Talk:Smoothie/Archive 1

Yoghurt/milk
Not updated but a question - If it contains yoghurt, how can it not contain cow milk? Are they using goat, sheep, horse, camel or donkey milk yoghurt? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * Perhaps dairy but not milk. Hyacinth (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Updated
Removed link to http://www.waycoolsmoothies.com/, same as below, per the wikispam guidelines it is a public relations piece that does not add encyclopedic content.

Removed external links to Smoothie King/ Georgia site, per the wikispam guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam, these are "public relations pieces" and do not add encyclopedic value not provided in the article itself.

Removed link by Jeanpignon. Please read the guidlines on Spam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam and External Links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

The entry was reverted back to "01:51, 5 March 2007" as this has a proper description, photo, and disambiguation. Please use the talk page to discuss any further changes or major modifications. It doesn't appear the new content was valid per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Msedlacek 15:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Msedlacek, probably good you reverted that so fast - much of it did not belong in an encyclopedic article (and it looks as if it's copied from somewhere?) -still, some could have been used?
 * Could you next time describe your revert in the "Edit summary" and only additionally on the discussion page? It is easier to find the revert then and more importantly, the revert becomes apparent from the history page alone. 199.74.98.146 17:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Images
I'd like to add a picture too, but I'm not real clear on the free-use thing. Can someone explain? or just add a picture that is ok to use? thanks.


 * If you take the picture yourself, it's free use for sure. - Mustafaa 02:55, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

~

Source?
A banana is like salt and pepper in a smoothie. Use it sparingly as it can over power a smoothie. My book, ''Smoothies! The Original Smoothie Book: Recipes From the Pros'', ISBN 1-158291-010-3, was the first attempt to define smoothies from a historical perspective and pull the definition into the future from the perspective of the juice and smoothie industry, i.e. companies like: Jamba Juice, Juice It Up!, Juice Stop, Planet Smoothie, Robeks, and Smoothie King. When the book was published in late 1999, there were 5 smoothie books on the market; now there are over 85 - no wonder there is so much confusion about smoothies as everyone who ever published a cook book is now an expert on smoothies - Dan Titus, March 7, 2007

"a banana must be included in the recipe in order for it to be considered a proper smoothie." By whom? This doesn't agree with any definition of a smoothie that I've encountered. Ziggurat 06:06, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

I agrree, there needs to be a source for a lot of the content of this article, particularly where claims of authenticity are made in favour of particular ingredients. Does a 'smoothie' have to be vegan? Does a smoothie *have* to exclude dairy products? Since when does a smoothie have to include a banana? Phil webster 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, this definition is a total shock to me. When I went to college in Northern California in the 1980s, what is listed here as a "smoothie" would have been called a "fruit shake" (fruit, ice, juices, no dairy). A "smoothie" included (yuk, why I avoided them) raw or pasteurized eggs and often yogurt in addition to fruit: rarely, a "yogurt smoothie" had yogurt only + fruit, ice. A "milk shake" had milk or ice cream, which separated it from a "fruit shake" (the 'smoothie' defined here) which was non dairy. - Ferdblivid, 3 June 2006 Barry Popik here. My "smoothie" work had been in the American Dialect Society listserv archives, but I finally did an entry on it. The person that you mention did not coin the term "smoothie."--BP, June 28, 2006. http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/smoothie_smoothee_smoothy/

Thanks for the info, Barry Popik. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal misquoted him? --markml, July 16, 2006.


 * I agree pretty much with what is mentioned on the page. I think any product that contains liquid dairy should no longer be considered a smoothie, i.e. Sonic's new peach "smoothie". Therefore, I would not limit it to the vegan category, for I would allow milk powder, and a whole host of other ingredients. There is a real consistency issue, of course: when you start dealing with refrigerated yogurt, you're into an entirely different category. Same with ice cream--but not sorbet. Since the smoothie is ice and fruit plus powder additives or nuts, etc., a sorbet is ostensibly that: ice and fruit. But, entirely subjectively, yogurt in a smoothie is disgusting--and there should be another name for this concoction so people know how to avoid it.-Kmaguir1 08:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia describes, not prescribes. The word is used that way. We can't invent a new one. Rmhermen 18:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

We need sources for these statements and opinions, in my part of the US, smoothies nearly always contain yogurt; clearly this is not true everywhere. It seems people are defining "smoothie" based on what they are used to, rather than any authoritative source. As it stands now, this entire entry is worthlesss as an encyclopedic source.

Green smoothies
There is a kind of smoothie that is fiercely debated in natural hygeinist circles known as the "green smoothie".

What sets this drink apart is that it potentially solves a major health issue for those who endorse the basic recipe. The issue is: "How do I get more greens in my diet?" The basic recipe is: as many greens as you wish blended with as much fruit or juice as necessary to make the drink palatable and blender-friendly.

Those who enjoy the green smoothie are quick to point out that they are able to consume massive quantities of greens, even kale and chard, raw, despite the fact that these vegetables can be challenging to work with in the kitchen under normal circumstances. Given the fact that they normally require lengthy cooking and a lot of chewing to get down, as well as the fact that dressings and sauces may compromise the dictates of a restricted diet, the green smoothie is considered a godsend for those trying to establish a more natural, rawfood diet, resembling that of the larger primates.

A large faction of natural hygeinists argue that mixing fruits and greens is poor food combining, which means that the food is poorly digested and therefore not only wasted, but potentially creating digestive imbalances.

As some of these health crusaders advocate diets far from mainstream, such as the "mono-diet" (eating only one type of food at a time), the green smoothie may maintain its position as a realistic "transitional" diet for all those trying to find a diet which is both simple and quick to prepare. But you will need a powerful blender.


 * Please sign your posts on talk pages per Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth 21:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

"And they've reached the UK too" is not a good title for a section
I cant change it myself because i cant think of what to change it to. Maybe it should be removed altogther. R OSSY   M ILES    TALK 12:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Self-promotion
Neil Dockar is listed by whois as the owner of usmoothie.com. User NeilDockar inserted an irrelevant self-promoting sentence referring to usmoothie.com on 9 November. I deleted this.

Changes were reverted back to the "01:51, 5 March 2007" version as we need discussion as to why this major overhaul is needed. The current edition has a photo as well as a definition and proper disambiguation. Please use the bulletin board to discuss changes.

The article was reverted to the "01:51, 5 March 2007" as this entry contains a valid definition, photo, and disambiguation. Please use the discussion to talk about any proposed changes and why they are need. Msedlacek 15:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Smoothies are very yummy.

Citing sources
See Citing sources. When using embedded html links a "full citation is also required in the References section." Hyacinth 21:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong american bias without reason
I've noticed this article has a very strong bias towards America. If smoothies are mainly consumed in the US, provide a citation to say so.

I also removed "but arguably violates the very definition of a smoothie" in regards to adding yoghurt or honey. Aguably according to who? A non-american interpretation of a smoothie does not make it "wrong". --Mouse Nightshirt 15:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The American bias is true in the part about brands and how much they cost, the brands mean nothing to me (coming from the UK) and the price in dollars isn't useful to me either.

The brands part probably needs breaking out into it's own section, to show where they are marketed... simply adding european brands won't make sence here... the other alternative would be to just not mention them. 84.9.113.186 06:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just noticed there is a page for Innocent_Drinks which should be linked from here... funny that page seems to have more activity than this, and their just one smoothie brand. 84.9.113.186 06:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

nonsense
Created smoothies in the cretaceous? did so because he had aids and herpes? what? this page has been vandalized and needs repair69.9.31.137 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

oh wait, it's been fixed now. never mind69.9.31.137 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Smoothies don't have to be "blended with crushed ice, frozen fruit, or frozen yogurt. "
Smoothies don't have to be "blended with crushed ice, frozen fruit, or frozen yogurt. " Just look at Innocent Drinks, their smoothies are 100% fruit as im sure other companies are. 86.16.138.134 (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed this in the article yesterday (without noticing this talk item) - not sure why you didn't just go and change it! Halsteadk (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Had to comment on this because I'm from Laguna Beach (South Orange County, California), and had my first smoothie in 1969, from a juice bar a block from the beach. Having grown up going to juice bars and the "hippie health food restaurants" that several users refer as where smoothies became popular, I can assure you that adding ice was NOT a regular practice. I *never* saw ice in a smoothie until the mid-80's when I was appalled to discover that some chain juice bars were adding it as a cost-management measure. As far as I'm concerned, if it has ice in it, it's NOT a smoothie, it's a fruit slushie. I was also amused to note the assertion (that Mouse Nightshirt had the good sense to remove, thank you) that adding honey or yogurt would defile the definition of "smoothie", which is simply not the case. 65.243.45.100 (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Updated
11 Feb 2008

If a external link is removed because of some ads placed on the site. Should not all external links with the same be removed also. Even those who hide the ads past the home page. If not would this not be discrimination. Should not all be treated fair and equal and abide by policy? If this is true I vote to treat all equal. Keep links of equal value on, or take all off of equal value that are against rules.

VM921  hi shiraz go home

Vmd921 (talk) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Smoo
SMOO IS LEGIT!

here is proof that smoo is legit http://www.smoo.com.au/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.206.189 (talk) 04:08, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's the name of a company that makes them. On that basis alone, "innocent" is another word for smoothies as they make them in the UK (http://www.innocentdrinks.co.uk/) and "Ford" is another word for car. You need to provide references that it is a well used colloquialism and *not* just used to refer to that company's products. If it is well established you shouldn't have too much difficulty finding a couple of proper references and then, to be fair, I don't see why it shouldn't be included - but a link to the company is not acceptable and not even helpful. I suggest you read WP:VERIFY to make sure your references are acceptable. If it is only an American or Australian term (it's not used in the UK) then the article needs to say so, eg: ("smoo" in Australia). Halsteadk (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the innocent website, that is just the name of the company. While Smoo is the name of the company, they also call their product a smoo. Innocent is a brand of smoo, just like Ford is a brand of car. The term smoo is what the drink is called. Maybe the UK should adopt the term smoo, who wants to say smoothie? Smoo is way cooler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.162.16 (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Banana
Does a smoothie not need to contain banana to be called a smoothie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.91.201 (talk) 11:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Smooties can contain any ingredients that you want to put in them. They are best with frozen fruit and ice. www.best-smoothie-recipes.com This website has many different kinds of smoothies including vegatables. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.132.60.27 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Various Smoothies
From: http://www.smoothieweb.com/

Fruit smoothies: Mango Smoothie Lime Smoothie Orange Julius Smoothie Berry, Berry Good Smoothie Zacarito Smoothie Lemonade Smoothie Tropical Fruit Smoothie Super Sweet Strawberry Smoothie High Fiber Berry Smoothie Vanilla Yogurt Smoothie Mango Smoothies: Fresh Fruit Smoothie Hawaiian Smoothie Mango Madness Smoothie All Fruit Smoothie Green Tea Smoothie Mango, Banana, and Orange Smoothie Eggnog Smoothie Ingredients:
 * 2 cups eggnog
 * 1 Banana
 * 1 cup nonfat vanilla yogurt
 * 1/3 cup of 2% milk
 * 2 cups of ice
 * Pinch of nutmeg
 * Pinch of cinnamon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Francisx46 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

History section removed
The history section was removed completely and has not since been replaced; there have been a number of edits since then. I would fix this myself, but am work and do not want to sort out the mess right now. Just a heads up. 24.199.231.229 (talk) 15:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good spot, thought the article had become rather short! History section now back after it was removed on 9th February. Halsteadk (talk) 19:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge: Green smoothie
Since I didn't add the first tag on Green smoothie I don't know why it might need to be merged into smoothie. Does anyone think that it should be? If so, why should "Green smoothie" be merged into "Smoothie"? Note that "Smoothie" has two sources while "Green smoothie" has twenty-eight. Hyacinth (talk) 05:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It does need merging, simply because a 'green smoothie' is a notional concept; any smoothie with green stuff in it is a green smoothie. Frog smoothie, anyone? We could equally have red smoothie, pink smoothie, orange smoothie, etc etc etc.


 * The nutritional info in the green smoothie article is inappropriate; the specific benefits of ingredients don't belong there. For a start, there is no 'international definition' of what goes in to a green smoothie. Much of it is pseudoscience.


 * I hope someone will merge it as an appropriate paragraph within this article.  Chzz  ►  05:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source which defines a "green smoothie" as any smoothie that is the color green? "Talk:Green smoothie" contains a link to Articles for deletion/Green smoothie which discusses this issue and Green smoothie has sources that define a green smoothie specifically as a smoothie that is made with leafy greens. In your comment above you say that you've looked at the "green smoothie" article so you are aware of the latter. Hyacinth (talk) 06:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It's still a bunch of mulched up icy pulp, so it would fit better as it's own section in Smoothie than it's own article as it is now. (provided all it's problems are fixed up.) Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Merge there is no reason to merge "Green smoothie" into "Smoothie" as they are not duplicates, they do not overlap, text, and context. Hyacinth (talk) 03:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Duplicate: ie "petrol" and "gasoline"
 * 2) Overlap: ie "flammable" and "non-flammable"
 * 3) Text: there is enough text at "Green smoothie" for its own article
 * 4) Context: readers don't need "Smoothie" to understand "Green smoothie"
 * Agreed with Hyacinth. Keep Green smoothie on a separate page. -- Green wood  tree  03:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Primarily US, not worldwide view
Why, what, where, and how does this article deal with primarily with the United States and not present a worldwide view? Hyacinth (talk) 07:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The article specifically states in several places their availability in the United States, but doesn't state their availability elsewhere in the world. Perhaps it shouldn't specifically mention the US. Halsteadk (talk) 09:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it instead mention the rest of the world? Why remove information? Hyacinth (talk) 18:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * According to WikiProject Countering systemic bias: "Thus, the first question is 'What haven't we covered yet?", rather than "how should we change the existing coverage?'" Hyacinth (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

The article mentions "United States" twice, the second in the context that the recipes originated in Brazil (1930s) and thus doesn't apply. The first is in the intro and says smoothies became available in the US in the 1960s. This does apply and is contradicted by the above, which quickly follows in the article body. Hyacinth (talk) 18:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that the article can be read that smoothies are only available in the US and Brazil. I agree that the article needs widening rather than shrinking - but until that widening happens, the worldview tag is appropriate. Halsteadk (talk) 09:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What if it where true that smoothies are only available in the US and Brazil? No one has actually yet proposed that the article inaccurately portrays smoothies in the rest of the world, which is what I'm looking for with a tag that says the article does such a thing. Hyacinth (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I think you're trying to beat me with some sort of weird logic. For the purposes of removing doubt, I live in the UK and can confirm that smoothies are widely available. I suspect this is the case elsewhere. The article is rightly tagged on this basis. If you want to remove the tag, go ahead, I am frankly beginning not to care - too much time is wasted on Wikipedia with silly arguments like this. Out. Halsteadk (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You mistake a logic of any kind for a "sort of weird" one.
 * I was simply asking for a justification for the tag being in the article, which ideally should have been added to this talk page or within the tag ("reason=X") when the tag was added to the page.
 * Now that you have provided a reason for the tag, I am satisfied with letting the tag stay. If this is silly, that insult applies equally to both of us in this conversation.
 * Perhaps, in the future, instead of wasting your time repeatedly insisting that an article self-apparently has a certain trait, you could simply explain once how it does. Hyacinth (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

History of the word "smoothie"
There doesn't appear to be a source cited for the "hippie drink" bit in the article. What's more, on the Food Network show "Unwrapped" (ep - Shake It Up: Shakes (2006)) Mr. Kuhnau (incorrectly shown as "Kuhnan" on the show) explains that "there was a movie out in the 40s and they had packs of cigarettes back in those days called 'smoothies' and that's where I came up with the name 'smoothie.'" I don't know if this is worth noting or if it should just be chalked up to the inconsistent bragging of a corporate-type. Dslawe (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * can't conceive of anyone wanting to claim to have anything to do with this junk - let alone brag about it. and what exactly is a "corporate-type" (someone who makes money? works for a living?)?