Talk:Snopes

Lede section issues
The lede fails to mention the controversies about Snopes, some of which apply to the whole concept of fact-checking entities in general. I tried to include a sentence regarding Snopes' controversy with labeling satire articles as "false", but some editors are reverting it. I request a discussion so that we may come to a consensus on including significant content in the lede. --The owner of all ✌️ 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Snopes labels satire as satire, and even has a page devoted to explaining why they do it.
 * Furthermore, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body. The body contains no claims about their coverage of satire being controversial, because no-one has ever presented a reliable source claiming that Snopes' coverage of satire is controversial.
 * As if that weren't enough, labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The article itself explains that Snopes labeled some content from Babylon Bee as false. Not "satire". The owner of all ✌️ 17:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You need to read the whole section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I did. If those events described in that section are true, then those events are significant enough that they should be mentioned in the lede. The owner of all ✌️ 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the amount of coverage it's getting in the article needs to be seriously trimmed down. The events it mentions were barely blips on the radar, and the fact that this subsection is in the "accuracy" section is a pretty blatant NPOV violation, as it says absolutely nothing about Snope's accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I've corrected this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I disagree, but I will end my part in the discussion here before I get banned. The owner of all ✌️ 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you really don't want to get banned, you should perhaps look back more than a single edit before accusing someone of lying in their edit summary. Also, there's no chance that the Babylon Bee thing deserves to be the single largest section in the entire article, longer even that the section about the still ongoing legal fight for the ownership of the company. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * P.S. Edit warring over this won't help, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. That's not a "consensus version". It was added a month ago, and I guarantee keeping it won't garner a consensus, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  22:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * That's classic undue emphasis, putting the Babylon Bee stuff into the lede. It's in the article, but not everything in the article belongs in a well-crafted lede. -- Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification
MPants had complained at the 3RRN that I said I would withdraw from discussion. To be clear, I am withdrawing from discussion to change the lede section. I still believe it is inadequate but I do not believe I will achieve consensus to change it.

However, the reason I made a couple of reverts in a row is because MPants made his own changes that, while related to the topic, are distinct from what I was proposing. He said above, "Note: I've corrected this", and then he removed the Babylon Bee controversy section from under "Accuracy", while adding his rewrite as a couple of sentences under "History". I don't have a strong opinion where that content should be, organization-wise, but I do object to how MPants took a verifiable and well-sourced section of paragraphs and reduced it into just a couple of sentences.

I was told by another editor that I have to gain consensus to keep that content. I disagree with that, but if that's what we're going to go by then it should also be noted that a couple of editors in the sections above, agreed to add the Babylon Bee controversy section, and the actual addition of the content was executed by a third user. So in addition to myself, it can be presumed that those four of us believe that that content should be in the article, and that MPants and Orangemike should try to gain consensus to remove or reduce that content.

The owner of all ✌️ 01:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Babylon bee issue was a minor controversy: it really boiled down to whether Snopes was being "nice enough" to the Bee. It was rather simply resolved by Snopes identifying satire, as I mentioned above. But, a small number of conservative talking heads who've been complaining without evidence about Snopes' accuracy and biases for decades seized upon it to try and turn it into a bigger deal and a condemnation of Snopes. They failed for the most part, but they managed to get some additional coverage in the RSes.
 * Now, Snopes is, at this very moment, involved in a years-long court battle over the ownership of the company, a battle in which Mikkelson's opposition have been found by multiple courts to be fighting using virtually every dirty trick in the book. This is a fight that has consumed an enormous proportion of their financial resources, and which has impacted their ability to grow to keep up with the demand for their services severely. The coverage of that in this article is 96 words.
 * The section you were edit warring over is 641 words: or six and two thirds times longer.
 * There is no world in which the controversy surrounding the Bee could ever come close to justifying even twice the coverage of Snope's legal fight. The import to the subject of this article from the Bee issue was the introduction of a single new rating. The import to the subject of this article from the court case is existential. I'll note now that the coverage gave to it was 377 words: or 3 times the coverage of the Proper Media fiasco. It's still vastly over-represented in this article, relative to it's importance to the subject.
 * Spending this much verbiage on this issue is akin to walking into an emergency room with a gaping chest wound showing your visibly beating heart and insisting that the doctor's x-ray and perform immediately surgery to remove the 5mm splinter in your pinky.
 * See WP:DUE, which discusses how we weigh the inclusion of facts in our articles to understand why this won't work. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Note that after I posted my comment above, the very next edit was the bot archiving some old sections. One of those sections is the Babylon Bee section that I was referencing. So that section is now in the archive instead of directly on this page. The owner of all ✌️ 06:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Per WP:DUE, the current level of mention of the Babylon Bee stuff is perfectly appropriate. It's not significant enough in the bigger picture of the history (and it is about the history of the website, rather than any real critical evaluation of its accuracy) of Snopes to merit mention in the lede, nor was it significant enough in the history of the Snopes website to merit more detailed, lengthier mentions than what it has. Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I am trying to understand the reasonining behind not having the Babylon Bee controversy surrounding Snopes' inaccuracy and misinformation as its own section. The Babylon Bee page has an entire section dedicated to the controversy. Why can't Snopes? Perhaps the sections length should be slimmed down, but it was a long-term controversy whose sheer scope and number of incidents warrant its own section to cover accurately.

The owner of all it sounds like you are using original analysis/opinion of the Bee controversy to justify removal of the subsection. Please explain how such original (and blatantly biased) interpretation is acceptable as justification for removal. I am not sure how such lengthy, repeated incidents of inaccuracy and misinformation can be brushed off as a "minor controversy." It seems like you are making the controversy appear smaller than it was, and are basing your justifications completely on your own non-neutral POV on the extent and significance of the controversy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loltardo (talk • contribs)


 * I agree that it should be included. If you think that the consensus is on your side then you can attempt to make those edits. 05:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Accuracy
Hello,

Please kindly cease arbitrarily deleting parts of this article's accuracy section relating to a Snopes article's inconsistency with their stated standards of fact checking and conclusion. Pointing out a significant logical flaw is neither original reporting nor indicative of a non-neutral point of view, unless we are to take the rather weak position that simple logic is a matter of opinion. If you think there is a problem with the sources or the conclusion, please state your reasoning here, make constructive edits, and thus improve the section. Thank you.
 * You were inserting your own original research by drawing conclusions from information presented in your sources and presenting that conclusion directly on the page. I would also add that your conclusions were spurious and illogical. So stop edit warring over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Cannon Hinnant Murder Case
You say there is no cover up. Why does the police dept and news media refuse to answer questions. No one seems to know anything about the case. 173.185.146.13 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Article talk pages are not the place to contact the subject of the article. Please review Talk page guidelines. Kleinpecan (talk) 13:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Why is This Categorized as a California Establishment?
since it is run out of Mikkelsen's home in Tacoma? tharsaile (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The category is "1995 establishments in California", which notes that it is for "Oorganizations, places or other things founded or established in California in the year 1995." As the founders lived in Agoura Hills, California at the time, the category seems appropriate.  Kuru   (talk)  23:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Snopes Media Group, Inc. was registered as a company in California in March 2003 and apparently this is still correct.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 07:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Titan
The site claimed that it was true that Titan, the submersible that went missing in June 2023 on a Titanic wreckage exploration, used Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide communications during the expedition. 2600:1001:B129:783A:E5B2:8B0:306A:AEE1 (talk) 00:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No. In fact it says that claim is false: MrOllie (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * They actually did claim that and then edited their claim. 2600:1001:B129:783A:E5B2:8B0:306A:AEE1 (talk) 00:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that they did. At any rate, to write about it we would need a reliable, secondary source covering what they said and when. MrOllie (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
 * There is even an editor’s note in the current version of the article confirming that it was edited. 2600:1001:B129:783A:E5B2:8B0:306A:AEE1 (talk) 01:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding info on the Biden hardhat retraction?
I think the retraction Snopes issued for the bit about Biden not wearing his hard hat backwards deserves at least a brief mention here. Anybody have any thoughts on this? TomaHawk61 (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Why? There is no discussion of any other specific Snopes articles here. Gorpik (talk) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Seems relevant and had enough weight in RS. Not saying it belongs in the lead paragraph. But it does warrant inclusion. TomaHawk61 (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no reason to comment this and only this article out of the thousands in Snopes. A single mention in Fox Nexs (which, according to WP:FOXNEWS, is not to be considered a reliable source for news with political content) is not a reason. Gorpik (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Trivia. And the first sentence in the linked article is one reason why we don't use Fox as a source for politics. O3000, Ret. (talk) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)