This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Food and drinkWikipedia:WikiProject Food and drinkTemplate:WikiProject Food and drinkFood and drink articles
Delete unrelated trivia sections found in articles. Please review WP:Trivia and WP:Handling trivia to learn how to do this.
Add the {{WikiProject Food and drink}} project banner to food and drink related articles and content to help bring them to the attention of members. For a complete list of banners for WikiProject Food and drink and its child projects, select here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
Re: "This section needs Citations ... or removed" and policy re: citations of Original research or Secondary sources more generally (inconsistent?)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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)Reply