If it happened, sniper training took place in Poland; although, I'm sure the US Embassy in Kiev would lie about that part too:
https://www.conservapedia.com/Maidan_coup#Tech_camp.2C_terrorist_training.2C_and_Hromdske_TV
"Simultaneously, under Polish Government authorization, the CIA was training in Poland the military
Right Sector leaders how to lead the coming U.S. coup in neighboring Ukraine.
"As the independent Polish investigative journalist Marek Miszczuk headlined for the Polish magazine NIE (“meaning “NO”) (the original article being in Polish):
“Maidan secret state secret: Polish training camp for Ukrainians'...
[24]"
"The program included:
- "classes at the shooting range (including three times with sniper rifles), tactical and practical training in the assault on buildings.[25]
"On August 3, 2013
Obama regime ambassador
Geoffrey Pyatt arrived in Kyiv..."
So what you have is an article from Conservapedia, there is no verifiable information in their article...so you can accept what they say or wonder about them as a source.
A questionable source exhibits
one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the
deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (
Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category
may be untrustworthy and should be fact-checked per article. Please note sources on this list
are not considered
fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source.
See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate Conservapedia Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, and outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or known criteria.
Reasoning:
Propaganda, Conspiracy, Fake News
Bias Rating:
EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting:
MIXED
Country:
USA
Press Freedom Rating:
MOSTLY FREE
Media Type:
Website
Traffic/Popularity:
Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating:
LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2006, Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative, Young Earth creationist, and Christian fundamentalist point of view. The general gist of the Wiki is that anything wrong that has ever happened occurred because of liberalism.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
The website/wiki is owned by
Andrew Schlafly, the son of conservative donor
Phyllis Schlafly. As a Wiki, they are funded through donations and crowdsourcing.
Analysis / Bias
In review, it is difficult to decide where to begin. First, this wiki was created to combat the so-called liberal bias of
Wikipedia, which from what we can see, is not overly biased. Therefore, this is a right-biased Wiki to counter a generally low-biased Wiki. It isn’t apparent. The sole purpose of Conservapedia is to refute so-called liberal bias. Wiki pages on Conservapedia often lead to very poor sources, such as the
Washington Examiner and
The Blaze, which have all failed numerous fact checks.
They are also borderline on hate group status, consistent negative reporting on LGBTQ,
Climate Change, Racism, Border Security and people of color, Atheism, and Liberals. You really cannot find a more negative site regarding progress than this. Even today, Conservapedia still has
false information regarding former President Obama’s birth certificate. In general, Conservapedia is a highly unreliable source of information; while Wikipedia has some issues, nothing compares to this wiki’s bias and outright misleading nature.
Overall, we rate Conservapedia Questionable based on extreme right-wing bias, promotion of propaganda and conspiracies, and outright false information. This is not a credible source on any level or known criteria. (D. Van Zandt 8/21/2016) (D. Van Zandt 07/22/2022)
QUESTIONABLE SOURCE A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no
mediabiasfactcheck.com