::::::::Can you perhaps provide some BENIGN reason why you totally failed to make even a TOKEN EFFORT to present what the SPLC actually said about these misogynst websites? 
 ::::::::Like I said, I was reporting on the criticism it received, not the material criticized. The "benign" reason was to present some criticism the SPLC had received and provide a more balanced view of their current efforts. That being said, I added a about four or five sentences to the article, so my edit was a token effort. I probably should have integrated them into the existing sections in retrospect. That's about all I'm going to say about your assumed ill intentions from what I didn't do. 
 ::::::::It's really irrelevant what may have been judged as reliable in another article. 
 ::::::::I think that if such content made it into one article, it should be appropriate for another. It means the editors of those articles felt they were following the guidelines. 
 ::::::::Kind regards