5 ms·

>actually declaring facts are not that important, That's not at all what the article states and you stating that in your response puts into question the rest o

>actually declaring facts are not that important, That's not at all what the article states and you stating that in your response puts into question the rest of it. Edit: After reading the other article too, I can't see what your complaint here is. The claim is unproven and the article expounds on exactly why they made that assessment.

smsm42 7y ago
The claim does not have any evidence for it whatsoever. However, instead of stating it as a fact, Snopes starts to editorialize about "deeper truth" in it, which it doesn't do in other cases where claim is presented without ay evidence. The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" (if Snopes would be consistent assigning "unproven" to every claim having no evidence behind it) and leave editorializing to non-fact-checkers.
- dkonofalski 7y ago
  >The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is. They acknowledge that the specific claim has no evidence behind it but that there are, in fact, other claims that have been similarly made that do have truth to them. "False" is not the same thing as "unproven" and there's nothing that definitively proves the claim as false while, at the same time, there is evidence for other similar claims. Your responses suggest that you're not evaluating this in good faith.
  - smsm42 7y ago
    > It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is My complaint is that very frequently Snopes lists claims without proof as false. And does not editorialize about why it might be "deeper truth". But in this case, it lists the claim as "unproven" (implying it might be true, just lacking proof, despite no indication of such proof might ever be found) and does editorialize. For example, here's "false" rating: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ (chosen randomly - first "false" story I encountered on the site). Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven", since while we don't have a proof Trump ever evicted a veteran, he owns real estate, so he certainly could have. We could even editorialize about "deeper truth" in this claim, in the same vein - that not finding it in this case doesn't mean Trump couldn't have done in in other cases, and he did many other bad things, etc. But in this case Snopes correctly chose to not do it, stick to the facts and label it as "false". In the case above, regrettably, they did not.
    - dkonofalski 7y ago
      >Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven" Except it's very clearly not. There is direct evidence towards the contrary. The claim in question is from a tweet that's cited directly at the beginning of the article that makes a claim that Trump did something that he did not do. It's not "unproven", it's literally "false" because Trump had nothing to do with it other than having his name on the property of the incident in question. This isn't some tenuous historical claim where the evidence has been lost and the fact that you can't see that means you either lack the ability to determine nuance or you're being intentionally dishonest and this was the best you could do or you couldn't find anything more concrete so you're hiding behind "chosen randomly". If you have a claim that Snopes is incorrectly listing claims without proof as false, then post them. If they're as frequent as you claim, you shouldn't have to resort to a random post. You would have an example at the ready. I suspect that you realize your argument holds no merit and that's why you can't provide an example. Otherwise, I see no reason why you shouldn't easily be able to show something that you claim is "very frequent".

smsm42 7y ago

The claim does not have any evidence for it whatsoever. However, instead of stating it as a fact, Snopes starts to editorialize about "deeper truth" in it, which it doesn't do in other cases where claim is presented without ay evidence. The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" (if Snopes would be consistent assigning "unproven" to every claim having no evidence behind it) and leave editorializing to non-fact-checkers.

dkonofalski 7y ago
>The fact check would be "false" or at least "unproven" It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is. They acknowledge that the specific claim has no evidence behind it but that there are, in fact, other claims that have been similarly made that do have truth to them. "False" is not the same thing as "unproven" and there's nothing that definitively proves the claim as false while, at the same time, there is evidence for other similar claims. Your responses suggest that you're not evaluating this in good faith.
- smsm42 7y ago
  > It's listed as "unproven" so I don't see what your complaint is My complaint is that very frequently Snopes lists claims without proof as false. And does not editorialize about why it might be "deeper truth". But in this case, it lists the claim as "unproven" (implying it might be true, just lacking proof, despite no indication of such proof might ever be found) and does editorialize. For example, here's "false" rating: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-veteran-service-dog/ (chosen randomly - first "false" story I encountered on the site). Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven", since while we don't have a proof Trump ever evicted a veteran, he owns real estate, so he certainly could have. We could even editorialize about "deeper truth" in this claim, in the same vein - that not finding it in this case doesn't mean Trump couldn't have done in in other cases, and he did many other bad things, etc. But in this case Snopes correctly chose to not do it, stick to the facts and label it as "false". In the case above, regrettably, they did not.
  - dkonofalski 7y ago
    >Approached with the same criteria as above, we could say that it's merely "unproven" Except it's very clearly not. There is direct evidence towards the contrary. The claim in question is from a tweet that's cited directly at the beginning of the article that makes a claim that Trump did something that he did not do. It's not "unproven", it's literally "false" because Trump had nothing to do with it other than having his name on the property of the incident in question. This isn't some tenuous historical claim where the evidence has been lost and the fact that you can't see that means you either lack the ability to determine nuance or you're being intentionally dishonest and this was the best you could do or you couldn't find anything more concrete so you're hiding behind "chosen randomly". If you have a claim that Snopes is incorrectly listing claims without proof as false, then post them. If they're as frequent as you claim, you shouldn't have to resort to a random post. You would have an example at the ready. I suspect that you realize your argument holds no merit and that's why you can't provide an example. Otherwise, I see no reason why you shouldn't easily be able to show something that you claim is "very frequent".