingany particular allegation. That relies only on the victim's testimony.Any particular reported instance may easily be false. Salon is not atabloid in the sense that its contents are reasonably consideredunreliable.. This means: (a) mention that Salon.com has reported that there are numerous allegations; and (b) do not use any material about any particular allegation. That's it.  ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: and (c) that Salon is not a "tabloid" in the sense advocated by SS108.--csloat 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Is that the only arbitrator who will weigh-in on the matter?  Or will there be further guidance? --Blue Tie 16:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do we really need any more?  Again, the anti-Salon position here has not yet marshalled a single shred of evidence in favor of it, other than an out of context quotation by Talbot.  True, you have asserted that Salon "more than once" got something wrong and printed a retraction, but you offered no evidence of that, and could only cite one actual example.  But as I and others have said, even stipulating such errors, the retraction shows Salon's committment to responsible journalism.  I'm not sure what there is left to debate or what other guidance we need.csloat 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to me that this conversation is tainted by some editors POVs (from both sides.) Either we can have a dispassionate discussion about this source here, or let editors adress specific cases about which there are content disputes in  the talk pages of tese articles. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 19:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with getting more guidance.  As far as finding that they have gotten things wrong more than once, I'm not interested in that sort of thing.  As I have already said, it is almost irrelevant.  Indeed, if they NEVER got things wrong and NEVER printed a retraction, that would be prima-facia evidence that they are an illegitimate source.  So you should NOT be making claims that they follow such practices or seek to prove that they do.  I am willing to stipulate that they do not.  Do you really want to fight for the right to prove that they are less than honest given your desire to use them as a source?  To me this is a non-starter.  The problem I have with Salon is that they are deceptive in mixing editorializing with regular reporting.   This makes their articles suspect. Your concerns about "factual accuracy" are irrelevant to this and I have never argued over their factual accuracy, which I have not investigated further than to determine that they admit making errors and retracting them often enough to have a policy about it that has evolved over time. --Blue Tie 04:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with more guidance; I just didn't think any was necessary, as noted above.  I honestly don't understand your claim that if Salon never got anything wrong that would be prima facie evidence against them -- is that what you meant to say?  I get the sense we both agree it is irrelevant, but you seem to be taking me to task for it and I'm not sure why.  I was pointing out that that was your only substantive argument against Salon.  If the question is not one of factual accuracy, what is it?  You say "The problem I have with Salon is that they are deceptive in mixing editorializing with regular reporting.  This makes their articles suspect."  This is the problem.  You have not presented any evidence to support this claim.  Salon does not do this.  Most of their writers are openly opinionated; there is nothing deceptive about this.  "Mixing editorializing with regular reporting" is a red herring -- what you are talking about is news analysis, as you can find in the NYT and Washington Post along with many other fine papers.  Nobody is deceptive about this and you have not cited a single example to show that they are.  This sort of thing is precisely why we read such papers rather than just reading wire reports (and, indeed, wire reports do this all the time too!)  But Salon is more like Harpers, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, etc. in that it does numerous things as well as investigative reporting.  Investigative reporters usually have an opinion about the reports they file.  This is not a bad thing, and it does not invalidate their reporting.  We can have different opinions about that issue, but here is a fact that is not debatable -- Salon is no more engaged in this practice of writing with a point of view than many other sources that are considered WP:RS. --csloat 08:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you have provided sufficient reasons above to question the validity of articles from Salon (and Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, etc.). That they appear in this tabloids and magazines does not mean that they should be valued for contribution to an encyclopedia. Salon is a biased and not a highly qualified source (except, I will agree, it is respected by those who share its bias).  Just like World News Daily.  In fact, to a degree, the National Enquirer is a less biased and just as accurate source of information and may have developed investigative news pieces that are more surprising and interesting. --Blue Tie 17:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, re-read the above.  You're just repeating yourself, and you have not given one single example of where Salon is less reasonable a source than, say, Newsweek.  Your repetition of the claim of liberal bias has been responded to.  The issue is not bias, it is expertise.  I am through with this discussion.  If you go around removing Salon links based on this flawed reasoning, those links are likely to be replaced.--csloat 19:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or the Atlantic, or the National Review, which may be the closest analogy; although ideologically different. Septentrionalis 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  An arbitrator has spoken 

message: I've been subscribing to Salon for years, ever since they became a pay service. The company was started by veteran journalists from San Francisco newspapers like the Chronicle, and it has always operated according to the highest print journalism standards. I have seen a fair number of corrections and retractions issued -- at much the same level as, say, the New York Times, which I also read. They have scooped the old-guard media on many issues. They skew "blue state," but they don't have a hard party line and one of their continuing features is a blogosphere round-up, the Daou Report, that links to commentary from the Left and the Right. 
Sure, they have comics and satire and links to the hottest items on YouTube -- but the NYT does too. So far as I can tell, the only reason that Salon is  being questioned as a source is that it published an article critical of Sai Baba. 
There's no guarantee that the article is true just because it was published in Salon, any more than there's a guarantee that a NYT article is necessarily true. Anyone remember Jayson Blair? All that Salon publication guarantees is that the article contains no allegations that Salon found slanderous (exposing them to legal liability) or prima facie unbelievable (no credulous articles re Elvis sightings and 300 pound babies). No publication, no matter how venerable, can give you more than that. WP, when it cites a magazine or newspaper, expects readers to weigh the information according to their own convictions as to the reliability of the publication or the writer. We exclude publications of extremely low quality, but there's no evidence that Salon is such. Zora 20:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much Zora. Its true that a lot of this discussion revolves around Salon's usage in the Sathya Sai Baba article for an agenda. Ekantik 06:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am also a Salon subscriber. It does have thought-provoking articles; however, its "reporting" is all-too-often irrefutably slanted to a "leftist" political agenda. It is bitterly anti-Bush, anti-Republican and anti-Iraq War. While this can be said of most media (and, in fact, most people in the U.S. and world), Salon is a repository of editorial information, not news journalism. Any publication that proudly touts itself as a tabloid should never, under any circumstances, be considered a reliable source except in the case of attributing direct quotes to a person or group Robotempire 09:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Salon subscriber speaks