Jump to content

Talk:Coffee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kevin hipwell (talk | contribs) at 00:34, 19 August 2009 (→‎Cofffee as Fertilizer: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleCoffee has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 16, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 24, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
August 3, 2007Good article nomineeListed
August 9, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
March 15, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive This article was on the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive for the week of August 3, 2007.
Current status: Good article

Template:Werdnabot

Italian Coffee.

I don't think the section on Italian coffee belongs in this article. As the article makes clear, coffee is consumed around the world in dozens of unique ways - Italy is by no means more important than Greece or Hungary or the United States. Additionally, the section contains no citations, and the information reads as a tourist guide.

Italian coffee culture might be worthy of its own page, but I am eliminating the section here unless it can be better justified. Pocklecod (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)pocklecod[reply]

Caffeine doesn't stimulate other animals?

Hi

I'm not a coffee/caffeine expert, but this struck me as odd:

"Due to its caffeine content, coffee has a stimulating effect in humans."

If a dog drinks coffee does it stimulate the nearest human? Surely something simple like "Coffee contains caaffeine, which is a known stimulant" would be clearer? Just a thought! Frognsausage (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Caffine is a known stimulant in humans, however, it may not be a stimulant in other animals. The way it is origionally put acounts for this. Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.205.123.235 (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who discovered it?

From sentence 4: "Coffee was first consumed in the ninth century, when it was discovered in the highlands of Ethiopia." Who discovered it, and how do we know? I'd like the sentence to read "... ninth century, when ___ discovered it in the highlands ..." Agradman appreciates civility/makes occasional mistakes 03:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, I've excerpted some of the content into my userspace at User:Agradman/coffee, and I'll now start integrating it.

"origin" of coffee -- Yemen v. Ethiopia (?)

An anonymous user has made a good-faith change of the origin from "Yemen" to "Ethiopia". I just wanted to acknowledge that this difference stems from ambiguity over whether we're discussing:

  1. The "origin" of the bean -- this would be ridiculous to characterize, and no one has attempted it -- it probably grew all over Africa.
  2. The "origin" of human uses of the bean -- which originate with the Galla tribe of Ethiopia (apparently)
  3. The "origin" of consumption of the bean as a beverage -- Yemen.

I don't have a position either way on how we resolve this, but I think that if there's controversy over this, we should make an effort to ensure that every mention of the phrase "origins" makes perfectly clear which of the notions is being referred to.

I'll float the idea of splitting this page into

  1. coffee = redirect from coffee (beverage)
  2. coffee (bean)

although I, personally, am not prepared to support that. Agradman talk/contribs

First sentence of the article reads "Coffee is a brewed beverage prepared from roasted seeds, commonly called coffee beans, of the coffee plant.", so the scope here is specifically the drink and we already have a separate article specifically about the beans. Given that, we should be consistent here for the use/topic at hand, not preceding different uses. I would support inclusion of historical information about how the drink was a later development from some other food preparation (assuming WP:V info) (if the actual continuum is known), but that's definitely background about a topic different from the one focus of this page. DMacks (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To further muddy the waters, there is this as well:History_of_coffee which pretty much goes with Ethiopia being the origin of discovery and the beverage. sherpajohn (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it's a strain, and it's partly my fault. I first got interested in this page based on this question of the origins of coffee (see the previous post), and I have made a desultory effort to integrate citations from those sources into coffee and history of coffee, by the intermediate step of transcribing some of the content into my userspace at User:Agradman/coffee. But I lost steam :( editors like me give a bad name to the word "gradualism."  :( Agradman talk/contribs
  • Guilty confession: I'm not actually interested in coffee. I got involved because I didn't like the historical confusion regarding its origins, and have stayed involved since nobody else seemed interested; but now that I've drawn others' attention to the matter, there's nothing I'd rather do more than un-watch this page and dedicate myself to WP:SCOTUS. ... soo ... call me a quitter :) ... here are your sources, [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] User:Agradman/coffee, and best wishes! Agradman talk/contribs 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intsant coffee?

skimming over tis article the only mention i see of instant coffee is in the caffine comparison list. given the popularity of instant coffee, at least in the US, it surely deserves a bit more attention.

it would be intesting to learn a bit about how instant coffee is made ahd how the amount of processing involved differs from ground coffee, espically when both are decaffinated.

a cost comparison between ground and instant coffee would be welcome as that information is not espeically easy to find. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.248.11 (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production

The figures given in the table are totally inconsistent. The three biggest producers produce more coffee each (17M, 15M and 9M tonnes), than the total world production (7M tonnes). The FAO page gives 2M tonnes for Brazil and 0.9M tonnes for Vietnam for 2007. Somehow I doubt that coffee production multiplied itself by 8 in Brazil and by 17 in Vietnam from 2007 to 2008. If these figures are not revised, I will substitute them for the FAO numbers for 2007. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

coffee as fresh produce?

I think coffee is sold on markets as green unroasted coffee, lasting 6 months or so. This is a far longer shelf life than fresh produce, albeit shorter than gold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BColeKid (talkcontribs) 10:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cofffee as Fertilizer

Haven't read the whole article but there does not seem to be a mention of the use of coffee ground as a fertilizer shouldn't this be mentioned. [13]Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]