Talk:Salon (gathering)

Literature Mid‑importance

	Literature portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Culture Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

France Mid‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Salon (gathering) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 July 2004. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that 18th century French salons were often led by those who were creating the Encyclopédie?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2004/July.

Wikipedia

Middle Eastern Equivalents[edit]

There is historical and literary evidence pointing to the existence of salon like gatherings also existing in Middle Eastern cultures, from the high 'bbasid caliphate up to Ottoman Turkey. In the Abbasid era, in particular, one finds a few aristocratic female hostesses, much as with later French salons in Europe. So too in Andalusia, which is essentially southern Spain, but at the time was under heavy Arab hegemony under the Moorish dynasties. Would it be inappropriate to at least enclose a small section on salons or a salon like gatherings outside of the Western and European spear? And in particular the Middle East? 65.28.244.221 (talk) 02:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Support - <"2 Historiography of the salons" section shares its content with almost the entire of "Salon (France)" article > Willman85 (talk) 15:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

more stuff[edit]

Um there is no support for the invention of the Salon being Chinese in origin. No citation. Can't find anything on the web which isn't ripped from the wiki entry either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.9.106 (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the salon was not a "21st century" italian invention  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.161.42.155 (talk) 18:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff[edit]

It is hoped that the apparently "obvious" chance of dividing these two inter-related cultural themes into separate entries can be resisted. --Wetman 22:54, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I cleaned up a lot of spelling errors and fixed some of the grammar, but everything in and beyond "Salons outside of France" could use polishing. At least we sorted out the where/were debacle.

DasBub 08:02, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Whahappen?[edit]

And where are the references to the "quite recent"s, presumably at least post-war? 72.228.150.44 (talk) 03:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I'm looking at heavily editing this page for an assignment in a history class I'm currently taking. Basically I'm planning on introducing a lot more references - to both primary and secondary sources - as well as introducing a section on the historiography of the salons, particularly recent debates regarding the role that women played in them.

I think it would be good to have a longer narrative, describing how salons evolved from the early 17th to the 19th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afro bighair (talk • contribs) 03:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Salon was a Chinese invention? You're joking! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.36.210.192 (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page is unusually difficult to read. It spends far too much time on scholarly debate and fails to summarize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.12.245 (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modern-day salons[edit]

I restored the lead and the overview to the 20 March 2018 versions, corrected the titles of some references, and added an Advert tag to the section "Modern-day salons", for the following reasons. Since 1 Feb 2018, there has been quite a bit of content added relating to Pin Drop Studio, including an entire new section that focuses exclusively on that studio, plus a photo of the studio added to the History section (where it doesn't belong). Also, some of the associated references had the words "Pin Drop" added to the titles when those words do not appear in the actual titles of the cited articles. Also, while the cited articles mention a variety of salon-type establishments in London, the text here focuses only on Pin Drop. Also, a sentence in the lead said that there are modern-day salons worldwide, but the cited article mentions only London establishments. In my opinion, this raises the question of whether some of the text added since 1 Feb 2018 is promotional in nature (see WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM). My suggestion is that if this article is to include a section on "Modern-day salons", it should include more than just one establishment, for example, it could mention of some of the other London salons that are in the cited articles (and perhaps the name of an establishment is enough, rather than going into details about their events), and, in that case, 21st-century salons in other parts of the world should be included as well (for example, Red Room Taipei). There is also a question about scope. Clearly, prior to March 2018, the scope of this article was the historical salon tradition from the 16th to early 20th centuries. Several edits introduced after 1 Feb 2018 changed the scope of the article to include modern-day salons. Is that change in scope appropriate for this article? If so, should we then also include some mention of the many arts, literary, and philosophy Meetup groups all over the world? Or is this article just about salons in the historical tradition? Where do we draw the line? -- HLachman (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see that an edit was made on 24 March 2019 that partially addresses the above, thanks. Then, on 9 April 2019, I rearranged the sections and restored the text of one section title, to be more like it was on 1 Feb 2018 and prior (which had the explanatory information earlier and the listings of salons later, and also had the section title "Salons outside France" which makes more sense because the section is about that, and therefore should appear after salons within France are mentioned). In some way, the section ordering and titling on 1 Feb 2018 seemed more coherent, and that is now partially restored. Also, "Modern-day salons" is now put later in the article, to keep the focus of the article on the traditional salon (as it had been for a long time, and still seems appropriate). While the issues I raised (above) are partially resolved, I'm still interested to know of any opinions on the questions I raised. -- HLachman (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the promotional content was removed on 3 May 2019. So I guess that closes the issue. -- HLachman (talk) 12:38, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Development from symposium?[edit]

I was wondering why there are no parallels drawn to the Ancient Greek symposium. They seem very similar to me and I would be surprised if the salon developed independently. Leonffs (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]