Talk:Kefir

Marco Polo

How long should unsubstantiated statements be tolerated? The story that Marco Polo tasted kefir during his travels has been present on this page for a long time without substantiation. If this claim is true, it should be pretty easy to prove, since Marco Polo's works are in the public domain. If nobody can pin this down, it's probably false. Many other web pages are now repeating that Marco Polo tasted kefir (with no more detail). I therefore suggest explicitly noting that this story is probably false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.8.11.15 (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• "Travels of Marco Polo" as translated by W. Marsden (1818) -- He talks about a wine-like drink made of fermented mare's milk which he translates it as "Kemurs." I'm afraid I can't pin it down better than that currently, but hopefully it will give someone else a starting point for some proper research. 76.196.236.118 (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)Shay

Marco Polo observed the drinking of *koumiss*, not kefir, which factis fairly widely recognized by historians. - David Russell Watson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.109.134.169 (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I found that Koumiss is also referenced in the 1903 Yule-Cordier edition of "The travels of Marco Polo" available from the Gutenberg project. In that version the name of the beverage is spelled Kumiz, Kumis, and Kimis. Kumis is produced without kefir grains. Too bad, it would have been nice if Marco Polo had tasted kefir.

"Inventor"

• Can someone check into this Matt Fastow person who is claimed to be the inventor of this drink? The book that is listed as a source for this information is inaccessible to me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who finds this a suspicious claim. bwmcmaste (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Is that red Bull link just an Add?

Unless I'm missing something that Red Bull link can be removed because it seems like advertising to me.

12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)~

In certain sites, I noted that kefir is sometimes also known as (Tibetan) Snow Lotus (Tien Shan Hsueh Lien) and/or Tibetan mushroom. Does anyone know if this is correct or not?

Kefir grains list - not SPAM

The International Kefir community provides access to real kefir grains, mostly free or for cost of postage. I believe that this is useful information, not SPAM. If this is not acceptable, then a Google link that helps people find free kefir grains should be given. Webaware 16:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Coconut kefir

If someone is looking for coconut kefir information than wikipedia is not probably the best place for it. It's spam. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 10:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

SPAM is unsolicited commercial information. A detailed description of how coconut water kefir is made is not SPAM. Kefir is broadly recommended as a "superfood", so many people with nutrition-based health problems are seeking information about what kefir is and how to prepare it. Some of these people (not a small number) cannot tolerate dairy, and are interested in ways to get the probiotic benefits of kefir without inflicting lactose or casein on their gastro intestinal tracts. Rather than providing a full description of these preparation methods (thus turning Wikipedia into a recipe book), I think it is better to provide references to existing information. Webaware 10:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kefir is not known to be or contain probiotics, but some health effects may be attributed to kefir. Knorrepoes 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A google scholar search with search terms "kefir probiotic" would suggest otherwise.Trishm (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Of course, probiotics can be added commercially to kefir. But that is different as stating that all kefir contains probiotics. And the definition of a probiotic is that it is a bacterial strain, so never a product.Knorrepoes (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Health benefits

BBC page on that. 86.136.252.198 01:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The information of histamine reactions should be included, the article is all about the pros of Kefir with no information discussing the negative effect of fermentation on people who are histamine sensitive. If someone who is histamine sensitive ingests Kefir or any other fermented/lacto-fermented product they will have itch and hives and other reactions. I am one of those people (but still love my coconut water kefir because it makes my stomach instantly when it is upset). As well, this is not a subjective page. Nothing gets rid of skin pigmentation, age spots or moles that is not physical or mechanical intervention of some kind. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.247.92 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Links to do-it-yourself resources

I'm not generally opposed to a single external link that has other DIY resources about making your own Kefir, but a link to such a site should not be placed by an editor who is obviously affiliated to this site, per WP:EL. It is about this site: http://www.webaware.com.au/ferment/finding_kefir.php . I don't know enough of kefir to judge the page, so I leave that to other editors. Han-Kwang 19:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

G'day Han-Kwang, we have a problem here as you keep putting up road blocks. The article is about kefir, a fermented food / drink, and kefir requires a culture starter for the ferment to commence. We used to have some links that helped people find where to get that culture starter (for free - not commercial!) but you took them away, citing WP:EL. This is not the first time this article has had this problem.

I provided a page on my website to act as a directory for finding culture starters, and added a link in this article, in an attempt to comply with WP:EL; I initially looked at using DMOZ, but it was too limited, so I created a page and added a user submission form at the bottom. Now you claim that I can't even do that, again citing WP:EL, because I am affiliated with the link. This is just getting weird, because the page in question is a directory of links to other websites - thus my "affiliation" amounts to promotion of other people's websites, from whom I receive no benefit.

I put it to you, then: how can we provide some information on acquiring culture starters for kefir from non-commercial sources without breaking WP:EL? And please don't now cite WP:NOT, because I would first assert that knowing where to acquire culture starters for kefir is basic information. Webaware 21:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

See conflicts of interest: "If it is a relevant and informative link that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." If another (established) editor besides you agrees with you that it is an informative link that belongs in this article and replaces it, I will no longer object. Han-Kwang 22:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, will do. Webaware 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Finding Kefir Grains

G'day all. I have created a page on my website, detailing where to obtain real kefir grains. This page includes links to:

• lists of users who share real kefir grains
• email lists and web forums where people share kefir grains
• some commercial suppliers of real kefir grains
• some commercial suppliers of powdered kefir starters (hey, some people apparently like them!)

I've done this because too many Wikipedians want to remove any such links from this article, citing WP:EL. I personally think that information on how to find real kefir grains is important to the article, but I can't add the link to my page (above) because I'm affiliated - I made the page, it's on my website, Catch-22.

If you think that information on finding kefir grains is useful to include in this article, please add a link to this page to the External links section of the article. Webaware 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not too concerned about it either way, but I just thought I'd throw in my two cents. First, let me be clear: I'm not bashing your page at ALL - speaking as someone who makes a lot of unusual and historical foods and drinks, I think it's great that you're interested in sharing "rare" culinary ingredients. That said, I don't see any call for linking that sort of site on Wikipedia. Wikipedia isn't a how-to compendium. Anyone who wants to try making kefir should really pop over to Google (or whatever seach service they prefer) for step-by-step instructions or shopping needs. Imagine what the Bread page would look like if everyone who wanted to trade local artisanal grains or share their favorite recipe put a link on there, or if the Automobile page turned into a Craigslist-esque vintage parts swap. I realize you aren't running a commercial site and you're not trying to prey on people or anything, but your site just doesn't seem relevant to an encyclopedic article.76.196.236.118 (talk) 05:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

plagiarism

The first paragraph in the health benefits section is cut and pasted from two places in an article written by Edward Farnworth in the "Food Science and Technology Bulletin" in 2005. It's plainly copyrighted and is available online. This link may work: plagerized

If not check out www.ifis.org and search for kefir. I can't seem to figure out what to do about it.James.folsom 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Which article are you concerned with? I'd remove the sections and give this URL in the edit summary and talk page as my rationale, if it's true. I might summarize the passages and give the URL as a reference. Xiner (talk, email) 21:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the plagiarism now.James.folsom 23:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Koumiss confusion

I'm removing a passage from the article because it appears to be from an author who is confusing koumiss production with kefir production. I'm placing the passage here in case someone can prove otherwise.

(Throughout history, kefir was kept and fermented in a simple leather pouch, never to be washed. Portions were removed for consumption, the rest remaining in the pouch, and fresh milk added.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by James.folsom (talk • contribs) 2007-02-05T10:04:11.

G'day James, I like the edit job you've done on this article - it sorely needed it! Regarding your comment above, I've heard this particular concept put about a bit in the kefir forums, particularly by a bloke who has done a lot of (amateur) investigation into kefir, Dominic Anfiteatro. Additionally, Ed Farnworth says this in his book, Handbook of Fermented Functional Foods: "It would appear from the oral tradition of kefir that fermentation of milk in skin bags as a way of preserving milk led to the production of the first kefir grains and started the long tradition of producing kefir." Webaware ^talk 01:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Work it back in there somewhere then. I honestly had never heard that in relation to kefir, but I'm not omnipotent.James.folsom 01:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

See Also section

Hi, I was wondering if someone could explain the differences between Kefir and Kombucha (and the various other substances) mentioned in the See Also section? Are they based on the same micro-organisms? thanks --Tomhannen 11:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed mention of kombucha from the article, because it is quite unrelated to kefir. [[Kumis] is culturally related to kefir, as it was prepared and consumed in the same areas of Eurasia; however, it differs quite a bit in composition, with kumis relying mainly on Lactobacillus bulgaricus bacteria and Torula spp. yeasts. Water kefir or tibicos are more similar to kefir in terms of microorganism varieties, with some variance giving them better suitability to fermenting sugary water and fruit juices. Ayran and lassi are beverages prepared from yoghurt or cultured buttermilk, and are thus essentially the same as yoghurt in terms of microorganism varieties. Webaware ^talk 14:43, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kefir is one of the main ingriedents in Lithuanian cold soup šaltibarščiai

USSR

What's with all the references to "the former Soviet Union" and "USSR"? I guess I could understand "the former Soviet Union" being used, but USSR? Maybe Russia?

hobbyists?

In the first paragraph of Making Kefir, the phrase "Kefir grains can be purchased or acquired from other hobbyists, see below" seems out of place... What 'other' hobbyists? And what does 'see below' mean? I couldn't find anything else related to this in the article. This seems copied from a DIY article or something similar, but I couldn't find it anywhere else on the net (maybe it's from printed media?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielgrad (talk • contribs) 12:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What is the origin of kefir "grains"?

It seems that many kefir enthusiasts feel that true kefir cannot come from kefir starter powder, and that to create kefir, one must use existing kefir "grains" (which are not actually grains, but a microbial culture). Does anyone know the origin of the kefir "grains"? Is it possible to form the "grains" from scratch? This article ought to address the origin of this substance. Photouploaded (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Matzoon is not kefir

Matzoon redirects to the kefir article, but based on the article, I don't think they're the same thing. Matzoon is an Armenian fermented milk. According to the recipe in Henley's Twentieth Century Formulas, matzoon starts with a bakers' yeast culture, while Bacteria in Country Life states it has unique bacteria. In either case, the redirect should be removed. 75.57.125.155 (talk) 01:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Matzoon is synonymous with yogurt (matzoon is the Armenian word, while yogurt is the Turkish word). But yeah, you're right, I don't think it's the same as kefir. 136.152.145.160 (talk) 11:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

life cycle info

I was wondering about upkeep of the grains- is it possible to kill them if u do not provide food (sugars) for a long time!?!?!. Whats a reasonable time to go with out food, and optimal storage temp. Do they go bad? Is raw milk ok to use (or pros and cons or raw milk). It peak conditions (and what are they) how long can you expext a doubling in size (amount) of the grains. thanks. Cilstr (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mistake in Culinary uses - section?

In there, it says that kefir is the main ingredient of the "Okroshka" - soup, while on the Okroshka page, it says that some people just like to add a spoon of kefir on top, and the primary ingredient is kvass. 84.250.37.116 (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

'jogurt' and kefir mixup

In Southern Slavic countries kefir is known as Jogurt, (because of the name many people think it's yogurt, but it's not)...

I'd like to correct a statement made in the article. Namely yoghurt is either 'jogurt' or 'kiselo ml(ij)eko' (sour milk), kefir is kefir. Quoted text is simply not true...

Name origin - Arabic seems dubious

Does anyone know where the word "kefir" came from and what it originally meant?\ 75.85.81.0 (talk) 10:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Whatever it is, it is not of Turkish origin. Somehow the page repeats the mistake that "kefir" comes from the word "keyif" (loanword from arabic meaning "enjoyment") in Turkish, but this etymology is definitely wrong (no comparable -ir ending in Turkish words). I think that part shoould be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.193.61 (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The supposed Arabic etymology has been added, sourced by a health care professional saying, "It is thought to originate from the Turkish word "Keif" meaning "good feeling", for the sense of well-being experienced after drinking it." Looks like he's just passing on something he overheard rather than researched it in any way, nor does his health care background make him an authority in any manner. --Ronz (talk) 15:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The other source states it is of Russian origin, as does http://oxforddictionaries.com, http://dictionary.reference.com, http://www.merriam-webster.com. --Ronz (talk) 14:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/kefir states the Russian is likely from the Turkish.

Until someone can provide better sources, the Arabic theory seems to be mistaken. --Ronz (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Removed 'probiotics' sentence.

According to all definitions of probiotics these are well characterised strains of bacteria. Therefore a product as such can never be a probiotic, but a product may contain a probiotic. As kefir is a complex product with thousands of recepies, it can never be considered a probiotic product. Some kefir products on the market may have a probiotic strain added, so it is not impossible to have a kefir with probiotics. Any 'wild' type of kefir does contain many micro-organisms, but as is not known which are added, they can never be probiotics as the definition state that they are well defined strains with a proven health effect. Also, a probiotic product, basically is a health claim according to EFSA, so to call something probiotic, you have to have done all kinds of clinical tests. This can never be done wioth the thousands of kefir variations that exist worldwide...Knorrepoes (talk) 15:05, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, and this may be due to EU/US differences, as well as a grammar issue. The regulatory issues have not changed much, currently in the US probiotics are allowed but health claims are restricted. Some confusion may exist over usage of the word. You are obviously using it as a noun, and I find most products and literature in the US use it as an adjective. Currently this editor appears to have been banned or censored, and I wanted to present a counter-argument, for fairness. Subtle, but even if a product cannot be a probiotic, it may be probiotic. Angryredplanet (talk) 10:04, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Freezing or storing Kefir?

Sometimes I need / use a lot of kefir, more than can conveniently be made in a day. I'd like to make it ahead of time and store it up for the high-use times, but I need the active cultures in it to be alive when I serve it. Do you know if this is possible? I wondered if freezing it in sealed containers would work, or if it'd be better to dry it in an air dryer and then freeze the dried stuff until I need to re-constitute it for use?

98.64.76.196 (talk) 04:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Nancy

Nothing to do with wikipedia, but see the sections on resting and storing kefir grains here:

http://users.sa.chariot.net.au/~dna/Makekefir.html#resting-kefir-gains —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.31.36 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

what kefir cultures eat

This article doesn't do a good job at explaining exactly what kefir cultures eat. I'm understanding from the article that they eat sugar, but there seems to be a myth that they only eat lactose and this is a misunderstanding that needs to be clearly tackled.

I hate to burst your bubble, but lactose IS sugar. It is a disaccharide, and as far as I know, the only type of sugar in milk.--75.80.43.80 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

what is the size of a walnut in this sentence?

"Kefir grains contain a water-soluble polysaccharide known as kefiran, which imparts a rope-like texture and feeling in the mouth; it ranges in color from white to yellow, and may grow to the size of walnuts." Does the polysaccharide grow to the size of a walnut? or a kefir grain? I found the opening of the article confusing as I did not think kefir was made from grain. The word "grain" is sort of explained later. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Kefir grains: edible or not?

It would be interesting to see this article include information about kefir grains being edible or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.83.201.150 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are edible if you don't mind chewing a rubbery thing, or swallowing it whole. You can also put them a blender. I've eaten many - they grow, so you've got your choice between consuming them and throwing them away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.39.77 (talk) 23:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Research section

The following material was removed with the following edit summary: "studies in mice are not evidence of human effects; they do not comply with WP:MEDRS"

Anti inflammatory

The polysaccharide kefiran (found in Kefir products) has demonstrated anti-inflammatory properties in mice in preliminary studies.

Cancer

Studies in rodents have shown that kefir can function as an antioxidant and protect mice from the damaging effects of chemicals such as carbon tetrachloride. Kefir treatment has also been associated with promotion of programmed cell death and tumor inhibition in mice.

Here is what the relevant section of WP:MEDRS says verbatim: "In vitro studies and animal models serve a central role in biomedical research, and are invaluable in determining mechanistic pathways and generating hypotheses. However, in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into clinical effects in human beings. Where in vitro and animal-model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical, and the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reported findings hold true in humans. The level of support for a hypothesis should be evident to the reader.

Use of small-scale, single studies make for weak evidence, and allow for easy cherry picking of data. Results of studies cited or mentioned in Wikipedia should be put in context by using high quality secondary sources rather than using the primary sources themselves."

Going over this section of MEDRS again, I do not see any violation. The studies that were mentioned made it clear that they were preliminary in nature (I can say preliminary studies in rodents for the cancer part if that is the objectionable part) and makes it clear that these results were specifically in mice. This is the extent of the literature so far and human trials for these issues are sparse, missing, or unreviewed. Regardless, this section of WP:MEDRS does not say that animal studies are against MEDRS, it says not to overemphasize them because they often do not have the same impact on human beings. This is certainly true. As it says above though, "where in vitro and animal model data are cited on Wikipedia, it should be clear to the reader that the data are pre-clinical and the article text should avoid stating or implying that the reporting findings hold true in humans." Is the suggestion that the version I added somehow implies this? If so, how? Let's work toward modifying this content if needed so it is unambiguous that these are preliminary data in rodent studies (and they are put in context by using high-quality secondary sources and I did not cite any primary sources). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

All due respect, Tyler, but it's clear to me you have cherry-picked WP:MEDRS to support use of these very preliminary studies that a) are WP:PRIMARY (i.e., have not been reproduced elsewhere in the literature and not cited or interpreted by a reliable secondary source), b) are of no relevance to humans, c) do not offer anything new specifically related to kefir (similar compounds are found in most foods) and d) violate at least two sections of WP:MEDRS: WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDANIMAL. The article is better without misleading reference to possible effects on inflammation and cancer, which imply anti-disease mechanisms and claims. --Zefr (talk) 17:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'm afraid I will have to object to your use of "cherry-picking" here (a term I was relatively unfamiliar with previously) and I would ask that you assume good faith on my part before hurling such accusations (if your intention was not to accuse, that's fine, but that is how it comes across). Now, according to the cherry picking page on Wikipedia, this is how cherry picking is defined: "Cherry picking, suppressing evidence, or the fallacy of incomplete evidence is the act of pointing to individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position, while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position. It is a kind of fallacy of selective attention, the most common example of which is the confirmation bias." Here's the problem-you're making a rather large assumption about me, which is that I'm using WP:MEDRS compliant reviews to advocate for the position of Kefir having health benefits. However, this is a bad assumption and here's why-I was still editing the section, it's a work in progress. For example, the same reviews I looked at also stated that (animal) studies examining whether Kefir lowers cholesterol or not have arrived at mixed conclusions (possibly due to differing effects of differing microorganisms in different Kefir strains, blah blah blah, etc.) and as I was going through the evidence I would have been happy to incorporate these mixed/more negative findings to ensure that the article continues to have a balanced viewpoint.

I feel you jumped the gun a bit in this case, especially since I did extend an olive branch early on (which you rebuffed) and offered to reword/clarify what was written to make it unambiguous that no health claims in humans were being made at this time since it seems clarity is apparently the issue. Clarity seemed to be the issue to me based on what you said here: "The article is better without misleading reference to possible effects on inflammation and cancer, which imply anti-disease mechanisms and claims". Additionally, I never once (and my earlier statements prove this) denied that this was very preliminary data (and it was framed as such-it even USED the word preliminary in the sentence). I did notice that you seemed to backpedal a bit since you seemed to initially state that these were not even secondary sources and that they were not WP:MEDRS compliant (which of course they are). Also, I would advise you to take a good long hard look at your own quote here about what defines primary sources since these studies ARE interpreted/discussed in secondary sources (which is what is referenced, not the primary studies themselves). As for the compounds themselves being present in different foods, that's irrelevant because any given compound can have differing health effects based on the concentration (e.g., if compound X has health benefits at level 50 and if found at level 10 in one food and level 100 in another, that suggests differing effects of these foods with respect to this compound) and other factors may also influence the health benefits (or lack thereof) depending on the food/beverage source (e.g., how well the compound is absorbed such as if it is present in a fattier food or how it interacts with other compounds present in the food/drink source). So, that's really not valid to say, that these compounds are not uniquely found in Kefir and therefore not worth mentioning. Even if there are other things similar to Kefir (there are and I'm aware of this fact), that doesn't mean these compounds aren't worth discussing/mentioning in the context of Kefir.

As for the assertions about WP:PRIMARY, I maintain that you are misinterpreting it and do not agree with your assessment as well as misinterpreting what WP:MEDANIMAL says. Regardless, I'm not particularly attached to including the preliminary data from rodent studies about tumor inhibitory processes, immunomodulation, etc. and willing to let the literature develop a bit more (it is certainly true that much remains to be explored in the world of Kefir) and I do not feel like having an argument with you about it. I maintain that I did NOT violate WP:MEDASSESS or WP:MEDANIMAL and believe your interpretation is overly restrictive (beyond what is necessary at Wikipedia since I do understand that Wikipedia not meant to be right at the cutting edge). I think your lines of reasoning would have been much more convincing/compelling if you had stated that you think it is simply premature at this point rather than arguing that this is primary data (since the data is reviewed in secondary sources in a high-quality journal) and that we should let things further develop or emerge (which I'm willing to do and think is the more logical reason to omit this information from the article for the time being, not for the reasons you stated). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the material.

These problems are typical for most food products: Promoters cherry pick anything that makes their product look healthy, then we end up going through the pre-choosen references and claims to see if there's anything at all that stands up to MEDRS.

When the components have been better studied, then maybe an extremely brief mention would be worth including. When consumption of the product itself has been shown to have the effects of those components, then we include details. --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I take exception to (what sounds like) your calling me a "promoter". Nowhere in that section does it say "Kefir is good for you, go drink it" or anything even remotely close to that. Please read the comments above carefully, Ronz. Do you have an article example to back up your claim that this is the order of events for addition of nutritional material like this? Or is this solely your opinion? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I never implied or meant to state anything about any editors here. I try to WP:FOC. To clarify: I'm talking by individuals and organizations outside Wikipedia.

As for the rest, it is my summary of my understanding of the wide consensus on how MEDRS is applied to food products. --Ronz (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary ( agree with removal - MEDRS trumps efforts at promotion) suggests otherwise and sounded an awful lot like a swipe at me. If that's not what was intended, fair enough, but surely you can see how I might interpret it that way, so it might be best to think about the content of your edit summaries a little more carefully next time since I agree we should focus on the article's content instead of discussing editors. As for the nutrition content, the main argument I have heard so far is that listing the nutrients found in Kefir is going to likely mislead (by implication) that Kefir is chock full of each of these nutrients and therefore is a nutritional powerhouse (whether it is or is not in fact a nutritional powerhouse remains somewhat unclear to me since I have yet to find a MEDRS review that provides specific quantitative data for how much of each nutrient is found in Kefir). I do not agree with the line of reasoning that saying Kefir has vitamins A, B, C, etc. is going to lead people to believe that it is a rich source of all of them and therefore infer substantial health benefits from its consumption.

I have added no material to suggest that either (the same goes for the animal studies bit-no human health benefit was ever indicated and I maintain that was overanalyzed/subjected to overly strict interpretation) since it was clearly framed as very preliminary data and specified that the benefits seen in these early studies were in MICE/rodents (humans were never mentioned except the one study reviewed by a secondary source still in the article about the flatulence bit). Let me be perfectly clear, there is no disagreement on my part that the literature base for Kefir is still in need of significant development and that health benefits of Kefir consumption have not been definitively shown in humans (there is absolutely a lack of clinical trials and other necessary studies to make such a statement), but I do not agree that mentioning the nutrients found in Kefir (as confirmed by secondary sources) will mislead readers into thinking that Kefir is a rich source of these things. I think you're reading something that is not there. There are no adjectives suggesting that any of these nutrients is plentiful in Kefir, only that it has them (and that statement is indeed verifiable per the secondary sources used). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References

Rewrite of Etymology without edit summary

This rewrite, done without an edit summary for some reason, needs to be revisited. The removed sources should be restored, or a very good argument made for the removal of each of them. It would also be helpful to trace the sources to find who actually determined the basis with "feeling good". --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Really Ronz, you really think this needs explanation and to be revisited? This is ridiculous and nitpicky. Here is what was removed (verbatim) and why: " existing in modern Russian (since at least 1884), Polish, Turkish and English, is probably from a North Caucasian Turkish Origin (although some sources see a connection to Turkic köpür (foam)) and has become the most commonly used name, although it is known in other regions by various names."

The reason for the removal is because of the bad sourcing (seriously? we can't do better than Wiktionary and this Memidex dictionary?) and lack of sourcing (zero sourcing for the claim of various other names in different regions or that it is the most commonly used name and it looks like that statement was there for quite some time without a valid reference for support). The current version discussing the Turkish word "keyif" is supported (and mentioned directly) in two secondary sources that are WP:MEDRS compliant. Sheesh, talk about an edit that should have been uncontroversial. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So you're not disputing the Merriam Webster source? --Ronz (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe this. No, I'm not disputing the Merriam Webster source, but have you even looked at that source? It doesn't really say anything important. If you're concerned about the originating in Russia in 1884 thing, feel free to put it back. That doesn't seem like it adds much to me and seems like a ridiculous point to nitpick over, but I really don't care if you want it in the article at this point. The only other thing the Merriam Webster dictionary source says is that it is a fermented cow's milk beverage. Both secondary sources cited verify the etymology part about it being derived from the Turkish word keyif for feel good and neither one comments positively or negatively about the Russian bit. Do whatever you want. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The link to "keyif" seems rather dubious. Because of my lack of access to the materials, I cannot trace the claims as cited to any sources that appear authoritative.

The keyif/keif info has been disputed in the past within this article: [1] [2] [3] [4] brief comments [5] [6] [7] [8].

I'm having much more luck tracing sources from the various dictionary references. I'm not finding anything for "keyif"/"keif", but am finding the milk foam link. I'll continue when I have more time. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The link to keyif seems rather dubious? The references supporting that claim are of far higher quality than those supporting the other statements (e.g., Wiktionary, Medimex.com, etc). I don't particularly object to the inclusion of the Merriam Webster's Dictionary as a reference in general, but I do not think it trumps 2-3 recent WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources. I have another if you need further convincing (though this REALLY should not be controversial and 2 secondary sources from high quality journals was MORE than adequate for this kind of claim). I have added a third review article from 2014 further reinforcing the support for this statement. As for not having access to the materials, you haven't tried asking me for a copy. Also, the de Oliveira paper is free access so you should be able to verify it there at the very least. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is irrelevant to etymology, beyond that they are well-researched articles. As I said, I cannot trace the original source(s) for the material. Hopefully they are real etymological references, but I don't know.

As I've pointed out, the material has been disputed before, and the references (when offered) were poor.

Ideally, we'd like a full etymology, tracing the word derivations and usages chronologically. As far as I can verify, the Merriam-Webster reference is the closest we have.

Memidex lists multiple similar references which we should use directly. If someone wants to verify them directly, it would help but I'm not sure it is necessary. -Ronz (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Please explain the rationale for your reversion in full detail as I have above. Memidex, as previously explained, is not even close in terms of reference quality as the references I replaced it with. Please explain your continued removal of high-quality MEDRS-compliant reviews in favor of Merriam Webster's Dictionary, Memidex, and Wiktionary, because it makes no sense to me. Even if the material has been previously disputed, this is not an adequate reason to remove well-sourced material. If you have references that rival the ones I have presented in terms of quality and they dispute the claim that Kefir is derived from the Turkish word Keyif, please present them here. If you can not provide sources of comparable quality that state this, then the section should go back to the way it was before, period. The references I provided are absolutely NOT poor, they are very high quality. How are you evaluating these sources and arriving at the conclusion that they are poor? Please, explain your thought process here. Also, please re-read my earlier comments. I have no particular objection to using Merriam Webster in principle, but it is not an adequate source for the full chronology and especially does not merit the removal of verification by high-quality MEDRS reviews.

The Memidex and Wiktionary are clearly inferior sources of information by comparison and I do not understand why this is even being disputed. Even if MEDRS is not relevant in the sense that these are not medical claims, they are still higher quality references than Memidex, Wiktionary, and Merriam Webster and they are all in agreement about the etymology. As I mentioned before, I have a fourth review that is also in agreement. How can you disregard four recent reviews like that (especially if, as you say, they are "well-researched articles")? Surely you're not suggesting using Memidex that uses Wiktionary as one of its references and Wiktionary which does not appear to have any substantial references at all. Also, as I mentioned before, the de Oliveira article is free access so you absolutely can access that article and verify that it says what's claimed. Last point for this comment, your links above stating that this has been previously disputed (and when I look at the diffs some of them are you specifically disputing them, that greatly weakens your point in showing me those diffs). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm tired of debating this. I'm going back to what I said a few days ago-do what you want. If you want to use low-quality sources and keep the information that is likely incorrect, be my guest. I'm really done discussing this, it's not worth the aggravation or energy. I would rather devote my energy to editing actual health topics than debate the etymology even though I'm using higher-quality references. Ronz, I hope you do the right thing and follow what the proper sources say. If you need access to the linked review articles, as I offered before, please let me know and I'll send you a copy so you can do your verification. I don't know if you're aware, I'm not assuming one way or the other, but there are other users on Wikipedia who are quite skilled and can get you access to many articles that you may not be able to access on your own due to paywall restrictions. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I have already explained my edits. I have not removed anything in dispute, so no response is needed I hope.

Simply, I wrote, "Memidex lists multiple similar references which we should use directly." I should have to time to do exactly this in the next few days, so maybe that will settle the dispute. --Ronz (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah...OK. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The info traced back to American Heritage. Updated. I don't expect any further dispute about the "foam" link with such a source. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Link to keyif in a reliable etymological source?

If none of the medical sources actually trace their source to a reliable etymological source, then I think it should be removed. --Ronz (talk) 16:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• de Oliveira Leite AM, Miguel MA, Peixoto RS, Rosado AS, Silva JT, Paschoalin VMI (October 2013). "Microbiological, technological and therapeutic properties of kefir: a natural probiotic beverage". Braz J Microbiol 44 (2): 341–9. doi:10.1590/S1517-83822013000200001. PMC 3833126. PMID 24294220.
• Ahmed Z, Wang Y, Ahmad A, Khan ST, Nisa M, Ahmad H, Afreen A (2013). "Kefir and health: a contemporary perspective". Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53 (5): 422–34. doi:10.1080/10408398.2010.540360. PMID 23391011.
• Nielsen B, Gürakan GC, Unlü G (December 2014). "Kefir: a multifaceted fermented dairy product". Probiotics Antimicrob Proteins 6 (3-4): 123–35. doi:10.1007/s12602-014-9168-0. PMID 25261107.

Above are the three sources that were used. I expect we'll find that they all trace to the same source, so I removed the last two for now. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

de Oliveira refers to:

• Lopitz-Otsoa F, Rementeria A, Elguezabal N, Garaizar J. Kefir: a symbiotic yeasts-bacteria community with alleged healthy capabilities. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2006;23:67–74. [9]

  I'm inclined to remove it from the article if this is the best we have. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

• Tamime AY. Production of Kefir, Koumiss and Other Related Products. In: Tamime AY, editor. Fermented Milk. Blackwell Science Ltd; Oxford, UK: 2006. pp. 174–216.

  I'm unable to find a free online version. --Ronz (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a free online version of Ahmed, but love the final sentence of their abstract, "This review leads us to conclude that kefir begins a new dawn of food for the mankind." --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I cannot find a free online version of Nielsen. --Ronz (talk) 17:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Just because you cannot find a free online version of the source does not make it dubious or unreliable. Second, I disagree with basically all of your points above and you removed this material without any discussion (this entire section here has been a discussion with yourself). Removing these sources in favor of ones we have discussed before that are far lower in quality does not make any sense to me at all. These are the highest quality sources in the entire section. If you cannot find a free online version, might I suggest contacting individuals on Wikipedia such as Phoebe who can assist you with access? And do you have any Wikipedia guidelines (or preferably policies) to support your reasoning for removing this material? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

We appear to disagree on what are proper etymological sources. Why do you think dictionaries are inferior to sources written by people with no expertise whatsoever in etymology? --Ronz (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that the authors of the peer-reviewed academic sources are not knowledgeable about the etymological roots of the word? Why would you make that assumption? I don't think they would have commented on it in all of these papers (and uniformly agree) if they hadn't looked into it to at least some extent. I have already explained earlier why sources like Medimex are not the best. If you can find better etymological sources, then by all means please do so. However, do notice that I did not remove the Webster's Dictionary and Memidex sources despite my disagreement with you about the weight they're given in this article. You have now attempted to remove well-sourced information without an adequate explanation for why such well-sourced material (and from several different journals and authors) should be removed. Such a removal should have a very strong reason behind it. I still haven't seen any evidence of a Wikipedia guideline or policy discussing which sources are considered the best etymological sources. If you are aware of such a guideline or policy, please show it to me and I will read it. If you don't know of such a policy/guideline or cannot provide one, then perhaps it would be prudent not to assert that well sourced information from academic peer-reviewed journals isn't up to grade. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So we agree that dictionaries are indeed reliable sources for etymological information? --Ronz (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would say certain dictionaries would be better than others (i.e., I think this source :http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/kefir) would probably be better than Memidex. If you read my earlier comments, you'll see that I never once asserted that Merriam Webster's Dictionary is a bad or unreliable source for etymological information, but such a statement does not mean that academic peer-reviewed journals are bad sources of information for this. Just because dictionaries can be a good source for such information doesn't mean they're the only type of good source. My issue is with using things like Wiktionary (not a high quality source IMO) and Memidex (I see Memidex is citing American Heritage Dictionary, but if that's true, then we should directly cite American Heritage Dictionary instead). Something like Oxford Dictionary or Merriam's is fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

So you agree that dictionaries are reliable sources for etymological information. Thank you. We have consensus on that.

Why are you going on about Memidex and Wiktionary? You realize that both have been removed, correct? --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Ronz, we have consensus that dictionaries are reliable, but not for the removal of the well-sourced academic journals you removed. There was never a consensus for that. Please restore in good faith or provide a proper reason for removal citing a Wikipedia based guideline or policy for support. I did see that Wiktionary was removed (please read my comment more carefully as I said my earlier comments objected to the use of Wiktionary), but I didn't see Memidex was gone too. That's a definite improvement. I have no problem with Merriam staying there and said that since the start. Again, please restore the well-sourced content you removed or it will start to look like edit warring since you're reverting a revert. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So now you are up to speed on what I've done to address all your concerns about the dictionary-related references. Further, you agree that all those sources are reliable for the content they verify. Great!

I didn't remove any content, only references. Those references, and the one that I left, are not reliable for etymological information, nor has anyone been able to trace their references to anything that appears reliable. --Ronz (talk) 18:18, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The onus is on you to show why those references are "not reliable for etymological information" and so far I do not see any evidence of this. What is your evidence to support your claim exactly and to support removal of those references? "Nor has anyone been able to trace their references to anything that appears reliable"? Who is doing this tracing, you? You make it sound like multiple people have looked through these papers and all arrived at this conclusion. Sounds a little suspicious for WP:NOR and you have stated here that you didn't have access to some of these papers. Did you finally obtain access? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I have better ways of spending my Sunday. You've provided no evidence, but I grow weary of debating the merit of high quality sources for etymological claims with you. It's really a fruitless endeavor with the way you're acting. Do as you please. The etymology section of the article really isn't what matters to me anyway and I'm done getting sucked into this tiresome interaction with you Ronz. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The dispute over the dictionary-related sources was resolved by tracing the disputed references to ones that are not disputed. I've been unable to do the same for the others, and no one else has tried. I agree that debates are a poor substitute for research and not worth our time when they ignore our policies. --Ronz (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

B12 (Cyanocobalamin) Found in Kefir??

I can believe that B12 is found in Kefir as B12 is known rto be made only by bacteria, but how does the cyanocobalamin form come about?? Cyanocobalamin is a synthetic form made for the "supplements" market. If it is found in Kefir, its only as an additive.207.81.0.235 (talk) 11:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)BeeCier

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kefir. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://kefir.ilbello.com/articoli/k4.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Kefir. 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/20100216184319/http://www.bib.fsagx.ac.be/base/text/v9n3/191.pdf to http://www.bib.fsagx.ac.be/base/text/v9n3/191.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029195329/http://www.kefir.it/kefir_probiotic.pdf to http://www.kefir.it/kefir_probiotic.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129235248/http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/3085.pdf to http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/3085.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131112092352/http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C11/C11Links/rawhealth.net/kefir2.htm to http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C11/C11Links/rawhealth.net/kefir2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 18:36, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Kefir. 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/20140514095454/http://www.kefir.it/kefir_probiotic.pdf to http://kefir.it/kefir_probiotic.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 20:50, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Origin of kefir grains

There were two paragraphs in this section. The first paragraph had two references, the first of which was referring to the second. In neither article were kefir grains produced. I have edited the paragraph to refer to a statement in the first article about how kefir grains have not been produced, and removed reference to the second.

The second paragraph was about the formation or kefir grains (from other grains), not the origin of them. I have removed the paragraph and placed it below for reincorporation in another section or a new section.

Other studies indicate small kefir granules may form initially from aggregations of lactobacilli and yeast, followed by a biofilm created by the adherence of additional bacteria and yeasts to the granule exterior.

References

Question...Substitute for Kefir

From what I've read it sound like "Kefir" is soured milk aka buttermilk. Can someone respond? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C42:60D0:F4B9:3FED:7460:2C57 (talk) 05:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Alcohol content

This line is unsupported by the cited reference: "Another study found levels of ethanol of 2.10%, 1.46% and 1.40% in cow, goat and sheep kefir, respectively."

The referenced article says: "Kefir has been reported to contain 1.98 g/L of CO2, 0.48% alcohol, and the amount of CO2 increased (201.7–277.0 mL/L) with raised inoculation ratio of grains (1–10%) (Arslan, 2014)".

I don't know where the "0.48%" value comes from, but it's not from "Arslan, 2014" where it says "Traditional kefir made from caprine milk was found to have a low viscosity and sensory properties unlike those of bovine kefir and contained 0.04–0.3% ethanol (Sarkar, 2008). Tratnik et al. (2006) found that the ethanol content in bovine and caprine kefir enriched with whey protein concentrate was 0.32 and 0.35%, respectively." --Stefantalpalaru (talk) 18:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

---

This other statement also sounds off by an order of magnitude: "Kefir produced by small-scale dairies in Russia early in the 20th century had 1-2% ethanol."

There is not enough lactose in milk to get that much alcohol from fermentation, so what Farnworth writes in "Handbook of fermented functional foods (second ed.)" sounds suspicious: "Kefir produced in small dairies in the former Soviet Union in the early 20th century contained alcohol levels between 1 and 2%. Present-day methods of production result in much lower levels of alcohol. This may be due in part to the fact that fermentations are stopped at higher pH levels than previously. The final alcohol concentration is determined for the most part by the number of yeasts present in the grains added to the milk and the time of fermentation."

The reference he offers, Moulin, G., Arthaud, J.F., Ratomahenna, R., and Galzy, P., Remarques sur la production de kéfir, Ind. Aliment. Agric., 94, 495–497, 1977, doesn't seem to be available online. --Stefantalpalaru (talk) 18:55, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Type of Ayran?

This article http://www.elbrusoid.org/articles/poznat/387255/ seems to imply that kefir and bulgama (kruchenki) are both considered types of ayran in Karachai. Is that right? Pelagic ( messages ) – (16:07 Sat 23, AEDT) 05:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: Traditionally, the Karachays produced different types of ayran. At the moment, the most common options are thick ayran, gıpı ayran (kefir), refreshing and quenching suwsab (thick ayran and sparkling mineral water). But in the Russian Empire, gıpı ayran (kefir) was most popular. It was the most valuable, and its grains traditionally could not be shared. Gıpı ayran is one of the variations of thick ayran, and the most difficult to manufacture. It is because of the long manufacturing process that it was considered valuable and possibly distributed around the world more than other types of Karachai ayran. By the way, we call kefir simply gıpı ayran, that is, a variation of ayran cooked in a special way with gıpı grains. But old people say that before kefir or gıpı was much more tastier, but now the method of its production is greatly simplified. At the moment gıpı ayran (kefir) and ordinary thick ayran are the most popular types of ayran in Karachay and Balkaria, Karachay-Balkarians greet any guest with a large bowl of delicious homemade ayran, gıpı (kefir) or thick ayran, it does not matter. Karachays don't even have a day without ayran, you might think that they drink it in liters every day. Basically, we are very proud of our traditional beverage ayran and even have a holiday- the Day of Ayran. I have seen no Karachay-Balkar table with no ayran or gıpı ayran (kefir). Fael Daug Alan (talk) 11:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Fael, that’s interesting to learn. I'd never even heard of Karachays nor ayran before today. I wish that I could drink litres of gıpı ayran daily like a true Karachay (is it spelled gypy if transliterating from Cyrillic?), but here in Australia, commercial "kefir" is expensive, around 7x to 8x the price of plain cow's milk. And as you say, they probably simplify the fermentation for commercial production. There is one company here that makes filmjölk, which I find similar in taste to gıpı ayran / kefir. I like the ones that are slightly fizzy on the tongue, I guess normal thick ayran without the mineral water has no fizz? Pelagic ( messages ) – (23:55 Sat 23, AEDT) 12:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Pelagic, now you know about our people and our fermented milk drinks. We are always glad to have guests and are waiting for you at our place. Here you can taste our national dishes and drink gıpı or ayran (pronounced gypy / гыпы or gyfy / гыфы). After that you will definitely become a Karachay) If ayran or kefir is well-aged, they become sour and there may be sizzling bubbles on the tongue. We also have a separate name for it, küşlü ayran / кюшлю айран, by the way, in this form it contains a little alcohol. I have talked about Filmjölk with one Swede, I never got a chance to try it then, since it is not available in Russia, but judging by the description, it is really similar to kefir. Fael Daug Alan (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Spelling in Circassian

Current source has kundeps in Turkish transliteration; @Adigabrek has used spelling qundeps with the edit summary 'Replaced ... with the one used in the wikipedia page "Adyghe language".' Fair enough on the k–q distinction, but I’m having difficulty with the vowels. Adyghe language says there are only three vowel sounds [aː] [a] [ə] represented by а э ы / a ə ı. For dipthongs [ja] and [aj], ⟨е⟩ is listed as Cyrillic and the Latin equivalent is listed as ⟨é⟩. The letter y / w / u is listed with pronunciation [w] or [əw], but with a note "the letter ⟨ы⟩ [ə] is not written after a ⟨у⟩ [w], ... унэ [wəna] 'house' instead of уынэ". So what should the spelling be?

кьуидепс = qundéps = [qwəndajps]

кьуидэпс = qundəps = [qwəndaps]

Cheers, Pelagic ( messages ) – (09:16 Sun 24, AEDT) 22:16, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: Къундэпс = qundəps seems to be the most accurate. Thanks for noticing it. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 11:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying, @Adigabrek, I’ve added it in brackets (and I see that I used the wrong ь vs. ъ). I was going to leave kundeps in the text and put qundəps in brackets as part of the lang-ady template, but since the main text has already been updated to qundəps, I instead mentioned kundeps spelling in the footnote. I’m not strongly attached to one approach over the other. Pelagic ( messages ) – (06:27 Mon 25, AEDT) 19:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

North Caucasian Turkic Circassian Karachay oh my

@Adigabrek and @Fael Daug Alan: can we take a break from the edit war and move the argument from edit summaries to the talk page where it belongs, please?

Apart from "my group is more important than your group so the reading order should be me–you not you–us", which I'm not going near, I see two issues that might be tractable:

1. Language. Non-Indo-European Non-Turkic North Caucasian languages group containing Circassian languages containing Adyghe versus Turkic language group containing Karachay-Balkar, Turkish, etc.

2. Geography. Northern Caucasus, Kuban, Circassia, etc. You might need to help me out because I’ve looked at some of our Wikipedia articles and I’m still having trouble picturing how the regions relate. As far as I can see, Kuban river is north of the mountains, Circassia is south, and Mount Elbrus is between, all in the western part of the mountain range. Does "Northern Caucasus" mean the section of mountains and foothills from the peaks down towards the Kuban? Is that then separate from Circassia on the south side? Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:27 Sun 24, AEDT) 01:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic:,there was no Circassia in the official history. There was no such country, and now there is no such region either. This is a pseudo history. The region from which the first kefir fungi were exported is called Karachay, that is, the high surroundings of the Kuban River, more precisely the Karachay village of Khurzuk. It was from there that the first batches of kefir grains were taken out for production and the original fungi are still stored in Karachai houses which are 200-300 years old. In the mountainous areas of Karachay-Cherkessia or Kabardino-Balkaria, there are no Adyghe geographical names, but there are only Karachay-Balkarian ones. There is no precise research from the Russian Academy of Sciences on the history of the Circassians, since during the formation of the USSR the Adyghe people were given the ethnonym Circassian, which was previously called all the peoples of the Caucasus, including the Tatars, Kumyks, Nogai, Ossetians, Karachais and Balkars, and Cossacks. Initially, the Alans lived in this region, after the invasion of Timur, who died to a greater extent, and the minority fled to the mountains, that is, the Karachais, Balkars and Digors. Then the Adygs from the coast of the Azov and Black seas moved to the devastated plain of Alania. Where the Circassians lived before and how they got there is unknown, since all the peoples of the Caucasus, including the Cossacks, were called Circassians. Kefir cannot be Adyghe in any way, since it is a variation of the common Turkic Ayran, and a continuation of kumys culture. If possible, prohibit the adygabrek from accessing the correction of these articles, as he uses unreliable sources, does not provide archival documents and is engaged in pseudo-history based on nationalism and hatred. Fael Daug Alan (talk) 11:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

You said "There is no precise research from the Russian Academy of Sciences on the history of the Circassians". This is simply untrue. To give one example, the Russian Academy of Sciences recognizes the Battle of Kanzhal, which your people (very) agressively deny. Furthermore, even if they did not make studies on us, "the Russian Academy of Sciences" is not an international judge on what is historical and what is not. We fought against the Russians for 101 years while you did not. Is it that hard to see who they'd be rooting for? ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 11:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Pelagic:, firstly thanks for trying to solve this.

Let me adress your first point, I don't mind the "reading order", in fact in my edits, Karachay-Balkars were mentioned first. However I don't know if you have noticed, Fael Daug Alan is trying to completely remove the mention of Circassians and Georgians from the article.

To further adress your points/questions,

1- The name "kefir" used in English and Russian has it's origins in most likely Turkic.

2- "Northern Caucasus" refers to the region from the beginning of the Kuban river from the Azov Sea to Dagestan. Circassians are the native people of the Northwest Caucasus, while the Southwest Northern Caucasus region (the mount elbrus, which also recieves from the Kuban) has been mostly unhabited until the arrival of Alans - who are the ancestors of the Ossetians, Chechen-Ingush, and Karachay-Balkar. During the 15th century, Circassians expanded east, in what is now known as Kabardia.

My point is that since both sides argue they have are the original users of kefir (although Circassians do not claim to be the "inventor", we have it since very old times, older than the Karachay-Balkar version mentioned here) both Circassians and Karachay-Balkars must be mentioned, or none, and just a simple "North Caucasus". Otherwise, this page will be rooting for the Karachay-Balkar and Russian POV, ignoring other claims/theories. One thing I've noticed with Daug Alan's version of this article is that he wrote exactly what Circasians say about kefir, under the name Karachay Balkar. We've heard stories from our elders that say the Kefir was given to us by Prophet Muhammad, and if we share it to the "kafirs", it would make God angry, but we failed to protect the recipe. You can see a very similar story is told here in the Karachay-Balkar perspective, and we also have it, why only mention the Karachay-Balkars and not North Caucasians in general?

Also let me add, Karachay-Balkar people deny most things about our history, even claiming we aren't native to the Caucasus, or "Circassian" refers not to us. This is because they see us as their rivals. While I think such things are childish, I've recieved nothing but hate from the Karachay-Balkars I've met online.

Thank you.

~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 11:49, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: and @Adigabrek: The largest number of fictions was noticed in the Kabardin branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Therefore, I would not trust the words taken out of context by one employee, there is no serious work about Kanzhol battle. The Russian Academy of Sciences, if not an international organization, but it writes the official history of the peoples of Russia and other international organizations use her research, and it is not on our side. The deportation of the Karachay-Balkar people, which destroyed two-thirds of the population, was also due to the fact that Russia was rooting for us?

I take only the official archival documents and works of the Russian Academy of Sciences, since if we took the work performed by other authors, you would prove that humanity came from the Circassians. I face this Adyghe nationalism every day. The scientific journal Nature admitted that according to DNA genelogy, only the Turkic-speaking peoples are direct descendants of the Scythians, but the RAS is still based on the outdated and corrupted works of Soviet authors and recognizes that they spoke Ossetian, and the Karachays, Balkars and Ingush are their descendants who did not preserve the Alan language. Volumes of books were written exposing this theory, and confirming that the territory of western Alania spoke the Turkic language and wrote using Turkic runes, this is confirmed by the old kurgans, burials, ancient balbals. But the Euro-centrist RAS does not admit this anyway. Therefore, it is not worth saying that Russia is on our side. The main goal of Russia is to embroil us, as we are doing now, Adyg and Karachay having a beef, and that happens every day.

As for kefir, it's clear that the story about what Muhammad gave it is a fairy tale that people invented. Kefir is a variation of ayran or kumis, which was invented by the Turkic-speaking Alans of the Caucasus, our ancestors, and they called it by a Turkic name. I am for the friendship of peoples, we all live on the same planet and the whole world drinks ayran or kefir. I like eating adyghe dish libzhe and never claimed it to be Karachay, just because I like it. No one is trying to appropriate history for themselves, and everyone recognizes that Bekmyrza Baychorov and Irina Sakharova were the first to tell the world about kefir. Fael Daug Alan (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

[I started replying here, but by the time I’d finished writing, two extra comments were posted. Moving mine below the others, and adjusting indent. Pelagic ( messages ) – (05:58 Mon 25, AEDT) 18:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)]

You're acting like I'm anti-Karachay-Balkar, while in reality, I just like you said would like us to be unified, however I'm sick of the hatred coming from them to us in every single platform. If you see us as friends, why are you so triggered about the Circassians getting the mention they deserve (because they also have kefir since old times just like you do, share the same myths about kefir's origin as you and have been protecting it for ages just like you) in this article? In my edit I did not delete any information about Bekmyrza Baychorov and Irina Sakharova, just added a mention for Circassians because we don't do POV writing in Wikipedia. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 18:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adigabrek, @Fael Daug Alan: Thank you both for your detailed replies. I was mistaken about the south side, must have been confusing "Circassia" with Colchis. Sounds like you have two (or more) ethno-linguistic groups who have inhabited the same region over a long time and who both suffered at various stages under Imperial or Soviet Russian rule, and that there are concerns about the neutrality of modern Russian sources. But there aren’t many sources that give a specific origin, I've seen some that effectively say "somewhere in the Caucasus or Balkans".

The true origin of the grains might be quite old, but kefir seems to have only been documented from when it came to Russian attention, at a time when they were already impacting populations in the area. Would it be an acceptable compromise to say Northern Caucasus as the geographic region of origin, but still include mention of Karachay-Balkar people in relation to the story of Sakharova and Baychorov? Is there enough evidence to pin down the region of origin to Mount Elbrus and upper Kuban River? Or is that just where the Russians encountered it? Pelagic ( messages ) – (05:51 Mon 25, AEDT) 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: I am perfectly in agreement with mentioning North(west) Caucasian people as the original inventors and the Karachay-Balkar couple as the first distributers. This is giving historical information, while the previous version was simply writing Karachay POV. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 19:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: can you go ahead with it? Since if I do any slight edit, even fix a typo, the other guy will come and dedicate his entire will to remove it. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pelagic: Have you seen my previous message? ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 15:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Adigabrek, yes I checked this page late last night (or early this morning depending on your point of view) but fell asleep after posting to Cullen's section below.

I wasn’t proposing any specific change, but rather seeking to discuss and maybe even get agreement on some principles:

1. Avoiding false specificity when describing geographic origin. Putting aside what people may think of the Russian Academy of Sciences, is it correct to say that the product comes from Elbrus and upper Kuban specifically rather than northern (or north-western) Caucasus generally? Is the geographic origin simply being inferred from the supposed ethnographic origin? The information is sourced to a book in Russian that I don’t have access to, so I’m not in a position to unilaterally remove it.
2. Less detail in the lead section. Is it necessary or helpful for the reader to have a lot of weight given to the origin up front? Or is that better moved to an Origins/History section? I might do this as a specific proposed change in its own talk section.
3. I didn’t say it explicitly, but distinguishing between terms for geographic regions, administrative territories, cultural groups, and linguistic groups.

— Pelagic ( messages ) – (12:42 Sat 30, AEDT) 01:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning to all involved editors

I am an administrator and will not be expressing any opinions about any aspect of the content dispute itself. Please be aware that is an article about a dairy food item consumed worldwide. This is not an article where any form of nationalistic POV pushing will be tolerated. None whatsoever. Every edit to this talk page or the article itself must be in the spirit of consensus and developing a stable and neutral article. So be warned: Nationalistic POV pushers will be blocked if they persist. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Cullen328. — Pelagic ( messages ) – (01:47 Sat 30, AEDT) 14:47, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you help me in cleaning the POV added by the karachay user? Some people tried it already but were instantly reverted it seems people who know nothing about the article come here to revert random edits. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 09:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed changes

Move some origin detail from lead section to body

Intention: move "in particular the Elbrus environs along the upper Kuban river region of Karachay and Balkaria".

Current in lead

The drink originated in the North Caucasus, in particular the Elbrus environs along the upper Kuban river region of Karachay and Balkaria from where it came to Russia, and from there it spread to Europe and the United States, where it is ...

Proposed in lead

The drink originated in the North Caucasus, from where it came to Russiaand the Balkans, and thence to Europe and globally. It is ...

Current in body

The homeland of kefir is considered to be "the vicinity of Elbrus along the upper reaches of the Kuban" , and the invention of kefir sourdough belongs to Karachays and Balkars.

Moved to body

The drink originated in the North Caucasus, in particular the Elbrus environs along the upper Kuban river region of Karachay and Balkaria. The homeland of kefir is considered to be "the vicinity of Elbrus along the upper reaches of the Kuban" , and the invention of kefir sourdough belongs to Karachays and Balkars.

The duplication in those two sentences could be tidied later, or you can hash out the wording here. For example:

Kefir originated in the North Caucasus, in particular the amongst the Karachays in "the vicinity of Elbrus along the upper reaches of the Kuban" , and the invention of kefir sourdough belongs to Karachays and Balkars.

Pelagic ( messages ) – (16:45 Sat 30, AEDT) 05:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Split Etymology section from Origins

Section is fairly long, and a separate heading for "Names and Etymology" would keep those paragraphs focused. Pelagic ( messages ) – (16:45 Sat 30, AEDT) 05:45, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Unreferenced text

In the first line of Origin and etymology line; "and comes ultimately from Persian (کف, kaf) or Kurdish (kef) meaning foam or bubbles, or possibly Old Turkic köpür '(milk) froth, foam' and köpürmäk 'to froth'." should be changed to "and comes possibly from Old Turkic köpür '(milk) froth, foam' and köpürmäk 'to froth'." Reference doesn't mention Persian or Kurdish Khorheal (talk) 16:27, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Health benefits added to lede

I've not spent too much time trying to figure out the dispute, but the material [10] should not have been added to the lede to start. I assume that the references used were inappropriate for WP:MEDRS info. --Hipal (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2022 (UTC)