 | A fact from Puretic power block appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 31 May 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
RS
editHello @Epipelagic: I provided a review[1] 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)
References
- ^ Bennett, Nathan; Alava, Juan; Ferguson, Caroline; Blythe, Jessica; Morgera, Elisa; Boyd, David; Cote, Isabelle (2023). "Environmental (in)justice in the Anthropocene ocean". Marine Policy. 147. Elsevier BV: 105383. doi:10.1016/j.marpol.2022.105383. ISSN 0308-597X.
- 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)
- Okay, you're not seeing the connection — Epipelagic (talk) 21:16, 24 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)
- Here's another example, that just happened between you asking your question and me replying. – Epipelagic (talk) 05:48, 23 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)