Misplaced Pages

Talk:Snopes: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:18, 13 May 2021 editOrangemike (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators126,287 editsm Forgot to sign← Previous edit Latest revision as of 13:34, 25 October 2024 edit undoMrOllie (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers237,608 edits Restored revision 1243379212 by Binksternet (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo 
(68 intermediate revisions by 36 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{skiptotalk}} {{skiptotalk}}
{{refideas|1=, ''The New York Times'' on 25 December 2016}} {{refideas|1=, ''The New York Times'' on 25 December 2016}}
{{Talk header|search=yes }} {{Talk header|search=yes}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Websites|importance=}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
Line 10: Line 14:
|archive = Talk:Snopes/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:Snopes/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{Auto archiving notice|bot=Lowercase sigmabot III |age=3 |units=months }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes |target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=C|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Websites|class=C|importance=}}
}} }}
{{Annual readership}} {{Annual readership}}
Line 27: Line 26:
}} }}


== Lede section issues ==
== Evolution of the Snopes website ==


The lede fails to mention the controversies about Snopes, some of which apply to the whole concept of fact-checking entities in general. I tried to include a sentence regarding Snopes' controversy with labeling satire articles as "false", but some editors are reverting it. I request a discussion so that we may come to a consensus on including significant content in the lede. --]&nbsp;✌️ 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The current article discusses Snopes as though it were a long-term “fact checker”, and one of the oldest such existing. This is factually wrong. Snopes’s focus only began moving in this direction with 9/11, and it only became dominant with, roughly, the Obama campaign. This, of course, roughly tracks the growth of wide scale politicized BS online, with readers questions shifting from folktales to those about suspicious “news” items. The article really doesn’t reflect this in several ways.
:Snopes labels satire as satire, and even has why they do it.
Brunvand pointed out that a mom-and-pop website was good enough that he felt no need to make a one-man website of his own, but the site has evolved a good deal since then. The article emphasizes that the founders were rather apolitical, but only one of the founders is left, and I don’t think that Brooke Binkowski is a Rockefeller Republican like Dave...and I strongly suspect that is the reason she was let go, although as likely to avoid the appearance of partisanship than its existence on the site. The article doesn’t really reflect this, either.
:Furthermore, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body. The body contains no claims about their coverage of satire being controversial, because no-one has ever presented a ] claiming that Snopes' coverage of satire is controversial.
:As if that weren't enough, labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:: The article itself explains that Snopes labeled some content from Babylon Bee as ''false''. Not "satire". ]&nbsp;✌️ 17:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:::You need to read the whole section. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


::::I did. If those events described in that section are true, then those events are significant enough that they should be mentioned in the lede. ]&nbsp;✌️ 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Saying that Snopes is widely known isn’t puffery, but making positive statements about its current form based on what it looked like two decades ago might be. ] (]) 15:19, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:Your own original research is not an acceptable source for article contents. The following sources all categorize snopes as one of the oldest fact-checking sites: , , , , . <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 15:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC) :::::No, the amount of coverage it's getting in the article needs to be seriously trimmed down. The events it mentions were barely blips on the radar, and the fact that this subsection is in the "accuracy" section is a pretty blatant NPOV violation, as it says absolutely nothing about Snope's accuracy. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::Note: I've corrected this. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


:::::::I disagree, but I will end my part in the discussion here before I get banned. ]&nbsp;✌️ 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
::...but the NYT says otherwise, right in the article on the top of the page. No one is questioning that Snopes is the oldest surviving big urban legend site, but the ] aren’t showing up because Snopes is pointing out that Red Bull contains no bovine spooge. The fact-checking that has caused controversy is political, and the NYT writes as though that only began with the Trump campaign. Not just the controversy, but the emphasis. Now if you think that I am using “fact checker” narrowly, yeah, I am. I am using it as opposed to “folklorist,” even though the two can obviously overlap. If you make a venn diagram of “folklorists” and “fact-checker,” Barb and Dave lived for years in just the one circle. They studied folklore. Stuff passed by word of mouth, or mimeograph, or xerox, and then by email, If it wasn’t a foaftale of some sort, it wasn’t in their sights.
::::::::If you really don't want to get banned, you should perhaps look back more than a single edit before accusing someone of lying in their edit summary. Also, there's ''no chance'' that the Babylon Bee thing deserves to be the single largest section in the entire article, longer even that the section about the still ongoing legal fight for the ownership of the company. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
::::::::P.S. Edit warring over this won't help, either. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::::P.P.S. That's not a "consensus version". It was added a month ago, and I guarantee keeping it won't garner a consensus, here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 22:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:That's classic ], putting the ''Babylon Bee'' stuff into the lede. It's in the article, but not everything in the article belongs in a well-crafted lede. --] &#124; ] 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


=== Clarification ===
::Now, the stuff on the CNN site is purely folkloric. Yupp, snopes has been doing that back to ‘94, which is to say three years after the AFU archive. Not oldest there, even.
MPants had complained at the 3RRN that I said I would withdraw from discussion. To be clear, I am withdrawing from discussion to change the lede section. I still believe it is inadequate but I do not believe I will achieve consensus to change it.


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


I was told by another editor that I have to gain consensus to keep that content. I disagree with that, but if that's what we're going to go by then it should also be noted that a couple of editors in the sections above, agreed to add the Babylon Bee controversy section, and the actual addition of the content was executed by a third user. So in addition to myself, it can be presumed that those four of us believe that that content should be in the article, and that MPants and Orangemike should try to gain consensus to remove or reduce that content.
::The Poynter piece is...unfortunate. It’s a muddled mess, and it doesn’t talk much about the site’s evolution, except as it concerns the lawsuit. Whatever Poynter’s standing as a whole may be, that article needs a boulder-sized grain of salt.


]&nbsp;✌️ 01:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
::The Fox piece explicitly notes the Snopes site’s changes of focus, with the earliest version a UL “encyclopedia” much like TAFKAC, not a fact-checking site in any sense at all, but that evolved with readers sending new stories, or at least those new to them. Mikkelson explicitly notes that the emphasis on the political side only came with 9/11.
:The Babylon bee issue was a minor controversy: it really boiled down to whether Snopes was being "nice enough" to the Bee. It was rather simply resolved by Snopes identifying satire, as I mentioned above. But, a small number of conservative talking heads who've been complaining without evidence about Snopes' accuracy and biases for decades seized upon it to try and turn it into a bigger deal and a condemnation of Snopes. They failed for the most part, but they managed to get ''some'' additional coverage in the RSes.
:Now, Snopes is, at this very moment, involved in a years-long court battle over the ownership of the company, a battle in which Mikkelson's opposition have been found by multiple courts to be fighting using virtually every dirty trick in the book. This is a fight that has consumed an enormous proportion of their financial resources, and which has impacted their ability to grow to keep up with the demand for their services severely. The coverage of that in this article is 96 words.
:The section you were edit warring over is 641 words: or six and two thirds times longer.
:There is no world in which the controversy surrounding the Bee could ever come close to justifying even ''twice'' the coverage of Snope's legal fight. The import to the subject of this article from the Bee issue was the introduction of a single new rating. The import to the subject of this article from the court case is existential. I'll note now that the coverage gave to it was 377 words: or 3 times the coverage of the Proper Media fiasco. It's still ''vastly'' over-represented in this article, relative to it's importance to the subject.
:Spending this much verbiage on this issue is akin to walking into an emergency room with a gaping chest wound showing your visibly beating heart and insisting that the doctor's x-ray and perform immediately surgery to remove the 5mm splinter in your pinky.
:See ], which discusses how we weigh the inclusion of facts in our articles to understand why this won't work. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 05:27, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


Note that after I posted my comment above, the very next edit was the bot archiving some old sections. One of those sections is the Babylon Bee section that I was referencing. So that section is now in the archive instead of directly on this page. ]&nbsp;✌️ 06:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
::The Sun-Star Philippines? Now, that has the smell of a tendentious search, but it’s not a bad article.
:Per ], the current level of mention of the Babylon Bee stuff is perfectly appropriate. It's not significant enough in the bigger picture of the history (and it ''is'' about the history of the website, rather than any real critical evaluation of its accuracy) of Snopes to merit mention in the lede, nor was it significant enough in the history of the Snopes website to merit more detailed, lengthier mentions than what it has. ] (]) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


I am trying to understand the reasonining behind not having the Babylon Bee controversy surrounding Snopes' inaccuracy and misinformation as its own section. ] page has an entire section dedicated to the controversy. Why can't Snopes? Perhaps the sections length should be slimmed down, but it was a long-term controversy whose sheer scope and number of incidents warrant its own section to cover accurately.
::So, if you want to argue that the idea that Snopes is the oldest is sourceable but untrue, knock yourself out. ] (]) 17:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:::#None of the NYT sources used say that.
:::#Your own ] doesn't change what the source say, no matter how much you disagree with them. You are the only one insisting that "]" is an exclusively political phenomenon. To be fair, you're not ''explicitly'' repeating that, but your argument requires it to be true to be consistent, so... <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 17:50, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


] it sounds like you are using original analysis/opinion of the Bee controversy to justify removal of the subsection. Please explain how such original (and blatantly biased) interpretation is acceptable as justification for removal. I am not sure how such lengthy, repeated incidents of inaccuracy and misinformation can be brushed off as a "minor controversy." It seems like you are making the controversy appear smaller than it was, and are basing your justifications completely on your own non-neutral POV on the extent and significance of the controversy. Thank you. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </span>


:I agree that it should be included. If you think that the consensus is on your side then you can attempt to make those edits. 05:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC) ]&nbsp;]
::::Well, when someone makes a distinction between two things that overlap in a conversation, then from there on past it helps to stick with that distinction. Mighta saved some grief above in the section above. I thought it was obvious in context, but, obviously not.


== Accuracy ==
::::Snopes began life as folklore website, not a general interest fact-checking website like, say, the Straight Dope, or a political fact-checker like PolitiFact or FactCheck and so forth. It was a year or two before it had much more than material borrowed from Usenet, some of which, of course, was Dave and Barb’s own work. Like the AFU FAQ, it assessesd the possibility that a rumor or legend was reality based; that wasn’t an innovation, but it was easier to search and easier on the eyes. Over time, readers began asking about stuff they had read,or heard elsewhere, and the site began to focus on that (and began gathering income). It went a while before it started to have much in common at all with, say, PolitiFact.


Hello,
::::When that happened, when it stopped focusing on sewergators and choking Dobermans, and went political is disputed among the sources you brought in. The NYT seems to think it was our current Comanitee-in-Chief’s campaign, others (not in the sources you’ve gathered above) put it to Obama’s campaign, David Mikkelson himself to 9/11. Either way, though, praise for a site’s or person’s accuracy based on one subject doesn’t always translate to another, and the fact that Brunvand gave them a nod a couple decades ago is only relevant to what they covered then. ] (]) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


Please kindly cease arbitrarily deleting parts of this article's accuracy section relating to a Snopes article's inconsistency with their stated standards of fact checking and conclusion. Pointing out a significant logical flaw is neither original reporting nor indicative of a non-neutral point of view, unless we are to take the rather weak position that simple logic is a matter of opinion. If you think there is a problem with the sources or the conclusion, please state your reasoning here, make constructive edits, and thus improve the section. Thank you.
::::Seperately, yes, I think the readers, or at least a good portion of them, do see “fact-checking” almost entirely in terms of political disinformation and misinformation, not mere error. If they didn’t, a google for “fact-checking” would bring up more simple references, and less debunkers. Do you disagree? ] (]) 19:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
:::::I'm not bothering to read your comments because I'm not seeing any sources in them. Unless and until you can provide sources to support your suggested changes, there's nothing to discuss here. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 20:03, 28 August 2018 (UTC) :You were inserting your own ] by drawing conclusions from information presented in your sources and presenting that conclusion directly on the page. I would also add that your conclusions were spurious and illogical. So stop edit warring over this. <span class="texhtml" style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
:::::::With one exception, it is discussing the sources you brought in above. I’ll leave the implications of that as an exercise for the reader. ] (]) 21:41, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
::::::::Would work better if you found some sources to support your content, but I'm happy enough with that move. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 22:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)


== Cannon Hinnant Murder Case ==
::::::::::I’m thinking something along the lines of “Widening use of the Internet not only spread traditional ULs, but rumors and misinformation with political implication. This became a larger part of Snopes work. Different observers tied the growth to events like 9/11 (cite to DM interview) and presidential campaigns (lots of other potential cites there.) Coverage of traditional folklore remained strong, however, and Snopes was listed second only to AFU (described as “dormant”), in Brundvand’s 2012 “Encyclopedia of &cet.”, and the only website mentioned in his 2014 ←”Colossal (?) Book &cet.”


{{Collapse top|Off-topic}}
::::::::::Something like that. It’s a week before I get my paws on something with a real keyboard, so I’m not in a hurry. ] (]) 01:06, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
You say there is no cover up. Why does the police dept and news media refuse to answer questions. No one seems to know anything about the case. ] (]) 12:44, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
:{{od|:::::::::}}You need a source that says "snopes is not one of the oldest fact checking websites", or at a minimum, says "these are the oldest fact checking websites:" and then lists sites without including snopes.com. Find one source that makes a compelling case for that (the argument you've presented here is anything but compelling. Have you realized yet that your argument relies upon at least two mutually exclusive premises yet?) and I will discuss whether that source is a better one than the ones we have already. Find multiple sources saying that, and we can skip the discussion and skip straight to changing the article. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em; class=texhtml">] ]</span> 01:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)


::Yes, given the present direction of the site, it's weird that it nowhere mentions the debunking of 'fake news', which is a focus of with the founder. ] (]) 18:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC) : Article talk pages are not the place to contact the subject of the article. Please review ]. ] (]) 13:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Collapse bottom}}


== Why is This Categorized as a California Establishment? ==
== Edit warring over George Soros discussion ==
since it is run out of Mikkelsen's home in Tacoma?
] (]) 14:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
:The category is "1995 establishments in California", which notes that it is for "Oorganizations, places or other things founded or established in California in the year 1995." As the founders lived in Agoura Hills, California at the time, the category seems appropriate. ] ] 23:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
::Snopes Media Group, Inc. was registered as a company in California in March 2003 and apparently this is still correct.--'''''] <sup>]</sup>''''' 07:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


== Titan ==
In recent hours, there has been edit warring involving two IP addresses making unexplained edits (i.e., no ]) to the part of the article that says "Critics of the site have falsely asserted that it is funded by ] and ] ]". The IP edits have repeatedly removed the word "falsely" and made other changes such as changing "falsely asserted" to "claimed", and adding "David P. Mikkelson has denied the claim" in the next sentence. There has been at least one ] violation by the IP edits, since one of those IPs made 5 rapid reverts (the other IP made 3 rapid reverts). The ] should stop. It would be helpful if someone who supports these changes could explain their concerns. In the absence of a consensus, I suggest that the original wording should be retained. —] (]) 19:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
:I request semi-protection. ] (]) 19:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
:Since both IP addresses start with "2a02:2149:871c:1c00", I suspect they are the same editor. They have not responded to comments on their User Talk pages. —] (]) 19:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
:At this point, the two IPs have made 9 unexplained reverts and not responded to any Talk page comments. However, I suggest that ] back off for now and let someone else decide what happens next, since the ] has really gotten out of hand (and since this seems like more of a content dispute than outright vandalism). —] (]) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
::Yep, I've stopped reverting and requested page protection. A PP admin is not active at the moment. I'm not taking it to any other board. And yes, IPs are in the same dynamic pool in the same country. ] (]) 19:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
::OK, I think we have two days PP. A 3RR warning should be placed on the user's TP, not that it will help. I shouldn't be the one to do so. Or, we can hope they get bored; which often happens. ] (]) 22:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)


The site claimed that it was true that Titan, the submersible that went missing in June 2023 on a Titanic wreckage exploration, used Elon Musk’s Starlink satellites to provide communications during the expedition. ] (]) 00:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
== The text below is from ] - should we write a short bit into the article? ==


:No. In fact it says that claim is false: ] (]) 00:41, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Despite its status as a satirical website, ''The Babylon Bee'' has been fact checked by Snopes dozens of times.<ref>, ''The Daily Wire''</ref><ref name="NYT"/><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.snopes.com/tag/the-babylon-bee/|title=the babylon bee Archives|website=Snopes.com|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-16}}</ref> Some of these facts checks have been controversial. For example, in March of 2018, ''The Babylon Bee'' published an article alleging that ] was using an industrial-sized washing machine to "spin" the news.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://babylonbee.com/news/cnn-purchases-industrial-sized-washing-machine-spin-news-publication|title=CNN Purchases Industrial-Sized Washing Machine To Spin News Before Publication|website=The Babylon Bee|language=en|access-date=2019-08-16}}</ref> Snopes fact-checked the article, rating it "false."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/cnn-washing-machine/|title=FACT CHECK: Did CNN Purchase an Industrial-Sized Washing Machine to Spin News?|website=Snopes.com|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-16}}</ref> ] then cited this fact check in a warning message to ''The Babylon Bee'', which threatened to limit their content distribution and monetization.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/03/05/facebook-working-on-approach-to-classifying-satirical-news-pieces/|title=Facebook working on approach to classifying satirical news pieces|last=|first=|date=|work=Washington Post|access-date=}}</ref> Adam Ford tweeted a screenshot of the warning message to his followers, drawing public attention to the matter.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/969405110324523008|title=Really, Facebook??pic.twitter.com/HEtBc7C0Gz|last=Ford|first=Adam|date=2018-03-01|website=@Adam4d|language=en|access-date=2019-08-16}}</ref> Facebook quickly apologized: "There’s a difference between false news and satire. This was a mistake and should not have been rated false in our system. It’s since been corrected and won’t count against the domain in any way."<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://beta.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2018/03/02/facebook-admits-mistake-in-flagging-satire-about-cnn-spinning-the-news-with-a-washing-machine/|title=Facebook admits mistake in flagging satire about CNN spinning the news with a washing machine|last=|first=|date=|work=Washington Post|access-date=}}</ref>
::They actually did claim that and then edited their claim. ] (]) 00:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't believe that they did. At any rate, to write about it we would need a ] covering what they said and when. ] (]) 00:47, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
::::There is even an editor’s note in the current version of the article confirming that it was edited. ] (]) 01:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)


== Thoughts on adding info on the Biden hardhat retraction? ==
In July of 2019, Snopes rated another article from ''The Babylon Bee'' "false," but this time suggested the article was deliberately deceptive rather than genuinely satirical.<ref name="NYT">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/snopes-babylon-bee.html|title=Satire or Deceit? Christian Humor Site Feuds With Snopes|last=Chokshi|first=Niraj|date=2019-08-03|work=The New York Times|access-date=2019-08-16|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331}}</ref> Adam Ford responded on ], highlighting what he deemed to be problematic wording in the fact check.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://twitter.com/Adam4d/status/1154465670660329472|title=So @snopes fact-checked @TheBabylonBee again. But this time it's particularly egregious and, well, kind of disturbing.|last=Ford|first=Adam|date=2019-07-25|website=@Adam4d|language=en|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=2019-08-16}}</ref> ''The Babylon Bee'' also released a statement, calling the fact check a "smear" that was "both dishonest and disconcerting."<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://mailchi.mp/babylonbee/reparations-for-everyone-83635|title=The Babylon Bee Newsletter {{!}} Important Announcement|last=|first=|date=|website=|archive-url=|archive-date=|dead-url=|access-date=}}</ref> The statement concluded by saying a law firm had been retained to represent ''The Babylon Bee'' because "Snopes appears to be actively engaged in an effort to discredit and deplatform us." After receiving some backlash and a formal demand letter from ''The Babylon Bee's'' attorney, Snopes made revisions to the wording of the fact check and added an explanatory editor's note.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-lawmaker-go-back-claim/|title=Did a Georgia Lawmaker Claim a Chick-fil-A Employee Told Her to Go Back to Her Country?|website=Snopes.com|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-16}}</ref> ] ] 15:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC)


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


:Why? There is no discussion of any other specific Snopes articles here. ] (]) 07:22, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Doug Weller}} - the text is reasonably well phrased, however the Daily Wire isn't a particularly reliable source. it to be somewhere between unreliable and partisan, needing significant caution in usage. I realise it's written a lot on the topic, so is firmly tempting, but do we have alternate sourcing that could be used in place of any of the DW's usage? If there isn't currently anything in the article, then I ''do'' believe there should be something on this added. ] (]) 15:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
::Seems relevant and had enough weight in RS. Not saying it belongs in the lead paragraph. But it does warrant inclusion. ] (]) 17:38, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
:::There's the New York Times. - I'm trying to work through almost 24 hours of a huge watchlist right now. ] ] 15:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
::::I've taken out the more partisan article (and its material is covered elsewhere) and reused the NYT source. That mitigates the bigger of the concerns. Luck with the watchlist! ] (]) 15:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC) :::Again, there is no reason to comment this and only this article out of the thousands in Snopes. A single mention in Fox Nexs (which, according to ], is not to be considered a reliable source for news with political content) is not a reason. ] (]) 09:45, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Trivia. And the first sentence in the linked article is one reason why we don't use Fox as a source for politics. ] (]) 10:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Snopes tends to have blurbs about satire if they gain enough traction (or using another term, too many people eating the onion). I'm not sure it needs to be a specific mention about BB, but maybe about satire in general? ] <small><sup>(] - ])</sup></small> 15:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
::::::Perhaps a couple of paragraphs on satire and a few lines on BB - it has enough sourcing that I think it would be DUE to include at least some content on it ] (]) 17:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2019 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Snopes|answered=yes}}
"In 2012, FactCheck.org reviewed a sample of Snopes' responses to political rumors regarding George W. Bush, Sarah Palin, and Barack Obama, and found them to be free from bias in all cases." --This should be removed. Factcheck.org is biased and unreliable. The article is written by a guy who spends all his time trying to discredit republican politicians. Not to mention, "...free from bias in all cases" Is this what you consider credible?
Delete the line. It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia. ] (]) 11:24, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

:{{Partly done}}. I fixed the date given; it should have been 2009. As for the rest, umm, no. &ndash;]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;&bull;&nbsp;]) 13:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

:{{Not done}} Just because you hate that the site calls you and people you like out on your conspiracy theories, does not make the website illegitimate. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. ] (]) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

:"Factcheck.org is biased and unreliable." -- No, it isn't. "The article is written by a guy who spends all his time trying to discredit republican politicians." -- False. Aside from it not being all his time, this is an assertion of motive that cannot be substantiated. It's not the fact-checker's fault if Republican politicians tell a vast number of lies. If reporting their lies discredits them, then that's hardly an inappropriate outcome. "Is this what you consider credible?" -- Yes. "It shouldn't be in an encyclopedia." -- Of course it should; it's an objective statement about what FactCheck.org said about Snopes. -- ] (]) 22:59, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
:: Factcheck.org is not a reliable source, this shouldn't even be controversial to say now. They have clearly been dishonest and misleading in enough of their reporting to be discounted as credible.] (]) 16:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
:::Factcheck.org is a highly respected, award winning site. It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania. ] (]) 16:14, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
::: It's not controversial, because it is blatantly wrong. ] (]) 22:16, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

==Trolls and bad editing==
In January, 2019, some troll (no home or talk page) changed the lede from "is one of the first online fact-checking websites" to "claims to be one of the first online fact-checking websites", and marked this significant change as a "minor change" -- this was obvious vandalism, but did not get caught at the time. 11 months later, I spotted this baseless change and reverted it back to the former consensus-based text. But there's always got to be someone who can't leave well enough alone and can't be bothered to look at or understand the historical context, and such a person reverted my correction for no good reason and with no discussion here, then managed to realize that "claims to be" is nonsense and reverted himself, but couldn't leave well enough alone and ended up changing it to "is a fact-checking website"--a degradation of information for no good reason. (See the comment near the top of this page giving 5 different links identifying Snopes as one of the oldest online fact-checking sites.) I don't spend my life editing WP and I refuse to get into edit wars with this sort of incompetence, so I'm simply bringing this to the attention of others so it is understood how the article got to be the way it is. I won't comment further. -- ] (]) 18:56, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
:Perhaps this person was editing in good faith. ]. ] (]) 06:25, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
:I saw this change and let it go because although it probably is the oldest I could find no source that verifies this. ] (]) 11:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
::Quoting from higher up on this very Talk page: "The following sources all categorize snopes as one of the oldest fact-checking sites: , , , , ." --] (]) 02:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

== Funding addition ==

What the records do reveal, as any nasty marital dissolution will, are struggles over money and control. For at least some months in 2016, the records show, Snopes was pulling in more than $200,000 a month in advertising sales.

https://www.wired.com/story/snopes-and-the-search-for-facts-in-a-post-fact-world/


Am digging around for stuff not listed on the wiki site, whether there is veracity to the fraud allegations namely.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-tacoma-based-snopes-debunker-fake-news.html
09:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Lede section issues ==

The lede fails to mention the controversies about Snopes, some of which apply to the whole concept of fact-checking entities in general. I tried to include a sentence regarding Snopes' controversy with labeling satire articles as "false", but some editors are reverting it. I request a discussion so that we may come to a consensus on including significant content in the lede. --]&nbsp;✌️ 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:Snopes labels satire as satire, and even has why they do it.
:Furthermore, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body. The body contains no claims about their coverage of satire being controversial, because no-one has ever presented a ] claiming that Snopes' coverage of satire is controversial.
:As if that weren't enough, labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.118em 0.118em 0.118em;">] ]</span> 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
:That's classic ], putting the ''Babylon Bee'' stuff into the lede. It's in the article, but not everything in the article belongs in a well-crafted lede. --] &#124; ] 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 13:34, 25 October 2024

Skip to table of contents
The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Snopes article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconSkepticism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWebsites: Computing
WikiProject iconThis article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Lede section issues

The lede fails to mention the controversies about Snopes, some of which apply to the whole concept of fact-checking entities in general. I tried to include a sentence regarding Snopes' controversy with labeling satire articles as "false", but some editors are reverting it. I request a discussion so that we may come to a consensus on including significant content in the lede. --The owner of all ✌️ 16:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Snopes labels satire as satire, and even has a page devoted to explaining why they do it.
Furthermore, the purpose of the lede is to summarize the body. The body contains no claims about their coverage of satire being controversial, because no-one has ever presented a reliable source claiming that Snopes' coverage of satire is controversial.
As if that weren't enough, labelling satire as false is only controversial among those who rely on spreading fake news with tiny little "satire" disclaimers for political gain. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
The article itself explains that Snopes labeled some content from Babylon Bee as false. Not "satire". The owner of all ✌️ 17:39, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
You need to read the whole section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I did. If those events described in that section are true, then those events are significant enough that they should be mentioned in the lede. The owner of all ✌️ 20:19, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the amount of coverage it's getting in the article needs to be seriously trimmed down. The events it mentions were barely blips on the radar, and the fact that this subsection is in the "accuracy" section is a pretty blatant NPOV violation, as it says absolutely nothing about Snope's accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Note: I've corrected this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
I disagree, but I will end my part in the discussion here before I get banned. The owner of all ✌️ 21:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
If you really don't want to get banned, you should perhaps look back more than a single edit before accusing someone of lying in their edit summary. Also, there's no chance that the Babylon Bee thing deserves to be the single largest section in the entire article, longer even that the section about the still ongoing legal fight for the ownership of the company. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Edit warring over this won't help, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:04, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
P.P.S. That's not a "consensus version". It was added a month ago, and I guarantee keeping it won't garner a consensus, here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
That's classic undue emphasis, putting the Babylon Bee stuff into the lede. It's in the article, but not everything in the article belongs in a well-crafted lede. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Clarification

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

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

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

The owner of all ✌️ 01:48, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

Note that after I posted my comment above, the very next edit was the bot archiving some old sections. One of those sections is the Babylon Bee section that I was referencing. So that section is now in the archive instead of directly on this page. The owner of all ✌️ 06:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, the current level of mention of the Babylon Bee stuff is perfectly appropriate. It's not significant enough in the bigger picture of the history (and it is about the history of the website, rather than any real critical evaluation of its accuracy) of Snopes to merit mention in the lede, nor was it significant enough in the history of the Snopes website to merit more detailed, lengthier mentions than what it has. Grandpallama (talk) 16:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

Accuracy

Hello,

Please kindly cease arbitrarily deleting parts of this article's accuracy section relating to a Snopes article's inconsistency with their stated standards of fact checking and conclusion. Pointing out a significant logical flaw is neither original reporting nor indicative of a non-neutral point of view, unless we are to take the rather weak position that simple logic is a matter of opinion. If you think there is a problem with the sources or the conclusion, please state your reasoning here, make constructive edits, and thus improve the section. Thank you.

You were inserting your own original research by drawing conclusions from information presented in your sources and presenting that conclusion directly on the page. I would also add that your conclusions were spurious and illogical. So stop edit warring over this. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Cannon Hinnant Murder Case

Off-topic

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

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

Why is This Categorized as a California Establishment?

since it is run out of Mikkelsen's home in Tacoma? tharsaile (talk) 14:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

The category is "1995 establishments in California", which notes that it is for "Oorganizations, places or other things founded or established in California in the year 1995." As the founders lived in Agoura Hills, California at the time, the category seems appropriate. Kuru (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Snopes Media Group, Inc. was registered as a company in California in March 2003 and apparently this is still correct.--♦IanMacM♦ 07:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Titan

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

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

Thoughts on adding info on the Biden hardhat retraction?

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

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