Talk:Strained yogurt

message: I have merged in the labneh article.  Here is the content of its Talk page:
I cannot find any recipe for "Kafta Bi Sanieh", Lebanese or otherwise. I suspect it should be Kibbeh Bi Sanieh, also spelled Kibbet Bu Sanieh. Rmhermen 19:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging in labneh

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

message: In India, dahi seems to refer to plain old yoghurt, which (at least in Delhi) is usually runnier than typical Western yoghurts, not strained.  I'm sure there are also strained varieties of the stuff, but eg. this and this recipe for dahi do not involve straining at all. Jpatokal 09:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of strained yoghurt referred to as chakka or chakka dahi.  Would a native Hindi speaker care to comment on this? Dforest (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Dahi refers to yoghurt or curd, Chakka is strained yoghurt, used to make shrikhand.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 07:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dahi? 

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

message: Hi all. I would like to recreate the article on labneh. I think it is a sufficiently unique dish with enough material for a separate article in all its different permutations. A google book search brings back 625 hits, much more than for "strained yoghurt" (89 hits). Would anyone object to restoring that article and expanding it and having a summary section here that links to it? Tiamuttalk 22:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think such a move makes sense. A quick Google search shows more hits for the various spellings of labneh than "strained yoghurt" as well. The question is which spelling of labneh to use - the most common spelling I could find (searching Google for combinations of leb, lab, and lub, with neh, ni, and ne) was "lebni". ← George talk 22:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would prefer to keep the article title neutral. Calling it 'labneh' emphasizes its place in Arab cuisine; calling it 'Greek yog(h)urt' emphasizes its place in Greek cuisine (and is misleading to boot).  The name 'yoghurt cheese' seems to be about as common as 'labneh'/etc. on Google Books, but I don't think any of us want to use that peculiar (and again, misleading) name. --macrakis (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Go for it. 78.159.121.110 (talk) 09:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, I'm not suggesting moving this page to a new title. I'm suggesting that Labneh be re-created to discuss that food. While it is a type of strained yogurt and can have a paragraph here, there is much more information on its preparation and the different types of labneh that are better covered in a stand alone article. Tiamuttalk 13:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that Shanklish, which is a type of labneh that is more concentrated, can be merged into Labneh if it is re-created. Tiamuttalk 13:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there are several different topics here.  One is the strained yoghurt itself -- with no additions.  For that, I don't see why there should be a separate article under the Arabic name (or the Greek name or the Turkish name or ...).  Then there are dishes made with strained yoghurt, which could be covered in this article or in their own articles (like tzatziki). What I would suggest is that you start by expanding the current article's relevant section and then if it gets large enough, we can split it off. --macrakis (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would like to re-create labneh 

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

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

message: Csunsay (talk) 20:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article's name is "Strained Yogurt", in case you haven't noticed. However, it is also sometimes known as Greek yogurt, especially in the US. That's why we list it as an alternate name in the first line.  This doesn't mean that Greece claims "ownership" of strained yogurt, merely that some people refer to it as such. You claims of a "virus" are bordering are obnoxious, stop it. Athenean (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that "Greek yoghurt" is a silly name for strained yoghurt -- after all, most yoghurt in Greece is not strained, and as you point out, strained yoghurt is eaten in many places.  Alas, it has become a common term especially in the UK but also in the US, and Wikipedia's remit is not to prescribe usage, but to record it. --Macrakis (talk) 01:49, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint 

message: The name has not been stable at 'yogurt' - an ip changed yoghurt to yogurt throughout in June 2011, contrary to WP:ENGVAR, and Biosketch then moved it in July 2011. 
Moreover the first version used yoghurt. So it should be moved back asap to use 'yoghurt' per WP:ENGVAR. Occuli (talk) 11:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It was later the result of a merger of many articles (Greek Yoghurt, Yogurt cheese, Strained yoghurt, and Lassi). Of all of the articles, the first one created was "Yogurt cheese", which used a consistent "Yogurt" spelling. -Kai445 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is hardly relevant: Yogurt cheese (created May 2005) was a stub article for a few months, and was a redirect to Yoghurt from Oct 2005 until 2008. (The main article has been at yoghurt since 2004, not without extensive controversy.) Strained yoghurt was created with the 'h' and seems to have been stable with the 'h' from 2005 until July 2011 (unless I have missed a move). Greek yoghurt has had an 'h' throughout its brief history. Just move it back: your argument doesn't convince. Occuli (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for bringing the relevant moves and other history to my attention. You were right, and I have moved the article back to its previous incarnation. -Kai445 (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for reconsidering  - if only all interactions on wikipedia were so harmonious. Occuli (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: Hopefully that strain yoghurt will remain harmonious, even though it's not the same ENGVAR as this one.  By the way, sources do tend to use the /h/ more when it's strained.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I do think each WP:SPINOFF articles should be consistent with its respective main article, but I don't think there is community-wide consensus support for that view.  --Born2cycle (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: According to WP:COMMONSENSE, that seems, uhm… like a *common sense* way to handle it. It shouldn’t take an ANI and the input of 40 more editors to tackle these one by one. Dick, what do you mean when you wrote ?? According to your link (Google ngram), “strained yogurt” is used 22:4 over “strained yoghurt”; it doesn’t get much more lopsided than that. Now let’s talk about ENGVAR. The first non-stub version of the article used “yoghurt”. But, of course, that was entirely forced by the fact that the title of the article was “Strained yoghurt”. Even if we were to look towards ENGVAR for guidance on this, User:Black Kite was the first editor to expand the article from its previous stub status and he/she doesn’t write “realise” but instead spells “realize” so I assume he/she writes with American-dialect English. It makes ample sense that if “Yogurt” is the spelling on this article, then we best serve our readership by making it “Strained yogurt”, “Fruit-filled yogurt”, “Really sour yogurt”, etc.  Greg L (talk) 02:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: If you look at the first non-stub version, as well as consistently using yoghurt, it is written in British English (note savoury). (Realize does not feature in it; regardless, although -ize is not statistically preferred in British English, it is still used in the UK.) Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's faulty logic to assume "Yoghurt = UK" and thus a Retain is in order for that reason. -Kai445 (talk) 21:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not try to imply that "Yoghurt = UK"; indeed, I've tried to emphasize that this is not the case on discussions at Talk:Yogurt. What I said is that the first non-stub revision clearly establishes British English and yoghurt, so there is no reason to change it. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: It has been brought to my attention that my words (above) have been quoted here, implying that wording should apply to not moving this article.  That's not true.  The "first contributor" rule is an excellent way to resolve endless ENGVAR squabbles (that is, when they cannot be otherwise resolved).  It is not clear that we have such a case here, where there are good reasons to change the title (and English variety usage of the article).  Most notably, for this spinout article to maintain consistent usage with its parent, and because this particular spelling is generally used less and less in reliable sources in all English varieties. But, yes, if we cannot achieve consensus support for a change on these grounds, then the first contributor rule should apply.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to "Strained yogurt"? 

message: In a word, no. Changing the article title at this point would be a flat-out violation of ENGVAR. Allow me to quote some words of wisdom:
Born2cycle puts it very well, and I couldn't agree more. The "first contributor" rule is an excellent – and elegant – solution to endless naming squabbles, and he is to be commended for reminding us of it. 28bytes (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been brought to my attention that my words (above) have been quoted here, implying that wording should apply to not moving this article.  That's not true.  The "first contributor" rule is an excellent way to resolve endless ENGVAR squabbles (that is, when they cannot be otherwise resolved).  It is not clear that we have such a case here, where there are good reasons to change the title (and English variety usage of the article).  Most notably, for this spinout article to maintain consistent usage with its parent, and because this particular spelling is generally used less and less in reliable sources in all English varieties. But, yes, if we cannot achieve consensus support for a change on these grounds, then the first contributor rule should apply.  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words of wisdom 

message: * It seems there is no discernable consensus and we just need to have an RfC then. I think it is clear, since 28bytes wrote , that he will likely !vote “oppose” and that is his right. I would !vote “support.” I suggest we see how the rest of the community feels to see if a consensus develops. I beseech everyone to just advance their best arguments that are well founded in Wikipedia’s Five Pillars, avoid personalizing things by attacking editors (some other editor’s reasoning and logic is fair game, however), and make this next RM fast and straightforward as possible.  Greg L (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Wow. When you write absolutisms like , perhaps you might come across better if you suffixed that with even a small-text “(IMHO)”. M’kay?ENGVAR has an important purpose. But just like the U.S.’s First Amendment right of “Freedom of speech” still has limits of its scope (one can’t, for instance, slander or defame someone nor lie to federal investigators), ENGVAR has a proper scope of applicability; it is not chiseled in stone nor part of our Five Pillars. I’ve always held that it is best to err on the side that best serves the interests of our readership. In that light, ENGVAR appears to be heavily outweighed now by the fact that the primary article (Yogurt) is spelled that way, and the overwhelming English-language usage (a colossal 22:4 preference) is “strained yogurt.” Moving, in my mind, best serves the interests of Wikipedia’s readership. This is not complex.Finally, your …… remark in response to a simple RM RfC betrays a WP:BATTLE mentality (Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges) that needs to be left behind. I’m rather new to this “yogurt” stuff (about one week now) and perceive absolutely no need to be swept up in wikidrama. Greg L (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * As much as I'd rather see this moved back to Strained Yogurt, I'm not sure this is the right time for an RM, after all that ridiculous arguing at Yogurt. I'd rather come back here in some months and not think about yogurt for awhile. -Kai445 (talk) 04:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I would accede to your judgement. Why don’t you commiserate with some others who are expert on this and give your final recommendation. Greg L (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I get the feeling this RM so close to the Yogurt one will just result in bitterness from the pro-H crowd, and that isn't productive. I still stand by COMMONNAME, and feel that it would be more universal (and now in line with every other yogurt article), but I'm not sure that is enough to overcome resistance. I'm not going to commiserate with anyone because I don't want to be accused of campaigning, meat puppeting, POV-pushing, or whatever else would inevitably be slung at me. -Kai445 (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I didn’t mean “back-channel and scheme and canvass.” I meant further discuss the matter—here—with other editors who are in the saddle on this, like Born2Cycle. In my mind, just because previous experiences ended up like Wild West poker games where derringers resolved disputes, is no reason an RM here, now—after the last RM that enjoyed wide and prestigious participation—must also result in drunk and bloodied saloon folk in the mud next to the horses’ watering trough. If that previous statements strikes you as naïve beyond all comprehension, then I respect that; you may well have your finger on the pulse of what the wikipedian community is capable of better than I. Greg L (talk) 05:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I entirely agree with 28bytes, who justified the closure of the Yogurt RM exactly as it should have been justified (per WP:RETAIN). There is no question about yoghurt being established in Strained yoghurt, as there was at what was formerly titled Yoghurt, so there is absolutely no reason to start a discussion about moving Strained yoghurt. Did Frozen yogurt and Soy yogurt have to match the spelling of the article that was then titled Yoghurt? No. Does Strained yoghurt now have to match Yogurt? No. (Does Orange (colour) have to match Color, or Theories of humor match Humour? No.) Why? There is no reason to switch between any two perfectly acceptable spellings that have different degrees of use in different English-speaking countries. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also agree with 28bytes. This article was started with an 'h' and has always had the 'h' apart from a brief interlude a few weeks ago. There are 2 acceptable spellings; why should wikipedia not reflect this, as enshrined in ENGVAR? (As an aside, the correct procedure for renaming categories is cfd, speedy probably, not unilateral redirecting and repopulating as in this sort of diff.) Occuli (talk) 10:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * At what point does it make sense to continue to use a variant that can be considered a lesser or minor variant in multiple well-populated English speaking countries? Even yoghurt aside, if any spelling of an English word was falling out of popular use (and authoritative sources also switched away from it), should we continue to use it on Wikipedia for the sake of ENGVAR? Who's VAR? As long as a couple of English speaking jungle people on a carribbean island uses a spelling we'll keep defending it as a VAR? No? Then when is it acceptable? -Kai445 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of comment would not be appreciated by users of Caribbean English. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This is tangential, even off topic, but interesting.  Wikis in other languages can be fascinating to browse.  One way to locate such content is via the left sidebar alternate language links.  Here is the English language article on May; compare it to May on the wiki in Norfuk/Pitkern (remember Norfolk and Pitcairn Islands are in the southern hemisphere, in which May is an ortum, or autumn, month). –Newportm (talk • contribs) 18:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

text: * It may as well be a speedy move. The article was a result of a bunch of merged articles over time, the earliest of which (and which predates Strained Yoghurt) used "Yogurt". COMMONNAME is even easier to discern here, with ngram showing a 22:4 favourite for yogurt, plus the fact that COMMONNAME was fairly overwhelmingly positive on Yogurt leads me to believe that it would likely be here too. -Kai445 (talk) 16:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree in principle.  The question is whether I care enough after that last fiasco.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A reminder from the recently closed Yogurt RM: "COMMONNAME does not trump ENGVAR" ("For cases where usage differs among English-speaking countries, see also National varieties of English below"). While this is not as simple as a color/colour choice, regional variation is undeniably present with yoghurt/yogurt. (This has been discussed at Talk:Yogurt. According to The Cambridge Guide to English Usage, yoghurt is more common than yogurt in Australian and British English; a number of major Commonwealth dictionaries, such as Chambers [UK], Macquarie [Australia], and New Zealand Oxford, prefer yoghurt. Even leading American dictionaries, such as American Heritage and Merriam-Webster, list yoghurt as acceptable variants of yogurt.) How "common" yogurt is depends on the variety of English one uses, so WP:ENGVAR must be followed. Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I need to re-read the first sentence of the ENGVAR guideline. "The English Wikipedia prefers no major national variety of the language over any other." Yet you are arguing for a variety based on national usage, when we are talking about an international spelling of the same word to replace it. Why? Just cling to RETAIN - it's the only process-wonking reason that common sense will fail here. Doc talk 07:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Both spellings are acceptable everywhere, according to major English-language dictionaries. I've not seen either of them referred to as the "international spelling" in style guides. So, why change it? Some standardized rigour (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: I removed it because, as I explained in the edit summary, it does not discuss the use of yoghurt/yogurt. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't it, though? Why would the national Australian dairy council use "yogurt" instead of "yoghurt" - like, all over their website? This is one of those major national English-speaking usage bases that is the argument for keeping the "h" here on WP - and even their dairy council is abandoning the usage? Yes. Let's stay in the dark ages, and keep the "h". Doc talk 08:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A reference listed for spelling variation should actually address the variation. I don't think referencing an organization that simply uses a given spelling is appropriate for it. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely correct; I could not argue with that at all. I brought up that particular diff more because of what Dairy Australia has to say about the spelling than anything, and I struck my questioning of your revert above - sorry 'bout that! It's getting late... Doc talk 08:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does it have to "address the variation"? And to what degree? A dictionary source doesn't actually explain jack about the variation, yet we have them on there. The national dairy council should be noteworthy as at least mildly authoritative of the official spelling for that particular country. I've added them for the UK and AUS, as I felt it appropriate. I also pushed over the second half of this argument, as it isn't productive to be using twenty or thirty indents (lets use the  tag once it hits six or so?) -Kai445 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *I'm glad we both see it pretty much the same way. I would not oppose bringing this up in the future, just not so soon. Good luck on your real life endeavours. -Kai445 (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks. I had to “ghetto” a slick presentation authored in Keynote so it would work for someone else in PowerPoint. Fortunately, Macs are bilingual and are capable of speaking more than the Eloi language; they can also speak Morlock when the need arises. Greg L (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

text: *Greg, I apologize for appearing to imply that you were not acting in good faith. That was not my intention. I believe a move proposal here and now would be a very poor idea, but I have no doubt your motives are sincere in trying to improve the encyclopedia. 28bytes (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Commonname is not merely forgotten because there is a potential ENVAR issue.  I, and many others who voiced their opinions on the main article, do not think this is essentially an ENGVAR issue as both spellings are common in every variation of English (except in N. America, where only one spelling is common).  Commonname is clear here.  What isn't clear is how we weigh that against the potential ENVAR issue and how COMMONALITY weighs into it.LedRush (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: * The case with yogurt was pretty clear, and it wasn't moved with reference to what is the common name. Both spelling variants are valid and widely used. That page was moved back essentially because it should never have been moved in the first place; and that's fine. There is no case however, based on that decision, to impose one spelling over another on other articles (and indeed categories, as one editor is seeking to do).  pablo 20:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * There were a ton of references to common name throughout the discussion, including the !vote. Including the person who actually started the RM, who cited COMMONNAME as his reason for initiating the RM. And there is not just "one editor" seeking to change the title of this article, weasel words and phrases are not helpful. -Kai445 (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Misplaced closing bracket, sorry. No weaselling intended. pablo 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: * Just because the closing admin gets basic policy wrong doesn't mean that we have to duplicate his mistakes on other articles.  An extremely large number of editors felt that Commonname informed their decision.  Seeing as this isn't clearly an ENGVAR issue, it seems odd to invoke it as trumping Commonname.  Having said all that, you are at least correct that this case is less clear than the one at the main article.LedRush (talk) 20:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * Why thank you. It is. I'm not claiming that anything trumps anything, not intentionally, anyway. I have seen a lot of claims of trumpery, and I think that many people are unclear on what trumps what. pablo 22:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to start an RM then?

message: That could one good outcome of this LAME discussion.  Dicklyon (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to add a new section to LAME

message: "In the West, the term "Greek yoghurt" has become synonymous with strained yoghurt"
This quote from the introductory paragraph is assuming that all languages in the western hemisphere have made that synonymous. For German, I can say that "Griechischer Joghurt" refers to yogurt with a high fat content of 10%, that is not necessarily strained. Unless this generalization makes sense with respect to other western languages, it should be changed to: "In the English-speaking world" 
Manuez.rodrigel (talk) 07:46, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: FAGE's strained yoghurt is apparently sold in Germany under the name "Griechischer Joghurt" (http://www.kinder.de/Total-Griechischer-Joghurt-von-FAGE.3108.0.html).  An easy way to tell whether it is strained or made from milk enriched with cream (which is I suppose what you're suggesting) is to look at the protein content.  What is the protein content of "Griechischer Joghurt" and what is the ingredients list?  --Macrakis (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generalization "in the west" 

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

message: The section mentions that the strained yogurt product is called laban, does anyone have information on this? In the Persian Gulf region, laban is a drinkable yogurt product similar to kefir.  http://www.activia.com.sa/high-suger-yogurt.htm   http://www.taw9eel.com/bakery-dairy-produce/dairy-egg/laban-milk/almarai-full-fat-fresh-laban-pet-bottle-1-ltr.html   http://esajee.com/index.php?catid=96   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wzrd1 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Lebanon and Palestine section 

message: It is intuitively obvious that strained yogurt is HIGHER in fat than unstrained yogurt since straining removes the whey which is mostly carbohydrates thereby concentrating the fat.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.177.196.183 (talk) 06:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course strained full-fat yogurt has a higher proportion of fat. But strained yogurt isn't necessarily full-fat! --Macrakis (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strained Yogurt is HIGHER in fat than unstrained yogurt. Low fat yogurt is lower in fat than regular yogurt. 

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

message: "The remaining liquid, which contains only whey proteins, is the whey." This statement from the article is incorrect. Whey mostly is water and lactose, or milk sugar. I'm not going to try to correct the article, because I'm not an expert on the subject, but you may look at the linked article on whey to verify what I am saying.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnOFL (talk • contribs) 16:47, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: What article are you referring to? A reference in this article, or the article on Whey, or something else? — Eru·tuon 17:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whey only protein, no way! 

message: The article read:
:This type of yogurt is sometimes marketed in North America as "Greek yogurt", which is often misunderstood, as the term "Greek yogurt" is practically unknown in Greece and is instead a marketing term introduced in 1980s by Turkish American businessman Hamdi Ulukaya.
It is of course true that the name "Greek yogurt" is not used in Greece, any more than the name "French bread" is used in France. It is also true that strained yogurt is not the most common kind of yogurt in Greece, nor is strained yogurt more Greek than it is Turkish, Lebanese, etc. It is also pretty clear that "Greek yogurt" is a marketing term.
However, Hamdi Ulukaya cannot possibly have "introduced" this term "in 1980s". Ulukaya (as clearly stated in the WP article about him) only came to the US in 1994, and only went into the yogurt business in 2005-7, and the term "Greek yogurt" started taking off in the mid-1980's (Google ngrams). He of course used the term in marketing Chobani yogurt. --Macrakis (talk) 18:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ulukaya and the name "Greek yogurt"

message: Looks like another English marketing name in Germany and many other European countries where the Gazi brand is sold is "süzme". --176.239.95.180 (talk) 05:47, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not convinced that the example proves much... it certainly doesn't seem to be used anywhere near as much as 'labneh' (ngram comparison) . --Macrakis (talk) 15:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marketing name 

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

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

message: In this edit, an anon systematically substituted "yoghurt" for "yogurt", even in URLs, breaking them. This article has long used the "yogurt" spelling, which is accepted in both the US and the UK. Google ngrams shows yogurt as overwhelmingly more common in the US, and about 46% of usage in the UK..
I have restored the yogurt spelling (though personally, I prefer the gh as closer to the original...). --Macrakis (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Trifle to fight over, but breaking links is down right bad. Free1Soul (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Yogurt and yoghurt -- again!