User talk:Lmartinez887

Coconut oil
Your several unsourced, unscientific edits to this article over the past 8+ hours are not consistent with providing reliable, verifiable information for the encyclopedia. Please familiarize yourself with WP:MEDRS which is required to support any information concerning human health. No such information or sources exist for the supposed health benefits of coconut oil. Please do not continue to add unsupported edits or your activity as an editor will be blocked per WP:BLOCK. --Zefr (talk) 02:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Come now,, threats aren't necessary. This is a new editor who's editing in good faith and needs to learn the rules around here, of which there are many.


 * Lmartinez887, you haven't committed a blockable offense, you just made a mistake. (Although repeating it would be considered disruptive, and potentially blockable.) Zefr's comment above is valid, though. We are quite serious that claims about human health benefits being supported by reliable scientific sources. Not blogs, websites trying to sell something, etc. The jury is still out regarding some of the claims you wrote. Have a look at Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy; you might want to improve on that. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:36, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so help then. I read following article on an organization publication. http://www.foodinsight.org/CoconutOilAndHealth; and i read the article from https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/coconut-oil/  Are these not reputable sources for this subject? (not signed, but entered by Lmartinez887)


 * The Food Insight source is not a reliable WP:SECONDARY source for a medical topic. It appears to be only opinion and is not peer-reviewed such as requested for human health topics which need support from high-quality reliable sources. Wikipedia typically uses review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. See the summary under WP:MEDREV.


 * The "Science-based medicine" source you identify is one person's review of topics concerning coconut oil, so is a weak secondary source.


 * Both of your sources and the general peer-reviewed literature on coconut oil conclude that the oil has no demonstrated health properties, yet your entries to the article on 17-18 March gave text quite differently by indicating coconut oil has extensive health benefits. There are no benefits confirmed by WP:MEDRS quality sources, and the fat composition of coconut oil indicates it probably should not be consumed internally.


 * WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. --Zefr (talk) 01:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I found a few articles on a Dr. Bruce Fife who completed some studies and found research on the benefits of coconut oil and he has written 2 books on Coconut Oil. The Coconut Oil Miracle and Coconut Oil Cures.   Are these considered primary sources? (not signed, but entered by Lmartinez887)
 * Bruce Fife is not a board-certified doctor, scientist or expert on coconut oil -- he is a fraud. He has no publications in the peer-reviewed medical or plant science literature, indicating that his books and web articles on coconut oil are just fabrications. His books and public information on coconut oil as a "miracle" in nutrition are a scam, just plain quackery. When you see the word "miracle" or "cure" used to describe health effects of a plant food, take a dose of skepticism and ignore it as scammer noise. --Zefr (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually I'd consider Bruce Fife as an unreliable secondary source who might cite primary medical sources himself. Bruce Fife would not be considered a WP:MEDRS for medical information. Even authors who are actual doctors aren't always considered reliable (Dr. Mercola and Dr. Oz for example). However, if he cites reliable sources himself, it would be good to look them up, and if any of those sources are reliable secondary sources (i.e. they are peer reviewed and they describe an aggregation of results from different studies), then those sources could be used. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)