Talk:Strained yogurt

Merger proposal

I put up this proposal yesterday, and will respond below. --Macrakis 22:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - I created this stub, and have expanded it now. I don't see the rationale for merging into yoghurt. This type of yoghurt is very different from the standard product; also, the other specific types that have major differences from basic yoghurt have their own articles (eg Dahi, Dadiah, Labneh). I've mentioned it briefly in the main yoghurt article, but there is plenty of information that would bloat the main article. I notice in your edit summary that you mention other countries - yes, they do have similar products, but that isn't the point - Greek yoghurt isn't "yoghurt made in Greece" - it's a definitive name to describe that type of strained yoghurt, whichever country it's manufactured in. The name is notable, because it describes a method of manufacture, without which it has to be described as "Greek-style", etc. EliminatorJR ^Talk 23:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you are mixing up three different things:

• Yoghurt as made in Greece, traditionally of ewe's milk, nowadays often of cow's milk. Sometimes the milk is enriched, either by boiling it down a bit, or (nowadays) by adding nonfat dry milk and cream. This style of yoghurt is found from Greece to Iraq, at least. And for that matter in Watertown, Massachusetts, where there are at least four different brands (some Arab, some Armenian, etc.), whose sourness and creaminess varies.
• strained yoghurt (in Greek called σακουλίσιο γιαούρτι 'bag yoghurt', from the bag used to concentrate it), called labneh in Arabic. This style of strained yoghurt is found from Greece to Iraq, at least. Again, there are several different brands.
• Fage's brand name "Total Greek Yoghurt", which includes everything from a 10% fat product to a 0% fat product (7-9% protein), all called "Total Greek Yoghurt", so clearly "Greek yoghurt" does not refer to a specific recipe, but is simply part of Fage's trade name. Other companies use the name "Greek yoghurt" to refer to other products, e.g. the Australian Greek Yoghurt Company which makes a line of fruit-flavored yoghurts. (4% fat, 7% protein)

You claim that Greek yoghurt is "a definitive name to describe that type of strained yoghurt". Do you have any evidence of this, especially since FAGE itself uses the tradename "TOTAL Greek yoghurt" for products with fat contents from 0-10%.

In the end, as far as I can tell, "Greek yoghurt" is simply a marketing name. And I would certainly agree with your implication that the article on labneh (just the Arabic name for strained yoghurt) should be merged into yoghurt. As far as I can tell (though I have less practical experience with them), so should dahi and dadiah. --Macrakis 22:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is defintely not a marketing name. Although fairly unknown in the US, Greek yoghurt is a completely separate product in Europe - you will find hundreds of recipes calling for it rather than "ordinary" yoghurt. It is definitely the case that it refers to a separate recipe - companies are not allowed sell "Greek yoghurt" unless it is made in the traditional way - it has to be called "Greek-style", as the article says.

What evidence do you have of this? The EU page on Greek PDOs does not mention any kind of yoghurt; indeed, the term "Greek yoghurt/yogurt" doesn't appear on the europa.eu site at all. FAGE itself calls TOTAL 10% 'strained' yoghurt, and their page on kinds of yoghurt doesn't use the term "Greek yoghurt". Anyway, it would seem peculiar to give a PDO for an industrially-made product which FAGE invented in 1975 and which makes no claim to use geographically-restricted and traditional ingredients (e.g. ewe's milk from some particular region); FAGE in fact boasts that it uses milk from all across Greece.[1]

The nutrition info on the sites the current article points to contradicts the idea that it is a "separate recipe" -- the Australian Greek Yoghurt contains 12% sugar, whereas FAGE yoghurt contains no added sugar.

• The important difference is mainly in cooking, where the manufacture is very important. To get an idea of this, look at Google (which is mainly composed of recipes) - "Greek yoghurt" gets 65,000 hits, and "Greek yogurt" another 107,000. The fact that Fage manufactures different types is fairly irrelevant, I think - they are merely capitalising on the marketing of the main product. If anything, labneh and dahi should probably be merged into Greek yoghurt, rather than the main article. EliminatorJR ^Talk 00:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, many people use "Greek yoghurt" when they really mean strained yoghurt, which indeed has different cooking characteristics from unstrained yoghurt; or maybe they mean FAGE's TOTAL 10% in particular. And anyway, the fact that many pages mention "Greek yoghurt" is no more probative than the fact that 102,000 sites mention "Italian olive oil" and 73,000 mention "Russian caviar". This is quite different from, say, "Kalamata olives", which do have a PDO.

As for the suggestion that labneh and dahi should be merged in, I agree that WP policy calls for English names, and therefore that labneh should be in the same article as other strained yoghurts (though some varieties of labneh are much drier), and dahi in the same article as regular yoghurt.

On the other hand, the name "Greek yoghurt" is both incorrect and non-neutral. If there is to be a separate article for strained yoghurt (I have no particular objections to that if there is enough material), the name should be neutral. Even FAGE itself uses the generic name "strained yoghurt": "Total [is] in the position of first preference for strained yoghurt"[2]; TOTAL is a "delicious Greek strained yogurt with cream, exclusively created by FAGE".[3]

In conclusion, "Greek yoghurt" does not denote a particular kind of yoghurt even by the evidence of the largest Greek producer of yoghurt. Strained yoghurt may well deserve its own article, and should cover labneh as well. --Macrakis 14:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

The idea of merging all the strained types into a separate article is a good one, it could be linked from the main Yoghurt article, and will have the advantage of making that article more compact. Since the "common name" in Europe is Greek yoghurt, a redirect from there to Strained yoghurt wil suffice. In fact, I'll be WP:BOLD and do that sometime this weekend. EliminatorJR ^Talk 10:26, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging in labneh

I have merged in the labneh article. Here is the content of its Talk page:

I cannot find any recipe for "Kafta Bi Sanieh", Lebanese or otherwise. I suspect it should be Kibbeh Bi Sanieh, also spelled Kibbet Bu Sanieh. Rmhermen 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

There are both Kafta bi sanieh and Kibbeh bi saniyeh. The kafta bi sanieh are meatballs with parsley flavor, and it is cooked in the tray (saniyeh) with potato and tomato, and in the end you eat it with rice. While the kebbeh bi saniyeh is fine meat put in the tray all over like a pie with pine seeds inside. A lebanese who knows 89.133.155.74 (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the merge, I completely disagree of merging Labneh, because, even though it is a cousin to many other recipes, it is very specific to Lebanon and held almost as a national symbol, and the name should be respected as Labneh. Even the -eh- suffix pronunciation is the Lebanese dialect way. The name is derived from Laban (yoghurt), which also means white, hence comes the name of Lebanon for it's snow peaked mountains. So basically, Labneh is deeply entrenched in the Lebanese collective conscience. A lebanese who knows 89.133.155.74 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Bulgarian yoghurt

This section is interesting but never says anything about being strained. If it isn't then why is it on this page? 24.124.29.130 10:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Dahi?

In India, dahi seems to refer to plain old yoghurt, which (at least in Delhi) is usually runnier than typical Western yoghurts, not strained. I'm sure there are also strained varieties of the stuff, but eg. this and this recipe for dahi do not involve straining at all. Jpatokal 09:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of strained yoghurt referred to as chakka or chakka dahi. Would a native Hindi speaker care to comment on this? Dforest (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dahi refers to yoghurt or curd, Chakka is strained yoghurt, used to make shrikhand.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dahi

Dahi is not strained - its just plain joghurt. Dahi is often sold in pots and bowls made from air dried clay.If you carry the dahi home and leave it overnight in the (throw away)clay bowl - it will be similar to strained joghurt, as its water evaporates through the pores of the clay bowl.Anyway one gets a better result by using a cheese cloth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.176.36.176 (talk) 02:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved from "Greek yoghurt"

There's no Greek or Bulgarian or Turkish yogurt. Yogurt is yogurt. Strained yogurt is strained yogurt. Why do we nationalize the cultural products men developed over centuries? What is called "Greek yogurt" is strained ewe yogurt is also enjoyed in Turkey and elsewhere. In fact, most likely it is Turkish since yogurt itself is commonly identified as Turkish. I suggest we drop these nonsense endless futile nationalistic labels. It is a Greek company which started this. Lets not waste our time and misinform others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.66.250 (talk) 03:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely that the article's title should be "Strained yoghurt"; in fact, I think I did that a long time ago. But the name "Greek yoghurt", though misleading (not all yoghurt made in Greece is strained, and not all strained yoghurt is Greek), has for better or worse become a common name for this product. I don't like that, but that's the reality on the ground, and that's what WP reports on. --Macrakis (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Would like to re-create labneh

Hi all. I would like to recreate the article on labneh. I think it is a sufficiently unique dish with enough material for a separate article in all its different permutations. A google book search brings back 625 hits, much more than for "strained yoghurt" (89 hits). Would anyone object to restoring that article and expanding it and having a summary section here that links to it? Tiamut^talk 22:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I think such a move makes sense. A quick Google search shows more hits for the various spellings of labneh than "strained yoghurt" as well. The question is which spelling of labneh to use - the most common spelling I could find (searching Google for combinations of leb, lab, and lub, with neh, ni, and ne) was "lebni". ← George ^talk 22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the article title neutral. Calling it 'labneh' emphasizes its place in Arab cuisine; calling it 'Greek yog(h)urt' emphasizes its place in Greek cuisine (and is misleading to boot). The name 'yoghurt cheese' seems to be about as common as 'labneh'/etc. on Google Books, but I don't think any of us want to use that peculiar (and again, misleading) name. --macrakis (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Go for it. 78.159.121.110 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not suggesting moving this page to a new title. I'm suggesting that Labneh be re-created to discuss that food. While it is a type of strained yogurt and can have a paragraph here, there is much more information on its preparation and the different types of labneh that are better covered in a stand alone article. Tiamut^talk 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I also think that Shanklish, which is a type of labneh that is more concentrated, can be merged into Labneh if it is re-created. Tiamut^talk 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think there are several different topics here. One is the strained yoghurt itself -- with no additions. For that, I don't see why there should be a separate article under the Arabic name (or the Greek name or the Turkish name or ...). Then there are dishes made with strained yoghurt, which could be covered in this article or in their own articles (like tzatziki). What I would suggest is that you start by expanding the current article's relevant section and then if it gets large enough, we can split it off. --macrakis (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Citations

SyrianKing requested a citation on Israel, so I added the request to all neighbouring countries as well for fairness. FWIW, though, I am fine with leaving as is and believe that like uncontroversial information does not need to referenced. I will object to having one get singled out. --Shuki (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sun Valley Voskos Greek Yogurt

At the end of the "Greek Yoghurt" section there is a paragraph that appears more advertisement than encyclopedia. Also, the only citation for that paragraph is from the company's own website. I suggest deleting it. Pianoman320 (talk) 18:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Csunsay (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)I am asking to delete Greek Yogurt. Strained yogurt is enjoyed in many regions. A nation should not claim the ownership of a substance that is enjoyed by diverse groups. There was no such thing as Greek Yogurt in the USA, 15 years ago, now it's proliferating like a virus. This is a cultural virus. Yogurt is yogurt. Yogurt is strained in bags and becomes strained yogurt.

The article's name is "Strained Yogurt", in case you haven't noticed. However, it is also sometimes known as Greek yogurt, especially in the US. That's why we list it as an alternate name in the first line. This doesn't mean that Greece claims "ownership" of strained yogurt, merely that some people refer to it as such. You claims of a "virus" are bordering are obnoxious, stop it. Athenean (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Greek yoghurt" is a silly name for strained yoghurt -- after all, most yoghurt in Greece is not strained, and as you point out, strained yoghurt is eaten in many places. Alas, it has become a common term especially in the UK but also in the US, and Wikipedia's remit is not to prescribe usage, but to record it. --Macrakis (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The name has not been stable at 'yogurt' - an ip changed yoghurt to yogurt throughout in June 2011, contrary to WP:ENGVAR, and Biosketch then moved it in July 2011.

Moreover the first version used yoghurt. So it should be moved back asap to use 'yoghurt' per WP:ENGVAR. Occuli (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It was later the result of a merger of many articles (Greek Yoghurt, Yogurt cheese, Strained yoghurt, and Lassi). Of all of the articles, the first one created was "Yogurt cheese", which used a consistent "Yogurt" spelling. -Kai445 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

This is hardly relevant: Yogurt cheese (created May 2005) was a stub article for a few months, and was a redirect to Yoghurt from Oct 2005 until 2008. (The main article has been at yoghurt since 2004, not without extensive controversy.) Strained yoghurt was created with the 'h' and seems to have been stable with the 'h' from 2005 until July 2011 (unless I have missed a move). Greek yoghurt has had an 'h' throughout its brief history. Just move it back: your argument doesn't convince. Occuli (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing the relevant moves and other history to my attention. You were right, and I have moved the article back to its previous incarnation. -Kai445 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering - if only all interactions on wikipedia were so harmonious. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to "Strained yogurt"?

Jeez, look at this discussion. I think all of you are fine editors, even Boing! who reverted me. As for strained yoghurt, I don't even know if I want to go near it... you can see me on its talk page, briefly. -Kai445 (talk) 05:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully that strain yoghurt will remain harmonious, even though it's not the same ENGVAR as this one. By the way, sources do tend to use the /h/ more when it's strained. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I do think each WP:SPINOFF articles should be consistent with its respective main article, but I don't think there is community-wide consensus support for that view. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:COMMONSENSE, that seems, uhm… like a *common sense* way to handle it. It shouldn’t take an ANI and the input of 40 more editors to tackle these one by one. Dick, what do you mean when you wrote By the way, sources do tend to use the /h/ more when it's strained.?? According to your link (Google ngram), “strained yogurt” is used 22:4 over “strained yoghurt”; it doesn’t get much more lopsided than that. Now let’s talk about ENGVAR. The first non-stub version of the article used “yoghurt”. But, of course, that was entirely forced by the fact that the title of the article was “Strained yoghurt”. Even if we were to look towards ENGVAR for guidance on this, User:Black Kite was the first editor to expand the article from its previous stub status and he/she doesn’t write “realise” but instead spells “realize” so I assume he/she writes with American-dialect English. It makes ample sense that if “Yogurt” is the spelling on this article, then we best serve our readership by making it “Strained yogurt”, “Fruit-filled yogurt”, “Really sour yogurt”, etc. Greg L (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: If you look at the first non-stub version, as well as consistently using yoghurt, it is written in British English (note savoury). (Realize does not feature in it; regardless, although -ize is not statistically preferred in British English, it is still used in the UK.) Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's faulty logic to assume "Yoghurt = UK" and thus a Retain is in order for that reason. -Kai445 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not try to imply that "Yoghurt = UK"; indeed, I've tried to emphasize that this is not the case on discussions at Talk:Yogurt. What I said is that the first non-stub revision clearly establishes British English and yoghurt, so there is no reason to change it. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Words of wisdom

In a word, no. Changing the article title at this point would be a flat-out violation of ENGVAR. Allow me to quote some words of wisdom:

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.

— User:Born2cycle^[4]

Born2cycle puts it very well, and I couldn't agree more. The "first contributor" rule is an excellent – and elegant – solution to endless naming squabbles, and he is to be commended for reminding us of it. 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I have been an early and frequent contributor to this article -- not sure, but it might even have been me who originally moved the article from Greek yoghurt to strained yoghurt. Even though I prefer the spelling "yoghurt" in my personal use, I've got to say that it seems silly to have one spelling for Yogurt and a different one for Strained yoghurt. In any case, I don't plan to discuss this any further. I don't care what the result is, and I certainly don't want to read hundreds of comments on the topic. --Macrakis (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Motion to start an RM then?

• It seems there is no discernable consensus and we just need to have an RfC then. I think it is clear, since 28bytes wrote In a word, no, that he will likely !vote “oppose” and that is his right. I would !vote “support.” I suggest we see how the rest of the community feels to see if a consensus develops. I beseech everyone to just advance their best arguments that are well founded in Wikipedia’s Five Pillars, avoid personalizing things by attacking editors (some other editor’s reasoning and logic is fair game, however), and make this next RM fast and straightforward as possible. Greg L (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Let me just say that I am extremely disappointed in this course of action. I had hoped my close of the previous move request would put to rest the arguing over the "h", but it appears to have instead emboldened some editors to expand the battlefield to other articles. Yes, I will be registering my opposition to this move request if you go forward with it, because I believe it is incredibly misguided. It is neither necessary or helpful to try to force all articles to use the same spelling regardless of who initially wrote it, and it is a clear violation of WP:ENGVAR. You were in the right on the Yogurt title, because we respect what the first major contributor to an article chooses as its dialect. You are not in the right here. I urge you to quit while you are ahead and reconsider this course of action. 28bytes (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. When you write absolutisms like You are not in the right here, perhaps you might come across better if you suffixed that with even a small-text “(IMHO)”. M’kay?

  ENGVAR has an important purpose. But just like the U.S.’s First Amendment right of “Freedom of speech” still has limits of its scope (one can’t, for instance, slander or defame someone nor lie to federal investigators), ENGVAR has a proper scope of applicability; it is not chiseled in stone nor part of our Five Pillars. I’ve always held that it is best to err on the side that best serves the interests of our readership. In that light, ENGVAR appears to be heavily outweighed now by the fact that the primary article (Yogurt) is spelled that way, and the overwhelming English-language usage (a colossal 22:4 preference) is “strained yogurt.” Moving, in my mind, best serves the interests of Wikipedia’s readership. This is not complex.

  Finally, your …expand the battlefield… remark in response to a simple RM RfC betrays a WP:BATTLE mentality (Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges) that needs to be left behind. I’m rather new to this “yogurt” stuff (about one week now) and perceive absolutely no need to be swept up in wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• As much as I'd rather see this moved back to Strained Yogurt, I'm not sure this is the right time for an RM, after all that ridiculous arguing at Yogurt. I'd rather come back here in some months and not think about yogurt for awhile. -Kai445 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I would accede to your judgement. Why don’t you commiserate with some others who are expert on this and give your final recommendation. Greg L (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I get the feeling this RM so close to the Yogurt one will just result in bitterness from the pro-H crowd, and that isn't productive. I still stand by COMMONNAME, and feel that it would be more universal (and now in line with every other yogurt article), but I'm not sure that is enough to overcome resistance. I'm not going to commiserate with anyone because I don't want to be accused of campaigning, meat puppeting, POV-pushing, or whatever else would inevitably be slung at me. -Kai445 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I didn’t mean “back-channel and scheme and canvass.” I meant further discuss the matter—here—with other editors who are in the saddle on this, like Born2Cycle. In my mind, just because previous experiences ended up like Wild West poker games where derringers resolved disputes, is no reason an RM here, now—after the last RM that enjoyed wide and prestigious participation—must also result in drunk and bloodied saloon folk in the mud next to the horses’ watering trough. If that previous statements strikes you as naïve beyond all comprehension, then I respect that; you may well have your finger on the pulse of what the wikipedian community is capable of better than I. Greg L (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I entirely agree with 28bytes, who justified the closure of the Yogurt RM exactly as it should have been justified (per WP:RETAIN). There is no question about yoghurt being established in Strained yoghurt, as there was at what was formerly titled Yoghurt, so there is absolutely no reason to start a discussion about moving Strained yoghurt. Did Frozen yogurt and Soy yogurt have to match the spelling of the article that was then titled Yoghurt? No. Does Strained yoghurt now have to match Yogurt? No. (Does Orange (colour) have to match Color, or Theories of humor match Humour? No.) Why? There is no reason to switch between any two perfectly acceptable spellings that have different degrees of use in different English-speaking countries. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with 28bytes. This article was started with an 'h' and has always had the 'h' apart from a brief interlude a few weeks ago. There are 2 acceptable spellings; why should wikipedia not reflect this, as enshrined in ENGVAR? (As an aside, the correct procedure for renaming categories is cfd, speedy probably, not unilateral redirecting and repopulating as in this sort of diff.) Occuli (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• At what point does it make sense to continue to use a variant that can be considered a lesser or minor variant in multiple well-populated English speaking countries? Even yoghurt aside, if any spelling of an English word was falling out of popular use (and authoritative sources also switched away from it), should we continue to use it on Wikipedia for the sake of ENGVAR? Who's VAR? As long as a couple of English speaking jungle people on a carribbean island uses a spelling we'll keep defending it as a VAR? No? Then when is it acceptable? -Kai445 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This sort of comment would not be appreciated by users of Caribbean English. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• All the many yards of verbiage at talk:yoghurt produced (for me) only two real gems; the first is echoed in the close, and here, that the 'first non-stub version' rule provides a simple way out of conflict. No need for Google hits or WP:STARDOTSTAR. The second is the more philosophical point that we should all learn not to care so much about variant spellings in English. A move proposal here would go against both of these, and smacks of the battleground. pablo 11:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• It may as well be a speedy move. The article was a result of a bunch of merged articles over time, the earliest of which (and which predates Strained Yoghurt) used "Yogurt". COMMONNAME is even easier to discern here, with ngram showing a 22:4 favourite for yogurt, plus the fact that COMMONNAME was fairly overwhelmingly positive on Yogurt leads me to believe that it would likely be here too. -Kai445 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I agree in principle. The question is whether I care enough after that last fiasco.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A reminder from the recently closed Yogurt RM: "COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR" ("For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English below"). While this is not as simple as a color/colour choice, regional variation is undeniably present with yoghurt/yogurt. (This has been discussed at Talk:Yogurt. According to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, yoghurt is more common than yogurt in Australian and British English; a number of major Commonwealth dictionaries, such as Chambers [UK], Macquarie [Australia], and New Zealand Oxford, prefer yoghurt. Even leading American dictionaries, such as American Heritage and Merriam-Webster, list yoghurt as acceptable variants of yogurt.) How "common" yogurt is depends on the variety of English one uses, so WP:ENGVAR must be followed. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I guess I need to re-read the first sentence of the ENGVAR guideline. "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Yet you are arguing for a variety based on national usage, when we are talking about an international spelling of the same word to replace it. Why? Just cling to RETAIN - it's the only process-wonking reason that common sense will fail here. Doc talk 07:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Both spellings are acceptable everywhere, according to major English-language dictionaries. I've not seen either of them referred to as the "international spelling" in style guides. So, why change it? Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Which spelling do you believe to be more "regional" or "national"? And whichever it is, isn't that the one ENGVAR says to avoid because WP doesn't prefer any national spelling over another? And, are you sure that removing this really helps? The Australian Dairy council does not prefer "yoghurt" over "yogurt", I can assure you... Doc talk 07:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I removed it because, as I explained in the edit summary, it does not discuss the use of yoghurt/yogurt. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it, though? Why would the national Australian dairy council use "yogurt" instead of "yoghurt" - like, all over their website? This is one of those major national English-speaking usage bases that is the argument for keeping the "h" here on WP - and even their dairy council is abandoning the usage? Yes. Let's stay in the dark ages, and keep the "h". Doc talk 08:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

A reference listed for spelling variation should actually address the variation. I don't think referencing an organization that simply uses a given spelling is appropriate for it. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely correct; I could not argue with that at all. I brought up that particular diff more because of what Dairy Australia has to say about the spelling than anything, and I struck my questioning of your revert above - sorry 'bout that! It's getting late... Doc talk 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Why does it have to "address the variation"? And to what degree? A dictionary source doesn't actually explain jack about the variation, yet we have them on there. The national dairy council should be noteworthy as at least mildly authoritative of the official spelling for that particular country. I've added them for the UK and AUS, as I felt it appropriate. I also pushed over the second half of this argument, as it isn't productive to be using twenty or thirty indents (lets use the {{od}} tag once it hits six or so?) -Kai445 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Doc9871: I, too, apologize if I wasn't clear. I certainly wasn't arguing that Dairy Australia doesn't use yogurt; I was merely trying to point out that a reference should actually ... reference.

Kai445: A reference provided for a statement about spelling variation needs to explicitly discuss that variation (not a preference of a dictionary or an organization, which tells us nothing about the variation per se). The Cambridge Guide to English Usage is not a "dictionary source" (and is not even prescriptive), but rather a descriptive source, and it does in fact explain this spelling variation (at least for Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US): it clearly states that yoghurt is preferred in Australian and British English based on corpus analysis (I quoted the relevant excerpts here). I've modified the sentence so that it still accounts for the dairy councils' use of yogurt. You have raised a good point about another sentence, however; I've modified the sentence about New Zealand usage accordingly (this was only based on a dictionary preference). Hopefully these concerns are addressed now that the sources reference what they purport to reference here. Some standardized rigour (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose even bothering with proposing a move for this article for at least the following reasons.

1. While there is some policy support for the argument that WP:SPLIT articles should be consistent with their corresponding main article -- the consistency WP:CRITERIA -- I don't know of much support for this in practice.
2. Despite the merge history, there can be no argument about the current title of this article being established... it obviously is. So WP:RETAIN indicates this article should remain where it is. That doesn't mean it can't change, but we need a clear consensus to manifest that change, and I don't see grounds for that.
3. I suppose there is some argument to be made that "yoghurt" should not be used at all due to being archaic. But I think actual usage in some countries does not support that. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I’ve seen this WP:BATTLE before and it is rife on Wikipedia. Many editors are highly motivated by a base desire to see that how they write things not be changed by others. It can be discouraging to labor on an article and have the spelling that is common where you live changed by someone else. Ergo, ENGVAR; it’s a policy that has adherents like it’s a religion.

  According to 28bytes [5], my motivations for preferring to see emphasis placed upon the principles of WP:COMMON and WP:SPLIT are because a *win* over on “Yogurt” has emboldened some editors to expand the battlefield to other articles. I am utterly aghast with the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality of this place. It seems 28bytes has confused me (someone new to this debate) as a long-term troublemaker who lacks good faith and endeavors only to expand a “battlefield" into other articles. I would have taken any regular editor to ANI over that sort of thing but being that he is an admin, nothing would come about it except for other admins questioning why I shouldn’t be blocked for one reason or another.

  Since changing the spelling of this article obviously shocks the conscience of so many editors, this is obviously a hot-button issue that is best left alone until editors can assume good faith and get a grip about how changing “strained yoghurt“ to “stained yogurt” to make it compatible with our “Yogurt” article doesn’t mean their crops will wither, midwives will weep, and locust will spread across the land.

  That even proposing and contemplating such a move results in so much wikidrama is quite amusing, really. I have better things to do in real life (trying to put together a seven-fugure business deal at the moment), and would prefer to not even be exposed to nonsense from editors like 28bytes alleging what my motivations must be here. It’s a mentality driven by fear of having the joy taken out of their wikilife that amounts to ‘He proposed something I don’t like’ → ‘I must not have been pleased with the limited scope of the “battlefield” and wanted to expand it.’ Shear nonsense and failure to assume good faith.

  It’s clear that move proposals here are too much - too soon after a bitter pill was swallowed by those who too easily allow themselves to get wrapped around an axle over silly things. This is best dropped. Greg L (talk) 21:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'm glad we both see it pretty much the same way. I would not oppose bringing this up in the future, just not so soon. Good luck on your real life endeavours. -Kai445 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks. I had to “ghetto” a slick presentation authored in Keynote so it would work for someone else in PowerPoint. Fortunately, Macs are bilingual and are capable of speaking more than the Eloi language; they can also speak Morlock when the need arises. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• Greg, I apologize for appearing to imply that you were not acting in good faith. That was not my intention. I believe a move proposal here and now would be a very poor idea, but I have no doubt your motives are sincere in trying to improve the encyclopedia. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I saw this linked on B2C's talk, so I thought I'd come give my $0.02. I still disagree with the apparent consensus at the yoghurt RM that eight years does not make an "established" title in the context of ENGVAR, but we've made our bed and now we must lie in it: for that reason, I'd support dropping the h from this title. Sub-articles should be consistent with the parent article and if the roles were reversed (i.e. we had "yoghurt" and "strained yogurt") I'd sure as hell be supporting a move, so it would be hypocritical of me not to support dropping the h considering the current titles. On a side note, it saddens me that some people seem to have learnt nothing from the massive discussion we just had and are trying to justify moving this article with COMMONNAME. I also feel it's worth noting that the h spelling is not archaic and it's definitely still the correct spelling here in Australia ([6] vs [7]). Jenks24 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Commonname is not merely forgotten because there is a potential ENVAR issue. I, and many others who voiced their opinions on the main article, do not think this is essentially an ENGVAR issue as both spellings are common in every variation of English (except in N. America, where only one spelling is common). Commonname is clear here. What isn't clear is how we weigh that against the potential ENVAR issue and how COMMONALITY weighs into it.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
• The case with yogurt was pretty clear, and it wasn't moved with reference to what is the common name. Both spelling variants are valid and widely used. That page was moved back essentially because it should never have been moved in the first place; and that's fine. There is no case however, based on that decision, to impose one spelling over another on other articles (and indeed categories, as one editor is seeking to do). I am thinking of becoming lactose intolerant. pablo 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)edited:closing bracket moved pablo 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• There were a ton of references to common name throughout the discussion, including the !vote. Including the person who actually started the RM, who cited COMMONNAME as his reason for initiating the RM. And there is not just "one editor" seeking to change the title of this article, weasel words and phrases are not helpful. -Kai445 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced closing bracket, sorry. No weaselling intended. pablo 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Just because the closing admin gets basic policy wrong doesn't mean that we have to duplicate his mistakes on other articles. An extremely large number of editors felt that Commonname informed their decision. Seeing as this isn't clearly an ENGVAR issue, it seems odd to invoke it as trumping Commonname. Having said all that, you are at least correct that this case is less clear than the one at the main article.LedRush (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Why thank you. It is.
  I'm not claiming that anything trumps anything, not intentionally, anyway. I have seen a lot of claims of trumpery, and I think that many people are unclear on what trumps what. pablo 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Indeed; the only un-trumpable principles are those in and directly springing from WP:Five pillars. All else are gray areas and there is seldom a one-size-fits-all solution for all circumstances. Some editors are simply less open than others to the notion of subordinating their way of spelling things to the most common way—or even the internally consistent way. When the usage is as lopsided as it is and the main article is spelled “Yogurt”, then the equation becomes more weighted in favor of WP:COMMON and WP:SPLIT. That clearly best serves the interests of our readership. In my mind, an attitude of keeping “Strained yoghurt” notwithstanding such compelling reasons is borne out of an attitude of “If I’m there first, then I want to enjoy seeing my spelling in that article forever, come hell or high water.”

  Applying ENGVAR here would subordinate common-sense principles of proper technical writing in order to placate editors who tend to throw hissy fits when they see their way of contributing later changed. Sometimes this phenomenon is borne out of being stubborn; other times it is borne out of a nationalistic or *cultural pride* thing. It’s not an philosophy of English-language technical writing—even in a collaborative writing environment—to which I subscribe. ENGVAR has its uses (You say “To‑MAY‑tow”, I say “To‑MAH‑tow”) and serves to keep 16-year-old wikipedians from bickering over The color of a carbon dioxide laser is in the infrared v.s. The colour of a carbon dioxide laser is in the infrared. ENGVAR is clearly a poor fit in this instance. Greg L (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Motion to add a new section to LAME

That could one good outcome of this LAME discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• I wholeheartedly support it. Be sure to liberally quote 28bytes as he seems to have captured the mentality underlying this issue exceedingly well and hasn’t much need for Wikipedia’s AGF. Greg L (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • COMMONNAME tossed asunder. ENGVAR stood on it's head to perpetuate a backwards spelling only preferred in some regions. Lame it up. Doc talk 05:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Generalization "in the west"

"In the West, the term "Greek yoghurt" has become synonymous with strained yoghurt"

This quote from the introductory paragraph is assuming that all languages in the western hemisphere have made that synonymous. For German, I can say that "Griechischer Joghurt" refers to yogurt with a high fat content of 10%, that is not necessarily strained. Unless this generalization makes sense with respect to other western languages, it should be changed to: "In the English-speaking world" Manuez.rodrigel (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

FAGE's strained yoghurt is apparently sold in Germany under the name "Griechischer Joghurt" (http://www.kinder.de/Total-Griechischer-Joghurt-von-FAGE.3108.0.html). An easy way to tell whether it is strained or made from milk enriched with cream (which is I suppose what you're suggesting) is to look at the protein content. What is the protein content of "Griechischer Joghurt" and what is the ingredients list? --Macrakis (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Labneh and Greek yoghurt

This is all very strange, I grew up in the UK, New Zealand and Australia and now live in the Middle East, all my life I have made "labneh" by mixing salt with yoghurt (pretty much ANY yoghurt) and straining out the whey through a muslin cloth. This recipe came to me through my Egyptian uncle. The resultant labneh or "cream cheese" is then mixed with dried herbs such as thyme and covered with olive oil and spread on toast. In Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries the labneh is drier (perhaps made of goats or ewe's milk) and it is rolled into balls and dropped into olive oil before eating (with or without dried thyme). In Qatar all of the labneh on sale that I have found tastes like and has the texture of my uncle's recipe (without the thyme and salt).

Yoghurt is marketed as "greek" in Australia, New Zealand and the UK and the key difference between this "greek" yoghurt and other natural yoghurts on the shelf from the consumer's (eater's) point of view is the lack of acidity that usually accompanies the label "greek" and a sort of creaminess in texture. In my experience the "Jalna" greek yoghurt in Australia breaks this rule in that it is quite acidic but retains the extra creaminess that typifies these "greek" yoghurts elsewhere. Whether this is due to straining or not I don't know but in no way do any of the "greek" youghurts I have tried and there are many ever approach the consistency or flavour of Labneh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.211.51.194 (talk) 12:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what your point is. There is considerable variation among yoghurts in acidity, and similarly there is considerable variation among strained yoghurts in acidity. The "extra creaminess" in some so-called Greek yoghurts probably comes from their being stirred before being packaged. But I'm pretty sure that all the "greek" yoghurts in Australian, NZ, and the UK are strained yoghurts.

Where labneh definitely is different is when it is made into balls and dried, sometimes covered with herbs, sometimes stored under oil. That is a quite different food, I'd agree. --Macrakis (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Motion to start an RM: Redux

I am interested in gathering comments to support the move to "Strained yogurt" for this article. -Kai445 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I still believe spelling in sub-articles should be consistent with their parent articles, maybe it is worth seeing if there is consensus support for that line of reasoning. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this seems like a logical next step in B2C's campaing to prevent article naming instability by proposing changes to article names. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else? -Kai445 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Support move - Sources support moving to Strained yogurt per this.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 00:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the article back. User:Some standardized rigour apparently moved it without consensus. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dicklyon has now reverted me. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Support move per sources indicating common name. It would be helpful if Dicklyon ceased making personal attacks as he did above and stopped page move warring. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Dahi mentioned in articles

I suggest the section on Indian Pakistani Dahi/Yoghurt/Curd be completely deleted as it is not strained yoghurt and has zero relevance in this context. -2.51.66.1 (talk)pushansen —Preceding undated comment added 20:44, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The Lebanon and Palestine section

The section mentions that the strained yogurt product is called laban, does anyone have information on this? In the Persian Gulf region, laban is a drinkable yogurt product similar to kefir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Strained Yogurt is HIGHER in fat than unstrained yogurt. Low fat yogurt is lower in fat than regular yogurt.

It is intuitively obvious that strained yogurt is HIGHER in fat than unstrained yogurt since straining removes the whey which is mostly carbohydrates thereby concentrating the fat.