Talk:Doogh

Doogh template

This user proudly drinks
ayran.

Attention doogh lovers: Use this template to tell everyone how you love doogh!--Zereshk 10:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Thanks! huntersquid 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Carbonated

I'm confused. The article states that doogh is "similar to [..] Ayran, although the latter is not carbonated." Does that mean that doogh is carbonated? While a later section addresses this point, it should really be mentioned sooner. -- Ec5618 19:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• Doogh is carbonated, I'm about 99% sure of that huntersquid 20:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

doogh can be carbonated or not traditional doogh is not carbonated at all!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.200.96.190 (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Dogh is not carbonated in Afghanistan

Dogh is very common in Afghanistan and common in the western half of Pakistan, and is NEVER carbonated. In the eastern half of Pakistan it turns into lassi and is either sweet or salty, I'm not sure of the difference between salty lassi and traditional dogh, but it tastes very different.

Afghanistani dogh is quote sour, frequently made from sheep/goat milk and is never carbonated or sweetened. I live in the viscinity and have never had sweetened dogh (except in Karachi, southeast Pakistan) or carbonated dogh except in Iran (one sip was quote enough). Dogh however is a daily ration in Balochistan and most of Afghanistan except the most urban areas. It is frequently poured from sheepskin containers carried by shepherds. I suspect an alcoholic content in dogh since it makes you sleepy so fast it knocks a guest out in 5 minutes regardless of nationality or previous exposure to dogh. Its always pronounced dogh in central afghanistan and Balochistan and never doogh. I suspect this is an Iranian pronunciation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.197.228.3 (talk) 10:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

this drink is still commonly drunk among the historical urban Persians (Tajiks) and not just the rural areas. Personally, I grew up on this drink and my family have been urbanites for several generations. This is a national drink there as well and this articles fails to even mention it (and many other articles make it appear that the people within modern Afghanistan have little (or at least less than accepted historical reality) connections toward with the people of present-day Iran, which is at best a POV and worse more akin to propaganda as it reimagines historical realities among these historical Persian populations. We can do better, team. Thanks and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Dough is the same as ayran

dough (persian) or ayran (turkish) can be carbonated, this is done either naturally or by adding CO2 like other beverages.

I am from Tabriz and I am completely familiar with both Turkish and Persian languages.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Adelzadeh (talk • contribs) 22:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

doogh in afghanistan

dogh is a very popular drink in afghanistan too, and I can't understand why it's not mentioned. also, in afghanistan it can be carbonated, but usually is not, and sometimes its served with cucumber inside.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.244.201 (talk) 09:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

can confirm that “Afghan” doogh is usually made with chopped cucumber,mint (dried or fresh depending on availability but i only do dried as that's what my family taught me) and watered down yogurt with ice. There should be some mention of this as it relates to ancient Persia (Greater Iran) and arguably 70%+ Afghans are ethnic Iranians. —Jamaas9 (talk) 22:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Carbonated?

Doogh is and is not carbonated. It depends. As sold in the streets of Iran, they are carbonated. Like Doogh of Abali. But if you step into a good classy restaurant in Iran, or anywhere else, doogh is not carbonated and is homemade.

In homes, people often make and drink the homemade uncarbonated version, unless they buy it from the grocery shop or something.

This also applies to outside Iran. Here in Texas, they sell the carbonated version in "Ali Baba's Mediterranean food store" (the biggest Iranian food store in town). But if you go to "Shiraz Persian Cuisine" restaurant, youll be served the uncarbonated version.--Zereshk 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Uncarbonated doogh is okay but once carbonated it becomes a truly amazing beverage and quite unique. Carbonated doogh makes the world a better place. Wow! No really. Wow! -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

it is written that Doogh is naturally carbonated. I think it is not true. in Iran there are bottled doogh which are carbonated but there are also doogh which are not. A home made doogh is is not carbonated. My conclusion is therefore Ayran= Doogh. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting, but in the article doogh, it reads so. Could you make necessary changes in doogh? Thanks. --Chapultepec (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC) I would like to do, but I have not written that there. I just copy and paste our communcations in that page and let's see whether the original author changes it. If not I will edit that page myself. --Babakexorramdin (talk) 21:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Ayran"

Mastaow?

Can somebody please tell me this is the Mastaow in Kurdish language or not? Chaldean 01:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

YES, Its the same. Mastaow and doogh are the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.137.204.107 (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually they are not, there is a difference between Mastaw and Do (doogh), this article reffers to Do and not Mastaw

Local doogh of Isfahan?

isn't the image in the article with the caption "local doogh of isfahan" picturing "ash-e doogh/mast". it can't be doogh.--Xashaiar (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

also the image with the caption "doogh with garlic" is showing some kind of dalal mast. that is the image is, though a relative of doogh, showing yogurt with garlic. it can not be doogh.--Xashaiar (talk) 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the image labelled "Doogh with Garlic" is actually a factory-made "Yoghurt with Shallot [Mâst-Musir]", so perhaps better be presented under Yoghurt.--Bee (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

What about we merge it in Ayran? As it is pointed above, the doogh CAN be carbonated or not, sa can the Ayran. They really ARE the same thing. OR we do something else: We specify under this article the carbonated version, and under Ayran the non carbonated one.

Cheers,

--Emir Ali Enç (talk) 00:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, it should be merge. What is all this nonsense about wording, Doogh = Ayran = Tan. They are all the same product, regardless of origin or way of preparation. It is like saying bolognese sauce is not ragu. --Vitilsky (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Doogh is Persian but Ayran is Turkish. While these drinks may be similar or perhaps even identical, there doesn't seem to be any reason to merge them especially if this gives preference to the name the drink has in a specific region. Is there a generic term for this type of minted yogurt beverage? Fleetham (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

i agree with merging all are the same product with different names .like water su and eau ,water is water doesnt matter what you call it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.200.96.190 (talk) 15:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that these drinks come from different regions is not sufficient for keeping two separate articles, especially in the case when these are neighbouring regions, such that one can be sure that these drinks have a common historical origin. As an example, Quark (dairy product) describes different quark versions from Slavic and German-speaking countries. --Off-shell (talk) 12:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Doogh. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117031432/http://www.todayszaman.com/national_pm-says-turkeys-national-drink-is-ayran-not-beer_313824.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/national_pm-says-turkeys-national-drink-is-ayran-not-beer_313824.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151117024646/http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_turks-turn-away-from-national-drink-despite-erdogan_390784.html to http://www.todayszaman.com/anasayfa_turks-turn-away-from-national-drink-despite-erdogan_390784.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Ayran

It's pretty obvious that Ayran is the far more common name than Doogh. The merge should have been to Ayran instead of to this article. Gune (talk) 01:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

the name “Aryan” implies an Iranian/Aryan origin and that’s why the name Doogh is valid vs more modern terminology that it is derived from such as Aryan. The Iranian people have been sedentary for a significant portion of ancient history and that’s why we accept the Iranian origin from my personal understanding. Could you provide a reliable source stating otherwise? If not, doesn’t make complete sense to use Aryan just bc it is more common as readers should understand the supposed origin of drinks, which in this case, looks like Greater Iran. Thanks and kind regards

Jamaas9 (talk) 22:48, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

if this drink is formerly a Turkic invention, then do think the title change is something we can figure out by consensus at least imho. Sorry for the previous statement, and let me know if anyone feels similarly to the first talk post. Thank you and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 00:33, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Ancient Persia === Modern Iran (exclusively)

@LouisAragon: Hi, LouisAragon, hope you have been well. Will not revert your edits even though your edit summary doesn't address what I said correctly. Could you please source that doogh came from modern Iran as this the source doesn't say that. Your analysis implies that every cuisine that Iranian nationals eat as native cuisine must have been originally from modern borders of present-day Iran. Using your logic, I could say that a book written about Central Asian history, by definition, makes everything about it exclusively belonging to only Central Asia -- even if there is an indication that this may not be fully the case. My edits implies that it could come from anywhere in Greater Iran due to our shared native Persian heritage, which by definition of "heritage", may include shared native cuisine. We have to write neutrally if we are not sure. Are you 100% (or something close to that effect) sure this must have come from present-day Iran's borders? If so, please provide me a very credible link from a food historian so I may understand our heritage more. Furthermore, do you have clear evidence this food item didn't come from another modern Persian ethnic group such as Tajiks or Tats or even other non-Persian modern and ancient Iranians ethnic groups?

Otherwise, could you provide evidence that everytime a person uses "Ancient Persia" they mean modern Iranian borders vis-a-vis exclusively? I believe that this is technically a POV issue among other thing and at least one that needs a solid citation if I may be able to express my humble opinion to you. Thank you Jamaas9 (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jamaas9, let me please underline some points. You said to LouisAragon "Could you please source that doogh came from modern Iran", the answer is yes, doogh is an Iranian drink, check this : [1], i quote from the first line of the abstract "Doogh, an Iranian drinking yoghurt type, is a fermented dairy beverage and constitutes an important part of daily beverage consumption in Iran". You also say "could you provide evidence that everytime a person"Ancient Persia" they mean modern Iranian borders", please check this : [2], i quote from the first paragraph : "Persia, historic region of southwestern Asia associated with the area that is now modern Iran.". Please do not remove it again from the article. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 02:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Is this certain that we mean “Iranian” as in modern-day Iran nationality with people who have citizenship or people are ethnically Iranian? That’s my whole point — right now, it seems that “Iranian” can mean exclusively modern-day Iran (again, POV unless defined or it relates to things invented during modern nation-state Iran’s era. This should be very clear as we can’t say “Ancient Persia” in its entirety is just modern Iran when talking about historical concepts. If this was something modern — that’s fair and legitimate for a variety of reasons. Right now, this still constitutes original research unless you can show that this word “ancient Persia” in this context means modern Iran geographically? We are combining historical and modern concepts (which are different and not done anywhere on WP else like the Rumi page).

We all know that “Persia” corresponds to the historical region of Pars, but it constitutes a POV (unless proven) to state that this now somehow means native to that specific region of historical Greater Persia/Greater Iran because we know by common logic that not everything “Persian” or “Iranian” or even from “Persia” constitutes modern Iran and especially historical Pars. I have seen “Persia” being used for parts of modern-Afghanistan so by just pure logic how can something correspond to both exclusively to modern Iran but then the meaning switches to extend beyond the borders? Again, if this food item is sourced within modern day Iran borders — great! The article just says “Iranian” and given that this a documented drink from ancient times — it does not mean modern day Iran necessarily unless proven geographically (or if it is proven that inventor was genetically native to present-day Iran’s borders. Have never seen/heard of the inventor of doogh so can imagine that proving the inventor was “Iranian” as understood by the modern borders might prove nearly impossible.

This faulty logic, if extended, could mean that Rumi as a “Tajik” or “Iranian” is from Iran if someone just cites a paper saying he is of “Iranian” origin. I am also from Iranian origin too — but it would unethical and misleading to say I am from modern Iran. I am not and many Iranian things are not native to modern Iran and we both know this. Let’s please work together amicably — I really just want to say the truth. If you can honestly prove that this ancient drink was made in ancient times in what geographically corresponds to modern Iran - go ahead, I wish that this as easy and simple as that. It’s not, and the modern Persian ethnicities are split formerly to three (even if personal POVs think otherwise)

If we can’t say it, then why are you promoting that we insinuate that it is as that could be misleading (among other things). Again, I know some of us didn’t get to the best start but this project is not about winning - it’s about just stating reality. Please let me know what you think as I feel that I am being taken the wrong way. Thanks and kind regards Jamaas9 (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, the source says "Persia" and i provided a source (Encyclopedia Britannica) who states that Persia is associated with modern Iran, therefore, i think this case is closed. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: Thanks for your response. Again, respectfully, you literally failed to prove that it came from modern Iran which was my entire point and it previously stated that origin was either modern Iran (“Iran”, not Historical Iran/Greater Iran/etc) or Turkey which is not fair for others Central Asians. Hopefully we could incorpate that perspective more as both are essentially very similar people broadly speaking and we share much of the same cultural items/people/values/history etc. Furthermore, this convo should highlight our own bias in re: Iranian people as this drink is mistakened for “Iranian” too often which isn’t fair for Türkic people at all.

My suggestion would have been Greater Iran as that includes part of Central Asia and is more inclusive language given the historical nature of this page. Fortunately, for both of us, that issue was fixed by another unsigned editor anyway in the meantime. So this case is respectfully closed for me too unless another editor has qualms re: Ancient Persia === modern Iran in the actual

article (personally, the article now is balanced enough that it is implictly understood that this is referring to modern day culture of Iranians nationals imho.) Kind regards and thank you for your time. Thanks and kind regards. Jamaas9 (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your answer looks like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT to me. The source states "Persia" and i provided a source saying that Persia is associated with modern Iran (from Encyclopedia Britanniaca), who "failed to prove that it came from modern Iran" ? The fact that you think it's a misleading statement is obviously an irrelevant argument here since your opinion goes against what the sources say. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 23:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

no, it’s not that I didn’t like it. Please listen to me. The origin previously stated “Iran and Turkey” which with the (modern-Iran) makes it explicit it must have come from modern Iran imho and not the historical region. It would have been better to have made that point very explicit in my First revert, or simply added “Central Asia” to the origin list like someone else did. My bad for not being clear. So take responsibility for not being very clear but thought this would have been an obvious issue for other editors to have both the origin as “Iran” and then explicitly define ancient Persia as just modern Iran. The current version no longer has that problem, hence, why I agree with you. Do you disagree with that analysis? If needed, I can bring other editors to see if my analysis makes sense as that is misleading imho. Thanks and kind regards Jamaas9 (talk) 23:48, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

You can bring as many editors you want, per WP:VOTE this won't help. Facts are clear and sourced as i told you above. The source speaks about ancient Persia for the origin of doogh (or at least, it says it was a popular drink in ancient Persia) and i proved with a reliable source that ancient Persia = modern Iran. Do you really think that Persia means Afghanistan ? or Tajikistan ?? This is obviously not the case, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Irak, Turkmenistan and many other countries around Iran were parts of the successive Persian/Iranian empires nothing more, nothing less, this would be POV pushing to try desperately to make our readers think that doogh could be, for examples, a Tajik or Afghan invention. Done here. Regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not pushing anything by definition if it was an Afghan or Tajik invention from a thousand years ago — it would still be considered “Iranian” or even “Persian” by many western definition. Again, the idea that ancient Persia in this sense means exclusively present-day Iran is still lacking. You proved with reliable sources that “Persia” which is still an acceptable cognate for present-day Iran corresponds to modern Iran, which makes perfect sense. This states “ancient Persia” so going by the timeline, it could easily mean historical Khorasan which more likely given the Central Asian roots anyway. Not here to fight you re: the modern terminology nor do I feel like this convo is going anywhere as my statements simply point out that stating origin: “Iran, Turkey” + defining it as just exclusively modern day Iran doesn’t seem logical to me given the supposed Centeal Asian roots as neither of those countries in Central Asia proper. Again sorry for the confusion and do think the current article is acceptable. Thank you Jamaas9 (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually the confusion is on your part. Your edit removed (modern day Iran) from:

• "According to Shirin Simmons, doogh has long been a popular drink and was consumed in ancient Persia (modern-day Iran)."
  

This sentence makes no comment as to the origin of this drink. Your comment:

• "Are you 100% (or something close to that effect) sure this must have come from present-day Iran's borders? If so, please provide me a very credible link from a food historian so I may understand our heritage more. Furthermore, do you have clear evidence this food item didn't come from another modern Persian ethnic group such as Tajiks or Tats or even other non-Persian modern and ancient Iranians ethnic groups?"

and,

• "The origin previously stated “Iran and Turkey” which with the (modern-Iran) makes it explicit it must have come from modern Iran imho and not the historical region. It would have been better to have made that point very explicit in my First revert, or simply added “Central Asia” to the origin list like someone else did. My bad for not being clear. So take responsibility for not being very clear but thought this would have been an obvious issue for other editors to have both the origin as “Iran” and then explicitly define ancient Persia as just modern Iran."

The underlined sentence, clearly indicates you think, erroneously, that the sentence means the drink originated in ancient Persia. The sentence makes no pretensions of any kind regarding origin.

The bolded sentence, indicates you are still under the erroneously thinking that the sentence states, "doogh is of Iranian origin", and now are tossing out your own POV stating that Tajiks or Tats may have created the drink.

So, yes Wikaviani is correct. Your edit was to remove "(modern-day Iran), because you are so wrapped up in your own POV pushing nonsense that you could not even read the sentence correctly! --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

respectfully, you are misinterpreting what I am saying and will get back to you when I feel better. Am pretty sure you will find my perspective at least somewhat reasonable or at least a valid point to make this more accurate + objective. Sorry for the confusion, but my next statement will make it vividly clear what I meant. Also dont think Tajiks + Tats created the drink, but will admit I was genuinely confused because lack of clarity of an earlier edition from this article. Thank you for understanding and for your patience. Jamaas9 (talk) 02:16, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

No, I am not "misinterpreting" what you are saying.

• ".....previously the origin was restricted to “Iran” and later it was defined that Ancient Persia was just “modern-day Iran” which is very misleading for all readers, including me.."

You removed something you did not like and now are trying to talk your way out of it.

Answer my questions,

• 1. what did removing "(modern-day Iran)" have to do with where the drink originated?
• 2. what did the sentence, which you edited, have anything to do with where the drink originated or who created it? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am not trying to “talk my way out of it” and have already apologized and accepted some blame; however, total blame is not warranted until you hear me out. I actually don’t care about saying modern Iran at all and do agree that in hindsight another edit would have been the better path. Apologies again, however, you do need to hear me out given this engagement and what was said between all three of us. am again very sorry for this confusion. I will of course give you an full answer, and again hope that you will find my reasoning acceptable. Again, I apologize and will respond (hopefully) within 48 hours as I do have a documented significant illness (which if needed, will confirm with WP’s corporate team — thanks). The illness impacts my ability to eat and function so I ask for your sincere patience. If you read my illness on WP, you will understand my delay. Thank you. Jamaas9 (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Ayran

Seemingly the same thing. We should either merge these, or create separate articles for the two remaining most popular types of the drink (Doogh and Tan). Personally, I think we should do the latter, as the drinks are quite different from one another. Openlydialectic (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Er, they are the same thing, with just different names, like Pacha/Khash and other 'ethnic' foods and drinks, despite the subtle difference in flavours and ingredients. We have Coca Cola Blue - Should articles for those too? Of course not. --User:Meganesia (talk) 05:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

classification of beverage

Doogh can be carbonated or non-carbonated. This beverage is also classified as being part of multiple cuisines such as Iranian. --207.233.110.67 (talk) 19:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed merging under Doogh

@Johnuniq:@Barkeep49:@Princeofpersia187:@Lithopsian: It seems the consensus to merge the articles Ayran and Doogh is at least a few years old, and the result to merge it under the name Doogh is nowhere to be seen.

A quick Google search gives about 7,840,000 hits for "Ayran", while "Doogh" only gives 267,000. A blatantly clear case per Wikipedia:Article titles. The number of Wikilinks of each article to their corresponding language versions also is in clear favor of Ayran. Someone just arbitrarily moved Ayran to Doogh at some point (without consensus), while it should be clearly the other way round. If there is no well-founded objection I will move the content of Doogh to Ayran. Kind regards. Akocsg (talk) 01:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

My involvement was merely procedural - a duplicate article was made and that shouldn't be. Doing a little digging it looks like this provides some trail of the backstory here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Google hits are not a decider for article titles—arguments need to be based on WP:Article titles and should address issues raised in previous discussions. The procedures for resolving disagreements over a title are at WP:Requested moves. That is separate from the fact that content forks are unacceptable, as are copyright violations (unattributed copy/paste from one article into another). If the issue is not quite right for a requested move discussion, an RfC will be required with a brief and neutral question. Johnuniq (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Johnuniq:@Barkeep49: Here a consensus was reached to merge it under Ayran, and not the other way around. Akocsg (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comparing Google hits while using only the Latin script search is quite dishonest; searching "Ayran" brings up Turkish and English language results, while searching "Doogh" only brings up English language results (and with an inconsistent spelling too, in Latin form it can be spelled "dugh" or "dough" as well). Typing دوغ into Google brings an additional 6.26 million hits; meaning its quite comparable with the hits for Ayran. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 02:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm here purely because of a technicality. An attempted move/merge was done badly and reverted (by several editors, including me). I have no opinion (and less knowledge) about the content. The history of these articles is a minefield, and I would caution any editor against cherry-picking particular discussions, decisions, or edits as being the "one and only truth". There was a formal merge discussion in 2013, as mentioned, but it was never implemented. In March 2016, another abortive attempt to merge. In December 2016, there was another attempted merge and a mini edit-war, with some discussion. In March 2018, it was redirected to Doogh "after merge", and reinstated in April 2018. Then, in January 2019, Aryan was redirected here on the premise of "100% fork, after March 2018 merge". Then in May, the current edit warring began. I wouldn't want to take any decisions on the basis of what went before. Lithopsian (talk) 13:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 17 August 2019

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

The result of the move request was: no consensus. The nominator has not substantiated their primary topic argument. I also note that this is not the place to re-hash old discussions, especially ones that are five years old. I recommend a more thorough discussion should take place here about the contents of the article, and whether there are enough differences to warrant two separate articles, or whether this article should be altered. (closed by non-admin page mover) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

---

Doogh → Ayran – WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT; Ayran is the more common and primary name for the product. There was never a consensus to merge it under "Doogh". It was done so arbitrarily without discussion. Here another user taking an older discussion as reference mentioned that is was meant to be merged under Ayran.

Here a consensus was reached to merge it under Ayran, and not the other way around. Akocsg (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose comparing Google hits is not the best way to find out the best title for an article. Even so, if we search "Doogh" in Persian and list all the results in Persian and English together, we obtain a comparable number of results for each one. I would add that in Turkey, Ayran is not commercialzed with garlic or shallot added in it, while in Iran, several varieties of Doogh can be found, some containing garlic or shallot.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

@Wikaviani: So are you for seperate articles? I'm not sure if both drinks are even the same, the users in the consensus I cited above supported it. Though the merger was to be under Ayran. So this either must be moeved there, or the articles stay apart and the content of each article should be made distinct accordingly. I am for distinct articles, if there are such differences as you say. And concerning the Google hits, in English Ayran is the more common name. The alternative spellings don't change that. For Turkish (or other languages) the alternative spelling "Airan" could also be added, which gives a higher number of hits overall alongside "Ayran". The original consensus was to merge under Ayran anyway, so it either moves there, or the articles become distinct (if the drinks are). Akocsg (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think separate artices could be a good deal, since as i said, there is only one kind of Ayran in Turkey while there are several varieties in Iran. However, if there was to be only one article, then Doogh sounds legit since the Ayran drink that exists in Turkey is a variety of Doogh.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

If there is no significant difference between "Doogh" and "Ayran" (other than, perhaps, what language people are likely to be speaking while they drink it or what country is producing it), then we should not treat these as different topics and should not have separate articles about the two names for the drink. Minor variations, such as whether some versions contain garlic or shallots, can be treated within the same article. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose This seems like another attempt at pov-pushing by Akocsg. I'd say it was a huge mistake to merge the two articles, now this article is gonna get constantly disrupted. Therefor I support a split of the article into Doogh and Ayran. --HistoryofIran (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest you keep your accusations for yourself, since taking a former consensus as reference is not POV in any way. That's what should have been done in the first place. I also support the split. The Ayran part of the Doogh article should be transferred to Ayran, and the content concerning Doogh in the Ayran article should be moved to Doogh. I will do that if nobody has objections. Akocsg (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

---

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

Recent addition of 12 pictures of Ayran

@Cengizsogutlu: Please explain here how the addition of 12 pictures of Ayran in this article is relevant. Thanks.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

First of all thank you for wanting to talk to me. The reason that I put the images for giving extra information like ayran taşı churning stone I thought most people wouldn't understand if I could explain this in only text. Secondly there was a drink that manipulated the subject Armenian style Doogh tan next to Turkish subject, if you are not malicious putting a drink because it looks like to Turkish sytle doogh something nonsensical. It gives me a reason and cause to add pictures. Oky i agree i add many pictures, I realize that I am exaggerating images. I will delete some, however i think some should stay such us ( see my last edit )churning stone, Ayran Jug Traditional ayran copper cup's and a modern packed ayran. Imagine you bought a ayran from kebab shop and you are interested. Searched on google came to this page huh there is a picture of Armenian Doogh it looks like milk bottle. I wanted to put a picture of a Turkish style Ayran pack that sold in daily fast food resto's. Isn't it strange for you also putting a Armenian Doogh in huge milk bottle next to Turkish sytle? Its like putting Doner Kebab picture next to hamburger yeah you know what it looks like same its also kinda hamburger I just laugh at that, man. Anyway, how about doing it so i delete 80% putting only ayranin a package we're always used to seeing in kebab shops, a tradional copper cup and churning stone what do you think about this version? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 13:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I barely understood a word of this. What is your point? I feel like there's too much unnecessary stuff in your text. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Same goes for me, don't get what the point of this WP:TLDR speech is exactly. Also, i suggest you read WP:INDENT and desist from personal attacks based on the nationality or ethnicity of fellow wikipedians you are working with.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations, You play the sneaky and stupid role very well. I bet that you guys understand very well what I mean. Dont act like i dont get a word i live in Belgium i have dozens of Farsi friends your language your language is more suitable to understand what I am telling with broken English. Did i do an insult?Nationality or ethnicity? You cannot bear two pictures. You are trying to prove that you are right in your own world with wiki experience.. I simply asked and said why there is another cultures drink phototo next to Turkish version of this drink, I added 3 photos instead of i add 10+. I'm simply saying again I ADD 3 PICTURES NEXT TO TURKISH AYRAN INSTEAD OF OTHER CULTURES DRINK WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT? in my opinion its manipulating article putting other cultures version next to it what is your purpose deleting my little edit guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 18:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Well, you need to calm down and stay cool. Let me be clear, nobody cares about your Persian dudes, this is an encyclopedia and we need to collaborate, this means that we should not attack other users by playing an ethnic card and we should not say they are playing a sneaky and stupid role either. I have no problem with adding one picture or two of Ayran to this article, but you need to get that this article is about an Iranian drink, and there is already a whole section about "Turkish national status", therefore we should not bombard this article with Ayran pictures. I hope that you can understand my concerns, that are not based on ethnic bias but with the quality and neutrality of this article. Best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Okey i agree also mention that i delete 90% its not enough can we add 'SINGLE' picture about ayran? for ex let me add single ayran picture then,so at least one photo about subject can seen. Can you also tell me why there is a photo of Armenian sytle of Doogh next to ayran. I have nothing against Armenians buts its so absurd. Its like for example putting a church photo meaning mosques are like churches you know what no need for mosque photo.. I want this in a civilized way, most likely you hate Turks oky whatever everyone's own life can you add a single picture of Ayran or i will add one ? before finishing what did I insult this time? maybe the lactose ratio of ayran :D? About iranian drink Wouldn't it be nice if we had to separate this page for ex Ayran for hes own page Doogh to another? Some claims persian drink some claim from Hunnic practically its just watery Yogurt drink. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cengizsogutlu (talk • contribs) 21:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If you keep playing an ethnic card in this thread you will find yourself blocked, your above sentence "most likely you hate Turks" is an irrelevant battleground comment. Again, my actions are not driven by any ethnic bias but by my concerns to protect the quality of this encyclopedia, if you make one more personal attack, i will have no other choice but to request administrator intervention. As i said above, i have no problem with adding one or two pictures of ayran to the article, please feel free to proceed. The tan picture is maybe misplaced, you can move it elsewhere in the article if you want (in my humble opinion, moving it to the "variations" section sounds good). Also, as an answer to your question about creating a separate article for ayran, i would say that you can see in the above sections that this has already been discussed, since ayran, tan and lassi are nothing else than variations of doogh, the current article is enough to deal with all these beverages. best.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2020

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

The result of the move request was: Moved to Ayran. A significant body of evidence has been presented by the nominator that "ayran" is the more common form in English, and it has not been meaningfully refuted (nb Google Ngrams work on English-lanuage corpus). The argument that those are two different drinks was not very convincing, particularly if having in mind that "Ayran" was merged into "Doogh" back in 2016. No such user (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Doogh → Ayran – As per wikipedia article naming guidlines(english-language titles) the common English-language name should be used for article titles. As per wikipedia guidelines, nGrams for terms in the english language are a valid way of determining an applicable English-language name.

Google Books' nGram comparison for the terms ayran and doogh (and their spelling variants airan and dugh, respectively) all within English-language texts only (excludes Turkish-language and Farsi-language sources) shows that ayran is 4x more common than Doogh .

As per Google search frequency, as of the date of this move request (Dec 5, 2020), the term ayran far outstrips doogh on Google search trends in the United States of America. The average over the last year is 49 for ayran and 12 for doogh. The term دوغ as suggested by another user doesn't even register in search frequency. . When the search trends paramters are expanded to worldwide, interest in the term ayran ranks 71 versus doogh ranking a barely perciptible score of 1.

Further, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has an entry for airan, a variant spelling for ayran, and defines it as "[a] drink prepared from fermented milk." The Merriam-Webster dictionary does not contain an entry for doogh or its variant spellings.

The Oxford English Dictionary also has an entry for ayran. It lists it as the Turkish and Arabic names for a yoghurt drink. It notes that it is also known under alternative names like eyran, airan laban, abdogh or dugh. It has a redirect entry of sorts under the term doogh, which tells the user to see ayran.

To summarize, as mentioned above, nGram comparison shows ayran should be title for this article given that ayran is four times more commonly found in English-language publications relative to doogh. Common dictionary definitions also hint that the title should be either ayran/airan as per Oxford English Dictionary and Mirriam-Webster, respectively.

I hope changing the article title to the common English langauge name might help make this article far less politicized as well. The current article is in poor shape in my opinion, and lacks objectivity due to its ethnocentric title. Looking for inspiration in non-English wikipedias, one hopes that re-titling it to its English-language name a much more neutral description of the ayran drink can be written: a Middle-Eastern or Central Asian yoghurt-based drink commonly consumed in Iran, Turkey and surrounding areas.

References

– Wikabulary (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Don't know why we're having this request (yet again) but seeing the same argument being posted, I'm just going to copy paste what I said last time:

Comparing Google hits while using only the Latin script search is quite dishonest; searching "Ayran" brings up Turkish and English language results, while searching "Doogh" only brings up English language results (and with an inconsistent spelling too, in Latin form it can be spelled "dugh" or "dough" as well). Typing دوغ into Google brings an additional 6.26 million hits; meaning its quite comparable with the hits for Ayran.

In short, your argument for moving it is pretty clearly unsound, you'd be better off arguing to split the article in two. -- Qahramani44 (talk) 08:13, 05 December 2020 (UTC)

My argument is sound because :

1. Wikipedia guidelines demand using the English name not a foreign name for article titles on en.wiki.x.io.

2. nGram specifically searches for English language publications and is suggested by Wikipedia to determin English names. This is not a total "number of web results" argument. This pretty clearly proves that 4x as many references from GoogleBooks IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE to this product are ayran rather than doogh. Farsi, Turkish and and all other foreign-language publications are EXCLUDED from the nGram results in my references.

3. I have also proven that the Oxford English Dictionary and Mirriam-Webster, the two definitive English dictionaries use ayran/airan and prefer it over doogh

4. Foreign-language interest in the word دوغ only matters for Farsi Wikipedia and not English Wikipedia, as دوغ is not an English word.

5. Lastly, to address your concern about comparing Latin script versus Farsi script search results: Firstly, I have not used a web search results argument as it is mostly irrelevant. Secondly, you are mistaking web search result numbers (irrelevant) for actual interest in the search terms. Here, sampling Google trends in English-speaking countries is relevant. As of right now (Dec 5, 2020), the term ayran far outstrips doogh on Google search trends in the United States of America, an English-speaking country: The average search trend score over the last year is 49 for ayran and 12 for doogh (over 4x interest in Ayran). The term دوغ as suggested by yourself is so unpopular that it doesn't even register in search trends. It scores 0 in America. . When the search trends paramters are expanded to worldwide, interest in the term ayran ranks 71 versus doogh ranking a barely perciptible score of 1. Unsurprisingly, دوغ again scores 0. Wikabulary (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

6. For posterity, google trends interest in search term annual averages, on Dec 5 2020 in:

Canada(English): ayran: 19, doogh: 6, دوغ: 0

Australia(English): ayran: 38, doogh: 8, دوغ: 0

United Kingdom(English): ayran: 41, doogh: 5, دوغ: 0

USA(English): ayran: 49, doogh: 12, دوغ: 0

Worlwide(Mixed): ayran: 71, doogh: 1, دوغ: 0

Turkey(Turkish): ayran: 64, doogh: 0, دوغ: 0

Iran(Farsi): ayran: 9, doogh: 8, دوغ: 0 It appears even Iranian Google users have a slight preference for using the term ayran as well!Wikabulary (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Turkey(Turkish): ayran: 64, doogh: 0, دوغ: 0

You would indeed find zero references for "doogh" in Turkish as it is not how you would spell it according to Turkish ortoghraphy. Repeat it for "duh", which seems to be the dialectal Turkish variant of doogh. Erkin Alp Güney 13:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

And it is ayran: 67, duh: 1, دوغ:0 in Turkey (Turkish). Erkin Alp Güney 13:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

References

• Support A user claimed that ayran has more search results because Turkish is written in Latin alphabet. That's not true because even when you accompany ayran with an English word like drink or beverage, it still brings up way more results. Another user had made a claim that ayran is a subvariety of doogh. Seriously? The two names refer to the same drink. None is a subvariety of the other. Whether Iranian ayran is flavoured more than the Turkish ayran or not, is irrelevant. It doesn't mean anything. Are you going to change yogurt to mast as well? Also, the Turkic speaking in Iran refer to the drink as ayran. I'm sure the ayran in Iranian Azerbaijan is the same drink as in the rest of Iran. That's enough proof that the two words refer to exactly the same thing. Wikiabulary's arguments are flawless.

TerranBoy (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Support per wp:commonname blindlynx (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose Ayran is a variety of doogh and is already dealt with in the article, ayran having more Google hits does not make it the common name of this drink. This would be like saying that Coca Cola is the common name of soda ...---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. ayran is the standard term for this yoghurt-based drink in English as well as most European languages, and is also standard in multiple Arabic-speaking countries and Turkic-speaking countries. Ayran is the standard term in countless other countries as well. As per all evidence, doogh is the standard term only in some regions of Iran and Afghanistan. Thus, this is a difference of regional terminology rather than variety. Let's illustrate this with the French word for "shop" as an example: In English, we do not say "magasin is a variety of shop." Nor do we say "shops are a type of magasin". In English we might correctly say "magasin is the French word for shop." Wikabulary (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

You didn't add anything to the discussion. But did you seriously compare a commercial name with ayran? Ayran is not a variety of doogh. These are two names of the same drink as it's even evident in the usage of the word by Iranian Turkic ethnicities (Azerbaijanis, Qashqays, Turkmens and Khorasani Turks). Ayran not only is the common word in English, but also has an Oxford and Merriam Webster entry. That makes doogh a foreign word. Most probably ancient Iranians were first to produce this drink, that doesn't mean you can force how other languages call the same drink. The ancient origin of something and how it's called in another language are two different topics.

Your opposition at this point is likely to be motivated by tribalism and I suggest requesting administrator intervention to solve this issue. TerranBoy (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

That was uncalled for. Please read WP:NO PERSONAL ATTACKS and WP:GOOD FAITH. I seriously doubt that randomly attacking other fellow users is gonna make the readers sway to your opinion. Ironically if an admin saw this it would be you in problems. HistoryofIran (talk)

I did not accuse him of anything but cast doubt on his good faith because it to seemed to me that he ignored the new arguments and repeated the now dismissed arguments given by himself two years ago. If that is still a violation of the rules, then I will not repeat this in the future. You yourself had called a user "child of donkey" and "one whose brain doesn't work" in some of your former edits on Azerbaijani language. TerranBoy (talk) 06:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear users User:Wikaviani, User:Qahramani44 and User:HistoryofIran: Please address my arguments or we will have reached a consensus for Support by default. Neither of you has addressed a single argument I have made. My arguments are entirely based on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(use_English) and do not depend on Google web search results to determine English language names. My argument is primarily nGram(Wiki requires common name in English RS, and this tool finds the occurences in all published English books and journals!), followed by the two definitive English language dictionaries. Just these two prove that ayran is doubtlessly the correct English languge name for this article. Finally, search interest (not search results) point to ayran overwhelmingly being preferred by English-speaking countries (and indeed, all countries!). The WP guidelines state: "If a particular name is widely used in English-language sources, then that name is generally the most appropriate, no matter what name is used by non-English sources." I can understand that you have a sentimental attachment to your mother language translation of this term, but English Wikipedia is not in the business of changing the English langauge or promoting words from any dialect/language into a new English standard. Wikabulary (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

As per Google nGram (books) and Google Trends methods, see using search engines in Wikipedia: this confirms these methods to be WP standard practice in determining article titles. Wikabulary (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Another point to be made is that at almost all of the 27 citations listed in the article refer to the product as ayran and not doogh. Excluding foreign-language citations, there are just four citations in this article which reference doogh in the English language, one of which is an Iranian-specific cookbook. The rest of the English language citations refer the product as ayran(including all of the introductory paragraph). Wikabulary (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I dont have to address your 'arguments' at all, I'm not even part of this. Also, I'm no genius when it comes to the rules but I'm pretty sure you don't get to decide single handedly who's argument is correct or when there is a consensus. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry I though you were one of the folks who were in opposition. I was simply stating that adjudicators of this move request will take into account whether the arguments presented adhere to WP rules. Wikabulary (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Google hits are not relevant to find out what the common name is, but reliable sources are.The burden is on you to prove that this move is legit. Also, i'm not inclined to discuss with an editor who attacks fellow wikipedians when they disagree with them. So far, you have no consensus for this move, therefore, i strongly suggest you to refrain from moving the article.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Wikaviani,

1. I believe you may be mistaking me for someone else, as I have not placed any personal attacks on anybody and I continue to be respectful of our difference of opinion.

2. As I have repeated multiple times now, I have not used Google web hits as an argument.

3. I have presented dictionary evidence from the two foremost English language dictionaries that ayran is the standard English term.

4. In addition to dictionaries, ayran being 4x more common in English publications was determined using reliable source references counts for the terms in question using Google Books/nGram. Further, the determination that ayran was the most common rendering of the word among English-speaking internet audiences was achieved using Google Trends. Both are standard as per Wikipedia guidelines found in this WP guide (Trends and Books bullet points) and this WP controversial move guide.

5. I am simply asking the opposition to address these points (all of which still remain unaddressed) rather than addressing a non-existent web search result argument. I believe our readers might be more swayed by direct responses to the above arguments rather than red herrings. Best regards, Wikabulary (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about Terranboy who makes personal attacks, not you. Neither Doogh nor Ayran are English words, there is therefore no reason to rename this article. Besides, other Wikis call this drink Doogh for most of them. This has been already discussed and the consensus reached was for Doogh. We are not going to discuss this matter again and again. End off.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:58, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Dear User:Wikaviani: 1. But this is a widely-accepted English word, imported as ayran and not doogh. Similarly, while Boutique is an English word for "store" imported from French, we do not title the article by its Greek root/equivalent apothēkē in English Wikipedia. This is due to a well-established Wikipedia article titling standard. 2. There was never a consensus for doogh. In fact, an existing consensus for ayran was ignored and a user merged to doogh instead. The next time this debate was opened based on that argument, it was settled that it must be based on fresh arguments and not on fault-finding on the previously-botched merge. Hope you have a great day! Wikabulary (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Ayran is an English word because it has entered two prestigious English dictionaries. We're not dealing with linguistic purism to resort to such kind of arguments. Other Wikis are actually mostly ayran articles. They're not linked to this article because of the initial mistake in creating two different articles for the same drink. There are 35 ayran Wiki articles and less than 15 doogh articles. If we exclude the Persian and Zazaki articles that naturally use *doogh* and its cognates (Kurds in Turkey also refer to ayran as *dew*, a cognate of doogh), the remaining ten are languages that also have an article for ayran. That's a different issue that needs to be dealt with. Anyways, we're talking about English language here. Other Wikis are irrelevant. Besides, you reaching "consensus" a long time ago doesn't mean much. The arguments that were used in the past were faulty and fallacious. This isn't the first time that a former consensus in Wikipedia is questioned.TerranBoy (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

The arguments of both sides can be seen here. Should the article be titled Ayran or Doogh? Also, please if possible comment on the next section in this talk page as well. TerranBoy (talk) 23:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Support change it into Ayran or make a new page for Ayran. I dont want personelly wikipedia turn into Farsi nationalists playground, with this logic we should call even cigarettes to tobacco, the term "cake" to --> (well it's funny btw =D) KAKA, the word itself is of Viking origin, from the Old Norse word "kaka. What those Persians friends wants, use for ex in place of cakethe word kaka' cuz of the origin (bruhh). With this logic we must change all food & other stuff in English into original one which is pretty ridiculous for me... I think there must be another page for Ayran it's my own opinion. Spending too much time here, experimenting with editing and turning everything in their favor for me mean ---> Turning worldwide encyclopedia to own etnic playground. "i rest my case" Cengizsogutlu (talk) 15:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Separating ayran and doogh is unjustified as the two words refer to the exact same drinks. Even Turkic ethnicities of Iran refer the drink as ayran and Iranian ethnicities of Turkey refer to the drink as dew/do. If we're going to separate ayran and doogh then why stop there? Why not a separate for the Armenian tan, Pashtun shlombi, Arabic shinīna etc.? Are we going to divide all articles based on how many names they're given in different languages? The fact that ayran is the prevalent word has no reason other than Turkey/Ottomans being neighbours and close to Europe and European-speaking peoples. That's why European languages use yogurt instead of the Persian mast. Yogurt being called yogurt in English doesn't even change the history of the product. In the yogurt article there's no mentions of Turks, and rightly so, except for the etymology of the English loanword. The same is true for ayran. Nobody's questioning that ayran is originally from ancient Persia and Iranian cultures. TerranBoy (talk) 15:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If there is a case for two articles it would be as such: in almost all Farsi-language links, the actual product they are referencing is not ayran (a yoghurt-water-salt mixture) but rather buttermilk which is the sour remnants of milk after the butter has been churned out of it. But this is a separate argument. Support/opposition to splitting to two articles is not relevant in the context of this move request. Wikabulary (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose ayran and doogh are two separate drinks, create an ayran page if you want, but this one should stay.92.249.30.186 (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

If we are to have separate pages, it should be noted that the existing page is the more likely candidate page for ayran, since almost all the current links and citations here are for ayran and not doogh. And English language dictionaries define ayran as a fermented yoghurt drink. But this is a separate argument. Support/opposition to splitting to two articles is not relevant in the context of this move request. Wikabulary (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

this will definetly confuse Iranians and probably Europeans too.Baratiiman (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Support per wp:commonname--85.104.66.147 (talk) 10:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

First edit ever and it's a comment here, not to mention he also reverted me crossing Cengizsogutlu hostile remarks [3]. Logout perhaps? --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Cengizsogutlu lives in Belgium. My IP address is from Turkey. Are you kidding? --85.104.66.147 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Travelling is still a thing you know. --HistoryofIran (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment I think the debate should be about "Are Ayran and Doogh same?". Split if Ayran and Doogh are two different drinks. Both can have their own articles just like some other Yogurt-based drinks (see List of yogurt-based dishes and beverages#Beverages, Category:Yogurt-based drinks, and navbox Template:Yogurts). Article Kebab is a good example. A main article, a section and its sub-sections dedicated to national varieties, and List of kebabs. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. as far as i know, the two drinks are essentially the same, but Doogh usually contains some mint, not Ayran.---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

When you say "Not ayran", you're implying the two are different. I have a question now, is Iranian Azeri ayran also different from doogh? Ayran and doogh are nothing but two names of the same drink. There is plenty of evidence for that. In Cyprus for example, Greeks call it airani and Turks call it ayran. The Cypriot ayran usually contains oregano. So far, you have not addressed a single argument raised by Wikabulary or I, yet you insist on using two different names and favour the name doogh. TerranBoy (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Your POV, is not relevant here, neither is mine, what reliable published sources say is : here. I quote : "Doogh is an Iranian traditional fermented acidic dairy drink (1). This product that is usually consumed along with food has become a popular drink in Iran owing to its pleasurable sensory properties and healthy characteristics. Similar products of this drink are available with different names in various countries, such as Ayran in Turkey and Laban in Arabic countries (2). Doogh has high acceptability and demand in east European countries (3)."---Wikaviani ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ancient Persia: Modern-Day Iran or Ancient Iran

I noticed @Laval: has undone my edit regarding Ancient Persia meaning ancient Iran. I would like to know on what basis ancient Persia means modern-day Iran and not ancient Iran? Is Roman Empire's heritage also exclusively Italian? Don't Spain, Romania or France have anything to do with ancient Rome? If a = b, then ax = bx. This isn't even a controversial thing. It's logic. Persia is Iran, therefore ancient Persia is ancient Iran. It's common knowledge that Ancient Persia was at least twice the size of modern Persia. Can one say that Kurds in the current geography of Iran drank ayran 1500 years ago but those that are now in Iraq or Turkey didn't? If in an imaginary situation the three Khorasan provinces in modern-day Iran join Afghanistan, will they be striped off of their ayran drinking past in ancient times? TerranBoy (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Redirect?

The discussion in 2020 was about moving the article from a far less common name. That decision did not preclude writing a new culture-specific article. We have plenty of articles about regional varieties of basically the same food, see my favorite dish: List of pancakes :-).- Altenmann >talk 23:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Recent split and consensus

@Altenmann, there hasn’t been any discussion on splitting/merging in the last 4 years, so I wonder how consensus may be assumed to have changed to the exact contrary without any discussions. Per WP:CONSENSUS, which you have linked, in most cases, an editor who knows a proposed change will modify a matter resolved by past discussion should propose that change by discussion. Aintabli (talk) 23:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• You said it yourself: there was no "past discussion" about merging: it was a page move, so you cannot claim that I somehow violated a consensus. To create a new article does not require any consensus, which would be ridiculous. - Altenmann >talk 23:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry for the mistake. Because the above discussion mentions splitting/merging, I thought it was just a malformed merger discussion. But obviously, as intended, Ayran was renamed to its current title from Doogh. That would make the recent creation of Doogh outside the scope of the past discussion. Aintabli (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)