143
North Korean troops in Russian uniforms heading to Kursk, says US - Lemmy.World
lemmy.worldNorth Korean troops wearing Russian uniforms and carrying Russian equipment are
moving to the Russian region of Kursk, near Ukraine, according to the US defence
secretary, Lloyd Austin, who described the deployment as a dangerous and
destabilising development. Austin was speaking at a press conference at the
Pentagon with the South Korean defence minister, Kim Yong-hyun, as concerns grow
about Pyongyang’s deployment of as many as 11,000 troops to Russia. The US and
South Korea said some of the North Korean troops are heading to Kursk, on the
border with Ukraine, where the Kremlin’s forces have struggled to push back a
Ukrainian incursion. Austin said “the likelihood is pretty high” that Russia
will use the North Korean troops in combat. He added that officials were
discussing what to do about the deployment, which he said had the potential to
broaden or lengthen the conflict in Ukraine. Asked if it could prompt other
nations to get more directly involved in the conflict, he acknowledged that it
could “encourage others to take action”. MBFC
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/]
Archive [https://archive.is/MMYI7]
They’re not saying that. How did you summarize 23 words using 39 words, and get the summary wrong?
They’re saying that there is no external professional vouching for MBFC’s conclusions, which is their usual gold standard for things being “reliable.” And that, on top of that, people within Wikipedia have specifically pointed out flaws with how MBFC does things, without any of the qualifications and categories that you added.
I’m trying to summarize the wiki reasoning/what’s in the wiki page about mbfc criticisms
Got it, that does make sense. You should know, though, that Wikipedia on the content side is a different thing from Wikipedia on the talk page side.
People can have nice things to say about a source in their Wikipedia page about the source, on the content side, while there’s still a consensus on the talk page side that the source is unreliable and shouldn’t be used for sourcing claims about other matters on other Wikipedia pages. The big table that I and someone else linked to are good summaries of the consensus on the talk page side, which is what’s most relevant here.
Yes! You have successfully found the content page. If only someone had kindly explained to you that there’s a whole other side of Wikipedia which is more relevant to this discussion. It would have been nice for you to be able to have a whole patient explanation about how it all works.