Talk:Snopes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is being improved by WikiProject Rational Skepticism. Wikiproject Rational Skepticism seeks to improve the quality of articles dealing with science, pseudosciences, pseudohistory and skepticism. Please feel free to help us improve this page. See Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents 1 a little bit of irony 2 Starting Date 2.1 1997 2.2 `96 at least 2.3 © 1995-2003 3 Bias? 4 Barbara Mikkelson - Citizenship and Past Work 5 Why is this page not at snopes, or snopes.com? 6 Clarified a few topics, I think 7 It's almost like they never get anything wrong! 8 Animosity between Mikkelsons and AFU? 9 Message Boards 10 Requested move 10.1 Survey 10.1.1 Survey - Support votes 10.1.2 Survey - Oppose votes 10.2 Discussion 11 Eye of the what? 12 Drinking Bottled Water Kept in Your Car 13 Popups/Spyware/Adware Reference 14 Citation 15 Why no Criticisms? 16 Faulkner 17 Pop Ups? 17.1 spyware/popups 17.1.1 Attempt to clarify

[edit] 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.

[edit] Starting Date

What year did Snopes.com go online? I seem to remember first coming across it around five or six years ago. If I recall correctly, it had a black background back then and lots of MIDIs on the varius pages.

EDITED TO ADD: I snooped around snopes (heh) but I can't find any references to when it was started up. Can't find the info anywhere else, either.

I tried to use the Wayback Machine at archive.org to see how far back they had cached, but I haven't been able to get results to return from it today - it appears to be down?

[edit] 1997

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

[edit] `96 at least

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

[edit] © 1995-2003

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

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

[edit] 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: [1] 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)

[edit] Barbara Mikkelson - Citizenship and Past Work

Isn't Barbara Mikkelson Canadian? Also, I seem to remember her having a site called 'Tales of the Wooden Spoon' that formed the basis for Snopes. I guess I should go do some research instead of speculating idly! :-) --Perodicticus 15:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Barbara was originally from Canada, although I imagine by now she has full U.S. citizenship, considering how long they've been married. --Birdhombre 19:23, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

This is kind of a nonsequitor, but if an American and Canadian marry, they can both conceivably gain dual citizenship to both countries. And even if you are married to an American citizen, you do not have to become one. Your status can be that of a "permanent resident" of this country, and you may live out your life here as such, if you wish. So if there's speculation about her citizenship, it might be best answered by asking Mikkelson herself, rather than erroneously assuming her marriage alone made her an American citizen. The question is whether it's really pertinent to the article. 67.10.131.229 20:01, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I get to debunk a myth. She cannot have dual citizenship because the US doesn't recognise dual citizenship of any kind. She may hold citizenship of both countries, but that's not the same thing at all.

Also, 'permanent residency' is nothing of the kind.--Stu-Rat 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that the United States does not recognize dual citizenship is incorrect. It is referred to as "Dual Nationality".[2] While the status is not statutorily defined, it is officially and formally recognized by the State Department and is not uncommon in practice. -- Satori Son 15:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Really? From your own citation: "U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another." "The U.S. Government recognizes that dual nationality exists but does not encourage it as a matter of policy because of the problems it may cause." Indeed, it does seem that the article backs up my original statement. The US does not recognise dual citizenship. It does recognize that dual nationality exists and occurs. That's a different concept altogether.

I currently have dual nationalities with the US being one of my nationalities. However, if I travel on my other passport, I expect (and will receive) no help from US officials abroad. The opposite is true if I travel on my US passport. That's the difference. And that difference exists because the US does not recognise dual citizenship.--Stu-Rat 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Your original statement was "the US doesn't recognise dual citizenship of any kind" (emphasis mine). That is patently false. -- Satori Son 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

That is patently true. Re-read my posts and then re-read yours and you'll see your error, I hope.--Stu-Rat 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. You obviously are firmly set in your opinion and have some personal experience in the matter. But after three years of law school and nine years of private practice in the US, I don't think going back and re-reading your posts are going to change my opinion, either. Let's just call it "differing legal opinions on the issue". ;)  Satori Son 19:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although all you had to do was realize we each were using a different word.--Stu-Rat 20:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) No, that's not it. I disagree with your interpretation, analysis, characterizations, conclusions, and summation. Everything. But, I respect that you have a different opinion, and I simply ask the same of you. Thanks,  Satori Son 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Why is this page not at snopes, or snopes.com?

Because the page is 'Urban Legends Reference Pages' and simply uses the snopes.com domain. Donovan Ravenhull 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure? If it is just a domain adress than why does the logo say in big leters SNOPES, with no reference at all given to "Urban Legend Refeerence Page? Deathawk 01:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Go down to the bottom of the site and you'll see the the official name. Plus, there are redirects from both Snopes and Snopes.com, so it's not like anyone is going to have trouble finding this article if that's all they have. -- Satori Son 06:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It's also at the top of the page, beneath the logo/navigation bar and banner ad. At the bottom, the copyright is listed as being held by the "Urban Legends Reference Pages." --Birdhombre 15:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things". I've never heard anyone refer to this site as anything other than "Snopes", and assumed I'd been redirected to a generic list of UL sites, from the title. --McGeddon 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Their page is called Urban Legends Reference Pages. Look at the bottom of their homepage, right above the copyright © 1995-2006. ~ UBeR 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I did read this section before adding to it. I don't think it's "the most common name" for the site, though (Googling for phrases such as "Urban Legends Reference Pages say" vs "Snopes says", Snopes wins by a factor of a thousand), and if others agree then we should follow WP:COMMONNAME guidelines and rename this article to "Snopes" or "Snopes.com". --McGeddon 13:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, by Wikipedia policy, the page should probably be moved to Snopes, with a redirect at Urban Legends Reference Pages, just as Bill Clinton is an article, while his proper name, William Jefferson Clinton, is a redirect. --Birdhombre 15:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarified a few topics, I think

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

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

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

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

[edit] It's almost like they never get anything wrong!

The entry is a bit fawning. Shouldn't some of their mistakes or disputed conclusions be added to the entry?

I think that would be a good idea, so long as we have some references to back it up. There have probably been articles/editorials written about snopes' accuracy/inaccuracy, if we look. --Birdhombre 14:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be mean-spirited, but:

http://katrinacoverage.com/2005/11/14/nopd-phantom-cops-real-or-fiction.html

http://xrlq.com/2005/12/05/snope-a-dope-part-mclxi/

http://agonist.org/annex/snopes2 <--removed from google cache http://www.snopes.com/rumors/flights.asp

Critics have accused the Mikkelsons of political bias, however, they have various articles that are both critical and supportive of various political beliefs.

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

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

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

Well, I don't think that the web has such a great relevance to popular print media, and of the significance that it does have, Snopes' political bias isn't exactly top of the compelling subjects. If you're looking for critics I think you're forced to look at online media, because in the greater scheme of things Snopes is esoteric within the esoteric and your chances of finding mainstream media meeting the "accessible to other editors" criterion is hopelessly slim. You can't, however, say that Snopes goes uncriticised simply because the only people that can be bothered doing it are bloggers.

I criticise Snopes all the time, in fact. Not on a blog but in real life, whenever the subject comes up. Not just for political bias, but for failing to uphold their own ideals and allowing their articles to decay into conjecture and inappropriate, unverified statement of fact. If somebody can be bothered mentioning criticism in Wikipedia, or entering into an NPOV debate, it's hard to argue that the critics don't exist, because it's likely that the participants themselves are some of those critics. --ToobMug 02:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] Animosity between Mikkelsons and AFU?

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

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

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

[edit] Message Boards

Should there be a section about the message boards at the ULRP, as the message boards have a vibrant community of ULRP readers, and Urban Legends are discussed on the message boards (in addition to other topics)? BDWill Talk Contribs 05:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think there should be a section on the forums. They are, afterall, a part of the ULRP site. I'd add the section myself, but I don't know much about the forums. --¿ WhyBeNormal ? 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a section about the forums. I'm sure other snopester Wikipedians could help add to it. By the way, I'm Bill D. on the boards.--BDWill Talk Contribs 05:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't know there was a forum on there. I used to be on their mailing list, but unsubbed when I realised I was getting a lot of mail and not reading it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thes epage appears to be editted by snopes themselves. As such I think it would be honest of them to make this clear at some point as encyclopedias do not tend to be autobiographical.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizlop (talk • contribs)

Do you have any proof of that because this appears to be a really unfounded allagation. It is also hard to take people seriously when they don't sign their posts. --Edgelord 03:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it should be mentioned how tightly regulated these message boards on this site are, to the point of being almost ridiculous. For example in this thread [3], a member was banned because of her discrepancy between her two ages in her profile. There are, I'm sure, many other examples, but their tough to find because you can't just search the site. I was a member for a while, and saw it happen several times, until I was eventually banned because I changed my name in my profile. Rad24 23:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

On the website, an administrator said it flat out. Granted, that's only one example, but if more were found, wouldn't that be considered a reliable source? Rad24 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC) It is also explicitly mentioned in the board rules[4] on the site. The thread linked above, and others like it, are evidence that this is carried out to the letter. Rad24 00:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

This article should be about the Snopes Web site and what they do—not individual happenings on a message board. ~ UBeR 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Eye of the what?

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

I don't see how anyone is beholding anything in this instance.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.38.233 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Drinking Bottled Water Kept in Your Car

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

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

Oh, and here is an article on there about this. Took me about 30 sec to find it--Donovan Ravenhull 20:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Solar water disinfection. Regards, High on a tree 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popups/Spyware/Adware Reference

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

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

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

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

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

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

OK... so is Wikipedia a "publication?" Under the standard definition you've referenced, Wikipedia isn't a publication either. And therefore not a "reliable source" under your definition. Which of course begs the question: what the heck are we doing here? The internet is changing these antiquated definitions and arbitrary notions of "reliable" that you're putting forth. You should be more aware of this than anyone. And the site of a well-respected security company publishing reviewed and fact-checked assessments of websites is well-nigh identical to what "real" magazines such as Consumer Reports do. And yet Consumer Reports would qualify as a reliable source under your definition. Wake up, it's almost 2008.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.240.106.59 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 17 November 2007

Yes, Wikipedia is a publication. WP:RS covers web pages. If "McAfee SiteAdvisor" is a web site rather than a standalone computer program, then that's a publication as well. All I'm seeing on their output for Snopes is that "Feedback from credible users suggests that this site may cause intrusive or excessive pop-ups", though, which may not be good enough for WP:RS ("Reliable publications are those with an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight"). --McGeddon (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Citation

In response to the following:

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

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

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

fulfill the citation requirement or is it original research?

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

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

[edit] Why no Criticisms?

I ran some google searches on this site, and I ran across all kinds of criticism about snopes that people were putting up that included political biases, racism, fabricating stories themselves and sending them out in their newsletters to debunk, controversial articles (such as "Vitamin See" and their piece about the Bin Laden flight) and several occassions where they were accused of "yellow journalism"- here's even articles questioning their cred, such as "When the Debunkers print Bunk" and "Online Rumor Mill Spinning it's own Myths?" that have appeared in newspapers and are archived on websites about them that claim they've been in trouble for this behavior a lot, including that representatives of CNN and the Clinton Administration tried to each them repeatedly about some claims of the claims they made, including mischaracterizations in the cites they used.

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

If snopes can't show enough integrity to allow noteworthy incidents of trouble they recieved for bad or controversial articles to be posted, and call a source reliable or unreliable for how it makes them look, then how am I to trust their site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plusher (talk • contribs) 09:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Provide proof of these claims, and cite them in the article; I have it watchlisted, so I will notice any whitewashing campaigns going on with critical links and revert them. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

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

Secondary sources, please - primary sources are frowned upon on Wikipedia in general. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 20:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wellspring 02:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

I doublechecked the other source, btw, for the other critique (that Snopes should not have had the joke articles promulgating urban legends). While the webpage ([5]) has a blog-like feel, the info page seems to indicate fact checking and editorial oversight. The particular article does appear to be an editorial, but again to document an opinion's existence that should suffice.

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

Wellspring 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Faulkner

I think it's fair to characterize the Snopes family in Faulkner as "unpleasant", as that was almost certainly part of the joke behind Mikkelson's choice of the name. The Snopes FAQ refers to the description of the family as "pernicious". I doubt that the name was chosen to identify with Sarty Snopes as opposed to Flem or I.O. In general, "Snopes" as a reference is to the less admirable qualities of Snopes family members, e.g., the Washington Times' columnist Wesley Pruden frequently sneering at Bill Clinton as "Flem Snopes' grandson".[6] [7] [8] The Albino Alligator (talk) 13:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Pop Ups?

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

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

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

[edit] spyware/popups

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Attempt to clarify

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

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

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

Surely there's a better way to address this issue. Some other admins have problems with the originator being a source, so if Snopes says something, you'll delete it. If I cite what the rumor mills are afraid of, screenshots or not you'll delete it. I did my own checking on the matter, and that's how I found the Casale Media usage, but that's "original research:" deleted. Are we waiting on a full expose from PC World or New York Times to address this kind of stuff? Cwolfsheep (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A forum is not a reliable source for anything. A slashdot post is not a reliable source. Both of these could be created by anyone. If it's a notable issue, eventually it will pop up somewhere (it doesn't have to be the NYT or PC World or whatever - Wired News, The Register, Technorati, anything like that would do) - not Digg or anything else that would just feature a user-submitted blog or forum posting, though. An actual formal news release from Snopes itself would also do. Neıl ☎ 16:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

New article that came out yesterday. http://www.techspot.com/news/28789-snopes-peddling-malware.html Techspot sounds reliable though I am not familiar with guidelines. Lyctc (talk) 03:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TechSpot would be fine. Neıl ☎ 09:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, TechSpot is fine. But I'm still concerned about this factoid's importance in terms of receiving due weight in this article. Be careful to only repeat what's been said in reliable sources. This goes for the rest of the article too.--Cúchullain ^t/c 06:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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