Talk:Puretic power block

RS
Hello I provided a review supporting the claims, source and reliability. When editing I did not anticipate an objection like "revert claim the Puretic power block is used by white people as an instrument of racial oppression. The main citation is to a very recent primary source with only one citation. It sits behind a paywall, making it difficult to assess whether it just a spoof article attempting to see how far wokeness can be pushed." Invasive Spices (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You are correct that the journal Marine Policy would, in current Wikipedia terms, be assessed as a reliable source, Since it is not the place here to speculate on the motives of the decision makers at that journal, I have reinstated your entry racially politicizing the Puretic power block. It seems Wikipedia is now embarking on what may be an indeterminable tumble from relative rationality. — Epipelagic (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly that is not my intent. I will work to find agreeable text to ameliorate that. How has Wikipedia changed in this regard? I don't understand that part. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's another example, that just happened between you asking your question and me replying. – Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That's very different. That should easily be treated as WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDICT and because the speaker is not a lexicographer WP:RS. Invasive Spices (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, you're not seeing the connection — Epipelagic (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I do understand. They can both appear to be woke politics. However WP:V is very different in these 2 instances. Invasive Spices (talk) 21:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)