Talk:Yogurt/Archive 2

message: That yogurt helps in stopping diarrhea?
:Yes it's true, in fact i think so... Because when I was in Turkey and had diarrhea, the doctor advised me to eat yogurt or to drink Cola (NOT sparkling)
Not a doctor, but I guess the bacteria in the yoghurt will help your stomach to bind the water better. The coke helps due to it's antiacidicity(sp?). Personally I never tried Yoghurt, but pretzles (the hard kind) and cola does work most of the time for me.
:Yogurt with active bacterial cultures, primarily lactobacillus acidophilus, is a good treatment for diarrhea, especially when that diarrhea is caused by taking strong antibiotics. When my Army doctor put me on antibiotics, he told me that they would kill the "good bacteria" in my digestive system, and that eating unpasteurized yogurt would stave off or reduce the detrimental effects. Worked like a charm -- I've never had an adverse reaction since (although this particular example constitutes "original research"). But here's a good link if anyone wants to insert it: --SigPig 04:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it true? 

message: On the section "Home-made yoghurt" -- I don't think WP should be a recipe book, because then the article will get bogged down on all the different ways to make yoghurt. My suggestion: note that you can make yoghurt at home, give a general overview of the process, and leave detailed instructions (e.g. time/temperature) to external links. Just my opinion. -- 20:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right enough. We actually have a separate project for recipes -- the Wikibooks Cookbook and it would probably be a good idea to move the recipe there. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recipe? 

message: The article says that some yogurt is sold as buttermilk in the West; in what countries is this the case? --moof 04:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move to Yogurt.  The first version of the article clearly used Yogurt, without the h, so I have no choice but to discount the many oppose votes that say "oppose per MoS" or the like.  This means the following:
*Valid support votes (7): Justin (koavf), Yath, Serge, Vegaswikian, Recury, Juppiter, R'son-W
*Not counted support votes: Wikiwhat? (too new and support reason was too personal), 216.86.38.14 (no such thing as proper spelling), 3 anon/new user votes at the bottom
*Valid oppose votes (4): Derek Ross, Beardo, BlankVerse, Septentrionalis
*Not counted oppose votes: Macrakis (citied the incorrect first version), CRCulver (gave no rationale besides citing the MoS, assuming the incorrect first version), --Akhilleus (gave no rationale besides citing the MoS, assuming the incorrect first version), violet/riga (was citing flawed arguments from "above"), older ≠ wiser (citied the incorrect first version), trialsanderrors (no rationale)
There is clearly a majority who support the move with proper reasoning, so the article will be moved.  Please do not come to my user talk page with long monologues; I will not change my opinion if you write to me. —Mets501 (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "buttermilk" as yogurt? 

message: There seems to be some confusion about the MoS's suggestion that the original dialect be used. The purpose of that guideline is to defuse friction between speakers of different dialects of English, and to show no preference to any particular dialect.  As long as we allow each dialect to exist on Wikipedia, and not to be removed in preference of another, no one can accuse Wikipedia of favoritism, and there's no reason to feel marginalized. It may be an arbitrary way of deciding things, but it is definitely neutral. It allows us to edit in peace.
The flip side is that when we use a different, more preferential way of choosing a dialect, there needs to be an actual reason -- it can't be arbitrary. Reasons such as the location of the subject in question (e.g., London) are fine, because everyone understands why it needs to be in British English.
The issue for this article is that there's no such reason for the move from yogurt to yoghurt. It was arbitrary, yet not neutral. Where before, there was no room for anyone to complain, now there is. American English has been shoved aside for British English. Out of the many articles where this is an issue, instances of arbitrary dialect changes are very rare, which has contributed greatly to the overall tranquility of Wikipedia. There's no reason to tolerate the few flies in the ointment such as this article, which is why it should be moved back. --Yath 23:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the "Pronunciation and spelling" section above for the actual reason for the original move which had nothing to do with British/American English. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please read it.  It's quite creative.  --Serge 00:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That reason is no more valid. Changing the spelling because you want to help people pronounce the word "correctly"? There is no "correct" spelling or pronunciation - in language, whatever uses are common are valid. That's the principle of descriptive linguistics, which Wikipedia follows. We don't employ prescriptivism because Wikipedia has no business telling people what to do. In fact, policy states that Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Yath 15:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dialect neutrality 

message: Apparently Hroðulf, Proteus, and Guettarda were just ignored in the above count since they fall neither into the valid nor the invalid oppose votes. I also feel rather sorry for Violet/riga and trialanderrors who were accused of making an invalid vote for no good reason that I can see. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I might add that although I initially thought the original version used "yoghurt", later commented that I thought that did not matter and expanded at some length. I don't think my vote should be counted as in the invalid count, since I acknowledged what the original version was and still opposed the move. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude.  You used one rationale to vote oppose, then, when you realized that rationale actually supported the support view, you created a new (rather convoluted, I might add) rationale.  That's not explaining the rationale for one's vote, that's blatant rationalization. --Serge 05:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the brilliant insight there. My initial vote was based on a reaction to some editors citing the move in February 2006 as evidence of what the original name was. I admitted that I made a mistake. However, my rationale was based on the fact that no one questioned that move for a very long time, and it had been stable for quite some time, until editors with little better to do than to request pointless moves started raising a ruckus. older ≠ wiser 12:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but I'm not aware of a naming convention or guideline that says that consideration should be given to the fact that that's the way it has been "for quite some time".  How is that even relevant?  --Serge 17:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, strictly speaking there isn't any "Naming" convention that says to use the national variety of the first major contributor. That is part of the Manual of Style, and is the last resort guidance for settling controversies over spelling differences in an article. IMO, there should be a pretty strong rationale to overturn a stable version. National spelling preferences aren't an especially strong rationale. older ≠ wiser 17:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not clear on why the difference between "convention" or "guideline" makes any difference with regard to the use of the first version of the title. It's good advice, which arguably is the only thing that has stopped numerous bitter disputes, such as how to name the color article. Also, earlier you said it was a pointless move - do you really think it's pointless to defuse the nationalistic tendencies that arise in these dialect issues? Have you read the archives of talk:color? --Yath 02:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The distinction is not clear for most editors, and I doubt there is any concise description that would be universally acceptable. But, my point was not the distinction between guideline and convention, but between a "Naming" convention, which specifically addresses how to title articles and the Manual of Style, which addresses the presentation of content within an article. I did briefly venture into the color/colour morass, but I don't think I paid it too much attention as there was a surfeit of unpleasantness clouding the issue at the time and that held little interest for me. Yes, it (the style of the first major contributor) is an acceptable last resort for resolving intractable disputes. But I'm not so sure that was the case here. There was a stable version for quite a long while (at least in Wiki terms). IMO, a lot controversy comes from folks who just can't leave well enough alone and insist on arguing over trivial matters. older ≠ wiser 02:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure it does.  There was no logical basis for conclusion he came to.  If someone does something that makes absolutely no sense, you undo it.  His rationale for closing the discussion was simply incorrect.  He picked a few votes which he said were "good enough" (7 support, 4 oppose), he discounted several others as "flawed" (despite the fact that at least one of them, Bkonrad's, did not rely on the so-called "flaw"), and he just ignored others without explaining why.  He closed with a terribly rude and imperious "don't bother me, I am not going to change my decision", and then, apparently (as I just noticed) move-protected the page.  If that isn't admin abuse, I don't know what is.  You might chalk it up to his being a newbie admin.  Guettarda 17:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: He gave his reasons.  You and even I might not agree with them, but never-the-less there they are.  I don't know what the policy is for what to do when an admin disagrees with the decision of another admin, but just reverting his decision because you happen to disagree does not seem appropriate.  I humbly suggest you take this up with him.  In the mean time, I believe the decision of the first admin has precedence, so I will try to move it back.  --Serge 17:45, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  There is no precedence for "the first admin".  His decision was flawed, and thus it was corrected.  It has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement - he acted improperly in moving the page against consensus and he acted doubly improperly by move-protecting the page.  Your insistence on moving the page against consensus shows contempt for your fellow editors.  Guettarda 19:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since you participated in this survey, you should not be reverting what an an arguably less biased admin who did not participate has done.  If you're correct, you should have no trouble in finding an unbiased admin to support your position. --Serge 19:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flaws in the above vote count

message: I was making my periodic jaunt through WP:LAME and noticed this one.  How about going with the neutral term Fermented milk for the article name and have Yogurt and Yoghurt redirects to this article? Going with a neutral term has been used to solve national variation naming disputes for Airplane or Aeroplane (Fixed-wing aircraft) and Ice lolly or Popsicle (Ice pop). WP:NC(CN) and WP:MOS lists this solution as an acceptable exception to the use of common names in the case of disagreements over national variations. I will now dive into my foxhole and prepare for the shelling. ;) --Bobblehead 17:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Solve" is a nice way of putting it. I would have went with "totally fuck up." Recury 17:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Sorry, meant to put quotes and a disclaimer around "solve". Better way to put it is that it tends to reduce the flames of the turf war over a particular spelling and focuses the discussion on use of the "Common name" which is generally disuaded by pointing out that CN makes an exception for spelling differences. :) --Bobblehead 18:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like an interesting idea that I would support.  It would not be trivial: for it to work, a volunteer would need to summarise material from Buttermilk and Sour cream at Fermented milk (and perhaps also Cheese and some other products I am not aware of.)  As far as I know, yoghurt isn't the only fermented milk product.  --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Many editors have learned Solomon's lesson. The MoS's first dialect guideline is the result. Many editors reject it, unfortunately... even though we have no better solution. --Yath 19:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we do have a better solution - leave the article where it is.  If it's stable, it stays.  If it's unstable, then we have solutions of last resort.  You are rejecting stability in favour of an incorrect reading of the MoS.  The MoS is merely a guideline, not a policy.  It cannot be used to argue against stability.  That would be a clear misuse of it.  Guettarda 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since when is stability a Wikipedia value? Is that documented anywhere, or did you just make it up?  --Serge 05:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: With all the discussion back-and-forth about what the article should be named, perhaps it's time to archive the current Talk page and start anew. --moof 03:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stuck some of the older sections into /Archive 1, anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 03:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to archive the talk page? 

message: There must be some way to overcome this ridiculous tendency of people to keep bring up the same old issues time and time again. Jooler 01:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, be civil about this. You may not like American English, and thats your choice, but don't go around and start labeling people who disagree with you. If it's been changed that way before, they must have a reason. I suggest you find out why they are changing that way, and then fix the problem. If you can't, then go make a request for comment about it or make an arbitration case about which title to be prefered. Personally, I couldn't care less one way or the other, but it's not right for you to call people 'linguistic imperialist' because they disagree with you. semper fi — Moe 01:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who's being uncivil? If you couldn't care less - then why the hell vote for one option over another? I have been on Wikipedia for 5 years and have seen time and time and time arguments about spelling on aluminium, humour, grey, theatre, orange (colour) and countless other pages with the same arugments ranging time and time again, using bogus stats from Google etc and it is ALWAYS people wanting to move to American spellings from non-American ones. I think I know what I'm talking about. Jooler 01:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did I bother voting on side or the other above? Because most articles use the American English version of the title over the British English version, simple enough (i.e. Color, not colour and other articles too). Yes, I think you have a valid point, but yes your comments like the one above I stated are uncivil and you should try to remain as calm as possible. I know it may seem like this great injustice to you, but you shouldn't take things so personally. semper fi — Moe 02:15, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not call anyone a linguistic imperialist. But the homgenisation of language on Wikipedia to conform to the style of the 800lb Gorilla that is the US because '"Google hits counts say so" campaign amounts to the same thing - and now you have stated quite clearly that you favour homgenisation. Or should I say "favor homogenization" - does it make you happier to see it written that way because that's how most editors on Wikipedia would write it? Jooler 02:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happier? No, can't say that it does make me happy. All I said was it was common practice, and yes, I'm in favor (or should I say favour) of common practices. semper fi — Moe 02:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not common practice where I come from.  Jooler 02:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And let me guess, you're from Britian, right? Of course it's not common practice in Britian (Or other areas that use British English) to use American English. Wikipedia isn't your battleground to go and try and dispute things because it's against your countries common practices and such, nor would I do it for America. semper fi — Moe 02:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But you're suggesting that because the majority of people do something one way (the majority in this case being American English speakers who edit Wikipedia articles) that we all should conform. Am I correct? Or am I misinterpreting your comments? BTW As a Brit I have absolutely no Idea what "Semper Fi" is intended to mean. - It's latin I suppose - something to do with American colleges - but beyond that I'm at a loss. It's not a common expression in this part of the world. Jooler 02:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would feel the same way that you do if I was living in the country that the majority of editors are not located, trust me. But theres not really a way to change what the majority of editors think. I'm not saying we should be conformed to one particular way of changing it, but the majority of editors who come on this site are going to be using American English, not British, theres really nothing I can do to help you in regards to changing everyone else's mind. If I did have it my way, I would make it where both common English versions were in the article heading, but it wouldn't gain enough consensus and it would get shot down without a furthur thought. Oh and "semper fi" means "always faithful". semper fi — Moe 02:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Wrong. The majority of editors are actually from the rest of the World and are not native English speakers. Increasingly, English usage by non-native speakers is being dictated by their word-prosessors and spellcheckers which default to American English. (Why would some 12 yeard old in Bhutan change the dictionary to British English). Nevertheless there are a signficant number of not-native non-American English speakers out there and possibily a majority and this is a global encyclopaedia. Why do you want to take away their little corner of wikipedia? 04:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Somehow you missed the rather contentious attempts to move color and gasoline in the opposite direction. Here's a question for you: how many articles can you name that started at an American English term, but are now at the Commonwealth English term? (I know of two.) And just for completness sake, how many started at the Commonwealth English term, but are now at the American English term? --Yath 02:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: football (soccer), Athletics (track and field), Sulfur (earliest edit now at  ), fetus. What's the one other than yoghurt then? Jooler 02:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I should clarify - do you know of any article moves from CwE to AmE where there was no specific reason to do so, and thus going against the MoS's guideline? I'm sure there are a great many articles moved from one dialect to another due to the usage rules of IUPAC or other reasons. As for the other article than yoghurt, it's humour. --Yath 03:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Humour moved by User:Daniel C. Boyer of  Michigan, USA, for whatever reason. BTW I don't see any votes to move for color in the history of that talk page. Given that the number of articles in American English exceeds those in British English one would not expect to find parity in the number of articles that have changed from one to the other using your criteria above. However in our brief survey it appears that a larger number of articles using British English  (which is in the minority on Wikipedia) come under seige from attempts to move them, as a consequence of that minority position. Jooler 04:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, there was a brisk move discussion/edit war on Orange (colour), which was originally so written; also Jewellery. Septentrionalis 04:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Spotted it for you. So, do you know of any article moves from CwE to AmE where there was no specific reason to do so, which thus went against the MoS's guideline? --Yath 05:00, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hardly "rather contentious"  re: color it was rejected out of hand. No I don't know of any page oves from CwE to AmE where there was no specific reason to do so, but as stated above the probability of there being one is less than the other way round. Jooler 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We know of two arbitrary moves from one dialect to another. I say hey, why not fix them, since that's exactly the kind of divisive, disrespectful change that the MoS's original-contributor guideline was made to prevent. --Yath 00:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Undoing an arbitrary page move in this manner is just as arbitrary. - Mark 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The 'Let's keep having votes until we get our way' policy 

message: I have added accurate information about the name and spelling. Don't remove it! Cevair Zufer 17:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A) what's our source for this information? B) How is it relevant to the English-language article on the subject? -Will Beback · † · 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The information about the silent, [γ], and [g] (Balkan) pronunciations is now in the article in a logical place. --Macrakis 21:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accurate Information added

message: As Yogurt is Turkish this page should be redirected to Yogurt which is the correct spelling even if they today in Türkiya change the G with Ğ and hence spell it Yoğurt. Cevair Zufer 17:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an English-language encyclopedia, and we use the English names here (though it is disputed whether it should be yogurt or yoghurt in English..., see above). --Macrakis 20:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The name

message: see for yourself
and, as per the MOS, since a consensus can't be reached, the original spelling must be used. this isn't brain surgery. Joeyramoney 23:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  the original title was "yogurt" 

message: I can fully understand the democratic process behind this, but this is way too much discussion over legitimate alternate spellings of a word. Seems to be more of a US/UK power struggle. Stick in a redirect, explain the different spellings close to the top and move on to the next discussion. ByteofKnowledge 20:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Find something else to do