Talk:Snopes

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?

1997

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

`96 at least

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

© 1995-2003

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

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

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)

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".[1] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Requested move

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

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

Urban Legends Reference Pages → Snopes — Move from the outdated, formal name of the site, to the name that it's commonly referred to by (as per WP:COMMONNAME).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

Survey

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

Survey - Support votes

1. Support - it seems fairly evident from loking at the main page of the site that "Snopes" is indeed the proper name. PC78 21:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
2. Support: (changed my vote.) It looks like the site now calls itself "snopes.com" and the older name only appears at the botton of the page. patsw 22:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
3. Support --Yath 22:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
4. Support idea to move but the proper name is Snope.com and that should be what the move is to. 205.157.110.11 00:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

   I did think that, but "Snopes" beats "Snopes.com" quite heavily, if you compare Google results for random sentence fragments such as "snopes says". The word has no other meaning, so there's no reason for people to add the ".com" to clarify what they're talking about. --McGeddon 01:34, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

5. Support It's been Snopes for a really long time, I don't really even remember it being called otherwise. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 09:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
6. Support. Its Snopes. This is more of a subtitle these days.--Josquius 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
7. Support. Snopes is the common name. One point though - there is a family named Snopes in some of William Faulkner's books, which is where snopes(.com) gets the name. We don't have an article on them, however, so diambiguation won't be a problem.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

2. Oppose: I see no reason to move the page from the existing name, which is the 'proper' name for the site. If this was a new article, I might agree, but I feel it is best left here.--Donovan Ravenhull 18:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would this be any different for a new article? The "Urban Legends Reference Pages" article will redirect to the new one, it won't be affecting any other articles or external sites that link here. --McGeddon 00:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

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