Talk:Flax
<templatestyles src="Module:Message box/tmbox.css"/><templatestyles src="Talk header/styles.css" />
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flax Template:Pagetype. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Template:Find sources |
| Archives: Template:Comma separated entries<templatestyles src="Template:Tooltip/styles.css" />Auto-archiving periodScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".: Template:Human readable duration File:Information icon4.svg |
Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".Script error: No such module "Check for deprecated parameters".
Template:WikiProject banner shell
Re: "This section needs Citations ... or removed" and policy re: citations of Original research or Secondary sources more generally (inconsistent?)
Regarding: the "need" for citations / and "removing unsourced content". If the content is correct (eg I looked at my flax), that might be better than a source from some modern fad/ ponzi scheme/ or madness (as do occur, periodically)? Further, the Wikipedia policy, regarding citations of original research and secondary sources, appears to be inconsistent, when I looked. Some articles cite scientific research (journals/mdpi/arxiv), but others have a note that this is incorrect, and say secondary sources are needed like the Guardian or CGTN (which is usually very good, but often unnoticed), and other newspapers/magazines/and so forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.68.168.217 (talk) 11:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)