Talk:Yogurt/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Think about it for a second...

You pronounce yoghurt with a silent h. You don't say it as "yo" with "gurt" tacked onto the end.

Now that I have gotten that out of the way how about a nice cup of tea and a good sit down before we end up having the first world flame war? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 08:34, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If there is a silent "h", you actually would be saying "yo" with "gurt" attached to it, because you wouldn't be saying the "h". It's not there because it's a silent H, it is there because of a shitty ancient transliteration (used before 1928)[1] that has largely fallen out of use, but people insist on keeping. #firstworldproblems -Kai445 (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, the irony. Eight years ago, on November 16, 2003, it was argued that the article should be moved from its original title, Yogurt, to Yoghurt, because it is "more phonetically accurate to use the yoghurt spelling in the article since it more closely suggests the proper pronunciation" [1]. At that time no one said anything (if anyone even noticed), and the article was unilaterally moved a month later. Now it is being argued it should be moved back because without an h is more phonetically accurate. Well, in case there was any doubt before, now for sure there is only one step left to finally go full circle, LOL. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
It makes no difference which spelling we like better or makes more sense or seems more appropriate. None. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Not at all; it can make a great difference. WP:COMMONNAME is only one of a multitude of factors; four or five others are at WP:CRITERIA, and that list is not exhaustive. The fundamental question is which title is most useful for the encyclopedia; and since there is no reason a literate anglophone reader should care (some will care because they are fighting the Anglo-American wars, but they should not), we can leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
You are, of course, missing the point and changing the subject. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 06:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
The current spelling is a violation of WP:ENGVAR, since it was moved between different dialects of English without suitable cause. (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Then go find the editor who did it and ban him. Moving it back without suitable cause is just as bad. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
So we should ban the user that messed up, but not revert the mess up? Doesn't that strike you as odd? -Kai445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC).
Yes, and it's not odd. WP:RETAIN is procedural; its sole purpose is to prevent people having move wars for the "right" version of English. It doesn't say that Yoghurt is the wrong title; it says that moves of this sort are unprofitable, and tend to be disruptive (which is reason to ban, if you can persuade an admin to care about this somewhat stale issue). Having another unprofitable and disruptive move is -well- unprofitable and disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
Yes, WP:Retain is a great guideline. Its been used (and abused)thousands of times in countless debates. Yet it can be overridden by community consensus and good old down home common sense.--JOJ Hutton 18:31, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
It is useful in part because it notes that consensus decides when we don't retain an established spelling. Is there consensus here? Who says so with a straight face? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
With all the crap flying around with British and American spelling, I have a great urge to propose banning US and UK spelling from being default, and instead make everyone choose Australian or Canadian spelling instead. (talk) 05:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Support, although it will make little difference in practice.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Move the damn article to Laban. That'll teach it! Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure that it's the dairy product that needs teaching... or even if it is teachable? Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Enough mad scientists, and you can teach anything! Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I pronounce "yogurt" with a silent 'h'? How do I tell the difference between pronouncing a silent letter and not pronouncing it? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:23, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about how to pronounce a silent "h" makes my yog hurt. Jonathunder (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page edit war

Is there currently an ongoing discussion about the edit war on this talk page to close the move discussion. The "talk" looked productive with new editors involed and new evidences presented. I am no expert when it comes to matters of this nature, but it seems to me the close was done by someone who has been involed in the past with a certain POV on the matter. I am sure it was all done with the best intentions, but there was "no consensus" last time, so as far as I understand it we are encouraged to proceed and find a consensus by way of introducing new facts and getting more editors involed? Moxy (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Technical close TIME OUT. I came here from Wikipedia:ANI#Yog(h)urt. See my comment at 07:45, 9 July 2009 "We have a long tradition that after a WP:RM is closed that it is not re-listed for six months after the last listing". This is for two good reasons. (1) No Admin is going to bother to get mixed up in a mess like this unless it stops a dispute. (2) We all have better things we can contribute to the project than have our time consumed on this type of debate (if you disagree go and read WP:LAME). This debate is not going to be settled in the next month by keeping it open. A six month break gives everyone time to cool down and consider what is best for the project. Personally I think that "Yoghurt" looks like the "Correct" spelling, BUT I agree with the arguments on this topic of WP:AT#National varieties of English, and if I had closed the last one I would have gone with that as the close (but I do not question the decision of the last admin to close a Yoghurt debate). Given that traditional 6 month breathing space, having another RM over this issue when the ink is not dry on the last one is disruptive. So come back in a MINIMUM of six months and argue the point then and not before. I suggest that in future if there is another RM over Yog(h)urt in 6m+, as clearly no appeal to secondary sources is moving the entrenched camps, all sides put this down to a WP:RETAIN issue and agree to go with "the variety used in the first non-stub revision is considered the default." (as any other version had clearly not been stable enough for an agreement to coalesce). If it is restricted to that then there may be a consensus on what the version according to WP:RETAIN we should have. HOWEVER I suspect that if anyone continues this debate here or in any other forum in the next few weeks and it is taken to an ANI it will be seen as disruptive. I hope that the next admin to close an RM over this issue will read what I have written and take appropriate action. I will not close the next one unless it takes place before June next year.-- PBS (talk) 08:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and it looks as if the admin involved with the edit warring has been subsequently blocked for 24 hours.--JOJ Hutton 21:03, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Blocked by the admin who was revert-warring with him, in the middle of this discussion, and a covering discussion on ANI. I have no idea why people are being so partisan about this; but I find it deplorable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Agree - I am new here (well this week) to this talk and I am also surprised at the stringent POV's that are causing even our admins to be in dispute to this extent.Moxy (talk) 21:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
I blocked him after he wheel-warred and after he protected the Talk page against non-admin editing - forcibly shutting everyone up is not what admins should be doing. Anyway, I shall shortly be taking my actions to ANI for review, where all opinion will be welcomed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Protecting a talk page, where there was (for the most part) productive discussion on how to best apply policy to a move and there were no flamewars??? That’s utterly amazing to me; I’ve never seen such a thing. Sure, locking down an article when there was protracted editwarring. But protecting a talk page from civil discussion by the community? Unbelievable. Greg L (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I have seen people banter that my suggested move is disruptive. Well, I first saw the thread at ANI a few days ago and had never been involved. In good faith, I read through all of the talk page history and the subpage of spelling history and never saw the Ngram results brought up. Seeing that as a clear and easy to interpret result, I brought it here with a move request thinking this should make matters easier to decide. Like Boing Said Zebedee states in the thread above, I'd like to see the matter settled once and for all so everyone can move on. I edit across articles of different engvars all the time with no problem. For me, this isn't about national preferences no matter how others try to make it so. I think people need to pack away their bad faith that I was doing something disruptive. Good block on PBS.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 22:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I bring notice to what the admin who closed the previous RM discussion said about it:

A strong consensus WAS NOT THERE. A close of "No consensus" is not a final sentence condemning the article to remain at that name for all eternity. Give it a few months and start another discussion. Or start one right now.

This was stated in a post-closing clarifying comment on his talk page [2]. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Do not question His wisdom; we cannot know it. He was clearly displeased that so many here were discussing this issue. It was his decision to dictate to us that we may only discuss this—maybe—six months from now; that much is perfectly clear because he quite literally stated that we all have better things we can contribute to. Don’t-cha-know? My WTF‑O‑Meter railed upon learning that he closed the motion to move and locked this page down so only admins could discuss things here. The proper place to address whether this was, uhm… *proper* is here at ANI (perma‑link). Greg L (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Note: The ANI thread has been closed. Any further comments about the conduct of PBS should (probably) be made here, if anything else needs to be said. If anyone felt like taking it to arbcom, it would probably be viable, but I'm not inclined to do so. -Kai445 (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • You know, when your 3-year-old sticks his finger in a light socket and his eyes bug out for eight seconds, it’s not really necessary to go make him sit in his room for the rest of the day to think about it. The formalities have run their course but the point has been made nonetheless. Greg L (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Original variety of English: Canadian English

It has been suggested above that this article was originally started not in American or British English, but in Canadian English. That would explain the spellings in the original version of the article: Yogurt (not yoghurt), litre (not liter), and -ize (not -ise). I don't think this has ever been explicitly recognized, appreciated and discussed. Therefore, in the interest of finally achieving stability and resolving this conflict, I suggest that if the current move proposal above achieves consensus support, we also restore the original variety of English in the article to Canadian English, and add this template to this talk page: Template:Canadian English. Thoughts? Comments? --Born2cycle (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I didn’t realise that fact. It colours the situation a little. But I would say rather than muddy the bloody situation, we keep it simple and address how to spell one word (yog(h)urt) before tackling how to spell the many others. ;-) Greg L (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with Greg L. Lets take things one step at a time. -Kai445 (talk) 00:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree as well. This whole situation needs rectifying in small, individual steps. Thryduulf (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't see how digging in the history to determine which variety of English was used years ago is consistent with an attitude of not caring about varieties of English. What's so wrong with just not caring about varieties of English, and helping to maintain a community standard of just that? Address it in a FAQ, and walk away. We've managed not to care how many spaces occur after a period, and whether it's "6 December" or "December 6". Why does this have to be different? -GTBacchus(talk) 09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I think B2C is trying to figure out how things would go down with an ENGVAR move per first contrib, but the current RM is pending for what amounts to COMMONNAME, so that would make first spelling irrelevant. Plus the words "litre/liter" and pasturi-zed/sed aren't even in the article as far as I can see, so the whole point is moot. -Kai445 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • He’s an admin who stated above that reviving issues like this “should be grounds for blocking because of disruption.” ‘Nuf said. The *community* speaks now. Greg L (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    Am I blocking anyone? Have I not vowed to respect consensus? Does my record indicate that I've ever blocked inappropriately, or failed to respect consensus? I'm watching the discussion with interest. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • How many are in this self-appointed "community"? I see three: Greg, Kai, and Born2Cycle. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Go up and count the number of editors who participated in this move discussion, PMA; that’s the “community.” And I’d tread very carefully if I were you given that you are restricted from weighing in on any article or talk page pertaining to technical aspects of English. The reason for that restriction was a long-standing pattern of making personal attacks on other editors with inflammatory crap like you just made here rather than offer up a thoughtful contribution. Greg L (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I shall write carefully. I have not attacked you; I have asked who an undefined community is. That is your answer; does anybody outside the three editors mentioned agree with that answer?
    • I do indeed recognize the claim that everybody who agrees with X in part (or on the basis of misunderstood policy or of WP:IDONTLIKEIT) is automatically a consensus for everything X wants. You don't like or believe that claim when it is made to you; why do you expect others to react differently? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I don’t even know again what you are driving at. I embrace Jimbo's conviction that the community's will, subject to the five pillars, is *the right thing*. Sometimes I don’t agree with the community consensus but I generally accept it. The only time I don’t is when the “consensus” was the product of a small cabal busy off doing its own thing despite a much broader consensus to do otherwise (which is in full accordance with WP:CONSENSUS). This is a move discussion where a large and diverse spectrum of the community (members, for the most part, in good standing and in good faith) is now doing its best to resolve a long-standing issue where it had previously proven difficult to balance conflicting principles. Please just accept the process and the outcome. Greg L (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
This hunt of PBS is a classic instance of a small cabal "off doing its own thing". The spelling issue (while, as I've said, unimportant except as an instance that we do not favour any national variety of English) is a classic example of a small cabal pursuing the same complaint in the hope that eventually the dice will come out in their favor. Neither is sound process; neither yelling nor appeals to reputation will change that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh. Well… just pardon me all over the place for being utterly shocked at what PBS did. If I had learned of it first, I would have taken him to ANI all by my lonesome and wouldn’t have needed a cabal to invigorate me. As it was, another admin blocked PBS for that wild stunt and took it went to ANI himself for affirmation. That ship has sailed. You characterize it as a “hunt”. I see… Anyway, I’m done dealing with you for the next 24 hours since my “Been There-Done That” meter pegged again. Ample electronic white space is available below for you to get in the last word. Greg L (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────@Pmanderson: Hardly a witch hunt, the first AN/I post was started by Thryduulf (who Opposes), and then Boink! posted a section asking for people to comment on his own actions. Admins on ANI by and large supported Boink! and some appeared to have been calling for PBS's tools. Rightly so. Your acceptance of his behavior is not becoming of you. -Kai445 (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so interested in questions of spelling on Wikipedia. I don't find them as theoretically interesting or challenging as matters of punctuation, or other semantically relevant domains like capitalisation. Is that just me? I don't think so. Spelling is by comparison so arbitrary, so buffeted by the accidental winds of history. I have therefore not taken part in the wrangling here. I favour "yoghurt", but I would not labour to advance anything beyond personal preference in support of it.
It does concern me when PMAnderson presses at the boundaries of his current year-long restriction. We have seen polemic incivility against MOS editors earlier, and now he is seen as arguing tendentiously in a proscribed area. Anyone unfamiliar with the history might be surprised at this sensitivity. Those who know the history will understand, and will want strict enforcement of the selective community ban – which is, after all, moderate compared to the alternatives that had solid support at the relevant dedicated ANI page, back in August. NoeticaTea? 01:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I didn't realize he was topic banned, or I would have just not acknowledged him from the get-go, and encouraged others to do the same. For those interested, you can read all about it here (AN:I/Pmanderson), as I have. Isn't his participation flying directly in the face of his censure? (or whatever it may be called... he did !cast an 'Oppose' without actually calling it 'Oppose'). Do you think that section of comment 'ought to be hatted with a notice? -Kai445 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
Crikey, I forgot that I started that action against PMA because he was haranguing User:GTBacchus!

Ignoring PMA only works for about 24 hours because eventually, someone responds to his provocative posts and then half a page fills up with flamewar.

User:Elen of the Roads stepped up to the plate as PMA’s ‘caretaker’ of sorts with regard to PMA’s restrictions, which are (very) formally stated at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. As I recall, there was no clear consensus on whether to restrict PMA from all RMs so those were left up in the air. Those who advocated including RMs in the restriction (notably, me) did so because many RMs are like this one (solidly pertaining to technical issues regarding English). However, other types of RMs are not (e.g. Disgusting breakfasts of the U.K.Toxic breakfasts of England).

When most editors are on such probation, they are exceedingly careful when treading into gray areas to keep their posts succinct and limited to pretty much a !vote amply supported with links to policy and guideline pages; you know: contribute to the project in a collegial fashion. But doesn’t take PMA long to revert to his old ways and ‘get personal’ and tendentious darn quick; ergo, my quick reminder to him that he was treading on thin ice here.

It’s quite unfortunate, really, because PMA has energy to spare and he freely devotes much of it to Wikipedia. Furthermore, his basic philosophy is one I agree with, which could be summarized as “Wikipedia is not in the business of trying to lead by example to change the English language because English is what it is.” But I saw that his intransigence on MOS and elsewhere had a deleterious effect on some valued wikifriends. I can’t tell you how many times I read something along the lines of “Well, it’s agreed then, but what are we gonna do about PMA if he objects?” I thought “What’s wrong with this picture?!? He’s just one editor.” Yes, but there is a near-infinite number of electrons at his disposal. Greg L (talk) 05:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

  • To clarify and correct some statements by Kai445 above, I started the initial AN/I section in response to the (now hatted) incivility in the #What's yoghurt? section, this was several days before the closure that sparked the edit war and blockings - it was even before that RM was opened. I do not oppose the move, but neither do I support it. I supported the closure of the discussion because I believe that the best thing to do for everybody would be to accept that regardless of what happened in 2003 there was no consensus in the just-before closed discussion to move the page back and to on. There is a part of me that wants to oppose the move so as not to reward the tactics of attrition and accusations of national bias, but as that is as bad a reason to oppose as righting an alleged wrong in 2003 is to support I am not doing so. I am also mature enough not to let this affect my judgement when it comes to discussing facts, rationales given for supporting or opposing and actions of other users and administrators. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean to put things in an incorrect context regarding the AN/I, I did not realize it originated prior to the move. I also assumed you were opposed to the move, but if your position is neutral I can respect that. I've struck out that portion of my comment, because I don't want to put any words in your mouth. -Kai445 (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Who wants to do the honor?

Who wants to do the honor of removing this article from WP:LAME? -Kai445 (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, with 8 years of dispute behind it over the letter "h", I really think it should stay there ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Someone should update it though. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
If I changed it, somebody is likely to revert simply because I did it. But someone should update to clarify that the lameness here was the 8 years of objecting to reversing the original bad (no consensus, no basis in policy or conventions) move. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it should stay, given its history remains. Maybe I'll update it, if nobody else takes to it. -Kai445 (talk) 23:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh grow up. You finally won your irrational war, can't you at least buzz off now? - BalthCat (talk) 07:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Do you mean for me to buzz off? You're replying to a fairly old post that was destined for the archives (but didn't get there, I'm not sure what the bot choked on). In fact, without any objection, I would love to move this thing there manually. -Kai445 (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
👍 Like. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What it currently says:

Yoghurt or Yogurt

Does it need the 'h'? Is "Yoghurt" the "traditional" spelling, and is it American cultural imperialism to not have it as such?[3] Apparently, the "correct" spelling is worth fighting for - again and again and again. And again. Etc. For over eight years. The first time around, this controversy spawned a thread on WP:ANI and led to a wheel war over a block placed due to a move of the page. Later occurrences involved arguments over the meaning of "stable" in the context of WP:ENGVAR, competing interpretations of WP:MOS, and LOTS of Google page counts. This active cultural war re-fermented in November 2003, June 2004, November 2004, May 2005, February 2006, October 2006, April–May 2007, June 2009, July 2009 (which spilled over into this ANI report), and again in November-December 2011, when it which spilled over into yet another ANI report and an edit war (with added full page protection and unprotection) over whether or not to close another requested move so soon after the last one [4],[5]. Apparently, some people don't know when to get the "H" out of there... or not.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Change suggestion.

Yoghurt or Yogurt

Does it need the 'h'? Is "Yoghurt" the "traditional" spelling, and is it American cultural imperialism to not have it as such?[6] Was the 2003 move from Yogurt to Yoghurt justified, or should it be corrected and the conflict settled by moving it back? Apparently, the "h" is worth fighting for - again and again and again. And again. Etc. For almost eight years.

The first time around, this controversy spawned a thread on WP:ANI and led to a wheel war over a block placed due to a move of the page. Later occurrences involved arguments over the meaning of "stable" in the context of WP:ENGVAR, competing interpretations of WP:MOS, and LOTS of Google page counts. This active cultural war re-fermented in November 2003, June 2004, November 2004, May 2005, February 2006, October 2006, April–May 2007, June 2009, July 2009 (which spilled over into this ANI report), and again in November-December 2011, when it which spilled over into yet another ANI report and an edit war (with added war over talk page protection/unprotection) over whether or not to close another requested move so soon after the last one [7],[8]. Apparently, some people don't know when to get the "H" out of there... or not.

After the ridiculous history was laid out in detail and the overwhelming arguments in favor of Yogurt were juxtaposed with the relatively weak support of Yoghurt, the conflict was finally resolved in December 2011 when a clear consensus of participating editors supported moving the article back to its original title, Yogurt. Finally.

--Born2cycle (talk) 23:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

  • I went ahead and amended it as I saw fit. -Kai445 (talk) 00:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • You seem to have done a fine job. Thanks. I was intimidated by the whole “moving” process. I took the liberty of deleting the IPA Turkish pronunciation (this is en.Wikipedia) from the lede since that is already covered in the Etymology and spelling section, where it is a better fit. Greg L (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • No, sorry, I've reverted that. It should not be written from the perspective of the "winner" and should not express a judgment of who was right and who was wrong - especially not from such a clear non-NPOV view. If anyone is to amend it, it should be someone uninvolved and neutral it should be someone writing in an uninvolved and neutral style. You've won the "Move" dispute, now can you please let it drop? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC) Updated as per discussion below -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Wow. You let WP:BATTLEGROUND go to your head here. Next time, you should take a deep breath before demonizing another editor’s edit as being biased-based and flat stating that my edit would be more suitable if *some other* editor made it. Had you carried through with your stunt and actually reverted me under such a policy-defiant basis, I would have taken you to ANI. Greg L (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Good point. I really just wanted it delisted originally, I'm not looking to keep going. I propose nobody involved edit it, then. -Kai445 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) (and now echoing Greg's point). Sorry, but this deserves a Facepalm3.svg Facepalm. Even for something as important as a BLP, WP:NPOV applies to the material be added or changed, not to the editor who is making the addition or change. It's one thing to say only an uninvolved editor should decide some dispute, but anyone should be able to change or add the words to an essay, and all that should matter is whether the change or addition reflects a NPOV, not whether the editor himself is neutral on the topic of the essay or the particular section of the essay.

      In this particular case it's not that important, of course, but we have to nip this kind of reasoning in the bud. We don't want people reverted simply for who they are without any objection specific to the actual change being made; all objections upon which reverts are based should be about the change itself, without regard to who made the change. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Indeed, I can’t even fathom what would motivate User:Boing! said Zebedee to suggest that my actions on this talk page (and I’m new to this issue) has somehow now disqualified me from making otherwise proper edits. I note that in his “support” vote, he wrote that this bickering over the spelling has been going in for eight <expletive deleted> years! Perhaps he is deeply frustrated. But I suggest User:Boing! said Zebedee go read up on wiki‑policy before telling another editor-in-good-standing that he has no right to edit this article. Greg L (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)That said, this edit is arguably not exactly in line with NPOV, LOL, so I support the revert on that grounds, not because of who made the edit. In other words, Kai should feel free to give it another shot, and as long as the change reflects an NPOV, it should be acceptable. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • As I said, it *was* written from the POV perspective of the "winner", and that's why I reverted it. But I should have been clearer and said "it should be someone writing in an uninvolved and neutral style", which is what I meant to imply - I am not telling anyone that they cannot edit an article, just that they must always do it from an NPOV perspective -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • 👍 Like. By the way, the problematic statement was this: " If anyone is to amend it, it should be someone uninvolved and neutral. ". --Born2cycle (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Everyone must write in an NPOV manner; you have not cornered the market on that virtue. If you want to revert an edit *I* make because it is incorrect or is POV-pushing, then fine. But make a good case here on this talk page for how exactly my edit is incorrect so that your arguments can be held up to the sanitizing effects of public scrutiny. What doesn’t make the grade is writing If anyone is to amend it, it should be someone uninvolved and neutral. Just who in the world do you think you are to write such a thing??

      Like B2C wrote all objections upon which reverts are based should be about the change itself, without regard to who made the change. So drop the attitude please about personalizing this by contesting *who* is editing. All I expect to see in the way of arguments out of you, Boing! said Zebedee, is precisely is what is wrong with anyone’s edits here so we can debate them and arrive at a consensus. Consensus rules here; not some editor marching around telling others they have no right to edit. I suggest you go up and strike the out-of-order parts of your original post; otherwise, your protestations as to what you really meant seem hollow. Greg L (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

      P.S. And, by the way, just where is this reverting you supposedly made; I can’t find it. And so far, I can’t see anything in the current article with which I take issue. Greg L (talk) 21:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Would it be too much to ask that you refrain from making unconstructive edits here on this talk page, not BAIT others, and not revert edits (or threaten that you thought you did or might-sorta-dida revert someone) because you think some other editor somehow lost the right to do so?

    Might I point out that your declaration of “Lame” is intended to posture yourself as a *Big Picture* sorta guy. But if this is all so WP:LAME, just why are you here with your hair so very much on fire that you would dare to suggest that I have no right to edit because of who I am?

    As long as anyone makes an edit to the article that best serves the interests of our readership, I personally have no problem with it; I’m sorta funny that way. Ergo, I have no problem with you editing this article so long as you aren’t doing so just to be provocative, to make a point, or to POV-push. M’kay? Greg L (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Jeez - I HAVE NEVER EVEN MENTIONED YOU, let alone told you anything about what you can or cannot do. I reverted Kai445's edit to the article WP:LAME and explained why to him, and he accepted it - the entry at WP:LAME is what this section is about! You can edit whatever you want, and I have NEVER told you you can't - in fact, I would never even dream of it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh dear. My mistake. I thought you were referring to reverting an edit *I* made. Well then. Go ahead and treat Kai445 differently and kick him in the nads. (← being facetious) I have no problem with you editing this article so long as you aren’t doing so just to be provocative, to make a point, or to POV-push. As I wrote before, if you have a problem with a specific edit please make a clear case in your edit summary. And if that results in your being reverted, then make a clear and rational case without personalizing it here on this talk page so your arguments can be subjected to the sanitizing sunshine of public scrutiny. And then please abide by the consensus view. M’kay? Happy editing. Greg L (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    P.S. The above thread was a whole bunch of talking past each other. Indeed, I entirely misconstrued who you were talking about and which edit you were talking about. Now I can at least see where you were coming from. Nonetheless, your suggested remedy (amounting to “You’ve lost the right to edit because of your close involvement with this seven-year-long cluster-pooch”) wasn’t at all kosher. Now that you’ve struck the offending text, we’re good. Greg L (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

    P.P.S. Thinking I understand what Kai445 was trying to do as well as what BsZ was objecting to, I tried my hand at further updating the “yogHURT” entry at “Lamest”. I think I managed to do so in a manner that updated it with the latest but managed to do so in the over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek manner necessary to make light of the vitriol that comes from the seemingly mundane. I’m not sure why this entire thread was being discussed here; it really belonged over there on Talk:Lame. Greg L (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me. And yes, all just a misunderstanding - but all's well that ends well. Cheers -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Not... quite. We've still got the issue of Strained yoghurt to address. MuuUUUHUUHHAAAHH!!! Doc talk 23:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Strained yoghurt

The following discussion has been moved to "Talk:Strained yoghurt". Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made at the new location. No further edits should be made on this page.

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)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Is everyone fine with discussing Strained yoghurt here or should we take this to that article’s talk page? I motion to transplant this entire thread to there. Otherwise, someone might be able to make a good case that a decision to move descended from seemingly nowhere. Greg L (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion to move the thread to Strained Yoghurt. -Kai445 (talk) 03:04, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Done. Further discussion on moving that article can be found here: Talk:Strained yoghurt#Move to "Strained yogurt"? Greg L (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Yog(h)urt is high in iron(y)

Did anyone else notice that the illustrative photo in the intro is called "File:Joghurt.jpg"? :) Dohn joe (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Photos and images can be uploaded with whatever file name the user who uploads the file wishes it to be. The file name could have been "File:Nudeguyonabeach.jpg" and it still would not have mattered, as long as the image is relevant to the article.--JOJ Hutton 19:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
And once again, my attempt at Wiki-humor fails miserably.... Dohn joe (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Unlucky. See Joghurt pablo 20:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


I propose that the only spelling that is used in the introduction paragraph, and standardised throughout the article, is "Yogurt". All alternative spellings should be relegated to the body of text dedicated to them. It's becoming annoying to have people adding minor variants, so lets agree to drop them from the lead altogether. Comments? -Kai445 (talk) 18:59, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty standard to list all spelling variants and alternative names in the lead of the article. See Color, for example. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:06, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, but where does it end? I am certainly comfortable with the two most widely used versions being in the title, there is no argument that "Yoghurt" still has a sizable number of users, but there is a wide margin between them and any other variant. As an alternate proposal, could we reach a consensus to retain the two previously used spellings in the lead (Yogurt and Yoghurt) but keep any other minor variant out of it? -Kai445 (talk) 19:16, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I can assure you that in British English, yoghourt is still a common spelling. Prior to 1970 it was in fact far and away the most popular spelling and anyone educated before that time would have been taught to spell it that way. It is still listed in all British English dictionaries. I do not think three variations excessive and I am quite happy for you to list the American spelling first. There is a fourth variation, Yogourt, but this has dropped out of use and disappeared from modern dictionaries so I don't see a need to list that.--Ykraps (talk) 19:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yogourt is used in Canada, albeit in a minor fashion. I've posted the ngram to your talkpage, there's virtually zero usage of "Yoghourt" in the corpus of the English language. Arguing that it was popular 40 years ago has no bearing on the article today (and if it was popular, ngram and ghits certainly don't show it). Give me an example of a major brand using it in more than one country, show me even a single national dairy industry (or council, depending on the country) using it in any English-speaking country (either defacto or de jure). The variant is simply non-notable. -Kai445 (talk) 20:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see the relevance. If majority usage was a determining factor, we would all be using American English (or possibly Indian English). The fact is it is still used and deserves to be included and if Canadians want to include the spelling, yogourt, I will support that too. I suspect that encyclopedia (encyclopaedia) has become the dominant spelling but no-one appears to be arguing about that.--Ykraps (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC) PS This appears to confirm what I was saying regarding British English usage prior to 1970.
This isn't as simple as saying, "Well, only 30% of people use it, so since America is dominant and 70% of the usage is their way, American imperialism reigns again." You are arguing for a word with practically zero worldwide usage. You can spell the thing Joghourt and throw in an umlaut somewhere, but arguing that someone, somewhere, uses it does not make it notable. You've made no case for its modern day inclusion, perhaps if this were 1955 your argument would be relevant. -Kai445 (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I have given you three different citations from three modern and trusted dictionaries in order to demonstrate notability. The Australian yoghourt manufacturers, Jalna use that spelling[[9]]. Why do you want to marginalise older people?--Ykraps (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────One manufacturer in one country. I'm sure you can find many archaic words in modern dictionaries, but if there is little to no usage, what makes it fit to be in the introduction? Put it in the "spelling differences" paragraph. -Kai445 (talk) 19:36, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The challenge was to find one manufacturer, which I have done. The usage may be archaic to you, whose experience spans perhaps a couple of decades and much of whose knowledge appears to have been gleaned from the internet, itself a comparatively recent innovation; but many of those people who were around in 1955, and whose opinion you wish to discard, are still around today and still use that spelling. I can't speak for foreign dictionaries but British dictionaries are remarkably good at adapting to changes in languages with 1,000s of new words and meanings being added with each edition. Archaic words are removed or labelled as such. 3 years ago yoghourt was still an acceptable spelling so not at all 'archaic'. I ask you again, why are you trying to marginalise older people?--Ykraps (talk) 20:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Actually the challenge was to find one manufacturer who uses it in more than one country, which you haven't done. Your argument for its importance is not compelling, and raising an ageism argument is ridiculous. -Kai445 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Really, so what was all that 'it's not 1955 so your arguments aren't valid' nonsense? What is ridiculous is your refusal to accept that 'yoghourt' is still a widely used and acceptable spelling. It appears in reliable sources: Collins English Dictionary: 3rd Edition. Glasgow GN4 0NB: Harper Collins. 1991. p. 1781. ISBN 0-00-433286-5. The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. p. 1822. ISBN 978 0050 10289 8 Check |isbn= value: checksum (help). Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 2044. ISBN 978-0198610571.  and is still used by 'yoghourt' manufacturers today. Although Jalna export a minimal amount of their product, they do export as do Loseley,[[10]] a British company that sell their 'yoghourt' in Hong Kong, Bahrain, Oman and Dubai. I don't really care whether you learn from this or not but to try to prevent others from accessing this knowledge seems to me to be against the spirit of Wikipedia and that of a self proclaimed inclusionist.--Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Will this nonsense never end?! Treat it as we do all other ENGVAR spellings. The primary mode has been decided. So we use that for the title, and the variations in the lead....... and then WE MOVE ON to things that matter. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, like how over half of the references for Strained yoghurt (the Danish and other refs may not be so good for the English WP, BTW) use "yogurt" as the spelling. Strained joghoourt, anyone? Doc talk 10:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's include it in the lead and move on.--Ykraps (talk) 18:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I think they mean to leave it as it is, which I support. "Loseley" is a poor example, because it's made by Dale Farm Ltd. and they spell it "Yogurt" every damn place other than a single product, "Loseley Yoghourt", which I believe is more about tradition than anything else. And it isn't damned 1955, I don't care if you're 25 or 105, your perception is warped if you think that "Yoghourt" is "widely used" today. Between Ghits and Ngram, you have to be blindly ignorant to believe that. -Kai445 (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to really get toooooo involved in this again, but I'd like to remind people that a lovely table from the last time I waded into the Yoghurt Wars suggests that .IE usage is strongly "yoghurt" and the argument that "yogurt is acceptable in EN-UK was irrelevant from the start as there are more than two kinds of EN. Table here Talk:Yogurt/Archive_5#Google_results_table. Also I'm highly dubious that WP:RETAIN is intended to trump eight years of consensus as yoghurt... but maybe I should shut my mouth if I haven't read the last explosion... (I did once say that I would support a change to yoghurt as long as we could agree it was DESPITE WP:RETAIN in the interest of ending the Yoghurt Wars, because if it spends say, a year as yogurt, arguments to change it back will likely NEVER gain any traction due to all the other good (but not previously sufficient) arguments for using yogurt.) - BalthCat (talk) 23:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
BalthCat, No consensus on the preferred variation of the name now means that RETAIN, as written now, applies now. RETAIN as written now clearly specifies the first non stub version.
I agree with Kai445 that the lead sentence should specify "Yogurt or yoghurt" as prominent contenders for most expected spelling, with other spellings given below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
BalthCat, you say, "I'm highly dubious that WP:RETAIN is intended to trump eight years of consensus as yoghurt". When I researched the history of this article I could not find evidence that consensus support was ever established for Yoghurt. Every RM discussion prior to the most recent resulted in a "no consensus" outcome. See Talk:Yogurt/yogurtspellinghistory. We did however recently establish consensus support for Yogurt. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
SmokeyJoe, that make sense to me, but I still object on the grounds that accepted convention seems to be to list all spellings in the lead. Without a good reason to invoke WP:IAR, and I don't see what makes this case unique, I don't see a way to support going to this approach. A few examples of other articles that do that long enough to be have consensus support would be enough to get me to change my mind on this. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
"to list all spellings" is an absurdity if you consider the variations used on almost every word in pre-Shakespear English. Obviously, there has to be some criteria. I think it should be "what our sources do". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I said "to list all spellings in the lead", meaning "to list spellings in the lead, rather than elsewhere in the article". Spellings so obscure that they wouldn't be mentioned anywhere in the article are not relevant here. I'm just saying that if a spelling is sufficiently notable and relevant to be mentioned in the article, then the convention is to list it in the lead, not in a separate section. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:33, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
@BalthCat, you need to refer to the Google Hit Comparison table, which includes .ie at the bottom. Talk:Yogurt/Archive_5#Google_results_table_2. In the 2-3 year period between ghit analysis, there has been a swing towards the "no-H" variety, most dramatically in Ireland ("Yogurt" now a 2:1 favourite). Further, the latest consensus could have been a snow close in favour of COMMONNAME. I believe the closing Admin had closed using RETAIN so that the Yogurt article couldn't be used as a precedent to start changing all sorts of things and jeopardize ENGVAR (but regardless, the resulting outcome was correct). I also think it is absurd to list every variant just because it may have been in use at some point, there are generally two spellings in 21st century English, Yogurt and Yoghurt. Yogourt in Canada as an exception, but that is most likely a result of idiotic labeling laws (and this isn't French Wikipedia). -Kai445 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Fruit is a yogurt starter

I can't find a source. I'm sure there are books on this kind of thing? Anyone? Badanedwa (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


what happenes to other microniutrients present in milk ? Milk seems to have more of those than yogurt ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vwalvekar (talkcontribs) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Yogurt, Yogourt, Yaourt,... whatever you call it. Turkish word for Armenian-Georgian milk product

I am disappointed with WIKIPEDIA in it's definition of Yogurt as it does not mention the true origines of this milk product. Furthermore, this definition perpetuates the now worldwide belief that Yogurt is of Turkish origine. To compound the insult, the WIKI definition of Madzoon or Matsoni refers the reader to the definition of Yogurt as 'similar to yogurt'. It would be a more complete definition if the one for Yogurt would refer the reader to the correct terms and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a big claim that goes against most of the documented evidence we have uncovered so far. If you can provide some references to support your claim, then we'll be able to consider it. Manning (talk) 07:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


I've tried to improve the section about the prolonged-but-finally-resolved debate about this article's title at WP:LAME#Yoghurt_or_Yogurt, but I keep getting reverted [11] [12].

The edit summary of that latest revert is ostensibly justified by saying I'm editorializing! At WP:LAME? LOL! That whole page is an editorial!

Suggestions? Help? Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Not bothering?--Ykraps (talk) 23:12, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
"Ostensibly"? You really need a dictionary, don't you? You are simply trying to get in the last word in a lame edit war in which you were involved, about how you were right, as you so often do. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
When I'm right, I'm right. What's wrong with documenting it? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

can i freeze the regular yogurt for later use? (^^^^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose keppel (talkcontribs) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

"Greek yogurt"

The article mentions Greek yogurt as popular in Australia but does not explain what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I know Greek yogurt as a thick unsweetened unflavoured yogurt used in cooking, or prepared as part of a larger dish (including with meat) and not normally eaten as-is. The single sentence in the article is a bit odd. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Greek yogurt in the U.S. is very trendy and is big business: just read this article about it. Doc talk 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
Greek yogurt is strained yoghurt. If only half as much energy went into writing an article that people can understand as goes into naming the article. Sigh. Wbm1058 (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

One year anniversary of title restored to original Yogurt

Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves#One_year_anniversary_of_title_restored_to_original_Yogurt_-_Lessons_learned --Born2cycle (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC) link no good --B2C 20:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Link to this discussion changed due to archiving: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_moves/Archive_24#One_year_anniversary_of_title_restored_to_original_Yogurt_-_Lessons_learned. --B2C
    • Wow, gloating. That's classy. - BalthCat (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
    • "As was predicted, as a result, nothing but peace regarding that article's title has ensued since, because no good reason in policy, guidelines or conventions exists to change the title again. Until the title was restored, the opposite situation existed." This is mostly correct. During one round of arguments we were at an impasse as to whether the original spelling rule applied. I openly stated that we could solve the issue by turning away from that argument completely, and seeking consensus to ignore that question completely, because once the change was made to "Yogurt" via consensus, there would be miniscule motivation to revert to "Yoghurt". You chose to ignore my suggestion for a compromise and, when you lost that attempt, you to repeatedly challenged the status quo because YOU felt it was wrong. Your arrogance in claiming (in your "lessons learned" peacock strut) that everyone who disagreed with you was stonewalling is infuriating and insulting, and your behaviour has directly contributed to my decision to avoid editing to avoid conflict. Stillness does not always equal peace. - BalthCat (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
      • The original spelling rule was the main reason provided, repeatedly, by countless people, to move the article. If we had ignored the original spelling rule, the article would probably have remained at Yoghurt, and nothing would be resolved.

        At best we might have been able to achieve a local consensus among those of us who happened to be participating at the time to ignore that rule, but we couldn't speak for, or make decisions for, those who would inevitably appear in the future (as eight years of history indicated they would), arguing that the original spelling rule did apply, and the title should be restored to Yogurt.

        So what would that resolve? What could that resolve? Is it any wonder nobody accepted your proposal? Thankfully reason and logic ultimately prevailed, and a consensus recognized that the original spelling rule did apply. --B2C 06:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

        • Did you even read what I said? I said I agreed with IAR to move it to Yogurt, how precisely did you interpret that to mean it would remain Yoghurt? The original spelling rule was rejected (for reasons I won't bother with) by as many people as supported you, in favour of the rule preserving non-American usage when it is the status quo, until your umpteenth attempt finally succeeded. I agreed with the premise that it would never end if it stayed at Yoghurt but that if it moved to Yogurt there would be no compelling reason to move it back. Which is why I suggested ignoring the VARIANT rule in order to achieve a lasting peace. I'm not annoyed you won, I'm annoyed you were, and remain, an arrogant jerk who refused to consider getting your way YEARS earlier because it wasn't under your own terms. You wanted to win based on the original spelling rule, despite a clear lack of consensus for *years* that it applied. BalthCat (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
          • Arrogance? It was recognition that there was no good reason to IAR the variant rule, and that there was no consensus to favor the move per IAR. I was but one !vote. You can't blame me for your inability to convince anyone else. The only path to stability regarding this title was through a policy-based move, per the variant rule, which was finally achieved. The only shame is in how long it took. --B2C 17:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

It's nice to see this was finally resolved- order restored. In many ways, this article had been the poster-child for the promotion of local preference; all the needless conflict that resulted should serve as a cautionary tale worth remembering.Mavigogun (talk) 12:43, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The legitimacy of this whole article is dubious and in doubt.

How can yogurt be Turkish in origin, when they were known to specifically drink horse milk? Yogurt cannot be made from horse milk and the Turks had little livestock since they were migratory and had become nomadic leaving their indigenous lands in the area that bordered Mongol territory. The Turks only successfully invaded all of ASIA minor in 1453AD, during the post-Roman modern period.

You had to have sheep or something close to a cow or buffalo. Since the Greeks, Phoenicians, Persians, Indians and others all have some written record of it, how can be Turkish? They are not an ancient people. They are dissident Mongol tribes and fled the Mongol Khans, A.K.A. The Seven Turkic Kingdoms.

Who does Pliny the Elder refer to as the barbaric tribes that "could thicken milk"? It is not cited here. Was it the Kelts or Scythians? The Classical Hellenic and Roman World had no contact with the area where the Turks come from in Central Asia.

If Pliny the Elder refers to the production of yogurt in 2,000 BCE which is well before the name "Turk" was ever used then what is the historical connection? "Turk" is a variation of the Greek word for barbarian (bar-bar-os or tar-tar-os [similar root to the word Tartar]) which was probably first used around 800 AD to refer to the people who came from the Mongol steps. The "Turks" have no written history that goes back this far. The first "Turkish" written records were Arabic and came much later. The Turkish written language was invented between 1910-20 (AD).

'Yur-thou' also means cream and could be from the Greek language, since many Turkish advisers were Greek and many Greek words were borrowed and "assimilated". A necessary development since Greek was spoken for several thousand years previous to the Turkish occupation of the historically classical and non-classical Greek lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yogurt is not Turkish in origin: the word yogurt came into the English language from the Turkish, c.1625.[13] Yogurt (the product) has been around for millennia. Doc talk 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Yogurt is a Turkish word. Quit stealing their history.--Ericg33 (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
edit is just over the top in terms of weaselly worded original reseach. Doc talk 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Well heres a funny suggestion. How about the article just reflect the sources within it, and nothing more?--JOJ Hutton 12:32, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Nameless Partisan asked "How can yogurt be Turkish in origin, when they were known to specifically drink horse milk? Yogurt cannot be made from horse milk and the Turks had little livestock since they were migratory and had become nomadic leaving their indigenous lands in the area that bordered Mongol territory. The Turks only successfully invaded all of ASIA minor in 1453AD, during the post-Roman modern period."

Setting aside that there is no claim here that Turks "invented" this variety of cultured milk: 1) the claim that Turks were exclusively drinkers of horse milk needs citation- produce a qualifying reference... if you can. 2)Yogurt may be and is made from horse milk... as well as cow, sheep, goat, camel, buffalo, and yak. 3)Shepherds are traditionally migrant. 4)Very little of the Turkish bloodline stems from the Mongol steps- the vast majority of the Turkish genetic heritage in Asia Minor is native to Anatolia; the people we label "Turks" are more native than not. Just a few things to chew on.Mavigogun (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

YORT/Yogurt(english)ORIGINATED from Turkish Central Asia

Added a bit to the article to show the truth. Historians know where yogurt originated.

Deleted the cut and paste copyright violation from that URL. --jpgordon::==( o ) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Why does this article mislead by saying that the origin is unknown

Yogurt is from Central Asia and is probrably from the Neolithic. -- (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


Yogurt in Greek is pronounced "yaourti" I removed the "see also" link to this page. This is obviously not a talk page, but a user essay. If it's going to remain a talk page, it should be stripped of all personal spin, and presented as a simple timeline. If it's going to be one user's never-ending attempt to gloat over something so hideously trivial, it should be moved to user-space. Rather than revert again, I'll ask what everyone else thinks. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's neither a talk page nor an essay. It's a subpage of this talk page, a talk page adjunct, an explicitly listed allowed use of subpages on WP. WP:SUBPAGES#Allowed uses. --B2C 04:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
It's an essay, and has been marked as such for quite some time. Under "Allowed uses", I see things such as GA reviews and to-do lists. "Born2cycle's victory dance" is conspicuously absent. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
How could it be a victory dance? Revealing that you view it that way, but, sorry, it was created before there was any "victory". In fact, it was arguably instrumental in finally achieving consensus about this title.

It has been mismarked since it was first marked as an essay. It was always supposed to be a simple factual and verifiable (well cited) summary of events relevant to the 7 year long debate about this title. It's not common, but a perfectly reasonable talk page adjunct subpage. The situation regarding this title was not common either.

I am working on removing all "spin" that uh slipped into some of the verbiage. --B2C 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I think the page was a significant summary and resource for the final page move of 10 December 2011. This history was properly updated, finally at 18:16, 28 November 2012, by User:Born2cycle. I thank him for doing that. That's where the yogurt story should have ended. Subsequently, beginning with

    23:14, 10 July 2013‎ Born2cycle (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,912 bytes) (+8,748)‎ . . (→‎May 12-17 2005 - RM #1: Detailed analysis)

    the page has increasingly been turned into an opinionated useressay.

    The version of 18:16, 28 November 2012 should be preserved (reverted to) for the historical record, for anyone interested in the history leading to the 10 December 2011 page move. The subsequent single-author revisionist edits are offensive to the historical record.

    B2C should be free to fork that page and essayify it as currently done, in his userspace. (although personally I feel that these activities are a net negative to the project, and that B2C should be asked to try to find worthwhile ways to contribute) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Considering the scope of the conflict, partisans that succumbed to fatigue may re-emerge to renew edit waring; I view current focus on the ego and motive of participants as a meta surrogate for that conflict. A link to a compendium of the name convention debate has utility here; I estimate any attempt to edit such a document to mitigate the personalities of the participants as folly. Frankly, our only concern should be how the compendium serves this article- that the document may also function as a gloating gesture is irrelevant.Mavigogun (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant. I agree with Joe and Joe. It's become a user essay, clearly related to the "Yogurt principle" essay. Omnedon (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Joefromrandb (talk · contribs) reverted supposedly to a version that is less of an essay, but look at the diff. Blatant POV statements made by yours truly, that I've taken out recently, have now been restored. Actual copy/pastes of relevant quotes from previous discussions have now been removed. It seems to me this was not done mindfully. --B2C 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

  • I think it should be treated as an historical document and archived, as it was, end of 2012. Attempting to weeding out POV that existed at the time of the last RM is not desirable, but impossible and destructive to the value of the archive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I reverted to the version suggested by Smokey Joe. If you, Born2cycle, have a better version in mind, by all means restore it. The main issue is that it should serve readers as a bona fide adjunct sub-page. I second Smokey Joe's suggestion of forking it to your user space and creating an essay if you desire yet another message to the community that you were "right". Joefromrandb (talk) 00:59, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Any version from the past is easily accessible. If a particular version is of interest, store the link at the top of the page, here, or whereever, with a descriptive comment as appopriate.
    • The version suggested by Smokey Joe was more problematic in a number of ways, including the lead, than the version that was replaced. I've since fixed that. I hope we all agree these changes to the version you restored is an improvement (removal of POV spin and addition of some salient verifiable date and discussion-summary facts).
    • This article's title was controversial for seven years. Whether there are any valuable lessons to be learned from that, and what those lessons may be, is a matter of opinion (and a proper topic for an essay). However, having a well-cited objective summary chronicle of the history of the title may be useful for anyone interested in determining this for themselves, to save them from having to slog through all of the history. Trust me, that takes hours and hours and hours. The better this summary is (complete, accurate, POV spin removed, well referenced), the more helpful it can be to others.
    • We all agree it should be a bona fide adjunct sub-page. I don't think anyone wants it to be an essay or contain any message.
    • There is no reason to retain any blatant POV spin that is still in there. Any improvement to making it a plain objective and properly cited chronicle of what happened regarding discussion and debate over this article's title should be welcome. That means adding relevant verifiable facts is just as fine as removing POV spin. There is no reason we can't apply the same principles of balance, verifiability, NPOV, etc. to this adjunct sub page as we do to our articles. Think of it as an article about an internal WP subject matter.
    • Anyone interested should be welcome to edit it accordingly. Anyone not interested should certainly be able to find something else to do.
    • If anything in particular is misleading or problematic in any other way, please fix it or point it out on the talk page of the adjunct sub-page so someone else can fix it.
    • Let's not make a bigger deal out of this than we already have. --B2C 03:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
      • I like the idea of having the page as a reference with a neutral pov, and think it works better than having a pov just for sake of history. Although I'm not sure what the controversy is, even after reading through this section. -Kai445 (talk) 22:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move No.?, 13 April 2014

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

The result of the proposal was not moved. WP:SNOW. So much snow. I really don't have the words for how not moved this is. --BDD (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

YogurtYogurt / Yoghurt – We should include both spellings in the title, that would stop the controversy. (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Dear God No. Calidum (Edits) 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose this will be a comprise that pleases absolutely no one and will likely work out about as well as the time something like this was tried at the Sega Genesis article.-- (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply scary. By what guideline would this even look like it is an acceptable title? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose and speedy close per you must be joking. - there is no policy based reason for such a move. There is no controversy, and there has not been once since the Yogurt title was finally restored over two years ago. --B2C 19:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • OpposeMaurice07 (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose — Those names already redirect to Yogurt, and so it is unnecessary. If the title were to be the proposed, then all searches would have to be redirected; no one is going to type in Yogurt / Yoghurt. Dustin (talk) 01:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 2009 Daily Telegraph article. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose WP:SUBPAGE subpage type locations should not be used. WP:PRECISE/WP:CONCISE, this is a longer title that adds no precision. -- (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


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

Cacik is not yougurt variety; it is dish

The caption says "Cacık, a Turkish cold appetizer yogurt variety"; This implies that "cacik is a type of yogurt", isn't it? which is wrong. cacik is appetizer; dish made of standard yogurt.--ArazZeynili (talk) 05:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I fixed it for whomever wrote the caption. Cheers :) Doc talk 05:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Matzoon be merged into Yogurt. I think that the content in the Matzoon article can easily be explained in the context of Yogurt, and the Yogurt article is of a reasonable size that the merging of the small Matzoon article will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Note the existing reference to "madzoon" within the Yogurt article. One is essentially a national or regional subset of the other, and madzoon or matzoon are generally terms used among ethnic communities throughout the world to refer to yogurt in general. Discussion of the Caucasus varieties could easily be done within the context of yogurt and as a sub within the Yogurt article. There is otherwise considerable duplication and overlap between the articles. Xenophonix (talk) 22:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable The same argument applies to most of the entries in the Fermented milk products. Are you suggesting to delete them all and adding their content into Yogurt article? Matzoon is distinct fermented milk product widely documented in medival manuscripts (sourced in the article), predating any original sources mentioning yoghurt.--Hayordi (talk) 09:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
This discussion has been ongoing on Talk:Matzoon#Merger proposal. Let's keep it at one place. --Off-shell (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

More info on bacterial fermentation of milk

There is hardly any info on this .. please add for completeness .. Leningrad (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Mâst Chekide

It doesn't sound to me that Mâst Chekide is at all pesto-like: the only thing in common is the fact that it has herbs and salt in it. With no oil or cheese, how is it pesto-lie, and how does linking it to pesto help? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-dairy "yogurt"

Just because something looks like milk or even vaguely resembles milk in taste, doesn't mean it is milk and can be used to make yogurt, as defined in this article. By definition, yogurt is a fermented dairy product, whereby certain strains of bacteria digest the lactose in the milk and convert it to lactic acid. If manufacturers create an artificial concoction and call it "yogurt", it still doesn't mean it is yogurt, and in some jurisdictions it may be unlawful to label it as such. If the "milk" is made from plant sources, it does not contain lactose and cannot support the conventional lactic acid producing bacteria cultures.
If editors want to discuss non-dairy substitutes for yogurt, that discussion should be set apart in a separate section, or better, in a separate article. The two topics should not be interwoven, as this causes confusion, and imparts misinformation to the reader. — QuicksilverT @ 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

"If the "milk" is made from plant sources, it does not contain lactose and cannot support the conventional lactic acid producing bacteria cultures." Not trying to be a dick, but this suggests a lack of understanding. Lactic acid bacteria can ferment sugars besides lactose, unless you wish to proclaim that cabbage (as in kimchi) contains milk sugars. LAB can also ferment fructose and, to a lesser extent, sucrose. As to whether it should be called "yogurt" if it's made from non-dairy "milk," well that's just pointless semantics AFAIAC. This non-dairy section needs some work in order to be accurate. E.g.: "soymilk is suitable for the growth of lactic acid bacteria, especially bifidobacteria" (talk) 13:52, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Various commercial vegan yogurt starters seem to contain the exact strains of bacteria mentioned in the article for producing dairy yogurt: ie Lactobacillus bulgaricus and Streptococcus thermophilus, so the claim in the article that "it is not possible to produce genuine yogurt from plant sources with the same bacteria cultures used to convert milk into yogurt" seems to be fundamentally incorrect. I guess, one could argue still that the resulting product is not yogurt if it has not come from dairy milk. But, I don't think we can argue that non-dairy yogurt isn't yogurt because it is cultured using different bacteria, because that simply isnt true. (talk) 07:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Yogurt title dispute history and resolution used as precedent

The dispute history and eventual final resolution of this article's title is being referenced as precedent at Talk:Humour]. --В²C 01:29, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, but why is this article at Yogurt anyway? And why did the attempt to move Humour need advertising/canvassing here? In ictu oculi (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

list of instructions probably more suited to the main article.


I just removed this list of instructions. It is long and detailed, but does not seem appropriate as a much shorter "you strain it through a filter" seemed fairly adequate for a section summary of the main article:

Once yogurt is made and refrigerated overnight, it is poured in a muslin or cheesecloth bag and hung in the coolest place in the house, with a tub placed underneath to collect the dripping whey. In cold weather a single day (or night) of straining is sufficient. In higher ambient temperatures yogurt will spoil rapidly, therefore it had best be actively squeezed or strained until about a third or more of its initial weight has run off. The remainder is now strained and is refrigerated again.

IMHO this would need a lot of expansion to make it cover everything (for example paper is not included as a filter type), or chopping down to a synopsis would leave little more than the previous sentences. I would suggest it should be included in the main article that is linked from the top of that section; Strained yogurt Chaosdruid (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


I removed a dubious claim cited to what seemed a weak source, which had been flagged up as dubious since March. Could better sources be found to back up a claim? Could any further claims like this please be discussed here first? --John (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Please rewrite this sentence: "Milk may have become spontaneously and unintentionally infected [sic] through contact with plants, or bacteria may have been transferred from the udder of domestic milk-producing animals.[17]"

Inanimate substances cannot be "infected"; only living organisms can: "Infection is the invasion of an organism's body tissues by disease-causing agents, their multiplication, and the reaction of host tissues to these organisms and the toxins they produce.[1] Infectious disease, also known as transmissible disease or communicable disease, is illness resulting from an infection."

Since it's difficult to substitute another word for "infected," the sentence should be recast, e. g., "Milk may have unintentionally come in contact with bacteria from plants or from the udders of domestic animals." (The phrase, "milk-producing" is redundant.) Autodidact1 (talk) 21:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Bulgarian yogurt

Bulgarian yogurt is not a different product. Should be merged here. Next time we have San Marino pizza because San Marino is an independent country. -- (talk) 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^