Talk:Snopes/Archive 1

Clarified a few topics, I think
I changed this: However, though they research their topics heavily and provide references, their site is not a fully-verifiable source.

to this: ''Although they research their topics heavily and provide references when possible, not all of their sources (especially those which are personal interviews, phone calls, or e-mails) are fully verifiable. Where appropriate, pages are generally marked "undetermined" or "unverifiable" if the Mikkelsons feel there is not enough evidence to either support or disprove a given claim. This in turn means the readers must also trust the Mikkelsons' analysis of those sources.''

Assuming good faith, I think this is what the former sentence was trying to say. The original wording seemed to be dismissing all of the snopes articles because the site itself isn't "fully verifiable" (...even though in the same sentence it says they provide references?). If I'm incorrect in this edit, please let me know.

I also added this to the TRoLL paragraph, again for the purpose of clarification: The Mikkelsons have stressed the reference portion of the name Urban Legends Reference Pages, indicating that their intention is not merely to dismiss myths but to provide evidence for such debunkings as well. That is to say, David and Barbara don't consider themselves experts (although the news media often refers to them as such), but more like a synthesis of sources. --Birdhombre 18:13, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Why is this page not at snopes, or snopes.com?
Because the page is 'Urban Legends Reference Pages' and simply uses the snopes.com domain. Donovan Ravenhull 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? If it is just a domain adress than why does the logo say in big leters SNOPES, with no reference at all given to "Urban Legend Refeerence Page? Deathawk 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Go down to the bottom of the site and you'll see the the official name. Plus, there are redirects from both Snopes and Snopes.com, so it's not like anyone is going to have trouble finding this article if that's all they have.  -- Satori Son 06:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's also at the top of the page, beneath the logo/navigation bar and banner ad. At the bottom, the copyright is listed as being held by the "Urban Legends Reference Pages." --Birdhombre 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I've never heard anyone refer to this site as anything other than "Snopes", and assumed I'd been redirected to a generic list of UL sites, from the title. --McGeddon 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Their page is called Urban Legends Reference Pages. Look at the bottom of their homepage, right above the copyright © 1995-2006. ~ UBeR 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know, I did read this section before adding to it. I don't think it's "the most common name" for the site, though (Googling for phrases such as "Urban Legends Reference Pages say" vs "Snopes says", Snopes wins by a factor of a thousand), and if others agree then we should follow WP:COMMONNAME guidelines and rename this article to "Snopes" or "Snopes.com". --McGeddon 13:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, by Wikipedia policy, the page should probably be moved to Snopes, with a redirect at Urban Legends Reference Pages, just as Bill Clinton is an article, while his proper name, William Jefferson Clinton, is a redirect. --Birdhombre 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Animosity between Mikkelsons and AFU?
Would it be possible to explain a bit more about what's going on there without providing an opening for/devolving into a partisan edit-war? It seems like David was one of the group's respected founding members when he left in 1994. (e.g. here) --Arvedui 00:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it should say "some A.F.U. 'old hats'" -- they've got plenty of friends on A.F.U., too.--Mangcha 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Animosity? Pah. Maybe in a few disgruntled individuals, but certainly nothing meriting mention in an encyclopedia entry. SeanWillard 11:54, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2007)

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Urban Legends Reference Pages → Snopes — Move from the outdated, formal name of the site, to the name that it's commonly referred to by (as per WP:COMMONNAME). McGeddon 14:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .

Survey - Support votes

 * 1) Support - it seems fairly evident from loking at the main page of the site that "Snopes" is indeed the proper name. PC78 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: (changed my vote.) It looks like the site now calls itself "snopes.com" and the older name only appears at the botton of the page. patsw 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Yath 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support idea to move but the proper name is Snope.com and that should be what the move is to. 205.157.110.11 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I did think that, but "Snopes" beats "Snopes.com" quite heavily, if you compare Google results for random sentence fragments such as "snopes says". The word has no other meaning, so there's no reason for people to add the ".com" to clarify what they're talking about. --McGeddon 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support It's been Snopes for a really long time, I don't really even remember it being called otherwise. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント  (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Its Snopes. This is more of a subtitle these days.--Josquius 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Snopes is the common name. One point though - there is a family named Snopes in some of William Faulkner's books, which is where snopes(.com) gets the name. We don't have an article on them, however, so diambiguation won't be a problem.--Cúchullain t/ c 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

 * 1) Oppose: I see no reason to move the page from the existing name, which is the 'proper' name for the site.  If this was a new article, I might agree, but I feel it is best left here.--Donovan Ravenhull 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would this be any different for a new article? The "Urban Legends Reference Pages" article will redirect to the new one, it won't be affecting any other articles or external sites that link here. --McGeddon 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would this be any different for a new article? The "Urban Legends Reference Pages" article will redirect to the new one, it won't be affecting any other articles or external sites that link here. --McGeddon 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Eye of the what?

 * Although the creators were sure that no one could believe a tale so ridiculous – and had added a link[3] at the bottom of the page to another page explaining the hoax, and a message with the ratings saying "Note: Any relationship between these ratings and reality is purely coincidental." – eventually the legend was featured as true on an urban legends board-game and TV show.[4] Whether this meant their plan backfired or succeeded is in the eye of the beholder.:

I don't see how anyone is beholding anything in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.38.233 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Drinking Bottled Water Kept in Your Car
Recently a doctor told a friend’s mother that women should not drink bottled water that had been left in a car. The doctor said that the plastic in those bottles have toxins and the heat causes them to be released into the water. Those same toxins have been found in breast tissue diagnosed with breast cancer. When Sheryl Crow was on the Ellen DeGeneres Show she explained to Ellen that was the way she got breast cancer. She kept bottled water in her car almost all the time. This information could also be applied to other drinks in plastic bottles that have been exposed to excessive heat. Cars in the summertime can be scorching. So please be careful ladies and remember not to drink the water in a plastic bottle that’s been left in a car. Pass this on to all the women in your life. This information is the kind we need to know and it just might save us!!!!. Use a stainless steel Canteen or a glass bottle when you can!!!


 * This isn't where you post posible ULs. Go to the site itself and check to see if it has been covered, and possibly register with the boards and bring it up there.--Donovan Ravenhull 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, and here is an article on there about this. Took me about 30 sec to find it--Donovan Ravenhull 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See also Solar water disinfection. Regards, High on a tree 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Popups/Spyware/Adware Reference
A bit confused by Cuchullain's removal of sourced information on popups and spyware on the main page. This is perfectly relevant information that describes the behavior of the website, and respectable sources have been provided. "This is not a popups alert website" does not effectively answer why this information should not be included on the site. Please provide further justification for removal if this information should not be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.168.154 (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Further removal disputes reliability of source? McAfee SiteAdvisor is not considered a reliable source on these matters? Please explain, I'm obviously clueless here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.75.168.154 (talk) 03:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be a reliable program, but it's not a reliable source, as it's not a publication of any kind. The message board is also not reliable. Even if the material is potentially relevant, if it's not discussed in (secondary) sources, it can't be included.--Cúchullain t/ c 07:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It is sad that the "no original research" rule, originally meant to prevent people from putting up fringe physics theories, bizarre conspiracies, etc, is now being used to suppress something patently obvious like "snopes.com has popups". —Random832 14:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And "not a publication of any kind" is nonsense - clearly it exists, that you can go there and look at it means it's published. —Random832 14:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not a publication, it's an internet service. I hardly think it compares to a journal article, a book, or even a news article. Nor is a message board a reliable source. NOR was designed to prevent people from doing original research on Wikipedia, and that's what this is. Furthermore, there's no reason to include this information other than to "out" the site, it's just not that relevant, and no real reliable sources mention it. Why not name the program they used to design the site, or their service provider, or list off all the different sections on the site? The article already has major issues with sourcing even on the notable aspects of the site, those should be fixed before we start adding new poorly sourced material.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK... so is Wikipedia a "publication?" Under the standard definition you've referenced, Wikipedia isn't a publication either.  And therefore not a "reliable source" under your definition.  Which of course begs the question: what the heck are we doing here?  The internet is changing these antiquated definitions and arbitrary notions of "reliable" that you're putting forth.  You should be more aware of this than anyone.  And the site of a well-respected security company publishing reviewed and fact-checked assessments of websites is well-nigh identical to what "real" magazines such as Consumer Reports do.  And yet Consumer Reports would qualify as a reliable source under your definition.  Wake up, it's almost 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.106.59 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 November 2007
 * Yes, Wikipedia is a publication. WP:RS covers web pages. If "McAfee SiteAdvisor" is a web site rather than a standalone computer program, then that's a publication as well. All I'm seeing on their output for Snopes is that "Feedback from credible users suggests that this site may cause intrusive or excessive pop-ups", though, which may not be good enough for WP:RS ("Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"). --McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Site Advisor is a website by definition (I'm frankly not at all sure why there's any confusion about this point). From http://www.siteadvisor.com/analysis/reviewers/, here is SiteAdvisor's "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight":


 * "Bad shopping experience? Let us know. Did a site endlessly spam you? Gripe about it here. Have a particular expertise about adware? We need you.


 * By volunteering to become a SiteAdvisor reviewer, you can make your voice heard and help make the Web safer for everyone. Any comments left by a registered reviewer will appear on our site report pages.


 * Reviewer feedback can also directly affect a site's overall safety rating, but only after the site has been inspected by a McAfee SiteAdvisor employee. Most users start as basic reviewers. As you leave an increasing number of insightful comments (as voted on by other reviewers), your reviewer status increases, and your future comments will carry an increasing amount of weight in affecting a site's overall score."


 * As is clear from this quote, the policy bears notable similarities to Wikipedia's policy. One could even argue (under the old - admittedly false - logic) that it's actually more thorough than Wikipedia's policy because there is actually a paid SiteAdvisor employee performing the editorial function and fact-checking the user-submitted content. Further, it requires reviewer/editor registration, unlike some sites I can think of. Irony completely intended... ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.106.59 (talk • contribs) 17 November 2007


 * Further, as far as the "relevance" argument above goes, here's a quote from WP:Relevance:"Factors that have influenced subject's form, role, history, public perception, or other noteworthy traits. The effects of these factors on the subject should be plainly apparent; if they are not, additional context is needed. Groups of disparate facts lack such context, and should be avoided."


 * If popups/adware/(and possibly) spyware don't affect public perception of a website (not to mention the subject's form), then I am frankly unsure what qualifies as relevant in this article at all. If a site is commonly used (and somewhat respected) as a tool to debunk internet hoaxes is also interfering with the function of a user's computer, that is relevant to the fundamental purpose of the site in what seems to me a very obvious way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.106.59 (talk • contribs)


 * One point: whether Siteadvisor has better fact checking than Wikipedia or not, it doesn't matter, because we are not using Wikipedia as a source for any statements in this argument (and we shouldn't, per ASR, among other places), so that argument is null. Also, if snopes.com's public perception has been affected as you say, provide evidence of it from reliable, third-party sources, and then we can discuss including the material. Otherwise you're just using Siteadvisor to source the statement that Snopes "may" use popups according to their users, which isn't particularly important.--Cúchullain t/ c 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, yes, it does matter. Because the point is that it's a reliable source.  You're claiming that it's not a reliable source.  I've just demonstrated quite clearly that it is, to which your response is "while, we can't self-reference Wikipedia" which is a spurious response to my rhetorical flourish.  By your logic, Wikipedia would not be a reliable source for use outside of Wikipedia.  Which undermines the entire project.  The point is not null; the point is completely relevant.


 * A larger thread running through this entire talk page can also be observed. In every single discussion regarding any sort of criticism of Snopes, Cúchullain has taken the side of Snopes.  As a result, no criticism of Snopes whatsoever remains extant in this article.  I think we have an NPOV issue here.  I'm done banging my head against the wall.  I suggest someone with authority who has not been previously involved on this page take a critical look at the history of this page and determine whether the apparent "owner" of this page should be allowed essentially unilateral control over its content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.106.59 (talk • contribs)


 * I said nothing about using Wikipedia as a source outside of Wikipedia. I would not use Wikipedia as a source in writing another encyclopedia, however, nor would I use Siteadvisor (I will admit it appears to be a site rather than a program as I once thought it was). At any rate, we do have an NPOV issue here: there are several (generally anonymous) editors doing everything they can to add whatever negative material they can find into the article, no matter how unimportant (as in this case), biased, or just plain wrong it is. Protecting the article from this is not a sign of "ownership" or "unilateral control".--Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Using one encyclopedia to write another is generally considered bad form, I'll grant you that. Key difference?  Site Advisor is not an encyclopedia.  All anonymity aside (and if Wikipedia shouldn't have anonymous input, the policy should be changed), the only criticism of snopes that I've been involved in is this one (which should be obvious as I have some fairly obvious and consistent word choices, sentence patterns, and grammatical quirks).  You, however, have been involved in a large number of them, and always on the same side.  Protecting the article from inappropriate negative material is one thing.  Protecting the article from ANY negative material, as you've completely succeeded in doing here, is quite another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.106.59 (talk • contribs)


 * Just because Site Advisor isn't as inappropriate a source as Wikipedia itself doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. Most vandalism is negative in tone, and I can't see anything that Cuchullain has made an incorrect judgment call on - please try to assume good faith with regard to other editors' motives. --McGeddon (talk) 18:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Citation
In response to the following:

"The site is referenced by numerous other sites[citation needed]"

Google currently lists 875,000 hits for "snopes". Does this link:

http://www.google.com/search?q=snopes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

fulfill the citation requirement or is it original research?

~Silasthecat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.139.172 (talk • contribs)


 * The paragraph goes onto say "directing people to more information about various hoaxes, especially in regard to chain e-mails", which implies rather more intention than a simple count of Google results. But Google results are always original-research synthesis (you're assuming that all of these results are about the same thing, and that the majority are positive rather than critical) - we need an actual reliable source discussing this. --McGeddon 10:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Faulkner
I think it's fair to characterize the Snopes family in Faulkner as "unpleasant", as that was almost certainly part of the joke behind Mikkelson's choice of the name. The Snopes FAQ refers to the description of the family as "pernicious". I doubt that the name was chosen to identify with Sarty Snopes as opposed to Flem or I.O. In general, "Snopes" as a reference is to the less admirable qualities of Snopes family members, e.g., the Washington Times' columnist Wesley Pruden frequently sneering at Bill Clinton as "Flem Snopes' grandson".   The Albino Alligator (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Pruden's statements are irrelevant for judging the entire family name because he uses one character to tie in with Clinton, not the whole family. Adding in what we're "almost certain of" or what we think is proof of a "Long history of evil Snopses" (PhGustaf's justification for the edit) is POV, or at best individual research.


 * The FAQs do link to a description that uses the word "pernicious," but it also states they "represent an affront in some ways to the "lost cause" aristocratic ideals." Rather than oversimplify a segment of explication in the Snopes FAQ or using what others or we believe is the reason for the choosing, it would be simpler to add what the Mikkelsons say is the reason they chose the name by adapting this quote: "The Mikkelsons named their site for the irredeemably bad family that appears in the works of William Faulkner, Barbara Mikkelson said" from the third source (Paul Bond) already listed on the page. Penguinwithin (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I put a slightly weaselly variant of "unpleasant" back in, and I think it's obvious enough to not need a cite. PhGustaf (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems to me pretty obvious the Snopse family is generally negatively portrayed.

Starting Date
What year did Snopes.com go online? I seem to remember first coming across it around five or six years ago. If I recall correctly, it had a black background back then and lots of MIDIs on the varius pages.
 * EDITED TO ADD: I snooped around snopes (heh) but I can't find any references to when it was started up.  Can't find the info anywhere else, either.
 * I tried to use the Wayback Machine at archive.org to see how far back they had cached, but I haven't been able to get results to return from it today - it appears to be down?
 * I've seen 1995, 1997 and 1998 as the years, and the site itself seems to get it wrong a lot. --Plusher (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

1997
Pulling up the WHOIS info from Network Solutions lists a "Record Created on" date of 09-Jan-1997. ( http://www.networksolutions.com/en_US/whois/results.jhtml;jsessionid=RV4O3DUCFTQCKCWMEAPSFFA?whoistoken=0&_requestid=747471 )  They may have had another webpage prior to their own domain name, however.

`96 at least
I remeber Snopes in 1996, although it didn't have a domain (like most sites then) I think it was snopes.aol.com but I can't really remeber.

© 1995-2003

 * All the pages on Snopes.com have a "Urban Legends Reference Pages © 1995-2003" by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson" copyright notice on them, however, I believe that earlier date may reflect that some of the information on the website was originally posted by David on the alt.folklore.urban newsgroup.


 * ADDENDUM: Googled for " snopes.com interview " (not in quotes) first link pulls up this article: http://www.ojr.org/ojr/glaser/1059692646.php  which states:  "Snopes.com is the work of the husband-and-wife team of David and Barbara Mikkelson, who have taken their passion for urban myths to the Web since 1995." So I'd assume the '95 date on the webpages is correct, I'll see if I can't track down something more precise.

Message Boards
Should there be a section about the message boards at the ULRP, as the message boards have a vibrant community of ULRP readers, and Urban Legends are discussed on the message boards (in addition to other topics)? BDWill Talk Contribs 05:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think there should be a section on the forums. They are, afterall, a part of the ULRP site. I'd add the section myself, but I don't know much about the forums. -- ¿   WhyBeNormal   ?   20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I added a section about the forums. I'm sure other snopester Wikipedians could help add to it. By the way, I'm Bill D. on the boards.--BDWill Talk Contribs 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't know there was a forum on there. I used to be on their mailing list, but unsubbed when I realised I was getting a lot of mail and not reading it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thes epage appears to be editted by snopes themselves. As such I think it would be honest of them to make this clear at some point as encyclopedias do not tend to be autobiographical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizlop (talk • contribs)
 * Do you have any proof of that because this appears to be a really unfounded allagation. It is also hard to take people seriously when they don't sign their posts. --Edgelord 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any evidence that snopes is actively editing this entry. Your last comment aside, that user has a history of vandalism and attempting to insert his opinion into this and other articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You guys DO realize that 'snopes' couldn't possibly be vandalizing this page, right? It's a freaking webpage. And I highly doubt that webpage OWNERS have time to go screwing around with Wikipedai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smith Jones (talk • contribs)

Counterpoint- Surely the Miekelsons are the MOST likely people to edit this page. As creators/owners/moderators etc of Snopes then they wuld naturally be interested in its enclopedia entry- If not them, then who else is? I wasn't saying there was anything WRONG with that, of course. I got the impression Snopes editted this page, as it is in the same style as the articles on thier site. The problem with self-written pieces (not that this definatly is) is that they are often a little too positive- reading more like a resume/CV than an encycopedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizlop (talk • contribs)


 * Wizlop, every time someone tries to put up one of snopes' major critiques or controversies (forum or main site), the page is *mysteriously* vandalized, leaving only a re-write of the fawning. Snopes has logged IPs for the users on their posts, so I checked people who are listed as snopes employees against the vandals, and guess what? Matches, all around. I think part of their job description is to keep this article whitewashed. Googling snopes alongside criticism, then again alongside specific critiques, I wouldn't blame them... some of what I found is the kiss of death for their kind of business... --71.38.104.60 (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because people remove your poorly worded personal criticism doesn't mean Snopes is actively editing the page. Seriously, knock it off. Before you introduce your opinions into the article, discuss the criticism here, so the community can decide if it should go in. Thanks. --Cúchullain t/ c 04:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that not everyone here understands American slang such as "knock it off." It might be useful in your moderation to use clear phrases such as "please stop doing this." Thanks- Signed by Wizlop.

Wizlop, why the obsession with the snopes message board section? Smells like a troll that terrorized the boards a couple of years ago. --Darkdan 05:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC) (member since 2001)

Also the people editing the page could very well be people that use the site and know about it. I could very well be a member of the community but I don't believe that Snopes himself would be usuing up his time to do this nor do I see anything that would link him specifically. --My old username 05:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned how tightly regulated these message boards on this site are, to the point of being almost ridiculous. For example in this thread, a member was banned because of her discrepancy between her two ages in her profile. There are, I'm sure, many other examples, but their tough to find because you can't just search the site. I was a member for a while, and saw it happen several times, until I was eventually banned because I changed my name in my profile. Rad24 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt there are any reliable sources discussing this, so it shouldn't be mentioned.--Cúchullain t/ c 00:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

On the website, an administrator said it flat out. Granted, that's only one example, but if more were found, wouldn't that be considered a reliable source? Rad24 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) It is also explicitly mentioned in the board rules on the site. The thread linked above, and others like it, are evidence that this is carried out to the letter. Rad24 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This article should be about the Snopes Web site and what they do—not individual happenings on a message board. ~ UBeR 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why no Criticisms?
I ran some google searches on this site, and I ran across all kinds of criticism about snopes that people were putting up that included political biases, racism, fabricating stories themselves and sending them out in their newsletters to debunk, controversial articles (such as "Vitamin See" and their piece about the Bin Laden flight) and several occassions where they were accused of "yellow journalism"- here's even articles questioning their cred, such as "When the Debunkers print Bunk" and "Online Rumor Mill Spinning it's own Myths?" that have appeared in newspapers and are archived on websites about them that claim they've been in trouble for this behavior a lot, including that representatives of CNN and the Clinton Administration tried to each them repeatedly about some claims of the claims they made, including mischaracterizations in the cites they used.

Then I went to this article and none of that was on there, but not for lack of trying- according to the page history, it seems people have tried to put up flags on this several times and the sections on these claims were removed with that the sources talking about it weren't credible (in some cases, the source was plenty credible when a pro-snopes article was cited). This is a serious compromise to the neutrality of this article. Considering that snopes members have been policing pages containing note-worthy incidents with snopes or snopes members, it's kind of funny that their page is so sterile.

If snopes can't show enough integrity to allow noteworthy incidents of trouble they recieved for bad or controversial articles to be posted, and call a source reliable or unreliable for how it makes them look, then how am I to trust their site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Provide proof of these claims, and cite them in the article; I have it watchlisted, so I will notice any whitewashing campaigns going on with critical links and revert them. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 09:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that sound a little more pro- right now, I'm looking for third-party sources regarding plagiarism accusations and a controversial running joke snopes has that has been deemed both "racist" and "sexist". I can give you primary sources, if you need them, just put in a request on my user talk page, ok? 71.223.15.142 20:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Secondary sources, please - primary sources are frowned upon on Wikipedia in general. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for some secondaries to some criticisms that I would like to add before I feel this page is more balanced, but I can only find primary sources. I'm about to give up. In the meantime, I checked for tampering and found a few minor changes that I changed back, like they changed CNN to CSN, and I specified that their attacks were just on Clinton at the time. I don't know why, but it seems more fair... change it back if you disagree, k? I'm not very good at this kinda writing, I keep putting in slants without knowing it. Plusher 06:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed the "Vitamin See" thing entirely. The sources given look unreliable, and moreover, are thoroughly misquoted in our article. Neither said anything about buying vitamins or being misrepresented, and one didn't mention Snopes at all. What is going on here? Until someone fixed it, another of the "criticisms" discussed here said the opposite of the article it was quoting!


 * I trimmed them back some, but I still have concerns about these critics receiving undue weight; I'm sure these handful of internet articles represent only a fraction of people who have written about snopes.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just discoverd what one of these "critics", Insight magazine, is: a conservative internet news site run by the Moonie-owned Washington Times. Additionally, the other criticism is from someone's blog. These are hardly reliable sources. As I said above I've already removed one of the cites as being misquoted and an unreliable source. The user who added these has a history of badmouthing snopes on Wikipedia; several months ago they created an article which was subsequently deleted for being a non-notable near-hoax that concerned snopes and its critics (here's the AfD.) The section, as it stands, needs to get the ax. Obviously if there has been legitimate criticism that has been reported in reliable media, it should be included here, but this is a case of someone digging up unreliable material to disparage the site and its creatorsm and has no place here.--Cúchullain t/ c  22:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Cuchullain, it's news to me that the Washington Times is not a referenceable source. Politically aligned sites such as the New Republic, National Review, and even more radical sites like Democracy Now! are cited quite often in wikipedia, and this is the first I've heard that this is unacceptable. The Washington Times's owners may be religious, but I don't think there's anything inherently unciteable about them. I read the Insight article and the Snopes articles it references and the criticisms appear to be grounded in fact.


 * The other source appears to be correctly deleted, and I agree 100% with removing Vitamin See.


 * I have no personal beef with Snopes, I use them all the time. But I think eliminating the criticisms section entirely isn't really acceptable. I'm not reverting you partly because you're an admin and partly because I'd like to hear a response before I proceed. I think that the Insight criticisms are valid and should be restored.


 * Wellspring 02:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of problems with the "criticism", as I said above. First, and probably most negotiable, is the undue weight problem. "Criticism" sections are frequently nothing but COATRACKs piling up tangential information to push a particular bias; this one was no exception. The article is too short to justify a dedicated section like that, especially given the section's length. Further, the material was not important enough to the subject to warrant inclusion - the best that guy could do was a blog and a single opinion piece from a rightwing e-rag - that didn't even say what he claimed. It's not that I don't think any negative material should be included here - it just has to be important, relevant, and balanced. I would not object to some kind of "reception" section, which could discuss the views of prominent critics - if any can be found to exist - as well as positive reception.


 * As to using Insight as a source - I don't believe it is reliable. They're the paper that started the "Obama attended a radical Muslim elementary school" nonsense, among other things. In the very least it was extraordinarily overrepresented here. I don't see how this fairly poor article is improved by a contenious, unbalanced section, or by mentioning Insight magazine.--Cúchullain t/ c 04:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After re-reading WP:RS I can see what you mean about using opinion magazines in general as sources. However, in this case we're referencing the fact that an opinion exists, for which an opinion mag should be sufficient. I read the Insight article, and the source Snopes material they quoted. It seemed like the article's argument corresponds to the Snopes pages they referenced, so the factual content isn't in question. What I'd like to do is restore the two sentences you deleted, with citations, without calling them out in a specific "criticisms" section. Two sentences in a five paragraph article seem to be giving the subject appropriate weight; these are minority, but not fringe viewpoints.


 * I doublechecked the other source, btw, for the other critique (that Snopes should not have had the joke articles promulgating urban legends). While the webpage has a blog-like feel, the info page seems to indicate fact checking and editorial oversight. The particular article does appear to be an editorial, but again to document an opinion's existence that should suffice.


 * Like I said, I'm a fan of snopes and don't want to give the critiques undue weight-- it's just I think it's inappropriate to give them no weight.


 * Wellspring 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems good to me, are you going to do it? I would prefer using better sources than this one (I'm even more skeptical of the "blog-like" site); if they are included there should be something about positive views of the site as well.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The article about the titanic (http://www.snopes.com/lost/poseidon.htm) i untrue even though the article display it as true, and the source with the prove is a (badly) homemade imdb page. This also goes for the article http://www.snopes.com/lost/sixpence.htm, which is false acording to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sing_a_Song_of_Sixpence). --TSCTH 05:22, 29 Febuary 2008


 * The articles metioned here are untrue, and if you look at the 'more information' link for the articles, it admits that. The Repository Of Lost Legends (T.R.O.L.L.) was a section meant to act as a means to promote not taking everything for granted, as it's False Athority link says.  There is some question about the way they did this, but this has been addressed before.Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 12:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop Ups?
I'm unsure why this is mentioned in the article:

The site has been noted as: "may cause intrusive or excessive pop-ups".

The site does not use "pop-up" ads, but it does use "pop-under" ads as a means of generating revenue. I suggest, however, that this line simply be deleted because it is inaccurate as well as of trivial importance. Sincerely, --Skb8721 (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

spyware/popups
Yes, I see that this issue was discussed. I also see where there was no consenus on the issue. This is a valid point and I think needs to be mentioned. So aside from the dispute about the validity of the cite, does anyone have any good reasons why this fact should not be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.31.56 (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The points brought up above were the poor cite and the relevance of the material. To include it you would need to find a reliable, secondary source saying that Snopes uses popups/popunder ads, and that this is somehow important, meaning that it has been criticized or at least discussed.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, a number of folks have added that material, which means they think it is relevant. Folks above have said it is relevant to them. This has been criticized and discussed here and on several other message boards. Now, we have found a reliable seconday source- Siteadvisor. Perhaps to you Siteadvisor is not as reliable as you want, but there are hundreds of thousands of factoids here on Wiki with no cite at all, other than "citation needed". No one has gone through and attempted to edit all of those out. It seems in this you are a minority of one, which raises the question of exactly why you are so anxious to conceal Snopes use of "intrusive or abusive pop-ups"? I know you are a fairly regular and respected Editor, but this seems like you are going against the will of the majority on this. Please re-consider. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.31.177 (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree that Siteadvisor is a reliable source. Were one found that met our source requirements, that would be a different story. I also doubt that this factoid is particularly important - no one has found any reliable source that discusses it, which would seem to indicate that it is a very minor concern. As for the other unsourced material on Wikipedia, well, other stuff existing is not a particularly convincing reason to keep this. I also disagree that "no one has gone through and attempted to edit all of those out" - Wikipedia is a work in progress, and editors are constantly working to improve the articles. And finally, Wikipedia does not work by majority rule, which has at any rate been compromised at this page by a series of editors and anons who've been pushing, for reasons best known to themselves, to include as much negative material about this subject as possible.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Snopes message boards themselves they have discussed it. Also

Here: http://forums.somd.com/computers-technology-internet/127250-malware-popups-snopes.html

Here: (Google) http://groups.google.com/group/IEToolbar-Group-Bugs/browse_thread/thread/e21f3e53d9f9bdda/3a23b531392c2c17

here: http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t576482-popups-on-snopescom.html

Here (Mac): http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-110823.html

Here: http://www.threadwatch.org/node/3811

here: http://www.best-advice4u.com/4241/snopes-pushing-adware/

and on for page after page. So, the issue of pop-ups on Snopes has rcvd quite a bit of attention on the internet. Any just why isn't Siteadvisor "reliable". Yes, it's a website, but it's a website about webisites. How about any of these others? Now, I love Snopes and it's UL-busting, but selling pop-ups to Zango, which is a well know purveyor of adware, is something which should be a concern to anyone navigating the internet. Folks should know that although Snopes itself is a fine website, the pop-up ads there are not nessesarily safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.31.139 (talk) 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Look, Google groups and forum postings are not in any way reliable sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a website guide. Any material added needs to be important and verifiable through reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Attempt to clarify
I think I've gotten this issue pinned down somewhat. If it was distributing Zango, its not anymore. Their online advertising is being generated by Casale Media, which may have carried a bad payload at some point. Cwolfsheep (talk) 04:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The sources are the problem here. One link just someone's post to Slashdot, and the other is a link to a Snopes forum. These are hardly meet the essential reasoning behind WP:RS: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy".--Cúchullain t/ c 08:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The fact is fairly contentious - please do not include it unless a reliable third-party source becomes available. Neıl ☎  10:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Surely there's a better way to address this issue. Some other admins have problems with the originator being a source, so if Snopes says something, you'll delete it. If I cite what the rumor mills are afraid of, screenshots or not you'll delete it. I did my own checking on the matter, and that's how I found the Casale Media usage, but that's "original research:" deleted. Are we waiting on a full expose from PC World or New York Times to address this kind of stuff? Cwolfsheep (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * A forum is not a reliable source for anything. A slashdot post is not a reliable source.  Both of these could be created by anyone.  If it's a notable issue, eventually it will pop up somewhere (it doesn't have to be the NYT or PC World or whatever - Wired News, The Register, Technorati, anything like that would do) - not Digg or anything else that would just feature a user-submitted blog or forum posting, though.  An actual formal news release from Snopes itself would also do. Neıl  ☎  16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New article that came out yesterday. http://www.techspot.com/news/28789-snopes-peddling-malware.html Techspot sounds reliable though I am not familiar with guidelines. Lyctc (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * TechSpot would be fine. Neıl ☎  09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed, TechSpot is fine. But I'm still concerned about this factoid's importance in terms of receiving due weight in this article. Be careful to only repeat what's been said in reliable sources. This goes for the rest of the article too.--Cúchullain t/ c 06:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ask for Technorati and recieve Technorati http://www.technorati.com/posts/xCf%2FonFhWybF9lUh1ftMO9Oshnq1khjvrzeTUA8F2to%3D

http://www.technorati.com/posts/vYd7chFPgdG2M83i6TnBwP1Ufthc6ZHR%2FuLMiEAQS30%3D

Is that what you asked for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.198.31.180 (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a vanity page
Just like the title line says... snopes' wikipedia page is a vanity project that's apparently being policed by their staff to exclude their site controversies and that they're considered grossly unreliable. Where's the controversy that they gave their readers Zango? Or their lawsuits? Or reference to how often the mainstream press has warned people about them? I found credible links saying they're banned from Chinese servers, where's that? How about their apparent vendetta against the Mythbusters?

Every time someone tries to add this stuff, it mysteriously vanishes under the premise that "the evidence wasn't credible", despite that some of these links were for the websites of major news networks and respected magazines. The IPs of the vandals match the IPs of established site staff. They're vandalizing their own page to whitewash their image, only allowing data that presents a glowing reputation, and this simply isn't true... a lot more people hate snopes than like them, and they aren't allowing the case against them to be presented. I think the page should be protected against these vandalisms on the basis of that they're allowing a lopsided view of their impact/response. --Plusher (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For the umpteenth time, claims have to be attributed to reliable sources in order to be kept. If there is a conspiracy here, it's from Snopes critics who try to jam in as much negative material about the site as possible, without bothering to cite reliable sources (or even totally misrepresenting what sources say).--Cúchullain t/ c 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a conspiracy, it's fact. Snopes employees turn every edit that features critique of them into an edit war until the people trying to include it give up. If you had enough integrity to look into it, instead of just being ugly to me, you might see that. Look at the article history, if you need more; Compare the people doing it to site staff. And FYI- the last I checked, CNN, Newsweek, and PC Magazine were considered reliable. And, tell me if this sounds stupid to you, but when we say something like "snopes was heavily criticized for an implied political bias by Insight Magazine in 2002" and link up an archive of the articles from Insight's site, I think that would be a credible source for the claim, don't you? But... apparently, snopes doesn't seem to think so. That's part of what makes this article such a joke. Even ED's article is better than this!--71.38.104.60 (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a conversation further up this page about using an Insight article, which tails off with nobody providing the required material - perhaps you could dig the article out? Providing it's presented in the context of "criticised by Insight magazine", it should be fine. CNN or Newsweek would be much stronger sources, though, if you could provide links; I can't find anything obvious in either news source, from a Google search. --McGeddon (talk) 07:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, snopes.com has basicly two 'employees', which would be the Micklesons themselves. Now, there is an active and loyal following on thier forums, to which I admit that I am a member of, but they are not employees, and I would be the first to defend Wikipedia if I were to find out that they were actively trying to whitewash the page. As for my possible CoI issue in this then, I am willing to not edit the main page if that is what the consensus of users here think. Donovan Ravenhull (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course CNN, Newsweek and PC magazine are reliables sources. If anyone actually included one of those, and did not misrepresent what was said, there would be no problem. But no one has done than, opting instead to cite blogs, group postings, and other unreliable material (Insight magazine is not reliable by my estimation). And there is no evidence that "snopes staff" is editing the article, so that's a red herring. As I recall the Insight magazine bit was not removed by anyone affiliated with the site, but by me, for the reasons indicated above.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a huge troll page over at ED. No wonder this discussion page is turning into a troll pit.  Anyway, I figured if it's such an easily proven fact that CNN, PC Magazine, and Newsweek have lal railed against Snopes, I should have no trouble finding this, right?  Well, a few googles later, and CNN is still using Snopes as one of their *sources*.  So is Newsweek, actually.  PC Magazine has continued to list it as an "essential" website.  Clearly the Snopes conspiracy has erased all the evidence!


 * Also, I'd be pretty surprised to discover Snopes has a *staff*. It's run by two people.  It'd be like suggesting ED has a staff that they're paying to come over to this site and troll the comment pages.  Full disclosure - I post on snopes. Rebochan (talk) 16:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

POV
This article seems to be somewhat biased. It seems like it's advertising that Snopes is so great and awesome. I think this should probably be toned down a bit so I have placed on the page (in the section I believed to be biased).
 * What do you think should be added (that has valid sources)?-- Ibagli rnbs ( Talk ) 23:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be revised to sound more neutral. It just sounds to me like it's building Snopes up without any due criticism. Ζρς ι'β' ¡hábleme! 20:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, what do you suggest to remedy the bias? Placing tags is not constructive if you don't have any specific problem with what's there. As for the criticism, despite various attempts by editors with a beef against snopes, no one has ever included criticism cited to reliable sources, as has been brought up numerous times above.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Widely known
Is it? Who says what is "widely"? How many people were asked if they knew about it? I have to disagree that sourcing that phrase to one article isn't really good enough here. "Widely known" is a peacock term as well. how do you turn this on 00:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note that the phrase is not "widely-known" but "the most widely-known". This isn't just some source using subjective puffery, they are making a definite statement that of all similar sources, this one is demonstrably the most popular. Such an attribute is clearly worth a mention in the subject's encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain t/ c 03:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, who decides what is the "most well known"? It's not one person's decision. If it must say, it should be reworded as "According to... it is the most well known..." how do you turn this on  12:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It certainly should stay, as it's clearly a relevant piece of information. And I disagree that the wording ought to be changed.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a peacock term though. "Most well known" is completely subjective in every case. How did the source determine this? Did they do a survey? Did they ask a few people? Was it their own opinion? It needs to go, it's not encyclopedic. how do you turn this on  00:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You ought to re-read what "peacock term" means. This isn't a term that "merely promote[s] the subject of the article without imparting any real information". Being the most popular resource on urban legends is not subjective, it's an objective fact attributed to a source. As for how the source came to that conclusion I don't know, I didn't add it (though I certainly don't know another reference as widely known as snopes, so I have no reason to doubt it.) If there's a better way to transmit the same information please bring it up.--Cúchullain t/ c 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Being the most "well known" is some author's opinion, and it's not worthy of inclusion. Particularly as it's only one source. Such sources aren't always reliable. I could write a book, fill it with my opinions, and get it published, and suddenly we'll have a source that says such and such is the best, most popular whatever. You see where this is going? how do you turn this on  21:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your opinion and I still disagree with you. Saying something is the "most well known" is different than saying something is just "well known". It's not a matter of opinion. Either it is the most well known, which would be an important piece of information that ought to be included, or it's not the most well known, and the source is wrong the information should be removed. If you have some evidence that the source is wrong (or generally unreliable), please discuss, else this is just going to go around in circles.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your recent edit introduced the kind of peacock term you claim to be against. Once again, saying something is just "well-known" is subjective peacockery. Saying it is "the most widely known" is a statement of fact, and as it is attributed to a reliable source. If you have evidence that the source is wrong or unreliable, bring it up, and if you can think of another way to transmit the important information that snopes is the best-known source of its kind, let's hear it. Otherwise you're just engaging in a revert war.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You continue to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what "peacock term" means. From the guideline, peacock terms: "merely promote the subject of the article without imparting real information." (emphasis mine). Saying something is "the best known" of anything is real, important information. In this case it is a statement of fact attributed to what appears to be a perfectly reliable source. For the umpteenth time, your recourse here would be to demonstrate that the source is wrong on this point or is generally unreliable; if you can't then you're just trying to enforce your opinion.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For my part I will try and track down the book to see what it is they actually say on the matter. Okay?--Cúchullain t/ c 20:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"The best known" isn't real information. How is it the best known? Who decided that? There's lots of sites out there on rumors. Was a survey done to decide which is the best known? Or, is it simply someone's opinion? It might be the best known to the author of the journal, but not to everyone else. Stating it is the best known as a definite fact makes the article non-neutral. I'd be happy for it to be worded differently (e.g. "According to... it is the best known"). -- how do you turn this on  21:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Your tag is misplaced, as I've repeatedly demonstrated that this is not a peacock term. Being the highest level of anything is obviously important information - do you disagree? Everest is the tallest mountain, Shakespeare is the greatest playwright, China is the most populous nation. Your real problem seems to be with the source, though you haven't ever expressed why you think the source shouldn't be trusted on this statement. As I said I'll try and find what the source actually says, and hopefully that will clear it up.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's important, but only if it can be demonstrated by numerous reliable sources. One doesn't cut it. And it's impossible to dispute how many people are in China, or the height of Everest, but it is possible to dispute Shakespeare being the greatesst playwright. It's someone's opinion on how "great" something is. Of course, I'd be happy for the article to mention that it is considered to be the best known. Just saying it is makes the article non-neutral. The fact I'm even disputing it being the best known is enough to say that the source is unreliable. -- how do you turn this on  21:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Have a read of the Shakespeare article: "...widely regarded as the greatest writer in the English language". That's so much better than "...is the greatest writer in the English language". -- how do you turn this on  21:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It was just a passing example! This case is clearly more like the China and Everest examples, as it's a matter of numbers, not opinion. As for saying snopes is "considered the best known", I'm afraid that's a weasel word and a whole new problem. And no, the fact that you dispute the given source for reasons of your own is not enough to say whether a source is reliable, though it is enough to me go to the extra length of checking it out so I know what it actually says, so I'll report back when I've done that.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

So, any progress with this? I still dispute one person's opinion = hard fact. There's no way one man on his own could determine if this site is the "most widely-known". It's ridiculous it's still there in its current form. – How do you turn this on (talk) 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I forgot to put it up: the source does in fact say that "the most widely known resource for validating and debunking urban legends in popular American culture is the Web site run by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson at www.snopes.com..." (see here.) The author, Neil Henry, is a respected journalist and the book was published by the University of California Press, a "well-regarded academic press" per WP:RS. As the threshold for inclusion here is verifiability, not truth, and the fact is verified by a demonstrably reliable source, it can stay in.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Different URL
I don't think it's correct to say that the Mikkelsons "created snopes.com" in 1995. I first heard about the site in my first semester at college, which was fall 1996. At that time, it was not yet "snopes.com" but it had an address like www.best.com/~snopes or something like that. And for a while I think it also used the address snopes.simplenet.com. Maybe it would be more correct to say that they "created the website" or "created the Urban Legends Reference Pages" in 1995.

69.204.5.228 (talk) 17:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Good catch. I've correcte it.--Cúchullain t/ c 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Barbara Mikkelson - Citizenship and Past Work
Isn't Barbara Mikkelson Canadian? Also, I seem to remember her having a site called 'Tales of the Wooden Spoon' that formed the basis for Snopes. I guess I should go do some research instead of speculating idly! :-) --Perodicticus 15:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, Barbara was originally from Canada, although I imagine by now she has full U.S. citizenship, considering how long they've been married. --Birdhombre 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of a nonsequitor, but if an American and Canadian marry, they can both conceivably gain dual citizenship to both countries. And even if you are married to an American citizen, you do not have to become one. Your status can be that of a "permanent resident" of this country, and you may live out your life here as such, if you wish. So if there's speculation about her citizenship, it might be best answered by asking Mikkelson herself, rather than erroneously assuming her marriage alone made her an American citizen. The question is whether it's really pertinent to the article. 67.10.131.229 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wow, I get to debunk a myth. She cannot have dual citizenship because the US doesn't recognise dual citizenship of any kind. She may hold citizenship of both countries, but that's not the same thing at all.
 * Also, 'permanent residency' is nothing of the kind.--Stu-Rat 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your statement that the United States does not recognize dual citizenship is incorrect. It is referred to as "Dual Nationality". While the status is not statutorily defined, it is officially and formally recognized by the State Department and is not uncommon in practice. -- Satori Son 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? From your own citation: "U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another." "The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause." Indeed, it does seem that the article backs up my original statement. The US does not recognise dual citizenship. It does recognize that dual nationality exists and occurs. That's a different concept altogether.
 * I currently have dual nationalities with the US being one of my nationalities. However, if I travel on my other passport, I expect (and will receive) no help from US officials abroad. The opposite is true if I travel on my US passport. That's the difference. And that difference exists because the US does not recognise dual citizenship.--Stu-Rat 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Your original statement was "the US doesn't recognise dual citizenship of any kind" (emphasis mine). That is patently false. -- Satori Son 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is patently true. Re-read my posts and then re-read yours and you'll see your error, I hope.--Stu-Rat 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You obviously are firmly set in your opinion and have some personal experience in the matter. But after three years of law school and nine years of private practice in the US, I don't think going back and re-reading your posts are going to change my opinion, either. Let's just call it "differing legal opinions on the issue". ;)  Satori Son 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Although all you had to do was realize we each were using a different word.--Stu-Rat 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * (sigh) No, that's not it. I disagree with your interpretation, analysis, characterizations, conclusions, and summation. Everything. But, I respect that you have a different opinion, and I simply ask the same of you. Thanks, Satori Son 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This argument is besides the point. It is possible to have married an American citizen without receiving or looking into U.S. citizenship, thbut in that article a link to erefore it cannot be assumed that she is an American citizen. 129.1.215.93 (talk) 02:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This from the horses mouth As reported by FactCheck.com: We asked David. He told us that Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn't allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.108.151 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat amazed at the level of misinformation in this discussion thread regarding dual citizenship and the United States. I would have thought that some Wikipedia editors participating here would have thought to look at the Multiple citizenship article. We all know that Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, but a quick look at the United States portion of Multiple citizenship turns up a link to this U.S. State Department statement on Dual Nationality, which does provide reliable information.


 * Regarding the assertion "... Barbara is a Canadian citizen, and as such isn't allowed to vote here or contribute money to U.S. candidates.", her Canadian citizenship is of no moment in that. Rather, whether or not she holds US citizenship would matter&mdash;and that wouldn't matter in all cases; see the Right of foreigners to vote in the United States article.). For one high-profile case of a dual-national American holding high elective office, see the Arnold Schwarzenegger article. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's almost like they never get anything wrong!
The entry is a bit fawning. Shouldn't some of their mistakes or disputed conclusions be added to the entry?
 * I think that would be a good idea, so long as we have some references to back it up. There have probably been articles/editorials written about snopes' accuracy/inaccuracy, if we look. --Birdhombre 14:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I hate to be mean-spirited, but:
 * http://katrinacoverage.com/2005/11/14/nopd-phantom-cops-real-or-fiction.html
 * http://xrlq.com/2005/12/05/snope-a-dope-part-mclxi/

http://agonist.org/annex/snopes2 <--removed from google cache http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp
 * Critics have accused the Mikkelsons of political bias, however, they have various articles that are both critical and supportive of various political beliefs.


 * What critics? I think we need sources on this, but not just from people's blogs.--Cúchullain t c 22:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, what are the options? You can't exactly link a newspaper article or a book, and how much of the opinion-article material on the web couldn't be written off as bloggage? --ToobMug 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Dude, you don't have to link to something for it to be a source. You just provide a reference to it so others can check it. Print encyclopedias don't link to anything, but they still provide their sources.--Cúchullain t c 18:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't think that the web has such a great relevance to popular print media, and of the significance that it does have, Snopes' political bias isn't exactly top of the compelling subjects. If you're looking for critics I think you're forced to look at online media, because in the greater scheme of things Snopes is esoteric within the esoteric and your chances of finding mainstream media meeting the "accessible to other editors" criterion is hopelessly slim.  You can't, however, say that Snopes goes uncriticised simply because the only people that can be bothered doing it are bloggers.
 * I criticise Snopes all the time, in fact. Not on a blog but in real life, whenever the subject comes up.  Not just for political bias, but for failing to uphold their own ideals and allowing their articles to decay into conjecture and inappropriate, unverified statement of fact.  If somebody can be bothered mentioning criticism in Wikipedia, or entering into an NPOV debate, it's hard to argue that the critics don't exist, because it's likely that the participants themselves are some of those critics. --ToobMug 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say the criticism doesn't exist. But just because some folks with blogs (or without them, as you say) have some problems with the site doesn't mean it needs to go in their encyclopedia article. If the criticism was reported on in the media, that would be one thing, but if bloggers are the only ones who can be bothered doing it, why should we bother including it at all?--Cúchullain t c 09:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If you ask that then you might as well ask why the article even exists. To whom is Snopes relevant?  It's relevant to bloggers, and so their criticism is especially pertinent.  It's relevant to naïve schoolchildren, so political bias hazards are always worth a mention.  It's not relevant to mainstream media because their research tends to be of a much higher calibre anyway (with notable exceptions).  --ToobMug 09:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Snopes is a website, so naturally most of the criticism of the site will be on the web too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizlop (talk • contribs)

PC magazine, CNN, Insight, Vibe, Mythbusters and the Clinton Administration have all provided extremely harsh critiques of snopes tactics and honesty. Find those, and you have your case. Good luck keeping it on, though... like the vanity page part I added says, snopes staff seem to be on wikipedia just to whitewash it's proposed impact.--Plusher (talk) 07:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine that due to the very nature of of snopes -its so large and about some potentially very controversial subjects - that there would be at least more criticism of it that this page presents. My brief googling found many examples but I'm hardly an expert on the site and I don't really know what the general consensus is on snopes reliability. The way I see it there is two possiblities: 1. There isn't notable levels of criticism and when there is its fairly fringe viewpoints. In which case the page is fine the way it is. 2. There is notable criticism. Even if its not justified and can be refuted the page should at least report on its existence. If it can be justified then yes, all the more reason to put it to write about it. This is what I imagine the situation to be, but again, not an expert. It might not seem very important to have a huge section on criticism on a fairly small page. But I feel as Snopes is a site about verifying what is true and nothing in the world is as controversial as "the truth" it would be an interesting and important part of this page. Mhairiiscool (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Should satire be mentioned?
Check out these articles:


 * http://www.snopes.com/lost/fraction.asp
 * http://www.snopes.com/lost/mistered.asp

They seem satirical to me. Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article?


 * Ah I now see that it has been mentioned. Bdforbes (talk) 06:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Article sections?
Right now, there's just a "History" section and a "Main Site" section in the article. For readability, I'd like to propose moving the TROLL paragraph to its own section, which would help differentiate it from "Main Site." If there are no objections, I'll make the change. Otherwise, I suggest changing the name of the "Main Site" section, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense as a section title unless there's information on something else (message boards, TROLL, etc.) to differentiate it from the "main" site. Proboscis monkey (talk) 06:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made the change.Proboscis monkey (talk) 01:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Like trying to edit a Scientology topic
The fervour and resources their supporters put into stifling any dissent is certainly very familiar. Someone needs to stand up to them and completely overhaul this puff-piece of an article DublinDilettante (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, we still don't have any decent critical sources for anything beyond the Zango spyware - we've had someone talking about CNN, Insight and Newsweek articles being critical of Snopes, but failing to provide any specific sources, and other editors haven't been able to track anything down. If you've got any links up your sleeve, let us know. --McGeddon (talk) 15:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Wikipedia is not the place for individuals to air their personal complaints about Snopes, such as accusations of bias or even the belief that they are somehow stifling contrary opinions. If there are noteworthy, reliable secondary sources offering criticism of Snopes, then that could be considered for inclusion in the article.  But if people just want to use the article to voice their personal grievances, then yes, those will be deleted.  And for the record, I am not in any way associated with Snopes; I just happen to be doing some research that led me to this article, and I am a believer in following Wikipedia guidelines. Proboscis monkey (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing some POV wording. Was that all you meant by "stifling any dissent" and "puff-piece"? --McGeddon (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, two sites that technically compete with Snopes.com, TruthOrFiction.com and urbanlegends.about.com, have debunked as false the email that's been circulating recently accusing Snopes of being "owned by a flaming liberal" who is "in the tank for Obama." I dunno, but that seems like pretty decent evidence of a lack of any meaningful bias. --Shadow (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * And here is what Mr. Mikkelson had to say about the source of the email. Should that email even be in the article?  It is the personal, subjective, and unsupported opinion of an individual -- and an allegedly disgruntled individual at that.  Do encyclopedias typically include all criticism of the article's subject matter, regardless of source or reliability, in the name of "completeness"?  Doesn't seem right to me. --Shadow (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Vitamin See
This really needs to be included if this is going to be a fair article. If it hasn't been included by the next time I check up on it I will add it myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.48.130.33 (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add it any time if you have reliable citations for it. Unfortunately those seem not to exist, however.-- Ibagli rnbs mbs ( Talk ) 03:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WND
I took out the line about WND and the unnamed "some" who have criticized snopes, as it is a combination of synthesis to make a point and defensive snopes apologetics. I don't know that WND is a reliable source anyway, as has been discussed over and over again here not every blogger who has an opinion about snopes needs to go in their encyclopedia article.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

FactCheck
FactCheck has just published an article debunking a chain mail going around claiming that Snopes is inaccurate and is run by people with a strong liberal bias.

FactCheck's piece finishes with the following paragraph:


 * Oh, we almost forgot: That Wikipedia entry mentioned in the e-mail? Not only was it not the first place to reveal the Mikkelsons' identities, but it contains several factual errors, according to David. For instance, it says that he works "part-time" on Snopes.com. That was never true, according to David; early on he did hold another job as well, but even that hasn't been true since 2002. The mistakes could have been avoided if the authors had contacted the couple. "None of them did," he said.

Perhaps somebody should do just that. --TS 03:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it standard procedure for Wiki to write an article about someone living and not contact them for facts or even input to the article? Would going to the source not be more prudent than taking things out of articles written by others? I thought going to the source and then doing follow-up thru other sources to verify that info was standard procedure. 70.157.108.151 (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)Lisa Piper

"Barbara and David now work on the site full time." Replaced "David worked the site part-time". Given that his working the site part-time was an assumption on your part. As the sited articles say David had a day job. This does not imply he did not work snopes full-time from the begining. Working 4 hours a day M-F after work and 10 hours Each Sat and Sun would be considered full-time( yes I am assuming but I am not writing the article). What your new line suggests is that neither worked the site full time until recently. How about just stating that the site is and has always been run by both, neither suggesting that the work is part-time or full-time. 68.155.217.98 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Lisa Piper


 * I find it altogether delightful to read that the one authority cited for determining that Snopes.com is objectively valid and "bipartisan" is FactCheck.org, a Web site whose proprietors are subject to extensive criticism for their own left-leaning proclivities. Readers and commentators need to be advised that "bipartisan" does not equal nonpartisan. The fallacy of bifurcation is in operation here.  A balancing of the conservative against what passes for "Liberalism" in these United States today (or Republican versus Democrat) cannot be relied upon either for the exploration of all options in the determination of objective veracity or even the "check and balances" upon which we tenuously (and perhaps mythically) rely to protect us against government officers' tyrannous violation of individual rights.  The conservative and the "Liberal" are demonstrably all too ready to assist each other in quid pro quo arrangements wherein "You screw 'em now, and then I can screw 'em later."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.73.205.230 (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was Moved. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Snopes → Snopes.com &mdash; I believe the company is only referred to as either Urban Legends Reference Pages (the former title of this article) or as Snopes.com. I cannot find any reference to indicate that it is commonly known as simply "Snopes". Insight is appreciated. &mdash; \`C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE `/ (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I must have missed this discussion. Was there any evidence that it's commonly known as "Snopes.com" either? Google suggests a slight leaning towards just Snopes, from a few searches for "Snopes says" vs "Snopes.com says" sentence fragments. --McGeddon (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Naturally, it gets shortened in common usage, but the "evidence" is that "Snopes.com" is the logo. It is also used twice in the designed heading on their email newsletter. Pepso2 (talk) 11:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never heard anyone refer to it as "Snopes dot com"; only ever "Snopes". It's pretty clear which is the COMMON NAME.--Rfsmit (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's called "Snopes," but that's not the name. Pepso2 (talk) 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Apolitical?
Simply because Barbara is a Canadian and David is an independent does not make them "apolitical." Independents and foreigners often have views about the United States (some of them wildly inaccurate). The statement is a non seq., and it should be changed.John Paul Parks (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Removed the quote entirely. First, it's opinion, not fact; second, it's a quote from one of the subjects of the article, describing himself and his wife as apolitical. It seems to me that self-serving statements have no place in a factual article on any subject. (To invoke Godwin's Law: Imagine if someone tried to include a perfectly legitimate published quote from Adolf Hitler in which he stated, "You'd be hard-pressed to find a head of state more sympathetic to minorities than I am.") --Shadow (talk) 21:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The full quote is a bit self-serving, but given that it's a controversial subject that they've actually made a statement about, it seems worth quoting (perhaps as just "the Mikkelsons consider themselves to be 'apolitical'"). Without this, it reads as "FactCheck noted that they're a Canadian and an independent, but huh, who knows". --McGeddon (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that the preceding sentence already states that FactCheck found Snopes.com to be "free from bias in all cases," so it's not as if there's no context whatsoever. And right before that there is already a sentence stating that Snopes "insists that it applies the same debunking standards to all political stories," so the Mikkelsons' own position is already documented. If your concern is that a casual reader might not understand the significance of them being Canadian and registered independent, I think a better solution would be to quote the FactCheck article, not David Mikkelson himself. --Shadow (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been a few days, and neither you nor the fellow who reverted my edit has responded, so I'm taking the sentence out again. It is not my intention to start an edit-war; if either of you -- or anyone else -- has anything to add, please do so. --Shadow (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that the statement is an opinion by the subject of the article is not a valid reason to remove it. In fact, it's a reason to include it as it is immediately relevant and pertinent.  The source is clearly specified and the reader can make his or her judgment as to the accuracy of the statement. Gamaliel (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not disagree more. Relevance is not the standard for adding material to an encyclopedia article; reliability is.  See my silly Hitler example above for an example of a relevant but inappropriate quote; for a less silly example, ask yourself whether you'd be as insistent about including a quote from Mr. Mikkelson saying, "Snopes is the single most reliable and accurate debunker of urban legends and political rumors in the world."  It'd be relevant and pertinent, but neither factual nor reliable.
 * If this section of the article were about whether Mr. Mikkelson believes that Snopes isn't biased, the quote would be relevant to show that fact (i.e. that Mr. Mikkelson holds that particular opinion), in accordance with Reliable_sources. The section isn't about that, however; it's about whether Snopes actually is biased.  Rightly or wrongly, that is a disputed issue.  There are at least two problems with including this opinion from Mr. Mikkelson on an issue that is the subject of dispute.  First, the opinion is self-serving, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox for the subjects of articles to laud themselves.  Second, if Wikipedia were to open the door to opinions like this, then in fairness it would also have to include the opinions of the crackpots who have published elsewhere that Snopes is biased.  Providing only Mr. Mikkelson's statement and no opposing quotes is tantamount to endorsing Mr. Mikkelson's position as the "correct" one... and that has no place in a factual encyclopedia.
 * As I hope my other posts on this page demonstrate, I do not side with those who believe that the Mikkelsons are biased. But including self-serving opinions supporting only one side of a disputed issue violates WP:NPOV.  I can't support that just because the position that is being improperly advanced happens to be the one with which I agree. --Shadow (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the quote is appropriate as used, but it's not a big deal either way. It's the FactCheck information that's most important.--Cúchullain t/ c 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a matter of the subject lauding himself. I don't think being apolitical is anything praiseworthy, or negative for that matter.  It's just a neutral fact.  Whether or not it is accurate is for the reader to judge.  The way I look at it is that there is an accusation advanced against Mikkelson, so it is our duty to include his response to that accusation.  As Cuchullain said, the FactCheck info is the most important, but the subject of the article deserves to be heard. Gamaliel (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Per WP:NPOV, we report facts, including facts about opinions. That policy cautions, however, that it's applicable to opinions from prominent spokespersons.  A lone crackpot's opinion is on a different footing from that of FactCheck.  I agree with Gamaliel that the opinion expressed by the subject of the article should be included, although of course attributed rather than being stated as fact.  As for Shadow's example, I think it would be interesting and relevant to include, in Hitler's bio, a well-sourced quotation from him about what a champion of minorities he was.  If he had said such a thing, it would be illuminating, even though we wouldn't take it as being definitively established as true just because he said it. JamesMLane t c 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)