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