Talk:Flax

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)