Not “waying”, but certainly implying. For example:
A Wordpress blog from a random French amateur journalist is not considered a reputable source around here.
If the article contains citations from proper sources demonstrating that the Femens actively and knowingly participated in rallies sponsored by far-right parties you can post them separately but don’t expect us to waste time slogging through what might be the ravings of a crank.
As it stands all I’ve seen so far is that some far-right thugs showed up uninvited in the background of Femens demonstrations rather than Femens actively allying themselves with fascist scumbags who they consider ideological enemies.
That’s your personal opinion. I can see them removing the article because they don’t want even the implication of being associated with the thugs spread by pro-Russian opponents trying to discredit them.
Apology accepted. If you continue to post here keep in mind that this comment forum is frequented by educated journalists, historians, political scientists, economists, technologists, scientists, etc. who follow current affairs. Some of us are very familiar with Russian and East European affairs.
As such we demand a little more intellectual rigour from commenters than other sites do. When you make an extraordinary claim (or implication) here I can guarantee you that someone will ask you to back it up with a citation from a reputable source. If that’s too “toxic” for you there’s always Facebook or YouTube comments.
If you’re not going to back up your claims with a reputable sources then you’re correct.
