Talk:Strained yogurt

Merger proposal

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

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

I think you are mixing up three different things:

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

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

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

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

It is definitely a marketing name. Same type of product is made traditionally in Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia. Additionally in Serbia and Macedonia they even make difference between yogurt and sour milk ( kiselo mleko ). It is traditionaly made in huge baked clay pots. I am pretty sure that by Greek producers this is not the case. And you could literally cut this in cubes, it was so thick. Industrial way of adding cream, powdered milk and other "cheat" ingredients cannot, clearly, pass as PDO.

One additional thing, as Greeks manage somehow to protect Feta cheese as PDO which is a common type of cheese in south east Balkan ( that type of cheese was not made Greeks, Aromanians, Serbians and Bulgarians, Armenians as well ) even-tough not even the name is Greek , yogurt is not a Greek word as well. So what they would try to protect there, can be protected only by corrupted judicial system of EU, just like they did for Feta cheese. Pixius talk 19:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(ed: I have no idea how to do this or put a timestamp) I strongly oppose this merger on the simple grounds that they are two distinct dishes with simple a common word in their title: That is to say; should Matzoh bread and French bread be put into the same article?.: or for that matter; should WarCraft and StarCraft be put into the same article?. Let's use some common sense here; why lineate articles where people are coming here looking for two different dishes.Shalashaska824 (talk) 12:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Merging in labneh

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

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

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

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

"Labneh is a common breakfast food among Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip."

Doesthis need a source?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.201.203 (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC) 

Bulgarian yoghurt

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

Dahi?

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

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

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

Dahi

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

Moved from "Greek yoghurt"

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

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

I agree as well, except the part o word "yogurt" which is Turkic in origin ( not Turkish ). Same thing would be called in south Balkan "kiselo mleko" same product as yogurt. But as i sad before, it is definitely a marketing name. Same type of product is made traditionally in Serbia, Bulgaria, Macedonia. Additionally in Serbia and Macedonia they even make difference between yogurt and sour milk ( kiselo mleko ). It is traditionaly made in huge baked clay pots. I am pretty sure that by Greek producers this is not the case. And you could literally cut this in cubes, it was so thick. Industrial way of adding cream, powdered milk and other "cheat" ingredients cannot, clearly, pass as PDO.

One additional thing, as Greeks manage somehow to protect Feta cheese as PDO which is a common type of cheese in south east Balkan ( that type of cheese was not made Greeks, Aromanians, Serbians and Bulgarians, Armenians as well ) even-tough not even the name is Greek , yogurt is not a Greek word as well. So what they would try to protect there, can be protected only by corrupted judicial system of EU, just like they did for Feta cheese. Pixius talk 19:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Would like to re-create labneh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labneh is usually salted as well. It isn't simply strained. It's quite sour and salty. It should be its own page or sub-category under strained yogurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigaddie (talk • contribs) 06:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Citations

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

Sun Valley Voskos Greek Yogurt

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

Complaint

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

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

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

Article name

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

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

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

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

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

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

Move to "Strained yogurt"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Words of wisdom

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

And I want the "go back to first contributor" clause to be consistently followed. But at least I advocate consistent following of all policies and guidelines across the project, not just a few cherry-picked ones here or there when they happen to favor my position.

— User:Born2cycle^[4]

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

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

It has been brought to my attention that my words (above) have been quoted here, implying that wording should apply to not moving this article. That's not true. The "first contributor" rule is an excellent way to resolve endless ENGVAR squabbles (that is, when they cannot be otherwise resolved). It is not clear that we have such a case here, where there are good reasons to change the title (and English variety usage of the article). Most notably, for this spinout article to maintain consistent usage with its parent, and because this particular spelling is generally used less and less in reliable sources in all English varieties.

But, yes, if we cannot achieve consensus support for a change on these grounds, then the first contributor rule should apply. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Motion to start an RM then?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is tangential, even off topic, but interesting. Wikis in other languages can be fascinating to browse. One way to locate such content is via the left sidebar alternate language links. Here is the English language article on May; compare it to May on the wiki in Norfuk/Pitkern (remember Norfolk and Pitcairn Islands are in the southern hemisphere, in which May is an ortum, or autumn, month). –Newportm (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Motion to add a new section to LAME

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

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

Generalization "in the west"

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

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

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

Is there a neutral way of mentioning how basically all yogurt is being called Greek in the US now? Like, even the yogurt clusters in granola.. or the ridiculous concept of "low-fat Greek yogurt" that is clearly thin and watery and not remotely strained or concentrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.130.241 (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Labneh and Greek yoghurt

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

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

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

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

I agree with this point here. Every time I have eaten labneh in the middle east, it is salted. This is markedly different from simple strained yogurt and if a new page opens for labneh, this should be mentioned as the definition of labneh: Salted and strained yogurt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigaddie (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm very worried if visitors to this page will think it is nutritionally similar to strained yogurt because of this page. The homemade strained yogurt balls described by Spruce Eats are not the only version of this product. There is variation in the acidity and fat content of commercially produced products in different countries. Creamy versions are used as a substitute for other products like Requeijão in some countries but also the ball cheese version available in others. Wouldn't it be possible to avoid this by having a new article for labne? Incaoases (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Motion to start an RM: Redux

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

The result of the move request was: Move. While the arguments to retain the "h" spelling are compelling, there is consensus that "yogurt" is increasingly popular in British English and it's clearly the most common spelling elsewhere. This will also ensure the article matches the main article. Cúchullain ^t/c 14:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Strained yoghurt → Strained yogurt – – Per commonname, and also provides consistency with the primary article title. -Kai445 (talk) 07:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

the above RM header was added to convert the below discussion to a requested move; some of the !votes were made before it was an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 08:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Including your own !vote. There was already a consensus forming pre-RM. You were the one who wanted it, and now you are going to start being nit-picky? It does not make their opinion, nor your own, any less important. -Kai445 (talk) 16:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining, just trying to clarify for people showing up via WP:RM who don't know the history of this otherwise odd-sounding RM that includes proposals to start an RM. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The motion was to start an RM. Do that if you think there's consensus to move, instead of just moving from the long-stable name. Dicklyon (talk) 06:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The page was stable before User:Some standardized rigour moved it without consensus on May 10.[8] He also claimed there was a consensus for the move on the talk page when there was not. As the above link shows, the page was stable for years as strained yogurt, so you've got the facts exactly backwards. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The flip side of that log is here. It's easier to see what's happening by looking at history and searching for "moved ". The move you're complaining about was simply undoing this one of a few days earlier. It looks to like the article has occupied the "Strained yogurt" name for about several short periods out of 6 years, but yoghurt has been the original and stable one. Born2cycle had to resort to the original spelling argument to get Yogurt moved, but looks like he'll need a different argument here. Dicklyon (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

There's no need for a RM. We have consensus right here, right now, and the parent article is correctly named yogurt. Please stop trying to make Wikipedia a bureaucracy. As you well know, it is not. Viriditas (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I put it on RM. Figure I'd rather deal with the bureaucracy now and get a conclusive closing from a third party if possible. Unnecessary perhaps, but why not humour the editor who suggested it. -Kai445 (talk) 07:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Viriditas, even if you don't want to examine the article history, it was very obvious in my edit summary that I was reverting a move away from the long-established Strained yoghurt that occurred just days earlier. SSR (talk) 08:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Support move. Stability is one thing, consistency is another. This food product should be spelled in accordance with the main article, Yogurt. Doc talk 07:57, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

You should start an RM first. Dicklyon (talk) 08:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd first rather expand on the phenomena known as "greek yogurt", which is a huge hit in the U.S. right now. What is I see in this article is not what I see elsewhere. The manufacturers say they strain the yogurt an extra time to produce "greek yogurt" - the sentence in the lead "In the West, the term "Greek yoghurt" has become synonymous with strained yoghurt" is simply not accurate at all. We'll see where this one goes. Cheers :> Doc talk 08:15, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Such a move would clearly be controversial; it might gain consensus, and it might not. For now, I oppose. I'll put that in bold so you'll notice. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – see discussion above; no need to disrupt a long-stable name just because Born2cycle finally got his way at Yogurt. Dicklyon (talk) 16:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Describing a consensus opinion about a collaboratively edited article as some individual ...finally [getting] his way... puts the emphasis in the wrong place. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose – the name here is both original and long-stable. Oculi (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
• Move - Keeping this page under the yoghurt variant is strained usage :)  –Newportm (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Titling the article with the /h/ was the original choice of a user whose edit history includes ONLY this single edit, whose English mastery is non-native, whose familiarity with editing this encyclopedia may be questioned. At the time this article was created, the main article,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yogurt&oldid=91350570 appears to have been spelled without the /h/, and was also created without the /h/. To allow this to stand as strained yoghurt is not encyclopedic because the root comes not from the UK but from Turkish yoğurt. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 15:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

This RM is for the Strained yoghurt article, not Yogurt. SSR (talk) 08:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct; it's about yogurt which has been passed through some type of straining device such as cloth. That is strained yoghurt's chief differentiation I'm aware of. Apparently there's enough to it that it warrants its own article. –Newportm (talk • contribs) 17:54, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Yoghurt" is the normal UK spelling. Martinvl (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC) Martinvl (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The parent article is spelled "Yogurt". The Turkish root word was always spelled without the "h".[9] The UK does not necessarily dictate "normal" spelling. But, the sun never sets on this debate, does it? Doc talk 08:14, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It is not the common UK spelling. That was already gone thoroughly over when the Yoghurt -> Yogurt move happened. Creamfields, Tesco, Sainsbury, Yeo Valley, Muller, Longley Farm, Frae, Activia (Dannon), and more all use the "Yogurt" spelling on their products. Ghit results are 1:1. The latest OED primary entry is "Yogurt". The latest Oxford Style Manual says to use "Yogurt". -Kai445 (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Kai445, this is a rather one-sided analysis. What about British dairy companies that do use the yoghurt spelling? What about the primary entries in the UK's Chambers dictionaries or in the standard reference dictionaries for Australia and New Zealand? What about some of Oxford's older (but not yet ancient) editions of its style guides? SSR (talk) 08:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:COMMONNAME applies to words or phrases NOT varieties of spelling. No reason to rename article. Zarcadia (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support per consistency with main article. It looks ridiculously unprofessional for us to have different spellings in related articles. Powers ^T 22:37, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Spelling here should be consistent with the main article. Oxford gives "yogurt" as both the British and American spelling. Kauffner (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

"Oxford gives 'yogurt' as both the British and American spelling." This should read: "Oxford Dictionary of English and New Oxford American prefer yogurt." Neither dictionary labels a variant as the "American" or "British" spelling.

We can also consider the Oxford dictionaries of other English-speaking countries. Canadian Oxford prefers the bilingual yogourt, deviating from the more common spelling in Canada (yogurt) that is preferred by many other Canadian authorities. Australian Oxford prefers yoghurt, as does the Australian Macquarie. New Zealand Oxford also prefers yoghurt. SSR (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:ENGVAR (WP:RETAIN). The article history of Strained yoghurt is clearly behind yoghurt: there is no question about how "established" yoghurt is in this article and the first non-stub revision consistently uses yoghurt. At the last two Yoghurt→Yogurt RMs for the article then controversially titled Yoghurt, I did not come to a conclusion about whether yoghurt was "established", so I did not "support" or "oppose" either of them (I was more concerned that they were closed in accord with WP:ENGVAR, which they were; Yoghurt is now back at Yogurt, where there should be no strong argument to move that article now that the title is in line with the first non-stub revision). So, for Strained yoghurt, I can see no reason for a move, just as I can see no reason for moving Yogurt (now that it's back where it should be titled, according to the first non-stub revision). In addition to Strained yoghurt's history, it is worth considering:
  • While their preferences differ, major English-language dictionaries recognize both yoghurt and yogurt without regional labels (including American Heritage and Merriam-Webster's Collegiate). Neither spelling is "wrong".
  • WP:COMMONNAME does not override WP:ENGVAR where there is regional variation in the spelling of a word (see WP:COMMONNAME and the closing of the December 2011 Yoghurt→Yogurt RM). While yoghurt/yogurt regional variation is not as simple as center/centre or color/colour, it is still undeniably present—yoghurt is more common in Australia and the UK, while yogurt is preferred in Canada and the US (see, for example, this word's entry in The Cambridge Guide to English Usage or in descriptive online sources)—so ENGVAR applies. In other words, how "common" yogurt is judged to be is entirely dependent on the variation of English used.
  • While some may prefer the spelling in related articles to "match", this is completely irrelevant per WP:ENGVAR, which clearly stipulates that consistency should be "within a given article" (i.e., not to fulfill encyclopedia-wide consistency where there is regional variation in the spelling of a word). Frozen yogurt and Soy yogurt retained their spelling while Yoghurt was thus spelled; why must Strained yoghurt now match Yogurt? (Or, for example, why must Personal armor match Armour? Orange (colour) match Color? Operating theater match Theatre? What about Orthopaedic nursing and Orthopedic surgery?) Piping means that "strained yoghurt" can read as "strained yogurt" in the article Yogurt and "yogurt" can read as "yoghurt" in the article Strained yoghurt.
  • It could be argued that yogurt is more acceptable in British English than yoghurt is in American English. So, because grey is more acceptable in American English than gray is in British English, does Variations of gray need to be moved to match Grey? No. Should we move Orthopedic surgery to Orthopaedic surgery because orthopaedic is more acceptable in American English, particularly among specialists who use this word, than orthopedic is in some other countries? No. Why? WP:ENGVAR.
  • Moving Strained yoghurt would entail complete disregard for WP:ENGVAR by endorsing encyclopedia-wide spelling standardization, the use of WP:COMMONNAME without acknowledging regional variation, and forced interpretations of WP:COMMONALITY. As a precedent, this could not only be extrapolated to article titles and the spelling within articles with a region-specific spelling in their title (and this alone is extensive): Kai445 (talk · contribs) has previously indicated that they would consider a Strained yoghurt→Strained yogurt RM as justification for mass yoghurt→yogurt edits in other articles. There had been concerns at Talk:Yogurt during that article's December 2011 RM that a move would set a dangerous precedent for ignoring WP:ENGVAR; while I don't think that was the case there (given the move back to the original spelling was justified by ENGVAR), a move here is effectively a licence to ignore ENGVAR when it should not be ignored.

Whatever your personal preference is for the spelling of yog(h)(o)urt, both yoghurt and yogurt are acceptable and common spellings; there is therefore no good reason to move Strained yoghurt to Strained yogurt (or, similarly, to move Soy yogurt to Soy yoghurt). Insisting on such spelling consistency for separate articles' titles is entirely unsupported by WP:ENGVAR. For those who disagree with WP:ENGVAR and would like to see it changed to prescribe certain spellings such as yogurt, the discussion should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Let's not bring back the spirit of Yoghurt—a controversial article title that was finally undermined by the spelling used in the first non-stub revision of that article—by endorsing a move to Strained yogurt here. SSR (talk) 08:01, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• If the basis for using "yoghurt" is ENGVAR, this spelling should be part of a recognized variety of English that the article is written in. But the British dictionaries and yogurt makers no longer use the "h" spelling, according to The Telegraph. Kauffner (talk) 12:57, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

It is simply predicted in that article that yoghurt will "disappear" from British English based on a trend observed in packaging. Furthermore, neither British dictionaries nor manufacturers should be considered a single entity. Yes, Oxford's British dictionaries prefer yogurt, but the preferences are not uniform among the British dictionaries collectively: for example, Collins dictionaries also prefer yogurt, while Chambers' offerings prefer yoghurt. If the British dictionaries seem too divided, the Australian and New Zealand dictionaries are behind yoghurt with their preferences. The descriptive, corpus-based The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, which this article is dependent on, has yoghurt as more common in Australia (yoghurt is "ahead on database evidence") and the UK ("British writers clearly prefer" yoghurt), and yogurt as more common in Canada (yogurt is "by far the most common") and the US (yogurt "is standard"). This is similarly described here. While it may be uncommon in North America, yoghurt is prevalent in other recognized varieties of English. SSR (talk) 06:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The spelling is on its way out, worldwide. It's not a prevalent spelling, but one that exists in the English language in some regions. These are good regions! They are not "wrong". The redirect from "Yoghurt" will explain why the spelling variants are there. We should fix it for the greater understanding of the history of the product. Doc talk 06:54, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Whether it's prevalent or not depends on the variation of English. SSR (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I see more weight towards the COMMONALITY argument, myself. Rules and guidelines are meant to evolve over time. Real-life time has changed the "yoghurt" spelling, and we can do nothing but reflect it. We can lag behind the rest of the world in this sub-article if we want to, but it shouldn't be for reasons of a Wikipedia MOS that is meant to evolve as well. If it's kept at the spelling that it is, I see it as being for mostly "by-the-book" procedural reasons instead of "common sense" reasons. Doc talk 07:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Kauffner, that British spelling has changed, so WP:COMMONALITY. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
• Support. The debate over the title of Yogurt has been over for more than a year now, and that article is now clearly stable at that title for a variety of reasons. This article is a spinout of that article. That is, if not for making that article too long, the content of this article could easily be included in the main yogurt article, as a subsection. In fact, the title of the relevant subsection in the main article, that links to this article, is Strained yogurt. It's just silly to have this spelling inconsistency between these closely linked articles.

  Also, that article was created in 2006, when the title of the main article was Yoghurt. So it's no surprise that this article's title followed that spelling then. It should continue to follow its spelling today, which means moving it now.

  Note to the closer: If you are about to close this discussion as "no consensus", I urge you to review the sordid history of the debate over the title of the main article, and to not make the same mistake that multiple closers made there year after year - ignoring the strength of the arguments supporting a move, and instead essentially counting !votes, and closing such discussions as "no consensus". That happened at least 7 times over at least 8 years, before logic and reason finally prevailed. Don't let that happen here. Please. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Some comments:

WP:ENGVAR treats each article separately (there is no "main article" clause). This isn't the Yogurt article, where the "wrong" (the original move of Yogurt to Yoghurt) was finally "righted" (by moving Yoghurt back to Yogurt) a year ago. There is no "wrong" to "right" here.

Of course the subsection of the Yogurt article is spelled "Strained yogurt". WP:ENGVAR demands consistency within articles; it would be ridiculous if it didn't.

It is interesting that you choose to support a move away from the original title and the spelling consistently used in the first non-stub version of Strained yoghurt given your comment quoted above. The Yoghurt article should have been moved back to Yogurt much earlier, as you've long argued. This is a different article, with a much less controversial history (at present). I don't understand how moving away from Strained yoghurt to Strained yogurt is suitable for a "no consensus" closure here. (To elaborate: Strained yoghurt is the original title, reflects the usage in the first non-stub version of the article, and is the status quo; Yoghurt was not the original title and did not reflect the usage in the first non-stub version of the article, but became the (controversial) status quo, and was then moved back to Yogurt.)

SSR (talk) 06:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

The status quo often changes, as does consensus. There's a lot of "rule-sticklering" to these arguments that are seemingly against progression. Yoghurt is an outdated and increasingly uncommon spelling that can be redirected to the more accepted spelling here, as it already is. We don't need "Line A, Subsection 3c" of the MOS (or any other WP guideline) to avert the inevitable. IAR in this case, I say. Doc talk 06:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

SSR, if you really want to get into the Wikilawyering nit picking regarding ENGVAR, essentially, we're simply suggesting a slight extension to WP:CONSISTENCY, so that ENGVAR applies not only to consistent usage within a given article, but also to all spinout sub-articles of that article. Yes, it doesn't explicitly say that now, but I see no evidence that it omits this purposefully, such a slight extension is consistent with ENGVAR in spirit, and change in WP tends to occur bottom up, so once this article is changed in accordance with this idea per IAR, then it would be appropriate to start looking to having the wording at WP:CONSISTENCY updated accordingly.

I now reword the main point which you did not address: when spinouts are created, they normally and naturally follow the ENGVAR usage of the parent article from which they are spun (if nothing else because the initial body of the article, at least in the first non-stub version, is usually a copy/paste from the parent, as was the case here[10]). In the rare cases where consensus decides there is good reason to change the ENGVAR usage of the parent article, it only makes sense to update its spinouts accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I've brought attention to what I believe is the core issue here at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Should ENGVAR extend to spinout articles? If there is a counter-argument to extending ENGVAR to apply to spinout articles, that would be a good place to make it. I would, but I can't think of one. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for reasons stated more fully at the discussion Born2Cycle linked above. Basically, I think that we wouldn't ever decide that the whole encyclopedia had to spell the word "yogurt" in article text – because of ENGVAR – so why should we change the all of the titles of articles in the encyclopedia to spell it "yogurt"? AgnosticAphid talk 08:08, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I can understand your dislike for the cross-article consistency B2C seeks in the other discussion, and even a simple dislike for B2C, but I don't believe that should have bearing on this article. There is a simple case for commonality, for the same reasons expanded upon in the RM for the parent article over a year ago. US, UK, Canada, India... all sorts of nations with a large English speaking population have this as a majority spelling. Prescriptive sources say to use it, like the Oxford Style Guide. National councils including the British dairy council, the Australian dairy council, and the American Dairy council, all use it. -Kai445 (talk) 00:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

"US, UK, Canada, India... all sorts of nations with a large English speaking population have this as a majority spelling." Reliable descriptive sources support yogurt as the most common spelling for Canada and the US; however, they say the opposite for the UK (despite Oxford's preference) and are silent on Indian usage. SSR (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I was under the impression that yoghurt was changed to yogurt for ENGVAR reasons and not for COMMONNAME reasons so I don't really see your point. AgnosticAphid talk 07:42, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

It was. SSR (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what the closer twisted it to fit, look at the !v record and you will see that those who supported the move largely dismissed the idea of an ENGVAR issue and believed this to be largely a commonname determination. -Kai445 (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment is this article spelled with an "h" because of the ENGVAR violation at the main article? That someone created this article with an h to be consistent with the main article because the main article was renamed in a biased manner? -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Who knows? Regardless, the "reason" for the original choice is not particularly relevant as far as WP:ENGVAR is concerned: the title Strained yoghurt was chosen and has remained established since. I suspect the choice was more a matter of personal preference (ultimately informed by regional variation in the spelling of this word) than one decided by the title of the "main article"—consider, for example, that Soy yogurt was created when Yoghurt was thus spelled (and there is no problem with that). Strained yoghurt is the original title of this article, and matches the usage in the first non-stub revision. This is not the Yogurt article. SSR (talk) 08:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

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

Some standarized rigour asked for further clarification about this close on my talk page, and suggested the discussion be copied here for others to see. Here it is:

I was hoping for a more comprehensive closing statement for this RM, especially for a move.

• Where is the evidence that yogurt is "increasingly popular" in British English? If it's this article, a trend in British labelling is not the equivalent of a trend in British English. Comments on descriptive and prescriptive sources appear to have been ignored.
• How is it "clearly the most common spelling elsewhere" when there is an apparently stronger preference for yoghurt over yogurt in some other varieties of English, such as Australian English, than in British English?
• How is matching the "main article" relevant?

The concern with moving this article away from its original location is that it could become the new Yoghurt. SSR (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I'll try to give some more detail. The compelling reason to leave the article at the former location is WP:RETAIN. However, it was shown that "Yogurt" has become common in British English - as seen not just within the industry, but in the OED and other British dictionaries, and it appears to be increasing, according to the lexicographer quoted in that Telegraph article.

As for the "g" spelling being more common generally, I don't see any argument against that. This ngram was discussed in a previous section. Removing the word "strained", there's plenty of evidence that "yogurt" is much more common that "yoghurt". On top of that, several editors invoked WP:COMMONALITY; The Grammarist source you provided showed that "yogurt" is well established in British English and at least present in Australian English, while "yoghurt" is very rare in American and Canadian English.

At any rate, given "yogurt"'s establishment in Britain combined with the fact that it's more common in English sources generally, I see no reason not to defer to WP:COMMONNAME and the local consensus in the discussion. Also, consistency with the main article is not a reason to move, it's just a side benefit of the move.

In closing RMs as moves, I try to ask myself if the decision is likely to be overturned in a future RM. I don't think this one would be; I think things will (eventually) settle down, as they have at Yogurt, and this spelling will stick around.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, this is the level of detail I desired! Copying this section to Talk:Strained yogurt as a supplementary closed discussion may help to clarify the reasoning behind the RM's closure for others. SSR (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Discussion taken from my talk page here.Cúchullain ^t/c 14:59, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dahi mentioned in articles

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

The Lebanon and Palestine section

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

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

It is intuitively obvious that strained yogurt is HIGHER in fat than unstrained yogurt since straining removes the whey which is mostly carbohydrates thereby concentrating the fat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.196.183 (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course strained full-fat yogurt has a higher proportion of fat. But strained yogurt isn't necessarily full-fat! --Macrakis (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Formulated High-Protein Yogurt

It may not be "traditional", but there is also no scientific research quantifying the difference between methods of solids concentration in "Greek" yogurt production. There are no standards of identity defining any high-solids, high-protein yogurt. If at some point there is data, this section should still be included because it would then clarify whether a formulated yogurt does or does not fail to replicate the same results as pre-concentration of milk or post-fermentation concentration of yogurt and under what conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.23.11 (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Whey only protein, no way!

"The remaining liquid, which contains only whey proteins, is the whey." This statement from the article is incorrect. Whey mostly is water and lactose, or milk sugar. I'm not going to try to correct the article, because I'm not an expert on the subject, but you may look at the linked article on whey to verify what I am saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOFL (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

What article are you referring to? A reference in this article, or the article on Whey, or something else? — Eru·tuon 17:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Ulukaya and the name "Greek yogurt"

The article read:

This type of yogurt is sometimes marketed in North America as "Greek yogurt", which is often misunderstood, as the term "Greek yogurt" is practically unknown in Greece and is instead a marketing term introduced in 1980s by Turkish American businessman Hamdi Ulukaya.

It is of course true that the name "Greek yogurt" is not used in Greece, any more than the name "French bread" is used in France. It is also true that strained yogurt is not the most common kind of yogurt in Greece, nor is strained yogurt more Greek than it is Turkish, Lebanese, etc. It is also pretty clear that "Greek yogurt" is a marketing term.

However, Hamdi Ulukaya cannot possibly have "introduced" this term "in 1980s". Ulukaya (as clearly stated in the WP article about him) only came to the US in 1994, and only went into the yogurt business in 2005-7, and the term "Greek yogurt" started taking off in the mid-1980's (Google ngrams). He of course used the term in marketing Chobani yogurt. --Macrakis (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Marketing name

Looks like another English marketing name in Germany and many other European countries where the Gazi brand is sold is "süzme". --176.239.95.180 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Not convinced that the example proves much... it certainly doesn't seem to be used anywhere near as much as 'labneh' (ngram comparison) . --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Greek yogurt" is NOT yogurt cheese

There are many brands of yogurt sold in the US being called "Greek" or "Greek style" which just means that it is thicker than regular yogurt and usually does not contain gelatin or carrageenan. None of them would qualify to be called a cheese. Chobani yogurt, for example, calls itself a Greek style yogurt by virtue of the fact that it has been strained ---- however, it has not been strained to the point where it would ever be considered a "cheese". "Greek yogurt" may have at one time been a useful term for "yogurt cheese", but in light of the reality of the current use of the term, it is no longer valid. I propose that "Greek yogurt" as an alternate name for yogurt cheese be removed from this article.--Akhooha (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nutritional Components of Strained Yogurt

Hello Fellow Wikipedia editors, On behalf of my fellow student team enrolled in an introductory food science course at the University of British Columbia, we would like to use our newly learned food science knowledge to enhance this article on strained yogurt. In particular, we are interested in exploring and contributing to nutritional knowledge. We will continue to post our outlines and drafts on this sandbox [11] . We welcome all comments and feedback. We look forward to contributing to Wikipedia via this course assignment. Thank you. --Expensive Water (talk) 17:51, 06 Aug 2019 (UTC)

Yogurt and yoghurt -- again!

In this edit, an anon systematically substituted "yoghurt" for "yogurt", even in URLs, breaking them. This article has long used the "yogurt" spelling, which is accepted in both the US and the UK. Google ngrams shows yogurt as overwhelmingly more common in the US, and about 46% of usage in the UK.[12].

I have restored the yogurt spelling (though personally, I prefer the gh as closer to the original...). --Macrakis (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Trifle to fight over, but breaking links is down right bad. Free1Soul (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)