Talk:People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs units dressed as Ukrainian Insurgent Army fighters

Is there a better title for this article? RJFJR (talk) 17:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• Yes: "Ukro-nazi drivel aimed at whitewashing holocaust perpetrators, war criminals and SS collaborators". --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs units dressed as Ukrainian Insurgent Army fighters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070930031611/http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/300202.shtml to http://ukrweekly.com/Archive/2002/300202.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

This page looks like obvious ukro-nazi propaganda and whitewashing of well-known holocaust perpetrators. I've reviewed sources listed at moment of writing and they look unreliable. In general, all of them, save one, are from post-Soviet Ukraine, where glorification and whitewashing of UPA and SS is well known part of state politics (see ref. to UkrWeekly right in this very article, it's ref #2 at the moment of posting this comment). The only one non-Ukrainian source seems to be a book about a different matter altogether, so I doubt it contains facts or deep research on the subject. Otherwise, there's NOT A SINGLE older source or source from any other country. Come on, US would love to expose this kind of op if it were true, but not a single agency or researcher ever found any documents about that? Article talks about this being authorized operation - so there must be a paper trail in Soviet documents, but it lists none as its source. Article also mentions that UPA found out about it, yet there's not a single reference to a letter, order or anything else from UPA members talking mentioning this in contemporary communication. Maybe you could handwave lack of Soviet sources as "secret" that Russia doesn't wants Ukraine to obtain, but surely UPA-lovers DO have access to historical documents from their "heroes".

1. Wilson, A. (2005). Virtual Politics: Faking Democracy in the Post-Soviet World
   • I'm unable to find contents of this book, but according to its name it doesn't look like a piece of research about WW2 or Soviet history. I suspect author simply mentioned something he "heard" but not actually "researched" in this book. A quote is required to prove or disprove that, but simple fact that it is a book about different time and matters already makes it look as unreliable source of facts about the subject.
2. A news article on rehabilitating and glorifying UPA.
   • Lists NO sources or quotes to orders or historic documents.
3. Could be an interesting source.
   • According to some random quotes supposedly from this book I was able to find, it doesn't try to hide UPA atrocities. Unfortunately I'm not able to find referenced pages, thus, once again, a quote is required to show that it is indeed relevant, have verifiable sources itself and wasn't misinterpreted by this wiki article's author.
4. Same book as in 3.
5. Once again, a news article about SBU "unveiling" some evidence without any links or images of evidence itself.
   • If it is "unveiled", it obviously available and should be included right in this article. So why it is not here? How are news about unveiling a fact is a good reference for this fact?

Summary: lots of promises of facts from very biased sources, but no facts themselves. --Rowaa[SR13] (talk) 16:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Not to mention, other sources FROM THE SBU no less, discredit it.209.159.195.97 (talk) 07:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)