Talk:Snopes/Archive 2

a little bit of irony
"not all of their sources are fully verifiable" - I love it! A Wikipedia article questioning the reliability of another online source! Not that it isn't true, just funny.

Does Snopes even cite its sources on its pages? I can't find any sources on their site. 142.157.195.109 (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * They do cite sources whenever they're quoting something or referring to a source other than the legend itself. Cites appear as endnotes at the bottom of the articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Bias?
Article needs something about Snopes' none-too-subtle conservative and American biases (Did you hear the Urban Legend about how much President Bush loves troops? Status: TRUE!) --Brodo 04:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been reading U.L.R.P. for at least five years, and I've always thought it had remarkably litle bias. Considering people usually think pieces written from their own side are "fair and balanced" and that I'm fairly liberal, this prolly means that it has, if anything, a leftist bias.--Signor Giuseppe 13:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this does need to be mentioned. The political articles are very .. well, political.  The general legends are a great reference, though. --Sketchee 14:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
 * Funny, because a lot of people seem to think the site (and by extension, the message board) has a liberal bias. In any case, any "bias" the Mikkelsons might have only plays out in their commentary, and not in the facts of their research, as far as I can tell. --Birdhombre 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I think their bias, particularly regarding the last presidential elections, is pretty clear. Look at the number of items on Bush as opposed to Kerry and the conclusions.  Also the research is not really as good as everyone seems to think.  It's just the fact that there are not many other places to find out about urban legends.  The focus seems to be more on collecting urban legends than on the research.
 * Th'anonymous message above states that the bias is clear, comparing Kerry stories to Bush stories, but doesn't even hint at which way this bias might lean. Besides, more Bush stories could conveivably mean left or right bias, depending on th'outcome of those stories. This debate demonstrates that th'article could only really say "Some think U.L.R.P. has a liberal bias, some think it has a conservative bias," but at that point, it's better to leave it unmentioned.--Signor Giuseppe 13:42, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Someone added the line, "It is somewhat politically biased towards an American patriotic/Republican attitude." This does not seem NPOV to me, and we have discussed this here on the talk page. If people think it's important to mention something about David and Barbara's alleged bias, at best we could state "The Mikkelsons routinely receive e-mails accusing them of having a liberal or conservative bias" because this is the truth. The We've Got Mail section of the message board, where David often posts inflamatory and amusing e-mails, makes this evident. Some people think they're Bush-huggers, others think they're Bush-bashers, depending on which rumor is being debunked and which rumor the accusor wants to believe. --Birdhombre 15:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a bit of a bias, which dose seem to point to the writers being quite pro Bush. There are a lot of very base Clinton articles, they were quick to pick up the photo of the marine crossing his fingers as he met Hillary. Didn't mention the vets wearing "bullshit protectors" while Bush spoke till a long time afterwards. There are some other things that need to be researched better as well. Djarra 18:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It didn't get a mention until "well later" because not until "well later" did that picture get attributed to the wrong source. That source being a Ted Kennedy speech, which someone could construe as protecting Kennedy, thus "liberal bias".  In other words, that article is far more likely to be considered a Bush-bashing article rather than a Bush-hugging article.  In point of fact, I think the Mikkelsons have been masterful at keeping their political bias, whatever it may be (I'm still not sure, and I'm a regular at their message board!), out of their pages.  -- Grev -- Talk 07:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that any statement regarding the Mikkelsons' bias should be limited to a comment that they are accused of being biased by both sides. The Mikkelsons are routinely criticized by both conservatives and liberals for being biased towards the other view, and they are regarded by many to be about as unbiased as reasonably possible. I am a regular poster to the Snopes message board, and I have yet to figure out the Mikkelsons' political leanings, and they seem to frequently support and criticize both sides. Saying that the Mikkelsons are biased towards one side without strong evidence would be POV. --Cswrye 00:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Surely the point is that they should do neither. If you want to see them going off the rails with a political slant, try here.  The last three paragraphs are essentially opinion and include statements of fact on matters that have never actually been established in any reasonable way.  --ToobMug 21:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Something really should be added about the accusations of being biased. The topic comes up often enough to deserve being mentioned. --S.J. 23 January 2006
 * I've added a little entry about the criticism of their political beliefs. I used to be a regular poster on their mailing list, and I still check the site daily. I can safely say that the Mikkelsons stay relatively neutral by using an effective tactic: they present all political viewpoints, and are both supportive and critical of all these viewpoints. --Deathphoenix 21:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have been reading ULRP for a fair while... and I can't say there is any bias there. What they do is that they debunk/confirm myths and rumors. When there are political in nature, I have not seen anything biased there. The most common result of such investigations are: "This is an undeserved rumor, this polititian has not acted this way" or "This bill is not what the chain-mail claim it to be".

Some people in the world have a very black-and-white kind of mindset. Hence, when the Mikkelsons debunk a slanderous rumour about their political opposites, these people interpret that as if the Mikkelsons take a side. Classic "If you're not with us, you're against us" thinking... or rather in this case: "If you don't slam them, then you love them (and therefore I hate you)". I would guess that most accusations of bias against the Mikkelsons come from this. --J-Star 13:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There are clear examples of the bias - look at the Hugo Chavez/Citgo summary: "While Venezuela president Hugo Chvez did make nasty remarks about the U.S...". Chavez didn't make nasty remarks about the US, in any way. Of course, Fox would have you believe he did, so maybe they're just sucked in to the Fox mentality so popular in many homes across the US. They clearly do have bias from time-to-time, and regardless of which direction it's in (as it appears to swing wildly), it should be noted, as it does affect the accuracy of their research, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you're on. --82.35.107.44 17:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you look at their "Bite my bias" thread (linked in the Wikipedia article), you see that they get slammed very often simply for debunking rumors that are provably not true. Rumor-spreader: "Bush did this!". Snopes: "Uhm... no, he didn't... here is the unrefutable proof". Slammer: "You at so pro-Bush! You are BIASED!". Don't you see how silly that is? --J-Star 09:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's incidental. You can't discount criticism just because stupid people do it too. --ToobMug 11:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I can discount stupid critcism. And much of said criticism are attacks on articles that are NPOV enough to fit that Wikipedia NPOV policy.--J-Star 07:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but doing that serves only to drag any discussion of genuine criticism back into the gutter. By choosing to address stupid criticism you're deliberately avoiding (and clouding the waters for) legitimate discussion. --ToobMug 08:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * True. However unwarranted criticism does happen an should also be reported. If you want to fill complement this with instrances of warranted criticism, go right ahead. :) --J-Star 11:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You might not realise just how biased towards American stories this site is. For example, look at the military section- out of about 50 stories, all but 2 are specifically about the AMERICAN military. Given that their stories are meant to have originally originated on the web this really is rather biased I would say! I think, in honesty, a story specific to, say, the German military or a quote from a Danish politican (unless it was about America) simply would not raise thier interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizlop (talk • contribs) 6 September 2006

The reason people say they have a Republican bias is simple math; of all the anti-Kerry E-mails going around, the vast majority were "Sorta true" or "kinda true" or other categories that did not exist for other debunkings, unless they were just "true". For something where, for instance, Hilary Clinton says a bunch of things, they will track down the closest thing Hilary ever said to that and post that as evidence that "Well, she may not have said the thing it's saying, but she said something similar." Whereas, with Bush, they opt to debunk as much bad stuff as possible. The bias is in what they choose to focus on and what they choose to ignore; they have an obvious tendency to affirm negative things about liberal candidates and debunk (or ignore) positive things, while they have the opposite tendency with conservative candidates. This hardly seems debatable. However, I would also agree that, until there is a wider discussion of this elsewhere, it doesn't belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.95.27.5 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 8 May 2007

Yes, snopes clearly has a conservative bias: Clearly. --Birdhombre (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As a liberal and avid snopes reader myself, I may share an observation that I think fuels both sides of the bias-seekers. As long as I have been following Snopes, I have run up against articles featuring legends that bash democratic candidates or liberal figureheads far, far more often than articles featuring legends that bash republican candidates or conservative figureheads. However, the Snopes verdict on these articles is almost always "false." So, is Snopes revealing a conservative bias, by giving all these (often VERY nasty) rumor/stories extra time and attention? Or a liberal bias, by painstakingly debunking each one? One can attempt to be painstakingly neutral in one's approach/tone towards events, and I think the Mikkelsons are, and still inadvertently show a bias in your *selection* of materials to which you give your attention. My overall impression is that the Mikkelsons are left-leaning on most issues, but work very hard to keep 'bias' as such out of their site, as is appropriate for a resource that wants so much to be universally reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.0.130.55 (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The bias is evident when comparing the two Snopes articles covering the citizenship of Mccain and Obama. The challenges to Mccain's citizenship are classified by Snopes as "undetermined", while challenges to Obama are shown as "False". I suggest that since Mccain was born of two American citizens stationed overseas by the military, and Obama can't even produce a birth certificate, the reverse is closer to the truth. Obama's Barry Soetero thing is pretty weird too. I do not believe this issue will have any bearing on the election, it's too fine a point. Another example is Snopes treatment of Bush's "punch" - Snopes even states "We don't know for sure which of these captions is genuine and which might have been the product of digital manipulation" yet they state it is "True" that Bush sucker punched the guy, even though it looks like a tackle, and as you don't punch someone from the side with both feet in the air. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.136.15.34 (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree with you when you say that "...after reading them for years what I felt is that they always leaned to the left...". I've seen the Mikkelson's very favorable personal opinion of Hugo Chavez show through on one of their determinations. Also seen them change the wording of an anti-Obama news quote so it could be easily debunked so it could be said that "Snopes says the quote is false"---which it wasn't in it's original form. I've never seen them defend Dick Cheney. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.225.192 (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit late coming to this discussion, but thought I'd add my 2 cents for what it's worth. What I find amusing is that there's an actual argument, not on whether there's a bias, but if it's a liberal or conservative bias. I am a liberal (in Canada I'd be classified as small-l liberal as I don't always vote for the Liberal party). Check out my user page and see that I've listed my political compass as economic-left social libertarian, in case you feel I'm a concern troll of some sort. I've read snopes for years and what I always felt was that they did lean to the left for the most part and that conservative critics of the site were bothered by the idea that truth has a liberal bias. In other words, if you do the work and the research, the truth in most issues will be decidedly left. But I guess people see what they want to see (by which I mean, they're biased). There was a study done some time ago that showed that given the same news article conservatives and liberals alike will see a bias in favour of the other side. Human nature. I once edited the article on former broadcaster, now Conservative Canadian Senator Mike Duffy. I removed some POV nonsense which stated that Duffy was a hack and shill for the Conservatives during his career as a journalist. After my edits, I was attacked as a neo-conservative for simply removing an unsourced opinion. So when you try to be neutral, you are still often perceived as having a bias, regardless of the facts. In the case of snopes, this is all the more the case. As it is, the article seems to reflect this overall view: the Mikkelsons attempt to remain as neutral as possible, sticking to facts and some excellent research, while at the same time are criticized by both sides of the spectrum.  freshacconci  talk talk  15:40, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think more often than not, those with a distinct POV take on an issue tend to see anything that doesn't agree with them as biased. Conservatives who don't like that their fun little rumors about Obama are discredited call foul and assert a liberal bias, and Liberals who didn't like that the Bush rumors were discredited call conservative bias. To me it reflects a general lack of rational skepticism in society more than a bias by Snopes. Something that doesn't agree with you doesn't necessarily indicate a bias toward the other side. That speaks to a "with us or against us" mindset, which is laughable when one is discussing facts, and even more so in grayer shades of opinion. I tend to be a moderate in general, probably leaning more left than right on more things than I lean right on, but above all, I value rational discourse. Propaganda is propaganda, regardless of whether it agrees with what I want to believe or not. If something is false/true, it's false/true whether that's convenient for me or not. I don't think any allegation of widespread bias on behalf of Snopes is supportable. I'm sure once in a while they get something wrong. That doesn't necessarily imply a motivation. To me, all the calling of "bias" smacks of poisoning the well. "they don't agree with my propaganda, so I'm going to paint them as group x to discredit them". Personally, when I find a group that both the left and right fringe call on being biased, I'm likely to think they're probably more credible than most. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 19:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

"American"
Quote: "Snopes.com (pronounced /ˈsnoʊps/), officially the Urban Legends Reference Pages, is a web site that is the best-known resource for validating and debunking urban legends, Internet rumors, e-mail forwards, and other such stories of uncertain or questionable origin in American popular culture." Maybe it's what the source says, but the source is wrong. The site features urban legends from all over the world and always has done. It is read all over the world for this reason. Let's straighten this out.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The source says, "The most widely known resource for validating and debunking rumors, myths, hoaxes, and urban legends in popular American culture is the Web site run by Barbara and David P. Mikkelson at 'www.snopes.com', also called the 'Urban Legends Reference Pages'". Certainly they discuss urban legends from beyond the United States, but are they the best-known resource for Malawian urban legends? The source certainly doesn't say so, so neither should we. Verifiability, not truth and all that. I'll reword a bit.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It is misleading for any source (reliable or otherwise) to claim that Snopes is dedicated to American popular culture when the site makes no claims of this kind. Here is one of the many UK urban legends on the site. I would ask Barbara and David Mikkelson for their take on this issue if there is any further controversy.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 13:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The source never said the site is dedicated specifically to American culture, only that it was the best known source of its type in American culture. It is reaching to claim that it is the best known source in the world when the source doesn't say that (again, verifiabilty, not truth). Thank you for the NPR source, but that source makes no such claim either. I've reworded the intro some, what do you think? Either way, please do not remove reliable sources.--Cúchullain t/ c 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, an admission. I am from the UK and find Snopes very useful. It often mentions things that are happening in the UK, so it is not an insular site in this respect, and tries to cover material regardless of its country of origin. No doubt Snopes is well known in the USA, but it is well known in Britain too. This is why I found the wording is the WP:LEAD somewhat inaccurate. I still don't think that it is necessary to WP:PEACOCK the reputation of the site in the USA to the exclusion of other countries, and found the NPR cite more neutral.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We have to accurately reflect what the sources say. The Henry book says Snopes is the "most widely known resource [on urban legends] in popular American culture". The NPR source says nothing about it being the best known of anything, only that it's a popular site. As such it's disingenout to claim that it is the "best known source... in popular culture" generally, and cite it to these sources. I think you misunderstand PEACOCK; the current wording does impart verifiable information (it's the best known thing within a specific category). If we removed the reference to American culture and just say it is "a widely known source", that would be peacockery. I've tried to find a compromise in the current wording; improvements are welcome.--Cúchullain t/ c 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Terms like "widely known" and "popular" are vague at the best of times. It is unclear why the Henry book is seen as a reliable source for this type of catch-all statement. The article points out that the mainstream media often consults Snopes, and the Snopes Alexa rank shows that it is one of the top 2000 sites in the world, which is no mean feat when up against millions of sites. The lead should avoid an America-centric bias, which is a common problem with Wikipedia articles requiring a worldwide perspective.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Henry book, discussed above, does not say Snopes is "widely known" or "popular", it says it is the best known source of its type in popular American culture. That's why it's used, it makes a definite statement. Your edit was unacceptable because it made the sources appear to say something they didn't. Removing the reference to American culture would require us to just use peacock terms like "snopes is a widely known source", which also isn't optimal. The other option would be to rewrite the lede entirely, though I think it's still worth a mention that in his discussion of websites devoted to discussing hoaxes and urban legends, Henry says it's the best known in American culture. As to "worldwide perspective", if you can find sources discussing this, by all means add them in. I'd imagine snopes is the best known throughout the English speaking world, but "worldwide?" In France, Latin America, China, Japan? I really doubt it.--Cúchullain t/ c  15:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be pedantic, but how does Henry know that Snopes is the best known source for urban legends in popular American culture? Who told him, and why is his view on this issue more important than yours or mine? I don't want to misrepresent any source, but the whole crux of this debate is putting the Henry book up on a pedestal. This is having the accidental effect of making the Snopes website look predominantly American, which it is not.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Neil Henry's view is more important thank yours or mine because he's a professor and dean at the Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism, and a respected journalist and writer. His book was published by the University of California Press, a "well-regarded academic press" per WP:RS. The article currently has no other sources approaching this caliber, so his brief discussion about it as the premier site in the "cottage industry" of urban legend-related web sites ought to be welcomed.--Cúchullain t/ c 16:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The Snopes website is undoubtedly popular in the USA. Being an academic when you say this does not make it any truer than when you or I say it. The main concern here is not giving undue weight to the site's popularity in the USA. This still needs to be addressed.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

not always accurate
Was looking around over on Snopes, and came across this:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/wingdings.asp

They're saying it's false, and yet it's actually true - and the way they wrote it makes it seem as if they knowingly did so.

To verify that it IS in fact true, simply open wordpad, change the font size to 72 and font to wingdings, then type in Q33NY (using caps for the letters).

it shows an airplane, 2 rectangles - what look like sheets of paper, a skull n crossed bones, and the star of David (aka Jewish star).

99.139.224.87 (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We only use sourced information, not opinions. And if you actually read the snopes article, you will see that the what is incorrect about that particular urban legend is not what the letters spell out in wingdings, but what the message actual was supposed to be. In other words, the letters/numbers Q33NY are actually meaningless, as the snopes article explains. I'm also striking the personal attack in the above message.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: the snopes article does not state that the sequence Q33NY does not become those symbols in wingdings. Here is what they say:


 * The last coincidence mentioned in the example quoted at the head of this page — that the arrangements of symbols corresponding to the string "Q33NY" in the Wingdings font is a "sign that Microsoft were involved in the terrorist attack" — is purely a contrived one. Although typing the characters Q-3-3-N-Y in the Wingdings font does produce the string of images shown below (an airplane, two vertical rectangular shapes, a skull and crossbones, and a Star of David), none of this has any real relevance to the 9/11 attacks: Q33NY was not the flight or tail number of either of the planes that werecrashed into the World Trade Center that day, the rectangular shapes represent pieces of paper with writing on them, not buildings, and the terrorist attacks were neither perpetrated by nor targeted against Jews.


 * In other words, Q33NY does convert to those symbols, but it is meaningless. You have to read the whole snopes article.  freshacconci  talk talk  14:38, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

New York Times: Debunkers of Fictions Sift the Net
New York Times ran a nice article on Snopes. Here's a link in case anyone wants to work it into the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Copy Protection?
The pages seem to have a quite simple form of copy protection, i. e. they do not allow copy for pasting. By doing so, it qualifies as REALLY BAD HTML (or "idiotic kiddy scripting"). However, the text of the ads may be copied freely ;-) --WolfgangRieger (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

 * 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. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Snopes.com → Snopes – Attempting to reverse move from 2009. It isn't usually referred to as Snopes dot com. See common name. Marcus  Qwertyus   13:15, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's Snopes.com in their logo, and the site's welcome reads "Welcome to snopes.com..." It's hard to tell which is more popular in news and book sources via search engines, as searches for "snopes" also return hits for "snopes.com", and many sources use both. I don't see that "snopes" is more common to the point that we should use it in preference to what the site calls itself. Unfortunately the MOS isn't much help either.Cúchullain t/ c 15:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an unusually difficult topic to research for commonality. This search vs. this search gives at lest a place to start, indicating that it is rarely just referred to as snopes in writing. But that search is not a very string indicator. This is one of the rare instances where I think anecdote will have to also play a big part in my opinion. Unlike many other websites, I have almost never heard this referred to without the .com and I've heard it many times with. On that basis, and not a great one (but the same logic basis as the nomination), coupled with my search, oppose.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose unless convinced otherwise. I'd normally be inclined to go with the nominator on this as I generally feel that an established website's name has enough familiarity to dispense with the domain (i.e. Wikipedia) when writing about it. However, giving it a quick google news search as "snopes" turns up 6/11 uses of snopes.com vs. 5/11 for snopes alone on the first page. Google books and scholar are of no help, even correcting for Faulkner, as most hits are for the characters. So based on general ghits and google news hits, it appears that snopes.com has a slight edge. I myself use just snopes, but I couldn't find an applicable guideline that suggests my own preference should be given priority. Maybe I'll write one up.  freshacconci  talk talk  01:23, 13 July 2011 (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.

Accuracy
'''[personal comments removed] I am not generally discussing snopes.com, I'm addressing concerns that *should* be addressed in some manner in the article about snopes.com. It is well within the realm of Wikipedia, along with the responsibility of the editors of Wikipedia to present unbiased and complete information.''' There is question to the veracity of Snopes. A quick google search can establish that. If nothing else, the opinion that snopes is not entirely dependable deserves mention if for no other reason, it occurs at the same if not greater rate than people who believe 9/11 was a conspiracy beyond that of the terrorists (oh, look, there's a 9/11 conspiracy article in wikipedia). Beyond that, there is no legitimate criticism of the site, of which, there is plenty (such as: no real investigative training, snopes is just a projection of the two owner's opinions and judgements, some of the topics covered are highly technical in nature and neither has any documented technical expertise, etc.).

The biggest point though is that the site is a subjective interpretation of data by the two, and they don't always get access to all of the necessary data and still blindly charge forward with a determination. Check this out: http://www.whatswrongwiththeworld.net/2007/05/annie_jacobsen_vindicated.html (don't pay attention to the website itself (I wouldn't dare try to pass that off as a source) so much as look at both the snopes article he links, then look at the Washington Times article along with the Air Marshal report that the Times links)

This is nothing against them as people (and before someone tries to say I've a political motivation: I'm a libertarian who enjoys watching the Left and Right slug it out, so snopes feeds that in some ways as well), but we have to acknowledge that it's just two people who can be wrong. Good god, even one of the urban legends mentioned in the article is not as black and white as is made out to be by snopes (Ring Around the Rosie) -- even wikipedia's own article devoted to the song has enough sense to couch the veracity of the Plague link with "many folklorists" because whether it is true or not is still a subject for debate. It's unlikely, yes; however, that does not merit a strong determination, yet snopes has no problem with painting with a broad brush and saying it's plainly false. See, no where is there the integrity to point out that all of their determinations are simply as best they understand what's happening.

As for there not being a running ton of articles and sources about just how accurate snopes actually is, there are a few reasons. Firstly, who really has the time to investigate a lot of stuff that has absolutely no real importance (which is the primary fodder of the snopes website)? Part of what makes an urban legend an urban legend is how it is difficult to verify, happening in some distant place to persons only hazily identified. Secondly, why bother debunking any claims made by them? Again, most of the stuff on that site has little bearing on anyone's life. It's just not important enough to merit effort. Also, as is pointed out by the article, news sources have cited it as being true: why would they go through the embarrassment of proving wrong a source that they've used. You'll also notice that many of the times that snopes was sourced it was on fairly unimportant pieces for relatively unimportant details (such as the fee for the AmEx Centurion Card: http://www.foxbusiness.com/personal-finance/2011/07/27/some-credit-cards-put-foreign-transaction-fees-on-vacation/ where it was just easier to google something up than bother trying to get in touch with someone at AmEx). For something important, no self-respecting journalist would rely solely on a site like snopes (or really, any site), opting instead to get in touch with principles.

Even their own FAQ brings this to light: "Q: How do I know the information you've presented is accurate? A: We don't expect anyone to accept us as the ultimate authority on any topic..."; however this article weasels itself away from that (yes, I know that the line in the article that says "emphasizes reference" is a nod in that direction, but it's written in a way that indicates that snopes itself is the reference and is not talking about how they refer you to other sources. I don't see how anyone can see this as acceptable. And again, I have nothing against the people who run snopes or the fans of it.  From what I can tell they get things right far more than not, but that doesn't remove the fact that it's just two people and not a giant team of researchers.  Also, note that I fully believe that they do not intentionally mislead people; however, just like in choosing to listen to my doctor about a heart condition instead of my well meaning friend, we have to admit that there is room for and a correct level of skepticism.

Another example of Snopes being subjective opinion and judgement: http://www.care2.com/causes/slacktivism-why-snopes-got-it-wrong-about-internet-petitions.html Legit Critcism (albeit from a biased source, but actually read the article and see what objections were brought up and why. While Insight might be a biased publication, the exclusion of information supplied by a Terrorism expert casts doubt on some of the Mikkelson's judgement, especially with the quotes from Barbara) (which is blocked for some reason, but actually read he article before you snap judge): http://www.freerepublic[]com/focus/f-news/968235/posts Here is some more criticism for the interpretation of a potential law: http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=42497 This one, http://www.urbanmyths.com/index.php?/Classics/snopescom-wrong-again-woman-gets-drugged-at-the-gas-station.html, is pretty interesting because the snopes page (which is linked in the article) essentially accuses the victim of lying and the Houston television station of more or less the same (which is also linked) in order to maintain the "false" status of the urban legend even though this could easily have became an "undetermined". Also, claiming that they know what Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds was actually about? Come on. The Beatles were stoned out of their minds when they wrote that, I sincerely doubt any of them were/are able to remember...


 * shrugs* Maybe y'all will listen, maybe not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.27 (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I do agree that two people are not always going to be 100% accurate. But what do you feel we should specifically change in the article to address this concern? Gamaliel (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get back sooner, honestly, if I could nail it down directly I'd do the edit myself; however, I don't have enough confidence in my abilities to attempt such (part of the reason I've never registered an account here). I would definitely clear up the line about how snopes emphasizes reference to be more in tune with what the FAQ actually states. Additionally, I'd include a section concerning the controversy surrounding some of their more political articles even if it has to be fairly strongly qualified.

Additionally, the point should be made that there are times where the opinions stated on snopes are at odds with experts in the field, along with mention of how neither one is a technical expert in many of the fields about which they speak. To those that think this is an attack on them, it's not. Because of this, I believe it needs to be mentioned that the "true", "false", or "undetermined" is their subjective evaluation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.27 (talk • contribs)


 * I think editors here would be open to discussing these matters in the article provided that they were sourced to appropriate secondary sources as per Wikipedia policy. See Reliable sources, etc.  Also, please don't use this page to attack other editors because you disagree with them.  Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Personal interpretations of the subject have no place in the article. Wikipedia articles are written according to reliable sources, and no where in those long posts are any mentions. Who are the "experts in the field" whose opinions are "at odds" with those on snopes.com? Where is the "controversy" surrounding their political articles? We don't have to say that blogs, forum postings, and the like don't belong in encyclopedia articles.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Gamaliel, hiding an entire comment that does address issues with an article, claiming it was "general discussion about snopes" *is* a whitewash attempt. If y'all disagree with me, that's fine, but to attempt to sweep it under the rug? I'm sorry, I'm not going to sit quietly and let that happen (which if you'll check the edit history, you'll see what I'm talking about). As to the sourcing, what do you call those links? Good lord, one contains a link to an NBC affiliate -- are they not a reliable secondary source, can not just looking at the story on NBC and the snopes website be enough confirmation? I linked that article not to suggest it as a source but because it contained the two links that showed a flat out contradiction between snopes and a federal agency (and no, looking at two links is not the same as original research). Outside of that, the authors of the Insight Article actually interviewed Barbara, I looked but could find absolutely no evidence that they were sued for a retraction under grounds of defamation. Also I pointed to snope's very own FAQ. Incidentally, the tone of both your reply and that of chuchullain's is that of a personal attack, in that neither of you directly the information directly pertaining to this article, giving every indication that nothing more than a cursory glance was leveled...replies such as that make it very, very difficult to assume good faith.


 * One of my least favorite things about Wikipedia is people who show up with a crystal ball and insist they can divine the motives of others. It's perfectly normal practice here to collapse or delete long off topic comments and that's hardly evidence of any sort of nefarious motives. It's foolish to double down on your rash remark, and if you continue down this road you'll find that your negative viewpoint regarding Wikipedia is in fact a self-fulfilling prophecy.  You speak of good faith but fail to acknowledge that multiple editors are making an effort to identify your concerns and potential solutions, which is ample evidence of our good faith despite the chip on your shoulder.  That said, in regards to your links, I pointed out the WP:RS policy specifically because at first glance the links you provided seem a bit sketchy and may not meet this criteria.  Reliable sources/Noticeboard would be a good place to inquire.  Gamaliel (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

@Chuchullain: it is a verifiable fact that the two people who write snopes are not doctors, lawyers, chemists, etc. They still write on topics that are outside of their expertise, which makes everything they put up a subjective evaluation. Again, look at the links. Even if you don't want to give the Insight article any credence, I think you have to give some credence to the host of non-profit sites that echo the sentiment that online petitions are not "slacktivism" by mirroring the article written by the creator of petition.org (if I remember correctly, it's in the above) who describes what niche they fill (which seemed good enough to use as a source in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_petition) -- not to mention if you poke around in google for long enough you can find it hosted at a .edu I'm pretty sure that the United States Federal Air Marshals are experts in terrorism. I'm also pretty sure that the Mikkelsons are not. Snopes says that an event was not a walk-through of a terrorist group. The Air Marshals say it was. The mention is in the links, which you are showing beyond a doubt that you've not bothered even looking at (which provide a link to a reliably published news story that itself provides a link to the Air Marshal's report). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.178.25 (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Drop the combatative attitude, it does nothing for your case. I did vet all the links you provided, and they were all inadequate to support changes to the article. If you must have specifics, whatswrongwiththeworld.net is a blog and freerepublic.com is a forum; neither can be used as a source and neither warranted further inspection. Care2.com is a social network for activists. The comment could only be used (if at all)to show that that individual had disagreed with snopes on that particular issue, and that's not particularly important for this article. And urbanmyths.com is just some other urban legends website, if it could be used for anything it would only be for the fact that they disagree with snopes on this one issue (and I tend to doubt it's important enough for that).
 * As to the news sources you gave, the general consensus is that sewnd.com is not a reliable source. And obviously the Fox Business link didn't actually criticize Snopes and can't be used as evidence that criticism exists. I don't see any evidence that this "controversy" is important to anyone other than these critics.--Cúchullain t/ c 22:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

food buying from China ok ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.173.6.50 (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

About.com
I removed the external about.com link per WP:ELNO as the site isn't particularly relevant to this subject and it looks like it's just promotional. And no, it should not go in the "see also" section either. Thanks,--Cúchullain t/ c 14:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, thank you. Johnuniq (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Folklore Society and crediting as owners
I'm really confused by this sentence from the article: "The Mikkelsons founded the San Fernando Valley Folklore Society and were credited as the owners of the site until 2005.[6]" That sounds like it's saying that the Mikkelsons were credited as owners of Snopes until 2005, but not afterward? The page that's linked to by the reference (http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=55;t=000490;p=0) doesn't seem to support that assertion. Maybe the sentence is just trying to say that the words "San Fernando Valley Folklore Society" used to appear on the Snopes front page (which the reference does seem to support), but if so it's badly phrased, and I don't think we have any information about when that phrase stopped appearing on the front page. So, anyone know what that sentence is intended to mean? I'm inclined to remove it, but I may just be misunderstanding it. --Elysdir (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
I invite our IP to discuss why (s)he thinks edit warring here is appropriate. Removing sourced content is not acceptable. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Good call. The IP's only edits are negative one directed against Snopes. No valid reasons have been given. --Dmol (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The edits are definitely not WP:NPOV and are backed by unreliable sources or just the IPs own WP:OR.  STATic  message me!  04:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Logo
Some confusion here. The logo has been deleted after it was replaced with. The article is now without a logo. As far as I can see, Snopes is currently using the lamp logo on its main page.
 * Snopes.com no longer goes to the main page, it goes to the WhatsNew page. The newly written articles on Snopes.com's WhatsNew page go to now.snopes.com articles with the new logo.2.103.20.108 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Snopes.com seems to have had a redesign in the last 24 hours or so. However, it is still using the desk lamp logo on the main page. Strictly speaking, snopes.com is still the top-level domain. This page updated on 18 May still has the lamp logo. This needs a reliable saying that now.snopes.com is officially endorsed by the Mikkelsons, and not an unofficial mirror. It is all a bit confusing at the moment.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 15:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If the main page is still using the lamp logo then that's what we should use here. Until they update it there is no other image we should be using for representing the site. Leitmotiv (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried checking their social media sites as well. Their Facebook, Twitter, and message forums all continue to use the old lamp logo. Both the Facebook and the Twitter accounts posts entries from both www.snopes.com as well as from now.snopes.com. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Malware
If a corporation or other business trips, that deserves documenting. If Snopes or the owners have something to say about putting malware on the site, that also deserves documenting. The section on Malware should stay.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  15:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This happened back in 2008 and Zango was reportedly removed by Snopes in response to the criticism. This has WP:WEIGHT problems as it has been given a section to itself.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is at best a tempest in a teacup. I don't think it deserves mention at all.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And, nothing was being 'pushed' there were popup ads (which SNopes has, which I detest) advertising Zango. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:02, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like this was a brief moment in time. I don't see what is so encyclopedic about it that it deserves mentioning. It certainly doesn't deserve an entire section unto itself. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The material (diff) is WP:UNDUE and documenting "trips" is not the purpose of Wikipedia. What independent reliable sources have written an analysis on the matter (not just "something happened and later it didn't happen")? Johnuniq (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I originally wrote this section, with 2 reliable citations. I think it's absolutely important to have something as serious as malware on the site be covered in the wikipedia page. It is certainly conceivable that people will still have the malware from snopes on their computers or laptops. If it is undue to have its own section then fair enough but why on earth would you not include something as substantial as this on the page? Key facts, with reliable citations, should be on the page. Why the need to whitewash, it's just weird.Wikiditm (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it were news of long term significance I would say go for it. However, a zillion websites have had junk on them, with reasons ranging from stupidity to malware served by ads. Consider Lenovo where people purchased laptops which had built-in malware—that is worth a section because it really is significant, as confirmed by reliable sources. Johnuniq (talk) 02:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your objection at all. Lenovo gave its users malware, and we have reliable sources for that, so we covered it. Snopes gave its users malware, and we have reliable sources for this, so we.... suddenly don't cover it. It's significant, important, useful, well sources information. The article isn't encyclopaedic if we randomly leave out bits of information.Wikiditm (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Snopes did not give any users malware, go read those sources again. They had popups that advertised software that was considered malware.  That is a rather large difference.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 10:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * They were making money off hosting pop-ups leading to malware sites. The difference is small and pedantic, and not in any wikipedia guidelines. The fact is that this is reliably sourced, important information, not least because some readers may still have the malware that snopes was pushing.Wikiditm (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Users may or may not have that malware, and the point is moot, since that is original research. Leitmotiv (talk) 15:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to put the key point in bold: a zillion websites have had junk on them [so it is not a notable feature of a website]. Malware on a website would be notable if it was repeatedly put there by purposeful actions of the site's owner. In the Lenovo case, the issue is hardware and is a completely new (and repeated) form of customer abuse. Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And, tv channels, radio stations, tv shows, radio shows etc have had ads for all kinds of crap. We don't list those either.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Web sites often have packages of advertising with no control over what is in them. The indications are that Snopes removed Zango after it was pointed out to them, and did not add it deliberately themselves. The wording about Snopes "pushing" Zango like drug dealers was non-NPOV.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:06, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The word "pushing" was used in the citation sources.Wikiditm (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, for what seems to be click bait dramatic effect. Nothing was pushed on anyone.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The reliable sources say pushed. To say otherwise with no sources is original research.Wikiditm (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And Techspot says "peddling" and "divvying up ads", but we wouldn't use those terms unquoted in Wikipedia's voice. It would be clearer to explain what "pushed" actually means in this sense: to a casual reader it suggests that the website was somehow forcing Zango software onto readers' computers against their will, but it seems the case that they were just displaying ads for Zango? --McGeddon (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

October 2015 site and logo redesign
The site has launched a new design in the last 24 hours, including a new logo with a sans-serif typeface. The article will need to reflect this.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Mikkelson
All I'm trying to do is remove a falsehood from the article. But Dr.K keeps reverting my edits because he says Barbara's history with the page should still be mentioned in the article. OK, Dr. K. Go ahead and do that then. Write it up. Your efforts would be better spent there instead of reverting my attempts to simply remove an untrue statement from the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz (talk • contribs)
 * We have other refs that say she is one of the people that runs it. Please don't edit war.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:41, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz should stop edit-warring and removing sourced information otherwise this will end up at the edit-warring noticeboard. His/her source does not mention what he is insisting on adding to the article while comments by people at the end of the article are not reliable sources. In fact even in the comments area there is this exchange: "Cheryl asked him about that, and apparently Barbara is no longer involved with the site. Make of that what you will." But then "Cheryl" replies: "To clarify, he says it's more accurate to say that Barbara no longer does press interviews." which is not the same as "Barbara is not involved with the site". What we have here is original research and edit-warring, which have to stop. Oh, and I forgot to mention the personal attacks. They have to stop too per WP:NPA.  Dr.   K.  22:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is an WP:OR problem here, but there appears to be some truth in what InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz is saying. The Snopes website had a major revamp in October 2015, and now appears to be written by a range of contributors and Barbara Mikkelson is not among them, although David Mikkelson is still contributing. The Gizmodo article is from 2014 and gives David Mikkelson as the creator of the site, although it is generally agreed that the site was created by Barbara and David Mikkelson. There are comments at the bottom of the Gizmodo article saying that Barbara Mikkelson is no longer involved with the site, but these do not constitute a reliable source. I suspect that there is a reason for Barbara's apparent absence from the site nowadays, but without reliable sourcing it is hard for the Wikipedia article to mention it.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * About snopes.com is interesting because it names David Mikkelson as the founder of the site and mentions Barbara only once in passing. It's all a bit weird as she is pretty much absent from the site in its current form. Barbara's name is also notable by its complete absence in this December 2015 news article in The Washington Post. All of the sources naming Barbara and David as a husband and wife team are now several years old. It is unclear if they are still married; if they are not, it would explain a good deal about the current situation. In this version of the article, the citation given does not support the claim in the WP:LEAD that Barbara Mikkelson is involved in running the site due to the October 2015 redesign of the site. Many of the citations in this article no longer work and need a cleanup.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I flagged the page for cleanup.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  14:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Spiders
I've removed this from the article:

Snopes has come under criticism for containing untraceable information. In an article entitled 'Spiders inside her', snopes claim that in 1993 a columnist called Lisa Holst wrote about the myth of swallowing spiders in a magazine called PC professional. Websites such as "eight spiders" have researched this topic and found that there is no record of the magazine existing and no information about Lisa Holst.

I believe this information is probably true and Snopes screwed up in some way. But this can't go into the article because we can't document every blog and webforum criticism, so unless this gets picked up by a mainstream source who factchecks it in a reasonable way (besides "I can't find it on the google!") it has to stay out. Gamaliel (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think if you're going to call Snopes' credibility into question, you need to provide more reliable sources (see WP:RS for more information on what is considered reliable or not) than a blog called "eight spiders" run by some guy using the first name of "Nick". The site is nothing more than a personal online diary and there is no real information on that site regarding who Nick is, where he's getting his information, or who has editorial oversight over what he posts online. WTF? (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Setting aside the question about Lisa Holst and the 1993 magazine article, other references in 'Spiders inside her' are questionable: the author's name is wrong for the 1997 newspaper column, and the 1954 book does not contain any stories about swallowing spiders. These two things are easier to verify than proving the non-existence of a person or magazine. I don't think Snopes screwed up, but rather created a meta-article about how people will believe anything they read on the internet.  CAMusicFan (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I know this is a stale discussion, but this text was removed from the article again today. I thought I would leave a crumb trail here for anyone researching this further. One reason for the confusion on this is the magazine is actually PC Professionell, a German affiliate of PC Magazine published out of Munich. It is. It only published under that name from 1991 to 2007, but that ISSN also links to some other titles like "PC Direkt" and "PC Pro". There does not appear to be an archive for it on the web. Any research to dig up this article would have to take place in a German library. As the Snopes article indicates, this same fact (and misspelled source) has been reiterated in several books, but its not clear who is copying whom. --Krelnik (talk) 19:25, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

New references added
I ask that you please do not remove the references that I have added. This is not a fan page. As a compromise, I will add back the sentence that I removed from the page. Boab (talk) 03:23, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I think they are a classic example of WP:UNDUE. Let's see what others think, per WP:BRD let's leave it the way it is for now please.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Daily Caller is a reliable source and they are WP:UNDUE. -- Dane 2007  talk 03:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, if you don't like the Daily Caller I will add another reference that simply documents that accusations made by the Daily Caller.Boab (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In agreement with Dbrodbeck's stance, leave the page the way it is. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)


 * What about this reference (reference number 13 about Jan Brunvand) from 2004? Wouldn't you argue that it is on the dated side? At bare minimum, it should be pointed out that he said this in 2004. Boab (talk) Here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/20040812075515/http://www.nationalreview.com/seipp/seipp200407210830.asp. Boab (talk) 03:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I still think where someone worked at some point before Snopes is irrelevant. I think the Brumvard thing is important, he is/was one of the world's foremost experts on urban legends. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I deleted the references to "Alamo Pundit." It's a blog and blogs do not meet reliable sources.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  20:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I added a link to Mikkelson's response to the accusations. I know that the article was linked within one of the other references, but the article without mention of the response seemed to me to reflect a certain point of view. Adding a reference to Mikkelson's response creates a more neutral tone in the paragraph. LuckyFlamingo (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I have to question whether the Marshall "Ethics Alarms" reference is a high enough quality source. WP:SPS WP:UNDUE I'm not touching it for now because this is a topic that probably requires more discussion on the talk page to achieve a consensus. For now, I've tried to balance the article with the above referenced addition of a link to Mikkelson's defense. LuckyFlamingo (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. I left it in place when I deleted "Alamo Pundit" because it seems to have an organization with an editor behind it. It reads like a blog.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  13:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't even know why we have this. I mean look, some person doesn't like Snopes. Who cares? Why is this one writer's opinion given any weight at all? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Is Snopes a "reliable source" for Wikipedia content?
Does anyone know? Keizers (talk)
 * The best forum for that discussion would be at Reliable sources/Noticeboard. The archives for that page shows the site has been discussed a couple times in the past. It appears prior consensus was that the site can be treated as a reliable source. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:38, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25 seems to suggest that, if Snipes mentions its source, use that. My personal preference would be to steer clear of citing Snopes on politically sensitive stuff.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  16:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Is a Snopes article reliable source if it cites another source like this one? 173.67.106.134 (talk) 23:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Is a Snopes article a reliable source if it cites legal documents like this lawsuit against Donald Trump?
This Snopes article contains a copy of a rape lawsuit against Donald Trump. Is a Snopes article reliable if it contains links to legal documents like this one? 173.67.106.134 (talk) 22:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the place to chat about hypotheticals. This is the talk page for an article, and editors speculating about other issues is not helpful for improving this article. If someone wants to use a particular webpage as a source for a statement in an article, it would be possible to ask at WP:RSN whether the webpage was a reliable source for the particular statement. Note that all three elements need to be presented: the article where an edit is planned; the proposed edit; and the source. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I just realized what this is about. If someone thinks this section should be removed, please do so. Johnuniq (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

You make a valid point here. I think that it is necessary to point out that the site the skewed to the left as of 2016. The girl who writes for the site even admits that she is a big Obama fan. Notice that the Wikipedia article on Breitbart labels it as a conservative site. These are just basic facts.Boab (talk) 05:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Clarifying dates in accuracy section
I think that it is important that we clarify dates in the accuracy section. Most of the criticism comes from 2016. On the other hand, sources suggesting Snopes to be highly reliable are quite a bit older. It appears that the page has undergone a shift in recent years, as suggested by the sources I posted. Boab (talk) 05:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not revert my edits until I am finished
I ask that you please do not remove my new references and sentences until I am finished editing. If you want to remove the sentence about bias from the introduction, that is up for debate. On the other hand, I ask that you refrain from deleting references and new sentences. Boab (talk) 05:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You were already requested to leave the page alone in response to your first edit set. Your sources are not generally accepted which is in conflict with wikipedia's content policy that you were already linked to. We can discuss edits of this nature before you make changes. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)


 * What you about me being "requested to leave the page alone" is simply not true. In fact, I have the right to edit this page without you immediately deleting everything I add. This includes new references and new sentences. Please allow others to review what I have written before you delete all of me work. Boab (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Blog posts and the daily caller are not credible sources. Dane 2007 , Dbrodbeck and I all dispute your changes. Therefore, the general policy is to leave the page as is until consensus on the proposed changes can be reached. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)
 * Ditto, the sources added fail WP:SPS.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * You are free to remove individual sources. However, it is not okay to completely delete everything that I have changed in a single edit. I am quoting Wikipedia policy here: "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page." Boab (talk) 05:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The sources you're basing your opinionated edit on are invalid under wikipedia's policy. It is not our responsibility to re-source your edit when it is based on claims that do not meet wikipedia's standards. As your edits have been reverted by multiple users, not just myself, the majority appears to be against the inclusion of your content. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)


 * There is nothing opinionated about the fact that the references come from 2016. I am just pointing out a fact here. If you and other editors are removing basic fact like this, then you are not acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Boab (talk) 05:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is not, but you have demonstrated a clear bias in your purpose for editing, the nature of your edits and the sources you attempt to add. "not acting in accordance with Wikipedia policy"... as YOU interpret it, perhaps. You are not editing in accordance with Wikipedia policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing Ehryk (talk) 06:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You'll notice that I reverted my own edit there and was in the process of improving the phrasing to add more detail with regard to the bias objection. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)


 * You are incorrect when you say "I have the right to edit this page without you immediately deleting everything I add". You currently have _permission_ to make edits to this page, and other editors have _permission_ to revert your edits. You have no 'right' to anything here; the content is Creative Commons and the hosting and management is performed by a private non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Ehryk (talk) 06:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am quoting Wikipedia policy on reverting edits: "The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text. Sometimes that's as easy as making the article state that there is controversy about something." What this means is that you should look at each of my individual edits rather than erasing everything in one edit. The fans on this site do not appear to adhere to Wikipedia policy. 24.8.123.133 (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * This is contingent on the edits being properly sourced and the disagreement being with regard to if the content is needed or belongs in the article. The edits that were removed were not properly sourced and could, in the opinion of multiple editors, be removed in full. You'll notice that the properly sourced accusation of bias remains. -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)


 * A suggested "alternative" is not the same as a "requirement". What you claim it to mean does not necessarily follow. Ehryk (talk) 06:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * What I claim absolutely follows. I never used the word "requirement." That is you putting words in my mouth. Here are the Wikipedia recommendations again (in case you missed them the first time): "The first and foremost alternative to reverting when you find you disagree with an edit is to find a third version of the text that incorporates at least some of the elements of the prior text and the current text. Sometimes that's as easy as making the article state that there is controversy about something." I suggest that a bunch of fans have "watchlisted" this site (or whatever it is called in Wikipedia parlance). Whenever anyone tries to make an edit, the same people immediately swoop down and try to remove everything that would make Snopes look bad. Very undemocratic. 24.8.123.133 (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I disagree, we're reverting edits with bad sources. In fact, I would argue that the current state of the section compaired to when you began your edits of the page does represent a good compromise. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snopes.com&type=revision&diff=741713063&oldid=736881413 -- Anthony S. Castanza (talk)
 * Hello IP. A couple of things.  Having an article on a watchlist is not evil.  Indeed, I have about 2000 on mine.  Secondly, this is not a democracy.  We have policies and guidelines.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove cited sources
This page seems to be operating like a fan page. That is not how an encyclopedia article is supposed to operate. Boab (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a couple problems with the sources you are using in your latest edit. First of all, all of them appear to be blogs. Skepticallibertarian and EthicsAlarms clearly admit it. The other site "mynewsla.com" is designed to look like a news site, but unlike real news sites it hides its ownership with a DomainsByProxy registration - a typical tactic to make a blog look more important these days.  Second of all, you use the SkepticalLibertarian post to support the statement "Critics in 2016 have accused Snopes of having a liberal bias." Please go read that post again, here's the link  - it says precisely the opposite! Also, it is from 2013 and therefore does not support your sentence that starts with "Critics in 2016..."


 * Secondly, the main dispute you report on is a blogger on one site (Daily Caller) calling out Snopes because one of their writers wrote liberal-biased posts at a different website. That's not a criticism of Snopes at all, it's a criticism of a writer.


 * Thirdly, I see from the talk above that you tried to introduce similar material earlier this year, and other editors disputed your sources just like I am. Please do not violate consensus after it has been reached here.  I've removed your latest edit, if you can find some better sources and cite them properly, feel free to try again - but one blog calling out a writer is not a criticism of Snopes. --Krelnik (talk) 19:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

New Edits

 * This page is being zealously guarded over by a bunch of Hillary shills. Folks, you lost. This is not a fan page. Time to face reality. 19:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boab (talk • contribs)
 * (Hillary shills, funny, I'm not even American.) You ought to go read WP:NPA.  Anyway, you have no consensus for your edits.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Your edit summary was "Added new references to provide a more balanced perspective. Please see talk page." These are not new references, they are the exact same blogs and faux news sites which I criticised in the section above. You have not addressed my criticism above. You can do so by finding proper reliable sources, or explain to everyone here why you think these sources are ok. --Krelnik (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are three obvious references:

They include a liberal source called My New Low Angeles and Ethics Alarms. It is not hard to find additional references as well. Folks, people are starting to see through the games that Snopes has been playing this year. I expect an explanation for why these neutral references are being repeatedly removed.

This is not a fan page. No one denies that Breitbart is a right-wing source (it says so in the first sentence of the Breitbart Wikipedia article!). Snopes, although much less relevant, is equally off to the left. Time to wake up and face reality.Boab (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * They're unreliable because they're blogs.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, it's better than that; the first one actually opposes his position. It's a classic anticite. Anmccaff (talk) 06:41, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you define anticiting for me? First I've heard of it. Thanks! Leitmotiv (talk) 19:47, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * A blog is not a reliable source, see Identifying reliable sources --- • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 08:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is yet another reference: https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/. 2601:285:201:F6F0:EC9F:603C:9697:CFC6 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

mynewLa.com is not a blog. Ethics Alarms is also not a blog. You say that the mynewsLA.com article does not substantiate my claim. If not, then why is the title of it “Fact-checker hit as Hillary Backer”? By the way, I can find plenty of additional references as well. While you may claim that Daily Caller is not a “legitimate” source, I would ask you to consider which sources correctly predicted the outcome of the 2016 presidential election. It certainly wasn’t the New York Times. In the aftermath of the election, I think that it is fair to say that the Daily Caller is every bit (if not more) legitimate as the New York Times, which is clearly living in a fantasy world.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/

http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/ Boab (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You need to do some research on the definition of "legitimate source." See Reliable sources.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  18:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about why I "need to do some research on the definition of a legitimate source"? I would love to hear more details. By the way, here is yet another reference that I could use showing that Snopes is to the left.:

https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/ Again, nothing controversial here. 2601:285:201:F6F0:EC9F:603C:9697:CFC6 (talk) 02:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Because personal blogs are not reliable sources: see WP:BLOGS. Trivialist (talk) 02:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Besides, we already discussed the Alamo City Pundit further up the page.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  02:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * *******None of these references appear to be "blogs." With regard to the discussions above, they are quite varied. At one point, it was decided that several references would appear not only in the accuracy section but also in the introduction. Here are four references that I feel need to be incorporated into the article:

1) From the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/

2) From Ethics Alarms: marshall, jack (july 31, 2016). "unethical website of the month: bye-bye snopes ... you're dead to me now". ethics alarms. retrieved august 31, 2016. https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

3) From Front Page Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262720/snopes-attack-front-page-shows-how-incompetent-it-daniel-greenfield

4) From Mynewla.com: stone, ken (june 20, 2016). "snopes vs. daily caller: fact-checker hit as hillary backer". mynewsla.com. retrieved august 31, 2016. http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/06/20/snopes-vs-daily-caller-fact-checker-hit-as-hillary-backer/

5) From the Alamo City Pundit: https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/. Alamo City Pundit

6) From the Angry Patriot: http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/

I do not appreciate the fact that these references are repeatedly removed contrary to Wikipedia policy. I realize that a lot of the people on this page are fans who have this page watchlisted. That is really not a how a Wikipedia page is supposed to work. 2601:285:201:F6F0:200B:ED54:219F:E5D5 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC) 2601:285:201:F6F0:200B:ED54:219F:E5D5 (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Six (now seven) references to establish that Snopes has been accused of liberal bias
1) From the Daily Caller: http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/17/fact-checking-snopes-websites-political-fact-checker-is-just-a-failed-liberal-blogger/

2) From Ethics Alarms: marshall, jack (july 31, 2016). "unethical website of the month: bye-bye snopes ... you're dead to me now". ethics alarms. retrieved august 31, 2016. https://ethicsalarms.com/2016/07/31/bye-bye-snopes-youre-dead-to-me-now/

3) From Front Page Magazine: http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/262720/snopes-attack-front-page-shows-how-incompetent-it-daniel-greenfield

4) From Mynewla.com: stone, ken (june 20, 2016). "snopes vs. daily caller: fact-checker hit as hillary backer". mynewsla.com. retrieved august 31, 2016. http://mynewsla.com/hollywood/2016/06/20/snopes-vs-daily-caller-fact-checker-hit-as-hillary-backer/

5) From the Alamo City Pundit: https://jdlong.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/snopes-com-exposed-left-wing-website-not-quite-the-impartial-arbiter-of-truth/. Alamo City Pundit

6) From the Angry Patriot: http://www.angrypatriotmovement.com/who-is-behind-snopes/

7) From Infowars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vNUHK3JJ4M.

Please feel free to add more. It is not hard to document this. Sad that Snopes fans (who have watchlisted the page) take these references down whenever I put them up. Boab (talk) 00:41, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see how constantly listing the same sources over and over helps improve the article. To each his or her own I guess......  Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think you're contributing, you're sadly misinformed. A blog is a blog is a blog.-- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  01:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Dear Georgia, Could you please provide me with a definition of what constitutes a "blog." In fact, I wouldn't call any of the seven things I have listed up there "blogs." Is a "blog" just something that you, as a left-wing Snopes fan don't like? Like Snopes, you really need to stop with your censorship attempts. There is nothing progressive about what you are doing. Boab (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Look at Blogs as sources. And, btw, youtube is not a valid source, either. And I am not a "left-wing Snopes fan." -- Jim in Georgia  Contribs  Talk  04:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * In fact, I have looked at Blogs as sources. Here is what it says, "Are blogs usable as sources in Wikipedia articles? It depends on the blog in question, it depends on the article in question, and it depends on what information is going to be used." If you want to remove these seven references, Jim in Georgia, then the burden is upon you to find SPECIFIC quotes from Wikipedia::Blogs that invalidate each of the seven sources I have provided above (I could provide more if I wanted). Simply erasing these references and labeling them as "blogs" is not in accordance with Wikipedia policy.


 * By the way, here is what Wikipedia policy actually says with regard to removing material: "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page." Boab (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, Boab, you know, if you think we're all acting incorrectly there is a remedy, WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Why would I want to try to "remedy "anything when I know that you and a bunch of other fans who have watchlisted this page are going to show up and block whatever I propose. What we have here is a cabal of left-wing Snopes fans who are determined to block anyone who wants to tell the truth about this liberal "fact checker."Boab (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * BTW, Infowars, really? Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, Infowars. You and other left-wing people can laugh at Infowars (which has tens of millions of viewers) all you want. At the same time, Infowars knew that Donald Trump had a good chance of winning the election. That's more than I can say about all of your beloved mainstream media sources. Let's face it, the mainstream media made a fool out of itself with all of its fake polls. Because it now feels threatened, it is attempting to do anything it can to shut down any opposition.Boab (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Some people have got it into their heads that Snopes is part of a liberal conspiracy funded by George Soros and his evil globalist agenda. If the New York Times put forward this theory it might be worth mentioning, but a string of blogs and websites with a history of tinfoil hattery are not reliable enough as sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, Infowars was a lot more accurate than the New York Times when it came to predicting the outcome of the 2016 election. The New York Times spend months publishing bogus polls that purposefully underweighted Trump's supporters. The New York Times is on the verge of going bankrupt, whereas InfoWars gains 100,000 new subscribers every month. Boab (talk) 22:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You have no proof that the NYT purposefully did anything, the number of subscribers doesn't matter, and a stopped clock can be right twice a day. InfoWars is a conspiracy theorist website that assumes the New World Order (conspiracy theory) is real. Your editing here and at the Alex Jones article is nothing but disruptive and totally misinformed -- stop it. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User has been Indeffed. Perhaps someone could archive this whole talk page, as frankly it was all him/her ranting about bias from snopes.  Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)