Jump to content

Talk:Snopes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Anmccaff (talk | contribs) at 20:31, 27 August 2018 (OneClickArchiver archived "Well-regarded"). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Accuracy section - Funding

I changed the following:

Critics of the site have falsely asserted that it is funded by businessman and philanthropist George Soros, or linked sites, but all of Snopes’s revenue is from advertising on the site.

to a more fact-based (NPOV):

Critics of the site have asserted that it is funded by businessman and philanthropist George Soros, or linked sites, but according to David Mikkelson all of Snopes’s revenue is from advertising on the site.

My edit was reverted without any explanation. I do not want to get into an edit war. My reason for this is that Wikipedia should not pass judgments on the falsehood of the accusations and state facts. Personally I find the idea of George Soros funding it baseless; however, it is important that we upload NPOV. Please discuss. —14.140.50.82 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation was given, "Make language NPOV. Let's state facts and no judgments." The source cited 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.

WP:NPOV does not mean that we create artificial balance (see WP:GEVAL), especially when doing so would require saying stuff that is not supported by the source at all (see WP:V and WP:NOR). Ian.thomson (talk) 14:37, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Check the sources used in the section:
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. - New York Times (emphasis added)
The claim that Soros funds the site has been debunked elsewhere, as well. It's just that it's such a silly claim that no-one felt the need to add additional sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to get an uninvolved opinion in here: on the face of it, the edit by '82 looks good, and I still believe it was made in good faith. After all, it deletes the "falsely asserted" (which is ordinarily a red flag for NPOV/OR) and seemingly clarifies that the Snopes revenue is the subject of Mikkelson's claim. It certainly sounds more WP:NPOV, and I had briefly considered restoring it when it was reverted. But, as MPants points out, that's not at all consistent with what the source says. The source itself says Soros is not funding the site. It's not NPOV for the Wikipedia article to accurately represent what the source says. The idea that Soros is funding the site is typical conspiracy-nut stuff. and is barely more believable than that Santa Claus is funding it; we're not required to — and should avoid falling prey to — the "false balance" of presenting other points of view, even if absurd, that we see all to often. And adding the qualified "according to David Mikkelson" is simply incorrect. That's not what the cited source says.
In sum, the IP edit cannot remain. It's just wrong. TJRC (talk) 15:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we are talking about the same source, but we shouldn't use the word "falsely" unless the source itself has used that term, or something really close to it, like "untrue." Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The source says "Nor is the billionaire George Soros funding the site, although that is sometimes asserted in anti-Snopes stories," i.e., that the assertion is false. If you don't like the word "falsely", make some suggestions for wordsmithing here, and get some consensus, but don't baldly delete it. You're going WP:NPOV by repeating the assertion from the source while leaving out the source's statement in the same sentence that the assertion is not correct. TJRC (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the word "falsely" is taking a point of view and should be eliminated. We don't know who is telling the truth if anybody, therefore we should quote/reference the article as closely as possible. Saying "falsely" means that Wikipedia is siding with the material cited when it should be remaining neutral. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With whom do you think you "agreeing" with about removing "falsely? Anmccaff (talk) 00:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not with you but with BeenAroundAWhile. It doesn't matter if NYT or Breitbart claim a darn thing or if it's even accurate. A claim, is a claim, is a claim. Ultimately, we don't know the truth and can only write what people claim. That's why it's important to be impartial and neutral. Mikkelson and his detractors can claim anything they want, but we can only report on those claims, not to the validity of either because that would be original research. Where the rubber meets the road, no one knows for sure who paid Mikkelson and who did not, except Mikkelson, and we have his claim down as a rebuttal to his detractors. And that's all that needs to be said on it. Taking a stance is not what Wikipedia does. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. An unsourced claim is not as good as a sourced one, an anonymous one is (generally) not as good as one someone stands behind, a stand-alone claim is generally not as strong as one with similar asertions. Right now, the article has no source which claims Snopes is fact-pimping for Soros, only one which states such claims have been made, but are false. There is no sourced counterclaim for the article. If you want to bring such claims in except in passing, you have to find a source that makes them or reports them favorably. Anmccaff (talk) 05:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He's got a point. Now I'very beenlying here all night, unable to sleep, but I think I can give you a good starting point, and you guys can reword this how you see fit, "Rumours began to surface on social media in (insert time frame) claiming Snopes received funding from George Soros. However, no evidence has been presented supporting these claims." And then the NYT quote. Just a thought.68.53.153.55 (talk) 11:29, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd-funding

Apologize for my first edit with the wrong URL. The correct one is here. MPants at work: Please read the new reference of Bloomberg first, and then provide a reason why the fact supported by such a reliable source should be removed. I totally agree with the recent edit by InedibleHulk. The former article directly cited the fund-raising campaign page, which is WP:NOTADVERTISING. That's why I replaced the reference from the campaign to Bloomberg in order to meet WP:POV. --Mis0s0up (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you changed the source from a primary one to a secondary one, which is a good thing. But your edit summary stated that you were documenting the "shareholders" of Snopes. Hence my edit summary; shareholders and crowdfunders are not even remotely the same thing. In addition, the source did not support the content, which is about the worst sin possible to commit on WP. You also cited WP:NPOV, which makes no sense. There's nothing non-neutral about the content. Right now, you've already started to edit war over the content by reinserting it after it has been reverted. You're supposed to come here and discuss instead of continuing to revert.
So from where I sit, an inexperienced editor made an edit that was not supported by the source, cited a policy that had nothing to do with the issue, but which is frequently abused by disruptive editors with agendas (see the section But we also can't take the side of NYT for one example) on a politically sensitive page while misrepresenting both the source and the content in their edit summary.
I might point out that said inexperienced editor then reverted the exclusion of that material for the second time instead of waiting for a consensus to re-include it. So yeah, you got reverted, and reverted again. That's what happens when things look shady. It's easier to talk out a hasty revert than it is to deal with an editor who's trying to push an agenda, one detail at a time.
Now, if you have a compelling reason why this information should be included, I'm all ears. Seriously; I'm perfectly willing to change my mind about this material. I have no dog in this fight. But you need to try to make the case before continuing to revert, because you've reverted two different editors in an attempt to include this. You're literally halfway to a guaranteed block for edit warring. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: Before taking MPants at work's questions, let me briefly introduce myself. I recently translated the entire pages of Snopes.com, PolitiFact, and fact checking from English to Japanese because fact-checking organizations are relatively new to most of Japanese readers - probably so as to other non-American readers. During the translation process, I carefully read many of references of the three pages in order to understand the competitive landscape as well as different points of view. Apologize in advance if I made/make my English not so clear due to my poor second language skills. Re: crowd-funding, there are four central questions:
  1. Is it true that Snopes raised money through GoFundMe?
  2. If true, which reliable source(s) tell so?
  3. Is it worth to mention the fund-raising activity on Wikipedia?
  4. Finally, does my edit comply with Wikipedia's policy etc?
My answers are:
  1. Yes, Snopes met the original half mil goal.
  2. The Bloomberg's article, citing originally from AP, looks reliable to me. But adding more than one references would be beneficial to Wikipedia readers. FYI: Bloomberg says "Fact-checking website Snopes.com has quickly met a $500,000 goal set for an online fundraiser amid a legal battle with an outside vendor that Snopes says is holding it hostage. Snopes started the GoFundMe campaign Monday and reached the half-million dollar goal about 24 hours later." I also found another report from Poynter saying "Snopes is requesting readers donate $10 or more, either through GoFundMe.com or other means. According to Snopes' GoFundMe page, 845 people raised more than $20,000 of the $500,000 fundraising goal in just three hours, as of publication." However, I hesitated to cite the Polyster's report in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest. PolitiFact is operated by Tampa Bay Times, which is owned by Polyster.
  3. Yes. Sometimes any media organizations are easily influenced by their stakeholders (including shareholders, advertisers, vendors and customers.) Bardav, Inc. operates Snopes, and at this moment the Wikipedia article has almost nothing about Bardav as a corporate entity. Thus, many readers are probably curious how Bardav financially runs. As far as I know, most of other fact-checking organizations are NPOs or under the umbrella of large media corporations. Among them, raising money from subscribers (Snopesters) is a different business model. It (accidentally) happened as a result of the legal dispute between Bardav and Proper Media. Therefore, mentioning the crowd-funding activity under the History section and right after the sentences of the law suit is appropriate.
  4. I would like to wait for other Wikipedia editors' feedback on this matter.--Mis0s0up (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I already explained, the issue is entirely around your third question. The others are not contested (Bloomberg is an RS and as such point #1 is fairly irrelevant). Your fourth question hinges entirely upon the answer to the third right now.
The problem with number three is that your logic contains a pair of non-sequiturs. That means you state premises, then derive conclusions that do not follow from those premises.
Sometimes any media organizations are easily influenced by their stakeholders (including shareholders, advertisers, vendors and customers.) You are presuming that there is some influence over the operations of snopes that contributors to the crowdfunding campaign are capable of exerting. I don't see any evidence of this, yet it must be true for this statement to have any relevance.
Bardav, Inc. operates Snopes, and at this moment the Wikipedia article has almost nothing about Bardav as a corporate entity. Bardav's only operations are the operations of snopes.com. Therefore, we have an entire article about Bardav. We're on it's talk page, right now.
Thus, many readers are probably curious how Bardav financially runs.The crowdfunding campaign was an exception to Bardav's normal revenue models, which are accurately described elsewhere in that section.
It (accidentally) happened as a result of the legal dispute between Bardav and Proper Media. Therefore, mentioning the crowd-funding activity under the History section and right after the sentences of the law suit is appropriate. Aside from taking issue with your characterization of the campaign as "accidental", this does not follow. Simply because it happened does not make it due. Simply because it happened as a direct result of a notable event does not make it due.
I have reverted your addition again. I did not do so yesterday because I don't want to edit war. However, now that you've given your reasoning, I find it entirely unconvincing. As such, I don't believe this information belongs in the article. We may continue to discuss this on this page, if you like. If additional editors engage and support your position, or if you can present a better argument for the inclusion, then of course, at that point it can be re-inserted. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any problem at all here. There's nothing controversial about telling the reader that the GoFundMe campaign raised $500k in a day. I have no idea why this matter is worth so much discussion from MPants. It's a bare fact, neutral and relevant. Binksternet (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea why this matter is worth so much discussion from MPants.
  1. Including the dollar amount looks like trivia to me. It doesn't add anything worthwhile to the article.
  2. The rationale for inclusion raises a number of red flags.
That being said, I'm not married to exclusion. If the consensus is to include, then so be it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Launch year

The current version has two different launch years: 1995 in the infobox; and 1996 under the History section. Both of them are with no references mentioned in the article, and probably WRONG. According to Snopes' official website and to Washington Post, the launch year is 1994. But the Webby Award page tells it's 1995. I can't find where 1996 comes from... Could anyone reconfirm that the launch year is 1994? --Mis0s0up (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your webby awards link is the snopes about page.
I think if the primary source says 1994 and WaPo confirms 1994, then that's the date we should go with. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:25, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am still looking for the editor who mentioned 1996. There is a possibility that 1994 would be the launch year of Snopes' beta version while 1996 would be the first year on the current WWW system - Comparing the two years (i.e. pre-/pro-Windows 95) is worth mentioning. More importantly, I am wondering whether David Mikkelson might intentionally change the launch year from 1995 or 1996 to 1994 in order to express his autonomy and to kick Barbara out from Snopes' history. David, for example, deleted Barbara's name as a co-founder from Snopes' "About Us" page. After the divorce, David has kept saying Snopes was founded by David. But Snopes' operating company Bardav, Inc. (= Barbara + David) suggests Snopes was co-founded by David and Barbara. Therefore, Snopes' official "About Us" page is not so reliable for a reference. FYI: David and Barbara got married in 1996, according to WIRED. If David changed the launch year from 1996 to 1994, he might have wanted to imply Snopes was launched before Barbara moved from Canada to the US.
MPants at work, please do NOT edit without references. --Mis0s0up (talk) 02:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MPants at work, please do NOT edit without references. What the fuck are you talking about? Your little conspiracy theory about David changing the date is pure WP:OR and has no business in the article. We have an RS that gives a year; the snopes about page confirms that year. That's the end of the story. If you want to second guess the RSes, you can go do that on conservapedia or some other wannabe wiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:50, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please review your own edit work here. Thank you. --Mis0s0up (talk) 12:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Stop trolling. Because if you're not trolling me right now, you have no business editing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

mediabiasfactcheck.com

This site is extensively referenced, used and endorsed by RSes. See [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. You can read about their methodology and commitment to accuracy here, and see their contributors here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Pinging @Anmccaff:. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Those are valid, and accurate points, for addressing perceptions of bias. They aren't for addressing Snopes's mission; either Snopes's own words, or, say, Brundvand's, are better there. That portion of the mbfc cite was simply a stovepipe, and one that I'd bet is partly based on Wiki, and is certainly cited to Snopes.com itself.
More importantly, the original editor tried to slip this in as a minor edit, in a way that smells of coatracking; that requires a little oversight. Anmccaff (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS:Some further insight on minor edits. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)PPS:This?l Huffpost blogshite..."but I repeat myself..." Anmccaff (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given their inexperience, they might well think that adding a cite to existing statements is a minor edit. I see nothing in their history that suggests a POV pusher or a slick vandal. Besides, we don't (or at least shouldn't) revert good edits just because they came from a bad editor, and that's assuming this guy is bad, despite there being no evidence of that.
And it's not unusual to cite a secondary source to describe an article subject. It's not really necessary, but it's certainly not harmful at all. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what that broken huffpo link is suppose to mean. I don't see it used in their contribs. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, did it get damaged in handling? Lemme try it again. That am blogshite...and worse yet, twitter clickbait. Makes the others it's with look like a google-dredge. Anmccaff (talk) 21:50, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand what you're saying by posting that link. Did this editor use it as a reference or something? I don't see where they did. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm...they didn't use it; you did. Right in the second sentence of this section. Anmccaff (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I didn't realize that was in the list of sources I offered. I thought I closed the tab of all the questionable hits before I started copying and pasting links, but apparently I missed one. Fine, that's not an RS, but if you think that makes the Columbia Journalism Review, Politifact, Newsweek or the Chicago Tribune any less reliable, then I'm afraid you're sadly mistaken. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You wanna have a conversation with yourself here, knock yerself out; what with cell phones with tiny bluetooth mikes, it doesn't even look that odd anymore. I think I've already raised the reason why I think this is a mediocre cite for the purposes it is being used for in the article; showing that it might be a very good one for other uses doesn't change that. Anmccaff (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't arguing against that; it wasn't me who reverted you. I was trying to get you to explain more clearly what you meant by posting that link to HuffPo, something which I had to ask you twice about before you gave me a cogent answer. When you finally did explain your meaning, I responded directly to that. Characterizing that as having a "conversation with myself" is just really, really bizarre. I was conversing with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how mediabiasfactcheck.com is reliable; here [6] they put Alternet in the same category as CNN which is crazy. According to the site, there is one guy [7] who "makes all final editing and publishing decisions." On their methodology page [8] there is a clear grammar mistake - can you spot it? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First, I disagree with some of their findings too, but see my first comment above. It's not really up to us to discuss our feelings about its reliability when it's cited and trusted by so many other sources we consider reliable.
Second, They put every outlet they characterize as having a left leaning bias in that category, if you'd clicked on the entries for those two, you'd see that Alternet is placed way over in the "Extreme left" part, while CNN is right under the "Left" part.
Third, having an editor-in-chief is generally considered a good thing when discussing the reliability of the source. I don't know why you think it's a bad thing in this case.
Finally, a grammar mistake doesn't say anything about their reliability. I've actually found more than one on that page, just as I've found grammar mistakes on a lot of pages on RS websites, in RS publications, in non-RS sites and publications and god knows how many in my own writings. English is a complex language. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason whatsoever to consider this self-published website a reliable source. It appears to be random guy's project; it is neither scholarly nor journalistic in nature. The links where this site has been referenced are unpersuasive. The brief CJR reference says it is one of several "amateur" websites run by an "armchair media analyst." The second cite is an op-ed. The brief reference on PolitiFact just calls it a "volunteer-led effort" (i.e., like Wikipedia, which is also not an acceptable source). The Huffington Post link is to a blog post (not a staff-written article) written by a "contributor" who is a children's author. This sort of stuff does not provide a firm basis for reliability. Neutralitytalk 06:08, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutrality, I have to agree. At first it seemed like a good endeavor with some nice features which I often used and recommended, but as time goes by it appears to be more like a crowdsourced one man show. Some of the ratings have shifted radically to make fringe sites seem much more mainstream than they are, while dissing mainstream ones. I no longer even check its ratings. If it were to be professionalized and made more dependable, that would be great, but until then we shouldn't use it. --

Whether to include the cite in the lead

I for one, am fairly ambivalent about whether we should include the cite in the lead. The only thing I'm not ambivalent about is whether it's an RS: for my arguments to that effect you can see the top comment of the main thread, here. But please, let's discuss it instead of slow edit warring over it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss "puff"

I was reverted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snopes.com&curid=471791&diff=842605813&oldid=842494589. I removed excess wording which seemed "over the top" to me. I would like to see if the source actually has wording similar to that which I removed. The reverting editor explained in the Edit summary that the wording is "amply sourceable." If that is true, could we please have a Reliable source? WP:BRD.Thank you so much. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is "widely known" which has been discussed here before, with consensus to keep it in. See Talk:Snopes.com/Archive_3#Recent_revert_of_"widely"., Talk:Snopes.com/Archive_1#Widely_known, and also some of Talk:Snopes.com/Archive_2#"American" where the "widely known" bit was accepted per the source. Binksternet (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Puffery" is exaggeration. It is in no way an exaggeration to say that the oldest, best known and most popular fact checking site is "widely known". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Binksternet (talk) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, oldest still standing. Urbanlegends.com/Cathouse went back well before it, as did the Straight Dope's web presence. There was also some online searchability of some of the Foaftale news, but you had to dig for it. Snopes is kinda the model T of folklorology: there were older ones, and better ones, but none with as wide a market spectrum over time. Qwirkle (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There really has been no consensus either for or against, because the debate still goes on. Can we simply have a Reliable source using the exact words of the disputed sentence? Thanks again. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There really has been no consensus either for or against, because the debate still goes on.Bullshit. That's not how consensus works. Consensus is not unanimity and the fact that there are a small group of editors who take a dim view of snopes doesn't make factual statements like "widely known" untrue. Nor does it change the fact that "widely known" is not puffery or even weaselly.
Also, urbanlegends.com was a repository of collected legends (that just happened to contain some debunkings, many of which were done by the Mikkelsons) and cathouse.org was a general interest site that had a section about urban legends. Also, I'm pretty sure both of those were started after 1994. I never even heard of cathouse.org until '97 and I've been on the internet since Mosaic was released. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cathouse is older than Mosaic; it goes (went?) back to ‘91. (Do a Usenet search on the creator, 1991, cathouse, and Mosaic if you doubt it.) Qwirkle (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Bullshit" is (1) not a nice word, and (2) hardly the stuff of polite conversation. But of course these days many people don't understand this not-so-fine point of usage. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed this. If the word "bullshit" bothers you that much, you really should not be on the internet. There are far worse words floating around. like "Fuck" and "Cunt" and even.... (Dare I say it?) ... "InfoWars". But of course, these days, there are plenty of people looking for something to get offended at.
Quirkle; I may be wrong about the dates on those. I still don't think cathouse would really qualify as a fact checking website, though. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“I've been accused of vulgarity. I say that's bullshit.” ― Mel Brooks O3000 (talk) 23:55, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there seems to be a source cited, so I am sure that anybody who has access to this book will be glad to verify the citation. Thanks again, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, never mind. I found it. Thanks to all. https://books.google.com/books?id=pCP569gGM0AC&pg=PA285&dq=snopes+mikkelson&lr=&client=firefox-a#v=onepage&q=snopes%20mikkelson&f=false BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Snopes&oldid=856834673"