Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Time to start recognizing Breitbart as a legitimate source. You don't seem to realize that Donald Trump won the election. The New York Times, on the other hand, may not exist in another five years.

Did you know that Breitbart is now literally in the White House? Ever heard of Steve Bannon? This is not a fringe thing. This is how the American people voted! It is very easy to find critical Breitbart articles about Snopes: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/12/22/fact-check-snopes-fact-checker-arturo-garcia-is-an-anti-trump-blm-supporting-progressive/.2601:280:5800:F990:456A:9F3D:3FAA:13D (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

The results of the US election don't affect our sourcing policies. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

We can tell that Breitbart is legitimate because the article on Garcia is such a well-balanced piece of journalism (sarcasm intended).--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh and honestly IP friend, if you honestly think Brietbart is an RS, take it to the RSN noticeboard, that should be fun. WP:RSN. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, you still haven't taken us all to ANI yet. When's that going to happen? Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting how Snopes has become dragged into political controversies during 2016. Breitbart does not like Snopes and the feeling is mutual, as this Snopes article shows. --♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:14, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has reported an item critical of Trump to be a digital fake. I'm sure Breitbart will express its appreciation.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Afraid not. Snopes has corrected themselves (the image is real). As we all know, the mere idea of correcting oneself after a mistake makes Breitbart executives grind their teeth and pull out their hair in impotent rage (or so I've heard). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

One bit of bias in Snopes down, many more to go. I remember the first edition of Mikkelson's "A Tale of Two Houses", which, instead of linking to an off-page apology for Al Gore's twenty-room mansion which consumes sixteen times as much power as the average home, and even more, compared to George W. Bush's, he had that rationale out front and center, while discounting the massive subterranean cistern for waste water under the Bush house and its energy-efficient heating and cooling system as something Bush did "for practical reasons." Way to reward good (and costly) environmental stewardship. We can look forward to many, many more exercises in partisanship now that Facebook has chosen Snopes as part of its "panel" to label viral memes as 'fake news'.

Breitbart's not a reliable source of information. Its partisan agenda's out front where everyone can see it. Snopes.com, while more subtle in its partisanship, isn't much more reliable as a source of information. Some of its articles ought to be considered in evaluating snopes.com as a WP:RS. loupgarous (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so the article that bluntly confirms the narrative to be true and goes on to explain why it's true is biased against Bush? Give me a break and get off the podium. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I think the brief debunking of the Soros claim should be slightly expanded, if you have to read the cite to understand why the sentence is there in the first place. Anmccaff (talk) 16:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, it is too brief. It was added because people in the blogs have said ad nauseam that Snopes is funded by George Soros. However, this needs some context to explain why it is notable.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• Maybe, but that's the only reliable source that mentions Soros. The blogsphere is full of allegations that he does own the site, but blogs (generally) can't be cited.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 17:08, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Two points. One, blogs can always be cited for their own opinions, carefully noted as such, if the blog or blogger is sufficiently influential. Next, the NYT cite -does- address the fact that some people believe this allegation, with obvious consequences; the article treats it as an isolated, trivioid fact. Anmccaff (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I stand corrected on that one. You don't need my permission to cite some blogs, thereby improving the paragraph.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 21:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Nahh, I don't think we even need particular Blog cites, and picking one or two would probably bring in various colander-headed loons. The NYT piece says All of Snopes’s revenue — Mr. Mikkelson says he doesn’t know what it is — come from ads. Facebook is not paying for its services. Nor is the billionaire George Soros funding the site, although that is sometimes asserted in anti-Snopes stories., I think adding that, as a quote -it's short enough- would be enough. Anmccaff (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Go for it!--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 01:04, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that the statement, while from Snopeshisownself, is actually sourced from the NYT. "We" aren't relying on Mr. Mikkelson's own self-assesment; the NYT may or may not be.

I think keeping something like the current article is the best approach. Simply stating the Times judgement as simple fact, without suggesting its possibly naive source would be bad; removing the NYT, a generally strong source would be bad: and sourcing Mikkelson directly without mentioning that the NYT piece seemed to validate him would be bad. This is about as POV-free as this can get, given Wiki's mooncalf rules about what it sees as "OR". Anmccaff (talk) 15:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a little late to discuss this, as you removed the tag before a few minutes had elapsed instead of waiting for me to post the reason why I'd placed the tag and invite discussion on the matter.

However, I was not primarily objecting to anything published in the New York Times (although I did at the time place an inline tag after the text sourced by the NYT), but the comments immediately below the tag, mostly sourced from Viveca Novak's article "Snopes.com" published in Factcheck.org. My comments are in the section I was working on while you removed the first tag I placed. My understanding is that tags aren't to be removed until after a discussion. loupgarous (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Why anyone would let Kim LaCapria tell them what's true or false is beyond me.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suggested_sources#Specific_subject_areas; the Daily Mail doesn't make the cut. Please notes that the article to which you linked isn't really about LaCapria.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 03:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per past WP:RSN discussions (including but certainly not limited to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_210#Daily_Mail, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_163#Reliability_of_the_Daily_Mail, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_106#Time_to_axe_the_Daily_Mail, and Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_201#The_Daily_Mail:_When_are_we_finally_going_to_decide_that_enough_is_enough.3F) the Daily Mail is not reliable for WP:BLP claims (which that particular news article clearly causes issues with) and needs to be backed up by other sources. It's a sensationalist tabloid that I'm sure has inspired a few Snopes articles in the past (making this look more like a revenge piece than investigative journalism). Ian.thomson (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Forbes expose from today: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kalevleetaru/2016/12/22/the-daily-mail-snopes-story-and-fact-checking-the-fact-checkers/#2c81c4c91e022601:280:5800:F990:6070:7099:B19E:9F31 (talk) 04:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

An expose has a conclusion. The author of that says that he can't reach a conclusion. Try actually reading a source and giving an honest assessment of it next time. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Here is what the author Kalev Leetaru says about Snopes in his Forbes piece says: "The truth is that we simply have no visibility into the organization’s inner workings and its founder declined to shed further light into its operations for this article."That sounds like definite criticism to me. 2601:280:5800:F990:6070:7099:B19E:9F31 (talk) 04:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

From the article: "Putting this all together, we simply don’t know if the Daily Mail story is completely false, completely true or somewhere in the middle." It does not affirm the Daily Mail's claims, which means that it cannot be used to support the Daily Mail's claims about the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is very high on the list of sources that should not be used to back up controversial claims. It isn't news that David and Barbara Mikkelson have divorced, and it looks like it may turn messy, as divorces often do. But this needs coverage in more reliable sources than the Mail, per WP:BLPSOURCES.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Forbers 'contributors' are not doing anything in Forbes's voice. They are, in essence, bloggers. Note the little quote under the blogger's name 'Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.' Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Same this is true of any Op-Ed. Would you ban all Op-Eds as references? Would you ban a New York Times Op-Ed? In this case, we also have a piece written by someone with a Wikipedia page. 2601:280:5800:F990:F5BE:8596:C58C:C21F (talk) 07:20, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

A piece that doesn't come to any conclusions regarding the Daily Mail story. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Basically the other sources are quoting the Daily Mail at the moment, and this is churnalism.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The mainstream media is now known by many as the lamestream media. Snopes is definitely considered to be part of the lamestream media. You need to stop the cabal here on this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:201:F6F0:2CDB:3037:8B0:C91A (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I recommend you report your concerns at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 02:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the cabal should be reported to ANI post haste! Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:41, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Since when does an echo chamber of fake news websites constitute a reliable "many?" Ian.thomson (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Snopes has acquired an large set of enemies during the 2016 US presidential campaign, as the New York Times article points out. They are mostly members of the alt-right who think that Snopes is part of a liberal conspiracy funded by George Soros. The article here should mention that this is what has happened, but not fall into the trap of WP:REDFLAG.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking, on and off, for a reliable source that mentions the criticism of Snopes and the Soros myth; so far, no joy.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 16:03, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It's in the NYT article that was published a couple of days ago.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I missed that part. I used the article to update the ownership (ref name is NYT). Thanks.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:22, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Added. If my text can be improved, feel free.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 19:07, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I broke "Accuracy" into "Accolades" and "Criticism" sections. That way, the reader knows that there are two sides to the question of snopes.com's accuracy. Then, under criticism, I cited the relevant part of the Daily Mail article, that the current wife of David Mikkelson, who had run for a Congressional seat on a "Dump Bush" platform, was a fact-checker and administrator on the website. Then, I cited the Forbes article, which actually has Mikkelson defending his choice to retain a politically-active fact-checker, and the commentator reporting the consensus of his colleagues that they expected anopes.com would avoid such an apparent conflict of interest.

The reason I did this is because the article as it stood before was entirely laudatory of snopes.com. It read like ad copy for the website. I also deleted the reference to "Critics falsely allege that Soros...." because that was really a minor point in the NYT article given far more weight than it deserved. As it stands, the article's "Accuracy" section addresses the outstanding allegations pertinent to snopes.com's accuracy as well as the accolades by various other fact-checking and journalism sites whose objectivity might also not be total. As far as the Daily Mail's article on Snopes.com and Mikkelson is concerned, the statements in the article are plausible and not extraordinary. While the contributor to Forbes wouldn't commit to the accuracy of the allegations of Mikkelson's business practices, his article was squarely relevant to what our article is most concerned with - potential sources of bias in snopes.com. His interview with Mikkelson yielded a tacit admission he had a politically active fact-checker on staff, and that's both surprising and highly relevant to the article. loupgarous (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

In response to the revert alleging that my changes addressed David Mikkelson's personal life, I rolled the revert back and deleted any reference to his being married to the politically-partisan administrator and fact-checker on his site. I also deleted any reference to any of the Daily Mail's other charges in relating the conversation between the Forbes contributor and Mikkelson, This change is narrowly focused on Mikkelson's use of a political partisan whose Congressional campaign is reported to have focused on "Dump Bush" as a central theme as a fact-checker and website administrator. It goes directly to charges of political bias in snopes.com's fact checking. loupgarous (talk) 16:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

And to show such bias exists, I refer to the snopes.com page " "Glass Houses - George W. Bush's eco-friendly ranch compared to Al Gore's energy-expending mansion", which ends with the text "(NOTE: The floor plans shown at the web site westernwhitehouse.org are not accurate reproductions of the size and layout Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch house. They are elements of a parody.)" That last sentence contains a gratuitous hypertext link to "The Western White House" which is extremely and entirely disparaging of former president George W. Bush while not addressing the facts discussed in the fact-check at all - it's a jab at the former president and his supporters in what alleges to be an impartial fact-check. The fact is, snopes.com spends a fair amount of time on such sly digs in its "fact checks" lately while explaining away what it calls 'fake news' about things such as photos of the huge pile of discarded protest signs the women's march littered the Trump hotel in Washington DC with.

These are only two examples of how snopes.com doesn't stop at checking facts, it assumes a political advocacy role outside the scope of the facts it checks. Even when acknowledging the "true" status of "A Tale of Two Houses," Mikkelson couldn't resist getting a political jab in at George W. Bush unrelated to the facts in question. Mikkelson likes to grind a politically partisan axe in snopes.com. His site's actually worse than the Daily Mail. which at least wears its bias out where people can see it. Snopes.com piously pretends to be objective while using mealy-mouthed circumlocutions to slip its partisan bias past readers. And before someone accuses me of alt-rightness, I'm a registered Libertarian and have been since 1991. I just don't care for political bias masquerading as objectivity. loupgarous (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The piece about Bush and Gore's respective houses is accurate, rightly favorable to Bush from most environmental perspectives, and briefly mentions a widely-circulated parody to debunk it. Hardly an example of tendentious writing. Anmccaff (talk) 18:06, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Really? When's the last time FactCheck.org ended a fact check with a link to a gratuitous (it had nothing to do with the relative energy efficiencies of the Bush and Gore homes), vitriolic attack on one of the people involved? You also seem to have missed the link in that article to the secondary page in which Mikkelson explains away the Gores' domestic energy use (assuming good faith on your part, there).

Breitbart's content is "widely circulated," too. Can we start regarding their work as part of neutral fact-checking? Several editors here would thank you for opening the floodgates to partisanship in fact-checking. I prefer my facts checked, not politically embroidered. loupgarous (talk) 18:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no consensus for these changes. Please gain consensus before making such large changes. Thank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the Forbes article should be mentioned. I agree that the Daily Mail article isn't a good source by itself. However, it is clear from reading the Forbes article that Snopes lacks openness and transparency required for a fact checker, in addition to the lack of professional screening process of potential hires. Again, I don't care about the accusations made by the Daily Mail, which may or may not be true. What should be focused, however, is the concerns raised in the Forbes article:

In short, when someone attempted to fact check the fact checker, the response was the equivalent of “it's secret.” It is impossible to understate how antithetical this is to the fact checking world, in which absolute openness and transparency are necessary prerequisites for trust. How can fact checking organizations like Snopes expect the public to place trust in them if when they themselves are called into question, their response is that they can’t respond.
... In fact, this is one of the reasons that fact checking organizations must be transparent and open. If an organization like Snopes feels it is ok to hire partisan employees who have run for public office on behalf of a particular political party and employ them as fact checkers where they have a high likelihood of being asked to weigh in on material aligned with or contrary to their views, how can they reasonably be expected to act as neutral arbitrators of the truth?

I think these are legitimate concerns that the readers may want to be informed. SCIense (talk) 03:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

To repeat Dbrodbeck's prior explanation regarding that above: "Forbers 'contributors' are not doing anything in Forbes's voice. They are, in essence, bloggers. Note the little quote under the blogger's name 'Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.'" The "Forbes" source has been addressed already. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that the writer of the Forbes article heard "I can't talk about my divorce" and took that to mean "I can't/won't talk about anything". Also, why is a piece that's presented as investigative journalism being marked as an opinion piece? Not just that, but an opinion piece that Forbes won't even endorse, as others have pointed out. I don't think this is a reliable source for anything but the opinions of the author, which would include his conclusions about the reliability of Snopes. What were his conclusions, again? Oh yeah, he couldn't come to a conclusion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Nevertheless, Kalev Leetaru is not some nobody internet blogger. He is a Senior Fellow of nonpartisan think tank of George Washington University, and thus his opinion carries some weight. And what is known is that Snopes hires people who ran for political office, and its lack of screening process. FYI, although he didn't come to a conclusion regarding the Dail Mail accusations, he did come to a conclusion by saying the following:

At the end of the day, it is clear that before we rush to place fact checking organizations like Snopes in charge of arbitrating what is “truth” on Facebook, we need to have a lot more understanding of how they function internally and much greater transparency into their work.

Can you think of some kind of compromise where his concerns are mentioned as an informative remark at least? SCIense (talk) 05:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

What remarks? He wrote a page or two of insinuations, but never came out and said much of anything. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Here is another media that also agrees with Kalev Leetaru that the lack of transparency by Snopes is a concern.[1]

Right-wing conspiracy theory website Infowars said: "Snopes is a bias [sic], far-left outfit. It is not a responsible 'fact-checker'." The first statement is false. I checked it. The second, I'm afraid, is kind of true. ... When Facebook sides with Snopes and its lack of transparency, it runs the risk of being accused of peddling fake news by the very sites that generated the problem in the first place.

(emphasis added) P.S. BTW, here is an article about being a Forbes contributor.[2][3] Not only is it hard to become a contributor, contributors are "required to stick strictly to their area of expertise"; otherwise, editors take down the article. This means that Kalev Leetaru is not merely a "blogger" and Forbes considers him to be possessing the expertise in the article that he had written, including his criticism about Snopes. SCIense (talk) 05:05, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, on two points. The Week isn't complaining about Snopes's reliability (they're not praising it, either. It's a side issue here.) Instead, they are pointing out that a "black box" model won't work to dispel concerns about reliability with the average reader, and that, unless the Usual Facebook Goober trusts Snopes already, said reader has no easy, brainless way to decide whether he/she/it/they/legion ought to. This is a real difference from 20, 30 years ago, when shiny hooks and wooden spoons were used against the unwitting and the fuckwitted, directly, by two identifiable people out in wilds of usenet. Using Snopes isn't going to help Facebook, because Snopes is itself a fake news target, and, for fairly obvious commercial reasons, it has no way to open up more now.

Next, and more importantly, no one is suggesting that Forbes toddles down to the skid road, and asks the less spifflicated specimens if they wanna write a blog. Nope, they want someone who will pull numbers, so they grab people who they think some of their current readers, or groups of readers they want to see more of, will want to read. And they ask them to keep writing the kind of stuff they were selected for, because...well, that's what they were selected for. We pay hundreds of contributors based on the size of the audience they attract. What does that mean? Each contributor gets paid a certain amount, call it X, for every one-time monthly visitor to their page. If that same visitor reads another of their posts during the course of the month, the contributor gets 20X, notice it's not saying based on their expertise, or their accuracy, it's how many folk they drag in the door. And, again linked from the piece you just cited, the unpaid contributors find association with our brand furthers their media career in other ways (books, magazine articles, etc). It's a business model, based on draw and exposure. Certainly they aren't going to let anyone do something actionable or embarrassing, but it's still arms-length from Forbes proper. Anmccaff (talk) 05:52, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The only shocking thing about any of those stories is that anyone would act shocked that they're protective of their employees. Employees, it might be noted, who regularly receive death threats. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, that The Week article doesn't even try to make a case for what it says about snopes beyond simply assuming that the implications (never made explicit) in the Forbes bit were all gospel truth. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 06:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, don't you think your comment on the "black box" model is something that the public would like to know? Frankly, I was surprised, also, when I read the Forbes article because that's not what one would expect from a respectable fact checking organization.

In fact, when I asked several colleagues for their thoughts on this issue this morning, the unanimous response back was that people with strong self-declared political leanings on either side should not be a part of a fact checking organization and all had incorrectly assumed that Snopes would have felt the same way and had a blanket policy against placing partisan individuals as fact checkers. ... Even my colleagues who work in the journalism community and by their nature skeptical, had assumed that Snopes must have rigorous screening procedures, constant inter- and intra-rater evaluations and ongoing assessments and a total transparency mandate.

(emphasis added) I would appreciate it if you could add some text regarding the black box model to inform the public that the aforementioned common assumptions cannot be trusted. SCIense (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Literally the only argument about snopes in any of these articles or your comments here is "snopes doesn't work exactly the way I expected, therefore they're unreliable". And that's a really poor argument.So no, we should not use subpar sources to fill the "accuracy" section full of innuendo just to satisfy your POV that they're not trustworthy. Especially when you can read right there in the sources already used in the article that multiple external parties (with far better chops for it than either of these two authors) have checked out how accurate they are and all came back with "Yup. Pretty damn accurate." Seriously: you're asking us to balance this article towards a POV that is demonstrably false. It's not going to happen. When AP, FactCheck or another reliable source starts criticizing their accuracy, then we can add criticism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 07:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

No, @SCIence:, I think anyone with two neurons in even intermittent, partial communication with each other can tell the difference between a potential problem and an actual one. Might it be ideal if Dave recruited all his staff from deaf-mutes raised by yaks and yetis in a remote Thibetan lamasery, so they were uncontaminated by 2ist century American politics? Well, maybe, but I'm not sure it would improve the hygiene level at the office. Anmccaff (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

These two articles from Forbes and The Week are not concerned about accuracy and reliability of Snopes; they are concerned about transparency and hiring practices (and these are not innuendos: transparency concern is self-proved by the unwillingness of Snopes to be open; the concerning hiring practices have been admitted by the Snopes founder.) Maybe we can create a new "Transparency" section instead of updating the existing "Accuracy" section. SCIense (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a giant waste of time. There's no need to add anything from these opinion pieces. As noted above 'it doesn't work exactly the way I want so that is notable' is just not a reason to add this stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we can create a new "Transparency" section instead of updating the existing "Accuracy" section. Sure. So go find better sources talking about their transparency (or lack thereof) and we'll make a section on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:19, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I don't think there is anything in the least shadowy about the implications; Snopes built its reputation on two people, Barbara Hamel and David Mikkelson, and on a long history of studying urban legends, most of which were politically uncontroversial. Now it's just Dave, and some other unknown folks, and what used to be a limited part of the menu, politics, is now front-and-center, and fact checking that used to center on tying stories back to older versions is now focused on verifying current events. Worse than that, the audience has changed, too.

It's a legitimate point; Snopes isn't who it was, and isn't doing what it did, and establishing credibility to a newer, and frankly, stupider audience isn't going to be easy. The problem here on Wikipedia is that most people who've come in so far don't just have an axe to grind, they have a whole lumber camp's worth. Anmccaff (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The only axe I have to grind is with snopes.com's low-key partisanism, which is fine when it's just "them doing what they've always done" - then it's an inside joke among people who probably enjoy it.

The little partisan digs in snopes.com articles such as "A Tale of Two Houses" - where an entirely gratuitous comment having little to do with the article above it contains a link to the very strongly critical and defamatory Web site "parody" site "The Western White House are precisely what concern many people about partisanship in snopes.com, now that it's part of a group of 'fact-checking' sites, for the issue now becomes "who guards the guardians?".

No one would even have been aware of that parody site outside progressive politics had it not appeared in snopes.com's article on a viral web article comparing and contrasting the energy use of George W. Bush and Albert Gore. In that context, it's hard to see this as other than a mean-spirted slap at someone snopes.com's staff doesn't care for - a gratuitous comment reinforcing the narrative that snopes.com is biased politically leftward.

Calling people who see things that way "stupid" does nothing but raise WP:NPOV issues in this discussion and emphasize the NPOV issues in the article in general. Citing David Mikkelson as an authority on how objective his own Web site (in the "Accuracy" section) is one such issue. Since when do we lean on primary source material for such things? loupgarous (talk) 16:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Are you seriously criticizing snopes's supposed liberal bias by citing an article in which they confirm a rumor which is complimentary of a conservative politician and derogatory of a liberal politician? Are you seriously claiming that snope's ending note; decrying the site westernwhitehouse.org as a parody site containing inaccurate information somehow amounts to an endorsement? This goes beyond simple ignorance, and into territory in which you are clearly attempting to deceive, or are downright delusional. This is a page that demonstrates that snopes follows the truth even when it contradicts their suppsed beliefs and you are suggesting that it is actually evidence of the opposite, based on one of the most obvious instances of cherry picking data which I have ever seen. No. You are so unbelievably wrong about this that I'm actually a little taken aback at the immensity of the task of actually describing how wrong this is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm saying that a strictly factual consideration of "A Tale of Two Houses" would have foregone inclusion of the link to "The Western White House altogether. It's disingenuous of the snopes.com editing staff to claim that they had to link to a parody site deriding one of the two subjects of "A Tale of Two Houses" that readers wouldn't have otherwise seen, because the site misrepresented the Bush house's floor plan for parodic purposes - if they omit the link to the site altogether, the need for the explanation never arises. As for the rest of your comment, I can only draw your attention to WP:CIVIL. loupgarous (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your argument is completely nonsensical, devoid of any semblance of logic, founded in ignorance and and utterly inconsistent in every way except that your conclusion matches your starting assumption. I have not, however suggested in any way that these qualities extend to you as a person. Indeed, our last interaction was me praising you for making a very apt and insightful analogy, lest you conveniently leave that fact out, as well. Criticizing your argument is an absolutely necessary part of discourse, and does not in any way translate into a personal attack or lack of civility, so knock off the red herrings.

You are still arguing that a page which goes out of it's way to debunk false information (infomation you implicitly agreed to be false) is somehow spreading false information by doing so. You have assumed that westerwhitehouse.org was never associated with this rumor until snopes included a link, without any evidence whatsoever (I know for a fact that many repetitions of this rumor included a link to westerwhitehouse.org long before snopes debunked it).

Finally, I'm not continuing this at your talk page. In fact, I'm not even reading your talk page and have no intention of doing so. My only consideration here is the contents of this article. If you wish to have an echo chamber on your talk page where you commiserate with other editors who share the same demonstrably false beliefs about snopes as you, then you may do so. I responded once because you pinged me, but I'm not going to divide my attention between two separate threads of argumentation just to make it easier for you to push through such, frankly shitty, arguments as this one without challenge. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Did someone hijack your account? Serious question, because on my talk page, there you are:

"You guys keep talking as if it's a given that snopes is full of BS, and discussing the implications of that. That is a really poor assumption. The evidence does not support the claim that snopes is unreliable. There are accusations of bias (which, notably, all stem from unreliable sources, a fact which is less "unfortunate" and more "telling"), but there is no evidence of snopes getting it wrong on a regular basis, or any evidence of snopes getting it wrong and refusing to correct it even once. One would think there would be at least one case in which snopes disagrees with the rest of the fact checkers, but nope.

The worst I've seen is a notable reporter doing the same thing you guys are doing: trying to twist the facts to suit the preconceived notion that snopes is unreliable. Hence we end up with that forbes article: a long-winded diatribe that doesn't actually level any specific criticisms at snopes beyond "They don't operated the way I expected them to", and "they might have political opinions". Never once does the author entertain the notion that maybe the way he thinks fact checkers should operate isn't the best (or even the only viable) way for fact checkers to operate. Never once does the author entertain the notion that someone can have political opinions and still be objective. Which is, I'm sorry to say, an assumption I see coming from the political right quite often. I'm not sure what's more worrying: The fact that there seems to be a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of one of the few sites on the web where one can rely on the fact that everything they say is true, or the fact that two Wikipedians are sitting here discussing how to get around our RS policy in order to make this article reflect WP:THETRUTH. I'm sorry to say this, but if your views don't line up with reality, your views are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)"

Please read WP:OWN. Then read the fifth bullet point under "Actions", WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. If you didn't write those two paragraphs on my talk page, we need to contact the admins and report a security issue. I know I sure didn't write all that. It's gravely disconcerting that in making your points, you're not just indulging in behavior deprecated in WP:OWN, you seem to be falsely denying you're doing it.

I'm not going to get into a circular and probably futile argument with you about the slant in snopes.com. You don't see it, I do, and it's WP:OR either way.

I told SCIense just that on my user page when he tried to draw me back into this discussion. I also counselled him to wait before re-engaging in this discussion until WP:RS-compliant sources which were persuasive of his point were available. I also freely admitted they were not. I agreed with you and most other editors on this page that a reasonable point of view is that the Daily Mail article on snopes.com fails WP:RS - and it does, under WP:SENSATION, if nothing else.

I want to know how that qualified, in your words, as "two Wikipedians are sitting here discussing how to get around our RS policy in order to make this article reflect WP:THETRUTH".

Either please stop denying you came onto my user page (in a way listed under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR deprecated in WP:OWN), or go with me to an admin and complain that someone hijacked your account, because it's either that, or you deny doing something you clearly did. loupgarous (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Are you seriously complaining that I actually responded when you pinged me? Seriously? When you ping someone at your talk page, you should expect a response. That's the whole point of pinging people. I am, frankly, flabbergasted that anyone would actually invite another editor to their talk page to a discussion like that, and then complain about their participation in that discussion, especially after I made it explicitly clear that I will no longer participate in it. If you honestly believe that my behavior is that poor, I encourage you to start a thread at WP:ANI about it and see if the community agrees with you. This is the second time you have cast aspersions on me, and I would like to remind you that continuing to do so is a violation of our civility policy. Either take your complaints to ANI, or stop making them.

I also counselled him to wait before re-engaging in this discussion until WP:RS-compliant sources which were persuasive of his point were available. Indeed you did. Right where you expressed remorse that only unreliable sources were questioning the reliability of snopes, a point to which I responded by pointing out that this is "unfortunate" only in the context of a desire to push an unsupported POV, whereas in the context of maintaining the verifiability and accuracy of information in this article, is, instead evidence that we should not give weight to such a POV. While I appreciate your refusal to actually use sources which the consensus here has determined to be unreliable, that does not excuse the fact that you made it quite clear that you agree wholeheartedly with those sources and wish for a way to get their concerns into the article.

I'm not going to get into a circular and probably futile argument with you about the slant in snopes.com. You don't see it, I do, and it's WP:OR either way. No, it is not. Your "way" is OR and supported entirely by unreliable sources. My "way" is supported by reliable sources, and in lockstep agreement with them.

Either please stop denying you came onto my user page... I explicitly admitted that I commented on your user page in my last comment here with the text " I responded once because you pinged me,". You would do well to either read my comments, or at the very least, to stop making accusations which are trivial to disprove. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:16, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Read my talk page again, MjolnirPants. I only pinged you AFTER you made false statements about me there. Don't believe me? Here are the posts in question:

"I'm not sure what's more worrying: The fact that there seems to be a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of one of the few sites on the web where one can rely on the fact that everything they say is true, or the fact that two Wikipedians are sitting here discussing how to get around our RS policy in order to make this article reflect WP:THETRUTH. I'm sorry to say this, but if your views don't line up with reality, your views are wrong. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"@MjolnirPants:Please stop conflating what I have to say with what other people have to say. Here, I said "In fact, it's a shame that Mr. Mikkelson decided to abuse the trust of his readers in the way he's done on too many articles in snopes.com. If not for that, snopes.com could be a valuable resource, but it really isn't if it can't be trusted, every time on every story." And I stand by that statement."

I'm done with this discussion, having made my point. Please read my talk page more carefully, and then confine yourself to factual statements about it. loupgarous (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to just WP:AGF and presume you didn't know this, but when you post a wikilink to a user page or user talk page, that produces a ping. Use {{noping}} if you want to create a link without pinging the editor. Regarding the rest of your comments, I already told you I have no plans to read your talk page further, and that has not changed. I'm also glad to see you're done with this discussion. It was not destined to gain you any ground. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Thanks for the information on how wikilinking to user pages causes pings. I'll reserve comment on the remainder of your response per WP:CIVIL. loupgarous (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, if you have something uncivil to say to me, go right ahead. I'm sure I've been called worse before, and will be called worse in the future. If it makes you feel safer, you can email it to me, though I make no promises about keeping the contents confidential. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:34, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The "Accuracy" section in this article relies too much on David Mikkelson's assessment of his own Web site's objectivity and lack of political slant. Just as we rightly reject the Daily Mail "expose" on snopes.com's Mr. Mikkelson and members of his staff on grounds including WP:SENSATION. we have to make sure that we're not relying on Mikkelson's own opinion of his staff's objectivity and the accuracy of his Web site. Factcheck.org not only vouches for Mikkelson - fine and good, secondary sources can do that - they quote him on his own veracity and objectivity, which is WP:UNDUE and considering Factcheck.com's reliance on snopes.com for their own operations ("We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise."), possibly WP:INDY as well.

It is allowable to mention that Factcheck.org verified the correctness of several snopes.com articles about prominent figures in politics, but I'm really uncomfortable that they go farther and quote him on how objective he is, and the absolute side issue that Mikkelson's (now former) wife and (now former) snopes.com staffer is a Canadian citizen (the implication being that Canadians and other non-US citizens cannot have strong opinions about US politics - a premise falsifiable by reading foreign press coverage of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton). Reliance on that claim from the same source (factcheck.org) is also WP:UNDUE and probably bad under WP:INDY as well.

I don't object to proof of citations of WP:RS-compliant sources attesting to snopes.com's objectivity and lack of a political agenda, but we need more than Factcheck.org quoting David Mikkelson on how clean his own operation is to support that, when they admit they rely on him for information they use in their own operations. Even if Factcheck.org had made more than a cursory survey of snopes.com's evaluation of Web site stories concerning recent politics, their independence from snopes.com when they depend on snopes.com to fact-check instead of doing it themselves, as their name implies, is questionable. loupgarous (talk) 15:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not touching this, but I will say: Don't be surprised when this talk thread and your edits to the cited section cause a shitstorm. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If you have comments on specific points I made, I'll gladly discuss them with you. loupgarous (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Other than your questions about sources, what are your problems with accuracy?--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 18:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

OK then:

1. What is your basis for asserting factual inaccuracies in that section? Can you provide reliable sources indicating that any fact stated in that section is untrue?
2. Why did you tag mutiple attributed statement (made to and cited from a secondary source) as requiring a non-primary source? Primary sources, whatever their reliability for claims of fact, are perfectly acceptable for attributed claims.
3. How do you conclude that factcheck.org is involved in the operations of snopes.com from the statement that factcheck.org will occasionally decline to address a rumor that has been previously addressed by snopes, and sometimes includes links to snopes? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:32, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

We actually have such issues with sourcing, we may not be able to gauge accuracy. When you have a secondary source published by an organization like Factcheck.org that depends on the subject of that source, snopes.com, for part of its product (fact-checking), that's potentially a profound conflict of interest. The lady authoring the article refers to the principal of snopes.com on a first-name basis, and then admits "We even link to Snopes.com when it’s appropriate rather than reinvent the wheel ourselves, which we consider high praise." If Factcheck.org were ever to discover something snopes.com got badly wrong, how likely would they be to publish that finding and potentially discredit much of their own product? That's the foundation of my WP:INDY concern. There ought to be no problem at all finding WP:RS-compliant sources which describe snopes.com's objectivity and lack of a political agenda, so why don't we find and use them, and not the Factcheck.org material?

I was also startled to read, in a wikipedia article, anyone being allowed to describe themselves (Mr. Mikkelson) and the processes of their business (snopes.com) in glowing terms without appropriate weighting of those comments, and by that I mean Kalev Leetaru's comments in Forbes.com. The WP:PUS entry on Forbes.com is an advisory guideline, not a flat prohibition on using those blogs, but a strong advisory that paid staff don't write every Forbes.com blog.

However, Dr. Leetaru founded and leads the GDELT Prokect, described by George Washington University's Center for Cyber and Homeland Security as "a massive realtime index over the planet as seen through the eyes of the world’s news media and academic literature, inventorying the world’s events, emotions, and narratives as they happen." His GDELT Project actually does rely in part on websites that purport to check facts for part of its product. Thus, Dr. Leetaru's concerns about snopes.com probably ought to be given as a balance to comments by Factcheck.org about an organization on which they from time to time rely for content, because he does have, as part of his job, to evaluate the accuracy of sites such as snopes.com.

Leetaru's Forbes.com blog falls in the "exceptions" category of WP:USERGENERATED, even had he not passed Forbes.com's strict screening process for those allowed to publish non-staff blogs there. It's notable comment by someone sufficiently notable that we have an article on him, in his field of competence. When Dr. Leetaru called Mr. Mikkelson with the questions he had, the fact he could not positively accept Mr. Mikkelson's answers regarding the fact-checking process at snopes.com is a fact we ought to place as a counterweight to other sources' praise for snopes.com - it's part of providing an NPOV balance on the question of how trustworthy snopes.com is. If Dr. Leetaru had come away happy with his understanding of how snopes.com checks fact, that would have been acceptable, too.

When someone who founded and runs a realtime index of world's news media and academic literature has such significant concerns about snopes.com's fact checking, he discusses them publicly, that meets WP:RS guidelines in every respect for this article. loupgarous (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

When you have a secondary source published by an organization like Factcheck.org that depends on the subject of that source, snopes.com, for part of its product (fact-checking), that's potentially a profound conflict of interest. That is a profound mischaracterization. To go from "We sometimes link to them when they've already covered an issue," to "We rely on them to inform [a significant] part of our content," is horribly fallacious. It also blatantly ignores other statements made, such as "Snopes.com does take on some claims in the political realm. That has given us an opportunity to evaluate the Mikkelson’s work from time to time. We have found it solid and well-documented." which was made immediately preceding the quote you pulled. Furthermore, using a backlink checker to check for links to snopes.com from factcheck.org produces very few results, and using google to search for mentions of "snopes" on factcheck.org (search using the text: "snopes" site:factcheck.org) shows less than 650 mentions.

If Factcheck.org were ever to discover something snopes.com got badly wrong, how likely would they be to publish that finding and potentially discredit much of their own product? Considering the fact that factcheck.org is, actually, a direct competitor to snopes.com, not to mention being in the business of correcting misinformation, I'd say the odds are quite high.

I was also startled to read, in a wikipedia article, anyone being allowed to describe themselves (Mr. Mikkelson) and the processes of their business (snopes.com) in glowing terms without appropriate weighting of those comments, and by that I mean Kalev Leetaru's comments in Forbes.com. These were quotes published (and thus vetted) by factcheck.org. It is our reliance on them, coupled with the distinct lack of any contradictory statements in the article that informs our judgements that the statements are due. Furthermore, WP:GEVAL directly addresses the question of why we don't counter every quote with a contradictory quote. If you can establish the existence of doubt about snopes' reliability in a significant number (say, three or four) of reliable sources, then the question of their accuracy opens up, and the article by Leetaru would carry enough weight to merit inclusion.

The WP:PUS entry on Forbes.com is an advisory guideline, not a flat prohibition on using those blogs, but a strong advisory that paid staff don't write every Forbes.com blog. You should read the discussion above. I'm not aware of anyone claiming that the Forbes article is unreliable because it was published on Forbes. The closest I've seen is the dismissal of claims that it's reliable because it was published by Forbes, due to the way Forbes handles those writer they list as "contributors" (which is the difference between saying "this is untrue because X said it" and "just because X said it doesn't make it true".) Furthermore, a number of other reasons were given as to why that is not a reliable source, not least of which is that it never actually draws any conclusions, and the logic contained within is extraordinarily vapid. To suggest that David's reticence to comment on his divorce is indicative of some defensiveness surrounding the way he runs his business, or to imply that snopes' refusal to dox their own employees (who, it must be stated, receive death threats) necessarily means that they are hiding a political bias is extremely poor logic. Then there's the further fact that the article was a follow-up to a Daily Mail article, which any reasonable person would assume to be full of crap until proven otherwise (something the Leetaru fails to do, or even attempt).

When someone who founded and runs a realtime index of world's news media and academic literature has such significant concerns about snopes.com's fact checking "Such significant concerns" that the conclusion of the article is that he can't say anything about their accuracy? Note that he never actually attempted to check their accuracy, and his article does not, in any way, address their accuracy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm dropping the stick, not necessarily that I'm persuaded of every point made here, but that I failed to meet my burden of proof on my point that Factcheck.org is too coupled to snopes.com's operations to serve as an independent source on their objectivity and accuracy. I still wish, for the encyclopedia's sake that stronger references could be found to make this point. The arguments so far posed on either side of "Is snopes.com objective enough to evaluate the accuracy and objectivity of other news sites?" aren't convincing to me, but snopes.com is entitled to some wiggle room on its statements before being declared inaccurate.

I do wish the following comment hadn't been made:

I am not touching this, but I will say: Don't be surprised when this talk thread and your edits to the cited section cause a shitstorm.

because "shitstorm" isn't an appropriate term to drag into an already emotional discussion on one of our talk pages. Saying my edits to the cited section, which were entirely appropriate - as were other editors' changes to take then down with civil edit summaries explaining why they did it - would "cause a shitstorm" wrongly implies improprieties that never happened on either side. It could be seen as a failure of WP:AGF, among other things. No shitstorm ensued, largely because the necessary mindset to create one never existed - except to see one in prospect to begin with.

Apart from that, we did have a civil discussion focused on factual issues, apart from the statement

"To suggest that David's reticence to comment on his divorce is indicative of some defensiveness surrounding the way he runs his business, or to imply that snopes' refusal to dox their own employees (who, it must be stated, receive death threats) necessarily means that they are hiding a political bias is extremely poor logic."

Dr. Leetaru at no time asked David Mikkelson to dox his employees - he asked whether they were too politically-engaged to be objective judges of other people's statements on politically-charged topics, not for their telephone numbers or home addresses. That's the only statement I find fault with in the part of the response which was concerned with analysis, instead of predicting brown weather that never occurred. loupgarous (talk) 12:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

because "shitstorm" isn't an appropriate term to drag into an already emotional discussion on one of our talk pages. I wasn't aware that this discussion was emotional. I can tell you that I haven't been feeling any notable emotions about it, aside from a touch of amusement at the quality of arguments you have presented here, and an intellectual curiosity at the difference between your comments on this matter and the comments that inspired me to compliment you on your talk page a while back. If you are feeling particularly emotional about this, then I would like to say that dropping the subject as you have indicated is, in fact, a very wise choice. I will, however, bear in mind that you prefer that others exercise a level of political correctness in their dealings with you, and refrain from using four letter words where they might offend you in the future.

Dr. Leetaru at no time asked David Mikkelson to dox his employees No, he asked for more detailed information about them, something which any reasonable employer with employees who receive death threats as a result of their work would look askance at, and almost certainly see as a sideways attempt at 'digging up dirt' on them. Perhaps my word choice of "doxxing" wasn't the best, as doxxing has specific meanings, but replacing it with "outing" (a word which is often held to be synonymous with "doxxing") should clarify any misunderstandings. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:32, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I've added a section on the lawsuit and crowdfunding, attempting to be as NPOV as possible. Constructive criticism and edits cheerfully accepted. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I have concerns about the use of poynter.com and courthousenews.com. In both cases, they seem to be hosting documents that purport to be primary sources. The content supported by those two sources doesn't bother me as it seems to be also supported by subsequent sources, but I would suggest removing them. I'm also going to take a stab at the wording of the first sentence, but not from an NPOV perspective, just an encyclopedic tone one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Agree that this article should not be based upon primary sources, except for the most straightforward descriptive facts. In this case, I cited the court filings to support the fact the suits have been filed. Of course, this fact is supported by the secondary sources, so the court filings are not necessary.

However, I do think we provide a service to our readers by providing a link to the court documents, even if we don't try to read and interpret them ourselves (full disclosure: I didn't bother to read either and the section is based entirely on the WP, NYT, and BI articles) What about putting them in the See also section? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

There's an argument to be made for linking them in the external links section, though not a strong one IMHO. The details contained within the filings are of no importance to an encyclopedia article about snopes.com (though they would certainly be important to an article about that particular lawsuit, as unlikely as that is to ever exist). So I personally don't see anything useful in linking to them. However, if no-one else has any objections, I'm not going to start an edit war over it. Mind that this is a very politicized article, subject to a lot of strong opinions. I pretty much guarantee, for example, that someone will quickly object that any coverage of this suit is NPOV, and for a random collection of IPs and brand-new accounts to crow about how this suit proves that snopes is part of some liberal conspiracy. And George Soros is bound to get mentioned, at some point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not interested in an edit war either. Anybody who's curious enough to read the legal filings is probably savvy enough to find them via their favorite search engine. No objection if they're added to the See also section, but I'll leave that to someone else. Maybe George Soros will do it for us. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:05, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Maybe George Soros will do it for us. Ha! Am I psychic, or what? ;) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I suppose I won't be allowed to use this[4] because it's the Daily Mail. Can I use this[5] which reports on the Daily Mail article? Roberttherambler (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Forbes sites are essentially blogs; this particular one has actually been discussed before, and there was no consensus to include it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:35, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

There's something odd here. How did Forbes, in December 2016, report on a Daily Mail article which was published on 26 July 2017? Roberttherambler (talk) 08:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I've been told the DM has a habit of reprinting articles without labelling them reprints. Not saying that's the case here (perhaps the dating on the Forbes sites blog is off), just that it meshes with what I've heard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

This section was recently deleted, citing WP:NOTNP. I'm not sure that the section violated this policy, but don't want to unilaterally revert before hearing other opinions. What do the other editors think? Should this section be restored? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I tend to support Nyttend's deletion. The salacious details and squabbles of the divorce don't belong here, and any details of the financial and web sourcing problems, while they are definitely relevant, can wait until the case is settled. Then a short mention should be created/restored. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm fairly ambivalent about it. The section wasn't written in a POV way, but at the same time, it didn't really add anything to the article except stuff that WP:NOTNEWS discourages. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

It's important to know that Snopes was (is?) in financial and legal trouble, and was purportedly at risk of shutting down or being taken over by another entity. I don't know how best to present it, though. -- Dan Griscom (talk) 11:18, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The new Wired.com article here looks like it's got potential. Covers most of the contentious stuff without that fine patina of sleaze in some of the other sources. Anmccaff (talk) 03:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Anmccaff, so do you think we should add back in the section using the new sources, or possibly add it to the end of the History section? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Dunno. Can see a case for either, but as a small extension to the history, it might be less attractive as loonbait. Anmccaff (talk)

I agree with both parts (a case for either and the loonbait bit). I think I'll write something up and do just that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• I added a much shorter synopsis of the lawsuit to the history section. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted an edit which apparently felt a cite was needed that Snopes was a widely-used resource for validating and debunking urban legends and similar stories in American popular culture

I did not, and do not, think this is something which needs a cite in the lead, any more than any other sky-is-blue, grass-is-green observation would, whether or not the cite immediately following it didn't explicitly support it, and summarized the revert with: (Reverted good faith edits by Leitmotiv (talk): I think this is in the "the sky is blue" category. (TW)) and followed on to L's talk page with {{tq}I think their wide acceptance is such a commonplace fact that a cite isn't really needed there}}. Anmccaff (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)}}

This was followed by a revert, and an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Leitmotiv&curid=17440246&diff=807452715&oldid=807452697 reply on his talkpage of You still need a citation, because that type of language is presumptuous. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC). The summary of the revert, which is in ciontravention of the usual BRD, was it's presumptuous and could be time sensitive, citation needed, stop edit warring. Wikipedia doesn't presume audience sizes)

The cite (immediately following the removed assertion, remember) explicitly says "the most widely known resource..." Anmccaff (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The problem is is that it's unnecessary. By your same logic, if the sky is blue, why mention that the sky is blue? Just take it for granted and be done with it. Because you're not taking it for granted it seems like Wikipedians are taking a stance in trying to portray the website in a positive or pro manner. It's not necessary, certainly not in the lede. It's also time sensitive. This site may not be widely popular in the future - in fact, last I heard the site is ready for bankruptcy. It's wishy washy language and it sounds like Wikipedia is taking a stance when it should remain neutral. Also, it says 750,000 as of 2017... you're also assuming some form of "barometer". By who's measurement is 750,000 a lot? Furthermore, if it is assumed 750,000 is a lot (as in the total to date), then it is also redundant. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The reason why this article has cites in the lead is because various people have attempted, largely against evidence, to question its accuracy. Otherwise, yes, it might simply say "widely used" and "widely known" by themselves, with the cites down in the body. Anmccaff (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

We're not here to convince those folks you speak of. And what you say has nothing to do with accuracy. Viewership does not equate to accuracy. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The webby page, in fact does not say, as our article does, By mid-2014, Barbara Mikkelson had not written for the site "in several years"[1]

The source says: But with the shift to addressing fast-flying web news “ephemera,” Mikkelson was, by mid-2014, overwhelmed. Barbara Mikkelson had stopped writing for the site, citing health issues. (They have since divorced, Barbara has not been editorially involved for “several years,” and no longer holds an ownership stake in the site, David says.) “It was pretty much, ‘I can’t keep doing this on my own,’” Mikkelson says. “It wasn’t really tenable.” Now, this appears to have been written last year, in 2016, so the "several years" goes back from then, the time of the interview, not 2014. Anmccaff (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, we damned well can, if there is no reputable source disagreeing with it, and other reputable sources agreeing with it. Anmccaff (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

No we damned well can't. Neutrality is the order of the day son. Reputable doesn't mean they're correct. It just means we can cite them per higher quality. Like I said, no one knows the truth except Mikkelson and Wikipedia's duty is to remain neutral. My edits are fine, they give both sides a say, with Mikkelson getting the final rebuttal using NYT's article. Nothing is lost, but neutrality is gained. Stop trying to be biased. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, it's our duty to balance the certain views here. And they are views, since no one knows the truth for certainty. While describing the views it's Wikipedia's duty to remain balanced per: WP:NPOVHOW, specifically: "Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone." My edit reflects that much better than the previous edit. It takes no stance, and only relays what both parties claim. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality is between competing reputable sources, and I haven't seen any reputable sources supporting the claim that Snopes is under Soros' fell sway. Bring one in for dissection, and then, maybe you can add this. Until then... Anmccaff (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality is not taking sides. Only one source is provided and you can't take that side without citing another, or else you REALLY look biased - did you not get the memo? We don't take one source and become biased towards it. We can say what it says as "a claim" but we can't agree with it per the neutrality rules I quoted above and which you still haven't refuted in any meaningful way. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Smears such as "critics claim something bad" do not satisfy WP:NPOV, particularly when the source attributes the claim to "viral emails", aka lies. A claim about an organization run by identified individuals is false unless accompanied by plausible evidence. The not-so-clever word play of "but you can't prove the claim is false" does not work at Wikipedia. A claim in an article is an assertion of a probably correct fact (unless the article is about the claim). If a claim is not at least probably correct, the article has no business mentioning it (WP:DUE). Johnuniq (talk) 04:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

(Undid revision 810422008 by Anmccaff (talk) are you retarded?- I used the same exact source as existed on the page before. stop edit warring and take it to the talk page.

The interested reader may take a look at the timing of the edits, and form his own conclusion about who first came to the talk page. That minor point aside, yes, the source was already in the article, used fairly honestly. It does not support the idea that there is a realistic chance that Snopes is Sorosoral propaganda. You need to find sources that actually support your claim, not hijack ones which do not. Anmccaff (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)