Talk:Salon.com

message: 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)
replies: text: Please see WP:OR. Saturnalia0 (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  There is no consensus about the reliability of Salon per WP:Perennial sources Dronebogus (talk) 02:43, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change of position 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: salonmag.com - Immigrant laborer (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curious what the original URL was 

message: :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)
replies: text: Salon (website) →  – 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: 
*While just "Salon" is probably the most common title, WP:NATURAL 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> HTML element of Salon's homepage is: "Salon.com  News, Politics, Culture, Science & Food". Same goes for articles — example: “Joe Manchin's "highly suspicious" reversal on voting bill follows donation from corporate lobby  Salon.com”. 
*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". —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 20:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 10 June 2021 

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