Citing everything or just the 'best'?

Hi everyone - sorry if the answer seems like common sense, but I'd very much appreciate your help on this.

When trying to convince the reader of the irrefutability of a point, should one cite many studies (there are at least eight in this particular case), or just cite the most famous/detailed/well-respected one? (And which out of those three adjectives trumps the others?)

Many thanks...

graduate

What's the context. Paper? PhD?
In a paper you have to be concise. In a PhD you have to be thorough.

djpbarry

nahbios wrote: »

When trying to convince the reader of the irrefutability of a point, should one cite many studies (there are at least eight in this particular case), or just cite the most famous/detailed/well-respected one? (And which out of those three adjectives trumps the others?)

Citing 8 papers to make a single point seems excessive. Either slim it down to the most relevant, or else, if you want to show that you have considered all 8 references, expand the point. As graduate says, you may not have the luxury of doing this in a paper, but you can usually afford to be a bit more long-winded in a thesis.

Red Alert

It can sometimes be helpful to have more than one when you're trying to prove a general point, or indeed just prove disagreement among other studies. In a thesis you might as well put more in.