, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Overagainst: I respectfully disagree, and that still doesn't mean that it should displace all other sources in the article. I also never wrote that this was a medical dictionary, I wrote that this is an encyclopedia article and as such should encapsulate, to the extent possible in a small space and for a lay audience, the current state of scientific understanding of vitamin D, which means that the order in which things appear in the article should be changed. I also explicitly stated I was against a separate section for "dissenting opinions", or "other opinions". I agree with Doc James we should preferentially include reviews and meta-analyses, but there are enough of those which contradict the IOM recommendations that it shouldn't be a problem to give this article the balance it deserves while maintaining a high standard.

The point is that the article reads like somebody's agenda, in other words, it reads POV. The sources have been cherry-picked and the tone is against supplementation, which doesn't reflect the body of research. The article needs to be changed.   14:12