Talk:I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!

Date of introduction?

When was I Can't Believe It's Not Butter first introduced for sale? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.216.157.38 (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

In what country? 86.132.138.205 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Trans fats

I removed the piece about the product falsely claiming not to contain trans fats. It seems like original research by the editor, and neither claims had citations. Adding a citation need flag doesn't seem enough in this case, a claim like this can unduly harm the company if false. If sources are found for this claim, feel free to revert this edit. [Disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with I can't believe it's not butter, and have never even eaten it) Meertn (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Product is trans fat free.Jettparmer (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC) (http://www.icantbelieveitsnotbutter.com/Products/Original.aspx)

US and UK formulation

The contents list appears to refer to the American product, not least because it lists 'sweet cream' which is unknown in British English culinary usage and sounds disgusting (it would be cream with sugar added to it.) A UK pack lists the following contents:

Vegetable oils

Buttermilk (5%)

Water

Salt (1.5%)

Emulsifiers: mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids

Sunflower lechtin

Preservative: potassium sorbate

Vitamin E

Citric acid

Flavouring

Colour: beta-carotene

Vitamins A & D

There are many discrepancies with the (presumably American) existing list of contents. Note that there is no mention of hydrogenated oils or fats, which I believe is now a legal requirement in the EU if these substances are present. The oil is likely to be rapeseed (canola). --Ef80 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I eat this and like the product. I have noticed the ingredients for the Mediterreanan blend now contains no partially or fully hydrogenated oils. I noticed no taste change. I will list new ingredients from the label to see if you all think it is a needed change to the main article. I am referring to the US version. --Mp3sgt (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Shorten Form?

The shorten form is IcBin?? I saw in stores and it should be "ICBINB". Derek LeungLM 04:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Declined proposal for deletion

Keep: this topic passes WP:GNG per:

• Elliott, Stuart (July 26, 2005). "I Can't Believe It's Not a TV Ad!". The New York Times. Retrieved April 29, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Marikar, Sheila (May 17, 2011). "Kim Cattrall on 'Sex and the City,' Hollywood 'Mania' and 'Having It All'". ABC News. Retrieved April 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
• Cerklewski, Florian L. (September 2005). "Calcium fortification of food can add unneeded dietary phosphorus". Volume 18, Issue 6. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis. pp. 595–598. Retrieved April 28, 2012.

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

2011 in germany

are there any sources? and were is it available and under what name? 87.152.169.224 (talk) 08:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Article issues

Another editor was distressed by my earlier editing here. I said I would sit it out for a few hours, come back and tag my concerns. I cannot really tag the article with my concerns; it would make a worthless mess. Instead, here's a rundown:

• "a variant of margarine" - Maybe, maybe not. Unilever and all U.S. sources cited call it a "spread". "Margarine" has a specific legal meaning in the U.S. that ICBINB does not meet.
• "formulated with a small percentage of buttermilk" - I'm not sure why we would call out one ingredient. In any case, "small percentage" is unsourced POV.
• "marketed in a manner that is suggestive of butter content" - I see no indication that this is the case. Heck, the name says it is not butter.
• "brand name itself suggests that the product is a "butter mixture" (a margarine blended with natural butter)" - I see no indication of this. The source cited (see next item) says ICBINB is "Blended margarines are table spreads made by combining margarine and butter."
• The previously mentioned source is a supermarket chain, not a reliable source for the info given.
• "it does not contain any natural butter" - This is contrary to the source cited that it does contain butter. "Natural" is a needless modifier here, of no particular meaning.
• "there are no labeling restrictions on butter mixtures" - The source cited (see next item) again calls ICBINB a "Butter mixture". It does not say there are no labeling restrictions. In fact, it discusses some and talks about how some "butter mixtures" "avoid the restrictions on labelling".
• The source in the previous item doesn't really say where its information comes from. I see no indication that it has a "reputation for fact checking and accuracy." Based on their use of the Wikimedia interface and a strong resemblance to our existing Margarine article, I believe it was copied from an earlier version of that article and is, therefore, not a reliable source.
• "The product is marketed as..." - Over the past 30 years it has probably been marketed numerous ways, most of them not particularly notable. (The himbo from the romance novel covers a few years back comes to mind.) I can't see a particularly encyclopedic reason to include one recent campaign or (worse yet) a list of them.

That's the first paragraph. Let's start with that. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• Margarine is defined as "a water-in-oil emulsion derived from vegetable/animal fats, with a fat content of at least 80% but less than 90%, that remain solid at a temperature of 20°C and are suitable as spread." What is varied is the fat content. The product is a water-in-oil emulsion derived from vegetable fats, marketed as a spread. Hence it either is margarine or a variant of margarine. If you think it is not perhaps you could provide an explanation.
• Because that one ingredient is its claim to fame ... 'that it tastes just like butter'. It makes this claim based on the buttermilk content. The amount of buttermilk is given by the article itself (list of ingredients). Without that ingredient it is just plain old margarine.
• If the company's own press releases say that the product 'tastes exactly the same as butter' (which is cited) then I think its fair to say they are suggesting butter content. We define food by taste and if something tastes 100% identical to butter then it is butter. The company claims 'taste tests' show that 80% of subjects who are skilled at detecting butter by taste ('butter lovers') find the product indistinguishable from butter. You say the company says the product is 'not butter'. It doesn't, it says it is '_not BUTTER' ... the name on the packaging is so crafted that from a distance it simply says "Butter".
• Retailers classify the product as a blended margarine. The product is named as a paradigm example of this category.
• Retailers are a reliable source for how a product is marketed ... that is their basic function.
• No, the description is that it is classified and marketed as a butter blend despite not having any natural butter content. The source says that it is marketed as a butter blend. Also, I believe the term 'natural butter' is used by the labeling rules, so its important to stick to that terminology.
• the labeling rules of butter do not apply to butter mixtures ... the reference makes this clear. But I agree the discussion on labeling restrictions could be better. Perhaps you can do the research on butter labeling rules and clean up the margarine entry.
• that sounds like an opinion ... 'you believe' etc. In fact the Wikipedia article has this section flagged as lacking references. Perhaps you could spend your time more usefully by finding the missing references for that. There are journals dedicated to marketing, so I'm sure you can find something there on this specific issue.
• No, it has always been marketed as 'tasting just like butter'! A reader needs to know in 1 sentence or so the basic marketing claim to fame of the product. And that is made very clear by the company's own press release. That basic message has been the same throughout the product's existence.
• Overall, its sound like quibbling over minor matters. The product is a type of margarine and is marketed as if it had natural butter content when in fact it has no butter content. That's the basic definition. Then the reader needs to know how its marketed, the commercial classification and the regulatory framework. The latter 2 need a bit more work I think. I think as it stands the article is better than before, that the facts as set out are basically correct but there is room for improvement. Particularly, as suggested, in tightening up the references. But Wikipedia is by nature about incremental improvement. TxB (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please do not intersperse your response with my comment.

• You have provided a definition of margarine and stated that ICBINB is a variant of that. This is synthesis. In the United States, there are specific criteria that a product must meet to be called margarine. If a product meets those criteria, it must be labeled as "margarine" or "oleomargarine".[1] However, the labeling for ICBINB says "spread" in the U.S. In the U.S., ICBINB is not "margarine". Legally, as labeled, it is a "spread". I do not see a source for calling it a "variant" of anything.
• I see no indication it claims to taste like butter based on the inclusion of buttermilk. I would assume that they say it tastes like butter because they are claiming that it tastes like butter. I see no indication that this ingredient is a "claim to fame". Here is Unilever's description of the product: "Made with a blend of nutritious soybean and canola oils, I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!® Original has 70% less saturated fat and 30% fewer calories than butter.* Plus, it has no hydrogenated oils (so there’s 0g trans fat*), is cholesterol free and is an excellent source of omega-3 ALA.** Enjoy the fresh butter taste you love!"[2] They don't mention their own product's "claim to fame"? Unlikely. The "Made with Sweet Cream Buttermilk" banner is also gone from the package, though it's still in the ingredients list.[3]
• "...'tastes exactly the same as butter' (which is cited) then I think its fair to say they are suggesting butter content." I don't think that is fair or accurate. The name of the product is "...not butter". If they're trying to say their spread is butter, they're doing a really bad job of it! "We define food by taste and if something tastes 100% identical to butter then it is butter." No, under food purity laws (in the US, UK and Canada anyway), we define food by what it is. A mixture of water, sugar, colors and flavors that tastes exactly like apple juice is a "fruit-flavored drink". Juice from pressing apples is "apple juice". As for the "80% of subjects who are skilled at detecting butter by taste ('butter lovers') find the product indistinguishable from butter", that's not what the marketing material[4] says. "Skilled at detecting" is something you are adding; it says "butter lovers". It does not say "indistinguishable from butter", it says "tastes as good as fresh butter": give butter lovers numerous foods (including butter and, oh, Chilean sea bass with a delicate red wine sauce), have them rate both foods for various characteristics from 1 to 10. They give both a 9 for flavor. Bingo, the sea bass "tastes as good as" (but, of course, not at all like) "butter". Maybe the ICBINB got all zeros in scent, color, overall appearance, mouth feel and was noted as having an after taste similar to old gym socks. We don't know. Your original research on the prominence of "butter" is only useful if it is an observation made by a reliable source.
• One retailer is not "Retailers classify". That retailer says the product is a blend of butter and margarine. You are saying it isn't. Why use a source if you are saying the source is wrong?
• Unilever markets the product. Retailers, from large chains to the tiny corner store, sell it. Retailers do not "have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy" WP:RS This cite is not helpful.
• "...classified and marketed as a butter blend despite not having any natural butter content." You are, of course, accusing Unilever (or someone...) of fraud. This is an extraordinary claim. You will need to provide a reliable source that says this explicitly, not a supermarket chain that seems to have made a mistake. You do not have a source stating that ICBINB does not have "natural butter" in it. Others might decide we should say it doesn't have fiber, vitamin C, "life essence", magic pixie dust, etc. We don't get to decide to say what something does or does not have. Doing so is original research. Material must be verifiable.
• I have no interest is researching labeling rules/laws throughout the world. In any case, unless we have independent reliable sources directly discussing those laws in relation to ICBINB, we have nothing to say on the matter here.
• You have it backwards. This is not a reliable source. If you wish to say it is, you will need to demonstrate this. Guidelines are available at WP:IRS.
• " The product is marketed as having a "rich and delicious fresh butter taste" that four out of five 'butter lovers' agree "tastes as good as fresh butter"." is a recent claim. If it has always been marketed this way, find a source. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am starting to see why other editors have expressed frustration in the past about your edits. You raise a whole host of minor matters (about which you yourself say you have little if any expertise) while ignoring the central issue. That is (whatever your misgiving about the article's existence) the purpose of the article is to tell the reader what the product is (a definition), how its marketed, its commercial classification, and the regulatory framework under which it is sold. You don't appear to dispute that this is the overall aim, and you also don't seem to dispute that this was largely missing previously. If you have "no interest" in doing the research to improve the article then why contribute? You are certainly right to call to my attention things which are not referenced, but now that I have addressed those concerns you cannot quibble about them unless you are willing to do the research yourself. I should note that many Wikipedia articles have content that lack any reference at all. If the content is broadly in the right direction then the approach is to flag anything that should be referenced and leave it for the right person to come along who will fill in the blanks.
• I must also say that many of your arguments are fundamentally flawed. Particularly when you focus on minor matters but ignore the central points or exhibit obvious errors in logic.
• "If a product meets those criteria, it must be labelled as margarine". You have it exactly backwards. This is a basic error in logic. What is true is the statement that if a manufacturer wishes to call a product 'margarine' it must meet the criteria. If X then Y. You say, therefore if Y then X. Does this follow? In fact, you can call your emulsified vegetable fat 'magic pixie dust' if you want to and you can put what I like into it. But if you want to label it 'margarine' it must follow the labelling regulations. In this case the manufacturer chose not to label their product 'margarine' but it still is margerine, and its commercially classified as margarine. Whatever they choose to call it, is unrelated to what it actually is. Its not synthesis to call a duck a duck, even if you insist on calling it a magical pixie. You can call it anything you like but to everyone else its still a duck. I note you go on to make this exact point yourself on when butter is butter.
• What counts is the commercial classification under which it is retailed. And that is quite plainly butter blended with margarine. Thats what the source says. If the manufacturer disputes this then they would take it up with the retailers and there would be plenty of sources to show this. But there are none. If you disagree then by all means go out and find sources that show otherwise. I would note that the regulations say that margarine must have vitamins A & D added. Butter is not required to have these added. Neither are other kinds of things you 'spread' on your toast. As you can see from the ingredients, vitamns A & D are added ... indicating its classified by the official food regulatory bodies as margarine. Note that food labelling is a wholly different thing from food regulation.
• The reference I give shows the commercial classification of the product. The category is 'blend of butter and margarine'. Blend labelling is unregulated, so manufacturers can call it a butter blend but are free to use any blend ratio they like. Many use modest amounts, like 5% or 10% ... but 0% is also allowed. Of course marketing a 0% blend would be treated as a joke ... hence the importance of 'sweet cream buttermilk' as an ingredient. Not any buttermilk, but the 'sweet creamy' type -- a claim made prominently on the label. Butter is of course produced by emulsifying the fat in cream. Without this single ingredient it could not be marketed (successfully) as a butter blend. So quite plainly that ingredient is its claim to fame ... its the products USP. Placing the words 'butter' and 'cream' prominently and repeatedly on the label points out that this is the key ingredient.
• The name of the product is not "...not butter". It is "..._not BUTTER" which in itself suggests it is being marketed as butter. "We" define food by its taste. Food labelling regulations define food by what it is (that is by its source). Do you see the difference? Its exactly the gap in logic this product aims to exploit.
• You do make a good point about the logic about the marketing. "Tastes as good as butter" is indeed not the same thing as 'indistinguishable from butter'. You will note though that the sentence "80% of subjects who are skilled at detecting butter by taste ('butter lovers') find the product indistinguishable from butter" is there to help you understand, not what I've put in the article. This is what their marketing 'suggests'. What I put in the article is a quote from their own marketing. And you can't really dispute that can you? And their marketing absolutely maximises the use of the word 'butter' (including the name itself). That quite plainly 'suggests' butter content. If the label says 'apple' then its perfectly fair to say in summary that the product suggests apple content. There is nothing 'original' in this when providing a general overview. Marketing is all about suggestion, so its perfectly reasonable to summarize a marketing campaign in this way.
• "You are, of course, accusing Unilever (or someone...) of fraud. This is an extraordinary claim." Not at all. A butter blend is allowed to have 0% butter (see above). It is commercially classified and marketed as a butter blend as you can see yourself from the reference and the wikipedia margarine article. There is a kind of fraud but its in the lax labelling regulations. In fact the company was taken to court in the early days exactly for this kind of thing. But until the labelling regulations change (and you will note there are a number of markets where the regulations are tighter) the company is skirting on the correct side of the regulations.
• "This is not a reliable source." As I said, this your opinion, with which I don't agree. As you admit yourself you have neither the expertise nor the interest to make it any more than just a personal opinion.
• The marketing summary that "The product is marketed as having a "rich and delicious fresh butter taste" that four out of five 'butter lovers' agree "tastes as good as fresh butter" is not recent at all. The overall marketing is simply being summarized in a single sentence. It does not have to be 100% literal. If you believe otherwise its up to you to make the case for it. If you think the single sentence summary can be improved by all means give it a shot. But it seems unreasonable to complain about a marketing summary that is set out in the company's own words. TxB (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
• A "rich and delicious fresh butter taste" ... That sounds pretty much like a claim that it tastes the same as or similar to butter to me, not like sea bass or red wine or any other food.

• This should put all your 'suggestion' stuff to rest: "ICBINB Semiotics | I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! is a mouthful to most and a puzzle to some. The name implies ICBINB is not butter, but doesn't completely rule out the possibility that it is butter. That smidgen of doubt -- or possible deception -- fueled the English butter lobby's successful bid to block Unilever from advertising ICBINB on TV in Great Britain in the early '90s." This is from a book. Its in the list of references already, and its available on google books so have a look.[5] TxB (talk) 20:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

For the last time, if you have problems with me or my editing, feel free to address that directly. I have no intention of defending myself, why I edit this article or have made the "so many" edits to this article (15 edits in 2 years).

I raise "a whole host of minor matters" because there are a whole host of minor matters that I feel need to be addressed. I originally reverted your unsourced POV additions. You decided that was vandalism and reverted. I figured discussing, in detail, the problems might give you some idea what I am talking about: Your additions are full of unsourced and poorly sourced claims, along with original research supporting your opinions of the product and what you fee we should say about it. In my opinion, we should present what independent reliable sources actually have to say about the product, in proportion to how much attention sources discuss those issues. What we think people will believe (correctly or not) about the product is not our job. What we feel they should be aware of is not our job. If we believe the product is a mixture of depleted uranium, arsenic and strychnine, but reliable sources state it is pure, organic butter from happy cows raised by virgins in Eden, the article should reflect what the sources say, not what we believe. I have no interest in researching regulations on butter, margarine and spreads throughout the world (as you suggested I should). This is not, as you suggest, because I am not working to improve this article. Rather, as I tried to explain, this research would NOT be useful in this article. If a source does not discuss ICBINB, we cannot use it in this article. "If a product meets those criteria, it must be labelled as margarine". You attack this statement as if it were mine. I sourced it to The Code of Federal Regulations of the United States of America which says, a product which "...conform(s) to the definition and standard of identity for oleomargarine or margarine...must bear the name 'oleomargarine' or 'margarine'." This, however, is a side point. We call a product what independent reliable sources call it. (We still need some independent reliable sources.)

As this discussion has become quite cumbersome, I am now going to partialize the issue. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"a variant of margarine"

We do not have a reliable source stating the ICBINB is a "variant of margarine". This is not a verifiable claim (verifiability is a core principle of Wikipedia). The product is labeled a "spread". We do not have reliable sources calling the current product anything else. (I do not have access the the Chicago Tribune article from over 30 years ago at the moment. The product has been reformulated several times since then.) I propose we call it a "butter-flavored spread". Comments? - SummerPhD (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. We do not in fact have a reliable source which defines this product as a 'spread'. What is a 'spread' (butter flavoured or not)? It relies implicitly on a source from the manufacturer's label. This is marketing. As discussed (see above), the only thing that can be reliably sourced from the manufacturer is the nature of their marketing. We know what a margarine is. We know this product is classified as a margarine by retailers. We know the food regulatory agencies treat this product as a margarine and the the manufacturer themselves internally classify it as a margarine. We know this because the manufacturer adds vitamins A & D, as is required for margarines. Specifically this product comes under the sub-class of margarines which are blended with butter. This is best described as a margarine variant, particularly as the manufacturer goes to great lengths not to label the product as margarine for retail marketing purposes. A marketing effort is, however, not a reliable source. While the references could be improved I believe the phrase 'variant margarine' best describes the product and is most consistent with the sources we have at present. TxB (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The primary description in the article defines the product as "a blended imitation butter spread". If we accept it is an 'imitation butter spread' blended with 'butter flavour' then by definition it is a variant of margarine. Margarine is defined as an 'imitation butter spread'. We use the exact phrase 'imitation butter spread' because we know exactly what this means from the sources. The term 'butter-flavoured spread' has no well defined meaning. TxB (talk) 00:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

You have said margarine has a set of characteristics. Let's call this "A". You have said ICBINB has these characteristics (or a varient of them). Let's call this "B". Adding these together, you say ICBINB is a margarine. Let's call that "C". A + B = C.

"We know the food regulatory agencies treat this product as a margarine..." Which food regulatory agencies and how do we know this? "...and the the manufacturer themselves internally classify it as a margarine" How do we know this? Because they add two vitamins: A; these vitamins are added to margarine: B; ICBINB is margarine: C. A + B = C.

You repeatedly say it contains no butter. You also repeatedly say it is a "margarine blended with butter". Which one is true or is there some way it can not have butter in it but be blended with butter?

Yes, I understand you believe it is best described as a "margarine variant". I disagree and we do not have reliable sources that say this.

You reject "spread" as coming from the manufacturer. (The FTC and many others use "spread" for butter substitutes that do not meet the definition of "margarine".[6][7][8][9][10][11]) OK, how about "butter substitute" from Calvani, Terry. Antiturst Law Journal, 1989, "Advertising Regulation: The States v. FTC" ("...a nationally distributed butter substitute, 'I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.'") and Cerklewski, F.L. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 2005, "Calcium fortification of food can add unneeded dietary phosphorus" ("and butter substitute (I Can't Believe It's Not Butter...")? Or, again, "spread": McKenzie, Liz. Law 360, "'Can't Believe It's Not Butter' False Ad Suit Nixed" and Davis, Ryan. "Unilever Hits Back At 'I Can't Believe It's Not Butter' Suit"? - SummerPhD (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Lets try some proper logic on your ABCs. Margarine has a set of defining characteristics. Lets call this set A. I...Butter's characteristics we can call set B. Lets take the intersection of A and B to see the difference between set A and set B. A-B={Buttermilk}. That is, the only difference is the ingredient Buttermilk. Therefore A+{Buttermilk}=B. We agree that we can call A margarine. Therefore B = margarine + buttermilk. How much buttermilk? 5%, which in the scientific world is described as a 'small quantity' (see below). When one thing differs from the other by a small amount we don't in fact call it B. We call it A' (the prime symbol denoting the small change). A' varies from A by a small amount, and therefore we describe it as a 'variant'. Again, this is just absolutely standard scientific language.

I think I made it fairly clear about the 0% blend. Products are marketed and sold in categories (like fruit juice or margarine or butter). The category is margarine butter blend. In most markets a blend with 0% butter is allowed to be sold as a butter blend. Its exactly the same as fruit juice vs fruit 'drink'. Fruit juice must made from 100% real fruit juice. A fruit 'drink' is not regulated. They usually have a small amount of real juice, but some have 0% real juice. What is it really? It doesn't matter. Its marketed as a fruit 'drink', and is the same category as a 10% blend or a 50% blend (ie. real juice + a bit of water).

You give a lot of links that you claim support your claim about 'spreads' but I don't see anything in these links that actually supports what you say. For press releases and broad overviews or summaries you cite 'spread' and margarine seem to be used interchangably. Which actually supports what I am saying ... that the correct term is margarine. The consumer reports in particular which you cite is actually a list of the different types of margarine variants. Your links also all seem to be US based. Even if the term 'spread' is defined in few US states but not defined in europe then you haven't made much headway. So far all I've seen is how the marketing terms have made their way into various press releases. Which is hardly anything at all.TxB (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(My point about "spread" is it does not come from the manufacturer, but is widely used. Immaterial)

Your logic is original research and synthesis.

Reliable sources (peer reviewed journals in this case) call it a "butter substitute". This is verifiable. Do you have a reliable source for "margarine variant" or "butterless butter blend"? - SummerPhD (talk) 17:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(Please do not delete my comments on article talk pages. --> you duplicated your entry, please delete duplicate!)

Reliable sources (peer reviewed journals in this case) call it a "butter substitute". This is verifiable. Do you have a reliable source for "margarine variant", "butterless butter blend" or some other wording? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You haven't established that the term 'spread' is widely used. I haven't seen you cite any 'peer reviewed' journals at all. Consumer reports may be fairly reliable but its not peer reviewed. All you've really shown is some marketing material (which no doubt originates from the company itself) refers to the product as a 'spread' and a 'butter substitute'. But your sources contradict you and your ABCs don't add up. Correcting the flaws in your argument does not amount to 'original research'. Before continuing I would suggest you seek some external advice at your local university. Have them look over your arguments to see if they are sound or not.TxB (talk) 21:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I said, "Reliable sources (peer reviewed journals in this case) call it a "butter substitute"." ("Spread", though widely used, is irrelevant.) Those sources were, "Calvani, Terry. Antiturst Law Journal, 1989, "Advertising Regulation: The States v. FTC" ("...a nationally distributed butter substitute, 'I Can't Believe It's Not Butter.'") and Cerklewski, F.L. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 2005, "Calcium fortification of food can add unneeded dietary phosphorus" ("and butter substitute (I Can't Believe It's Not Butter...")". Do you have a problem with the reliable sources for "butter substitute" or do you have reliable sources for "margarine variant", "butterless butter blend" or some other wording? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

So which is it, "butter substitute" (as used in peer reviewed journals) or would you like to supply reliable sources using some other wording? - SummerPhD (talk) 22:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

These are not proper journal citations. The point of making a citation is to allow other people to look it up and see for themselves. You have flooded your past responses with vast quantities of links, yet you provide no links here. And again your logic is wrong. The wording in the article is "It is a variant of margarine..." not it is a "margarine variant". That is, its a margarine but with a small difference, and that difference is given in the same sentence. And every bit of that is now sourced. And in case you are still unhappy about "buttermilk" -- it is shown prominently in the Wikipedia article picture: "Made With Sweet Cream Buttermilk". It seems you are not happy with the sources, but that is your personal opinion. But by all means take that opinion to an expert at your local university if you wish to take it further. TxB (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the journal citations. I did not provide links to the articles because I am unaware of free access to these journals. I've quoted the text in question and provided complete citations. You have not, however, identified any reliable sources calling ICBINB a "variant of margarine", "margarine variant", "butterless margarine-butter blend" or anything else. I have provided reliable sources for "butter substitute". It is verifiable. You have not provided sources. Your synthesis is not acceptable. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Quite obviously there is something wrong with a citation if no one can find it. Given the content of many of your other citations I suspect you haven't actually read these yourself to see if they support your position. From an academic point of view that would be a type of misconduct. Here I suspect it would come under the heading of trolling (see below). I note you have made no effort to make these citations available either to me or anyone else. TxB (talk) 21:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely anyone can find it, just not for free on line. Take a trip the the library, they can pull a copy for you in the unlikely event they don't have subscription access. If you would prefer to buy access, knock yourself out.[12][13] I have removed your supermarket chain as a non-reliable source for your claims. If you believe it somehow is a reliable source for this claim contrary to peer-reviewed journals, you will need to take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

I will be adding the very well cited "butter substitute" in its place in a few days, unless you provide reliable sources that directly state that ICBINB is a "blended imitation butter spread". - SummerPhD (talk) 01:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

What you are trying to cite is (1) Calvani, Terry (1989). Advertising Regulation: The States v. FTC. Antitrust LJ, 58, p. 253. Which is available on JStor: [14] (2) Cerklewski, Florian L. (2005). Calcium fortification of food can add unneeded dietary phosphorus. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 18(6), p.595-598. Which is available at Elsevier, to which most universities have a subscription: [15]. Cited correctly, I had no problem finding and being able to read either. TxB (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, it seems quite clear that you haven't actually read what you cite. What you give look like a jumbled google screen scrape. If you had read the citations you would have found that the piece of the FTC commissioner is a light hearted opinion piece -- citing it is the equivalent of citing April fools media stories. The Journal of Food Composition and Analysis article states that the I...Butter brand is owned by Lipton, which would have informed you to get a few more sources had you actually read your own citations. So you have not established that the term is 'very well cited'. Moreover the use of 'butter substitute' that you cite doesn't support your claim. The term is used to very broadly indicate the general class of product. There is no dispute about these products being 'spreads', 'imitation butter' or 'butter substitutes'. That is, they belong to those general (and not well defined) categories. You are trying to say that something IS its category ... which is a very basic error in logic. Have a look at [16] for the classes that are part of 'butter substitutes'. If you had searched just a bit more broadly you would have found that the I...Butter product is also classed as a 'soft light margarine spread'.[17]. Which is a bit more specific. I would have thought that consulting the law would be the best source for the correct terminology. The Ohio Revised Code § 3717.16(D)[18] says "any product which is made in imitation of or as a substitute for butter". Which tells you that 'imitation' and 'substitute' are in this context synonymous. Which would tell you that 'imitation butter spread' is absolutely correct for the margarine article. TxB (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Please do not remove citations on the basis of your personal opinion. You are trying to do this on the basis that you have some form of authority in resolving this issue, which you don't. Pretending to have administrative authority is a form of trolling and is abusive. Please don't do it! TxB (talk) 08:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not call me a troll or my actions trolling again without process to back it up, I will consider it a personal attack. I have neither claimed nor implied that I am an administrator. Do not make the claim again without process to back it up, I will consider it a personal attack. If you are unsure how to go about this, place {{helpme}} on your talk page and an admin will assist you.

I see you have now removed the poorly sourced "blended imitation butter spread" as the main definition and now say it is "commercially classified as...". This is incorrect. Your source indicates that one New Zealand grocery chain calls it a "Blended margarine". Your cited source does not verify that this is "commercially clasified", nor does it use the term "blended imitation butter spread".

I see that you have found preview pages of the articles I cited. As I said, I am not able to locate free versions of the articles, which I have in fact read. I see absolutely no indication the Antitrust Law Journal article is a "light hearted opinion piece -- citing it is the equivalent of citing April fools media stories". We have a peer-reviewed journal piece by the FTC Commissioner against an online glossary by a grocery chain.

Your cite to Leagle tells us one thing about ICBINB: it is "(Lever Brothers) product". This does not have any bearing on the question at hand.

You provide another source, International Journal of Research Marketing which includes (p72) ICBINB on a chart as a "soft Light margaine spread", but have chosen instead to use "vegetable oil based butter flavored spread", which you cite to a slideshow at Health magazine (far more serious than the FTC Commissioner's journal piece?) that does not call ICBINB anything at all. You link to slide 8 (I guess I should dig out my style guide to see how to cite that), which says "Margarine is any vegetable-oil-based, butter-flavored spread that contains 80% oil; anything with a lower oil and fat content is called a 'soft margarine spread.'" Later in the slide show, it discusses ICBINB sticks and spray, but not the flagship tubs. Perhaps I'm missing where it directly says anything about the product we have pictured in the article.

You go on from there, of course with lots of... stuff. For now, I'll just tag the problems in the article. If you remove a tag, please briefly explain how you feel the tag is in error. I will take each issue to the appropriate noticeboard for independent assessment. I am also adding "butter substitute" citing the two journals and "soft Light margaine spread" from the one you supplied. If you disagree with these, "please do not remove citations on the basis of your personal opinion", take them to the reliable sources noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack redacted, per WP:NPA. You should do exactly what I've suggested now a number of times: get an independent person with the relevant expertise to look over what you are doing. But you are not doing that, despite being given every opportunity to do so.TxB (talk) 12:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You have suggested that I take this issue to some unidentified person at a university, in support of your synthesis. Wikipedia's policy on the matter (WP:SYN) is unambiguous on the matter. Wikipedia's policies are the authority on the matter. No expert can overturn that, only Wikipedia can. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"formulated with a small percentage of buttermilk"

I'm not sure why we would call out one ingredient. In any case, "small percentage" is unsourced POV. I do not see indications this ingredient is the product's "claim to fame". Their current marketing and labeling ignore it entirely (except for the legally required inclusion under "ingredients"). For the moment, I would suggest either removing this entirely or -- at the very least -- omitting the unsourced POV "small percentage" (Neutral point of view is Wikipedia's policy.). - SummerPhD (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

If we can agree on the definition of this product being "imitation 'butter-flavoured' spread" then it is by definition margarine blended with 'butter-flavour'. We know from the standards what an 'imitation butter spread' is and what the ingredients must be. But we don't know what 'butter-flavour' means. Therefore this ingredient merits explanation.

A 'miniscule' percentage is POV, a 'ridiculously tiny' percentage is not neutral. A 'small percentage' is both neutral and in this case accurate. And supported directly within the article itself, as it currently lists the ingredients by percentage. I would suggest that a percentage less than 10% (in cases such as this) can be fairly described as a 'small'.

Marketing counts in this case. Is the claim that the manufacturer's "current marketing and labeling ignore [the term buttermilk] entirely" true? Actually the current retail tag line in the UK is "Made with pure buttermilk". Google this phrase ... all the major UK retailer use this exact phrase, indicating that the origin of the phrase is Unilever corporate marketing. The previous tagline is "Made with Sweet Cream Buttermilk". As you go back in time you find numerous variations on this theme -- consistently emphasising the buttermilk content. So the claim to the contrary is quite plainly not supported by the sources, which directly contradict it both now and in the past.TxB (talk) 01:14, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The word is not used at all in the U.S. currently. To say this is the product's "claim to fame" is unsupported and immaterial.

"Small percentage" is your opinion. Do you have a reliable source saying this or is there some reason we should ignore WP:V on this issue? SummerPhD (talk) 06:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, Unilever is a european company and here in Europe the 'word' is very prominently used in the marketing. How it may or may not be marketed in your particular us state is not really relevant. Maybe the butter lobby had the word blocked there.

The phrase a 'small percentage of' is absolutely standard language when describing statistical quantities. Have a look at the following scientific paper: [19] The phrase is used in the title, in the introduction and in the conclusion. And the paper discusses the bounds for this quantity -- 1-5%. TxB (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

(U.S. advertising is regulated nationally, not state by state. Irrelevant.)

"Small percentage" in scientific literature would depend on what is being discussed. 5% of the population has an Autism Spectrum Disorder? Not "small". 5% of patients taking an OTC product suffer anaphylaxis shock? Not "small". Moot point. Reliable sources do not say the product contains a "small percentage". This is not verifiable. Please suggest an alternative. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, you are getting your facts just plain wrong: "State and local governments also regulate advertising, and enforcement is usually the responsibility of a state attorney general, a consumer protection agency or a local district attorney."[20]

Like so much of your commentary, this is your 'opinion'. I have provided you with the sources that show its absolutely standard use even in scientific papers, which have the highest standards. If you want to show the contrary, please present specific citations to support what you say. TxB (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Another tangent we are on. The issue at hand: Do independent reliable sources state that ICBINB has a "small percentage of buttermilk"? I haven't seen it yet and disagree with your wording. Do you have other reliable sources for this (referring directly to the issue) or a suggested alternate wording? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the short answer is yes. Again, I would suggest that take it up with someone at your local university to get some expert advice on this specific issue. I suspect they will be able to help you see it. TxB (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What reliable source says ICBINB contains a "small percentage of buttermilk"? - SummerPhD (talk) 21:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"But to get back to margarine, Other states in Australia are permitted to manufacture margarine and "fill" it with a small percentage of butter to colour the margarine."[21] As I said, its absolutely standard language. TxB (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Immaterial. As I said, "What reliable source says ICBINB contains a "small percentage of buttermilk"?" I do not believe this claim is verifiable (Verifiability is a core policy, demanding independent reliable sources that directly state what you add.- SummerPhD (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

You are either trolling or you genuinely do not understand. If its the latter you would be happy to get an expert view at your local university as I suggest. So, please leave it for now and get an independent expert view on your reasoning and expectations first.TxB (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Small percentage" is your POV. Suggest alternative wording, provide a reliable source or it will have to go. Yes, we have a source giving the percentage of buttermilk (in the UK anyway). You have provided sources that do not discuss ICBINB to say that "small percentage" is wording used in other situations. You wish to "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Please see WP:SYN. What anyone at my or any other college, university or trade school has to say about it is immaterial. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think that what anyone else (and particularly experts in the subject have to say is "immaterial" then we will have to conclude that you are trolling. Particularly, I would refer you to the quote "Deliberate misuse of processes is a favourite troll game." [22] I think I have been particularly patient in going through your various links, Wikipedia rules and your logic. Almost all of which are spurious. As I said at the outset, a lot of others on Wikipedia seem to have similar complaints about your behavior. So, please leave it at that.TxB (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You have not presented reliable sources that directly state it contains a "small percentage of buttermilk". You have presented synthesis, which is specifically disallowed on Wikipedia. I have added cite needed tags here as well. If you cannot produce reliable sources saying "small percentage", I will remove that in a few days. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, you don't have any special authority to decide what is or is not a 'reliable source'. You have made your arguments at length, much of which is fundamentally flawed. Which in fact you do not dispute. What is not allowed on Wikipedia is trolling, and I note that you do not dispute the allegation that what you are doing is trolling. Trolling is not allowed on Wikipedia. You have made it quite plain yourself that you want to see this article deleted and you want to prevent anyone else from contributing. That is wrong and it needs to stop. Please stop it! TxB (talk) 09:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You still have not presented reliable sources that say there is a "small percentage" of buttermilk in ICBINB. You are combining material from two sources -- one saying 5% buttermilk in ICBINB in the UK, another saying 5% in some other context is a "small percentage" -- to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by either source -- that there is a "small percentage" of buttermilk in ICBINB. As I have repeatedly said, this is WP:SYNTHESIS and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. I have removed the claim. - SummerPhD (talk) 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in source cited 1

"I Can't Believe It's Not Butter! is a vegetable oil based butter flavored spread..."[23]

The source cited, a slide show from Health magazine uses the phrase "vegetable-oil-based butter flavored spread" on slide 8. Later slides discuss I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Sticks (slide 10 "Trans-fat-free sticks") and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Spray (slide 13 "Butter-substitute sprays"). Neither one calls ICBINB a "vegetable-oil-based butter flavored spread" or addresses in any way the tub product shown in the foreground of the photo in out article. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This phrase, "vegetable oil based butter flavored spread" is not verifiable. Please review our core policy on the matter, WP:V. I will be removing it shortly. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will close this off just to say that I will follow the standard anti-trolling guidelines in dealing with vandalism caused by trolls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Txbangert (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks. (See our relevant policy at WP:NPA.)

So far, you have not made suggestions as to what Wikipedia guidelines or policies you feel I am running afoul of, other than your unsupported claim that I am trolling. Additionally you have given no indication that you have read any policies or guidelines.

One possibility is that I have been editing Wikipedia heavily for close to 8 years waiting to troll. In those 8 years, I have not been identified by anyone until a relatively new editor discovered me.

An alternate possibility is that you do not understand (or choose not to understand) our policies and guidelines.

If you disagree with my understanding of our policies and guidelines, I would encourage you to take this issue to the appropriate noticeboard for discussion. For questions regarding whether or not a source meets our policy (see WP:IRS), that would be Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. If, after trying other remedies (see WP:DISPUTE) you feel that I am truly beyond reason, you will most likely want to take the issue to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. (You can skip other methods and go directly to AN/I, but you will likely be asked what other remedies you have tried.) Otherwise, I will continue my work to make this article conform to our guidelines. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to me that your Wikipedia history is a particularly good one. Your own Wikipedia page shows evidence of potentially hundreds of agravated users. I think what you are trying to say is that in 8 years (Personal attack removed.) But that is just to say that your history contradicts what you say. I've been quite clear about this right at the start, and I've let you know as soon as I felt you were crossing the line. At this stage I warned you and pointed you to wikepedia guideline on trolling.[[24]] The specific policy you may be in breach of is vandalism.[[25]].

(Personal attack removed.) to change my work to fit your personal POV. That is plainly a breach of Wikipedia policy and guidelines. If you think I'm somehow getting it wrong and your behaviour is perfectly innocent then by all means go to those sources you yourself suggest. If you come back with a clean bill of health then I am prepared to revise my view. If you get a reliable source to review your posts here and they give their expert view that I am wrong, then I'm quite happy to remove the allegation.

With respect to the citations, I am the author and so if you are unhappy with the sources I've used and having brought it to my attention but failing to find agreement after having discussed the matter it is up to you to consult a reliable source who is prepared to support your position -- something I've suggested now a number of times. Otherwise we will keep the article as it is. (Personal attack removed.) It is important that you refrain from making any changes until the allegation has been cleared up. If you don't I intend to follow the Wikipedia guidelines on how to deal with (Personal attack removed.) TxB (talk) 16:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." If you feel I have been vandalizing -- whether for 8 years or just recently -- you will need to follow appropriate procedures. My intent is not to change "(your) work" to fit my POV. My intent is to change the article to confirm to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You should, of course, assume good faith first. To that end, I do not need to prove my innocence or answer baseless charges. Further discussion of me does not belong on an article talk page.

There is no way to "get a reliable source to review ... posts here and they give their expert view". Please read what a "reliable source" is, as you clearly do not understand. It is not "up to (me) to consult a reliable source who is prepared to support your position". "The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material." Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence I have identified material that is not directly supported by a reliable source. I am removing that material. "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source." Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence - SummerPhD (talk) 17:20, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in source cited 2

"(commercially classified as a blended imitation butter spread)"[26]

The source cited is a New Zealand grocery chain's online glossary. It lists ICBINB as a "Blended margarines are table spreads made by combining margarine and butter."

ICBINB does not contain butter. How it is "made by combining margarine and butter" without using butter is a mystery for the ages.

It does not use the phrase "blended imitation butter spread".

It does not say ICBINB is "commercially classified" as anything, nor would it be a reliable source for the claim. It is a reliable source to say that "New World grocery chain says ICBINB is a blended margarine or "table spread made by combining margarine and butter." This isolated fact is trivial. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"It is a mystery for the ages" ... ie. it is a mystery for you ... ie. you don't understand. Therefore the problem is not with the source but with you. Reasonable people find someone with more expertise when they have trouble understanding something. Trolls try to force their limited POV down the throats of everyone else. The reference places I...Butter in the category of "blended margarine". Margarine is defined as an 'imitation butter spread'. The reference is a commercial retailer and the reference sets out their method of classification. Please remove your 'tag'! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txbangert (talk • contribs) 08:42, April 3, 2014‎

Yes, it is a mystery how a product without butter in it is a blend of butter and margarine.

The source does not include the phrase "blended imitation butter spread" nor does it say it is "commercially classified" as anything. The source does not support the content. The content is not verifiable. Please review our core policy on the matter, WP:V. I will be removing the claim shortly. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will close this off just to say that I will follow the standard anti-trolling guidelines in dealing with vandalism caused by trolls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Txbangert (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks and see my response at Talk:I_Can't_Believe_It's_Not_Butter!#Not_in_source_cited_1. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in source cited 3

"It is a type of margarine..."[27]

The source cited, a slide show from Health magazine, defines "margarine" and "soft margarine spread" on slide 8. Later slides discuss butter, whipped butter, butter blends, etc. I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Sticks (slide 10 "Trans-fat-free sticks") and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter Spray (slide 13 "Butter-substitute sprays") are not called "margarine" or "a type of margarine" in the slide show. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The source, of questionable reliability (please review WP:IRS), does not support the statement. The statement is not verifiable. Please review our core policy on the matter, WP:V. I will remove the claim shortly. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I will close this off just to say that I will follow the standard anti-trolling guidelines in dealing with vandalism caused by trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Txbangert (talk • contribs) 12:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Please watch the personal attacks and see my response at Talk:I_Can't_Believe_It's_Not_Butter!#Not_in_source_cited_1. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I...Butter is "a butter substitute"

The references given (see discussion on this above) on this are improperly given. What is given appears to be little more than a google screen scrape. I managed to find both references and they do not support this usage. The use in these publications is not to define but to indicate the broad category. Peanut butter (if placed in the category of a 'nut butter') is also in the category if 'butter substitute' but it is not a type of margarine, which is what this product is. Possibly it might be helpful to say that the product is commonly used to substitute butter but it doesn't help in the basic definiton. TxB (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources are reliable. The statement is verifiable. If you believe the source fails WP:IRS you will need to demonstrate that at the reliable sources noticeboard. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Trimming

I've removed a fair amount of stuff that doesn't belong in the article, including argumentation about the general category of butter spreads, advertising issues, and such. Likewise the ingredient lists, incorrectly labelled as "nutritional information", that don't belong in product articles either; that's why we link to website of the company where accurate up-to-date information will always live. I don't know why this article has somehow turned contentious, but there's no need for the ugliness seen on this page. Content disputes are not vandalism, nor are they trolling, and accusations of trolling are personal attacks that don't need to be tolerated. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

"is butter"

Is it, in fact, butter, as claimed in the first sentence of the article? I'd think that, if so, any definition of butter that it does meet should be classified in this article, as the one over at Butter doesn't appear to apply... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:E201:48BC:BC8B:FC9E:FDEF:9A84 (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140402022539/http://www.unilever.ca/brands/foodbrands/ICBINB.aspx to http://www.unilever.ca/brands/foodbrands/ICBINB.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513154025/http://www.unilever.co.uk/brands/foodbrands/icantbelieveitsnotbutter.aspx to http://www.unilever.co.uk/brands/foodbrands/icantbelieveitsnotbutter.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120417184157/http://www.unilever.ca/brands/foodbrands/ICBINB.aspx to http://www.unilever.ca/brands/foodbrands/ICBINB.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:02, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on I Can't Believe It's Not Butter!. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050414140644/http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/icantbelieveitsnotbutter.asp to http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/icantbelieveitsnotbutter.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why it is a Spread and not Margarine

I looked this up, for the people who periodically come here baffled by this (as I myself was after reading the article).

Margarine is defined as (among other things) containing at least 80% fat. If it is not butter, and contains less than 80% fat, it's a "spread" per the FDA. The stuff that comes in the tubs is only 45% vegetable oil - and thus, does not meet the definition of margarine.

This is, incidentally, why they sell a different stick (not) butter product - because the tub spread does not work as a 1 for 1 replacement for butter in cooking.

Thus, while the product is akin to margarine, it is not, at least in the US, classified as margarine because it doesn't meet that definition, either. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)