Yeah, pretty much. If it was coined in the 16th century, don’t you think it would have appeared in print at some point during those THREE TO FOUR HUNDRED YEARS? The fact that its earliest documented use was in 1907 doesn’t mean that the term was coined in 1907, but it’s a very common and accepted practice to use a word’s first appearance in print in order to give a rough estimate of when it may have entered the lexicon. The dictionary uses the same exact method to put dates next to words.
Snoops is wrong, and I the fact that I say so is all the “proof” you should need, damnit! :rolleyes:
Snopes is right because they say they are. And it would be “just plain silly” to question their conclusions.
Cite?
In my experience Snopes is very careful to document their assertions and do credible, accurate research. In cases where they are later proven mistaken, they will admit it and provide the correct information.
No, Snopes is not infallible. Nobody is. But the Mikkelsons have my trust because they consistently demonstrate their committment to objective research and accurate reporting. You’ll have to show me a hell of a lot more than this to lower their credibility in my eyes.
Why are you so bitter about Snopes CC? Did they debunk your favorite conspiracy theory or something?
Snopes may not be 100% accurate, but they always do a thorough job of reseaching the data, and the examples where they revised things were only done because new data became available.
The Newlywed Game example is a clear case of this: Eubanks denied it and no tape of it was known at the time it was first posted. Later, a tape surfaced, causing them to revise their information. They weren’t wrong the first time; they were correct according to all the information available at the time. You really can’t expect any source to do better than that.
Snopes does give cites. If someone provides different cites or further information, then they will revise things (as the Eubanks story indicates). That is the opposite of arrogance. Arrogance would be to insist they are right even when evidence to the contrary is presented.
Here’s my beef. In many threads here on SDMB, some topic will come up that is covered by snopes. Someone posts a snopes link, voila, case closed. And that’s fine really, in many cases snopes does cover the subject in great detail with numerous cites to back up their claims. But I just happened upon this “spam” they discredit (see OP). One of the subjects of the “spam” was about the origin of the phrase “dirt poor”, here is snopes analysis:
http://www.snopes.com/language/phrases/1500.htm
“Dirt poor is an American expression, not a British one. Claims that the saying grew out of British class distinctions as measured by style of flooring are just plain silly.”
So, in this case they validate their claim by saying it’s “just plain silly” to think otherwise. To me, this is not a valid argument to disprove the original claim. Belive me, I was surprised myself to see this type of argument validation made by snopes.
Bottom line? When a link to a snopes article is supplied to discredit someone’s way of thinking, we better take a real close look at how snopes presents their opinion on the subject.
You keep using that one example but if you look at the sentence it explains itself.
Dirt poor is an American expression therefore to think it was relevant in Shakespeare’s England is “just plain silly”.
That is a piece about a longish piece of crap going about the net with a great many flaws, had it been a piece on dirt poor I am sure they would have pointed out more clearly the cites to prove the Americanism of the expression but dirt poor was a small part of the whole, not the focus. Instead if you look at the sources given for the piece you will see at the very top
Ayto, John. Dictionary of Word Origins.
New York: Arcade Publishing, 1990. ISBN 1-559-70214-1.
and later
Hendrickson, Robert. Encyclopedia of Word and Phrase Origins.
New York: Facts on File, 1997. ISBN 0-86237-122-7.
Merriam-Webster’s New Book of Word Histories.
Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1991. ISBN 0-877-79603-3.
and others. I think they look like sources that would know whether dirt poor was derived from living conditions in merry olde england.
There are things to get upset with snopes over, the lost legends being high on my list, but this is not one of them.
The “dirt poor” was just one example. If you read through their entire analysis I think you will find other weak arguments. Whether or not that original spam contains any factual material is not my point. My point is, people tend to cite snopes without any analysis of their comments.
… let’s see, snopes red-dot, yep it’s false …
I just want to point out to people that not all of their arguments are rock solid.
Not all of their arguments that appear to YOU to be weak are wrong, either. I don’t think your view of snopes’ accuracy is even-handed at all.