Talk:Yogurt

Soy Yoghurt in the lead

This doesn't deserve to be in the lead as this information doesn't have any particular importance to the subject of yoghurt as a whole. It should be in a small subsection somewhere in the main body of the text.

Dietetic Value Of Yogurt

I really need to know the dietetic value of yogurt! Could anybody tell me? Who should eat yogurt etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.252.223 (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this necessary? Is Wikipedia a dietary advice board --Jehan60188 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC).

Spelling

The most common spelling, as per Google, is "yogurt". Why does "Yogurt" redirect to "Yoghurt" ? --81.174.47.74 (talk) 16:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:LAME#Yogurt. –xeno^talk 17:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree wholeheartedly that the article should be Yogurt, and I think a strong case was made to move it, but I think that even in light of the strong arguments for the move BACK to yogurt, consensus is that people are fucking morons, so it's going to stay as-is. Yay. Morons. -Kai445 (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I got a WP:PA notice. I wasn't criticizing Xeno personally (who I don't know), and my comment was not intended to be directed towards Xeno either. I am critical of the whole of the contributors that were on the pro-status-quo side of the debate. -Kai445 (talk) 01:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

You should display that WP:PA notice with pride. "consensus is that people are fucking morons" is probably the most insightful comment I've seen on any talk page ever. -Elliskev 04:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well yes, the most common spelling is yogurt, not yoghurt, in my personal experience the ratio of the former to the latter is 4 to 1,i.e 80% versus 20 %. Google hits carried out only in the English language internet space give approximately the same picture 42 million versus 11 million. The vast majority of fast food restaurant chains( Subway,McDonalds,Starbucks etc) cites yogurt, not yoghurt in their menus . In addition to it all, all the online dictionaries(sic) give the main spelling of this word as yogurt, yoghurt being secondary in all the cases). So please let's stick to the mainstream and respell this word in the article.

I have reverted your change. You did not wait for responses, and you appear to be discounting the evidence presented in the article itself - Etymology and spelling section - that there is international variation in the spelling of the word. As that section states, yogurt is the spelling in the US - which will normally dominate in Google hits - but in other parts of the English-speaking world, yoghurt either predominates or is equally common, and yogourt also occurs. (I don't know what country you are drawing your fast food evidence from, but from the list I suspect the US.) Yoghurt is an acceptable international spelling to compromise between differing regional usages; there is no reason to change it, especially since the article has a section near the start that clearly explains that there are regional differences. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The argument has been made - and proven - several times that the vast majority of visitors to this page use only the spelling "yogurt". Your continual defense of the spelling "yoghurt" is an overt act of narcissism and reeks of anti-US sentiment. It is completely irrelevant that there is a section on the variant spellings of the word within the article - the spelling of the word outside of that section should reflect the most popular spelling and not your short-sighted unwillingness to admit that other people are right. Unfortunately, it will take an actual administrator to take notice of this and actually care (again) in order to fix this problem. I do, however, find it amusing that you have so little else to do that you must check this page every day for reversions in order to further your anti-American agenda. Laplacian54 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have it watchlisted because it gets vandalized a lot. Assume bad faith, much? The article's spelling needs to match where it's at - changing it would require a move (and consistent changing throughout the article - the last change only went part of the way through the first section). What's your evidence that yogurt is the most popular spelling? All we have so far here is occasional assertions about personal experience, which is not a strong argument for moving the article in the face of long-term stability and reasoning clearly made within the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:10, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Does it matter in the slightest that the Oxford English Dictionary lists it as "yogurt", as well as the Cambridge International Dictionary of English and the Collins English Dictionary, leading to a 100% agreement between the three major British and International English dictionaries listed in the Comparison of English dictionaries? Actually, Webster's and American Heritage ALSO concur. It seems that Kai445 is undoubtedly correct. The insistence of "yoghurt" over "yogurt" smacks of elitism and absolute ignorance. Either there is, as has been pointed out, a considerable anti-American sentiment amongst the editors of this site, or there is a fierce effort by culinary elitists in an attempt to alienate regular people. It is totally absurd, and irresponsibly foolish to adhere to your spelling of "yoghurt" in the face of insurmountable evidence that it should be "yogurt". What you're suggesting is that the unanimous decision by the editors of these dictionaries, who are professionals in the field of study relevant to this debate, is anything less than "insurmountable evidence". DTXBrian (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Despite WP:LAME#Yogurt, moves based on WP:COMMONNAME are quite normal. What's problematic with the current title is that it is regularly challenged because it so blatantly violates WP:COMMONNAME. That would not be the case if the title was changed, because there would no longer be a WP:COMMONNAME violation if the article was at Yogurt. Perhaps it's time for another move proposal and discussion? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

We could have overwhelming, kumbaya hand-holding, worldwide public support, and a select group of assholes would still gum up the works. I'm all for it, but good luck. -Kai445 (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't realise that Webster's (all dictionaries using that name) and the American Heritage Dictionary are purely American - and also known for being descriptive rather than prescriptive? And the Cambridge International Dictionary of English, likewise, is avowedly showing what's out there. I checked, and found recent British sources using the spelling yoghurt (in addition to Australian, of course), and specifically found this use of Webster's Third listing 3 spellings for the word as an illustration of its legendary non-prescriptiveness, contrasted explicitly just below that with the Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors requiring the use of the gh spelling. So the situation has not changed: it is still only in America that the g spelling is the preferred one. Still not a violation of WP:COMMONNAME, therefore, but rather a good compromise with the situation explained in the article itself. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter that the largest manufacturer of yogurt in the world, Groupe Danone, spells it "Yogurt". I guess it doesn't matter that the second largest manufacturer of yogurt in the world, Yoplait, spells it "Yogurt". I guess it doesn't matter that the world's largest organic yogurt manufacturer, Stonyfield, spells it "Yogurt". I guess it doesn't matter that google searches, most dictionaries (including the OED, including your own link to Webster's Third that lists 'Yogurt' first) and all of the other evidence supporting in the last 'Move' movement, shows 'Yogurt' as preferred. If it's listed first in the order, then it's clearly the most primary spelling, regardless of whether you want to dismiss it as "showing what is out there". And saying "only in America" is blatantly false, and smacks of simply anti-Americanism as previously alluded to. -Kai445 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't matter to you that Webster's is an American dictionary? Google hits are not a valid basis for decisions - nor are marketing labels. This is a matter of WP:ENGVAR and the current title - with explanation of how usage varies - is a good compromise solution. The size of the US market does not mean US usage is normative. In a case such as this, a compromise with explanation is best. And I note that after being raised multiple times in the past, this issue was quiet until suddenly, a couple of people who apparently cannot accept that English varies across the globe, want to change it. I looked at the evidence in case usage in the UK had changed as you implied; I see no sign that it has. So you have not persuaded me, and the numerical argument is invalid anyway. In cases such as this, a compromise that is clearly understandable and clearly explained in the article is objectively best, and this is demonstrated by the fact things were quiet on the issue for a couple of years. I appreciate your concern that your usage looms largest in your world, but I oppose the move because there is no compelling evidence that it has won out worldwide, or that the present solution is a bad one. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't catch the spelling of the company, but Groupe Danone is a multi-national congolmerate, headquartered in Spain, and they spell it "Yogurt" (Canadian Label, Great Britain). I would think that the largest, worldwide, manufacturer, branding it "Yogurt", should have some sort of relevance (again, regardless if you dismiss it).

"Silence is the weakest form of consensus" according to Wikipedia. I can come back here every day until it's changed if you'd like, and continuously voice my opinion, to preserve lack of consensus. It's not been consensus, it's been a cease-fire.

How about coming up with reasons to be Pro-Yoghurt, instead of Anti-Yogurt.-Kai445 (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not entirely true, Danone South Africa uses the H-variant, as can be seen here UbuntuElphie (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, with regards to "you're looking at American and internationalist dictionaries".... isnt INTERNATIONAL the point of Wikipedia. And with regards to "I find no change in international usage to justify changing it", what research has led you to such a conclusion? Did you conduct a random multi-national telephone poll with a large sample size? How about an internet poll? Or did you dig up an original research article that studied the modern day etymology and usage of the word "Yogurt"? No? None of those things? Well, I guess it's alright to be a dick then. -Kai445 (talk) 21:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Internationalist dictionaries list all the variants found in all varieties of English. As the article already explains, there are places where yogurt, yoghurt, and yogourt are found as spellings. Look again at those two links I gave you. One shows a US dictionary known for being non-prescriptive saying "These are 3 spellings that are used". The other - explicitly contrasted with it - shows an Oxford style guide requiring writers to use yoghurt. I've given you the justification for being pro-yoghurt: it's the best compromise. Combined, of course, with an explanation that usage varies, and how. Since you had listed dictionaries, I checked online and found the style guide reference I cited in response; and tons of bibliographic references to recent British publications (including agricultural/food science/economics) using the spelling yoghurt. Sheer numbers of people in the US are greater, but that is not decisive in matters of English variation. Other places publish authoritative English books too. And it is noticeable that the debate has stilled because it was such a perennial in the past, so I believe it justifiable to point to that. I will continue to oppose the move you propose;it isn't the case, as you asserted, that dictionary and usage authorities agree, so it doesn't fall under WP:COMMONNAME. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the debate continues, and there is no consensus support for the current title. It may well be that if the article was moved, Yogurt also would not achieve consensus support. But, just the same, it well might achieve consensus support for the reason I stated above - there would be no reasonable argument based in policy or guidelines to move it to Yoghurt. Either way, we won't know unless we try it, by moving this article to Yogurt. To me, the chance of finally settling this issues is the strongest argument in favor of moving it to Yogurt. Who will propose it? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I will second any proposal :). An etymologist and noted scholar did weigh in on this exact debate. "There is no right or wrong here, but evidence suggests that yogurt without the 'h' will become dominant," writer and etymologist Michael Quinion said. "It is more crisp and short, the word is spelt as it sounds ... The Americans have been using yogurt as the correct spelling for at least 150 years." Someone who isn't just an armchair expert thinks no-H is the way to go. -Kai445 (talk) 01:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting that American seems to use the -h already for over 150 years, when it was only introduced in the US around 100 years ago (see the main article)... little overestimation ? I wonder when the word first pops up in English ? 1910 ?Knorrepoes (talk) 18:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

what about gogurt??? - steven smead

Move page to Yogurt

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. On headcounts (which we don't do), there's a slight percentage fermenting in favour of retaining the article at "Yoghurt" (which doesn't matter in any whey). To be parfaitly honest, there are strong arguments in favour of both. There has been some actively cultured debate from all the lads and lassis below, the outcome of which looks to me like there is no consensus that brooks such a move, and so the article must be frozen at its current name. I suspect this discussion will go on and danone, but hopefully this close will have smoothied the debate somewhat. fish&karate 10:37, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Yoghurt → Yogurt – 19:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC) I suggest we move this page per WP:COMMON. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose This has been much discussed, but the present spelling is a liveable compromise and the article itself fairly explains the variety of usage in different English-speaking countries. Moving it to the US spelling would only reflect what is common in the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: That is incorrect. You can refer to the WP:GOOGLE below. It clearly shows no-H is not only dominant, but that usage among a variety of countries are trending towards it. -Kai445 (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Anybody searching for the alternative spelling will end up here. I do not see any reasons to move it since, as Yngvadottir already pointed out, the spelling is explained in the article.--Laveol ^T 17:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: You avoid addressing the issue by explaining that a redirect is suitable. Why is +H more suitable? -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Too much (electronic) ink has been spilled over this trivial issue. The status quo is fine. "Yoghurt" is the most common spelling in some parts of the English-speaking world, "yogurt" in others. (PS, I think you meant to refer to WP:COMMONNAME, not WP:COMMON) --Macrakis (talk) 18:40, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: Which parts? -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Saying too much ink has spilled, and the status quo is fine are contradictory. If it is a trivial issue, fix it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Support According to Wikipedia's Manual of Style, "When no variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, adopt the variety used by the first major contributor; or equivalently, the first contributor to a non-stub article to edit in a way that determines the variety." If you go back and look, the article was established using the spelling "yogurt". And I think it's pretty clear that "no variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue"... DTXBrian (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• OpposeAgree with the upper three arguments. I see no reason why to change it.Knorrepoes (talk) 05:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
• Strong Support. There are so many reasons to support a move. It is certainly not a US-only spelling, and framing it that way is disingenuous. The largest yogurt manufacturers in the world spell yogurt "Yogurt". The article was originally "Yogurt". More people worldwide use "Yogurt". A noted British etymologist believes "Yogurt" is both superior and correct. This issue has been coming up perennially ever since the move to yoghurt... obviously there is a problem. Look at Arguments supporting "Yogurt", there is a clear consensus here. -Kai445 (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - unless you think WP:COMMON means 'common in the USA.' Feh. There is not one good reason for moving this page. → ROUX ₪ 06:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Several other languages also use "Yoghurt", for instance in Swedish, Norse (2x), Dutch. Night of the Big Wind _talk 09:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment: That may be true, but this is not Swedish, Dutch, or Norse wikipedia. I have no problem with "Yoghurt" being used on sv.wikipedia.org, and it doesn't appear to be an issue over there. -Kai445 (talk) 19:32, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose the change, and oppose the US-bashing as well. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Again? I should not be surprised. As I've said before, as long as this article remains at Yoghurt, these requests will be made, and this issue will remain unresolved, because there will always be these two arguments for moving it:
  1. this article was originally at Yogurt, and
  2. the name "yogurt" is much more commonly used than "yoghurt", it's even commonly used in the UK.

On the other hand, if this article is moved to yogurt, neither of those arguments will apply, nor will any new ones. It will therefore be stable at Yogurt, because there will be no reason to even propose moving it to "Yoghurt".

So if anyone seriously believes it doesn't matter whether this article is at "Yogurt" or "Yoghurt", but just wants the debates to stop, he or she should support this move. On the other hand, if ones real motivation is to oppose any move that favours the US spelling simply because its the US spelling, he or should should oppose this move. It's really the only reason to oppose. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The article has been at the current spelling for a while now; some disagreeing does not mean there is consensus for a move, regardless of what motives may be imputed to those of us pointing out it is in fact stable. (I'm also bemused at the low threshold for what is considered anti-Americanism; but I won't myself impute motives here. My reasoning remains what I have stated above - including my response to claims made, after performing a search myself in case I was out of date.) Yngvadottir (talk) 16:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

"Stability" has been long used as a reason to keep the article as-is, but there is no evidence to support that. A couple of Pro-H people come by and keep things gridlocked... that's not a consensus, that's a ceasefire. Silence does not imply consensus, so any time between the move requests is not necessarily "stability", it's a cooling off period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.253.66 (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

No, I am sorry, I will not repeat my points (and questioning of your sampling, and links) half a dozen or more times, or fill out a form, just because you do. I have amply explained my reasoning; there is no consensus to move the article, in my opinion it is better left at the current spelling, and I do not see any merit to people repeating their points of view, much less making tables and lists. Your point of view is quite clear, Kai445, but so are the opinions of those who have not repeated themselves. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. Just know that these requests will keep coming as long as the article remains at Yoghurt. Take for example the use who started this discussion. Been around since 2006, presumably knows what's what, but has never been involved in any of the previous move discussions here. You can maybe persuade this user it's not worth it, but what about the next? And the next, and the next and the next? Do you enjoy playing Whac-A-Mole? Why not end it by moving the article once and for all? What's the downside in doing that? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Giving in to bullying and mockery? Nah, I have to assume those doing the belittling, equating any view other than "go with the US spelling" with US-bashing, and the spurious filling in of the other point of view with "dearth" and so forth - and making endless demands for restatement - don't perceive it as bullying. I also don't see it as very productive to compare wiki-reputations. A user who's been here roughly twice as long as me started this move discussion - at the suggestion of a user who's been most active in it who's still quite new. At least one other poster here is very new. And one's an IP. I've been here since mid-'08. Quite a cross-section. Things like this are decided on the merits. Not by arm-wrestling, boasting about longevity, or insulting the other "side". The present title is fairer, the alternate spelling redirects, and the article has been stable for years where it is - until someone came along who dislikes non-US spellings (and doesn't realize Encyclopaedia Britannica is now owned by a US corporation '-)). So we're discussing it again. But it isn't a debating contest. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not bullying. As far as I can tell, no one is engaged in a pro-active campaign to change this title. The simple fact is that the issue keeps coming up, over and over, naturally, because the title is so obviously, well, wrong, to so many. That's just a fact. It's not bullying. It's not mockery.

Now, given that fact, that means requests to move it will also keep coming up, and so will these discussions. It should be obvious that that is going to keep happening as long as this article remains at Yoghurt. That's not a threat. It's an observation.

I mean, look at your reasons for not changing the title.

"The present title is fairer". Fairer? What's fairer about Yoghurt?

"The alternate spelling redirects." That's an argument for preferring Yoghurt over Yogurt? You can't be serious. Of course this point is neutral regarding the two choices.

"The article has been stable for years." Yes, "stable", if you want to count sufficient obstinacy to moving this title the countless times this issue has been raised to prevent a consensus from being achieved to move this article. Is that really stable? If the article was moved it would be at least as stable, almost more stable, so this point too is neutral regarding the titles.

As the section below indicates, you've got nothing bottom-line to support keeping this article at Yoghurt. Nothing. Except obstinacy. Suit yourself. --Born2cycle (talk)

• Oppose. As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt. Clear case of WP:ENGVAR to me. Jenks24 (talk) 04:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support WP:ENGVAR, the original article, written in 2002, was spelled as "yogurt". Clearly a case of WP:ENGVAR violation in moving it to "yoghurt", where someone violated it to use British spelling instead of North American spelling. 70.24.251.158 (talk) 04:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
  • Way back in 2003... Jenks24 (talk) 05:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on ENGVAR. Strange that you are using ENGVAR to then justify it staying where it is. So is it an ENGVAR violation or isn't it? When it gets changed the ENGVAR scorecard resets in your favor, and everyone else is out of luck? Strange world you live in. -Kai445 (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
      • Calm down, mate. My point was that for eight of the nine years this article has existed, it has had the h in the title. The spirit of ENGVAR is to avoid discussions such as this, where the title is at one variety of English, and has been for a considerable amount of time, it is pointless (and often counter-productive) to repeatedly try to change it. Some will be for, some will be against, and the end result will be 'no consensus'. By the way, there is no "scorecard" – this is not a game, and there are no winners or losers. Jenks24 (talk) 16:58, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • The funny thing about consensus, and I think some people (yourself included) may be confused, but this is not a voting process. 100 people can say "Support" and 100 people can say "Oppose", and that doesn't equal "no consensus". -Kai445 (talk) 17:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
        • Jenks, I've pointed this out so many times I think it's disingenuous to just ignore it ("Some will be for, some will be against" - as if that's all there is to it). This is not simply a case where there are two spellings and no particular reason to favor one or the other. In this case, because one side is strongly favored by a preponderance of arguments (see below), as long as it remains at the other name, the conflict will continue to exist; but if it is moved, the issue will be settled, because there will be no reason to argue it should be moved back. Please acknowledge or refute or something. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
          • Thanks, but I do understand how consensus works. However, if 100 people vote (or "!vote" if you want) support and 100 people vote oppose, I can tell you that the result will be no consensus, unless a) there has been a lot of sockpuppetting, b) the closing admin supervotes, or c) the WMF (or possibly ArbCom) gets involved. We may like to look at our practices through rose coloured glasses, but that's the facts.

            B2C, I think you've actually hit the nail on the head – people will continue to make queries on the talk page whether the article is moved or not. As if to evidence this, the comment right below says "I've never seen it spelled without the 'h' until today" – there are two (possibly even three) valid spelling alternatives and I feel we should just stick with what we have. As I said in my vote, I do not believe those google stats actually support moving the article, the opposite in fact. Jenks24 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I've never seen it spelled without the "h" until today. Absconded Northerner (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose I have also never seen it without the h, so it should be in it.137.224.252.10 (talk) 15:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support All of those who say no reason to move it are simply ignoring the monthly talk page queries regarding the odd name. It's listed at WP:LAME because maintaining this name is the source of consternation. There is no policy based reason to keep this name other than being stubborn. Being stubborn is obnoxious to those who read this talk page or maintain the article. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Support per WP:RETAIN, WP:ENGVAR and any other number of policies like WP:COMMONNAME. This article was created on December 10, 2002 (yep, 9 years ago) clearly using yogurt. So any change from that spelling needs to be justified and supported by consensus. I'll also add that this page has been the subject of probably over 20 or more moves, some to the two versions here, some to either typos or names I don't understand and to apparently other spellings like Joghourt. This discussion needs to be put to bed and the best way is to simply put the article back where it started 9 years ago. Add in the fact that usage worldwide supports yogurt as the title and I really don't see how we can keep the article at the current spelling. WP:ENGVAR seems to be the primary reason to oppose the move yet, WP:ENGVAR screams that it should be moved! While some argue that it has been at this name for several years, that ignores the move wars and the various discussions. So claiming that the current name is stable appears to be an illogical conclusion based on the facts. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment regarding regional variation: I see that only the preferences of American and British dictionaries have been considered here. As has been shown, British dictionaries, like American ones, usually prefer yogurt; this is reflected by, for example, the UK-published Pocket Fowler's Modern English Usage (which describes yogurt as "the preferred spelling" but acknowledges that yoghurt "is also common"). However, Australia's Macquarie and New Zealand's New Zealand Oxford both prefer yoghurt. And, interestingly, Canadian Oxford prefers French yogourt over both "American" yogurt and "British" yoghurt (in that order).

The Cambridge Guide to English Usage (2004) addresses the regional variation of the spelling of this word in some detail, based on an analysis of corpus databases. To summarize, while "In the US yogurt is standard" and yogurt "is by far the most common" in Canada, it states that "British writers clearly prefer yoghurt" ("by the evidence of the BNC where it outnumbers yogurt by almost 3:1") and yoghurt is "ahead on database evidence" in Australia.

The omission of .nz from the table is surprising, particularly given its ratio in support of yoghurt over yogurt—while certainly not in the "Strong Yoghurt" category—is stronger than any of those for .au, .uk, or .za.

Also note that Michael Quinion says "There is no right or wrong here" when referring to the use of yoghurt or yogurt.[1] This seems to sum up the arguments for and against this RM ... at least unless, one day, yoghurt begins to "disappear for good".[2]

Finally, note that Strained yoghurt was recently inappropriately moved to Strained yogurt on 2011-07-09, based on a wholesale yoghurt→yogurt edit made on 2011-06-28 (which, unsurprisingly, also broke external links, etc.).[3] Based on WP:ENGVAR and this article's much simpler history, Strained yogurt undoubtedly needs to be returned to Strained yoghurt for now and the spelling change reverted; any reasons for it to be re-moved to Strained yogurt can then be outlined, if necessary, through a RM. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I am also really amazed at some of the arguments in the section bellow. Especially the "Wikipedia article on this or that type of yoghurt uses the spelling I prefer". Since when is Wikipedia a source used to determine the naming of Wikipedia articles? I am also yet to understand the ""Yogourt" cannot be expanded from "Yoghurt"" argument. What should that mean, really? Nor there is any evidence that one version is overwhelmingly predominant globally. Moreover, as I already pointed out, readers looking for the article on "Yogurt" (strangely enough the spell-checker on my google chrome underlined the word) will inevitably end up at the right article. The wiki article is the first hit in google, even if one types "yogurt". So why exactly should we change it? --Laveol ^T 07:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the other articles using the same spelling... it's a matter of consistancy. If all varieties use "Yogurt", and you didn't know the spelling of the primary article, would you automatically assume the primary article is entitled "Yoghurt"? I wouldn't. You wouldn't either.

Regarding New Zealand... they're what, the 37th most populous English speaking country, certainly a distant one. Mexico has more english speakers (and they vastly prefer the no-H variety). NZ is a beautiful country, but if they are a justification for keeping H, then you're grasping at straws... I might as well bring up Fiji (Which prefers "Yogurt"). India has more English speakers, and they are on the list. (India has more English speakers than the UK, Canada, Australia and NZ put together... and they use "Yogurt" with a vast predominance.) -Kai445 (talk) 15:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

In response to both Laveol and Kai445: I have simply tried to show that the section below needs an overhaul if it is to be an accurate summary about the spelling of this word; I have not advocated the use of either spelling and am certainly not using .nz Google hits as "justification" for anything. Regarding the move itself, because regional variation is clearly present, the main reasons both for and against it are surely based on WP:ENGVAR: the main case for moving the article to Yogurt is that the article was first established with yogurt; the main case for keeping the article at Yoghurt is that it has since been established with yoghurt. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

No, although first established is part of the case for supporting this move, it is not the main case. At least as important is that "yogurt" has much wider -- nearly universal -- acceptance the world-around, that since the article was moved to yoghurt it has not been stable (because of all the proposals to move it and discussions), and if it is moved back to yogurt then the reasons to move it again will not exist, and so there it will be stable.

But I agree the main (really, only) case for oppose is the (disputed) claim that the article has been stable at yoghurt --Born2cycle (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose My copy of Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred over Yogurt - that's good enough for me. PeterWD (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The concise oxford is based on an older edition of the OED, as it is from 2004 (assuming you have the latest available). The current OED shows Yogurt as the primary entry, and Yoghurt as a variant. Languages evolve :). -Kai445 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - In Australia we use Yogurt, Yoghurt and Yoghourt. Dairy Australia, the coalition of national dairy farmers uses the shortest one as that is how we spell our pronunciation (Yoh-gert). Brands such as Dairy Farmers, Gippsland Dairy and Yoplait Australia use the same also. Nestle Australia currently uses the second variant but as Kai445 wrote below, they are switching to "Yogurt" (cite needed?). Vaalia does however does use "Yoghurt" though. As for "Yoghourt", Jalna is the only company that I know of who uses that particular spelling but only for marketing reasons as they use the traditional method of pot-setting, which doesn't require using artificial additives, such as colours, preservative, gelatines, emulsifiers etc.

SO, in a nut-shell, I support the move. Here endeth the lesson... AnimatedZebra (talk) 08:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support—ENGVAR, COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONALITY, etc, etc all suggest this should be at Yogurt. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:52, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Pronouncing in Oz

I live and work in a supermarket in Australia but I'm not sure what the most common way we spell it as (I'll check tomorrow hehe). However, I do know that we all pronounce it as "Yoh-gert".

Here's a link to an audio pronounciation on the Howjsay website (here), just hover over the pink "yogurt" text to hear the UK version (first), followed by the Australian version (second) and please forgive me UK-ians if you don't all pronounce it that way. AnimatedZebra (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dairy Australia, the Australian coalition of national dairy farmers (of which there are over 5000 members), uses the word "Yogurt".

http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au

Yoplait (www.yoplait.com.au): "Yogurt"

Gippsland Dairy (gippslanddairy.com.au): label "Yogurt"

Nestle (http://www.nestlediet.com.au): It appears that Nestle used to use "Yoghurt" in Australia (on existing product lines, e.g.: 'Nestle Ski Activ Digestion' Yoghurt), but is now switching to "Yogurt" (see their new 'Nestle Diet Yogurt'). Strangely you can find both spellings on their website.

Dairy Farmers (http://www.dairyfarmers.com.au): "Yogurt"

Between the largest brands in Australia using "yogurt" and the WP:GOOGLE results split 1:1, it's fair to say that both are common usage, but that usage is trending towards "yogurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Interesting stuff there Kai445, I wonder though, where did you get the numbers for Dairy Australia? Is it on there website somewhere? Anyhoo, I agree that "Yogurt" is more used here rather than the alternative, which is good as that's how we pronounce it. AnimatedZebra (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The inevitable is delayed once again, inexplicably

Once again Wikipedia is declared to not be a democracy but treated exactly as if is one never-the-less.

The closer claims, "To be parfaitly honest, there are strong arguments in favour of both" [4]

Strong arguments in favour of both? Honest? Really?

This is an astounding claim in light of the fact that the proponents of yogurt listed thirteen points in favour of the move, including "Once the article is moved to Yogurt, there will be no legitimate justification for moving it back to Yoghurt, and so these requests to move the article will finally end", while the yoghurt contingent could only muster up two, and one of them was the pathetically weak, "The article is currently entitled Yoghurt".

What's going on here? Rarely are the arguments so much stronger favoring one side, and still it's declared as "no consensus"?

Yet again the inevitable is delayed, inexplicably. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

As you also posted this to my talk page I will reply here as well - Inexplicable means something that cannot be explained, but closing a requested move discussion is simple to explain. I really don't care where the article sits; I just closed the requested move discussion as an uninvolved administrator, and tried to judge where the consensus, rooted in policy, lay. And yes, there were strong arguments in favour of both article titles; whoever assembled the "arguments supporting "Yogurt" as a preferred spelling" just didn't really try very hard in assembling the "yoghurt contingent" arguments, only those of Team Yogurt. The arguments in favour of retaining the article at "Yoghurt" were in the comments made by the 11 people who opposed the move. fish&karate 09:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I just read those 11 oppooses and I'm not seeing those strong arguments in opposition. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Exactly.

Fish&Karate, I was under the impression that that argument summary section was developed collaboratively. Regardless, whoever added the one valid point (not amounting to a "strong argument" in my view) regarding the oppose arguments could have added the others, if there were any. In the comments section, as far as I can tell, each of the other points made by those opposing was soundly refuted. No?

This is important, at least for me but presumably for others too, because, if there really are strong arguments on both sides, I too would oppose this move, and all future attempts to move. So, I'm curious which of the oppose comments presented an argument you consider to be "strong".

So far, in your closing and now here, you've been curiously vague about what exactly you found on the oppose side to be compelling. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, after the discussion took place, it does seem strange that it was closed for lack of consensus. Even if you go through the comments, which ones were a particularly strong argument for 'Keep', and how do they outweigh the 'Move' arguments? Just because a roughly equal number of people posted "Support" or "Oppose", certainly doesn't mean there is a lack of consensus. -Kai445 (talk) 00:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, three of us have now expressed concern about this close, and yet we have no response of substance from the closing admin. Since the closing admin can't explain his close -- can't specify what strong arguments there are on the oppose side -- I suggest that justifies reverting the close. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

No, all that means is that three of you cannot accept that there is no consensus for a change after all this time. Reverting the reopening. People have had ample opportunity to try to persuade each other. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We're simply asking for substantiation of something the closing admin asserted -- both sides have strong arguments -- because the whole conclusion of "no consensus" was based on that assertion.

I'm not going to re-open, but I urge others to do so. This is ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, responses like "I've never seen it spelled that way in my life, so I oppose it" is a completely invalid reason, and the one used to support the stay. "Other languages spell it this way" was another. I am not going to go through them with a fine tooth comb to throw out all the invalid responses, because that was the job of the Admin to do, and he has failed. -Kai445 (talk) 14:17, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have no experience with this controversy at all, but it certainly seems to me like the above discussion failed to produce any policy-based justification for leaving the article as "yoghurt." Doesn't that mean that there's a consensus in favor of a move? It's not a vote and the original article was yogurt. Perhaps I'm missing something critical, but isn't that all that matters? Following the rules is the only way to prevent similar future discord. AgnosticAphid talk 00:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

---

What follows is copied from User talk:Fish and karate --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

I have already responded to this and your repeated nagging because I didn't close a discussion the way you demanded it be closed is not going to either upset me or make me change my mind. I have re-read the RM discussion and remain satisfied that closing it as no consensus was reasonable. I notice that the majority of editors commenting on the RfC (linked above) are in agreement with this. I accept and understand that you believe those who argued to oppose the move have no worth in their arguments, however I believe they did have value. A majority of contributors were opposed to the move, people citing the fact that the article has been stable at Yoghurt for over 8 years, and WP:ENGVAR. To me, that alone was sufficient for a "no consensus" close. It is not for me to determine whose interpretation of guidelines and naming conventions is "correct" - if I am to do that then why even bother with a discussion? And note I closed it as "No consensus" NOT "Oppose move" - I would expect to always see a strong consensus in favour one way or another to close a discussion definitively. A strong consensus WAS NOT THERE. A close of "No consensus" is not a final sentence condemning the article to remain at that name for all eternity. Give it a few months and start another discussion. Or start one right now. I really really really don't care what you do. This one was closed as "no consensus" because, get this, there was "no consensus". I will not let your repeated complaining - and now passive-aggressive threats - to bully me into changing this. And I include Vegaswikian in this, not just Born2cycle. fish&karate 06:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU for finally responding to the multiple calls for you to justify your decision. I note that it's been over a week since I asked you expound on your claim that the oppose side had strong arguments too. Better late than never...

You mention the citations of the fact that the article has been stable at Yoghurt for over 8 years, and WP:ENGVAR. I presume these are the strong oppose arguments to which you referred in your closing statement, and upon which the "no consensus" decision was predicated, since you say "that alone was sufficient for a "no consensus" close".

The first of these two - that the article has been "stable" at Yoghurt for 8 years - is laughable. The article was created as Yogurt on December 10, 2002[5] and there it remained, in true stability for a full year, until it was surreptitiously moved to Yoghurt on Christmas Day, 2003 in direct violation against such changes per guidance at WP:MOS, on the blatantly dubious grounds that "yoghurt" is "more phonetically correct" than "yogurt", an argument subtly mentioned on the talk page a month prior to that move [6]. Within a few months the move was challenged[7] and the history of this article is replete with challenges, moves, move reverts, eight formal RM proposal/discussions, and countless objections to the spelling. If this qualifies as "stable", what on Earth does unstable look like? If this is not the epitome of an unstable title, then there is no such thing as an unstable title in Wikipedia, and the opposing claim that this title is "stable" is moot. In any case, the argument that this title is stable cannot be taken seriously, and certainly cannot be seen as a strong argument in favor of any position.

And to characterize the ENGVAR point as a strong oppose argument is to completely dismiss the support side's ENGVAR counter-argument regarding WP:RETAIN, which is part of ENGVAR, and clearly calls for returning the article to the variety of English of the original contributor in disputes exactly like this. To consider the citation of ENGVAR as a strong oppose argument is as ridiculous as would be considering the citation of COMMONNAME a strong argument in favor of a contrived title which is not used in any sources.

You seem to try to skirt responsibility here by saying it is not for you "to determine whose interpretation of guidelines and naming conventions is 'correct'". Oh, so participants in RM discussions can interpret policy and guidelines any way they want, and the closing admin has no duty to check on the veracity of their arguments? What are you saying? What indeed is the point of these discussions, then?

Since counting !votes is not how we determine consensus, just because there are considerable !votes on both sides does not mean there is no consensus. The only way to determine consensus is to seriously consider and evaluate the arguments presented on both sides, and determine how well each one is grounded in the broad consensus at WP, largely as it is reflected in policy and guidelines. It's clear you did not do that in this case, and that's especially disappointing, because in a conflict that has been going on for as long as this one has, it, and everyone involved with it over the years, really deserves a lot more serious consideration than you obviously gave it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Comments above were copied from User talk:Fish and karate --Born2cycle (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

---

Yogurt

I believe that an inappropriate close was instituted for RM:Yoghurt. Admin "Fish_and_karate" was the closer. Please review the RM, and the ensuing discussion below the RM on the talk page. -Kai445 (talk) 22:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the fact that both sides used WP:ENGVAR as a primary point of support should be looked at. Only one side can be right. ENGVAR prefers the first usage of the article, which in this case is "yogurt". Retaining it at "yoghurt" because it is currently at that title isn't what ENGVAR says. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• The close is inappropriate because the closer said it was "no consensus" based on both sides having strong arguments, but when asked to specify what the strong arguments were on the oppose side, he had no reply. If no outside view steps in to review this based on this rfc, the next step is to make the same request at WP:ANI. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• This is a textbook case of lack of consensus. Disagreement persisted over whether a change should be made. Therefore the change does not have consensus support and the close was correct. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

  Decisions do not have to be unanimous for there to be consensus. The fact that disagreement persisted does not mean there wasn't consensus. In fact, a position does not even need to enjoy majority support at an RM for it to carry the day: if, as is asserted to be the case here, many editors wish to sidestep ENGVAR, then wp:LOCALCONSENSUS suggests that they should not be able to—even if they are in a strong majority! We don't count votes in RMs. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 07:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

No one has suggested there needs to be unanimity, and I am not suggesting !votes should be counted. Despite your denial, persistence of disagreement = lack of consenus. Those of us who disagree with the move have adduced reasons, although no, I am not going to either repeat myself ad nauseam or fill out a table. The closer evaluated the arguments and saw lack of consensus. I agree. Finish. No attempt to "win" by denying that disagreement equals consensus. There was and is no consensus. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement conflicts with itself. "No one has suggested there needs to be unanimity" and "Persistence of disagreement = lack of consensus". You are stating that conflict can result in consensus and lack of consensus. And you repeatedly stating that there is no consensus does not mean there is no consensus, just as you saying "Finish." does not end the discussion. -Kai445 (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kai, that is indeed what I am confused about. You agree that there doesn't need to be unanimity, but then how can we conclude that persistent disagreement must mean no consensus? Isn't lack of unanimity the same thing as persistent disagreement? Perhaps it would help if you rephrased, Yngvadottir. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• My understanding of ENGVAR and how it is applied here is that it trumps considerations of commonname, etc, etc. There's commonality, but nobody has suggested an alternative title based on commonality. So, we're left with ENGVAR. When someone moves a title to another regional name, ENGVAR says move it back. This is supposed to avoid debates like this. That is the whole point, as I understand it. I'm not a big fan of it even, but it's what we do. I don't really understand what is going on with this closure; we roll with ENGVAR around here, and that means it goes back to yogurt. /thread ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Although no one argued this in the RM discussion, it could be argued that the spelling with the h is "established" in this article, and, thus, per WP:RETAIN, which is part of ENGVAR, it should be retained. However, at best, that's a weak argument, because the counter-argument to it is that the repeated and regular challenges show that it's not "established", discussion cannot resolve the issue, and therefore "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default", which is yogurt.

    This is why I think you have to look at all the points in support and opposed to the move, including common name, and we did that, collaboratively, above. But the closing admin appears to have ignored all that and just counted !votes. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Having read through the entire RM discussion, along with the commentary both above and below this one, there's one inescapable conclusion that can be made: WP:CONSENSUS was NOT reached for changing the name. The mere fact that some editors appear to be ready to "go to war" over this is prima facie evidence thereof. Therefore, Fish and karate's close was 100% correct as to both application of policy and determination of whether consensus existed. So why is this still being argued about, if not for the opportunity to make a WP:POINT? That's as far as I go. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (User:N5iln) (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Response There's no "war" here, only vigorous discussion. If my actions are improper, report me to the appropriate noticeboard and stick a template on my talk page, but how about sticking to the facts of the argument? The fact that I am even expending additional energy on this is because I believe the actions of the closing admin were incorrect, his closing remarks were both unjustifiable and patronizing. If his use of policy was 100% correct and there was "no consensus" then per WP:ENGVAR, the article should have been moved, plain and simple. The policy literally spells it out, what is the problem of asking to have it applied. Additional arguments were made on top of it in an effort to show commonality, which you dismiss out of hand. -Kai445 (talk) 16:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: In my opinion, the decision about the titling of this article must be based on WP:ENGVAR. I chose not to "support" or "oppose" the move in the recent RM, but rather tried to demonstrate that basing the decision on WP:COMMONALITY or WP:COMMONNAME is not appropriate given there is a clear regional split in spelling. (For example, The Cambridge Guide to English Usage shows that yoghurt is statistically preferred in the Australian and British corpora. Yoghurt is preferred in some major dictionaries outside of the UK and US, such as the Macquarie Dictionary and New Zealand Oxford Dictionary. It is also worth considering that even American dictionaries such as American Heritage and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate list yoghurt as an acceptable non-regionalized variant of yogurt.) Opponents and proponents of the move of Yoghurt to Yogurt have both used WP:ENGVAR as justification for their arguments, based on either retaining the long-established (but not uncontroversial) spelling (yoghurt) or going back to the first spelling established (yogurt). Both of these are valid arguments. However, based on WP:ENGVAR (specifically "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default"), surely we should defer to the latter argument? The first version of the article consistently used yogurt, -ize (as in pasteurized), and litre.[8] Consequently, I believe that moving the article to Yogurt, with the text using British English following the Concise Oxford English Dictionary (so yogurt and -ize), may be the most appropriate and least controversial choice (at least for long-term stability). Nevertheless, I do not believe that the closing was "inappropriate". The article has been kept at Yoghurt since 2003, despite the controversy and numerous RMs, so I can understand that the RM has been closed as "no consensus". Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I think that the close is appropriate, and that anyone wishing to argue over the name of this article should recheck their priorities, on Wikipedia and in life. This is not worth arguing over, ever. The article has been for a long time at one title, which is the standard spelling in some variety of English. Therefore, trying to monkey with it in any way is strongly discouraged. The whole point of ENGVAR was "STOP ARGUING ABOUT THESE SPELLING DIFFERENCES, AND NEVER LOOK BACK." Let's respect that, as an extremely sensible ceasefire that allows all of us to work on things that matter. The spelling of "yoghurt/yogurt" does not matter. Claiming that it does is disruptive and counterproductive. Do not think, or consider arguing, about spelling differences that don't matter. Choose better battles in life, and even better, respect that Wikipedia is not a battlefield. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

  GTBacchus, would you elaborate on this? I think the take from ENGVAR is that we should stop arguing about this on pages and just do what ENGVAR says. You seem to be saying the point of it is to just stop arguing about it and not really do what it says. Or something. I thought ENGVAR should be a neat way to just completely avoid the discussion here—keep the article where it was when it stopped being a stub. Easy. End of discussion. But now there's all this nuance around it, and your take of how it really means this other thing, that you should just never bother with spelling differences. Do you see how this kind of defeats its purpose? You say below "Please respect the cease-fire." I agree! The cease-fire there says move it to Yogurt; it never should have been moved here. Am I reading it wrong? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Summary of oppose !votes

Okay, I've gone through all the !votes, and this is a summary of all the points made in the oppose !votes above, categorized as strong arguments, salient points, weak arguments, true but irrelevant, baseless opinion, and incorrect.

That's it, and I'm confident I didn't miss anything because I just culled out signatures and follow-on comments. How the closing admin found "strong arguments" here is inexplicable. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to word this as strongly as Roux does below, but I would advise anyone who has not been involved in the discussion previously to actually read over the RM and form your own opinion rather than rely on the incredibly biased summary below. I find it interesting that my argument has been described as "weak" by B2C despite Kai445 (another of the yogurt proponents) describing it as a "valid reason" at the mediation request. Again, for anyone who wants an accurate summary, I would advise them to read the RM where I defended my vote – I'm not going to do the same thing here because I have better things to do with my time than repeat arguments over and over. Jenks24 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you didn't notice, but your point was categorized twice. First, it's under salient points, because the point about yoghurt being the preferred spelling by academics in some varieties of English is certainly salient to this issue. But it's also under weak, not strong, arguments, because the conclusion that ENGVAR therefore supports retaining the current title is not supported very well by this salient point. I explained partly why below ("Weak because: ..."), and will add on to it now. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

strong arguments

-- note that this section is blank --

• Note that this section was left blank by someone on the other side of the argument, in a flagrantly biased attempt to 'prove' that they have the stronger arguments. Frankly, this is fucking sickening behaviour and I wish certain users would just accept that NO CONSENSUS means NO CONSENSUS and get the fuck over it. → ROUX ₪ 20:29, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit this list to include a strong argument made in the above discussion, preferably one that references a guideline or policy. Then we can talk about it. AgnosticAphid talk 20:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed, those of us on the support side can't prove no strong arguments were made in favor of the oppose side in the RM discussion, despite the closing admin's assertion that they exist, because you can't prove a negative. However, we can assert, as I did here, that there were no strong oppose arguments (we agree with the closing admin that there were strong support arguments, and no one has challenged that point). This assertion, if false, can be easily disproven. When an assertion that could be easily disproven if it were false is not disproven, given sufficient time and opportunity, that means, for all intents and purposes, its veracity is proven, per evidence of absence. That is, the assertion holds up to scrutiny.

  Here we have the closing admin (Fish and karate (talk · contribs)), Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) and now Roux (talk · contribs) all expressing disagreement with the simple assertion, and yet none have actually identified any such strong oppose arguments in order to actually disprove it. We've analyzed and summarized all the oppose !votes, explaining why each falls into a category other than "strong arguments", and none have even argued to the contrary. So, this is all grist to the mill. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm sick and fucking tired of you banging on and on and on and on and on and on and on and fucking on about this goddamn issue, to say nothing of your flagrant and disgusting bias every time you summarize your side of the argument versus the 'leave it alone' side. A move was proposed, yes or no? A completely uninvolved admin looked at the arguments and found there was no consensus in favour of the move, yes or no? What the actual fuck is the problem here then? Do you not understand how consensus works, or are you just whining because you didn't get your way? These are--despite the nonsense I know you're going to start spewing--the only actual explanations for your behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 21:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Once again, you take the time and make the effort to respond, but offer nothing to counter the assertion at issue - that no strong oppose arguments were made in the RM discussion. And yet you have the audacity to refer to the closing admin's decision which was based entirely on the supposed existence of these strong oppose arguments! Don't you realize you're just revealing the impotence of your position? The inability to produce this counter is why this has been going on and on and on and on and on and on and on... for years! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the need for incivility here. I am going to ask you to refrain from further incivility towards Born2cycle or any other editors, as it is unproductive. I'll answer all of your questions as I see them:

A move was proposed, yes or no?

Yes, it was.

A completely uninvolved admin looked at the arguments and found there was no consensus in favour of the move, yes or no?

An Admin did reply, and his conclusion was indeed "no consensus". There are many users who believe that not only is this not the case, but that his decision was unjustifiable. The Admin was asked to give more information about the close, and he has not yet replied.

What the actual fuck is the problem here then? Do you not understand how consensus works, or are you just whining because you didn't get your way?

I would implore you to read WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RM, and because of this discussion we're having and perhaps most importantly: WP:RFC. -Kai445 (talk) 22:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Born2Cycle: inability? There's no inability. There is only fucking frustration at you people refusing to accept how Wikipedia works. Move was proposed. Arguments emerged on both sides. No consensus was found. Therefore no move.

This is, in fact, how Wikipedia works. I realize it may cause you distress to not get your way, but it happens every day. It's kind of pathetic, actually, how much you guys are forumshopping this issue. → ROUX ₪ 22:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

More time and effort to respond, but again nothing to counter the assertion at issue - that no strong oppose arguments were made in the RM discussion.

Further, you conflate the undisputed fact that one admin declared, without basis, that there is "no consensus" with the actual absence of consensus. They are not necessarily the same thing, and your continued inability to identify any strong oppose arguments presented in the RM discussion only strengthens the position that they are definitely not the same thing in this case. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You misunderstand the nature of consensus, which is WP:NOTAVOTE. The question is not, "did more than a couple people vote for each choice?" The question is, do Wikipedia policies support a single course of action ("consensus")? Or, to the contrary, are there multiple viable interpretations of the relevant guidelines and policies such that "no consensus" on the proper course of action can be obtained? I had not been involved with this epic saga at all until a couple of days ago. I implore you to WP:AGF. Please, let us know which (if any) policies or guidelines referenced in the above discussion support leaving the article with the title of "yoghurt." I do not believe there are any such policies or guidelines. (I could be mistaken.) If there are no such policies or guidelines, that means the consensus is "move." It's not a poll or vote; a difference of opinion does not necessarily mean a lack of consensus. AgnosticAphid talk 23:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The allegations of forumshopping are tiresome. It is totally reasonable to question an RM closure, or any other admin action. For deletions, there's deletion review, etc. AFAIK for RMs after asking the closing admin for clarification RFC is the next step. The closing admin in this case chose not to respond to any of the questions posed, so here we are. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

(@ AgnosticAphid) I believe you're misunderstanding consensus. Yup, it's not a vote. The question is, have people reached consensus. If there is still hefty disagreement, there is no consensus. And if there is no consensus for a change, the change is not made. It's not a matter of "who's right" under policy; that's what the discussion has been about. One of the points made in favour of changing it was in fact that there will continue to be agitation for changing it! We are not "sides" here but we do have opposing views, and neither has persuaded the other. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's not a vote, then it doesn't matter if there's disagreement. Not even a "hefty disagreement" would matter. WP:NOTUNANIMOUS -Kai445 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm really not a wikipedia expert or anything, so I could be wrong, but I think that actually it is a "matter of 'who's right' under policy." If both sides can find support for their position in WP policies, then there's no consensus. If policies support only one course of action, then there is consensus, notwithstanding that there may be disagreement. In my opinion, this article should never have been changed from "yogurt" to "yoghurt" back in 2005 or whatever; that was a clear WP:ENGVAR violation. Yes, people missed it when it happened, but that doesn't excuse the violation. I don't think anyone above mentioned any policies or guidelines that support leaving the article with the current title just because that's the way it is right now. (Again, I could be mistaken.) So, it seems to me like there's a consensus that the article should be changed and that the admin wrongly determined that there was no consensus for such a change. AgnosticAphid talk 19:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

salient points

• the article itself fairly explains the variety of usage in different English-speaking countries.
• "Yoghurt" is the most common spelling in some parts of the English-speaking world, "yogurt" in others.
• As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt.

weak arguments

• As the google stats below show, academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt. Clear case of WP:ENGVAR to me.
  • Foundation: academic sources in Australia and the UK still vastly prefer yoghurt as shown by ghit counts
  • Conclusion: This is a clear case of ENGVAR.
  • Weak because at best this establishes this is an ENGVAR issue, but that does not favor retaining the current title. It actually favors going with the original variety of English, per WP:RETAIN, which, if you look at the history of yogurt/yoghurt usage in this article, is clearly U.S. English, and indicates the use of "yogurt".
• My copy of Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred over Yogurt - that's good enough for me.
  • Foundation: Concise Oxford Dictionary shows Yoghurt as preferred
  • Conclusion: this is good enough to oppose move to Yogurt
  • Weak because: by this logic dictionaries that show yogurt as preferred are good enough to support move to Yogurt

true, but irrelevant

• This has been much discussed
  • The fact that this issue has been much discussed is not a reason to oppose the move
• Anybody searching for the alternative spelling will end up here.
  • That's true in any RM discussion and not a reason to oppose
• I do not see any reasons to move it since, as Yngvadottir already pointed out, the spelling is explained in the article.
  • The fact that the spelling is explained in the article is not a reason to oppose moving it.
• Several other languages also use "Yoghurt", for instance in Swedish, Norse (2x), Dutch.
  • This is an English encyclopedia - usage in non-English is irrelevant

baseless opinion

• the present spelling is a liveable compromise
  • Whether the present spelling is a "liveable compromise" is a matter of pure opinion
• Too much (electronic) ink has been spilled over this trivial issue. The status quo is fine.
  • How much is "too much"? Status quo is fine? Pure matters of opinion.
• Agree with the upper three arguments. I see no reason why to change it.
  • To dismiss 11 clearly stated reasons without explanation as "no reason" is the epitome of stating an opinion without basis
• There is not one good reason for moving this page.
  • To dismiss 11 clearly stated reasons without explanation as "not one good reason" is the epitome of stating an opinion without basis
• Oppose the change, and oppose the US-bashing as well.
  • Simply stating you oppose without giving a reason is of course baseless opinion
• I've never seen it spelled without the "h" until today.
  • Sample of one
• Oppose per WP:ENGVAR.
  • How does ENGVAR apply and indicate this should be the title? Ignores without explanation the argument that ENGVAR says to go with first use, which was yogurt.
• I have also never seen it without the h, so it should be in it.
  • Sample of one

falsehoods

• Moving it to the US spelling would only reflect what is common in the US.
  • It's common spelling in many English speaking places besides the US, including the UK.

Discussion of oppose !votes summary

I cannot accept this biased summary any more than I could accept the one previously presented here. Please recall that this is not a debating contest. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• How is it biased? If you think some of the points are mis-categorized, move them. If you think the name of a category is biased, fix it. If something was said in an oppose !vote that I missed, add it. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there is a strong argument for WP:COMMONNAME based on the fact that so many reference texts (every major English dictionary as a primary entry as do the dictionaries Encyclopaedia Brittannica and MSN Encarta, and prescriptive texts such as the Oxford Style Manual say to use Yogurt and to NOT use Yoghurt), industry groups around the world (USA, UK, and AUS), the largest manufacturers of yogurt, and WP:GOOGLE results showing worldwide usage of "Yogurt". There is simply no COMMONNAME determination available for "Yoghurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Furthermore, WP:WIN that was cited by Yngvadottir has nothing to do with any "debating contest". You cannot debate facts. Everything I had previously mentioned is a fact. -Kai445 (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, it's ironic that Yngvadottir is citing WP:WIN when all we're doing is trying to achieve consensus via facts and arguments, and part of that process is pointing out that the opposing side has no strong arguments, contrary to what the closing admin said. WP:WIN cites WP:CONSENSUS, which states: "the process of finding a consensus is continued by discussion on the relevant talk pages.". Well, reasonable people should be able to agree whether there are strong arguments on both sides or not. But not if one side refuses to discuss. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

• I've added explanations for why I've categorized most of the points the way I have. I've tried to be as objective and unbiased as I could, but I'm human. Again, corrections are welcome. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
• I don't see the relevance of WP:WIN. It seems like WP:NOTAVOTE is the more appropriate guideline to invoke. Plus, WP:WIN is an essay, not a guideline or policy. Unless you can come up with a policy-based reason for leaving this article with the title of "yoghurt," that means there is a consensus in favor of change. If that leaves you feeling like you've "lost," I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you shouldn't. I don't see any policy-based explanation whatsoever for this article being titled "yoghurt" rather than "yogurt." If there is one that's been missed in the above list, go ahead and add it. As far as I can tell, this article should be called 'yogurt' per WP:ENGVAR. I think that's the end of it under WP:NOTAVOTE, but if I'm wrong and you have a policy-based explanation for why there actually isn't a consensus, let's go ahead and discuss it like we're supposed to. AgnosticAphid talk 17:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
  • "If there is one that's been missed in the above list, go ahead and add it".

    Well, let's remember this is a discussion about the closing decision, which is based on arguments and points actually made in the RM discussion. So let's not add arguments/points to the list above that were not part of that discussion - as they are not relevant to the question of whether the closing admin's challenged presumption that the oppose side had "strong arguments" is supported by what was actually discussed there.

    However, if something that was said there was missed in the summary, yes, by all means, please add it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, my statement was poorly worded. AgnosticAphid talk 18:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Like --Born2cycle (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I am really getting the feeling some editors are prepared to wage a war on this issue. I just looked at User:Kai445's recent edits and he seems solely interested in changing the name of this article. All his edits have been devoted to this "issue." He is currently in slow move battle on one article and seems pretty confident he will win the battle here, since he keeps on moving Strained yoghurt to Strained yogurt. Not to mention he reverted the edits of another user on Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. The problem is that the user in question simply made the article consistent - with British English spelling from top to bottom. I was under the impression that the only Wiki rule on the variety of English is for articles to be consistent. Maybe I was wrong. However, it does look like, User:Kai445 knows he is right and is pursuing his quest with great vigour. And all this despite the fact that the main article has remained at Yoghurt.

I really fail to see it as important as most people here find it. What interests me is people searching for the article eventually finding what they were seeking for. And it is currently working fine - I've tried it out myself. What is the problem from then on? From what I see usage is split and, despite all effort from some editors from the pro-move side, I am not convinced in the opposite. Some English-speaking countries use one, one country uses the other. EU documents in English, for example, use yoghurt. That is what I know for sure. From that fact on, for me the argument is based solely on google hits, which in itself is hardly any good justification for anything. I could live with any article title that is in fact in English, although I'd have to live with words in the article underlined with a red curly line. It does, however, seems like some editors are not prepared to live with it and have dedicated all their time to a lame battle. Sorry, this is not what Wikipedia is for. And I really failed to see the need for weighing up the comments from the other side from your own perspective. It does not look like a productive thing to do, sorry. You have not addressed any of the actual facts behind the positions, but simply stated your opinion of another editor's opinion. How is that leading to consensus? --Laveol ^T 08:13, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure press releases don't use "Yogurt"? I know for sure that your statement is not rooted in truth.

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/952

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth128_en.htm

If you fail to see any importance, why are you participating at all? Your argument of "some countries use one, some use the other" is flat out incorrect. -Kai445 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Laveol, really? Oh, please! I'm so tired of the "why does it matter?" argument. If it doesn't matter, why are you here? Why are you even bothering to participate, much less devoting a long paragraph to an ad hominem attack that belongs on that user's talk page, if anywhere, and then devoting another long paragraph rationalizing why you think it doesn't matter? Whether the reasons are good or not, it obviously does matter to many of us, including to you.

As for the need for "weighing up the comments of the other side", that was done because of one reason: the closing admin justified his "no consensus" close on the assertion that there were strong arguments on both sides. We have challenged that assertion with respect to the oppose side, and I did that by listing ALL of the oppose !vote comments, and categorizing them as I did, clearly demonstrating that none of them add up to a strong argument (I note that no one has made any specific objections to the categorization, no comments have been found to be missing, no specific comments identified to have been miscategorized, and the #Strong arguments section remains blank). If that doesn't satisfy your query about why that was done, please let me know. By the way, I don't see a strong oppose argument in anything you've written either.

Now, this isn't the first article, by a long shot, where there have been disputes about what variety of English to use in an article. But we know how to settle these issues. It's in WP:RETAIN, a sub-paragraph of WP:ENGVAR, which states:

When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default.

Clearly, years of discussion has not resolved the issue here. The bottom line is that, per WP:RETAIN, we decide these cases by going back to the variety of English originally used in the article. As long as there is discord about this title, only one of the two choices has the original use in its favor. This article was created on December 10, 2002, and it was not a stub [9]. That variety was established and remained so until the lead sentence was changed to express a supposed difference in traditional/modern spellings on March 18,2003 [10]. But even then the remainder of the article remained written in the the same original variety of English.

There is no denying that one variety of English was originally used in this article, and it was established over significant time and significant numbers of edits [[See: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory), and was never in stub form. Per WP:RETAIN, that's the variety that is supposed to be used in this article. That is a strong argument, based on policy, guidelines and conventions.

There is also no denying that that fact will remain a fact throughout the existence of Wikipedia. Five, ten, twenty, and a hundred years from now, editors will be able to point this out, and will use it to argue that therefore that should be the variety used in this article. That is another strong argument, based on practicality.

There is no strong argument in favor of using the variety of English that is currently used in this article. And that too is a strong argument in favor of changing this article back to its original variety. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. I was 'invited' here by RfC bot, and have had no previous involvement in this dispute (I didn't even know it existed) and have no axe to grind. I have read all the discussion currently on this page, but I've not delved into archives. The whole situation can be summed up with three simple statements
  1. The is no current consensus to move the page. The closure of the RM discussion was absolutely correct on this point.
  2. In the absence of consensus, the status quo remains. i.e. the page is not moved.
  3. WP:ENGVAR does not trump consensus, or lack of consensus. Moving the page to "comply" with ENGVAR when there is no consensus to do so is moving the page solely "to switch from one valid use of English to another", which is explicitly prohobitied by the same guideline.

I would therefore encourage all the parties here to read m:The Wrong Version and get on with improving the article. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR literally states "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." Discussion did not resolve the issue (that's what "no consensus" means, right?), so you assume that policy directs the article to stay where it is? Quite a strange interpretation. -67.80.253.66 (talk) 15:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Per the dictionary definition of "consensus", of course there is no "consensus" here. But we're not supposed to use the dictionary definition in deciding if there is consensus, which, by the way, requires unanimity in agreement. We're supposed to go by the WP definition of consensus, which means looking at the strength of the arguments to decide where consensus is. The closer seemed to recognize this in claiming that both side had strong arguments. But if the only argument the oppose side had is that there is no "consensus" to move per the dictionary definition, that's not a strong argument with respect to determining WP:CONSENSUS.

By the way, the above interpretation might not be so strange if viewed through anti-US-usage goggles. "I am a 30 year old male from the United Kingdom, ..." User:Thryduulf#About_me. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. That last paragraph has been interpreted by some, including Thryduulf, to be an attack on Thryduulf. To the best of my knowledge, before Thryduulf posted here, we'd never crossed paths before. After he made his post, and the anon IP expressed puzzlement about his interpretation, I followed a hunch and verified he was from the UK. I had that hunch because I've observed an apparent correlation of nearly 1.0 between people who argue "the title here doesn't matter... so leave it at Yoghurt" and people who are from outside of the US. Despite saying it doesn't matter, they're not neutral on whether the article is moved - they're definitely opposed. The anti-US-usage bias one might carry if not from the U.S. seems quite obvious to me, just as having a pro-US-usage bias is likely for someone from the U.S., and this is the only explanation for the correlation I've observed that I can fathom. Exceptions to this correlation, like the one expressed by veteran Manning (talk · contribs), who is from Australia and personally favours the "yoghurt" spelling, in a 2009 post favoring a return to the original title Yogurt, are rare. I did not mean to single out Thryduulf for being biased - I suspect nearly everyone is - it just so happens that his interpretation was being questioned. That is the only reason I made this point using his interpretation as an example. I apologize again, as I did below, for any offense that was taken from my statement; none was intended. I hope this clears everything up. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest that, given your previous record on controversial requested moves where you don't get "your way", that suggesting that a closing admin is biased in some way is a spectacularly bad idea, and I would even more strongly suggest that you redact it. Black Kite (t) 18:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I have the following comments to make about this baffling remark.

1. I have no idea what "given your previous record on controversial requested moves" is referring to, and so no one else can be expected to know. I have no "record". The term "record" (noun) has a negative connotation since in a context of behavior it often refers to a record of criminal conviction in the real world. Of course I've been involved in debates, but I've never been sanctioned for anything at WP. I explained my philosophy and approach, which results in much more discussion than article editing, on my user page and FAQ. This comment of Black Kite's has nothing to do with this article, or anything else so far as I know. The only conceivable reason to state this here is to disparage me, which is certainly uncivil, and arguably a personal attack.
2. As to "suggesting that a closing admin is biased in some way is a spectacularly bad idea", I've made no suggestions about the closing admin, Fish and karate (talk · contribs), being biased, at least not in the comment to which Black Kite responded (and I don't believe anywhere else either). This comment is a non sequitur of the "are you still beating your wife?" variety. There is no rational way to respond.
3. Above, an anon IP stated that an interpretation used by Thryduulf (talk · contribs) was "strange". As a possible explanation for why that interpretation might not be so strange, I suggested a possible bias stemming from him being from the UK. Hey, I'm sure I'm biased due to my country of my origin. Who isn't? Do we really need to sort out the oppose/support votes above to prove there is a high correlation between position and country of origin? Is there something so inappropriate about pointing out such obvious bias being a possible factor that such comments must be removed? If so, there are megabytes of similar commentary strewn throughout WP article talk pages that must also be redacted. Where shall we start?
4. Initially, the only reasonable way I could think of to respond to this nonsensical personal attack was to remove it. Accordingly, I did, and asked Black Kite to leave me alone[11], but Black Kite has restored it, admonished me for redacting it, and threatened me with an ANI[12]. Apparently, Black Kite is an admin (what exemplary behavior for an admin!), so I dare not redact it again. Attempting to discuss this with him on his talk page has not been fruitful (to the contrary, the confusion only escalated there to the point where Black Kite conflated suggesting bias with assuming bad faith, absurdly presuming people acting in good faith can't be biased!). So, I respond here, unfortunately, which of course is also way off topic, and for that I apologize, but I see no alternative. I hope this is understandable. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

• I am, as you well know, talking about your attack on User:Thryduulf above when referring to his nationality, even if the phrase "closing admin" is not quite correct. My comment is, clearly, in reply to yours. If you have "no idea" what I am talking to as to your previous conduct on requested moves, I am surprised; a search of the WP:ANI archives would be helpful, perhaps. Black Kite (t) 20:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

So, noting a fact supported by a quote from someone's own user page, and suggesting that might explain why his apparently strange remark is not so strange, is now an attack??? And there is something wrong with being involved in a number of ANI discussions about RM disputes, almost none (if any) of which were about my behavior much less resulted in any kind of sanctions for me, justifies an out-of-the-blue disparaging remark about my "record"? Is there no end to this insanity? Why are you doing this??? And why do you insist on doing it here?

I was also going to say that if attacking people is your thing, to go attack someone else, but that wouldn't be fair to that someone else, and I wouldn't wish this kind of unreasonable treatment (by an admin!) on anyone. So, I will ask one more time, please remove your original inappropriate, uncivil non sequitur attack, and this follow-on discussion too. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

B2C:Yes, it is an attack. Please don't insinuate that someone has an anti-US bias just because they are from the UK. Why not stick to the arguments and let them stand on their own? Thryduff: telling people to read m:The Wrong Version is generally not helpful to maintaining civil discussion and debate. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 23:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm doing it because you need to internalise the fact that you are not always right, and when things go against you, you need to stop blaming it on other people, especially when you make ludicrous claims such as the one about Thryduulf. Editors that spend most of their time persistently wikilawyering until opposing parties give up because they can't be bothered are something we really could do without. You're obviously an intelligent and erudite person; why not use those talents to go and write or improve an article instead? After all, that's what we're here for, not to argue about trivialities of article naming. Black Kite (t) 00:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am from the United Kingdom, but that does not mean that I have an anti-US bias and I ask that the remark is withdrawn. Even if it were true it would be an irrelevant ad hominem arugment. I would be saying exactly the same thing if it had been at the other spelling currently. My view is based on the fact that no only can editors here not agree on which version of English to use, they cannot even agree about whether there was consensus or not, nor which bits of ENGVAR should apply. When you can't even agree whether there is consensus about whether there is consensus to apply the section of the guideline that refers to situations where there is no consensus, that is pretty damning about the chances of actually agreeing on anything. The reference to m:The Wrong Version was intended to demonstrate that in the bigger picture it really doesn't matter whether there is an "h" in the middle of the word or not - just leave the article where it is now (about the only thing there is agreement on is that there are no major ties between yog(h)urt and any national variety of English, so neither title is actually wrong per se), ignoring whether moves in the past were right or wrong, and get on with improving the encyclopaedia article. We have a top-importance food and drink article that is only rated C class - if a fraction of the effort and verbiage expended on one letter had been put into improving the article, you'd be well on the way to a featured article by now. Or in other, cruder, words - "The article is where it is, it doesn't matter why, just deal with it and get on with writing an encyclopaedia". Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course being from the UK does not mean you have an anti-US-usage bias. But it might mean that, which is all I said, just as anyone from the US might have (dare I say, is likely to have?) a pro-US-usage bias. And, here's the kicker, if one is so biased, nobody, including the person himself, can really know! I mean, do you think it's a coincidence that an editor from the US originally created this article at Yogurt, and an editor from the UK, under the pretense that "yoghurt" is the more "phonetically correct" spelling[13], moved it a year later to Yoghurt? And that ever since it was moved to Yoghurt it has been mostly (exclusively?) editors from outside of the US arguing that it doesn't matter where the article is? And that it has been mostly editors from the US pointing out that in cases like this WP:RETAIN indicates the article should be moved back to its original title? If anti/pro US-Usage bias does not explain those correlations, what does?

Nothing personal, really (how could there be - this is our first interaction, I believe), but asserting or denying the existence of a bias is kind of pointless (because there is no way to know either way). All we can say is there might be bias. I'm sorry you find it offensive, but it's a simple fact of human nature. Just something for everyone to be aware of. I meant no disrespect, and did not mean to question your sincerity or good faith at all. I have no reason to believe there is an issue there whatsoever. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

So why does it matter what spelling the page is at? Thryduulf (talk) 14:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

If your argument is now that it doesn't matter what the page is titled, why are you even commenting? -Kai445 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I am commenting because one or more editors here has asked for comments from uninvolved parties in order to try and resolve the dispute (the whole point of the RfC), and I fit that bill having had no previous involvement in the dispute. What I see here is a protracted dispute over which spelling should be used, with entrenched positions on both sides, where neither side is wrong (i.e. it's not incorrect to spell it either "yoghurt" or "yogurt"). This situation is taking a lot of energy for something that is completely unproductive, so I am proposing an alternative way forward so the efforts can be spent improving the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"moving the page solely "to switch from one valid use of English to another", which is explicitly prohobitied by the same guideline." So the move from Yogurt->Yoghurt was similarly prohibited, right? I think a fundamental point here is that there is plenty of consensus to move this page—ENGVAR is quite comfortably supported by consensus. I don't even like ENGVAR, but I realize that I am in the tiny minority here. Now, I understand there is some debate about whether local consensus can so easily trump a well-established guideline. Ironically I obviously can't refer you to wp:LOCALCONSENSUS, which is pretty clear that consensus here (or lack thereof!) should not trump something like ENGVAR, since your position does not allow for guidelines to tip the scales. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:30, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments immediately above. Thryduulf (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to direct my attention to. Your comments seem to illustrate my point quite well—"When you can't even agree whether there is consensus about whether there is consensus to apply the section of the guideline that refers to situations where there is no consensus, that is pretty damning about the chances of actually agreeing on anything."—Then you apply the consensus-derived guideline about what to do when there is no consensus! Why is this so hard? Your'e right about one thing—we shouldn't be having this discussion. ENGVAR, for all its problems, is supposed to avoid these discussions by settling the issue when there is no consensus. But, if you believe guidelines are to be ignored unless there is local consensus to follow them, then ENGVAR can't do that. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In other words, the consensus of the community is that when there is no local consensus about what the title should be in ENGVAR spelling situations like this, the article should be moved back to its original title. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Thryduulf appears to be WP:GAME, and I certainly don't appreciate it. -Kai445 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Whoa! I do not agree with that. I see no evidence of that at all. In RM discussions it's normal to treat "no consensus" to mean "no move", so it's not unreasonable for someone to genuinely see no (local) consensus here and conclude the article should therefore not be moved, and, by the way, may genuinely believe it doesn't matter. I see no reason to believe that that does not apply to Thryduulf. Let's not confuse bias that someone is not aware of with bad faith! --Born2cycle (talk) 01:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please retract that statement Kai445 - I have no stake in this discussion, I have no preferred spelling, I really do not care what spelling is used, so I could not game the system even if I wanted to. I am commenting here as a neutral party to try and resolve this dispute. Despite the responses below to my question about why it matters, I still do not understand why you (editors here, collectively) cannot agree to disagree, and move forward with improving the article. Even if the title in use is not the one that you prefer, regardless of why you prefer or don't prefer one, regardless of whatever evidence you may prefer may or may not say, the other spelling is at most less good, neither are wrong. The title and spelling used don't stop you improving the article, for example finding sources to verify the numerous unsupported statements in the article will not be affected by which spelling the article uses (a source may use either after all). By all means come back to the naming discussion in 18 months or 2 years when cooler heads should be available, but continuing to insist that the title is right or wrong now is not a constructive use of anybody's time. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I will retract nothing. If you are going to cherry-pick ENGVAR and pretend that nobody knows what to do, then you're acting either in bad faith or out of ignorance. Neither is acceptable. -Kai445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Well given that I am not cherry-picking ENGVAR, nor pretending that anybody doesn't know anything, your statement is factually incorrect. Your assumption of (and even explicit accusation of) bad faith is not conduct conducive to any agreement forming, so don't be surprised if you end up at WP:WQA or stronger. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"Come back to the naming discussion in 18 months or 2 years when cooler heads should be available?" The problem is that new people arrive much more often than every 18 months, pointing out the same arguments in favor of restoring the English variety and spelling used by the original contributor of this article on December 10, 2002, and which was retained until October 29, 2004, and restart the debate over and over. This has been the pattern for eight years now, dominating the content of the five archives of this talk page, as well as this current one. I don't think anyone involved in the original debates is involved any more (so all of them have heeded your sage advice - which has been offered repeatedly over the last eight years as well, to no avail), but the debate rages on. For example, the latest RM discussion was started by Peregrine Fisher (talk · contribs), whose WP contributions go back to 2005, but who, like you, was completely uninvolved here before this discussion [14]. In fact, of the eight people who supported restoring the original title in that latest RM discussion, five (Peregrine Fisher, DTXBrian, 70.24.251.158, AnimatedZebra and ErikHaugen) have had no involvement here before per searches in the Talk:Yoghurt and Talk:Yogurt archives.

If eight years of practically continuous objection to the current title is not sufficient time to prove a lack of consensus for the current title, I don't know what is.

So while I have no doubt that your suggestion to those who happen to be paying attention here to come back in 18 months is made believing that will resolve this situation, eight years of history indicates otherwise. That's why I'm convinced the only way to end all this is is to restore the original title by moving this article back to Yogurt. That will resolve it because while there are, and will always be, plenty of reasonable arguments to support Yoghurt → Yogurt, there will be zero reasonable arguments to support Yogurt → Yoghurt. --Born2cycle 19:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, something like the agreement on Ireland article names (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration/Poll on Ireland article names) might work here. Basically everyone agrees to abide by the result of a formal vote for a set period of time (in the Ireland case it was 2 years), although given there are only two options here and no real scope for a compromise title, it might be more difficult, and obviously it requires some sort of consensus to start with.

However it's becoming clear to me that this RfC isn't going to get anywhere when there are such polarised opinions, intransigence from some quarters and accusations of bad faith. I think the time has probably come to take this to some form of mediation - either informal (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal) or formal (Wikipedia:Mediation Committe). With this I bow out of the discussion, it's already taken more of my time and energy than I really have to spare. Good luck with a resolution. Thryduulf (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Come on, are you reading what I'm saying? I'm beginning to think WP:IDNHT might apply here. For the third time, there is no disagreement here among two intransigent groups of editors like there was in the Ireland situation. That is, the makeup of the groups, at least those favoring the restoration of the original title, keeps changing. Even if everyone currently involved agrees to something through mediation, that wouldn't apply to anyone not currently involved here, and, as eight years of history clearly shows, those favoring restoring the original title, and who have never been involved here before, will arrive within a few months. How are you going to get people who are not even here yet to agree to something?

Anyway, I've been predicting, observing, and repeating this for years. Yet people like you keep arriving here thinking you have the solution, and all you have to say is the same old thing that has been said over and over... for eight years. And nothing changes. Suggesting mediation might seem new, reasonable and novel to you, but according to Einstein, this is insanity[15].

Anyway, I'm done too. --Born2cycle 20:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• It has not been "eight years of practically continuous objection to the current title". The issue was quiet for years. Then all of a sudden someone arrives who had not edited the article much, if at all, and says "I think the title should be changed!" and someone else arrives and says, "I agree!" and so a formal move discussion gets started by one of those two. And those two make a biased summary of the arguments against moving the article - in the form of a massive colored table that they demand others contribute to. And accusations of "anti-Americanism" are slung. And after an admin closes the discussion as no consensus, it's back to the sneering - including attacking the admin and recently accusing Thryduulf of bias on grounds of national origin and "defending" that by accusing all the opponents of moving the article of bias on grounds of national origin. Saying that everyone has bias does not make this any less of an attack, and yet merely saying that the US spelling is not ipso facto the best spelling to adopt gets labeled "anti-Americanism"? One of the arguments being repeatedly made for moving the article - it has just been made again - is in essence: If the article is not moved, we will keep agitating until it is moved. That is rather close to blackmail. I do not see these editors helping to defend the article against vandalism and unsourced nationalism, much less improving it. And the statement that those of us who favor the "yoghurt" spelling will just reappear if it gets moved to "yogurt" means - there is no consensus! Therefore the close was correct. And it's the move proponents who have - after a period of years, in one case based self-admittedly on an agenda to "simplify" by eliminating non-US spellings with their extra letters - resumed doing the same thing again. Expecting a different result: for those of us who see inadequate rationale for moving the article to get so fed up with the disruption that we give up. This is textbook no consensus, but it's actually only come to life again recently. Please move on from this particular intractable case of no consensus. I for one am less and less impressed with the arguments, and the attacks are becoming more frequent and are not persuasive. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Differences of opinion are one thing. But such blatantly false assertions as just expressed here need to be addressed.

1. The issue was quiet for years. False. Prior to this most recent RM, there was a formal RM discussion in 2009[16], and informal discussions about the title in 2010 and earlier in 2011 preceding this latest RM discussion. Except for the one year in which discussion on this issue was actually quiet, 2008, that's pretty typical of the eight years since the title was surreptitiously changed to Yoghurt on Christmas Day 2003 under the most dubious pretense I've ever seen ("Yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" than "yogurt").
2. "those two make a biased summary of the arguments against moving the article" False. All reasonable arguments made for both sides are presented in the table. If there are any reasonable arguments that support Yogurt → Yoghurt, why not actually state what they are rather than lamely claim the summary is biased... if it's truly biased, state what exactly is biased about it, and what needs to change for it not to be biased.
3. "One of the arguments being repeatedly made for moving the article - it has just been made again - is in essence: If the article is not moved, we will keep agitating until it is moved." False. The argument is not that we will keep agitating, but that new editors will keep arriving to point out the obvious: "yogurt" is more commonly used throughout the English world (arguably even in the UK) and since this is an ENGVAR issue we should go back to the variety of English used by original contributor to this article. There is no escaping the fact that these reasonable arguments for Yoghurt → Yogurt will remain reasonable through the end of time, and will remain available for anyone to present. There is also no escaping the fact that there are no comparable arguments for the reverse, Yogurt → Yoghurt.
4. there is no consensus! Therefore the close was correct. False. It's true that there is no WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. But that does not mean there is no consensus. Community consensus supports WP:ENGVAR and in particular WP:RETAIN, which says that in cases like this we should go back to the variety of English of the original contributor. Therefore it's not at all clear that the close was correct, and was arguably incorrect.
5. this particular intractable case... False. It's only intractable as long as this article remains at Yoghurt. This debate would be resolved instantly, and forever, by restoring the original title of this article, Yogurt, because, again, once restored at Yogurt, you who favor the current "no consensus" title would have no reasonable consensus-supported arguments to move the article back to your precious Yoghurt, and so consensus (not to mention reason, logic, policy, utilitarianism and common sense) would support Yogurt.

--Born2cycle 22:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean "Well given that I am not cherry-picking ENGVAR, nor pretending that anybody doesn't know anything, your statement is factually incorrect.". You literally said "When you can't even agree whether there is consensus about whether there is consensus to apply the section of the guideline that refers to situations where there is no consensus, that is pretty damning about the chances of actually agreeing on anything." If that doesn't sound like you saying that people don't know what to do, I don't know what does. I quoted the entire line of what to do on WP:ENGVAR, but people want to sit around and say that ENGVAR says to keep it put when there's no consensus (which is patently ridiculous). Refer me to any forum you want. If I acted improper, don't be a dick and threaten to do it, just go do it. Furthermore, I already started a request for mediation, and it was rejected because people like Yngvadottir (and perhaps not coincidentally the entire "Keep" side) rejected it outright. -Kai445 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So why does it matter what spelling the page is at?

Just above, in response to my suggestion that anti-US-usage bias is the reason it has been mostly (exclusively?) editors from outside of the US arguing that it doesn't matter what the spelling of this article's title is, Thryduulf (talk · contribs) inquires, "So why does it matter what spelling the page is at?"

That's a very good question. But before any question is answered, it's important to establish context. The relevant general question in this case is, Why does it matter what spelling any page is at?. Or, even more generally, why does it matter what title any page is at? (after all, the other title can just redirect). The answer to all these questions is the same: why it matters depends on who you ask. The history of this article is replete with evidence that the spelling of this article's title has mattered, and does matter, to dozens if not hundreds of editors. Every single editor who has voted Support or Oppose in any RM discussion here has indicated that it matters to him or her, for some reason.

I suggest that is an important point to stress: Anyone who argues the title "doesn't matter" and opposes moving the article is being hypocritical; if the title truly "doesn't matter" then there would be no reason to oppose moving it; a position consistent with "doesn't matter" is neutral or abstain, not oppose.

Though the reasons it matters are not the same for everyone, I'm sure, there can be no doubt that it matters for some reason for many.

Now, if you're asking me personally, my answer does not matter much, because I'm just one of those editors. But since you asked, the reasons the spelling happens to matter for me are:

1. I've long been a proponent of the idea that WP titles should reflect as best as possible the name or term most commonly used in reliable sources to refer to the topic of the article. In this case that's definitely yogurt, because it's the term that is used almost exclusively in N. America, and is widely used, if not quite dominantly, yet, in the U.K. as well.
2. I personally believe it's high time to merge US/UK spellings, preferring the simpler spelling when possible. This belief of course carries no weight in these discussions per WP:CRYSTAL etc, and that's why I've never mentioned it before, but right now I'm answering why the spelling of this title matters to me personally, and this belief is a factor, I must admit.

I hope this illustrates why the subjective/biased reasons the spelling of this article title matters to any one editor shouldn't matter to anyone else. I'm sure other people who support moving this article have other reasons for why it should move that wouldn't matter to you or me, just as all those who oppose moving it back to Yogurt have their reasons that are probably largely irrelevant to us as well. The fact remains that, for better or for worse, the spelling of this title does matter to many, and that it has been contentious -- eight formal RM proposal-discussions, countless discussions like this in between all of them -- ever since it was surreptitiously moved for the most dubious reasons (that "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" - I kid you not [17]) from Yogurt to Yoghurt on Christmas Day, 2003[18].

But putting all those irrelevant personal biases aside, the contentious history of the current title is the main reason the current spelling matters in objective/practical terms. The current spelling matters because that conflict can be easily and quickly resolved by changing the spelling back to Yogurt. The reasons for that is that the arguments favoring the "yogurt" spelling overwhelm the arguments favoring the "yoghurt" spelling. Therefore, as long as the article remains at Yoghurt, those who favor "yogurt" will have good reasons to object, and will, as they have for the last eight years, but once it's moved to Yogurt, those who favor "yoghurt" will have no good reason to object, and the issue will be finally resolved.

Thryduulf, please let me know if this answers the question of why the spelling of this article's title matters to your satisfaction. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In a practical world, one must choose one's battles sensibly. This one will generate more heat than light. A observant person can be certain of this. If you pursue it, that indicates that you wish to generate more heat than light. Please stop being a net heat-generator. ENGVAR is a ceasefire, which you seem intent on destroying. Please respect the cease-fire. That is all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think there are several legitimate reasons to review the name of this title, beyond the inappropriate and inadequately explained close. Wikipedia should have a stake in having clear and widely followed rules, principles and guidelines. This title is in direct conflict with many of such policies, and as such, can and will be used by others to push their preferred spellings and names, regardless of what is in the best interests of the readers. The people pushing to keep this name are doing a great disservice to the project, and should probably reexamine their motivations for being here.LedRush (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

LedRush, you and GTB, I think, have a fundamentally different philosophy about how policies/guidelines interact with local consensus. GTB knows that some people want clear guidelines that are consistently followed across the project. GTB doesn't. This does not mean GTB doesn't care about this project and has the wrong motives—that conclusion is completely absurd. I lean more your way on this particular issue, but there are few editors here whose good faith I am more confident in than GTBacchus. Please consider where GTB is coming from here. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:52, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but GTB is, mostly, staying away. LedRush's point seems to be primarily addressed at those who keep "pushing to keep this name". That's not GTB.

That said, for someone who supposedly does not "want clear guidelines that are consistently followed across the project", GTB sure seems to want his ceasefire no-matter-what interpretation of ENGVAR to be "consistently followed across the project", or at least he wants it applied here. And I want the "go back to first contributor" clause to be consistently followed. But at least I advocate consistent following of all policies and guidelines across the project, not just a few cherry-picked ones here or there when they happen to favor my position. --born2cYcle 22:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, B2C. Erik and GTB, I am sorry if I gave the impression that I thought GTB was a bad faith editor. However, those that are pushing to keep the article name as is seem to be doing so without policy support (commonname, engvar, retain all seem to push against them) and don't seem willing to engage on the issues. I think it is unfair for GTB to label anyone who wishes to change the name of this article to support WP and its policies as disruptive.LedRush (talk) 23:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So you don't choose WP:ENGVAR only when it suits you, you don't choose WP:COMMONNAME only when it suits you, you don't choose "go back to first contributor" only when it suits you, and you don't pick and choose bits of WP:MOS only when and where they suit you? Sorry, but your edit history would appear to suggest otherwise. Black Kite (t) 23:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, an ad hominem attack which doesn't propel the discussion forward in any way at all. What a shocker!LedRush (talk) 23:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not an ad hom (check the definition) and also it would also be an attack if it was inaccurate. Which it isn't. Black Kite (t) 23:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I checked the definition and it gave your post above as an example. So weird...LedRush (talk) 23:59, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see, so apart from being wrong to begin with, you also checked it against a source which is also wrong. Perhaps you need to get a better reference guide. Or possibly you need to stop trolling. One of the two. Black Kite (t) 00:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

So you come in here, make ad hominem arguments, insult others, make threats and add nothing to any discussion, and I'm the troll? Your a piece of ... work.LedRush (talk) 01:30, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not only is this yet another unprovoked personal attack from Black Kite, but as usual it's comprised of completely baseless allegations. Back up your accusations with evidence, buddy, or take them back. When have I argued against ENGVAR, COMMONNAME or any other policy or guideline when it didn't "suit me"? In case you do have a situation in mind where I might have argued against a guideline, note that when a guideline conflicts with policy such as WP:AT, I favor the policy per Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines#Conflicts_between_advice_pages.

What "suits me" is whatever the applicable policy/guideline says. My over-arching theme at WP, as made evident on my own user page and FAQ, as well as my edit history, is the pursuit of consistency in policy, guidelines and naming overall. That's why I pursue making this title consistent with guidelines, but do not pursue changing, say, Orange (colour), or Color, because those titles are spelt consistently with the variety of English used by their respective original contributors. And that, by the way, is also why they are stable, and this title is not. --born2cYcle 23:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Except you only "pursue making titles consistent with guidelines" when they suit your opinion. And that appears, frankly, to be the only thing you actually do here. Which is probably why you find so many people opposed to your viewpoint wherever you go. Perhaps something to think about. You're obviously an erudite and intelligent person, so why not go and write an article instead? You'd be doing the encylopedia a hell of a lot more use than spending your time arguing about trivialities of naming. Black Kite (t) 23:48, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I work on article content as much as I want to work on article content, thank you very much. Here is an article that might interest you and looks like it could use some expansion. --born2cYcle 00:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"I work on article content as much as I want to work on article content, thank you very much." i.e. preety much not at all. I'd admit that it must be very annoying when someone actually points out to you the shortcomings of what you are are doing. Though having said that, incredibly unoriginal (and unfunny) personal attacks aren't really going to help you at this point. Black Kite (t) 00:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm annoyed. Can you two take this inane bickering to one of your talk pages please? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am too. B2C tried to hat the conversation so we could get back on topic [19], but Blackkite reverted and took the opportunity to threaten B2C [20] with admin action[21], and invent obviously untrue motivations for B2C's actions (while sprinkling in more personal attacks)[22]. Hopefully we can just get back to the policy discussions.LedRush (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to stop it, if B2C would agree to stop attacking people who disagree with him. That was my point. Black Kite (t) 18:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I attack arguments and tactics, not any particular individual editors, and I have no plans to stop doing that.

Anyway, this section is riddled with derogatory statements about me. As LedRush notes, I've been threatened with admin action if I deleted certain comments, and I'd rather not have to deal with that hassle, but I note that the intro of WP:NPA states, "Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. ". --born2cYcle 18:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you remove all the comments you've made about other editors, then (i.e. "absurd arguments are all they've got"), then I'd be quite happy for you to collapse this section. Thanks. 19:07, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what one has to do with the other (a violation is a violation independent of any other potential violations), but if you can identify any comments of mine that qualify as "Derogatory comments about another contributor [singular, specific]", I'd be happy to delete them as violations of WP:NPA without placing any conditions on what anyone else does. --born2cYcle 19:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The snide insinuations that people hold a position purely because of their nationality would be a start. And the two claims that your opponents are absurd. And the claim that a previous admin's close was biased (and "laughable"). Fair? Black Kite (t) 19:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite, is it too much to ask that you take your personal vendetta and keep it personal, meaning, continue it at your talk page or somewhere else. It detracts from the conversation, is disruptive, and further poisons the atmosphere here.LedRush (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry, I cannot allow one user to dominate the page and cast aspersions about other editors whilst he complains bitterly about similar comments made about himself. There are enough editors above saying the same thing. Black Kite (t) 19:24, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) BK, I'm beginning to realize that you are unable to distinguish between criticism and ridicule of the arguments made by one's opponents in general from the kinds of attacks on a specific person that are the subject of WP:NPA.

On your talk page I quoted your exact words, and emphasized the aspects of it that made it a personal attack. I'm asking you to do the same with mine. What specific words of mine are personal attacks, and how are they personal?

I request this because I respect, and try very hard to abide by, all policy, including NPA and CIVIL, and believe that what you call "snide insinuations" and the alleged claims that my opponents are absurd (I claim they make absurd arguments, not that they personally are absurd - that's a misrepresentation which is why I ask you to quote my exact words) are not violations. If anyone searches for the word "absurd" on this page I believe that you'll find my words are well within the norm of acceptability. --born2cYcle 19:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This cannot and will not end well. Black Kite is entrenched in his views and will not back down. The best we can hope for now is that after a long discussion we will see that what Black Kite sees as a personal attack B2C sees as a generalized criticism. Because we all know where this is going, I don't suppose we could just cut to the chase and agree to disagree?LedRush (talk) 19:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Eat some frozen yoghurt/yogurt, fellows!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

spellinghistory subpage - help?

I've started a subpage on the history of the spelling of yogurt in this article at Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. Any assistance would be appreciated! Thanks, --Born2cycle (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) proper spelling is yoGURT,spelling produces 250,000,000 results in Google compared to yoghurt. Thank you.

 Done The history is complete for now, but additions/corrections/tweaks are welcome! --Born2cycle 19:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Arguments regarding article title

Arguments supporting Yogurt as article title

• English variety of the first major contributor.
  • The article was originally titled "Yogurt" and the spelling yogurt was used throughout the article when it was created on December 10, 2002 [23] .
  • After the article was a year old, the spelling of "yogurt" was changed to "yoghurt" with this surreptitious edit made on Christmas Day, 2003 for the dubious reason that "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" [24]. This is the original WP:ENGVAR violation.
  • The first time the spelling change was asked to be rectified was on November 21, 2004.
  • A few months later, in May of 2005, the first formal RM discussion was started, and the request was made to move the article back to its "original location". After the discussion was closed, more people chimed in in support, and on May 18, 2005 JamesMLane (talk · contribs) pointed out that there was never consensus to move the article in the first place, so it should be returned to its original location.
  • On July 26, 2005, the argument was again made to return the article to the variety of English of the first contributor.
  • The debate has been raging ever since.
  • The idea that this article has ever been "established" per ENGVAR at Yoghurt is disputed.
  • WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN states: "When no English variety has been established and discussion cannot resolve the issue, the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default. If no English variety was used consistently, the tie is broken by the first post-stub contributor to introduce text written in a particular English variety."
    • Whether the English variety has been "established" since the disputed 2003 move is at issue; at best, there is no consensus about whether the article is established at Yoghurt. Since there is no consensus on that point, we cannot say that it "has been established", and, therefore, the first post-stub contributor clause applies.
• Conflict resolution. Once the article is moved to Yogurt, there will be no strong arguments (see below) for moving it back to Yoghurt, and so the great eight-year-long-and-counting Yogurt/Yoghurt conflict may finally be resolved.
• Dictionaries
  • American: "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary (m-w.com), American Heritage Dictionary (dictionary.com), and the New Oxford American Dictionary.
  • British: "Yogurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com), the Cambridge University Dictionary (dictionary.cambridge.org), and the Collins English Dictionary (collinslanguage.com).
  • Canadian: Although the Canadian Oxford Dictionary prefers "yogourt", it lists "yogurt" before "yoghurt".
• Encyclopedias
  • The word "Yogurt" is the primary encyclopedia entry for the word in the Encyclopaedia Britannica (britannica.com) and MSN Encarta (encarta.msn.com).
• Style guides
  • Many current prescriptive sources agree, the word "Yogurt" is specified in the current Oxford Style Manual (2003) which explains to use Yogurt and to not use -hurt or -ourt, on page 1000. This is in concert with the latest New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors (2005), again, listing "yogurt". Garner's Modern American Usage also advises against the use of yoghurt.
• Manufacturers
  • Groupe Danone, the largest manufacturer of Yogurt in the World, spells it "Yogurt". Canadian label, British label.
  • The world's second largest manufacturer of yogurt, Yoplait, also spells it "Yogurt".
  • The world's third largest manufacturer of yogurt, and largest organic yogurt manufacturer in the world, Stonyfield, spells it "Yogurt".
• Etymologist opinion
  • Although British etymologist Michael Quinion says "There is no right or wrong" regarding this spelling choice, he describes "Yogurt" as the "correct spelling".[25]
• Regional variation
  • American and Canadian writers prefer yogurt, according to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage.
  • WP:GOOGLE results clearly show the no-h variant is not only more frequently used, but is trending usage among a variety of locales. This supports the argument that this is not a British vs. American variant issue at all, but, rather, a most commonly used name determination.
  • While in some localities the h variant is as commonly used as the no-h variant, in other places the h variant is relatively unused as compared to the no-h variant.
• Universality
  • All of the quoted dictionaries list both yoghurt and yogurt without regional labels.
  • At spellcheck.net, four varieties of English are supported: Aus, Can, UK, US. "yogurt" is universally accepted as correct in all four varieties, but the acceptance of "yoghurt" is limited to three of the varieties.
• Consistency with other article titles
  • Frozen yogurt uses the "Yogurt" spelling.
  • Soy yogurt uses the "Yogurt" spelling.
• Conciseness. All other factors held equal, "yogurt" is favored over "yoghurt" per WP:PRINCIPALNAMINGCRITERIA for being more concise.

Arguments supporting Yoghurt as article title

• English variety since the 2003 move
  • The article title and English variety is disputably established as Yoghurt and British English because:
    1. The article hasn't been moved from Yoghurt since June 21, 2009.
    2. The article has had only three formal requested move discussions since the 2009 move.
    3. The article has had only seven formal requested move discussions since it was originally moved to Yoghurt on Christmas Day in 2003.
    4. The spelling of the word "yoghurt" has not been changed in the article since April 19, 2011 [26].
    5. One year, 2008, there was no moving of the article or discussion about it at all.
  • Since all of these reasons establish the title as Yoghurt and the English variety as British English, per WP:ENGVAR/WP:RETAIN, it should be maintained "in the absence of consensus to the contrary."
• Dictionaries
  • Australian: "Yoghurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the Macquarie Dictionary.
  • British: "Yoghurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in Chambers 21st Century Dictionary.
  • New Zealand: "Yoghurt" is the primary dictionary entry for the word in the New Zealand Oxford Dictionary.
• Style guides
  • The 1993 edition of Oxford's Practical Lexicography, a prescriptive source, requires "yoghurt".
• Regional variation
  • Australian and British writers prefer yoghurt, according to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage.
  • While "yogurt" is preferred in much of the English-speaking world, academic sources in Australia and the UK still prefer yoghurt by about 5:1 (see above WP:GOOGLE).
• Universality
  • All of the quoted dictionaries list both yoghurt and yogurt without regional labels.
• Consistency with other article titles
  • Strained yoghurt uses the "Yoghurt" spelling.

Discussion

I created this section for several reasons. I started with what was accomplished during the last RM discussion, but that is now "frozen" with the rest of that discussion. It has been suggested that that section was "biased", so I want to make sure, once and for all, we can at least get agreement on all relevant arguments in one place. This approach was a great help at resolving a naming conflict at Talk:Sega Genesis recently.

I suggest a goal of having all of this completed by December 1, 2011. --Born2cycle 06:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added to both sections and hopefully addressed any remaining concerns about neutrality. I've also emphasized the two statements about whether yoghurt is "established". Although I don't think there is any disagreement that the 2003 spelling change shouldn't have been made, the RM shows considerable disagreement about how "established" yoghurt has become since then. I think resolving this conflict needs to based on deciding this. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I honestly do not understand why a couple of people insist on discussing this further. Moreover, the argument that "this will keep coming up again until the article is moved to yogurt boils down to "We will keep raising this until we get our way." In other words it is not an argument at all, but a threat. I also raised objections to the heavy reliance on Google - which returns disparate results on spellings for a number of reasons including the searcher's location - and cited examples of expert UK style guides mandating "yoghurt." Against this is raised an article in the Daily Mail (!) about a UK linguist whose whole argument is that American spellings are better. And encyclopedias and dictionaries published for the American market. The fact is, usage varies internationally. The fact is, there has been ample opportunity for discussion, and the discuission was closed. There have also been rudeness, snideness, and accusations of bias. And this discussion continues to be driven by editors with a heavy editing focus on getting articles moved to US spellings - or on that plus US college sports. Give it a rest. It's been sufficiently disinterred and poked over for at least another 6 months. What basis is there for appeal other than sour grapes? And it was a very good suggestion to demonstrate good faith by otherwise improving the article. I would unwatch it, I'm heartily fed up of being slanged, but I have no confidence whatsoever that my occasional nabbing of vandalism would be replaced by equal vigilance from one of the editors who cares oh so much that this particular article is not spelled the American way. So again - why on earth do we have to pick away at this until the "yogurt" partisans get the decision reversed? And no, it isn't because the issue has been constantly raised. It hasn't. Pretty much all Wikipedians except 2 had decided for whatever reason to do something else with their time. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, unfortunately there are certain users whose modus operandi is to keep wikilawyering about certain issues until they get their way. The easiest way to avoid such disruption to the encyclopedia is to ensure that they don't. Black Kite (t) 17:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Mr. Rigour did a fine job of making the points of either side neutral. "This will keep coming up again" is not a threat, look at the history of the article... if this were a stock market being traded on spelling controversy, the prospectus would say "very good chance of move discussions happening in the future, based on past results". I'm tired of your constant disparaging attitude. If you're tired of the discussion, go away and stop commenting, it's that simple.

And your arguments against are unconvincing. Since when was the OED, for example, published for the American market? Do you really believe that? And Michael Quinion wrote more about the Daily Mail article in his blog, where he basically feels that the Daily Mail wanted a hit piece on the "Americanization" of British, but he doesn't believe that is what is happening. He's a damn etymologist for christ sakes, and a non-American one at that, saying "Yogurt" makes sense. And you, the armchair Wikipedia expert, are telling everyone else to shut up. Are you trolling us at this point? -Kai445 (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

And thank you, Black Kite, for AGF of everyone involved. "Make sure they don't get their way!". -Kai445 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

I stand by that. If there was consensus to move the article, then fine. But there isn't, and as far as I can see there hasn't been for a long time. So the only thing I can think is that certain people think they can browbeat the community into changing the title by wearing them into submission. (And, to make it clear, not just on this article and not just these editors; the practice is widespread). I think User:Roux articulated it the best. I just think it would be better for everyone to concentrate on more productive matters. (And if you wonder why I've got this page watchlisted, no B2C I'm not stalking you, I was the editor who split Strained yoghurt out of the article over 4 years ago, so I've had both on my watchlist ever since). Consider this in relation to, say, an AfD. If an article had been at AfD seven times and closed as No Consensus every time, I'm pretty sure an attempt to bring it back to AfD immediately after the previous AfD had closed would be considered disruptive. In the end, Wikipedia works on consensus, and no consensus defaults to the status quo. I can even understand the frustration of those who want to move the article (given the fact, for example, that the article was initially positioned at Yogurt) but in the end we have to go with consensus. Black Kite (t) 10:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Does it default to the status quo? As I've come to understand no consensus in relation to titles, the first non-stub should be the version used in the event of no consensus (see "Sega Genesis", which seems to have also had a similarly troubled history. WP:COMMONNAME was raised as a point but WP:NOCONSENSUS was decided, and it was moved.), which is why I raised this RFC in the first place. So now it seems like I'm being accused of both wikilawyering and browbeating, which is ridiculous. (If I was wikilawyering, wouldn't I be twisting the 'rules' to kinda fit my worldview?) I've been quoting entire sections of policy, and trying to give reasonable explanations. What is the point of having policies if they're ignored (by Admins of all people); and the people who raise them as issues are demonized? -Kai445 (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

The main problem is that the vagueness of the policies and guidelines that we use. WP:COMMONNAME, for example, is policy, yet look at that page (WP:AT); it's so open to interpretation it's easy for people to make any use of it they want in many circumstances. WP:ENGVAR is only a guideline, and is simpler, but is still open to variation. You have editors who argue for the moving of a page "per ENGVAR", and then argue for the moving of a page "per COMMONNAME" even when that move violates ENGVAR ... and vice versa. These policies/guidelines shouldn't be a shopping list for people to pick and choose from as they wish, yet that is how they're being treated, and it's a huge waste of everyone's time. And yes, NC in this discussion does mean no change; according no WP:NOCONSENSUS "In article title discussions, no consensus has two defaults: If an article title has been stable for a long time, then the long-standing article title is kept. If it has never been stable, or unstable for a long time, then it is moved to the title used by the first major contributor after the article ceased to be a stub.". Since this one's been stable since 2003, it should be kept that way until there is consensus to move it. Black Kite (t) 18:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's been very stable, unless stable simply means that nobody has moved it... but since it's protected, that's kinda hard to do (Gives the air of stability, without really being so). -Kai445 (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, by that I meant it has practically always been at the same title for nearly 8 years, apart from a brief revert war in 2006, one of the main antagonists of that being ... someone familiar ... and a few quickly reverted BOLD moves. If it had been bouncing repeatedly between the names and both had had consensus at one time or another, then that would be different. Black Kite (t) 20:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have no idea how any admin could close either of those October 2006 discussions as anything but "no consensus", especially the second one, as it appears a number of editors were actually !voting "Oppose" when they meant "support" and vice versa. I thought the best comment was the "Oh, flip a coin" one. Black Kite (t) 20:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

If you think 7 RM's and countless discussion is "stable", you are being unreasonable at best. -Kai445 (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yngvadottir (talk · contribs) writes: "The fact is, there has been ample opportunity for discussion, and the discuission was closed.". There have been seven (7!) RM discussions regarding this title ever since it was surreptitiously moved on Christmas Day, 2003 for such a dubious reason that that reason has never been defended since (that reason being that "yoghurt" should be the title because "yoghurt" is more "phonetically correct" than "yogurt"). None of those discussions ever found consensus. There has never been consensus support for the current title, and there is no consensus for the current title, that's why discussion does, and should, continue.

What we don't know is whether moving the title back to the original title, Yogurt, as WP:ENGVAR indicates we should do in this type of situation, would result in consensus support. I know of only one way to find out. --born2cYcle 20:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to Kai, edit conflict. I see Born2cycle is not saying anything new.) Hardly trolling - as I've said several times, I have the article watchlisted because it attracts vandals (and Bulgarian nationalist POV-pushers). That means I see the talk page edits, too. So one specioalist in etymology prefers American spellings. And you find the arguments unconvincing. More evidence that there is no consensus, I'm afraid. We also differ as to the frequency of this arising. I appreciate Rigour's effort, but it should not be necessary to comb through what has been said; the move discussion is ended. You have threatened to raise it again and again until you get your way. I have pointed out that that has not in fact been happening, and that the article has remained at the current location with little discussion of moving it for years. Those points cancel each other out. And the closing admin already evaluated the move discussion. It's over. Everybody can read it. As I and others have said, we disagree in how we evaluate others' points; and world usage varies. I disagree with BlackKite in one respect: I don't see Wikilawyering here, just refusal to accept that the discussion ended with no consensus. I'm sorry, but AGF is not a suicide pact, as the phrase goes. I examined the evidence you and Born2cycle raised, and looked myself to see whether the situation had changed, and I came to the opposite conclusion. Then I and others started getting called anti-American and sneered at. You folks will now have to earn my respect back; you may be contributing to the encyclopedia in other areas but in this one you have not impressed me that I'm not needed here. I hope that's clear without being rude right back. tl;dr version: no. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The no consensus close you keep referring to, like most of the other closes in the past, indicates an expectation for the discussion to continue. Suggesting a no consensus close with a comment expecting discussion to continue is a reason the discussion should end is absurd, but that's par for the course here since absurdity has been the basis for defending Yoghurt as this article's title from the first time it was moved from its original title, Yogurt, based on the absurd claim that we should prefer titles that are more "phonetically correct". --born2cYcle 21:19, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Yngvadottir—are you asserting that there is no way to appeal or overturn an RM closure? I don't like the way fish&karate was treated after making this close, but I don't think an effort to reexamine it is necessarily out of line by any means. The RFC here is a reasonable way to do that. Now it feels like you are browbeating those pursuing those avenues; this doesn't seem helpful or interesting to me. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

And the etymologist in question is British, graduated from Cambridge, and worked for the BBC. I don't know what leads you to assume he "prefers American spellings", especially since his personal blog uses words like "colour" and "programme". -Kai445 (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Just more absurdity on the part of the "Yoghurt" advocates. It's all they've got, apparently. --born2cYcle 21:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

This kind of comment is also not helpful or interesting. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I realize I'm new to this, but reading through roughly a third of this talk page lets me have a clear idea that I'd support a move to Yogurt if there is ever another RM. I'm not going to watch this place, but can I ask someone please notify me on my talk page if there is another RM here?--SexyKick 01:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Same here, please ping me during the next RM or RFC. - Dank (push to talk) 03:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll notify both of you, if I'm still around.

I can predict the future though... hold my hand as we gaze together into my crystal ball. I guarantee each of you that there will be a lot of people supporting the current title and that they will near-universally act in bad faith; you'll be told that you're fighting a losing battle, you'll be accused of pushing for something with no consensus (even before one is reached or decided upon!), you'll be told that you should be doing better things with your life and are wasting your time, and you'll be told that you're pushing an American POV (even as untrue as it may be). It'll get closed for "no consensus", and the Admin will give little to no explanation of their decision. Just enough people will ignore policies left and right to keep things where they are. Beware, and be careful if you wish to travel down that path. -Kai445 (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this may be pointing out the obvious, but this discussion seems to have been led astray. It shouldn't be about what one person thinks is the "correct" spelling, and it's not: that's why I've classified Quinion's opinion under "Etymologist opinion", which is all it is—a minor point at most. There's a clear regional split in spelling, albeit not as obvious as a classical American–British difference (unless this little dictionary [books.google.com/books?id=p01hRRJLyqQC] is your reference!), and I entirely agree with Black Kite that WP:ENGVAR needs to be applied consistently here and elsewhere. What is also obvious from the RM and the ensuing discussion is that WP:ENGVAR is being used to argue both for and against a move. As I see it, we need to decide if:

1. The article is "established" and "stable" because it has remained here since 2003—then there is no reason to move it from Yoghurt;
2. The article is not "established" and "stable" because of the perennial challenges to the 2003 move—then there is no reason to not move it to Yogurt; or
3. Its status as being "established" and "stable" is going to remain disputed (as appears likely)—then do we stay with the status quo (Yoghurt) or revert to the first use (Yogurt)?

Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point; I incorporated it in the argument summaries above. [27]. --born2cYcle 08:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)