" January 2011 (UTC) 

 ::::::Regarding the North Shoreman's point that the notion of including the back-and-forth between between the SPLC and the FRC is ""based on a flurry of news reports"" that ""soon passed,"" that standard of sourcing would put it far ahead of much of what is currently in the article. The subtopic ""Opposition to Arizona illegal immigration measures,"" for example, is sourced entirely by an SPLC news bulletin. Apparently, no prominent news agency cared much about the SPLC's stand on that topic. The whole ""Education"" section of the article is pretty much ""self-sourced"" by the SPLC. All but the opening sentence of the substantial ""Criticism of overheated rhetoric"" subsection comes either from the SPLC itself or from David Horowitz's not too well known FrontLine magazine. This back-and-forth, moreover, was far less publicized than the one between the SPLC and the FRC. Compared to these examples and others currently in the article the sourcing for the Family Research Council material is impressively rich. 

 ::::::As for the North Shoreman's objection that Drrll's proposal ""give(s) undue weight to the FRC position in that (it) present(s) a cursory summary of the SPLC analysis of such gay bashing groups,"" it seems to me that Drrll's proposal admirably manages to concisely state the essence of the SPLC's rationale for categorizing the FRC as a hate group. Whatever else the North Shoreman or other editors would add to Drrll's language that the SPLC considers the FRC to be among those groups who ""propagate falsehoods about LGBT people 'that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities' and who 'engage in groundless name-calling,'"" they are free to propose it. 

 ::::::The North Shoreman's further objection, that including the material on the FRC would ""give undue weight to one type of hate group analysis by the SPLC"" (as opposed to other types of hate group analyses) is hard to take seriously. Readers (likely minuscule in number) who are genuinely interested in each SPLC standard for each category of hate group are free to consult the SPLC's website. The news worthiness of the of the SPLC labeling as a hate group an organization described as ""an influential Washington-based advocacy group by the LA Times and as ""perhaps the most prominent voice in conservative social politics"" by AlterNet does not require Wikipedia to present the SPLC's rationale for including the Klan, the Nazis, and the Westboro Baptist Church on the hate group list. 

 ::::::Finally, the fact that the Washington Post saw fit to print the basic FRC objection to its hate group listing, easily frees Wikipedia to do the same. Moreover, the FRC's take on the listing is likely shared by at least a few million folks around the country. This isn't some tiny minority viewpoint. The entire back-and-forth between the SPLC and the FRC is probably the most publicized event that the SPLC has been involved in during the last several years. More newsworthy, even, than its extremely low grades from charity raters.   01:42, 21"