Talk:Yogurt/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Name of article

I was told that user Danielfolsom violated Wikipedia policy (or guidelines or whatever) by engaging in a concerted "get out the vote" effort.

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Danielfolsom. Focus in particular on the period around 2007-05-16T02:01:25.

I was surprised that so many of the people who voted against changing to the sensible name (Yogurt) both 1) always show up on votes where they can keep a Commonwealth or British spelling (like Jooler), and 2) gave, as reasons, things that didn't make sense. (Note, I was also contacted about this vote, though I had already seen it.)

I don't think punitive action should be taken against Danielfolsom, but the name issue should be dealt with fairly. The reason the issue keeps coming up is that the current name doesn't make sense. The solution isn't to get your orthographic anti-American friends together to shut down the polling process, but to take the question of the right name seriously. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-23 18:02 18:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to censor any comments, so I'll leave it here, but I urge people not to respond to this: we've already wasted too much time talking about names. Sorry Cultural Freedom. —METS501 (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

(No need for "sorry," I understand where you're coming from, though I disagree.) I urge people not to allow disgruntled tyrants to close down discussion on something that hasn't been allowed to reach its proper conclusion. If we address the question seriously, and without violating any Wikipedia guidelines, the issue can be put to rest once and for all, because it will have been put to rest in the right way. If we, on the other hand, allow irrational people obsessed with their favorite spellings to break rules and/or violate basic protocols of reasoned discourse, WP is harmed. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-23 18:15 18:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I support reopening discussion, the whole discussion efforts were blindsided by impropriety as soon as Danielfolsom began to manipulate the straw poll, absolutely childish. --65.206.50.97 18:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it will not happen. We have debated many, many, many times, and we're not doing it again. Please, just work on improving this article or another. —METS501 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I also support reopening the discussion and completely agree with Cultural Freedom's argument above. It is a hallmark of Wikipedia that decisions, through consensus, are ultimately made based on logic and reason. That has not happened here because of the "disgruntled tyrants". All of the logic and reason with respect to the naming of this article supports the most common name used for this subject, and original name of this article: yogurt. Anyone who genuinely wants the debate to end would support the name change, which is consistently shown to be the opinion shared by the majority of editors involved in these polls. --Serge 20:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second - what policy did I violate - I went through each previous discussion and just told people that voted that there was a discussion - I alreted both people that voted for yogurt and youghurt. That's absolute B.S. that your pushing there - Wikipedia is not a democracy - there are no votes, only discussions - so even if I did do a "get out the vote" thing, it wouldn't matter. Because you said exactly that I violated WP policy because I did a "get out the vote" thing, then I can assume that you don't have a specific policy to back you up.daniel folsom 22:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Second - per Wikipedia's policy on Consensus - you can't just do another discussion to try and get consensus - so you trying to push another debate is really worthless, because obviously anything could be reverted per policy.daniel folsom 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow I'm not even done - just to let you know IP address - A) again, WP is not a democracy, it was not a straw poll but a discussion, per WP:NOT, B) just out of curiousity - who are you? Because I noticed that the comment you just made was your first edit. Ever. So frankly either your talking about things that you probably don't understand - which by the way is "absolutely childish", or you forgot to sign in, or your acting as a sockpuppet - because no one's first edit is on a talk page.daniel folsom 22:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and ahh ... one more thing. There's a huge difference between policy and guidelines - and the fact that you don't know the difference throws your argument out the window.daniel folsom 22:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

K Really now last but most important thing - did you tell the guy who told you about the debate that he violated WP Policy - because he did the exact same thing i did, only I did it to more people.daniel folsom 23:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

He did it to one person, you did it to dozens! Why don't we agree that all the people "illegally" told about this discussion won't put their preferences ("vote") up the next time? That would be fair by me. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-25 01:28 01:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. The discussion to move this article is closed as yet another no consensus for the move. In return, some of those who wanted it moved describe those who voted oppose as "disgruntled tyrants". Furthermore, a claim is made that those who opposed the move had no merits to their arguments, and that if they truly wanted to end the arguments about it they would support the move. We apparently fail to see that the American English spelling is the "right" way, and we are accused of Anti-Americanism. The person closing the debate is accused of closing it too early (apparently 6 days of debate isn't enough). Finally, the person who laboriously went through the past debates about this naming change and notified all voters of the new debate is accused of "manipulating the straw poll" somehow, even though he notified people on both sides of past arguments. If you feel that all these absences of respect for other Wikipedians is alright, then you need to take a good, hard look at yourself. - Mark 07:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Furthermore, Cultural Freedom isn't explaining what's more "sensible" about the other spelling. The point of the AmE/BrE ceasefire is that both spellings are perfectly sensible, and that's why we need to stop arguing about it. Nobody will be remotely confused, misled, or misinformed by either title, so let it die, already. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1) What's more sensible about the "Yogurt" spelling has already been explained. 2) "Letting it die" is not the appropriate word choice. It was "killed" by an active effort on the part of Daniel_Folsom to gather votes from people he knows always unthinking vote against American spelling.

What I'm suggesting is that we have a serious discussion about this. We should not let orthographic imperialist tyrants "kill" open, free discussion. We should strive to make Wikipedia better. Most of the reasons given for those voting against the change were clearly absurd. Given that Daniel F. made a concerted get out the vote effort and the Oppose votes were NOT overwhelminginly in the majority, I think it's clear the wider WP community would support this move. Let's give them a chance to consider it, fairly this time! Then, if it's been considered in fair way, the result will be more "stable." If tyranny is what's largely responsible for the closing of a discussion, it will just keep coming up again. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-25 01:26 01:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If it's already been explained why it's "more sensible", perhaps you can point me to it? I've been paying attention, and seen no such explanation. Second, please don't refer to other editors as "orthographic imperialist tyrants". It's very unlikely to be productive, as is generally the case with name-calling. Thirdly, what you say is "clearly absurd" is not so clear to others, it seems. Perhaps you can explain what's so clear about it, keeping in mind that I have read the arguments. As far as I can tell, in my honest estimation, I've fairly considered both alternatives, and the sensible arguments I saw were for leaving the article where it is. If you want a fair discussion, perhaps you could start by characterizing the opposing side more fairly. It sounds as if you'd rather call people "tyrants", and get your way. I've never seen such a strategy lead to progress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is honestly bullshit. Seriously did you even look at who I told. You do realize I told near everyone right? I even told schmucky the cat - who was one of the strongest contributors to the yogurt side. Your making completely false accusations. By the way - I love how you ignore 90% of the real Wikipedia policies and flaws in your accusation that I mentioned abovedaniel folsom 01:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Daniel, You are quite right, at least a few of the people you told about the vote had previously voted for the "yogurt" spelling. I didn't look into every single one of them because of time constraints. Either way, my understanding is that directing people to a vote is a WP violation. If the outcome was a "no change" before, and the same people vote again, the outcome is not likely to change. That's (as I understand it) the rational behind not doing any kind of "get out the vote" effort, even an effort that isn't one-sided. I think the rationale makes sense. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-25 04:11 04:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's generally discouraged to crosspost to a lot of people's talk pages informing about discussions. On the other hand, it's suggested when consensus is difficult to find, to bring more eyes to the discussion. I wouldn't call what Daniel did a "violation"; that seems to imply that we're dealing with laws or something. Since people are using it as grounds to continue arguing over the article's name, it might not have been the best idea, but if it was a mistake, it was certainly an honest one made in good faith.

Whether or not Daniel "should have" notified people isn't really germane to the topic, which is that we have a policy against moving pages over trivial spelling differences between British and American English. The rationale behind that policy makes sense, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And we just closed this debate with a clear no consensus - there's no way we should re-open it.daniel folsom 01:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

O yeah and by the way - stop using the word 'majority'. Wikipedia is not a democracy per WP:NOT (that's what an actual policy looks like by the way, slightly different than on that you just make up so you can attack other editors huh?)daniel folsom 01:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mark, the issue isn't about American English vs. British English. It's about whether we follow Wikipedia policies, or not. Wikipedia editors have worked out rules to resolve these conflicts in order to avoid ongoing arguments like this. The reason this one won't die is because we are not following those rules, guidelines and policies. I would not be defending the AE form of a name on an article that was originally created using BE, even if it was switched to AE for a significant amount of time before anyone who cared noticed. The reason we can't achieve consensus for the change is because many BE supporters are voting against the change simply because they prefer the BE version, and not because of WP policies (evidence: dearth of policy based reasons listed in polls for "keep 'yoghurt' side"; preponderance of such reasons listed for "restore original name" side). For those opposed to restoring the original name, it is about AE vs BE. For those who favor restoring the original name, it's about following WP policy in order to resolve conflicts. --Serge 02:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Serge wrote: "The reason we can't achieve consensus for the change is because many BE supporters are voting against the change simply because they prefer the BE version, and not because of WP policies (evidence: dearth of policy based reasons listed in polls for 'keep "yoghurt" side'; preponderance of such reasons listed for 'restore original name' side)." I think this is the crux of the matter. Add to that the fact that many Americans or users of American spelling (like Mets501) are kind people who would rather avoid conflict, and the balance gets tipped slightly in favor of the less sensible spelling. In the case of theater/theatre, which parallels this in many ways (though there, the case for theatre was weaker, in my view), but where the -re spelling was the one that was judged to be more universal, the change was made, again, because there are more "Can't we all just get along" Americans than there are "Can't we all just get along Brits," and the mellow Americans tipped the balance. (Note, if the U.S. were a shrunken empire, the situation would of course be different! I'm not saying Americans are inherently more kind than Brits. The British are forced into a defensive position, and this makes big-heartedness difficult.) Anyway, instead of focusing on getting along, or restoring the British Empire, I think we should focus on WP policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cultural Freedom (talk • contribs) 03:19, May 25, 2007 (UTC).

Cultural Freedom, I'm an American, and I use American spellings. I've been opposing the move on WP policy grounds, and I don't appreciate having false motives attributed to me. I'm getting the impression you don't even know what my argument is. You seem more interested in making unkind speculations about others' motives than in addressing this point.

If you want to talk about policy, then let's do so. I'm telling you, as a Wikipedian and an American, that WP policy supports leaving this article's title alone. Now can we have that conversation, or would you rather make sweeping generalizations and sarcastic remarks about our British brothers and sisters? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Serge, I'm sorry, but there simply isn't one unambiguous reading of policy on this matter. You can try to dictate to me what my motivations are, but I oppose the change even though I'm American and prefer American English. I oppose the move because I'm doing my level best to follow Wikipedia policy as I understand it. I'm ready to explain this at length, but I won't be dismissed while having false motives attributed to me. That's no way to have a discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just let it go. Seriously. I speak American English, and would clearly personally prefer it to be spelled Yogurt. But it's not. Seriously, people, we need to move on. —METS501 (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I did look through the people that Daniel Folsom invited and they seemed to include most people who voted both for and against the change previously. This issue has come up and will again, in my opinion, because the argument to keep the spelling boils down to 'there has long been consensus on this article...or at least no one bothered to revert to the original spelling so it the status quo should prevail'. Needless to say (and yet I will say it), most editors of Wikipedia are not much for traditionalism and believe that the quality of the edits and not seniority of the edit or editor should determine which edits to retain. I think this sort of spelling issue is a social problem that can be solved by technology, in this case by applying Template:Sp, so readers who care about spelling can set their preference and everyone else can focus on other things. Antonrojo 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We reached a similar conclusion when discussing BC/AD vs. BCE/CE, namely, that a technical solution would be the best. Until that gets implemented though, the ceasefire seems to be the best solution. If everyone just agrees to stop messing around with date formats (or in this case, spellings of yogurt), then we can stop pouring energy into a stalemate. The whole idea is to stop worrying about it, not to figure out which spelling each article "should" have according to somebody's reading of policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, I don't know what your argument is. All I know is that the only argument for this article to be at "yoghurt" listed at the top of the previous poll was "article has had this spelling longer". If there were no arguments on the other side, that might mean something. But there were half a dozen different arguments in favor of changing it back to the orginal name, "yogurt", each based on WP policy like using the most common name, and using the original name in case of conflicts like this. If "the article had this name longer" alone had much weight, then practically no article name could ever change. Yet that is the only argument offered. Please explain. --Serge 05:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The argument for keeping the spelling as it is, per Wikipedia policy, is this: We're talking about a difference between British and American English. Ultimately, there's no good reason to choose one over the other — in a vacuum, assuming no pre-existing policies, there's no good reason to prefer one version of English. There's no official, international version of English that's consusually agreed upon.

Because of this lack of consensus in the world, there's no good way to decide what Wikipedia should do. The arguments go 'round and 'round in circles and last forever, because neither side is unambiguously right. The only policies we can adopt on the matter are essentially ceasefires. It's the agreement we came to with "color" vs. "colour", and it's the agreement we came to with BC/AD vs. BCE/CE. The agreement is to leave stable articles alone, because trying to argue a case for each article led to the same endless debate happening over and over and over again.

Our Manual of Style says, "If there is no settled spelling and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor". In this case, there is a settled spelling, namely the one that's been in place for years. This has been a stable article. To move it to another spelling based on a legalistic reading of the article's history would send the message that it's somehow appropriate to continue to war over trivial spelling differences based on technicalities and years-old versions. The spirit of the rule is to stop fretting about these questions, and it is inconsistent with that spirit to find readings of the "rules" that support moving an article from one perfectly good spelling to another.

I understand that people are citing carefully crafted policy-based arguments for ignoring the spirit of the ceasefire and moving the article to an American spelling. An argument that one spelling is supported by a written rule is only compelling insofar as the rationale behind that rule applies to the situation in question.

The rationale behind going with the most common spelling is to avoid confusion, but nobody has argued that the current spelling is confusing to anyone.

The rationale behind going with the original contributor if all else fails is to provide a default if no decision can be made based on the other criteria from the same list. One of those criteria is "If an article has been consistently in a given variety for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone." It's clear that the intent and spirit of the guideline is to avoid pagemoves over disputes between national varieties of English. It's purpose is to maintain a ceasefire, under which we don't mess with these spellings.

If an article has no stable history, and we have to make an arbitrary choice, then the guideline suggests going with the original (non-stub) contributor, but that is not the case with this article. We have a stable history, so our policy is to leave it alone, and stop worrying about trivial spelling differences.

I hope that clarifies the policy-based argument for leaving the article where it is. I reiterate that I am an American, born and raised in Texas, and that I would never personally spell yogurt with an 'h' unless I were trying to pass myself off as a European, or maybe just a communist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

To Cultural ... The fact is we already decided on this. We had the discussion and the result was no conesnsus. You're trying to make a point for yogurt - but this discussion isn't about yogurt v. yoghurt - it's about whether the last vote needs to be redone due to a huge flaw.daniel folsom 11:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to make a point for "yogurt"? I support leaving the page where it is. Was I so unclear? -GTBacchus^(talk) 13:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh sorry, wasn't addressed to you - somehow I screwed up the placement. It should be slightley better now.daniel folsom 14:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GTBacchus, This article has a stable history??? How are you interpreting the meaning of "settled spelling" in "If there is no settled spelling and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor"? The amount of activity on this article with respect to requested moves, actual page moves, the majority support to change the spelling in the last two polls, and even edits back and forth between the two styles all within just the last year all indicate that the spelling is anything but "settled" (or "established" for that matter). It seems to me use of the "first major contributor" guideline was devised for precisely a situation such as this. I mean, if it doesn't apply in a case such as this, where would it apply??? --Serge 15:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I addressed this further in a new section below. --Serge 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Goat-soybean yoghurt

User:Ecoinus has been adding a section on "Goat-soybean yoghurt", which discusses a (published) research project by a Taiwanese graduate school student. This product does not seem to be commercialized or widely used. Ecoinus, could you please explain why you believe this product is worth mentioning in Wikipedia? Without some evidence that it is more than a research project, I don't think it belongs in the WP Yoghurt article. Thanks, --Macrakis 18:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Is the article spelling stable, established or settled?

Above, GTBacchus argues that because the spelling of this article has been stable for some time, the stay with established spelling guideline in the MOS applies, which states:

If an article has been consistently in a given variety for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone.

Further, given that that guideline applies, he argues that the "if all else fails" clause in the follow the variety established by the first contributor guideline is not invoked, and so that guideline does not apply here. It states:

If there is no settled spelling and all else fails, consider following the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor to the article.

So his argument rests on the premise that this article has been consistently in the British English variety for a long time, and that the spelling is established and settled. But, there is much evidence that the current article spelling has been anything but stable, established or settled:

The Log history of this article reveals there were variety-based moves in May 2005 (1), Feb 2006 (3), Apr 2006 (2), and Oct 2006 (5). There are corresponding changes to the spelling style used within the article. This is not the hallmark of a stable article that has been at one spelling consistently for a long time.
There are three archives (1, 2, 3) of this talk page, all dominated by discussions about this article's name and spelling style.
The latest two polls indicate that a majority of editors agree the name should be reverted to the spelling style preferred by the first major contributor to the article.

The only thing established or settled here is that there is no clear consensus on what the name should be. I really can't understand how one can claim that there is a settled, stable or established spelling style for this article, or that "all else" has not failed. I mean, that's like claiming the situation in Iraq is settled, stable and established. However, unlike the situation in Iraq, there is a clear and obvious exit strategy in this turmoil: follow Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and, in particular, the follow the variety established by the first contributor guideline, which was clearly designed to address, stabilize and settle situations exactly like this one. It has been argued that it is insanity to keep doing the same thing over and over (e.g., "stay the course" in Iraq, or leave the name of this article at "yoghurt") and expect something to change (the turmoil to end). --Serge 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the comparison to the Bush administration (I've never drawn one of those before!), I have to point out an important difference. The decision to "stay the course" in Iraq costs human lives daily. We, on the other hand, are talking about an 'h' in the middle of a word on a website. If I say "stop caring how we spell 'yogurt'", there's no negative effect on the world. Nobody has begun to argue that the 'h' is actually confusing, harmful or misleading in any way. It simply isn't.

That's why we should agree to not care how it's spelled. Moving it would encourage the idea that it's somehow worth our time to dig around in article histories for reasons that they should be spelled in British or American English, when the spirit of out policy is (rightly) that such investigation is not worth our time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The name of this particular article is not important at all. The method with which we resolve conflicts like this is very important. In particular, do we follow policy, or not? Following and setting precedent is important in any civil system. The WP policy and precedents about settling this specific type of conflict is clear: go with the dialect/spelling of the first significant contributor. --Serge 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

But that's not clear - it is obvious that the "stay with the established spelling" overrules "first contributor" - because if it did not, then there would be no need for "stay with the established spelling" because you would always go with the first contributor.daniel folsom 02:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Serge, you realize, I hope, that I'm arguing to keep the article where it is on policy grounds, so asking me whether "we follow policy, or not" doesn't really advance the discussion. My answer is, "yes, we follow policy, and that's why we leave the article where it is."

You say that policy and precedent are clear on this point, but I disagree. I can cite a precedent for leaving pages where they are rather than going with the original contributor in perfectly analogous situations. See Talk:Honour Can you cite a precedent where it's been agreed to rename a page from one national variant to another after years in one location, based on the original contributor principle? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I realize you're arguing on policy grounds. I know the fact that color is in the language/spelling of the first contributor has helped it remain stable. Besides, so far as I know, this article has not been stable at yoghurt for years. The move log indicates otherwise. --Serge 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair, I did not address this part of GTBacchus' argument, where he argues that claims of instability are...

... based on a legalistic reading of the article's history would send the message that it's somehow appropriate to continue to war over trivial spelling differences based on technicalities and years-old versions. The spirit of the rule is to stop fretting about these questions, and it is inconsistent with that spirit to find readings of the "rules" that support moving an article from one perfectly good spelling to another.

I understand that people are citing carefully crafted policy-based arguments for ignoring the spirit of the ceasefire and moving the article to an American spelling. An argument that one spelling is supported by a written rule is only compelling insofar as the rationale behind that rule applies to the situation in question.

Appealing to the spirit of ceasefire is laudable, but I think it's more than a little too late for that, and, again, the follow the variety established by the first contributor guideline is designed specifically to settle and bring stability to situations exactly like this. Why ignore it? Why not follow it? How does the rationale behind that rule not apply in this situation? --Serge 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it too late? Because you and others have decided to dig your heels in? That begs the question: why dig your heels? If you just agree that it doesn't matter whether or not we use the 'h', then you'll be acting in the spirit of our naming conventions. Why are you insistent on the point?

The reason I'm insistent is that I think it's a terrible idea to move a page between British and American spellings for any reason, because doing so encourages the notion that such moves are productive. The ceasefire is concretely better for the encyclopedia than national-variety pagemoves.

Your turn - why is this important to you? -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered this above. If we want to have a consistent policy/approach on how to settle conflicts like this, then we should follow it at every opportunity, including this one. Setting a precedent to the contrary just opens up potential for more conflict elsewhere. Leaving this at "yoghurt" leaves the article name open for requested moves indefinitely, because "yoghurt" is not in the spelling of the first significant contributor to this article. On other pages, like segregated cycle facilities, color and ice pop, and on countless others, any similar requests can now be (and are) immediately quashed because the current name has been established per the "first contributor" policy. This will never be the case for this article as long is it remains at yoghurt, because yoghurt was not the spelling/usage of the first contributor. Look at the last poll. Some relatively new guy showed up, made the same old arguments for change, they could not be refuted, and we had yet another poll. What's to prevent some other new guy doing this again in 3, 6, 12 months? 3, 6, 9 years? Nothing. There is no argument to immediately quash such efforts now, and there will not be then. But if the article is moved to "yogurt", then anyone will be able to quash efforts to move it back to "yoghurt" by pointing out the first contributor policy. The reality is that this article can only be stable at "yogurt", and can never be stable at "yoghurt". Serge 02:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your prediction. This article can be perfectly stable at its current title, just as honour is stable where it is. All that it takes is for people like us to agree that the national-varieties ceasefire is a better rule than the first-contributor tiebreaker. It is just as compelling an argument, unless people decide to dig in their heels and insist that the first-contributor rule is policy, while the national-varieties ceasefire isn't (nor well the stable version rule, but you seem eager to lawyer over what counts as stable, in direct defiance of the spirit of the ceasefire). If you refuse to recognize the legitimacy of the ceasefire, then I guess you can guarantee instability at this title, but do you really want to do that?

Why is "we have a policy against arguing about national varieities of English," not acceptable as a policy-based argument? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree honour appears to be stable where it is, but nothing prevents anyone from proposing a move based on first contributor grounds. And I simply do not see how a national-varieties ceasefire is a better rule than the first-contributor tiebreaker. The first-contributor tiebreaker is less ambiguous. Even if the population of WP editors was fixed, then it would still be very difficult to achieve consensus to ceasefire. But given the constant and never-ending influx of "new blood", it's impossible. But the first-contributor rule is much more cut and dried, and it's easy to cite in any situation where someone might propose a name change. Of course, it can't be cited if the current name is inconsistent with the first contributor rule, for no reason, as it is in this case. --Serge 05:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's ambiguous about "don't made edits or moves to change from one national variety of English to another." Going with the style of the "first major contributor", as the guideline actually suggest, is ambiguous, because people may reasonably disagree as to which contribution first counts as "major". In the case of honour, it's certainly not clear which contribution is the first major one.

The ceasefire makes very good sense, and can consistently be applied in widely varying situations. All it states is "don't make edits over these spelling differences". That's unambiguous, and consistent with common sense. Encouraging people to dig around in the history to try and find reasons to make these edits despite the ceasefire is not, in my opinion, a good idea, nor consistent with policy.

You assert that "it would still be very difficult to achieve consensus to ceasefire". Have you got any evidence for this claim? My experience tells me otherwise. I've seen strong support for an editing freeze over national varieties. Perhaps an RfC or a post at the Village Pump would help clarify whether community consensus is stronger for the ceasefire or for the first-contributor default in situations such as the current one. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

You present a compelling argument. And an RfC might be in order to settle this question. In any case, I will stop pursuing the issue on this article, and will keep this in mind for any similar disputes that arise. --Serge 05:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Serge - you're trying to start the debate again, it's not happening - we just had this discussion - just to let you know if you try to start another discussion then you'll be reverted. There are more important things then spelling.daniel folsom 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No threats please. SchmuckyTheCat 20:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that I'll revert is not really a threat - I'm saying that I'll follow standard Wikipedia practice. We just voted, and the discussions over. Staying around to complain about it only hinders the improvement of this articledaniel folsom 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. The improvement of this article! Yay! You didn't do diddlysquat to improve this article, did you? Fourteen edits, all of which are reversions. Yet you edited the talk page 62 times. Come clean---you don't give a damn about it. You are just an agitator. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A)I talked with the people that did the article - at least twice as much as on this talk page - which included providing sources and opinions about how to do certain sections. B)I don't know where you get off calling me an agitator when after doing this debate YOU'RE BRINGING IT UP AGAIN. C)Even if I hadn't done much on this article (which I have) we're still wasting the talk page and calling more attention to the name then the article.daniel folsom 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly with Cultural Freedom - I can almost understand him accusing me of vote stacking without any proof what so ever. He is still a relatively new contributor, so he gets some slack. But you calling me the agitator is just over-the top. I cannot believe that an editor of your history would actually stoop that low - and franly be that stupid. I guess the userbox is true: Edit count doesn't prove value.daniel folsom 21:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Daniel, the charge stands that by contacting people already involved in the last vote -- whatever their votes -- you stacked the deck in such a way that the outcome was destined to be the same. Orthographic anti-Americans never change their votes. Ergo, we need to bring this up again. Moreover, I strongly suggest you stop the threatening language ("just to let you know if you try to start another discussion then you'll be reverted"). You of all people have no right to impose your will on others. Closing down a discussion that's been conducted improperly is a formula for its starting up again. My suggestion: it's entirely obvious that the guideline that applies here is "when all else fails, follow the variety established by the first contributor." If orthographic anti-Americans don't like that, please, let them search their souls and ask whether they are motivated by something other than a desire to improve WP. They can also take heart that Theater was moved to Theatre based on the same reasoning that would lead to Yoghurt being moved to Yogurt. Here, there is the additional factor of Yogurt being the first spelling used. This seems like a no-brainer for any reasonable person. Most of the arguments against the return the original spelling have taken the form "just live with it!" "Leave it alone!" Those aren't arguments.... If people think Americans are fat, too Jewish, money-grubbing or whatever, please try to keep those feelings separate from the process of reflecting on the right name for this article. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-26 00:50 00:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is hilarious! Especially for us newbies to watching this bunfight between you old hands! it really makes it clear what standards we have to live down to! Thanks for setting a great example, guys! Eyedubya 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I actually am American - so I have no biases against the country - if you look at the color article you'll probably see that i have supported color over colour per mos. And no, "you'll be reverted" is not threatening language - it is a standard that has been established by the WP community. For example, there's a big debate on spoiler warnings going on, I'm sure you've heard of it, and frankly it's taking forever. Now once that debate closes, if someone from the losing side decides that they're absolutely sure they're right - and tries to open the debate again - they'll be reverted. Same goes here. And lastly, as to your comment about how contacting everyone from the last votes was garunteed to preoduce the same outcome - the fact is the last two votes got more attention than this, and while my intrest are including as many as possible in a discussion, based on notion that they are interested which I determined from past activity in the votes, your intrest seem to be isolating the discussion to only people who support yogurt. Either way your argument has no merit since you yourself would not be here if someone hadn't contacted you.

Eyedubya - frankly I wish we could stop this debate - it's currently comparable to a George Washington zombie - but the fact is Cultural Freedom specifically brought up my actions as the first comment on this page - and said that I violated Wikipedia policy and that we need a whole new discussion because of it, and obviously I'm at the position where I have to defend my actions despite the support from the apparent majority per their comments here. The problem is - we would start the debate over if I violated Wikipedia policy - and that is what this discussion is about - but some users have interpreted it as just an argument to start the debate over - which wouldn't happen anyway, but that's why there are so many comments (most of which are against starting the debate over). Honestly people, it's an h - it's not like we're changing the spelling of yogurt to trughoy - and this debate has happened enough times that we need to stop now. Let's focus on the article.daniel folsom 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Serge I have a silght issue with your first argument. you claim that becaus a lot of editors have changed the spelling - therefore the spelling is not stable. The problem with that argument is that on popular pages the spelling is always changed. The article Color has been changed multiple times - but does that mean it's instable? No - it means that people who don't know the rules of Wikipedia are vandalizing the page by changing the spelling.daniel folsom 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But in the case of color the title was decided per the MOS (use the language/spelling of the first contributor), and so, changing it is vandalizing. I would add that because of that, it is more stable than this article. We can achieve the same stability here, by doing the same thing as was done there (and at ice pop for that matter, and countless other articles that have stabilized due to using the original name/spelling). --Serge 07:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A comment: User:Celtic Emperor seems to have entered the fray by Briticising some of the vocabulary in the article (which I unwittingly undid by committing my combination of the etymology/spelling sections.) --moof 02:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Just to let you know I edited your comment because the link was broken). Well technically the entire article should be in british english since yoghurt is currently the title, so he's just following the mos.daniel folsom 03:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop now

Really, guys, you have to stop arguing this now before more aggressive means are pursued to end this argument. —METS501 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What did you hope to accomplish by sprotecting the article when the problem is vomituous amounts of talk page foam by registered users? SchmuckyTheCat 22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The semi-protection was to counter vandalism on the main article, and was not related to this discussion. If you would like more information, please contact Centrx, the administrator who actually protected the page. —METS501 (talk) 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a WP policy that declares discussion should cease on an issue when consensus has not been reached? Since silence implies agreement, threatening dissenters of the status quo to "stop arguing" seems illogical. --Serge 00:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, Serge. It also states "The original group should not block further change on grounds that they already have made a decision." Attempts to continue to squash debate are in violation of that policy, as far as I'm concerned. Additionally, there was no consensus prior. --Dscarth 02:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes. This is what Daniel Folsom has been doing all along. He said he's going away soon, so we can take this up again in a bit. Let us all strive to address the question en earnest. That way, we'll reach a "robust" conclusion. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-27 15:53 15:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the fact that you have no response to my hung jury example says something. But the point is there are more important things on this article, and we just debated this - why don't we move on to something more important - like citations or questionable sections. Cultural Freedom all you've done on this talk page is call people anti-american, I don't know how you think that's productive.daniel folsom 17:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, I've done considerably more than call people anti-American. Look again. How I think it's productive? It helps others understand the basis of the irrational behavior of some here. --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-29 17:33 17:33, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake - you've called people anti-american and irrational! Nice.daniel folsom 22:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

And yes, you have made a good point with the first contributor - but that's about it, and I've explained that A) we just voted on it - and a hung jury tends to stay hung for a while, B)the stay with the established spelling rule obviously over-rules the first contributor rule. But, that being said, one of your main tactics has been to use the conspiracy theory card - tryanist, anti-Americans, vote stackers.daniel folsom 22:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a common knowledge factor. Let's assume that you have a jury, and they can't decide on a verdict after a long time discussing it, so it's a mistrial. Now the case will be brought forward again, but with a different jury. Why? Because if it's the same jury, since there's no new information, you can expect the same result. So in this case, since it's the same people that will vote - you can expect the same result. So why focus on something so miniscule as a letter when you can in fact improve the article. It's like we're starting a company, and we need to decide how it's going to function and how we're going to get started, but we're too busy deciding if the chairs should be padded or not.

This article has missing citations - why isn't that being talked about on the talk page. I'd much rather have a well written fully sourced article called youghouert then an article with missing citations called yogurt or yoghurt, so rather than spend time (or more acurately wasting time) about an h - let's actually do something productive.daniel folsom 02:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And the protection was probably to prevent an edit wardaniel folsom 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed here. The following have been listed as participants:

Please visit the request page to indicate your acceptance of mediation. I urge you all to accept, as it doesn't seem like we're getting anywhere arguing on this talk page. —METS501 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, usually I would, but I've just been mentally and emotionally worn out by this debate. If it was just about the name it would be easier, but the fact is it hasn't been about that name it's about the tactics used in the discussion. Feel free to still have it though, but if my opinion/input is needed then refer to my last comment on User talk:Serge Issakov, but I'm out. I'm just done.daniel folsom 03:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to be done, but it doesn't seem like some other would be. Oh well, I respect your opinion. —METS501 (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe mediation is very premature. --Serge 06:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation was rejected because Daniel Folsom opted out. That's fine, since I don't understand the point of going to mediation when those in favor of keeping the current name/style refuse to discuss the issue. Here's the problem: if you're happy with the status quo, you have little incentive to work towards consensus, or even defend your position. --Serge 07:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In all fairness we have discussed the issue, and feel free to take a look at archives 1,2 and 3 for why the name was kept the same.daniel folsom 13:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I know it has been discussed. But we have not reached consensus, and you seek to stop discussing (not just by you, by everyone). --Serge 14:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I already replied to a simmilar comment - but due to odd spacing it might have been missed, so I'll just repeat.daniel folsom 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a common knowledge factor. Let's assume that you have a jury, and they can't decide on a verdict after a long time discussing it, so it's a mistrial. Now the case will be brought forward again, but with a different jury. Why? Because if it's the same jury, since there's no new information, you can expect the same result. So in this case, since it's the same people that will vote - you can expect the same result. So why focus on something so miniscule as a letter when you can in fact improve the article. It's like we're starting a company, and we need to decide how it's going to function and how we're going to get started, but we're too busy deciding if the chairs should be padded or not.daniel folsom 15:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Refusing mediation but continuing to argue is disingenuous at best. --Dscarth 15:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll ignore the immediate irony of someone like you making that statement, but essentially I passed on mediation for multiple reasons. 1) Because I'm planning on leaving the debate soon - and mediation is so time consuming that I'd be locked into a huge ordeal. 2) We couldn't even start immediately because I may be out of town soon (hopefully) and I wouldn't have access to a computer. And by the way - I don't have to explain myself to an editor like you - I don't know where you get off making a comment like that - especially given that you've made a total of ... 9 mainspace edits, I have about 800 but I would still never say anything like that because it's not my accuse editors of not attending a very long process because I have no clue what's going on in their lives or what there motives are.daniel folsom 15:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If number of edits had something to do with quality of character or validity of debate, I guess you'd have won already. --Dscarth 16:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Uhmm try reading the last sentence over.daniel folsom 19:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's about uncivil as I'm going to get. My point is there is no winner here. --Dscarth 19:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Title and sp

If it will solve the issue, I'm fine going through the article and replacing yoghurt with {{sp|yoghurt|en=yogurt}}, but the title and defaults should remain yoghurt since we just voted on the title and there was no consensus.daniel folsom 21:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding for regional language difference is nonsensical when the proposed alternate version is the most widely used version. I'm opposed to this proposal. --Dscarth 22:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but frankly - given that only a few days ago there was no consensus in putting yogurt on (meaning yoghurt stays on), we can assume that now there is still no consensus (meaning yoghurt will stay on) - so seemingly the only way to get yogurt into the article is by {{sp}},daniel folsom 22:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I see only a minuscule advantage to using the "sp" tag. Most people aren't affected by it/aware of it. Anyway, the debate is not over. (It might be for a while, but it will come up again, since it was not dealt with in a sincere matter.) --Cultural Freedom talk 2007-05-27 15:52 15:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

the debate isn't over, but any one with half a brain can assume that if the same people vote the same result will happen.daniel folsom 17:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What if the vote happens/happened without canvassing and if each vote was required to contain an argument based on the merits? SchmuckyTheCat 18:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP Is not a democracy - it's not a vote, the outcome is based on the arguments.daniel folsom 18:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And the opposition made what argument based on the merits? SchmuckyTheCat

Schmucky, please see my arguments above in the section #Is the article spelling stable, established or settled?. I believe I've made cogent, well-reasoned arguments, based in policy, precdent, and common sense. If you disagree with my judgment, that's fair, but I don't think it's really appropriate to claim that no such arguments have been advanced. I'm not the only one who's been making those points, either. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok see I'm kinda worried since it was mentined 100 times, so I'm thinking you can't read, so me saying it now won't make any difference, but here goes nothing. IF the article has an established spelling keep it.daniel folsom 19:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"Where in doubt, editors defer to the style used by the first major contributor." --65.206.50.97 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That's another one, however we can assume that the established spelling rule overrules that one, since obviously if people always went with the first contributor, then there would not be an established spelling rule.22:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no need to go by the first contributor rule when there is consensus on some other name, whether it's because it's the "established" name or the most commonly used or whatever. But when there is doubt, as poll after poll shows no consensus and thus "doubt" is the situation here, the first contributor rule applies. --Serge 02:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The national varieties ceasefire is a better rule to apply in this situation, per precedent at Talk:Honor, and also in the BCE/BC date format dispute. One does not effect a good ceasefire by first evening the numbers shot on both sides. The spirit of our rule regarding national varieties is to stop arguing about it, stop considering it important, and stop moving pages between national varieties. That is policy, that is good sense, and we should go with it.

Moving this article back now would encourage a rules-lawyer-like attitude that it's a good idea to dig around in histories looking for technicalities that make it somehow ok to perpetuate national-variety disputes. I can't support sending that message. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dscarth, {{sp}} is a compromise. In the US, the most widely used spelling is "yogurt", but elsewhere it is "yoghurt" or even "yogourt". This way, more users see the spelling that corresponds to the dominant spelling where they live. « D. Trebbien (talk) 2007 May 27 20:23 (UTC)

There would have never been a problem if this article was "yogurt" from the beginning. Everyone would accept that. But you guys are so damn stubborn! I mean really! Just vote for "yogurt" next time and end this forever. --Maestro25 02:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OHH GOD! Things had finally started to calm down here - no one had commented in forever - I was even thining about archiving it - but you ruined it!!!! Haha, well the problem is, regardless of whether it should've been yogurt this whole time - the past is the past - and basically, per the wp policy that has been mentioned thousands of times, yoghurt should be kept. And if you honestly believe that changing it to yogurt would end debate then you are a very naive person.daniel folsom 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As silence implies consensus, if you insist on shuttling discussion into another archive, I can raise the issue on a more frequent basis --Dscarth 17:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That's such bullshit - my point is there was silence - you were the first to bring it up again in a while - which is why you and I are the only ones talking about it - everyone else thinks we left - thus before you brought it up - the discussion wasn't active, meaning I could've archived it. And by the way, if it is resolved or if no one else joins or if no one comments again, I will archive it - and if you try to bring it up - I can revert you for trolling because almost everyone here agrees that we shouldn't focus on the title. I wonder how many edits you've actually made to this article?--daniel folsom 19:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many edits you made to this article before you started arguing about its title. --Dscarth 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how many before the title - cause the title goes pretty far bac, but I found this page by going to the backlog and looking at the pages with missing citations - and I remember adding a bunch of citations, and then I've been doing a few reversions since then, with occasinoal editting. You?--daniel folsom 15:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Zero. Which only makes a difference using your fallaciously presented argument. --Dscarth 21:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ohh! I'm sorry, but I disagree so strong with you Dscarth. I havent found Daniel's argument to be fallacious at all, Dscarth. EverybodyHatesChris 05:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

So you agree that number of edits coincide with the quality of the editor? He states "I wonder how many edits you've actually made to this article?" Which can be interpreted as "You haven't made any edits on this, what right do you have to question me." --Dscarth 17:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dscarth, that's your interpretation of what he said. Just because that was your interpretation doesn't mean it's true, Dscarth. In less he comes right out and says "You haven't made any edits on this SO what right do you have to question me", you really have no right to be trying to say it was a fallacious argument or even an argument. You were totally wrong for saying that, Dscarth. Totally! EverybodyHatesChris 20:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree with taht actually - I would say a lot of editors are split on the issue of whether you should just be on a talk page so you can campaign for a spelling - but regardless - remember how you were going to stop using everyone's name excessively - you're kinda doing that again. You see, EHC, when you say names multiple times, EHC, it's like you're trying to demean people, EHC, so try to resist that, EHC. --daniel folsom 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel, what are you talking about? We're talking about him saying the way you present your argument is fallacious and I was telling Dscarth he shouldn't have said that because it wasn't true. You're talking about editors being split on whether or not he should campaign for a different name. Doesn't matter if editors are split on it. He has every right to come here and request the name to be changed from yoghurt to yogurt for whatever his reasons are EverybodyHatesChris 20:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Generally if you are just on a page to get it renamed to the spelling you want, people look down on that. By presenting the number of edits he had on here Dscarth interpreted that as me trying to lead people off and ignore the actual argument - me being fallacious. What I actually meant was that they're are policies for and against Yoghurt - and campaigning for our countries' spelling is a waste of time. --daniel folsom 20:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Daniel has explained on Dscarth's user page that he didn't agree with me and that his argument was fallacious. Sorry about that, Dscarth. I also think the name of this article should be changed to yogurt. It's a shorter spelling. EverybodyHatesChris 11:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I probably can't win this and I think the name should stay the same. heheheheehehehehehehehe EverybodyHatesChris 05:32, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Combination of spelling and etymology.

I've combined the spelling and etymology sections into a single section; they had slightly different information in both. I believe I've merged the two properly, but there's still some etymological info that remains uncited. Please feel free to expand upon things. (In particular, if there are source/info about how ğ has historically been transliterated to English, I'd love to see it; the Ottoman Turkish language article isn't terribly complete.) --moof 02:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a great start - I'll try to look up some on the g sometime in the next two days or so - a bit busy now, but again really amazing start, you were absolutely right to combine them and you did it fantastically.daniel folsom 03:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Disrepair

For all the attention this article gets, I'm appalled at the state of it. Look at the references section—it's a mess. This is a strange article, for example, what is the reason that images are in this div float? There are many red links and {{fact}}s. You guys are strong editors, and know how to deal with vandalism, so I know it's not that that is keeping this article from becoming as good as it could be. ALTON .ıl 07:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Great job on the update - more on your talk.daniel folsom 11:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

In the drinks section, where the article specifically refers to the names used in US marketing, wouldn't it make sense to use the american spelling there, in the interest of accuracy? 75.41.213.135 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

NO. ONE spelling is to be used throughout the article. Accuracy has nothing to do with it. —^Jack_Lumber^/tɔk/ 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yup, Jack is right on this. If the drinks section was a seperate article, we would use American spelling, but generally in articles we like to keep the same throughout. You can check out the Manual of Style for Wikipedia to get some more details.--daniel folsom 15:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)