This page is a central discussion forum for the question whether salon.com is a reliable source. It is clear that this may vary somewhat per subject.

[1] [2]

User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya_Sai_Baba/Salon.com_as_a_Source

from http://www.salon.com/press/awards/index.html retrieved 9 November 2006

2004 "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" | GLAAD "Outstanding Journalist" (David Talbot) | Carr Van Anda Award

2003 "Top 100 Classics" (News & Entertainment categories) | PC Magazine "Feature Journalism -- Independent" | Online Journalism Awards

2002 "Best Print and Zine" | Webby Awards "Best 50 Web Sites" | Time Magazine "Best of the Web | Book Clubs" Forbes "Outstanding Digital Journalism Overall Coverage" | GLAAD

2001 "Best Online Magazine" | Yahoo Internet Life "Top 100 Websites" | PC Magazine "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" | GLAAD "Best Independent Enterprise Journalism" | Online Journalism Awards

2000 "General Excellence" | Online Journalism Awards "Enterprise Journalism " | Online Journalism Awards "Best Technology Site" and "Best Parenting Site" | Forbes "Best of the Web -- Media, Politics" | Brill's Content "Best Online Magazine" | Boston Phoenix "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" | GLAAD

1999 "David Talbot, 20 Stars of the New News" | Newsweek "Best Online Magazine" | Webby Awards "Top of the Net" | Yahoo Internet Life

1998 "Best Online Magazine" | Webby Awards "Best of Multimedia" | Entertainment Weekly "Top of the Net" | Yahoo Internet Life

1997 "Best Online Magazine" | Webby Awards "Cool Site of the Year" | U.S. News & World Report "Best of the Web" | Business Week "Best Website" | Entertainment Weekly "Best Online Magazine of the Year" | Advertising Age "Top of the Net" | Yahoo Internet Life

1996 "Web Site of the Year" | Time Magazine "Cool Web Designers of the Year" | Cool Site of the Day

1996 Awards are not for Journalism, but for website design.

1997 Awards: 4 are obviously related to website design or popularity not Journalism. Webby award, though seemingly related to Journalism is really a web design award per webbyawards.com's stated purpose. The "Advertising Age" "Best Online Magazine of the Year" award is unclear -- A google search shows that only Salon has won this award, and it is not clear how Advertising Age is a good source of journalistic judgment

1998 Awards: Web Design awards. Not Journalism

1999 Awards: 2 Web Design Awards. One Award mentioned is not an award. It is an article in Newsweek and it is not about Salon but rather, it is about Salon's founder and it is related to his status as a mover and shaker.

2000 Awards: First year with Journalism Awards: Online Journalism Awards (2) are sponsored by a school of journalism. Forbes Awards are legitimate awards, but they are not for journalism. "Best of the Web" by Brill's Content and "Outstanding Digital Journalism Article" by GLAAD may not be actually related to journalistic quality since both of those "award givers" have axes to grind. Brill, however, specifically was designed to review journalism and the media. "Best Online Magazine" by the Boston Phoenix does not appear to be a real award. Only Salon is mentioned on Google when this is brought up.

2001 Awards: One legitimate Journalism Award (Online Journalism Award). GLAAD is an advocacy (ax to grind) group. Other awards are website design/popularity.

2002 Awards: No actual Journalism Awards. GLAAD is an advocacy (ax to grind) group. Other awards are website design/popularity awards, not journalism content awards.

2003 Awards: One Journalism award. The other is not an award but rather a listing in a magazine, nor is it specifically about journalism.

2004 Award. GLAAD is an advocacy (ax to grind) group. Not a clean journalism award.

In short, over these 8 years there were three years with legitimate journalism awards. These are all from one source: Online Journalism Awards. No other Journalism awards are found. This suggests that Salon is, sometimes, one of the best on-line journalism sources according to one awarding group, but it does not suggest that Salon is one of the best journalism sources when all types of media are considered by all awarding bodies. --Blue Tie 13:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about GLAAD are bullshit. Yes it is an advocacy group; however, that does not invalidate its award. Perhaps it makes it less prestigious than a Pulitzer, but that really isn't the point. You are nitpicking here - I don't care how many awards the magazine has won. The fact is that it consistently does credible and notable investigative reporting. The fact that it does other things too -- prompting Talbot to agree with the label "tabloid" that you and your friend have taken totally out of context -- does not invalidate its investigative journalism. A few quotes that specifically address the journalism issue:

Salon is taking the lead on all the Kenneth Starr coverage. It's beating the East Coast papers all hollow ... It didn't have the money or the resources; all it had was flexibility and intelligence.

-- Jon Carroll, San Francisco Chronicle

The plucky Net zine consistently scooped its traditional media brethren with insightful, hard hitting pieces.

-- Jon Schwartz, San Francisco Chronicle

Since its inception in late 1995, Salon has broken ground on the Net with its sound journalism, good writing, and smart design.

-- Yahoo Internet Life

Salon has the smarts and finesse of the New Yorker or Harper's magazine without killing the trees -- a breath of literate air in this computer-crazed climate.

--New York Post

Salon's savvy blend of old and new media strengths has made it an online journalism pacesetter.

--American Journalism Review

It's a beautiful, elegiac piece, written by a master. So where did I read it? In the New Yorker? The Atlantic Monthly? The New York Review of Books? The Times Literary Supplement? Answer: none of the above. I read it in Salon, the online magazine which is doing for Net publishing what the New Yorker once did for weekly magazines.

--London Observer

Salon has the best writing online, consistently, daily. Refreshingly, it is rarely self-referential, or even Web-referential. And someone please nominate author and Salon columnist Anne Lamott for a Pulitzer Prize!

--Yahoo! Internet Life Five Star Award

Again, it doesn't matter whether it won awards; what matters is that it is widely considered a credible and accurate source of journalism. The claim that it is a "tabloid" is disingenuous BS based on an out of context quote.--csloat 21:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comments about GLAAD are appropriate, although your crude response is not. GLAAD's role as an advocacy group entirely strips it of validity as a judge of journalism. Not only that but it is not a journalism focused organization, which further reduces its credibility. I was not nitpicking. I was evaluating the list. This involves looking at each one of the items. As far as me and my friend, I have no friends on wikipedia that I know of. But the quote is not taken out of context -- even if you do not like it. Finally, the quotes that you marshall are fascinating and supportive. I agree that it does not matter about awards, a source may nevertheless be credible. However, the credibility of a source in general should be weighed in the balance of all of its work. For example, National Enquirer actually 'scoops' the regular press all the time and they do so with actual news stories. However, they also do many things that reduce their credibility as well. Salon may be the same. For example as one person has pointed out, Salon presents opinion as though it were news. I completely believe that this is what was intended by the owner in creating a tabloid. This is a credibility reducer even if you do not recognize it. --Blue Tie 23:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong; there is nothing about GLAAD that strips it of validity. You are entitled to your opinion on that issue but please do not confuse it with fact. The quote was out of context; I provided the full context right here on this page and you guys -- friends or not -- ignored it. I didn't say I didn't "like" the quote; I said it was mendaciously wrenched out of context to make a very different point. You have not presented a single piece of evidence that salon is anything like the National Enquirer, or that it "presents opinion as though it were news." There is no evidence that salon's credibility is reduced by this out of context quote other than your assertion. There is not even one quote on this page from a reliable source that suggests that Salon is not a credible source of information, and I have listed numerous quotes above that suggest it is! Your arguments in this conversation border on the absurd. If you had a tiny shred of evidence for anything you are saying it might be helpful, but you do not.--csloat 00:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am correct. However, you are abusive and I will not dialog with you further. --Blue Tie 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Sorry if I offended you, but I see nothing "abusive" about the above. I apologize for my use of the term "bullshit" in regards to your GLAAD point, if that is what you refer to. But the rest of it? I am just stating why you are incorrect. Have a nice day.--csloat 01:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.^[1]

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)[reply]

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" [3]. SSS108 ^talk-email 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper Trouw is a quality paper, but also a tabloid. Andries 06:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, now I will work on that next. My next argument is that Trouw is not permissible because it is an exclusively one-sided attack on Sathya Sai Baba and it is from a tabloid to boot. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please define "tabloid" in this context. Salon consistently hires exemplary writers and respected professional journalists. It consistently publishes accurate articles. It is far more credible and reliable than many of the left/right leaning opinion magazines that are cited all over Wikipedia -- national review, weekly standard, etc. I think it depends on the issue it is being cited on whether a Salon citation is useful, but it should not be removed just because it is from Salon. Also, we should be looking at the writer and not the magazine. If a credible journalist publishes an article there about something it should not matter that the editor has been quoted using the word tabloid. Notably, after the cited comment, he says this:

“

If by tabloid what you mean is you're trying to reach a popular audience, trying to write topics that are viscerally important to a readership, whether it's the story about the mother in Houston who drowned her five children or the story on the missing intern in Washington, Chandra Levy. Slate, by the way, also had a story about Chandra Levy on its June 22 cover. Maybe Salon's tabloidism is starting to infect Slate as well, but they're not above or immune to writing about subjects that have a tabloid-like sensibility to them. While Salon has not yet broken any major stories on the shocking and scandalous practice of monkeyfishing in the Florida Keys, we have made other contributions in the field of investigative journalism of which we're proud.

”

I'd say this whole page is bogus; it sounds to me like someone is trying to exclude Salon based on its political leanings rather than its journalism.--csloat 07:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

1. Is Salon.com the only source available for the disputed material?
2. If the answer is yes, use with caution, or maybe do not use at all, in particular if the material is highly controversial;
3. 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)[reply]

ad 3. I think salon.com is better than many mainstream newspapers. Andries 06:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

What does exercising caution mean in practice? Andries 17:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

I have done a lot of research on the matter. Andries 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Once again, this is not about Salon.com as an entity. It is about one of their tabloid articles against Sathya Sai Baba that has never been referenced by other reliable or reputable media. Try to get that through your head. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 [4]. Even at that time, Talbot frequently called Salon.com a "smart tabloid". SSS108 ^talk-email 19:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do you have evidence that Salon is unreliable? There are plenty of fact-checking sites out there. And, exactly because they're liberal, Salon has a lot of critics who would love to discredit them. So, I'd surmise that evidence of unreliablity should be easy to find, if they're actually unreliable. Derex 11:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andries, you have not answered my question: Do you consider ALL the articles on Salon.com to be reliable, despite their self-admitted status as an online tabloid? Yes or no. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Despite all the argumentation above, no one has responded to the main question: "If Salon.com the is the only source available for highly controversial material in a BLP, should it be used or not? Context, my friends, context. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andries, then you should use the other reputable sources. Not a tabloid article that is not reference anywhere else. Salon.com is NOT the same as The New York Times (which has never admitted being an opinionated newspaper talboid). Salon.com is a highly opinionated online tabloid (adittedly) that can only be referenced when it is done by other reliable media sources. That is not the case with Goldberg's article. It is upto the person wanting to include the reference to establish the reputability of the article. Andries can cite no other sources. Not even one.

Examples of the articles in Salon.com: Regarding Sex, Regarding People. All these read like highly opinionated stories (because they are talboids) and do not read like media stories whatsoever. These are the articles that Andries and JoshuaZ are saying are indisputably reliable. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

JoshuaZ, I have good reason to think that Goldberg's article is not reliable. Not even one other reputable media source made reference to it. Therefore, it does not meet the standards in WP:BLP. Since you have problems understanding me, let me provide quotes from WP:BLP:

• "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims."
• "Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability."
• "In the case of significant public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable, third-party published sources to take information from, and Wikipedia biographies should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out."

Salon.com is a secondary source, not a third-party source. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Jossie, according to WP:BLP, if the material might be critical, defamatory, malicious or biased it has to be documented by reliable third-party sources. Using a primary or secondary source is not enough. Same is stated in WP:V:

• "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require stronger sources."

A tabloid article with no other references to it does not fulfill any of these policies, in my opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

Argue what you like Andries, neither you or anyone else can fulfill the requirement of Goldberg's article being well-documented by reliable published sources. You can only cite one source that is a self-professed online tabloid. Period. End of discussion. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what now? Revert two times three times a day until somebody drops dead? Andries 23:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think ArbCom is going to ignore this issue. So I think it is best we file a RFC. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Not true, csloat. The following articles are not opinion pieces. Therefore, these articles can be cited, pushing a liberal bias, based on the case you just made. You fail to realize the impact of allowing stand-alone online tabloid articles on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles are clean journalism. --Blue Tie 19:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Csloat, what do you mean you have refuted the claim that Salon.com is a tabloid? Talbot, the founder of Salon.com admitted it was a "smart tabloid". What? Are you saying that Talbot, the actual founder, is wrong about the description of his own online tabloid webzine? SSS108 ^talk-email 19:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Csloat, care to cite Wikipedia policy to support your claim that even opinions can be cited on Wikipedia on BLPs? SSS108 ^talk-email 06:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I believe WP:BLP makes it clear that opinion articles are to be avoided:

• "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable third party sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves. The writing style should be neutral, factual, and understated, avoiding both a sympathetic point of view and an advocacy journalism point of view."

Opinion articles are a type of advocacy journalism, in my opinion.

Salon.com writes highly opinionated articles that are admittedly liberal. Salon.com and its editors are often described as left-wing: [5], [6] (which talks about Salon.com's plagiarism and an unsubsantiated smear), [7], [8], [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28840], [9], [10] (even Forbes called Salon.com "left-wing" and "features fiery left-wing columnists" and presents "High quality, but opinionated journalism"), [11], [12], [13],

And then there is the comment from Talbot himself: "We're a progressive, smart tabloid," Talbot said. "I'm trying to reach as wide an audience as possible. We offer a populist, entertaining, shamelessly liberal voice that stands up for the common person. I can't think of an independent daily out there that's headed toward profitability and reaches 3 million people a month."

I think one can make the case that Salon.com is another example of advocacy journalism, like The Weekly Standard. Needless to say, on WP:BLP states that advocacy journalism points of view should be avoided. This would be even more the case when the article contains critical, negative and potentially libelous information. Goldberg tabloid-like article was written in collaboration with ex-devotees and she used salon.com as a forum to "bring much attention to their struggle".

So I agree with Blue Tie, Salon.com is not a great stand-alone source. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Csloat, thank you for completely misrepresenting my position. I said (and always have said) that if Salon.com is referenced by other reliable and reputable media, it is perfectly okay to cite them as a reliable source. The stand-alone Goldberg article does not qualify as a reliable source because it has not been published by other reputable and reliable media. In regards to opinion articles, it is also my opinion that these are not permitted under WP:BLP. So when you said that I want to "remove all information on Wikipedia sourced to salon", this is not only an erroneous comment, it is untrue. You must remember that I am discussing the policy as outlined on WP:BLP and not in relation to articles that fall under other categories. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Let's try to keep focus, OK? Wikipedia is not a battleground. Ekantik 04:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is my response to a request for comment.

I suggest this debate isn't about Salon.com, it's about: Sai Baba. If one demonstrates that Salon is only reporting what other reliable sources have reported, then the attempt to take down Salon's reputation goes up in smoke. That attempt is based on very thin Wikilawyering, circumscribing the misunderstood word "tabloid". Further, the debaters are now so bogged down debating Wikiguide details that they've successfully been distracted from what this is really about: Sai Baba.

I read this talk page, and the first (and only free) page of Untouchable? the Salon.com article by Michelle Goldberg. The only thing obviously tabloid about the Salon article on page 1 is that the subject is sensational - in this case allegations of child sex abuse against Sai Baba. These allegations have been reported elsewhere by the BBC Sai Baba: God-man or con man?, and The Telegraph Divine Downfall. Both are reliable sources. Salon has a minor specialty in reporting on cults. About 10 links referring to Salon cult articles appear at List of groups referred to as cults.

For all the talk about how reliable the NYT is, they have been intensely criticized for writing a puff piece on Sai Baba, A Friend in India to All the World This is an example of why one shouldn't always defer to the source article by the newspaper of record, just because it is one.

The bottom line is that the USA Department of State has constructively identified Sai Baba as one of a small number of persons who could be engaging in inappropriate sexual behavior directed at "young male devotees".
"U.S. citizens should be aware that there have been unconfirmed reports of inappropriate sexual behavior by a prominent local religious leader at an ashram or religious retreat located in Andhra Pradesh. Most of the reports indicate that the subjects of these approaches have been young male devotees, including a number of U.S. citizens."
Supporters will of course point to all the hedging, but that's not the point. The important issue for WP:BLP is that the USA government is saying yes, we have repeatedly been told that our citizens were abused. The USA said in general what the other reliable source articles said in specific. The USA supports the reliable articles (including Salon), all of which (government plus publications) collectively support the WP:BLP requirements. The collective story is so strong that Sai Baba supporters are reduced to an endless series of quibbles about minutia like Wikiguide tabloid policy.

Did I mention this is really about Sai Baba? Milo 18:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you did mention that, however, I am unconcerned about Sai Baba and never participated or even saw that page. I came here because I noticed the issue about Salon and wanted to discuss that. I believe the RfC was about Salon also (I did not submit it for RfC). I think your comments would be more helpful if you stayed to that subject of this page and the RfC because that is the reason I am here. Thus I stand as evidence that your presumption about this discussion is not true.--Blue Tie 19:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I came here without knowing jack about this Baba sex cult nonsense either, but I agree with Milo - this whole thing seems to have started because some editor decided that attacking salon was the best way to defend his favorite cult leader. The arguments made against Salon here are ridiculous -- the claim that it is a "tabloid" has been shown to be an utter prevarication; the only other argument against it seems to be that it has not won enough awards. That, to me, is silliness. There are articles by many well-known writers and journalists in Salon. Do you think their work is less credible when they publish there than when they publish in NYT? With all the blather on this page about exercising caution with Salon, no editor has offered a single example -- not one -- of a single fact that Salon.com got wrong in an investigative journalism piece. There is no dispute about their fact-checking that I am aware of. I can point to scores of examples of facts the NYT got wrong. I'm not saying Salon is better but I am saying I don't see any evidence justifying a double standard with respect to Salon. You're asking for the presumption to be against using Salon as a source a priori -- without concern for who the author is, whether it is an opinion piece or a journalism piece, etc. -- I am arguing that there is no justification for such a shift in presumption.--csloat 19:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, the salon.com article on Sathya Sai Baba (25 July 2001 Untouchable? by Michelle Goldberg, freely available if you keep on searching and clicking) is a lot better than the article by the New York Times. The NYT article (A Friend in India to all the world on 1 Dec. 2001 by Keith Bradher) contained a factual blunder that remained uncorrected in spite of letters written to the NYT complaining about it. According to the NYT article, Sathy Sai Baba is "Famous for seldom saying much in public even to his followers". This is ridiculous. One of Sathya Sai Baba's strong points are his public speeches that have noted down, as can be seen on http://www.sssbpt.info/html/sss.html Andries 08:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a prevarication, then the founding editor of Salon is a prevaricator with regard to his own creation. That should suggest something is amiss with it. --Blue Tie 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get real. The editor of Salon was taken blatantly (and, now it appears, maliciously) out of context. Read the rest of the interview. He defends the publication's record of investigative journalism. Not one of you has yet raised a single instance in which their investigative journalism is in doubt. This discussion has become ridiculous.--csloat 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, this discussion is about the reliablility of a stand-alone tabloid article on Salon.com. You also forgot to mention that the US State Department warning was conservatively worded (not mentioning Baba by name and specificially calling the allegations "unconfirmed") because of a concerted e-mail bombing campaign by critics and ex-devotees of Sathya Sai Baba. They even boasted about accomplishing it on their own Anti-Sai Sites. They also (unsuccessfully) attempted to get Britain to put a similar warning and they were told that since there were no court cases or complaints against Sathya Sai Baba, they would not put a warning. Just recently, another article against Sathya Sai Baba was published in The Guardian. Needless to say, Anti-Sai Activists were boasting on having accomplished that as well and predicted its release 6 months ago. This same hidden bias can be found on both Goldberg's article (yes, she collaborated with ex-devotees) and in the Secret Swami Documentary (which even Andries claimed was sympathetic with ex-devotees). You are buying into an Anti-Sai smear campaign without researching it thoroughly. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

csloat, if you think citing stand-alone online tabloid articles is justified, then others can cite, with impunity the following articles to push their liberal bias on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim that it should be rejected as a "tabloid" is false. I have refuted it above, showing that you took the quote totally out of context. The appropriate response is for you to apologize and tell us that you posted the mendacity in good faith, not to continue to assert the mendacity as if it were an established fact. I have responded to your other claim above, but to reiterate, your cherry picking of opinion pieces that sound bad to you is only evidence of your own biases. There is nothing wrong with citing journalism from "biased" sources in wikipedia as long as no attempt is made to conceal the source of the claim.--csloat 19:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again not true. Talbot, founder of Salon.com said:

• "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." [14]

As mentioned before, Jon Friedman called Salon.com a "witty web site" that "thrives on liberal politics". David Talbot (founder of Salon.com) called Salon.com a "progressive, smart tabloid" [15]. Therefore, since Goldberg's article is a stand-alone reference printed on an online tabloid, it is my opinion that it cannot be cited by itself. SSS108 ^talk-email 19:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the last time, read the rest of the interview you are quoting and quit pretending that he means "tabloid" the same way you do! I responded to this thoroughly above and included the entire quote. You keep taking it out of context and it is very difficult to assume good faith anymore. If you keep distorting this I will stop arguing with you.--csloat 21:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since it is the last time, I have read the whole interview and I believe that when he used the word "tabloid" he used it in exactly the way I do. The article says it is shameless and full of doom and gloom. Works for me as a tabloid in either the worst or best sense depending upon how you view tabloids. --Blue Tie 23:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's not the last time. Here is the actual quote again. I've helpfully put the relevant parts of the quote in bold face so you can find them easier:

“

If by tabloid what you mean is you're trying to reach a popular audience, trying to write topics that are viscerally important to a readership, whether it's the story about the mother in Houston who drowned her five children or the story on the missing intern in Washington, Chandra Levy. Slate, by the way, also had a story about Chandra Levy on its June 22 cover. Maybe Salon's tabloidism is starting to infect Slate as well, but they're not above or immune to writing about subjects that have a tabloid-like sensibility to them. While Salon has not yet broken any major stories on the shocking and scandalous practice of monkeyfishing in the Florida Keys, we have made other contributions in the field of investigative journalism of which we're proud.

”

Your claim that it is "shameless" or "full of doom and gloom" is not the issue. The issue is the meaning of "tabloid," which Talbot clarifies in the very paragraph you quote. Again, I am having trouble assuming good faith on either of your parts when you continually and blatantly misinterpret his use of this one word. And, again, you have not presented a shred of actual evidence -- not one shred -- that Salon has ever published anything incorrect in an investigative journalism piece. That makes its record far better than the NYT's on that issue. But I'm not making the claim that it is better than the NYT; only that it is not presumptively invalid. Your comparison of it to National Enquirer is bogus, and I think you know it.--csloat 00:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where in that quote does it contradict my view of what a tabloid is? It confirms it and the words that you highlighted particularly confirm it. So, though you claimed it was "for the last time" you have repeated things and again confirmed that it is a tabloid. I suppose I should thank you although I doubt you feel the same way.

Incidentally, I did not claim it was shameless or full of doom and gloom.

Salon has definitely made errors in its reporting. I recall that it made accusations regarding Thomas White at Enron that it later had to retract under extreme pressure. (It has had other errors that it did not bother to retract because there was no pressure). That the errors occur is acknowledged: It has a policy on how to deal with them. But this is not pertinent to whether it is credible. Credibility comes from a body of work that is not deceptive in presentation of opinion as well as being factually correct. Salon fails that test. Credibility is further eroded by a biased "agenda" behind the writing, editing and publication of certain articles. In times past this was called "Yellow Journalism". Great publishing institutions started and grew as Yellow Journalism efforts (even Pulitzer!) but that does not make that type of work credible or appropriate as a main source for an encyclopedia. As Jossi has said, it is far preferred that it come from another source.

I am sorry that you are offended by this. --Blue Tie 00:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not offended by this; I just don't see any evidence to support your claims. If the highlighted part of the quote confirms your view of what a tabloid is, then we are in perfect agreement. The "tabloid" quote then does not contradict my view that Salon is a respected and credible outlet for investigative journalism. But my sense is that you have a different view. As for Salon's errors in reporting, please offer sourced evidence to prove your claim. I don't disagree that there may have been errors which I have not heard about, but I think it is interesting that not a single one has been mentioned until now. If you can back up the above mentioned errors with a citation, perhaps you can prove that Salon is no more credible than the NYT -- I will save you the trouble and concede that Salon is no better a source than NYT. The claim that it is deceptive or presents yellow journalism, however, has not been backed up with any evidence at all. I don't disagree that two sources are better than one; my only claim here is that Salon is not presumptively invalid. I am sorry you are offended by this.--csloat 01:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel Milo's comment was very concise and correctly summarised the issue for me, there is clearly an agenda going on here. In my opinion this whole discussion is ridiculous because Salon is extensively cited all over Wikipedia. Establishing Salon as an invalid source will have serious repercussions for Wikipedia as a whole. Ekantik 02:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ekantik, can you cite examples? I believe that you will find that the Salon.com references on Wikipedia are articles that have been published by other reliable media sources. That is not the case with Goldberg's Salon.com article, hence this discussion. Some have said that Salon.com is used all over Wikipedia. I have yet to see a Salon.com reference that is a stand-alone reference that has not been published by other media. If they exist, as you claim, please cite them. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll handle that request for Salon examples. As I wrote above, "About 10 links referring to Salon cult articles appear at List of groups referred to as cults." All of them appear to be on Salon's website. Are you suggesting that substantial numbers of Salon website articles aren't original Salon articles, meaning that Salon paid to reprint articles originally appearing elsewhere? If so, check out your theory by consulting those 10 links. Milo 09:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, I said in regards to BLP. Show me stand-alone references to Salon.com as they pertain to BLP. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand your request. I'd say that no stand-alone defamatory references should be used in BLP from Salon or any other source. My original point was that Salon is not stand-alone on the general charges of numerous abuse reports, I'm told here that there are now four sources for that, not counting the USA State Department. OTOH, I agree that Salon or the other three may be stand-alone for particular testimonies (don't know for sure), which is why the arbitrator said not to use those specific cases, and I agree. Milo 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, I am glad you are beginning to understand my argument. However, you do not fully understand it. If Goldberg's article is truly supported with reliable and reputable references, those reliable and reputable references should be cited. However, since no other reliable or reputable media articles cited Goldberg's article, it is my contention that Goldberg's article (which is a stand-alone reference) does not qualify as a reputable or reliable source. In it's stead, one should use the sources that are considered reputable and reliable sources. One cannot argue reliability by association. If that was the case, one could begin to cite the National Enquirer because some of their stories contain factual information that have been referenced elsewhere in reliable sources. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Csloat, I will pose the same question to you that I posed to Fred:...so are you saying that the following articles can be cited on Wikipedia? Since I do not hold a favorable opinion of Scalia, I will cite Salon.com and it's article about him to support the widely held opinion that he is "martyr", is a "a poster boy for intolerance, vitriol and questionable ethics", writes "masterpieces of contemptuous nastiness" and turns up "the volume on his vitriol so high that it's hard to hear anything" [16]. Are you saying that this Salon.com feature news article is a reliable source to criticize Scalia with? Since Salon.com is an admitted liberal and opinionated online tabloid, liberals are going to have a field day pushing their bias on Wikipedia using Salon.com as a "reliable source". SSS108 ^talk-email 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Csloat, I find it strange that you are making a strenuous argument for the undisputed reliability of Salon.com on Wikipedia and yet you refuse to address the obvious repercussions from such an argument. The repercussions from allowing Salon.com to be used as an undisputed, stand-alone reliable source are evident. There will be a systemic increase in liberal bias on Wikipedia. There has to be checks and balances in place. One of these checks and balances is that reliable material should pass the litmus test of being published in other reliable and reputable media. Goldberg's article does not meet this criterion. It is apparent you are misunderstanding my argument. I am trying to stay focused on Wikipedia policy relating to WP:BLP while you are taking off on some tangent about my comments somehow applying to the whole of Wikipedia and that I am trying to remove all references to Salon.com on Wikipedia. SSS108 ^talk-email 00:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Csloat, since I have already my made argument several times, I will keep this brief. Regarding BLP, Wikipedia depends on sources published in reliable and reputable media. One cannot simply cite an author and claim reliability on that basis alone. Doing so could violate WP:NOR, WP:RS and WP:V. Published reliable sources are a requirement, unless it is on the page of the person in question (which is not the case in this matter). SSS108 ^talk-email 02:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

It is not upto you or me to determine which author is reliable or not. That is what Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable and reputable sources are for. This was never about the general reliability of Salon.com. It was about a specific stand-alone article in combination with facts about Salon.com that makes it (in my opinion) an unreliable source. This discussion is also not about quotes from people. It is about critical, negative and potentially libelous information in relation to BLP. I consider this discussion over because I have to keep repeating myself to you and it is getting terribly redundant. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Andries, once again, those were supporting reasons to cast doubt on the reliability of Goldberg's article. Nowhere have I said that all references to Salon.com should be removed. Where have I said that? Many people were obviously confused about this, fueled by your misconceptions. This issue has always been about Goldberg's tabloid-like article and the fact that it is a stand-alone reference on an online, opinionated "smart tabloid" webzine. Others are finally beginning to understand my point. I suggest you do the same. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can I get a link to this statement? I did not see it. --Blue Tie 22:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's on WP:RfAr now, search for "Salon" on that page. Or see the dif here. JoshuaZ 00:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. A decision is not based on one admin's opinion. SSS108 ^talk-email 06:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

He also said that it is not a Tabloid with regards to lack of reliability. Andries 21:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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) [17] ]

Red notes added by Blue Tie.

I concur with the arbitrator. Let's wrap up this abstract discussion investigating the reliability of Salon, in which there have been revolving door charges with hardly any supporting quotes. Too much of this anti-Salon debate has been carried on by the well-known obfuscation technique of generalizing when cornered on specifics and claiming specifics without citable support when cornered on generalities. That is not true.

• This debate's relevant fact tally to date is that Salon has won a few awards for journalism, and made one mistake that was retracted. More than one. Retractions are routinely made by reliable source newspapers of record like NYT. Salon is by their own description a "smart tabloid", "tabloid" meaning that they publish sensational stories about the sins of famous people, and "smart" meaning that they check their facts, as does the slick tabloid People Magazine. People and Salon are tabloids, but are not like unreliable grocery store tabloids such as Weekly World News that too frequently don't check their facts or print science fiction as fact. Maybe, but wikipedia statements in policy regarding tabloids does not make a distinction.
• The WP:BLP objections to tabloid quotation don't hold up, because the defamatory facts in "Untouchable?" have also been corroborated with two other mainstream reliable sources. They support a tabloid that is also a reliable source, so it's ok to quote this particular tabloid, Salon, and this particular article within the limitations mentioned by the arbitrator. I would add my opinion that's also ok to count and report the number of testimonies that have been documented. The debate response I then recall was that all the reliable sources are wrong. I quoted a general backup from the USA State Department confirming that the abuse reports do exist, which in general backs up the BBC's TV testimonies by abused former devotees, as well as the testimonies reported in "Untouchable?". Then the response was, in effect, it's a conspiracy that fooled two mainstream UK newspapers, a smart tabloid with extensive expertise in cult investigations, and the USA State Department. Whew. As a journalist, I'm interested in sniffing out really big conspiracies, but that claim doesn't pass my smell test as being worth further investigation. The smoke of abuse reports is so thick that that there has to be a roaring fire of misdeeds behind it. Maybe. Maybe not. Accusations are a tool. They do not have to be based in fact to be effective. Read Goebbels. Further metaphors about emperors with no clothes or pants around ankles are clamoring to be used but I defer to the reader's imagination.
• In Goldberg's article "Untouchable?", while there may be one on the pay pages, I haven't yet seen any quote that was a liberal opinion by Goldberg, i.e, an opinion with liberal bias. Even if Goldberg did write a liberal opinion into the article, that would not nullify the article's fact based reporting. If Goldberg reports the abuse testimony of multiple devotees, that's not an opinion. If Goldberg says the government has failed to stop the claimed abuse, that's not an opinion either. If Goldberg says the government should investigate the abuse claims, that's an opinion, but not a liberal opinion. Liberals, conservatives, and moderates are united in not being soft on sex crimes. I think that leaves apologists and conspiracy theorists who don't like Goldberg's "Untouchable?", or don't like Salon the online magazine that has published it and at least nine other cult exposes (See links to those Salon 10 at List of groups referred to as cults).
• Much anti-Salon debate has focused on "liberal bias". I'm not sure that anti-Salon debaters even know what liberal bias is, other than it's used by supporters of rich people on TV to verbally beat up opponents who support poorer people. Some debaters who seem to lack journalism experience, are confusing the biased editorial policy that every publication has, with fact based article reporting by the same reliable source publications. They also object to articles that mix editorial comment with fact based reporting. Many traditional editors also object to mixing fact reporting with opinion, but like it or not, strict separation of the two is frequently considered old-fashioned. Really. Can you cite a source that says it is "Old Fashioned" to be intellectually honest? Wealthy Richard Viguerie, a founding father of the modern conservative movement told Bill Moyers, "That's what journalism is. It's just all opinion.". Moyers editorial reply was a quote from the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, "all of us are entitled to our own opinion but not our own facts." (PBS NOW, 2004_12_17) That means the liberal bias is the one that tries to report un-opinionated facts, and by logical extension, the anti-Salon debaters may object to liberal bias because more un-opinionated facts will be reported. Your conclusion is not arrived at by a logical process.
• Other debaters are making the most common mistake about the Wikipedia NPOV policy, claiming that biased opinions can't be quoted. The fact of NPOV policy is that biased opinions must be reported, It does not declare that they MUST be reported. and fairly labeled, in the approximate proportions in which they are held as a significant percentage of a controversy. Trivial, crackpot, or unsupported conspiracy theories need not be reported, unless their very existence becomes a significant controversy. I agree with that
• Wikipedia does significantly rely on Salon for investigative journalism. The issue is not whether it does but whether it should. Using the argument that it does is putting the cart before the horse. I think supporters of groups referred to as cults object to fact based reporting at Wikipedia, because it makes cult-disparaging reliable source reporting so visible to an already hostile global public. My opinion is that they all want to take down Salon cult investigations if they can, and this insubstantial debate has transparently served that agenda. That said, I'm supportive of NRMs in cases where they have been bone fide unfairly treated by the media and global public, merely due to the anti-cult competition agenda of major religions.
• My current judgment is that Salon is a reliable source, and I will continue to cite it as reliable. As a matter of editorial vigilance, I will continue to investigate particular claims of anti-factual bias in all cited sources, including Salon. That is a good policy. Milo 05:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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: [18] [19] [20]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I agree, this is a wrap. Arguments against Salon as a source have no real basis. Ekantik 06:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Be sure to turn off the lights. Milo 06:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

and (c) that Salon is not a "tabloid" in the sense advocated by SS108.--csloat 18:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Or the Atlantic, or the National Review, which may be the closest analogy; although ideologically different. Septentrionalis 01:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]