Talk:Vegemite/Archive 2

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%.
 * "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 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, 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 Verifiability and 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:


 * 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) 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 Verifiability and which I have already quoted in an earlier post, a week ago.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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.
 * 6) 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)

Arbitrary section break
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)

C (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)


 * "Your sarcastic tone is out of order here." - Over the past three weeks I have explained on numerous occasions and in different ways, providing links to the appropriate policy, that citations must directly support claims. Despite this, you have persisted in pointing to sources that require some form of synthesis in order to support the claims you wish to add. There comes a time, after so many explanations and requests to simply find the citations that you claim are out there, that the question must be asked since it appears that you do not understand what directly means. So far, you've contributed 4,900 words, mostly irrelevant to the claim, when all that is needed is a singe citation.
 * "I am indeed aware of your basic argument for you have repeated it many times." - Yes, you may be aware of it but do you understand it? You don't seem to because you continue to return with synthesis, not verifiable fact.
 * "I still await your Yes/No to acceptability of a Wiki insertion of (B)?" - I've said on numerous occasions that synthesis is not acceptable. Since that doesn't seem tto have gotten through, here it is:  NO! 
 * "the Wiki acceptability of my final Synthesis and whether it constitutes Original Research as you hypothesise." - It's not a hypothesis. No original research clearly says that synthesis is not acceptable. End of story.
 * Provide a source that directly supports your claims, without any synthesis, or the content can not be included. It's really that simple. Until such time as you can do that, there's no point continuing this conversation. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear A.L.

Sarcasm simply cannot be self-justified - that path ends in tears.

I believe you need to keep a reign on your increasing tone/emotion which seems to be clouding your listening and reasoning and stops you connecting with me. It may also be that you no longer feel the need to really listen because you are so convinced of the absolute righteousness of your pre-conceived conclusions. If so you are surely capable of better than this.

AL it isn't enough just to feel you are so right and someone else so wrong - you have to listen to their arguments, engage them from their side and show them, with reasons, why their arguments are too light or even incorrect. Simply hitting people over the head with your repeated interpretation/application of "the Rules" doesn't go anywhere. Its worse still when we don't allow people to question our application/interpretation of "the Rules" in specific cases. This makes the rule "defender" look insecure. It also isn't collaboration.

If one understands the reality behind "the Rules" one enjoys discussing the pros and cons of what applies when in particular cases. Such a wise person knows when rules are meant to be broken because the map is not the territory. That is why Wiki's 5th pillar is "there are no firm rules." Such an experienced person doesn't get upset by debate but welcomes it. Such a person/teacher engages the other from the other's side rather than their own. That is what "e-duc-ation" means, "to lead out." One day you will have this understanding - until that day try a little humility. It will win you friends and influence people :-)

But back to tin-tacks.

From the following observations it seems you are no longer carefully listening to my questions:

'''(1) I asked you for a yes or no re agreement wrt line (B) above. But, apparantly, you again say "No" to the synthesis of line(C).'''

- that is not what I asked you to comment on. I cannot see any synthesis in line (B)?

- after we have settled wrt validity of the two pre-ceeding premises (sources A and B) then we can look at the separate and later question of the validity of my joining them together in (C)

- if you still consider either of (A) or (B) to be invalid in themselves (as you opined above) then there is no point going on to the (C)SYNTH:OR problems.

- so do comment yes/no (with reasons) wrt validity of line (B) as a valid stand-alone Wiki entry. I find it strange that you cannot address it on its own factual merits as a valid, simple, stand-alone conversion rule akin to 25.4mm = 1inch.

(2) You have made it clear before that you have problems with (B) simply as it stands - regardless of the final Synthesis which I later make from it.

- you say the ratio is 1 to 1 and say you have reliable sources.

- Please prove that or accept the ratio of approx 2.6 to 1 in (B) as both correct and validly sourced.

- you previously stated (B) was not adequately sourced. Is it well sourced now?

When this is resolved we can analyse the Synthesis in (C).

I will then present my arguments why there is very reasonable doubt as to it being "Original Research."

May I humbly suggest that when responding on a talk page it is much more convincing and productive to ... read first, think about things and write a day or two later. It gives time for emotions to blow-over, makes for truly penetrating listening ability and deep, insightful responses. Then your experience and wisdom as an editor will not need to be advertised by the quantity of your edits - it will shine through the quality and incisiveness of your comments.

Blue Horizen (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * "When this is resolved we can analyse the Synthesis in (C)." - We won't be analysing anything. As I've explained at length, synthesis is unacceptable. As I explained in my last post, and several others, you need to provide a source that directly supports your claims, without any synthesis, or the content can not be included. It's really that simple and I can't see why you still can't understand that after nearly 5, very long, weeks. I also said, not for the first time, that until such time as you can do that, there's no point continuing this conversation, since we're really at a point where WP:DEADHORSE applies. This will therefore be my last post until such time as you can provide that citation. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear A.L.

That is OK. Do understand that by prematurely abandoning a Talk in mid "discussion" one would probably be considered a Disruptive Editor should one later delete the above ammended contribution which I would then feel free to insert into the Article page due to the inconclusive and incomplete nature of this abandoned "discussion".

It would be great if you could share a reality check with me here before you go:

When sincere questions go unanswered or are side-stepped by indirect/misplaced responses, or are ignored on the basis of "irrelevant" (which means little more than "I don't want to answer that") then we are hardly taking about "the debate has come to a natural end" (definition of DEADHORSE) are we?

AL I have indicated a number of times above that you have not really connected, engaged or answered a number of my good faith questions. The few "answers" you lately attempted didn't relate to the actual question. Here is a list of such questions you haven't clearly answered:

(1) I have challenged you a number of times to explain your didactic inconsistency in not applying WIKI:Verifiable to the equally unsubstantiated pro-Vegemite statement, "Vegemite is one of the world's richest known sources of B vitamins." ... Why do you not step up to the plate wrt my challenge to you on this really obvious lack of NPOV?

(2) 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.)

(3) I still await your Yes/No to acceptability of a Wiki insertion of (B)?...you seem to have forgotten you also 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.

(4) I asked you for a yes or no re agreement wrt line (B) above. But, apparantly, you again say "No" to the synthesis of line(C). That is not what I asked you to comment on. I cannot see any synthesis in line (B)?

(5) You have made it clear before that you have problems with (B) simply as it stands...you say the ratio is 1 to 1 and say you have reliable sources. Please prove that or accept the ratio of approx 2.6 to 1 in (B) as both correct and validly sourced.

Repetition of a mantra of you broke the SYNTH rule "end of story" (without listening or allowing development of a line of reasoning) is what kills horses, debate, collaboration and consensus building.

You do not own Wikipedia. Nor do I. If you delete someone's contribution you need to do much more than quote rules and then walk away invulnerable.

Re "As I've explained at length, synthesis is unacceptable" ... are you aware that SYNTH is acceptable under some circumstances? I accept that I have a synthesis. I am trying to show you that circumstances can be reasonably judged to exist which justify this synthesis. I will develop this further once we have dealt with your other objections. Why will you not allow this to proceed?

So do humour me with real answers to the above good faith questions. That they appear "irrelevant" to you is surely of no consequence. If one attributes good faith to another editor then an engaging, neutral, open person will surely oblige. What have you got to lose if it is irrelevent? Surely this is the way to garner admiration and one day become a Wiki Admin.

Blue Horizen (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with the immodestly-named AussieLegend: you're wrong, and no amount of verbiage will change that. What you want to do is excessive synthesis under the rules that have been developed by wikipedia users over the past decade. It's easy to fix: Just find a real source that says what you want to say. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear A.L.

When I responded to DavidWBrooks with "Greetings DavidWBrooks - wots a Brit doing trolling in this backwater, aren't you guys into Bovril?" can you clarify why you removed it without commenting?

Blue Horizen (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If you read the edit summary you'll see I referred to WP:NOTAFORUM, which details the reason. Article talk pages are not a place for idle chit chat, they exist to provide space for editors to discuss changes to the talk page's associated article or project page." If you want to discuss improvements to the Bovril article, then the place to do that its talk page. If you want to exchange pleasantries with other editors, the place to do that is on their talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:00, 24 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear A.L. The question wasn't what minor "rule" my 12 words nominally broke.


 * It is clear that only serious infringements (publishing of prohibited material,trolling, vandalism) justify absolute deletion on a talk page. For lesser infringements one should politely comment on the mistake and leave it be.


 * Its now clear that my question is asking why you completely deleted my response - contravening WP:Talk?


 * Blue Horizen (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Greetings DavidWBrooks

OK, its great to have someone enter into the spirit of an open, consensual process first putting forth reasoned responses wrt particular circumstances before applying the blunt hammer of discussion killing "rules."

Do expand on why you consider my syllogism to be excessively synthetic? As it is based on only 2 sources (not 3 or 4), the inference is tight and the premises succint I cannot think of another example of a synthesis that could be more simple!

Perhaps above "discussion" has made me over-sensitive to perceived lack of neutrality ... but I am surprised that your good self so quickly weighs in with words like "wrong" and "verbiage."

It is rather evident above that I was not provided a chance to explain exactly why my synthesis is not OR...yet it appears I am already judged "wrong?" :-) Or are you just being enthusiastic rather than closed here?

Re the "verbiage". Yes, I am relatively new to Wiki (2 years) and it took time for me to humour AL's trivial and non-NPOV challenge wrt citations re Vegemite's 8% salt content (even though he later realised his 1:1 equating of sodium to salt is not a mainstream view but actually erroneous). I think it is clear that any "verbiage" after this point was more due to AL's continual side-stepping of my reasoned, and thus repeated, questions above.

Anyhow, do tell what you see as excessive in my proposed synthesis (which I now repeat for your convenience).

Alternatively you may like to let me finish my complete line of reasoning which was not possible above.

A: Vegemite classic has a a sodium content of 3.45%. (KRAFT)

B: Sodium/salt content are directly related by a conversion factor of 2.6 to 1.(FSANZ)

C (SYNTHESIS): Therefore Vegemite contains approx 8% salt.

Blue Horizen (talk) 07:22, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break No. 2
A.L./DavidWBrooks this is a courtesy notice to advise that, due to your lack of engagement/collaboration with me above, I will proceed to insert my above improvement into the Vegemite article. If I have misinterpretted your silence now is the appropriate time to continue engaging me (if you still seriously object) rather than by disruptive editing (e.g. reverting). I maintain my proposed insertion is a clear example of a less usual type of synthesis that is actually allowed under WP:SYNTH rules (as it does not actually constitue Original Research). I do understand neither of you may have encountered such a synthesis before and have found my approach/reasoning hard to accept. To help you accept the validty of my claims I submitted the above synthesis for comment to one of the founding (and ongoing) editors of the WP:SYNTH rule (himself a senior admin). He quickly and unequivocally came back in support of the validity of this synthesis under WP:SYNTH rules itself.

Blue Horizen (talk) 10:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In the past eight weeks, despite numerous requests, you've failed to provide a citation to support the original claim that you added to the article in February, or the claim that you added in September. I've taken great pains, despite your persistent personal attacks and incivility, to explain to you that the citation you added in September did not support the claim and the content consisted of WP:SYNTH. Four days after this discussion commenced you proposed a different claim, which you wanted to add without a citation at all. Nothing you've said since then supports that claim, without resorting to unacceptable synthesis. Despite not having suggested any alternative, cited, wording you've since claimed that you have proposed "a 3rd ammended article insertion", however you have not explained how you intend to insert this into the article. I note that your post at SlimVirgin's talk page only presented some very, very basic information, without detailing what you actually wanted to add to the article. This is the problem. Without explaining what you actually want to add to the article, it's not possible to say yes or no. There's certainly no consensus to add any of the claims that you've previously made without providing the citation that has been requested since February. Adding those claims without citations or with citations that rely on WP:SYNTH will most certainly result in reversion, and at this point, likely commencement of discussion at WP:ANI. Before adding any content to the article it would be best if you draft your proposed additions and place them here, with citations. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

"Vegemite's sodium content equates to 8% salt." (two citations above will be included)

In accordance with WP:SYNTH "Routine Calculations" exception this synthesis does not constitute original research and needs no further citation provided my maths is correct and the synthesis's two premises correctly paraphrase the given sources.

Essentially this is what I asked of you above but you appear to have declined on the basis of "irrelevant", "unacceptable synthesis" and WP:DEADHORSE.

Are you now amenable to dialoguing with me on my two foundation premises/sources if you still object? Blue Horizen (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Amendable to dialoguing? Nice phrase. So here's the dialogue: You reached this conclusion, but you (like me) are not a good source. We're just editors. To include it in the article, simply find a source that reached this conclusion and cite it. That's what is needed. Easy enough, I would think. No more discussion or dialoguing needed - hence the silence. Just do it. (By the way, I'm American.) - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * DWB what exactly is your Wiki basis for denying the Verifiability of my proposed synthetic contribution above?
 * Are you saying that if two valid Verifiability approaches are possible wrt a particular contribution (ie the usual single source or the rarer double-source allowed by WP:CALC) but a majority of editors demand that the single source approach be used then the contributing editor must comply? This militates against consensus "Consensus is ultimately determined by the quality of the arguments given for and against an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by a simple counted majority." AL's objection below is at least Wiki principle-based and is really the only way I know of that my acceptable WP:CALC Verifiability approach may be challenged. (My bad for the "Brit" insult - didn't notice the "New"). Blue Horizen (talk) 08:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just find a source that says it - that's what' you need to do. No dialguing needed. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * DWB unless you can clearly articulate and demonstrate to readers why you believe my WP:CALC fails then I don't understand why you continue to dialogue on this topic?


 * I've always been "amenable to dialoguing". However, despite numerous requests to simply find even a single citation to support what you've claimed for eight months, you've never chosen to do so. Instead, you've waffled on about synthesis, which is generally unacceptable, and which has been explained to you ad infinitum, without ever having made it clear that you no longer wanted to add what you proposed on 12 September. Had you done so, it would have been far easier to understand what you were trying to add. Even now, when I asked you to "draft your proposed additions and place them here, with citations", you've failed to include the requested citations so your intent is still unclear. Where in the article do you propose adding this random factoid? You claim that your calculations are acceptable, however WP:CALC says, "This policy allows routine mathematical calculations, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, provided there is consensus among editors that the arithmetic and its application correctly reflect the sources." If your sources are those that you posted to SlimVirgin's page, then your calculations do not reflect the sources and are anything but routine, which is demonstrated by the fact that the convoluted calculations required don't arrive at 8%. Given that and your continual failure to provide the requested citations, it's impossible at this point to agree to the content that you've provided. With both DavidWBrooks and I objecting to your proposal, the consensus required by WP:CALC clearly does not exist. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

AL: Yes you have finally "clicked" (you summarise well what I have written above) and we are now connecting. All questions you ask have been answered previously but I will humour you all the same. Everything returns back to the premises I presented above (the same that SlimVirgin accepted):

Premise 1: Vegemite classic has a a sodium content of 3.45%. (KRAFT)

Premise 2: Sodium/salt content are directly related by a conversion factor of 2.6 to 1.(FSANZ)

I don't understand your concern wrt providing "citations" (also known as "references"). Clearly I will reference these two premises (and the given sources they reflect) just as they are, no more no less. "References" are only the formal formatting of the above associated sources/premises required on an article page, a trivial matter. (SlimVirgin clearly understood my "intent" directly from the premises/sources I provided.) To be exact I will probably use the "bundled citation" formatting protocol WP:CITEBUNDLE.

Anyhow, I understand you to say that my WP:CALC fails because:

(a) it is not Routine (ie is too convoluted, having too many difficult steps)

(b) my mathematical calculation does not reflect the sources.

OK, lets look more closely at what you are saying.

(a) 3.45 x 2.6 = 9% salt. Seems simple and routine enough to me. My 12 year-old nephew was able to do that direct from these premises. Didn't feel "convoluted" to him.

(b) Perhaps you could have worded this objection better. I will assume you mean "my premises don't correctly reflect the sources." If so, then we are back to the questions I asked of you above some weeks ago. I don't think you objected to Premise 1 as you yourself provided me that figure and the source from which it is derived. That means you must object to Premise 2?

If you believe that Premise 2 does not correctly reflect the indicated source please clearly explain/demonstrate exactly why?

Or perhaps, now that I have better clarified what I am on about, you are prepared to accept this as a valid WP:CALC?

Blue Horizen (talk) 02:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Having just read over the discussion so far, there are a large number of things I could say about how this discussion has progressed – its convoluted nature, borderline insulting language. But I will not, as yet, comment further. The only way, Blue Horizen, for you to avoid editors raising the WP:SYNTH argument is for you to provide at least one source that supports yours claims ie. that Vegemite has a salt content of exactly 7.5% (9% ≠ 8.75% ≠ 7.5%). If said source cannot be found, would something along the lines of "Vegemite has a sodium content of 3.45%. Some nutritionists have raised concerns about this level in regards to consumption by children" be acceptable? Both statements are easily sourced, and this follows the gist of your original text. Incidentally, when I googled "Vegemite salt content", this blog came up. I'm not entirely sure as to the relevance, but I feel its worth letting editors know. IgnorantArmies 12:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't know if it has been discussed above, because I don't feel like reading it atm, reference #15 claims that in response to anti-salt concerns in the late 1980s the salt content was reduced. - Shiftchange (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * IgnorantArmies The blog you linked above seems a cut and paste from way above (and inaccurate at that) but a good chuckle all the same.


 * IA I am not wanting to "avoid editors raising the WP:SYNTH argument." It is the very basis of my approach here. However WP:SYNTH needs to be fully understood/applied and debated as was intended by WP:SYNTH's founding Admin editors (such as "SlimVirgin" above who readily agreed with my use here). WP:CALC is a sensible and necessary exception rule contained within provisions of WP:SYNTH. I maintain this approach for three reasons:


 * (a) A matter of principle. Well-intentioned editors on wiki sometimes summarily revert common sense contributions due to a superficial and incomplete understanding of foundational Wiki principles (esp WP:SYNTH). With 13 full-time years of university qualifications and many more of professional experience (including Philosophy, Communications, Info Systems and Science) I am fortunate to be in a good position to help advance the understanding of such editors through reasoned discussion. If such editors are unable to discuss/engage on topic and maybe even evolve ... then do they not pass from being well-intentioned, erroneous editors to the sort of damaging disruptive editors WP:COMPETENCE speaks of? SlimVirgin also looks to be a trained philosopher so it is no surprise to me that she so readily agreed with my application of WP:CALC here. It is there to be used when the occasion arises. If this is not a valid WP:CALC use then I am not sure what is.
 * (b) Common Sense. WP:CALC is exactly what nutritionally concerned parents do when shopping. Sodium% means little to many concerned parents (just as fahrenheit means very little to me while centigrade does). But salt% is readily understood/intuited so we use a rule of thumb that equivalent salt% is found by multiplying sodium% by around 2.5 (it is actually 2.6). That rule is very helpful in deciding whether a food has too much sodium and it is based on solid science as my sources indicate. For this reason independent Nutritionists have been lobbying for years to have salt content mandatory on labelling but industry has so far been able to influence Governments to require only sodium which, to most concerned parents, is no more meaningful than fahrenheit.


 * (c) Common Sense: It is silly to demand justification of the equivalent salt% of every single nutritionally labelled food by a single direct source when a scientifically established conversion rule exists to do just that and that rule is widely available/known to non-experts (e.g. concerned parents) as supplied by expert Nutritionists. I have referenced this rule of thumb.


 * Can you explain if you still see ambiguity with the final % figure my premises (and my average intelligence nephew with a calculator) conclude which is 9%? If one accepts that the premises correctly reflect their sources then what other answer can there be? (Remember in premise 1 we are talking classic Vegemite) - or perhaps I have missed something? Blue Horizen (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * (boo, edit conflict - looks like Ignorant has already made some of these comments.)
 * The problem with "simple and routine" calculations is that WP editors are prone to the Dunning–Kruger effect. An editor may believe the problem is "simple" because he has a great understanding of the problem - or he may believe it's "simple" because he doesn't know enough about the problem to see the complications. If I can paraphrase Wikipedia policy, we assume good faith but we don't assume competence. That is unfortunate for the editors who really are competent to analyse data - but to base policy on competence, not only would we need some way to assess competence, but we'd need some way to persuade the incompetent editors that they're not as smart as they think, and that's a Herculean task. If you hang around for long, you too will see editors insisting with absolute certainty on 'simple' answers that happen to be wrong, and you'll learn how hard it is to convince them of their errors.


 * Case in point: I'm sure your nephew is a bright lad, but is he aware that there are several different ways to calculate percentage concentrations? I can think of four off the top of my head (w/w, w/v, v/v, molar ratios), and there are probably more that I've forgotten; it's been a long time since I studied chemistry. Each of these can give a different answer.


 * He may also not realise that that sodium ions don't automatically come partnered with chloride ions, as your calculation assumes. The Food Standards link you cite explains that 2300mg of sodium is approximately equivalent to 6g of salt - but this is presented in a specific context. The FS page explains that what matters for health purposes is the sodium content. In that context it's reasonably to say that 2300mg Na+ is 'equivalent' to 6g NaCl, since they do contain the same amount of sodium. But it doesn't mean that 2300mg Na+ is 6g NaCl. As the FS link notes, sodium can also come partnered with some other anion, e.g. as sodium bicarbonate. If I were to give you a a hundred grams of sodium bicarbonate, it would be accurate to say that it contains 27 grams of sodium, making it 27% sodium by weight... but you would be very much mistaken if you attempted to multiply by 2.6 and declare that it contains "71 grams of salt", because there's no chloride at all. So, no, I don't think this qualifies as a simple and routine calculation.


 * Perhaps I've missed something - the discussion above is very very long and it's late here - but as the Food Standards site explains, what really matters from a health perspective is the sodium, not the chloride that might or might not accompany it. So why do we even need to convert to "salt" at all? Why not just give the sodium level, which is more relevant to the issue at hand AND can be cited directly without conversion?


 * On a side note: you may not have intended it this way, but your tone in this discussion comes across as unnecessarily provocative. Expressions like "you have finally clicked" and "I will humour you all the same", or worse "it took time for me to humour AL's trivial and non-NPOV challenge wrt citations re Vegemite's 8% salt content (even though he later realised his 1:1 equating of sodium to salt is not a mainstream view but actually erroneous)" - I think Ignorant is being very charitable to you in calling this only "borderline insulting". In my experience, this is not how people usually talk when they're trying to reach an amicable consensus in good faith; it's how they talk when they are deliberately aiming to annoy the other party, either to drive them away (and "win" by default) or to provoke them into overreaction.


 * If that is not your intent - and I really hope it isn't - then I strongly recommend changing your conversational style. --GenericBob (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent explanation GenericBob. Choice magazine looked at salt content last year. For example, Jam has more than 60% of the amount of salt found in vegemite and corn flakes have more salt than a bag of Potato chips yet neither have their salt content mentioned in their articles. Salt is relative and for certain products is an easy target rather than a particular culprit. No one would seriously campaign to eat less bread yet a single slice of bread has as much, and sometimes more, salt in it than the 20gm of vegemite put on it. Wayne (talk) 14:43, 12 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Wayne I totally agree with where you are going with this but this is not what we are debating here nor what I propose to insert at the moment. You are talking about the absolute daily amounts of sodium (e.g. "portion size") that people are likely to ingest in practise wrt different foods regardless of their sodium concentration. If you go to the very top of this long long discussion you will see that I tried to flag this very debate in one of my first mooted proposals. Once an acceptable insertion wrt equivalent salt content of Vegemite sodium levels is concluded this is where I would like to go also. Blue Horizen (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * GenericBob I take your advice. You may have noticed that I recently came to the same conclusion myself and noticeably changed my approach above. I have tried to tread a delicate line defending my proposed contribution in the face of an editor whose level of assertiveness is at times demonstrably not matched by the level of neutrality/analysis/listening/engagement and Wiki rules understanding required. Sometimes fire has to be matched with fire and I may have been excessive in places in my novel attempts to keep this editor engaged, self-reflecting and evolving beyond dismissive, unreasoned and at times misunderstood assertions and stances.


 * I am aware of the possible speculative complications you suggest above. I think common sense cuts through much of this. It is crystal that the 2.6 conversion rule (inherent in the source of premise2) applies to nutritionally labelled products (which are known by experts to be provided as w/w as a matter of ANZ legislation). It is also readily ascertainable from the source of premise1 that we are talking milligrams per 100gms (i.e. a w/w (weight for weight) percentage concentration). I think the whole point here is that my nephew, reading an approved Wiki article, does not need to understand all this. All he needs to do is read the accepted Vegemite article insertion and "paint by numbers" with his calculator. It is our role here, as editors, to check nothing is significantly amiss by being reasonably sure the premises/calcs correctly reflect the sources.


 * WRT the NaHCO3 you've lost me a bit. The source says the 2.6 rule applies for NaCl not bicarbonate (that would be a different rule). All that my conclusion (Vegemite's sodium content equates to 9% salt.) is trying to say is "if all the sodium in Vegemite came from salt then that salt level would be 9% of Vegemite's weight." In point of fact all the sodium in Vegemite actually does come from the presence of salt - but that is not what my proposal is about. My proposal is about the high level of sodium in Vegemite that concerns leading Nutritionists. Ordinary parents get a clearer understanding of what these levels are when described in terms of what food salt% would have the same sodium level. I think this reading of my conclusion is the more obvious meaning but if you think not perhaps you could suggest a clearer paraphrase? Blue Horizen (talk) 06:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * "I think common sense cuts through much of this." - two questions to think about here:
 * (1) In your life, how many people have you met who were badly lacking in common sense?
 * (2) How many people have you met who were aware that they were badly lacking in common sense?
 * In my experience, the answer to (1) is vastly larger than the answer to (2). The difference is made up by people who only think they have common sense, and some days it feels like all of them are on Wikipedia trying, earnestly but wrong-headedly, to 'improve' it with 'common sense' additions that aren't. When it comes to editing guidelines, the bar is set with those people in mind, and absent an easy way to measure competence over the Internet, all of us have to abide by the same bar. Sometimes this is very frustrating, but it's hard to find a solution. (IIRC there was some discussion about 'expert editors' on Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what happened with that - I don't think it got very far.)
 * 'All that my conclusion (Vegemite's sodium content equates to 9% salt.) is trying to say is "if all the sodium in Vegemite came from salt then that salt level would be 9% of Vegemite's weight."' - I understand that's what you're trying to say, but (leaving aside the calculation itself) I think "equates to" is ambiguous here. The Food Standards page provides a context that clarifies "equates to" for people reading that page; without that context, it's problematic.
 * If leading nutritionists are concerned about the levels of sodium in Vegemite, presumably they've said something citeable about the concentrations. I would be quite happy with citing them and following the language they choose, whether that's "salt" or "sodium". Without having looked for cites, I suspect we're more likely to find "sodium", simply because by my understanding it's a more relevant measure. But I appreciate that you don't want the article to be confusing to readers who are only familiar with "salt"; if the cites do talk about "sodium", I think it'd be quite reasonable to link the term to something like Sodium to clarify.
 * "I may have been excessive in places in my novel attempts to keep this editor engaged, self-reflecting and evolving beyond dismissive, unreasoned and at times misunderstood assertions and stances." - if this is the new, conciliatory tone, it still needs work. It amounts to "yeah I admit I was rude but it's because he sucks" and that line has never, in the history of the universe, managed to improve things. An insulting apology is worse than no apology at all.
 * If you believe there is no possibility of working productively with another editor, then there are options like Dispute_resolution requests for arbitration that can be invoked, but that is a very drastic step and rarely warranted. Otherwise, if you're still attempting to have a working relationship with somebody, avoid talking in public about how sucky they are. --GenericBob (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You are prob right that "equates' is too succinct and needs reworking for readers to understand context. I will put something up presently with a Rfc that contributors can work on as it gets a bit confused doing Talk without something specific to critique.


 * Not sure why you cannot accept what I say above at face value and interpret any ambiguity positively. If you read between the lines in top Talk above you will see I rejected Dispute Resolution because I became more interested in assisting my fellow editor than winning an argument. The editor does not "suck" but does have significant editorial deficiencies that are clearly demonstrated above and which could not be overlooked. I believe this editor has potential and can grow beyond them. I accepted the predictable outcome of being seen as "big bad wolf" required to hold that "mirror" up to him to provide him a real opportunity for change and become more skilled. Nobody likes critique even when its true and necessary. I tried to keep the tone light - but of course it is very difficult to communicate such in text medium. I did not expect him to be happy about it but it was impressive he kept dialoguing with me most of the time despite this. It is not right that other Wiki editors, who may not have the skills to overcome such unintentional mishandling, continue to be treated in this fashion. I do not expect you to understand the service I have provided here. You only need to accept that you have misinterpretted my tone and that I am sincere in saying I have taken your advice on board and I was actually offering the editor a service. Talk page is not really the place to discuss these things in extended fashion so this closes the matter. You are welcome to email me through my Talk page if you wish. Blue Horizen (talk) 19:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break No.3
I have finally got around to putting up an insertion where I have attempted to harmonize all contributions of the main editors in above discussion. It may need further tweaking. If editors believe we need wider input from more skilled editors please put in an Rfc, I couldn't work out how to do that. Blue Horizen (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The content is too convoluted, improperly formatted and still relies on original research, especially WP:SYNTH. With all of what you've said, what it amounts to is simply "By UK standards Vegemite would be defined as a high salt content food". This is pretty much meaningless. You've been asked to post your intended content here, which you should have done instead of just adding it to the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

AL: Speedy removal of a fresh contribution reliably sourced exhibits extreme edit behaviour that is difficult to justify.

The only common Wiki policy I am aware of that explicitly allows such zealous reverting, without the mandate of a prior consensus, is Vandalism (because it is serious and self-evident).

(I am sorry, but your assertion that I need your permission to add new material contradicts WP:BOLD. As you yourself got confused multiple times above re evolution of my proposed contribution (and also requested citation format) it seems clear, after 6 months, that it is high time we do so. Indeed I advised I was about to do so - that was the polite time to object. You didn't.)

Your claim of “Original Research by unjustified Synthesis” might allow immediate removal but only if the violation is clearly self-evident or eventually gains clear consensus. This is certainly not the case here because:

(1) WP:SYNTH is notoriously not self-evident. For this very reason Wiki strongly encourages Talk not delete-reverts in such cases.


 * “SYNTH is not Obvious: ... don't revert it indiscriminately for being SYNTH ... The correct response is to go to the policy talk page and get consensus to clarify it, or just ignore it.” WP:SYNTHNOT (this essay has high consensus and supplements WP:OR)

(2) No such Talk consensus/mandate for your delete-revert exists. Your (repeated and unexplained) claim of WP: OR violation has been discussed in recent Talk and ultimately gained no traction (see detailed Explanation below). One is not entitled to delete-revert without clearly gaining Talk consensus.

When a serious Wiki policy violation is not self-evident the burden of proof is on the claimant. You must therefore: (a) clearly explain/demonstrate the claim; (b) gain clear consensus on this claim. This burden of proof holds even for WP: OR but especially for WP:SYNTH as the following makes crystal :


 * “SYNTH is not presumed... If you want to revert something on the grounds that it's SYNTH, you should be able to explain what new thesis is being introduced and why it's not verified by the sources.


 * ...You should have something better than ‘Of course it's SYNTH. You prove it isn't.’


 * ...in any disagreement the initial burden of proof is on the person making the claim - and the claim that something is SYNTH is no exception." WP:SYNTHNOT


 * “In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept.” WP: CON (Also see essay WP:DRNC)

Your three remaining objections also fail, this time on both the above criteria. That is, even if they did violate lesser Wiki policy (which they do not) and such was self-evident (this is by no means clear) then immediate removal (as opposed to edit-improvement) cannot be justified without consensus. Quite the opposite actually - Wiki Guidelines advise editors to fix many such trivial issues themselves or leave them alone (see Explanation below).

Further evidence of unjustified over-zealous Deletion is your speedy removal of reliably sourced content that violates no Wiki policy whatsoever. That is, you have not provided non-frivolous grounds for removing the reliably sourced statement: By UK guidelines Vegemite is considered a high salt food as it exceeds defined sodium limits almost six-fold.

Conclusion:

The speedy, total removal of fresh, reliably sourced material is a well-intentioned but over-zealous deletion.

I have therefore restored this unjustified removal-revert (with some tidy-ups). New material reliably sourced should be allowed to stand until violation of WP:OR is clearly proven and mandated by consensus.

Instead of revert-deleting a second time I invite you to leave things as they are (or edit-improve or tag) and discuss things in Talk but in a more deeply engaging manner than practised of late. This is exactly what Wiki Guidelines above advise in situations like this. “Deeply” would seem to involve:

(i) providing objections that do not contradict normative Wiki Guidelines.

(ii) providing non-frivolous objections.

(iii) doing more than baldly quoting an alleged Wiki policy violation (especially when same is not readily self-evident). For example, it is also necessary to clearly demonstrate/explain the relevence of the claim of “convoluted, non-routine calc” which is far from self-evident.

(iv) responding to detailed rubuttal of your above assertions if you wish to retain tempo and traction for such claims.

(v) avoiding repetition of naked violation claims (i.e. without additional/new explanation) when rebutted. This is not really “dialogue” as it generates much heat but no light.

Detailed Explanation: Your four objections are ...

(1) “Improperly Formatted”

If the referenced sources can actually be located (despite the “improper formatting”) you have no justification for unilateral deletion of references and related material. Quite the opposite in fact:


 * “While you should try to write citations correctly, what matters most is that you provide enough info to identify the source. Others will improve the formatting if needed.” WP:CITE

Indeed, editors who notice these trivial problems are encouraged to fix them.

(2) “Meaningless”

Such a highly subjective justification for Deletion of relably sourced material seems frivolous, is nowhere justified by Wiki policy but militates against basic consensus principles. Without gaining consensus one is really saying no more than “I personally don’t like it, so I can remove it.” (Cf. essay WP:IDL) I believe consumers would be fascinated to know that Vegemite would be classified a very “high salt” food in the UK as, according to National Health Guidelines, its sodium content exceeds limits five-fold.

(3) “Convoluted Content”

If this is so then your duty is to improve it, tag it or let it be for others to fix.


 * “Do not remove good information solely because it is poorly presented; instead, improve the presentation by rewriting the passage.” WP:EDIT (see also WP:IMPERFECT)

(4) “Original Research by WP:SYNTH”

No one has ultimately maintained support of your (yet to be explained) assertion that the WP:CALC synthesis exception does not stand because 3.45% x 2.6 = 9%  is a “convoluted” or “non routine” calculation. Neither have you responded to my rebuttals.

In fact, wrt consensus, the reverse seems true. When I made my contribution a consensus in my favour was demonstrably evident in Talk because:

- SlimVirigin, a senior admin and founding architect of the WP:OR (SYNTH) policy readily agreed my conversion calculation was a valid exception on grounds of WP:CALC.

- I rebutted your (unexplained) objection to which you did not respond.

- I mollified the concerns of another editor by signalling incorporation of their advice (and received no further rebuttal from him).

- I then clearly signalled my intention to add my material to clarify further discussions and no one (including yourself) raised any objection in Talk.

- I accept discussion is still fragile: which does not justify content removal but does necessitate further discussion to see if your (hopefully) clarified concerns are clearly vindicated by others. Blue Horizen (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please allow me to give you some advice:

) everywhere. Most of the more than 300 that you have added are unnecessary. Just press the "Enter" key and start typing on the next line, or leave a blank line if necessary. Please have a look at the replies made by others to see how they reply and you notice a distinct absence of " " in their replies.
 * 1) Please don't write so much. You should be able to get your point across in a few lines. Any points that you try to get across are being constantly lost in the replies that you make, which rival War and Peace in length. So far you've contributed almost 8,800 words to this discussion and yet you still have not justified your original claims. By contrast, the six editors who have responded to you have managed a combined total of only 4,900 words.
 * 2) Please stay on point and don't drift off at tangents. That doesn't help you try to make your point. In many cases you've defended yourself against charges that have not been made. This is the case with your latest addition.
 * 3) You don't need to use line breaks (
 * 1) When discussing the contested addition of content, the status quo prevails. As per WP:BRD, if your addition is removed, and it has been several times now, it should be discussed before restoring it. You've been asked to post your suggested addition here several times, and you refuse to do so, which is not acting collaboratively at all. Continually restoring the content is disruptive editing. Please stop this.
 * Now, to address the response:
 * "The only common Wiki policy I am aware of that explicitly allows such zealous reverting, without the mandate of a prior consensus" - This is addressed at #4 above. During a discussion you should not edit the contested content into the article. You've been asked numerous times to post your suggested changes here, but you refuse to do so. Had you done what was requested, a lot of problems could have been resolved, because feedback could have been provided and amendments suggested. Then the finished product could be added to the article with no issues.
 * "your assertion that I need your permission to add new material contradicts WP:BOLD" - I never asserted that you needed my permission. In short, WP:BRD, which is something we generally follow, says that if your WP:BOLD edit is reverted, then discuss it. We've been trying to do that. You seem to believe that discussion is adding a post here and then adding the disputed content without waiting for replies. It's not.
 * "Your claim of “Original Research by unjustified Synthesis” " - I didn't actually claim that. The issues that I identified and stated here were far more complex than just that.
 * "WP:SYNTH is notoriously not self-evident. For this very reason Wiki strongly encourages Talk not delete-reverts in such cases." - The point you are missing is that we've talked, and talked, and talked, and talked, and still you're not getting it.
 * "SYNTH is not Obvious: ... don't revert it indiscriminately for being SYNTH" - It wasn't reverted indiscriminately. Several editors have agreed that your edits constitute unnaceptable WP:SYNTH, and we've explained, at length, why it's unnaceptable.
 * "No such Talk consensus/mandate for your delete-revert exists" - The history of this discussion would indicate otherwise. Six (count them) editors have disagreed with your additions and explained why. WP:BRD guides us in how we should handle these situations and you have been ignoring BRD.
 * "you have not provided non-frivolous grounds for removing the reliably sourced statement: By UK guidelines Vegemite is considered a high salt food as it exceeds defined sodium limits almost six-fold." - You haven't provided a reason why this is relevant. Wikipedia isn't a place for random factoids. Vegemite is an Australian product. Why would you use a UK guideline instead of a relevant Australian guideline? If you're going to use foreign guidelines you need to include more than one. What about the USA, Canada, Spain, Africa, Botswana, Upper Mongolia? What do their guidelines say and why is the UK more relevant than theirs?
 * "I have therefore restored this unjustified removal-revert" ... in breach of WP:STATUSQUO, WP:BRD and all other procedures we use when discussing contentious content. Wikipedia is supposed to be a collaborative effort and jamming your desired edits into the article while a discussion is underway is not collaborating, it's being disruptive.
 * "(1) “Improperly Formatted”" - Like so much of what you write, your response here is off at a tangent. Formatting was but one part of the problem and while somebody else may fix your problem, that's not an excuse for you not to attempt to get it right. When your whole addition is so badly written that it requires too much work to fix, it shouldn't be up to other editors to fix it. That was one reason you were asked to provide a draft of what you wanted to add to the article here; so it could be corrected before being added to the article. I wasn't even referring to your references when I mentioned formatting, although they were certainly an issue.
 * "Such a highly subjective justification for Deletion of relably sourced material seems frivolous" - I've already addressed this above; it refers to your unexplained use of a seemingly non-relevant UK standard to an Australian product. As I explained, Wikipedia is not a place for random factoids and the content that you added was not suitable for an encyclopaedia.
 * "“Convoluted Content” If this is so then your duty is to improve it, tag it or let it be for others to fix." - Again, when the content is so poorly presented that it is unencyclopaedic it doesn't belong in the article. When it is added despite it being the subject of discussion then there is good cause to remove it. Again, WP:STATUSQUO and WP:BRD apply here.
 * "No one has ultimately maintained support of your (yet to be explained) assertion that the WP:CALC synthesis exception does not stand" - Again, that is not true and it has been addressed by other editors above, for example here.
 * "SlimVirigin, a senior admin and founding architect of the WP:OR (SYNTH) policy readily agreed my conversion calculation was a valid exception on grounds of WP:CALC" - Unfortunately, you provided SlimVirgin, who has yet to be involved in this discussion, with only the barest of facts and did not explain how you actually wanted to use your claims in this article. SlimVirgin is but one person. No one person's opinion has greater weight here than anyone elses and you have had six other editors comment here on your edits.
 * "I rebutted your (unexplained) objection to which you did not respond" - As far as I can see I've explained everything and responded to everything. Perhaps if you didn't visit so infrequently. This ridiculous discussion has effectively been going on for almost a year, since you first tried to add your unsourced content. At that time you claimed a 7.5% salt content. Since then the content has been changed to ~8%, 8.75% and 9%. Clearly, your synthesis isn't as simple as you've claimed.
 * Regarding the latest additions, I've gone ahead and fixed them, seeing that you clearly do not seem to want to. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

advice. The precision of the premises cannot really justify the precision of the 8.625 result (3 decimal places). I have reduced it to a precision of 1 decimal place (8.6). That is, in accord with standard mathematical "tolerance error" principles, I believe the precision of a multiplication cannot be better than the least precision of the factors. I have also added the word "approximately". This is because the rule of thumb factor of 2.5 is admitted to be "roughly" accurate in the source. (Its actually 2.543 but that is only implied not stated). Blue Horizen (talk) 09:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * AL: Thanks for the