This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
Who wants to do the honor of removing this article from WP:LAME? - Kai445 ( talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
What it currently says:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. p. 1822.
ISBN
978 0050 10289 8. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 2044.
ISBN
978-0198610571. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1=
(
help) 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)
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 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 ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
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 184.162.243.186 ( talk) 15:07, 19 June 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)
can i freeze the regular yogurt for later use? (^^^^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose keppel ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions Greek yogurt as popular in Australia but does not explain what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.119.118 ( talk) 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
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 --
B2
C 20:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 06:01, 19 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)
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 69.183.22.220 ( talk) 03:36, 25 February 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)
Added a bit to the article to show the truth. Historians know where yogurt originated. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=yogurt-one-of-the-oldest-processed-food-of-man8217s-history-2010-08-11
Yogurt is from Central Asia and is probrably from the Neolithic. -- 72.128.40.138 ( 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 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. -- B2 C 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
the page has increasingly been turned into an opinionated useressay.23:14, 10 July 2013 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) . . (39,912 bytes) (+8,748) . . (→May 12-17 2005 - RM #1: Detailed analysis)
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)
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. -- B2 C 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
Yogurt → Yogurt / Yoghurt – We should include both spellings in the title, that would stop the controversy. 71.59.58.63 ( talk) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''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.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 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)
There is hardly any info on this .. please add for completeness .. Leningrad ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. —
Quicksilver
T
@ 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi
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." /info/en/?search=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 is not a different product. Should be merged here. Next time we have San Marino pizza because San Marino is an independent country. -- 176.239.80.212 ( talk) 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The contents should be updated to include Bulgaria and the Bulgarian bacteria strain found in Bulgarian yogurt that is most beneficial to health and longevity. Bulgaria has made yogurt as far back as 1500BC. AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.248.222 ( talk) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I heard that some naturopaths advocate using yogurt in enemas as a change from tepid coffee. Anyone have a reference for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.128.111 ( talk) 09:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Yogurt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:SheriffIsInTown and User:Zefr. Regarding this disputed edit, I posted here at RSN. Per BRD, I suggest leaving it out until resolved. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In the chart listing the nutrients in yogurt, calcium has been omitted. It's the first item under Minerals in the USDA chart referenced, providing 100% of the daily requirement. I'd rather not mess with the chart, so I'm hoping someone else will make the correction. If not, I'll take a crack at it. KC 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) KC 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
The use of pectin and gelatin in commercial yogurts is mentioned in the "Sweetened and flavored yogurt" section (which did not include a citation). This topic has potential to be it's own subtopic. Additives in commercial yogurt include pectin, gelatin, carrageenan, rice starch and others are used to influence the yogurts texture to artificially thicken it. Other yogurt additives that we can be mentioned is the use of high fructose corn syrup and aspartame has declined recently. Example: Yoplait stopped the using high fructose corn syrup in their yogurt formula in 2012 and Aspartame in 2014. Jmk2392 ( talk) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
My sister asked me why the word "yogurt" is the same in every language. I said it wasn't, and immediately looked up the word in Japanese and Hebrew. Nope, she had a point. We know that the Persian word is different, but a very large number of languages seem to have this word in common. Daniel J. Hakimi ( talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The article states "The above shows little difference exists between whole milk and yogurt made from whole milk with respect to the listed nutritional constituents. The differences may be explained as a result of testing the product after draining liquid whey from the yogurt thereby changing the percentage of that constituent in the final product." However, this does not seem to apply to cholesterol which is more than halved in the yoghurt. is this correct and if so, what is the explanation as cholesterol levels in food are of significance. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Two types of Yogurt are supported by Codex Alimentarius for import and export. [2]
- Pasteurized Yogurt (officially Heat Treated Fermented Milk [2]), is Yogurt pasteurized to kill all bacterias(including Probiotics).
- Probiotic Yogurt (labeled as Live Yogurt or Active Yogurt), is Yogurt pasteurized to kill all bacterias, and Lactobacillus added in measured units before packaging. [3]
- Yogurt probiotic drink (categorized as Probiotics), is Yogurt pasteurized to kill all bacterias, and Lactobacillus added in large quantity before packaging. Example: Yakult
Research suggests Homemade Yogurt [4] and Live Yogurt [5] are much more beneficial than 'Heat Treated Fermented Milk' (Pasteurized Yogurt).
So User:Zefr, which sections are poorly referenced ? -- Ne0 ( talk) 05:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello Ne0Freedom. The FAO downloaded PDF is from 1999 and is not useful for an online encyclopedia. A more recent web version is preferred, but I was unable to find a suitable WP:RS source. The About Yogurt website is not really a WP:SECONDARY source and has promotional, non-NPOV content. The other two refs are from animal research which is not WP:MEDRS-quality for a food article. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday I added much information to the article, and it was all reverted by User:Zefr. Here are the two paragraphs that I modified:
A 100-gram serving of plain Greek yoghurt from whole milk is 81% water, 9% protein, 5% fat and 4% carbohydrates. In addition to the 406 kilojoules (97 kcal) of food energy supplied by the protein, fat, and carbohydrate, there is food energy supplied by the lactic acid. The carbohydrate in yoghurt is in the form of lactose (milk sugar) [1] and galactose and glucose which are produced when the lactose is hydrolyzed. The amounts of lactose and lactic acid vary, depending on the fermentation conditions, the amount of dry milk added, and whether the yoghurt is filtered. [2] A 1982 study found that lactose content dropped from just under 5% in the milk to around 2.4% during the first day (including a 3- to 4-hour fermentation at 43° or 44°C), and decreased to 2.3% after 10 more days of storage (temperature not stated), at which point the galactose content was 1.3%. [3] An Australia-New Zealand government website gives a figure of 1.5 g lactic acid per 100-mL serving. [1] As a proportion of the Daily Value (DV), a serving of yogurt is a rich source of vitamin B12 (31% DV) and riboflavin (23% DV), with moderate content of protein, phosphorus and selenium (14 to 19% DV; table).
Although yogurt is often associated with probiotics having positive effects on immune, cardiovascular or metabolic health, [4] [5] [6] as of 2011 there was insufficient high-quality clinical evidence to conclude that consuming yogurt lowers risk of diseases or improves health. [7] Research published in 2014 studying Swedes over a 20-year period found that women who ate lots of cheese and yoghurt had lower death rates and lower rates of bone fractures than those who consumed low amounts of dairy products, but those who drank three glasses of milk a day had higher rates. The paper also cites other research showing an association between high intake of fermented milk products and lowered cardiovascular risk, but an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes among those with a high intake of unfermented milk. [8] [9]
I added the last two sentences. I also added this paragraph:
Yoghurt has been found to decrease or eliminate symptoms of lactose intolerance. The 1982 study mentioned earlier found that lactose-intolerant subjects had abdominal distress and diarrhea after consuming 500 mL of milk but had no symptoms after consuming the same volume of yoghurt. [3]
and I added a table of nutritional data for normal yoghurt, in addition to the table that was already there for Greek-style yoghurt.
Zefr claims in his edit comment that "Previous nutrition version was accurate; rv content per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; addition to health effects section not based on WP:MEDRS."
I don't contest that the previous nutrition version was accurate (if he means the nutrition data on Greek yoghurt), and I left it (even though I don't think we should have a table on Greek yoghurt). I strongly disagree that the information I added was "textbook" information which should not be mentioned! These are exactly the issues that people want to know about — to what extent the lactose is converted into lactic acid, and what the effects of health are. I did all this research yesterday because I came to Wikipedia to find out the answers to these questions, and the information was not here. And why does Zefr think he knows that all my references are unreliable? The Journal of Dairy Science and the British Medical Journal are reputable sources after all. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |format=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
@ Akocsg: There is no need to give an WP:UNDUE weight to Turkey in the infobox. According to the history section, yogurt originated in Mesopotamia 7000 years ago. If i'm not mistaken, you're the same user who tried to claim that Azerbaijanis are of Turkish origin while numerous reliable sources support the fact that they're of Iranian origin. I would suggest you to desist from irredentist editing. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://lbbulgaricum.bg/en/history-of-the-bulgarian-yoghurt/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 11:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yogurt&diff=prev&oldid=918280143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.242.95.229 ( talk) 17:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I initially thought about tagging the section with {{
How-to|section}}
but when previewing the tag seemed a little invasive. I'll just describe the problems here: the section seems to be a how-to (
WP:NOTHOWTO) that also duplicates some of the previous content about the process and is only supported by a few sources. Thanks, —
Paleo
Neonate – 14:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "When mold forms on yogurt it can not be scraped away like with cheese or other solid foods. The consistency of yogurt allows the mold to penetrate deeply under the surface where it spreads.[40]"
Omit: "like with cheese or other solid foods." As it is partially misleading since with most solid foods mold penetrates deeper than it appears and can be slightly misleading. 74.37.87.94 ( talk) 12:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Section has to be rewritten, and nonsense about only "dead" yogurt allowed to be removed.
Literally from Codex Alimentarius given as the source, page 6 [1]:
2.1 Fermented Milk is a milk product obtained by fermentation of milk, which milk may have been manufactured from products obtained from milk with or without compositional modifi cation as limited by the provision in Section 3.3, by the action of suitable microorganisms and resulting in reduction of pH with or without coagulation (iso-electric precipitation). These starter microorganisms shall be viable, active and abundant in the product to the date of minimum durability. If the product is heat treated after fermentation the requirement for viable microorganisms does not apply. Certain Fermented Milks are characterised by specific starter culture(s) used for fermentation as follows: Yoghurt: Symbiotic cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Alternate Culture Yoghurt: Cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and any Lactobacillus species. Acidophilus Milk: Lactobacillus acidophilus. Kefi r: Starter culture prepared from kefir grains, Lactobacillus kefiri, species of the genera Leuconostoc, Lactococcus and Acetobacter growing in a strong specific relationship. Kefir grains constitute both lactose fermenting yeasts (Kluyveromyces marxianus) and non-lactose-fermenting yeasts (Saccharomyces unisporus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces exiguus). Kumys: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Kluyveromyces marxianus. Other microorganisms than those constituting the specifi c starter culture(s) specified above may be added. Pixius talk 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the Production section, change "typicallyy" to "typically" JohnS2003 ( talk) 14:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
A 2021 study that appears well cited compiled a large metastudy of studies involving yogurt's impact on GI and other health, which was compelling, available for free in full through the United States NIH.
Since this is semi-protected, I'll leave the actual edit up to you all, but some stats: - 1000+ reviewed, 108 deemed well-run and controlled by independent review - spanning 1979-2014 - ca. 70% of the studies found a positive/meaningful outcome
Hope this helps. One article doesn't make something conclusive obviously, but it'd be nice to update that to 2021 and say something neutral about both sides of the results?
Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32447398/
NLM Citation: Savaiano DA, Hutkins RW. Yogurt, cultured fermented milk, and health: a systematic review. Nutr Rev. 2021 Apr 7;79(5):599-614. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuaa013. PMID: 32447398; PMCID: PMC8579104. Sirsasana ( talk) 13:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the intro, please add the word “paste-like” next to food. 2600:100C:A201:DA57:BC0A:206F:CC79:85EE ( talk) 03:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Additional spellings of Yogurt/yoğurt include Jogurt in some central European countries. 2A00:23C6:278E:1C01:1984:F9BB:5767:ABEA ( talk) 13:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to fis it Potaaaitooh ( talk) 15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There are very few information about the Greek oxygala and there is dispute about the form of this food. since yogurt's definition is "bacterial fermentation of milk" we need a proof of oxygala has same production steps. Oxygala seems like a type of buttermilk, and it is not a type of yogurt. this claim is inaccurate and seems like a rumour. Oxygala's wikipedia page is also not very informative. with those information, this part in the history section is not factual and should be removed: "The cuisine of ancient Greece included a dairy product known as oxygala (οξύγαλα) which was a form of yogurt. Galen (AD 129 – c. 200/c. 216) mentioned that oxygala was consumed with honey, similar to the way thickened Greek yogurt is eaten today." Objectionreceived ( talk) 13:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
78.162.189.18 ( talk) 14:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@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)
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)
Who wants to do the honor of removing this article from WP:LAME? - Kai445 ( talk) 22:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
What it currently says:
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)The Chambers Dictionary: 11th Edition. Edinburgh EH7 4AY: Chambers Harrap. 2008. p. 1822.
ISBN
978 0050 10289 8. {{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1=
(
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)Oxford Dictionary of English: 2nd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 2044.
ISBN
978-0198610571. {{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |titlelink1=
(
help) 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)
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 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 ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
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 184.162.243.186 ( talk) 15:07, 19 June 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)
can i freeze the regular yogurt for later use? (^^^^) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rose keppel ( talk • contribs) 12:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
The article mentions Greek yogurt as popular in Australia but does not explain what it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.119.118 ( talk) 19:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
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 --
B2
C 20:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
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. -- B2 C 06:01, 19 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)
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 69.183.22.220 ( talk) 03:36, 25 February 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)
Added a bit to the article to show the truth. Historians know where yogurt originated. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/default.aspx?pageid=438&n=yogurt-one-of-the-oldest-processed-food-of-man8217s-history-2010-08-11
Yogurt is from Central Asia and is probrably from the Neolithic. -- 72.128.40.138 ( 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 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. -- B2 C 04:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
the page has increasingly been turned into an opinionated useressay.23:14, 10 July 2013 Born2cycle (talk | contribs) . . (39,912 bytes) (+8,748) . . (→May 12-17 2005 - RM #1: Detailed analysis)
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)
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. -- B2 C 19:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
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)
Yogurt → Yogurt / Yoghurt – We should include both spellings in the title, that would stop the controversy. 71.59.58.63 ( talk) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
*'''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.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 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)
There is hardly any info on this .. please add for completeness .. Leningrad ( talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:05, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
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)
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. —
Quicksilver
T
@ 00:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
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)
Hi
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." /info/en/?search=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 is not a different product. Should be merged here. Next time we have San Marino pizza because San Marino is an independent country. -- 176.239.80.212 ( talk) 08:33, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The contents should be updated to include Bulgaria and the Bulgarian bacteria strain found in Bulgarian yogurt that is most beneficial to health and longevity. Bulgaria has made yogurt as far back as 1500BC. AA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.248.222 ( talk) 16:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I heard that some naturopaths advocate using yogurt in enemas as a change from tepid coffee. Anyone have a reference for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.128.111 ( talk) 09:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Yogurt. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:14, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi User:SheriffIsInTown and User:Zefr. Regarding this disputed edit, I posted here at RSN. Per BRD, I suggest leaving it out until resolved. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
In the chart listing the nutrients in yogurt, calcium has been omitted. It's the first item under Minerals in the USDA chart referenced, providing 100% of the daily requirement. I'd rather not mess with the chart, so I'm hoping someone else will make the correction. If not, I'll take a crack at it. KC 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) KC 06:33, 6 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra ( talk • contribs)
The use of pectin and gelatin in commercial yogurts is mentioned in the "Sweetened and flavored yogurt" section (which did not include a citation). This topic has potential to be it's own subtopic. Additives in commercial yogurt include pectin, gelatin, carrageenan, rice starch and others are used to influence the yogurts texture to artificially thicken it. Other yogurt additives that we can be mentioned is the use of high fructose corn syrup and aspartame has declined recently. Example: Yoplait stopped the using high fructose corn syrup in their yogurt formula in 2012 and Aspartame in 2014. Jmk2392 ( talk) 23:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
My sister asked me why the word "yogurt" is the same in every language. I said it wasn't, and immediately looked up the word in Japanese and Hebrew. Nope, she had a point. We know that the Persian word is different, but a very large number of languages seem to have this word in common. Daniel J. Hakimi ( talk) 13:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
The article states "The above shows little difference exists between whole milk and yogurt made from whole milk with respect to the listed nutritional constituents. The differences may be explained as a result of testing the product after draining liquid whey from the yogurt thereby changing the percentage of that constituent in the final product." However, this does not seem to apply to cholesterol which is more than halved in the yoghurt. is this correct and if so, what is the explanation as cholesterol levels in food are of significance. Stub Mandrel ( talk) 18:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Two types of Yogurt are supported by Codex Alimentarius for import and export. [2]
- Pasteurized Yogurt (officially Heat Treated Fermented Milk [2]), is Yogurt pasteurized to kill all bacterias(including Probiotics).
- Probiotic Yogurt (labeled as Live Yogurt or Active Yogurt), is Yogurt pasteurized to kill all bacterias, and Lactobacillus added in measured units before packaging. [3]
- Yogurt probiotic drink (categorized as Probiotics), is Yogurt pasteurized to kill all bacterias, and Lactobacillus added in large quantity before packaging. Example: Yakult
Research suggests Homemade Yogurt [4] and Live Yogurt [5] are much more beneficial than 'Heat Treated Fermented Milk' (Pasteurized Yogurt).
So User:Zefr, which sections are poorly referenced ? -- Ne0 ( talk) 05:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
References
Hello Ne0Freedom. The FAO downloaded PDF is from 1999 and is not useful for an online encyclopedia. A more recent web version is preferred, but I was unable to find a suitable WP:RS source. The About Yogurt website is not really a WP:SECONDARY source and has promotional, non-NPOV content. The other two refs are from animal research which is not WP:MEDRS-quality for a food article. -- Zefr ( talk) 13:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Yesterday I added much information to the article, and it was all reverted by User:Zefr. Here are the two paragraphs that I modified:
A 100-gram serving of plain Greek yoghurt from whole milk is 81% water, 9% protein, 5% fat and 4% carbohydrates. In addition to the 406 kilojoules (97 kcal) of food energy supplied by the protein, fat, and carbohydrate, there is food energy supplied by the lactic acid. The carbohydrate in yoghurt is in the form of lactose (milk sugar) [1] and galactose and glucose which are produced when the lactose is hydrolyzed. The amounts of lactose and lactic acid vary, depending on the fermentation conditions, the amount of dry milk added, and whether the yoghurt is filtered. [2] A 1982 study found that lactose content dropped from just under 5% in the milk to around 2.4% during the first day (including a 3- to 4-hour fermentation at 43° or 44°C), and decreased to 2.3% after 10 more days of storage (temperature not stated), at which point the galactose content was 1.3%. [3] An Australia-New Zealand government website gives a figure of 1.5 g lactic acid per 100-mL serving. [1] As a proportion of the Daily Value (DV), a serving of yogurt is a rich source of vitamin B12 (31% DV) and riboflavin (23% DV), with moderate content of protein, phosphorus and selenium (14 to 19% DV; table).
Although yogurt is often associated with probiotics having positive effects on immune, cardiovascular or metabolic health, [4] [5] [6] as of 2011 there was insufficient high-quality clinical evidence to conclude that consuming yogurt lowers risk of diseases or improves health. [7] Research published in 2014 studying Swedes over a 20-year period found that women who ate lots of cheese and yoghurt had lower death rates and lower rates of bone fractures than those who consumed low amounts of dairy products, but those who drank three glasses of milk a day had higher rates. The paper also cites other research showing an association between high intake of fermented milk products and lowered cardiovascular risk, but an increased risk of cardiovascular disease and diabetes among those with a high intake of unfermented milk. [8] [9]
I added the last two sentences. I also added this paragraph:
Yoghurt has been found to decrease or eliminate symptoms of lactose intolerance. The 1982 study mentioned earlier found that lactose-intolerant subjects had abdominal distress and diarrhea after consuming 500 mL of milk but had no symptoms after consuming the same volume of yoghurt. [3]
and I added a table of nutritional data for normal yoghurt, in addition to the table that was already there for Greek-style yoghurt.
Zefr claims in his edit comment that "Previous nutrition version was accurate; rv content per WP:NOTTEXTBOOK; addition to health effects section not based on WP:MEDRS."
I don't contest that the previous nutrition version was accurate (if he means the nutrition data on Greek yoghurt), and I left it (even though I don't think we should have a table on Greek yoghurt). I strongly disagree that the information I added was "textbook" information which should not be mentioned! These are exactly the issues that people want to know about — to what extent the lactose is converted into lactic acid, and what the effects of health are. I did all this research yesterday because I came to Wikipedia to find out the answers to these questions, and the information was not here. And why does Zefr think he knows that all my references are unreliable? The Journal of Dairy Science and the British Medical Journal are reputable sources after all. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 05:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite journal}}
: External link in |format=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: Explicit use of et al. in: |last1=
(
help)
@ Akocsg: There is no need to give an WP:UNDUE weight to Turkey in the infobox. According to the history section, yogurt originated in Mesopotamia 7000 years ago. If i'm not mistaken, you're the same user who tried to claim that Azerbaijanis are of Turkish origin while numerous reliable sources support the fact that they're of Iranian origin. I would suggest you to desist from irredentist editing. Thanks.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 23:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://lbbulgaricum.bg/en/history-of-the-bulgarian-yoghurt/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 11:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Yogurt&diff=prev&oldid=918280143 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.242.95.229 ( talk) 17:40, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
I initially thought about tagging the section with {{
How-to|section}}
but when previewing the tag seemed a little invasive. I'll just describe the problems here: the section seems to be a how-to (
WP:NOTHOWTO) that also duplicates some of the previous content about the process and is only supported by a few sources. Thanks, —
Paleo
Neonate – 14:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "When mold forms on yogurt it can not be scraped away like with cheese or other solid foods. The consistency of yogurt allows the mold to penetrate deeply under the surface where it spreads.[40]"
Omit: "like with cheese or other solid foods." As it is partially misleading since with most solid foods mold penetrates deeper than it appears and can be slightly misleading. 74.37.87.94 ( talk) 12:24, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Section has to be rewritten, and nonsense about only "dead" yogurt allowed to be removed.
Literally from Codex Alimentarius given as the source, page 6 [1]:
2.1 Fermented Milk is a milk product obtained by fermentation of milk, which milk may have been manufactured from products obtained from milk with or without compositional modifi cation as limited by the provision in Section 3.3, by the action of suitable microorganisms and resulting in reduction of pH with or without coagulation (iso-electric precipitation). These starter microorganisms shall be viable, active and abundant in the product to the date of minimum durability. If the product is heat treated after fermentation the requirement for viable microorganisms does not apply. Certain Fermented Milks are characterised by specific starter culture(s) used for fermentation as follows: Yoghurt: Symbiotic cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus. Alternate Culture Yoghurt: Cultures of Streptococcus thermophilus and any Lactobacillus species. Acidophilus Milk: Lactobacillus acidophilus. Kefi r: Starter culture prepared from kefir grains, Lactobacillus kefiri, species of the genera Leuconostoc, Lactococcus and Acetobacter growing in a strong specific relationship. Kefir grains constitute both lactose fermenting yeasts (Kluyveromyces marxianus) and non-lactose-fermenting yeasts (Saccharomyces unisporus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Saccharomyces exiguus). Kumys: Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus and Kluyveromyces marxianus. Other microorganisms than those constituting the specifi c starter culture(s) specified above may be added. Pixius talk 13:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
References
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
in the Production section, change "typicallyy" to "typically" JohnS2003 ( talk) 14:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
A 2021 study that appears well cited compiled a large metastudy of studies involving yogurt's impact on GI and other health, which was compelling, available for free in full through the United States NIH.
Since this is semi-protected, I'll leave the actual edit up to you all, but some stats: - 1000+ reviewed, 108 deemed well-run and controlled by independent review - spanning 1979-2014 - ca. 70% of the studies found a positive/meaningful outcome
Hope this helps. One article doesn't make something conclusive obviously, but it'd be nice to update that to 2021 and say something neutral about both sides of the results?
Link: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32447398/
NLM Citation: Savaiano DA, Hutkins RW. Yogurt, cultured fermented milk, and health: a systematic review. Nutr Rev. 2021 Apr 7;79(5):599-614. doi: 10.1093/nutrit/nuaa013. PMID: 32447398; PMCID: PMC8579104. Sirsasana ( talk) 13:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
For the intro, please add the word “paste-like” next to food. 2600:100C:A201:DA57:BC0A:206F:CC79:85EE ( talk) 03:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 10:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Additional spellings of Yogurt/yoğurt include Jogurt in some central European countries. 2A00:23C6:278E:1C01:1984:F9BB:5767:ABEA ( talk) 13:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Yogurt has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i want to fis it Potaaaitooh ( talk) 15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
There are very few information about the Greek oxygala and there is dispute about the form of this food. since yogurt's definition is "bacterial fermentation of milk" we need a proof of oxygala has same production steps. Oxygala seems like a type of buttermilk, and it is not a type of yogurt. this claim is inaccurate and seems like a rumour. Oxygala's wikipedia page is also not very informative. with those information, this part in the history section is not factual and should be removed: "The cuisine of ancient Greece included a dairy product known as oxygala (οξύγαλα) which was a form of yogurt. Galen (AD 129 – c. 200/c. 216) mentioned that oxygala was consumed with honey, similar to the way thickened Greek yogurt is eaten today." Objectionreceived ( talk) 13:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
78.162.189.18 ( talk) 14:31, 12 August 2022 (UTC)