Do a little reading up on the guy who started that site. While I generally prefer to criticize arguments instead of their presenters, the fact that this guy is an actual lying fraud says everything about his credibility - and also the leftist/progressive tribal cult that relish in his church
> on a number of occasions
> what appears to be
> what I would consider
(just setting the stage here... making sure we all understand the underpinning of the argument)
> a very staunch difference in Snopes' declaration of a claim vs what they say below in their explanation
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that there is an appreciable difference between the categorization and the basis/justification on which that particular categorization was chosen, that is a well-known problem with discrete binning.
As others have noted, however, in their demand for citations, it is unlikely that any such appreciable differences actually exist.
There is no reason to believe them simply due to the fact that they are posited as an unbiased site.
They present information in bad faith then contradict themselves on the exact same page in the explanation of their claim to validity.
Burden of proof is on he who makes an outrageous claim, so by all means feel free to state your case as to why you think a particular, clearly untrustworthy website, is worthy of trust