Talk:Vegemite

Is this manufactured in Australia, NZ or both?

Two of the photos in the article show a jar of vegemite with an "NZ Made" kiwi logo. This is odd, as I always thought vegemite was only manufactured in Australia. I checked out Kraft's website, but it doesn't say where the stuff is made.

Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.143.59.28 (talk) 12:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Vegemite was made in NZ for many years. But recently (within the last few years) the Vegemite available in NZ has been Australian made. This was made evident by the reversion to glass rather than Plastic jars. 121.73.90.127 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I buy vegemite from different retailers in Canada and the glass jar sometimes says manufactured in Australia, sometimes NZ. 70.77.220.229 (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

See also: Natto ???

Why is Natto a link in the "See also" section of this article? That's like having Fried Rice in the "See also" section of the Marmalade article. -- Moondigger (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the motivations of the person who made the addition, but I can offer an explanation: Natto is another food strongly associated with a particular country, with a very pungent savoury flavour, and regarded as a "rite of passage" for visitors to that country. 150.101.214.82 (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

American Spelling?! I don't think so.

This article contains a few American English spelling varients. Considering that Vegemite is such a fundamentally Australian product and icon, and in accordance with the Wikipedia Manner of Style regarding articles bearing strong national ties with English-speaking countries (See WP:ENGVAR), I am going change the American spellings to their far more adequate Australian English equivalents. Gilly of III (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

D'oh. I meant "Manual of Style", rather than "Manner of Style". Gilly of III (talk) 16:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton bit

I don't think that this is really notable as it was listed before, but it could be useful in a different context:

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton asked in 2010 during an appearance at Melbourne University why you would ruin a perfectly good slice of bread with Vegemite? [1][2]

I considered it worth "storing" on the talk page for potential future use after it was removed from the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Banned from sale in Denmark?

Food laws passed in 2004 concerning added vitamins may effectively prohibit the sale of Vegemite in Denmark [3]. There seems to be some uncertainty about the exact position at the moment, though, so I don't suppose it could be added to the article yet [4] Ka Faraq Gatri (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

High Salt Content and Debate over relevence of this for Children's daily consumption

AussiLegend, I (and possibly others) do not understand what your issue is with the following statement and why you repeatedly undo it?

In recent years independent or governmental nutritionists have been raising parental/public awareness of Vegemite's salt content (7.5% for classic) to encourage balanced consumption in children.
While the very high salt content is not debated the relevence of this for children is.

Originally you rejected the first sentence because it had no citation. When a typical citation (there are many) was provided it was still removed.
(http://www.smh.com.au/national/new-vegemite-raises-ire-of-health-experts-20110216-1awo1.html)

I presume your grounds are technical, but it is not clear what you really object to?

Do you believe Vegemite is not one of the ten most salty foods available in the supermarket?
(Actually I was not trying to prove this. Nobody seems to debate that - just as nobody debates Vegemite is one of the world's richest source's of vitamin B.
Incidentally that vitamin B claim is not cited/supported in the Vegemite article either - but nobody has an issue with that. So I don't think this is your technical issue?)

Do you believe I have not shown by my citation that there is a robust debate going on out there on the relevence of the above fact wrt children's daily safe salt intake? If this is the reason, what sort of acceptable citation do I need to provide to evidence such a debate between Governmental/Independent health bodies and the yeast spreads industry/lovers?

Because there is a debate then any citation proving this ... is sort of necessarily going to be look like WP:SYNTH isn't it?
In which case shouldn't this be acceptable - and which observation itself confirms the existence of such a lively debate?

Would appreciate your clarification of this matter.

BTW I am a Vegemite lover myself. But I believe in balanced exposition of raw nutritional facts, the bad-looking as well as the good-looking.
This gives more power to the people who should decide for themselves how this raw information is relevent, or to be interpretted, wrt their children's actual likely daily consumption amounts. Blue Horizen (talk) 23:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations must directly support the claims being made and the source that you used did not support most of what I removed. What was supported made no sense when the unsupported content was removed and it wasn't actually attributed to the source in any case. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AussiLegend,
appreciate your response but you haven't really said anything more clarificatory that the brief comments you made in the edit section.
Its all very technical and general and doesn't deal to the very particular questions I am asking of you here. We aren't really connecting here.

It would be great if you could humour me and other readers who want to improve the balance of the Nutritional section of the Vegemite article.
You could do that by taking more time to collaborate with us by explicitly explaining your somewhat cursory/technical/generalised admin response wrt to actual content and detailed questions I have raised above.

I don't think such a cursory approach on a Talk page well serves the collaborative spirit of what Wikipedia is about. Thanks, Blue Horizen (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As I indicated above, citations must directly support the claims being made. My response was not cursory. The problems with the content, and the source used, with regard to this are so blindingly obvious that I didn't see any need to elaborate, as all one needs do is read the content and the source. However, since you're obviously having problems with it, I'll provide you with specifics:

• "In recent years" - Not mentioned in the source
• "independent or governmental nutritionists have been raising parental/public awareness of Vegemite's salt content" - not mentioned in the source, which simply criticises the salt content of the new formula Vegemite.
• "7.5% for classic" - Not mentioned in the source which only supports a sodium content of 1,720mg/100g (1.72%). The source says that the new formula "has half the sodium used in the original Vegemite recipe", so even if you equated the sodium (Na) to salt (NaCl), this means the content of "classic" Vegemite is only 3.44%. The sodium content of Veemite is actually 3.45%.[5]
• "to encourage balanced consumption in children" - Not stated in the article. The article just says that the salt content is too high. Equating this to "balanced consumption" is WP:SYNTH.
• "While the very high salt content is not debated the relevence of this for children is." - This claim isn't attributed to the source (it was placed after it) but is partially contradicted by the source, especially the final sentence: "She said the trouble with introducing salty foods in children's diets was that they developed a taste for salt that tended to carry through to adulthood." --AussieLegend (talk) 07:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Aussilegend
I now have a better handle on where you are coming from thanks.

Perhaps you are overthinking my contribution. I am only making three simple points:
(1) The salt content of Vegemite is 7.5% by weight.
(2) Credible health professionals are concerned about this very high concentration especially wrt consumption by children. Increasingly they are making their concerns known through direct public statements.
(3) Opponents debate the relevence of this very high %. (They say actual daily consumption is likely low enough to be of no concern).

You seem to have two major issues with the above three facts:
(a) You demand that all three facts be supported by explicit citations and that I have not done so adequately.
(b) You outrightly deny the factual truth of the 7.5%.

Lets take (b) first as it is most easily dealt to:
In your above analysis (which I mostly agree with) you have actually proven what you set out to deny. Let me explain the final mistake made.

If sodium (Na) content (you say 3.44%) is equated to salt content (NaCl) then, by the rules of high school chemistry, that must be 3.44 x (58.5/23) = 8.75% (those calc numbers are the atomic weights of salt and chlorine).
This concurrs with independent Vegemite nutritional info easily found on the Net which ranges from 7.5-9%.
(Call me a liar for saying 7.5% - I erred on the side of caution in the interests of NPOV).

Now lets deal to (a):
Wiki editing principles state, “Wiki Verifiability...requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations”
By demanding a citation you are explicitly challenging the veracity of these three facts.

Yet examples/sources wrt these three facts are readily found on the Net with a minimum of homework.
Have you actually searched the Net to discover for yourself what that % is? Your attempt to use my own citation against me has ended up supporting my facts.
Noone, that I can find, credibly denies these statements. Can you provide reliable sources for us that bring any of my three facts into question?
If you cannot then your challenge does seem to come across as an unnecessary and trivial filibuster.

The other area I am concerned about is what looks like selective editing:
“Vegemite is one of the world's richest known sources of B vitamins...” is allowed to stand uncited and unsupported.
However “In recent years Nutritionists have been raising parental awareness of Vegemite's salt content (7.5%)” was immediately challenged.
This selective bias is not a good look re Wiki NPOV (neutral point of view) principles.

Conclusion:
Therefore it does now seem time to let this go and allow my contribution to stand (even without citation).
I propose the following revised contribution:

“Vegemite’s high salt content (7.5% for classic) is of increasing concern to Nutrition professionals especially wrt consumption by children.
Opponents point out that children’s actual daily consumption is likely to be small and therefore this concentration is of no consequence.”

Good discussion thanks.
Blue Horizen (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"If sodium (Na) content (you say 3.44%) is equated to salt content (NaCl) then, by the rules of high school chemistry, that must be 3.44 x (58.5/23) = 8.75% (those calc numbers are the atomic weights of salt and chlorine)" - This constitutes original research and we have a specific policy prohibiting original research. You need a citation that supports the claim or it doesn't go in the article. As for your proposed wording, you still haven't proven 7.5% and the reliable sources that I've seen only refer to the sodium content as the salt content.

"Yet examples/sources wrt these three facts are readily found on the Net with a minimum of homework" - If that were the case, why haven't you provided them? This would have resolved the issue days ago.

"Your attempt to use my own citation against me has ended up supporting my facts." - Nothing in the source that you used supported what you wanted to include in the article, or what you now propose as an alternative.

You've missed what Wikipedia:Verifiability means when it says, "This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material." The content has very clearly been challenged. In order for it to be included in the article you have to provide inline citations that directly support the material. Nothing you said here convinces me that there are sources that support the claims you wish to include. Of course, it's not only me that you have to satisfy. Even if you were to add it, any editor is free to remove it because it clearly needs citing. You don't really have any choice here; provide citations that directly support the content or it doesn't go in the article. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AL: Your challenge against this widely accepted 7.5% figure has fallen over.
You seem unable to understand the difference between salt and sodium (and the inescapable connection between the two) so you call my comments "original research."
Its just basic maths my friend :-)

I note you have not come back to us on why you have not also demanded a citation wrt the Vitamin B Nutrition assertion quoted above?
That would be helpful if you wanted to avoid accusations of bias because your selective edits betray a significant lack of NPOV.
I see no collaborative attitude at work here because you are unwilling/unable to show any contrary evidence to my facts which would justify a need for citations on my part.
Much of wiki is not supported with citations because its pedantic to challenge everything for no good reason. Most people are reasonable in their challenges. Filibustering every small point of view one personally dislikes under the appearance of a concern for Wiki rules isn't a good look.

I have been patient with you but these atttiudes and fussy demands for citations does suggest a frivolous and vexatious intent.
Natural justice suggests that the privilege of demanding citations also imposes a duty to be reasonably based.
I believe you have failed in this duty because you have demonstrated neither reasonable cause nor neutrality in your demand for citations.

It looks like this will have to go through the dispute process.
Blue Horizen (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You're quite welcome to initiate the dispute resolution process but nobody is going to support the addition of unsourced claims and original research to an article. You've been asked to provide sources that you claim are out there and yet you can't produce any. It's not up to me to counter your unsourced claims. The burden of proof is yours. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, will proceed with this if you have nothing further to add.
The following quote is my Wiki rules basis of support:

"Challenges should not be made frivolously or casually,... Editors making a challenge should have reason to believe the material is contentious, false, or otherwise inappropriate."
(When a source may not be needed)

So what we need to clear up is whether your edits lack NPOV, whether you have reasonable cause in demanding citation and thus determine whether your fastidious challenges are frivolous.
(From above experience I don't believe any citation I provide will be good enough for you).
Blue Horizen (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is, you haven't tried. I've explained in detail what was wrong with the content you added and you have made no attempt to provide a source that actually supports what you claim, only your own OR that, using your maths, doesn't support the claims that you're making. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AL: I really think reader belief in your “good faith” is stretched to the limit here.
I am happy to try one more time to get you on board re a collaborative approach here.
I do not believe an arbitrated yes/no outcome is what Wikipedia is fundamentally about.
The main difficulty here seems to be that you do not know when you are editing beyond your limits.

This is clear to many readers from your extraordinary comment re “original research.”
You rejected my source because it only mentions 3.44% sodium (Na) and not the 7.5% salt (NaCl) that I claim.
You cannot make the “jump” from one to the other unaided.

AL, I apologise for being blunt, but if you cannot see this inescapable logic then it means you look to be punching beyond your weight here.
It also means my source is entirely acceptable even if you may not have the required level of education to see it clearly.
If you are in good faith then perhaps you need to accept that you may have a bit of a blindspot here.

Let me help with an example.
If you told me you had three 10c coins and four 20c coins in your pockets then I would conclude you had at least $1.10 on your person.
If one understands what coins are, and understands arithmetic, then the truth of that conclusion is self-evident and inescapable by the most basic principles of reason and cannot be disputed. One does not need an outside authority to know it to be true. If someone is confused as to arithmetic or coins then of course one will not see the connection and needs to rely on an outside authority.

Wikipedia editing rules speak to this very thing in the following sections:
(a) WP:POPE “The Pope is Catholic”
(b) WP:BLUE “You don’t need to cite that the sky is blue.”
(c) WP:CK “Common Knowledge”

The following quotes derive from the above references:
“There are some claims many Wikipedians find acceptable to report as fact without citing any outside sources:... mathematical or logical truisms (1+1=2)"
“Didactic Pedantry: Sometimes editors will insist on citations for material simply because they dislike it. For example, an editor may demand a citation for the fact that most people have five fingers on each hand (yes, this really happened).”

It seems to me the only question remaining is this: is it common knowledge that the weight of salt can be determined from the weight of sodium in a labelled product?
If it is NOT common knowledge then a citation should be generously provided – readers cannot be expected to have PhD’s which make such logical inference’s “blindingly obvious” to some and not to others.

However I believe this assumption IS readily assented to by most people who browse the web looking for nutritional information and food labelling. And for three reasons:
(a) While not all lay readers may know that the ratio between sodium and salt in nutrition labelling is approximately 2.5 ...anyone who ably passed the first 3 years of high-school knows that there is a fixed weight relationship between the elements of the periodic table when they are combined together. That is why we all readily understand that for the same amount of sodium NaCL2 (if such a thing could exist) has twice as much chlorine as NaCl (common salt)

(b) Even if one flunked high-school ... many concerned parents/adults who study nutrition labelling at the supermarket and who are concerned about salt intake...they know to look for sodium content and they know that salt content is directly related to this figure. The ratio of approx 2.5 is easily found on the Net if sought e.g.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmite
http://homedistiller.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=5230&start=15
http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-nutrition-facts/Pages/salt.aspx
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/scienceandeducation/factsheets/factsheets2011/sodiumandsalt.cfm

(c) We are talking of the Vegemite article's sub-heading called “Nutritional Information.”
This is clearly an “expert area” and humble readers (let alone editors) know to expect that higher levels of “common knowledge” are demanded of them here.
In other words this Nutritional area requires “subject-specific common knowledge" which is well described in WP:When to Cite

“When a source may not be needed:
Subject-specific common knowledge: Material that someone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true.
Example: ‘In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions’”
Do you really know anything about glutamic acid straight off the cuff (this is also mentioned in the Nutritional sub-heading)?

Summary
So when you reject my source because you cannot make the logical “jump” from 3.44% sodium to 7.5% salt you show yourself ignorant of a basic and accepted assumption involved in the area of Nutrition that you should be expected to understand if you want to throw your weight around there.
I believe, in this instance, you do not possess the subject specific common knowledge required to validly assess citation needs and therefore a lighter, more tolerant editing hand is required of you. Surely this is much more so when you yourself appear unable to demonstrate/source contrary arguments from an outside authority that necessitate the challenging of my presented fact.

The question then arises, why do you do so challenge?
Wikipedia rules puts it well:WP:BLUE Expert Debate
“The question is not whether readers can or can not be expected to have knowledge of a certain fact...but whether (this) is a relevant point of debate in the expert literature on the article topic.”

My fact here (that salt is 2.5 times the weight of nutritionally labelled sodium) is not debated by the experts.You do not appear to deny this.
And if you do deny this then how can you be said to be in collaborative good faith in our discussion here if you are unwilling to offer up your contradicting sources which alone would justify a reasonable request for citation?
In other words, you must agree that it appears highly unlikely my facts can be challenged as factually untrue.
You challenge them purely on the basis of your limited understanding of Wikipedia "verifiability" guidelines.
Your challenge appears to have nothing to do with actual (or likely)expert, factual debate (of which I can find none) which is meant to be the real basis for demanding citations.
If you keep insisting on the need for further citation your motivation begins to look like the didactic pedantry described above in WP:BLUE

AL I am attenpting to kindly convince you about the necessity for editors to humbly recognise their own limited competency in different fields. Wikipedia summarises this well in WP:DISDisruptive Editing:

“...an editor may be unintentionally disruptive because he lacks the social skills and competence necessary to work collaboratively.
The fact that the disruption is done in good faith does not change the fact that it is disruptive and harmful to Wikipedia.”

And again in WP:CIR Competence Is Required:

"Where we very often see big controversies...editors...have come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor.
Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well.
Clearly, every editor is incompetent for some subjects, so it is important to know or discover your limitations.
Bias-based incompetence: Some people's personal opinions are so strongly held that they get in the way of editing neutrally or collaboratively.
Lack of technical expertise: Not usually a problem at all, as long as they don't delve into areas that require it.
Not everyone needs the same skill set -- and as long as people operate only where they're capable, it's not a problem."

Conclusion:
AL I am not saying you are a disruptive editor (yet). It depends on how you respond to my comments made here in good faith.
I am trying to (kindly) help you gain some needed self-insight. Though you cannot see it in yourself, you seem to demonstrate strong evidence that you need to lift your game wrt collaborative social skills, competence and neutrailty in some specific areas.

While I believe I do not strictly need to provide any changes to my above proposed insertion I am prepared to compromise further with you.
Will you accept my above proposed insertion if I add a second source that implicitly shows the connection between sodium and salt levels,
thereby finally sourcing to your satisfaction that 3.44% labelled sodium equates to 7.5% salt?
I suggest http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/healthy-eating/food-and-nutrition-facts/Pages/salt.aspx
Blue Horizen (talk) 05:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

To be quite blunt myself, this is really getting tiresome. You first added these claims on 13 February 2011,[6] and I tagged it with {{citation needed}} straight away. After five months without a single attempt to cite the claims the content was justifiably removed. It's now 7 months since the claims were first added and you've still refused to supply the citations you claim are available. You seem to have gone to an enormous effort to find essays that don't apply here and you've obviously looked around the internet and haven't found anything that supports the content you want to add to the article so perhaps it's time to give up. It doesn't matter how many irrelevant essays you cite, Wikipedia doesn't accept unverifiable content or WP:SYNTH, which is what you are relying on. The information in the claims isn't obvious or common knowledge so it needs to be cited. The claims are not going to be added without citations that directly support them and your latest attempt doesn't even come close to doing that. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AussiLegend
I have gone to great effort purely for your sake to help provide you a more balanced understanding of Wiki Verifiability principle.
The actual finding of these less quoted Wiki rules was no great effort as they are easily found.
It is concerning that you seem to say above that you hadn't really noticed them before. hence the need for balance.

I don't understand why you say I refuse to offer you further citations. I have offered many more above. Please re-read.

It is all very well to assert "info in the claims is not obvious or common knowledge."
All this means is that you make yourself (and your personal limitations and level of education) the sole criterion of the "average reader" and also of what is to be expected wrt higher levels of "subject specific common knowledge". You feel no need to self-critique such a highly subjective point of view by rational discussion with others which is "tiresome" to you. All you do is re-state your original entrenched position more vehemently. (Perhaps I am wrong but I do not think you are a Uni graduate because of the very high level of unconscious subjectivism indicated here).

In the end all the above doesn't matter.
All you need to do is simply and clearly answer yay or nay to the following questions:
(1) Do you personally deny that Vegemite classic has a a sodium content of 3.45%?
(2) Do you deny that this citation adequately supports (1) above?
(3) Do you deny that food salt content is directly related to labelled sodium content by use of a conversion factor of approx 2.6?
(4) Do you deny that Food Standards Australia & NZ uses this ratio as an acceptably assumed nutrition-industry given when it states 2300mg of sodium equates to 6000mg salt (see here)?
(5) Do you deny that the source cited in (4) above adequately supports (3) above?
(6) Do you personally deny that Vegemite classic has a salt content of at least 7.5% (3.45% x 2.6 =9% actually)?
(7) Do you deny that the conclusion in (6) above is adequately supported by the sources provided in (2) and (4)?

If you personally accept the truth of (1) and (6) then it would be great if you could collaborate and explain in detail why you may fail the sources offered. I do not believe I am the only reader mystified by your application of WP:SYNTH.
Blue Horizen (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I can assure you that, after nearly 6 years and 51,000 edits I understand the principles of WP:V. You apparently do not. The "less quoted Wiki rules" you talk about are essays only, they are not rules and nobody is bound by them. They are bound by policy, such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No Original Research, both of which you seem intent on stepping around so that you can get unsourced claims into the article. As regards your questions, since you're obviously not going to give up until they are answered:

1. No, but you aren't saying that it has a sodium content of 3.45%. You're arguing that it has a salt content of 7.5%, which is different.
2. The source supports a sodium content of 3.45%, It does NOT support a salt content of 7.5%, which is what you are claiming.
3. Irrelevant. If you want to argue 7.5% you have to have a source that confirms 7.5%. Using one source that cites a sodium content of 3.45% to argue a salt content of 7.5% is classic WP:SYNTH.
4. Irrelevent. It doesn't mention Vegemite, which it needs to do to be used as a source. Citations must directly support claims, as stated in Wikipedia:Verifiability and which I have already quoted in an earlier post, a week ago.[7]
5. Irrelevant because this isn't part of your claim. Using this to argue a salt content of 7.5% in Vegemite is classic WP:SYNTH.
6. I don't need to acknowledge or deny this. As the editor attempting to add the content, the burden of evidence is yours, something I also pointed out a week ago.[8]
7. Again, irrelevant because it can't be used to support the claims you've made.

Now, to address a couple of things you've said in your latest post:

• "I don't understand why you say I refuse to offer you further citations. I have offered many more above" - You haven't offered any citations that directly support the claims you've made, as required by WP:V. The sources you've supplied require WP:SYNTH in order to make the jump from what the source says to what you're claiming.
• "All this means is that you make yourself (and your personal limitations and level of education) the sole criterion of the "average reader"" - No, not at all. If the salt content were 7.5% it would be stated somewhere, but you haven't found a single source that actually states that. Nor have you provided any sources that confirm the other claims that you've maded, despite having had 7 months to do so. If it were common knowledge it would be easily verifiable. It doesn't seem to be verifiable at all.

Finally, we seem to have reached an impasse. Your arguments are almost entirely based on using WP:SYNTH to support your claims and that isn't acceptable. Supply the citations as requested that directly support the claims and the content will be accepted. I don't intend to continue replying to any more WP:SYNTH arguments. Provide something verifiable and I will. Until then, have a nice day. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AussiLegend
It is clear that you are not amenable to a reasoned debate over a balanced understanding/agreement of foundational Wiki editing principles. So no point pursuing that with you.

Neither do you wish to collaborate in helping me put together something you are happy with. I have twice improved my proposed insertion to humour your purely speculative/didactic challenge wrt my citations but you are still not a happy chappy. All you do is throw up more negative obstacles but offer no positives to assist in my endeavour. So no point looking for a solution there.

Neither do you seem to be a neutral editor. Your editing bias (against anything deemed anti-Vegemite) is now clear but perhaps not to your own self. I have challenged you a number of times to explain your didactic inconsistency in not applying verifiable to the equally unsubstantiated pro-Vegemite statement, "Vegemite is one of the world's richest known sources of B vitamins." This lack of NPOV suggests you are opposed to my effort in principle so you will look for any means possible to thwart it. Why do you not step up to the plate wrt my challenge to you on this really obvious lack of NPOV (Neutral Point of View)?

So now we must ungraciously "slog it out" line by line with the relentless process of logic until your mystifying position becomes crystal clear.

My above questions were simple but you found it difficult to give a clear yes or no in some cases. Do advise if you need to correct my understanding of you which is as follows:
Q1. No. (i.e. at a personal level you do accept that Vegemite has a sodium content of 3.45%)
Q2. Yes. (i.e. the citation does support Vegemite has a sodium content of 3.45%)
Q3. You need to step up to the mark and answer yes or no! It is a simple question. There are no tricks.
Q4. Same as Q3.
Q5. You will be able to answer this clearly once you have bitten the bullet on Q3 and Q4 above.
Q6. I can accept your unwillingness to commit, it is not part of my argument.
However this shows a certain lack of openness/trust characteristic of persons with a genuine NPOV and an objective love of truth.
Q7. You will be able to answer this clearly once you have bitten the bullet on Q3 and Q4 above.

AL the above is not meant to trap you. It is simply the rules of Western logic. You are prevaricating because you are afraid of where it will go. This is not the attitude of someone who loves the truth regardless of outcome. This is not the response of a rational person, of someone capable of dialoguing with others. If you cannot step up to the plate and answer those questions yes/no then you seem to declare yourself as essentially "red-necked", prejudiced and unreasonable.

I am simply attempting to find out exactly where you see my WP:Synth("original research") error. I accept this is a synthesis. We need to understand exactly where you think my synthesis breaks-down on account of new and original uncited information. Above is now the only way we can discover it from you. I am not sure you understand that many syntheses of this type in Wiki are actually acceptable.
Blue Horizen (talk) 05:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I have no problems with a reasoned debate and I have gone to great lengths to explain where and why your claims suffer from WP:SYNTH and a lack of verifiability, with examples and links to the appropriate policies on this. I do not understand why you are still unable to see where your claims are WP:SYNTH since I have pointed to them directly on more than one occasion. I am less inclined to continue this discussion since you see the need to resort to uncivil comments such as those made in your last post, specifically "you seem to declare yourself as essentially "red-necked", prejudiced and unreasonable." Given the lengths I have gone to to accommodate you, this is unnaceptable. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear AL:
My apologies for being over informal which you have interpretted as derogatory. That was not my intention. I meant to say your unwillingness to provide simple yes/no answers to my simple questions re-affirms impressions of "lack of competence", "lack of NPOV" and lack of clear and specific reasoning. I have mentioned these previously.

Yes, you refer a lot to GENERAL WP:Synth principles - but you have not clearly shown how it applies IN PARTICULAR to my latest proposed article insertion. So please answer my very clear and specific questions so readers can work out what your Wiki:V concerns are: e.g.

Q.3-5 Do you accept that, according to FSANZ, ALL food salt content is validly determined from its labelled sodium content by use of a conversion factor of approx 2.6?"
(as supported by Food Standards Australia & NZ when it states 2300mg of sodium equates to 6000mg salt(see here)

Please commit with a simple yes or no then explain your position.
I do not see why it should be rejected as it violates no Wiki:V principles, is ably supported and stands on its own internal merits.
For the life of me I see no original research synthesised in this particular statement.
Blue Horizen (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

What part of "Citations must directly support the claims" do you not understand? Your proposal is:

"Vegemite’s high salt content (7.5% for classic) is of increasing concern to Nutrition professionals especially wrt consumption by children. Opponents point out that children's actual daily consumption is likely to be small and therefore this concentration is of no consequence."

You need a source that says classic Vegemite has a salt content of 7.5%. A source that says Vegemite has a sodium content of 3,450mg/100g does not do that. You need a source that says that the salt content is of increasing concern. You need a source that supports the opponents stance. I've already said that I'm not going to be drawn into any SYNTH discussions. Your questions are irrelevant because they do do not deal DIRECTLY with the claims you are making. It doesn't matter how the salt content is determined because the source doesn't mention Vegemite's salt content or even Vegemite. If you use the source to make the jump from 3,450mg/100g of sodium to 7.5% salt, that's classic synthesis of published material that advances a position because it combines material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. I've explained my position regarding your questions previously; I've elaborated again now and I don't intend doing so again. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear A.L.
WRT “What part of...do you not understand?” Your sarcastic tone is out of order here. A mature person does not talk down to people like this even should others be of limited intelligence, age, experience or education. To do so says more about the speaker’s difficult character than that of the listener. Its a common enough weakness for intelligent persons but unwittingly indulged in it leads to misanthropy and isolation. If someone once treated us in this manner it does not make it right to unthinkingly practise same on others. You are capable of better than this.

AL I am indeed aware of your basic argument for you have repeated it many times.
From this a trained or talented speaker would understand (from their frustration/anger) that they have not connected with their discussion partner. This means they themselves have either misunderstood their partner’s concerns or they have not been effective in responding clearly to their partner. A socially skillful, generous speaker would not immediately blame them for this joint problem and simply repeat the mantra again more loudly. That is unhelpful wrt a collaborative effort to find common ground.

AL your repeated responses fall on barren ground because we are not connecting.
Nor do you seem trusting or generous enough of spirit to humour me and let me develop my argument to you one premise at a time. I do this so that I might understand you more clearly and also so that you may see where I am coming from. At this stage I do not believe you fully appreciate the weakness of your position.

Please stop “jumping the gun” (running ahead to your pre-conceived conclusion) and let me take you through my argument one step at a time. I feel like you are more interested in asserting some sort of authority over me and being “right” than actually listening and searching for the truth together. You are just another fallible, human-being editor like me and that’s great.

OK let’s get practical again:
It seems you have not tweaked that I have proposed, in the above 7 questions, a 3rd ammended article insertion. The one you quote above is not where it is at.
Let me make it simple in the form of an explicit synthetic syllogism so that we might more easily see how your "Original Research" concerns may or may not apply:

A: Vegemite classic has a a sodium content of 3.45%. (KRAFT)
B: Food salt content is directly related to labelled sodium content by a conversion factor of approx 2.6 to 1.(FSANZ)
SYNTHESIS: Therefore Vegemite contains approx 8% salt.

I understand you to accept that (A) may be acceptably inserted into Wiki.

I still await your Yes/No to acceptability of a Wiki insertion of (B)?
I keep asking your view on this because you seem to have forgotten you rejected (B) above on the grounds of a 1 to 1 conversion factor.
You stated “...the reliable sources that I've seen only refer to the sodium content as the salt content.”
Please advise links of your “reliable sources.” I contend that they are gravely mistaken.

When we have settled on some consensus wrt (B) THEN I am very happy to talk with you about the Wiki acceptability of my final Synthesis and whether it constitutes Original Research as you hypothesise.

So please provide a Yes/No on (B) above, links to your authorities, and your reasons if you say “no”.
Blue Horizen (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2011 (UTC)