Talk:Vitamin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vitamin (reviewed version) has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. Please work to improve this article, or visit our project page to find other ways of helping. Thanks!
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Vitamin is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

edit

Archives

– August 2006

Please add new sections at the END. If content is added in the wrong place, it might be moved, or, worse, it might never be seen.

Contents 1 Psuedo 2 Catalysts 3 Reorganization and clean up 4 GA Review 5 Supplement controversy edits 6 Removal 7 End notes/citations 8 Adding Choline to the list of vitamins

[edit] Psuedo

"Pangamic acid, vitamin B15; the related substance dimethylglycine is quite wrongly referred to as vitamin B15 but also labeled B16." Which is the pseudovit? --Gbleem 17:53, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catalysts

Catalysts need not remain unchanged - as long as the molecule is regenerated by the end of the reaction, it is still considered a catalyst. Someone might want to see if they can work this in in a concise manner - I'm reluctant to add anything, since this article looks messy enough as it is... --203.206.183.160 14:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization and clean up

I have reorganized and cleaned up this article in an attempt to improve the flow of information, and to facilitate the introduction of some examples of the function and importance of vitamins. I have also removed some POV wording, and some information that did not seem to be relevant to the article. I hope that the article has been improved.--DO11.10 20:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree...

It's very inaccurate, I suggest it be wholly removed for the time being.

216.70.37.171 12:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You may suggest it, but I recommend you stop actually blanking the article, since this is likely to get you blocked from Wikipedia. If you remove information you need to give a detailed account in the edit summary, point by point. Notinasnaid 13:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is well written.

   a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   a (fair representation): b (all significant views):

5. It is stable.

   

6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.

   a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA):

• The primary concern is the section "Notes", that fail criteria 1b, 1c, 1d and 2a, 2b and 2c is somewhat dependent on that, the rest of the article is ok on those points. You can either just remove the whole "Notes" section, or take time doing a total rewrite.
• the image Image:Vegetable market.jpg needs to be removed, as it had wrong licence.

I'll give you seven days, on hold. _→AzaToth 21:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC) Pass _→AzaToth 22:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Supplement controversy edits

I have removed the following edits from the article:

[Use of vitamin supplements is controversial.] Although unproven, it is commonly believed that whole foods (fresh fruits and vegetables, unprocessed meats) raised without synthetic pesticides and fertilizers are healthier than processed foods of equivalent composition (same amounts of proteins, carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals). Vitamin supplements are available in every pharmacy and grocery store that contain significantly higher doses than can be obtained by eating commonly available, inexpensive foods. There are proven side effects from using vitamin supplements, and the frequency and severity of side effects increases with increasing dose. Many of these side effects cause discomfort that initiates almost immediately after ingesting the offending supplement. Individual vitamin supplements are/have been claimed to be effective treatments for almost every ailment. Most of these claims have proven to be unfounded. On the other hand, vitamins at doses associated with side effects are effective treatments for some specific conditions, and, like drugs, show increasing effectiveness with increasing dose. For example, niacin raises good cholesterol and lowers bad cholesterol. The recommended dose is between 1000 and 2000 mg/day.[1] This is far above the UL value for niacin (see side effects section below for the definition of UL). Another example is the use of vitamin C for treating burns. The recommended dose is close to 100 gm/day injected intravenously supplemented by a topical application of a 3 wt% vitamin C solution.[2] ^[1] This is far above the UL value for vitamin C of 2 gm/day. Unlike many of the side effects, in both these cases the patients are unable to perceive the proven benefits....

...In light of these facts, it is not surprising that vitamin supplements are controversial. Proof that vitamins far in excess of the R.D.A's are effective treatments for some specific conditions is unsettling because it proves that the full benefits of vitamins can not always be obtained without taking on the risks of side effects. One of the central roles of vitamins is to catalyze the growth and development of children into adults. The R.D.A.'s were set to prevent classic vitamin deficiency diseases and to ensure that no children were harmed by vitamin side effects. An unspoken assumption is that the R.D.A.'s enable the optimal growth and development of every child. What if this assumption is not true?

These statements are very POV, and rather unencyclopedic in nature. Words like "commonly believed", "unsettling", "an unspoken assumption" and the sentence "What if this assumption is not true?", for example, diverge from the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia and insert the opinions of editors. In fact, I think that these edits were re-added to the article from a previous version, the "vitamin controversy" section, that was tagged, by another editor, as unencyclopedic in tone. While the input of all editors is appreciated, please carefully consider the nature of your additions and how they might be percieved by others. If you would like to reinsert some of this material please tone down the POV statements. Cheers--DO11.10 17:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal

This article is so shoddy in most of it's assertions and over-simplistic and simply innacurrate in it's citations (what it's asserting from the cited sources) that I am wholly removing several sections for the time being.

66.188.208.180 07:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You will need at the very least to put edit summaries, and refer to this discussion, or everyone (including some robots) will assume you are simply vandalising, and promptly undo your changes. Notinasnaid 07:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay we will take this point by point:

1. "what it's asserting from the cited sources" Yes, you are correct some of the Governmental and Merck sources (which is what I assume you are having a problem with) go to an overview page that has a list of vitamins. It seemed simple enough to me that a person could then choose which vitamin they were interested in reading/checking up on/whatever. Nonetheless, I have gone back in and put EVERY single "Vitamin Fact Sheet" as a reference so that you don't have to pick.
2. "shoddy in most of it's assertions" and "simply innacurrate (sic.) in it's citations" This is just plain wrong. I suggest that you actually check out the references (I mean read them). Or cite specific examples of information that you take issue with.
3. "over-simplistic" Well yes, if you are a medical doctor you might find the treatment of this sunject to be simplistic, but I would wager that most other people would not. Further, this page is meant to be a summary of vitamins, (each specific vitamin has it's own individual page) it is not mean to go into vast amounts of detail, that can be found on the individual vitamin page.

Lastly, removing sections is never okay, without a GOOD explanation of why you are doing it. See my explanation in the "supplement" section above, as an example.--DO11.10 19:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] End notes/citations

I am removing this, with hopes to clean it up later. Many of the statistics from the cited sources on this page are false, or unapplicable to the source. 216.70.37.171 13:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The concerns you raise are serious. Please discuss them. However, deleting citations is not acceptable as a way of dealing with them. If you will not engage in dialog, and continue in this way, you will be blocked. Please add new discussions at the END of the talk page, thank you. Notinasnaid 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed a list of examples of various Vitamin functions. I fear that an individual may see that list, and falsely assume that this is the limit of the functions of these vitamins are able to perform. Instead, I kept a general statement about the bodily functions of vitamins and moved the specific details to the wiki pages of the various vitamins cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.188.208.180 (talk) 11:01, 28 October 2006

This article has been cleaned up quite nicely, with the removal of a few rather ambiguous citations and some inaccurate information. When referencing a book, specific excerpts should be indicated. When a general (relatively well known) statement regarding the nature of vitamins is accredited to a book (with no specific chapter or page numbers) it seems as if Wikipedia is just trying to add a credible reference to their vitamin page... 71.215.172.78 22:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adding Choline to the list of vitamins

I would like to add Choline to the chart of vitamins on this page, and to the Vitamin template Template:Vitamin which produces the box at the bottom of each vitamin page. --Coppertwig 08:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

According to most of the articles I could find, choline is referred to as "vitamin-like" and is not essential at all stages of development, although deficiency can result in disease, and it is listed on most RDA charts. Here is an example of one "neutral" reference I found UNC at Chapel Hill: News release. Therefore, although it is a bit of a gray area, I don't think that it should be classified here as a vitamin at this time. Cheers--DO11.10 18:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Choline nutrition is discussed here. Choline can be made in the body, and not all people require this in the diet, so i don't think this is a vitamin. TimVickers 18:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)