Talk:Coffee

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)

• OK, here are some good sources. I'm going to make some minor changes, but I'll respectfully leave the heavier editing to the people who routinely edit this article. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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 (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

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)

World map of coffee sources

Please update the map, The Philippines produces coffee. check out this Wikipedia article Coffee production in the Philippines

--JoshuaCruzPhilippines (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

the place where coffee originated.

in the Wikipedia about coffee, the birth place of coffee is stated to be Oromia. but according to many European Historians who visited the place at that time the birth place of coffee is the Province of Kaffa which is in the south west of Ethiopia and currently the country also recognized this fact and a museum is being built in that place. Actually, the Province of Kaffa is very close to Oromia and that might has caused this error. The name relations of Kaffa and Coffee also strengthens this fact.(213.55.75.65 (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

As I understand, Oromia since 1995 includes the former Kaffa Province. Moreover, according to the reference [14], the first to recognize and use coffee where the ancestors of the Galla tribe (a now perceived as pejorative term used by non-Oromo Ethiopians for the Oromo People), probably in the region of Ethiopia that was to become later the province of Kaffa. Therefore, I think it is correct to talk of the ancestors of the Oromo People, without any contradiction (as in a previous version of the article).

I will make this change in the history of coffee section (somewhat harmonizing with History of coffee), but I will be mildly bold and try to simplify and shorten the lead, instead of putting it there too. I think there is no need for unclear details about the history of coffee in the introduction, since this section has been changed back and forth for this reason. Antipastor (talk) 07:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair Trade

There is a paragraph in the opening of the article that better fits in the section on Fair Trade. If there are no objections, I will move it.KartoumHero (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

There also appears to be a bit of imbalance on the entire Fair Trade section. Perhaps some inclusion of well-sourced criticism of the Fair Trade movement? Some examples could be drawn from the Fair_trade_debate article, such as the criticism that Fair Trade prices encourage overproduction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KartoumHero (talk • contribs) 01:28, 2 November 2009

The temperature coffee is served at

Maybe we could add a temperture at which coffee is served? Don't ask me what it is; but I think it is not a boiling temperature to keep the flavour?--Dunshocking (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Just rereading the article it mentions 'a certain temperature' it is served at, but what temperature is it and is it the same for most coffee machines?--Dunshocking (talk) 10:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm having a little trouble finding reliable sources that talk about this. Bunn says the ideal holding temp is 175ºF to 185ºF (80ºC to 85ºC) and the ideal serving temp is 155ºF to 175ºF (70ºC to 80ºC). Abductive (reasoning) 15:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

yes, should be added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That info would definitely add to the article, good work!--Dunshocking (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Iced coffee is quite popular in Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand (and likely other countries). This popularity has spread to at least areas of other countries in recent decades, notably in the US post-1975. There has also been some relatively minor but more tradition use of iced coffee as a summer drink in the US that I'm certain of and perhaps in the UK. Don't have cites to provide but I'm sure Indochinese use can be verified as it's traditional. Only considering hot coffee is lacking in regard to world wide view. Nice looking article here. Moss&Fern (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:FAT's collaboration over the article; to-do list

The FA-Team will soon begin collaboration over this article in an effort bring it up to GA; you may see more information here. I believe our first order of business should be making a to-do list for what needs to be done to move it up. Suggestions? Mm40 (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much time I'll have to actively contribute the rest of this month and the next, but... one section that needs to be cut is the bit on fair trade. It's not only filled with squirrelly or unsourced bits, but (in my brief glance through the content) the whole issue of the farmers isn't really discussed with clarity anyhow. Other than that, I think 90% of the work is consolidation, sourcing and verifying the content therein; anyone know of some scholarly works about the subject? (Also: depending on the number of said sources found or added, I think a Author/page note + full citations in the References section, as what is sort of established now, might be the best citation scheme.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 03:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• I tend to agree that the fair trade section is rather prominent for a general article. I need to digest this article and daughter articles before deciding on a place to put it. It should go either in Coffee and the environment (which needs an overhaul) or [Economics of coffee]] (which also does!). Maybe just a brief summary and move most of material to daughter article. Am just reading through now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've cut down on the fair trade section a good deal and merged it into the Sale and distribution section.  Skomorokh  20:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have now gone to the library and have a few books, including the prendergast one. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To-do - first step comprehensiveness

First, we need to sort out comprehensiveness, i.e. what should be added and what should be trimmed. I have started a list below. Should add David's note on fair trade above. Some more input would be good. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Storage needs some details about shelf life (unless I am missing it elsewhere) Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Types of popular coffee beverages as a heading can be deleted and teh seealso link placed above the preceding heading....ah what the heck, I'll do it myself. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The article sits at about 76 kb, theoretically can be a bit larger but extra material would need a good justification to be included. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• See above discussion for temperature coffee should be served at - is the source a reliable one? Can we get a better one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• There is also material that is in more detail in the lead than in the body of the text, which needs to be reversed. I think we've sorted this one out. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Need to reconcile the history section with the daughter article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• The lead has 2004 and 2005 figures it'd be good to update. Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• A consumption section is a blatant omission. We have full sections on the health effects and social aspects of coffee consumption, but none on consumption itself, which to most people is the most important aspect of the topic. Ideas for such a section would be the different forms coffee is consumed, how consumption relates to meals/sleep cycles, coffee drinking as a social/recreational activity (see coffeehouse), its ubiquity in much of the world and so on.  Skomorokh  20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Good idea - we already have a Social aspects section, so broadening that and figuring out what to call it would be a prudent first step...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PS: I have imported the most salient points from coffeehouse and slung in some very rough notes on when we drink it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

• Some link to the International Coffee Organization (?) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
• Can we decide on a consistent citation scheme to use, while we're on the (tangental) subject? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure - I like cite x (x=book, journal, web etc.) over citation, and placing the books which have multiple page refs at the bottom, and the page refs through the inlining. Not fussed whether we use harvard or not. I'll take a look. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to do something similar, but I've found people have issues with some refs selectively done inline in notes and others grouped with the refs... perhaps we should just use [author (year), pages] for everything in Notes (Reflist) and throw all the full {{cite book}}, web etc. into the references section? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Funny - I have done it this way for all of my recent FAs and not had any objections...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean like Cockatoo? I use a mostly similar style for some FAs, but in general I think keeping everything together or segregated (a la Halo (megastructure), Edward Drinker Cope) is a better idea. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gah! That looks so...alien..to me. Still, I am not really fussed in the long run and don't feel hugely strongly about it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I am trying to make all accessdate look like month date year (eg January 3 2010, rather than the autoformatting which I don't think looks good for new readers). Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The advantages of using citation templates are that we help ensure a standard presentation and have the possibility of metadata available for each parameter – not used much at present, but best practice would be to use the templates. By using 'ref cite x' for sources that require only one page reference and harvnb + 'cite x' for those that reference several different pages, we get the best of each. Perhaps my aesthetics are not the same as yours, but I don't find having Notes and References a problem. In any event, the extra functionality should more than make up. --RexxS (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Ensure that statements in health section are referenced by Review Articles (had a quick look on PMID and there are quite a few). Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

notified medicine wikiproject Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty, I think we should compose a list of things missing. Made it below. ceranthor 14:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing?

• Detail - I'm copyediting bits of the article, and I've found that certain things are referenced but aren't fully elaborated on. We should expand on the things we do have. ceranthor 14:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay then, list specific bits below. It gets very tricky when one is doing an overview-type article that is quite large already, so we need to be careful here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Language

Kudos to Cas for trying to get dates consistent. At present there is a mixture of DD-MM-YYYY (en-gb), MM-DD-YYYY (en-us), and YYYY-MM-DD (pseudo-ISO). I was about to start overhauling those dates, but then I realised it would be sensible to establish consensus first on whether the article should be written in UK-english or US-english. If we examine the guidance at WP:MOSDATE:

If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a style-independent reason. Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor

we get a difficulty. The article still contains a mix of "flavour" and "flavor", for example. The first major contributor to distinguish between UK- and US-english used "flavour" (diff), but the article has gradually drifted to a majority US-english use. Can we reach a consensus here that we go with US-english (as that requires least work for consistency)? or should we abide by the guidance in MOSDATE and restore spellings and dates to UK-english? I'm happy with either decision, but as I still bear the scars of WP:ARBDATE, I'd rather see some consensus before I start wholescale changing of spellings and dates for consistency. Any advice welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I felt the accessdates are more user-friendly in a format i am converting to. I don't know what some were (i.e. all those for which the date was one of the forst twelve days of the month!) but doesn't matter as they can all be revisited and teh current date substituted as we check them. As far as spelling...yes we need one...given the americans drink so much coffee...we can (shudders) go with US english I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Biology section

Since Cas asked my opinion on the biology section, I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts.

• Since the history section is before the biology section, it's a bit strange to see the native range of coffee mentioned after the story of its discovery and domestication. It gets a little more problematic since the daughter articles (Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora) give native ranges that don't include Ethiopia. (fixed)
  • We either need to move the biology section up before the history section or mention explicitly what species we're talking about in the history section (and, ideally, fix the contraction between this article and the C. arabica article. (fixed)
  • For that matter, how did C. canephora come to be cultivated? (see para 2 of 'Cultivation section - could add that it had been traditionally chewed in Uganda too)
• Since we discuss shade versus sun coffee, we need to talk a little bit about the underlying physiology.
• I think it's important to mention where the inflorescences are formed - clearly they're axillary, not terminal - and the type of inflorescence.
• Although the flowers are described as "fragrant", there's nothing on their pollination mechanism and whether they're self-pollinating or cross-pollinating. This is important in explaining their successful spread around the world. (each of the main species does one - will add now added)
• Domestication and breeding - there's nothing on either of these (very important) topics. Domestication may belong in the history subsection. But the difference between crop species and their wild ancestors is important. In addition, are wild relatives used in coffee breeding? Are there hybrids between C. arabica and C. canephora? (This may belong in the cultivation section)
• Disease - what are the major pests and pathogens? How are they managed? (This may belong in the cultivation section) (wow, there's a lot of info - added some on pests)

Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Good points - also on flow of article - I just realised Saffron flows the same way. Furthermore, I am finding alot of material in history is overlapping with the bottom social/cultural bit. Hence I believe this reordering is helped greatly by slotting history down the article (much like medical articles really). Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Other comments

Since I'm here, I noticed that the "Processing" section begins with "Roasting", and although the 'pre-roasting' processing is mentioned, it appears that only wet process and not dry process fermentation is mentioned. In addition, shouldn't the decaffination process be mentioned here, since that is also done pre-roasting?

Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - the Processing section needs to be overhauled - have been reading about it and we really need to structure it like the subarticle Coffee processing - the wet and dry methods are very important to define. Weirdly, the wet method seems to be more highly valued where I am reading about it but our article has dry. Need to get my head around this and have some uninterrupted time to digest...major headache.Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-original material

Just a quick comment - I was reading one of the sources, and noticed that the following section is a copy-and-past job from the paper's abstract. The original is here. If anyone has time, they might like to re-write this section or insert it as a block quote. Dr satsuma (talk) 16:34, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Elderly individuals with a depleted enzymatic system do not tolerate coffee with caffeine. They are recommended to take decaffeinated coffee, and this only if their stomach is healthy, because both decaffeinated coffee and coffee with caffeine cause heartburn. Moderate amounts of coffee (50–100 mg of caffeine or 5–10 g of coffee powder a day) are well tolerated by most elderly people.

Caffeine amounts in different coffee types

I do like the individual caffeine doses in types of coffee to be in the article. I can see Gamerpro thinks this is unnecessary. How do other folks feel? It needs better sourcing too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NB: The IP is not me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For explanation on why I removed that part is that if we show the caffeine doses in types of coffee, we might as well show everyone different type of coffee's doses. Also, I'm glad to here that you are not the IP. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I shouldn't think there'd be that many (? - instant/espresso/brewed/decaf (instant)/decaf (brewed)...what else?) , and I was hoping to find a good source which states broadly and within reason average doses (i.e. ignoring the person who puts 4 heaped teaspoons of instant into a small cup). It is the sort of information which comes up from time to time in conversation so I for one feel it is encyclopedic - but I am open to consensus, so hopefully a few others will comment here. Casliber (talk · contribs)

I think there's no question that the listing of caffeine content is appropriate. Format and referencing are the relevant questions.jaknouse (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Well, this is an encyclopedia and a list of typical (or range of) caffeine doses for different coffees seems to me to be a valid part of an article on coffee. It's quite handy to have the info in one place – for reference and comparison – and encyclopedias should be good at doing that. I'm not exactly sure what GP64 meant by "we might as well show everyone different type of coffee's doses", so I'd prefer to get a bit of clarification, rather than just putting the list back for now. I do agree with Cas about getting some good sources, if it were to be re-added. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

okay...just placing the types here...are there any others to be added?

Okay, listed here. Can we think of any other types to add? And review of reliable sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Espresso: 185 mg (2000 mg/L)
• Drip coffee: 115–175 mg (560–850 mg/L)
• Brewed/Pressed: 80–135 mg (390–650 mg/L)
• Instant: 65–100 mg (310–480 mg/L)
• Decaf, brewed: 3–4 mg
• Decaf, instant: 2–3 mg

what is the land and soil requirement for planting coffee seeds? what is the perfect climatic requirement for planting coffee seeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.194.121 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

To be added - I will be at a library on friday...I really need to read some dead-tree refs on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The section Caffeine content is in a mess at the moment. It's currently suggesting that 200 ml of coffee contains 375 ml of caffeine. I would think that even Doctor Who couldn't manage that trick. For the moment, I've commented out the section, pending a re-write with sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds prudent. I have a book or two to read on it too still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

According to "Caffeine-Related Psychiatric Disorders" R Gregory Lande, DO, FACN May 31, 2009 emedicine.medscape.com/article/290113-overview

The amount of caffeine in coffee and tea varies based on brewing times and methods. General guidelines for beverage caffeine content include the following:

Brewed coffee (8 oz) - 120 mg Instant coffee (8 oz) - 70 mg

24.60.190.107 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Nice one - a scholarly ref :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The caffeine content of Starbucks drinks can be viewed at www.starbucks.com/retail/nutrition_beverages.asp 24.60.190.107 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine Content of Food and Drugs from the Center for Science in the Public Interest can be found at www.cspinet.org/reports/caffeine.pdf

24.60.190.107 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

One of the original sources seems to have similar information (from the number of times it's been cited), but I only have access to the abstract at PubMed:

• Bunker, ML; McWilliams, M (January 1979). "Caffeine content of common beverages". Journal of the American Dietetic Association. 74 (1): 28–32. PMID 762339.

Sadly the online archives of Journal of the American Dietetic Association don't go back far enough. Perhaps someone with access to the full article can produce a list from that? --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You can try to get the article via the Resource Exchange. 24.60.190.107 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine content for coffee, tea, soda and more By Mayo Clinic staff www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211 Adapted from USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, 2009; Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2007; Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2003.

Type of coffee Caffeine (milligrams) Dunkin' Donuts, brewed, 16 oz (480 mL) 143-206 Generic brewed, 8 oz (240 mL) 95-200 Generic brewed, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL) 2-12 Generic instant, 8 oz (240 mL) 27-173 Generic instant, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL) 2-12 Starbucks Espresso, 1 oz (30 mL) 58-75 Starbucks Vanilla Latte, 16 oz (480 mL) 150

24.60.190.107 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

green coffee?

what exactly is meant by "green coffee"? The article refers to it in several places, most notably in the second sentence of the lead, but doesn't really define what it is. Is it some kind of coffee produced in an "environmentally-friendly" manner, or something?

Also, regarding the 'citation needed' tag in the production sub-section, I think it's evident from the table that Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia are the top three producers of coffee. Why is coffee in Colombia "softer", and why is it being described as such? Not sure where we're going to find a citation for that -- I tried a few google searches but got nowhere. The softer coffee remark could probably be deleted, IMHO. WTF (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully I will find some answers after going to the library. After looking at the article I feel humbled by how little I know :0 The colombian statement sorta rings true I think...??? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Update: Okay, green coffee is the name given to coffee beans once the berries have been harvested and processed. Now to fix the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the photo

When I was wiki-gnoming at this page back in August, I saw a number of people confusing this article for the article on the coffee bean. This caused, for example, some erroneous statements in the history section (e.g., that coffee has been used since prehistoric times). Around that time, I added the hatnote, that "This article is about the beverage. For the bean, see coffee bean."

To further clarify, I just substituted [15] this photo of the beverage for the picture of coffee beans, . This reverses Casliber's revision of a week ago. [16]. I'll mention it to that person now. Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see your rationale - why don't we have a vote on it?

coffee cup

1. For your own sake, I recommend any photo that avoids confusion between this article & coffee bean -- since that has dragged me into edit wars with IP addresses. "Yemen." "Ethiopia." "Yemen." "8th Century." "15th century". [17]-[18]-[19]-[20]-[21] -[22]-[23]-[24] . People don't read ... Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 00:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
2. The coffee cup is more relevant. I liked the coffee beans picture better, but i can see how it may cause confusion with the coffee bean article.--Dunshocking (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
3. The cup. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

no preference

1. Actually, come to think of it I can see rationales for both. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
2. I'd be happy with either – not so sure about both :) --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
3. I suppose the drink works too. Let's just be mellow :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Page ranges

Casliber writes "we always use two digits in refpage ranges" and "refs like this have two digits"

Where is that documented? Various citation generators use as few digits as necessary for the end of the range.

For example, from the Wiki and Blog citation maker

<ref name="pmid16284957">{{cite journal| author=Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, King WD, Jaakkola JJ, Cordier S, Lynch CF et al.| title=Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk. | journal=Int J Cancer | year= 2006 | volume= 118 | issue= 8 | pages= 2040-7 | pmid=16284957 | url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=clinical.uthscsa.edu/cite&email=badgett@uthscdsa.edu&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16284957 | doi=10.1002/ijc.21587 }} <!--Formatted by http://sumsearch.uthscsa.edu/cite/--></ref>

and from the Diberri template filler

{{cite journal | author = Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, King WD, ''et al.'' | title = Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk | journal = International Journal of Cancer. Journal International Du Cancer | volume = 118 | issue = 8 | pages = 2040–7 | year = 2006 | month = April | pmid = 16284957 | doi = 10.1002/ijc.21587 | url = http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21587 | issn = | accessdate = 2010-01-08 }}

and from the Citation templates generator

{{Cite journal | last1 = Villanueva | first1 = CM. | last2 = Cantor | first2 = KP. | last3 = King | first3 = WD. | last4 = Jaakkola | first4 = JJ. | last5 = Cordier | first5 = S. | last6 = Lynch | first6 = CF. | last7 = Porru | first7 = S. | last8 = Kogevinas | first8 = M. | title = Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk. | journal = Int J Cancer | volume = 118 | issue = 8 | pages = 2040-7 | month = Apr | year = 2006 | doi = 10.1002/ijc.21587 | PMID = 16284957 }}

24.60.190.107 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It's been a preference at WP:FAC for some time. See for example Tony's comment at WP:Featured article candidates/Clement of Dunblane. However, this practice doesn't seem to have gained sufficient consensus to be documented as a guideline. The case of double final digits used in year ranges is documented at WP:MOS#Longer periods, but it's not a requirement for FA for page ranges at present – see Dabomb87's (collapsed) comment and retraction towards the end of WP:Featured list candidates/List of cutaneous conditions/archive1. Having said that, I would not rely on Diberri's tool or the Citation templates generator as defining our standards. They merely attempt to to incorporate our consensus and don't always do that flawlessly (for example the Citation templates generator produces "Int J Cancer", violating WP:Scientific citation guidelines#Annotations). --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried looking for the two digit requirement since I was pinged about it ages ago and gotten used to it. Looks nice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Paris

The section on Paris can be improved - see http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/16MB701.html

24.60.190.107 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - the key is comparing some of these darned history books...as there seem to be variations...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All About Coffee by William H. Ukers

FYI, the Ukers reference is online at http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/TOC.html

24.60.190.107 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Good find! - I'll update the Ukers reference. --RexxS (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee refreshes the scent receptors or not

I have removed the following from the section Health and pharmacology:

Many high-end perfume shops now offer coffee beans to refresh the receptors between perfume tests.

An online search leads me to believe that this blog may be the originator. However, the author claims "I have experienced this is [sic] Chennai Pothys, while I was looking for a good perfume". As far as I'm able to ascertain, Pothys doesn't seem to sell perfume and the Chennai showroom sells clothing - I'm not certain about that, but it doesn't seem to be enough to elevate this claim above 'urban legend', imho. In addition, the book What the Nose Knows - The Science of Scent in Everyday Life by Avery Gilbert (ISBN-13: 978-1400082346) contradicts the notion that coffee beans refresh the scent receptors (book review here). Dr Avery Gilbert seems to have some reputation as an expert on scent, so I'm inclined to give weight to that view. Either way, I've removed the disputed statement for the moment. --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Just ploughing through the last bit of teh Prendergast book - fun read :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition

Murad IV's prohibition is sourced here and in his article to this site. Charming as that piece is, it's hardly a WP:RS unless Kate Hopkins is an expert – and I don't see her wikipedia biog to assert it. However, she replies to one of the comments on her blog, claiming that her sources are The Devil's Cup and The Devil's Picnic. We're already using the former, so can somebody check it out in either book? (or else we'll have to send Cas off to the library again). If confirmed, I'd prefer to see Murad's prohibition cited to a published work, rather than an admittedly engaging blog. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree - some ref buffing is needed. Will see what comes up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm slowly working through the refs, checking their content and trying to cite them uniformly. As I find weaker ones, I'm noting it in an html comment, but I'll try to flag them up here as well. It should at least eventually give us an idea of the size of the job needed for FA. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found commented out comments next to the refs very helpful in the past. I am just reading these books as there are still notable facts not so far covered. Once done, we can figure the page size and relegate the least important facts to daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just dug up the book by Ian Bersten from my packing boxes - it doesn't mention Murad either. Be good to see a copy of Allen...Bersten has some other useful material to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Production table and references

I've just undone a series of good-faith edits which has changed the table in Production, resulting in it being squashed with level-2 text to the right of it. In addition, the notes and references which applied to the table have now been moved to the end, resulting in sections entitled Notes, References, Footnotes, and Notations, compared with the previous Notes and References. I simply can't see how this has improved the article, and as the editor making the changes gave almost no edit summaries, I am left guessing their intentions. I think this sort of change is best discussed here to see if there is an consensus for one version or the other. --RexxS (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - thanks for that. Apologies to the IP but it did go all weird. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kahveh vs kahve

Regarding the distinction between kahveh and kahve allow me to draw attention to the article "'Coffee': Its etymology" from Notes and Queries (1909):

The history of this word involves several phonetic difficulties hitherto unsolved. Of course the ' N.E.D.' is right in stating that the European languages got the name about 1600 from the Arabic qahwah, not directly, but through its Turkish form kahveh. The Turkish form might have been written kahvé, as its final h was never sounded at any time.

Is that sufficiently clear? Gabbe (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with either. That's a perfectly good source to support the 'kahveh' spelling from 1909. The other view would of course be that it is an early attempt to romanise a Turkish word, but it is now romanised in modern Turkish as 'kahve' (cf. tr:Kahve). I can't see an overwhelming argument either way, but from a practical point of view, I'd guess every Turkish viewer is likely to want to delete the final 'h'! --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, fine with me then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Reise in die Morgenländer - Rauwolf

A passage from Reise in die Morgenländer (1582) by Leonhard Rauwolf is quoted, possibly in translation (the book also appeared in English and Dutch versions). This section of text appears online in several places (not WP:RS, but may be sufficient for someone to verify the translation). Here's the reported German text from one such site for comparison:

Unter anderen habens ein gut getränck, welliches sie hoch halten, Chaube von jenen genennet: das ist gar nahe wie Dinten so schwarz und in gebresten sonderlich des magens gar dienstlich. Dieses pflegens am Morgen frü, auch an offnen orten .. . zu trinken, aus irdenen und Porcellanischen tiefen Schälein, so warm, alß seis könden erleiden... Zu dem wasser nemen sie Frücht bunu, die außer Größe und farb schier wie die Lorbeer anzusehen..... Dieses trank ist bey ihnen sehr gemain...

— Kaffeegeschichte, Legenden, Herkunft des Kaffeebaums

Refs in History

I've just finished checking the refs in History section and I was disappointed by the lack of correlation between the older refs and the text they supported. It's almost as if some of the old text had been lifted or written off the top of the editor's head, and then sources found that tangentially mention part of the text. I've corrected what I can, but the main remaining concerns are:

• "From Ethiopia, coffee was said to have spread to Egypt and Yemen."
• "When coffee reached North America during the Colonial period, it was initially not as successful as it had been in Europe."
• "During the Revolutionary War, however, the demand for coffee increased so much that dealers had to hoard their scarce supplies and raise prices dramatically;"
• "After the War of 1812, during which Britain temporarily cut off access to tea imports, the Americans' taste for coffee grew"
• "... high demand during the American Civil War together with advances in brewing technology secured the position of coffee as an everyday commodity in the United States."

Assuming those are factual, we need to find some better sources to support the detail there.

Ought we to find a source to directly support "It has become the primary export and backbone for African countries like Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda ..." ? --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes to all of the above. I have the books - just besieged by juggling a few things. Will prioritise the above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

PS: Saw the tag on the Boston coffeehouse - Pendergrast gives a different date too. Will add info soon. Pendergast, p. 13, gives 1689 as the date of the first coffeehouse in Boston. It doesn't give specific references for each chapter, however. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• Pendergast pp.5-6 hypothesises that coffee may have spread from Ethiopia to Yemen when the former ruled over the latter for 50 years in the 6th century. I am not sure how generally held this view is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

• p 39 refs 2,3 and 4 above. But there is other info elsewhere. Am keeping reading.

The thing that bugs me - and this is just speculation - is why anybody would transport coffee beans or plants from their native habitat in Ethiopia to Yemen, if they weren't already brewing it as a beverage? Have we got a source for "It was here in Arabia that coffee beans were first roasted and brewed, in a similar way to how it is now prepared"? - or is that comma spurious, since it changes the meaning somewhat. Is there any source for the beans being chewed, or used in a way different from roasting and brewing? If coffee actually made the jump across the Mandab Strait in the 6th century, that would seem to push back its use by quite a stretch. All OR, unfortunately, but it makes you think. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

It bugs me too now that you've pointed it out, but we're stuck with the fact that confirmed documented evidence of coffee doesn't start until the 15th century, leaving us with up to nine centuries of conjecture. Actually as I type this I am wondering why there hasn't been more vigorous debate on the matter....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dipertines

An IP editor added the following:

• "Studies have also indicated that the removal of diterpenes accelerates dihydrotestosterone in men, which is thought to be responsible for male pattern baldness. Usually triggered by a combination of hormonal activity and heredity, which together cause the hair follicles in the scalp to shrink, there exists a positive association between coffee consumption and baldness in men. According to a research team headed by the American Medical Association (AMA), this process has been observed to take place as early as the age of 17 in young males."

This looks an interesting new finding, if true. Unfortunately no source was offered and I haven't been able to find one. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Coffee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Has dead external links from March 2010 and January 2010. Unsourced statements tagged from January 2010, August 2009, February 2010, December 2009 and potentially dated statement from 2006. Tagged as needing to be harmonized with the History of coffee article. Tom B (talk) 22:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I can explain about the History of Coffee tag - we overhauled the history section but the tag was kept so that both would be aligned with each other really. I cannot remember whether the overhaul was complete now.

The main issue that needed tackling was the Processing section, which reads very differently to the Coffee processing - having read about the subject, the subarticle is much more in line with the sources and the section badly needs an overhaul to align with the subarticle. I had been meaning to do this but had lost interest in the past few months. Will see what I can do about that.

There are a number of other issues outlined on the talk page as well. I guess folks can list the most salient here WRT core comprehensiveness. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

PS - a bunch of uncited claims have been removed. Just keeping this here in case we later find we can validate some. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the two deadlinks, ref 8 would be good to update (it's 2005 figures anyway), and ref 40 is in the section in need of a complete overhaul. I will try to have a look at this soon. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

righto, thankyou Tom B (talk) 10:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

• Update - annoyingly I had to return the books on coffee that I borrowed ages ago to improve this article. It was only when doing it that I realised the Processing section, which reads very differently to the (more correct as I now realise) Coffee processing article. Unfortunately I don't have the books to do this bit justice (until I go borrow the books again). Hence I can't do much about that for one or two months. If it were me reviewing I'd be saying delist. If folks want to delist then I have no problem with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Since there's still problems in the article that have not been addressed, I am delisting it to a B-class. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I think that's fair. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:42, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Misleading Prohibition Statistics for the Seventh-day Adventist Church

The Prohibition section cites this article, but in the context, it seems like it's implying that Seventh-day Adventists are more susceptible to coffee's adverse health effects. The research seems to have more to do with the group's prohibition being used as a statistically clean sample population. I think this information belongs in the Health section where it isn't quite as misleading.

Quartz (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an unwarranted implication exists in that text. Nevertheless I still think that it's an interesting example of abstinence/prohibition that works better in its present context than in the Health section (since the results only show a weak effect). As a compromise, I've re-written that paragraph to try to make it clearer that Adventists are considered as a clean sample, rather than having an increased susceptibility. I'm still not 100% satisfied, but please feel free to improve on my efforts if you can. --RexxS (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That's much better than I could have thought of. Thanks! Quartz (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be removed entirely. First off, citing one study out of probably hundreds done on SDA groups as evidence of coffee being harmful is spurious. What about the other studies done on the SDA? To not note that the other studious found no correlation is intellectually dishonest and misleading. It should have been qualified with, "But only one study..." If it takes only one study to to make the inclusion of the information within into an article valid, every wikipedia page would be filled with paragraph after paragraph of frivolous info. I'm sure there is a single study that claims chewing gum causes global warming or something as equally as frivolous. Does that mean that particular info should be included into the article about gum? Second, even if the Adventists observed refrained from alcohol and smoking (and how can you even know that for sure, they could be fibbing about that so as to not get into trouble) there are still many, many confounding factors. For example there is age, genetics, family history of disease, diet, exercise and many, many more. To imply that SDA church members somehow constitute a "pure" sample and "completely free" from confounding factors just because the abstain from smoking and drinking is incredibly fallacious. Also, if they refrain from smoking and drinking, how can we know for sure that it's not those factors that contribute to them being supposedly healthier? The study just could have easily concluded that there is a "weak but statistically significant association" (more on that dubious phrase later) between alcohol intake or tobacco intake and "mortality from ischemic heart disease, other cardiovascular disease, all cardiovascular diseases combined, and all causes of death." Also, "all causes of death????" That's incredibly clunky phrasing, what does coffee intake have to with causes of death like being drowned, falling from a height, being electrocuted, being stabbed to death and the like? And do we need to say "all cardiovascular diseases combined" and "other cardiovascular disease?" Isn't that redundant? Not to mention vague as hell.

Also, the language and use of words is troubling. The study is described as "being able to show," this is very NPOV. Unless you are God and know for sure that study is 100% accurate, the best you can say is that the study "claims" to show. Studies are based on subjective human observation and conclusions, and can't be taken as gospel. "Being able to show" is absurdly over authoritative. Second, the phrase "weak but statistically significant association" is pure double talk. How can it be weak and also at the same time "statistically significant"? One precludes the other. That's like saying "that man is weak, but strong!" It makes no sense. It seems to me their is an agenda here, namely to try and saddle coffee as being bad for your health. If you're going to do that, fine, there are many views on that issue, but I cry foul when one very shaky and dubious study is used to further that claim.

P.S. I'm not implying Rexss that you intentionally are trying to push an anti-coffee message, but your re-write sure didn't help.

Mixing coffee with alcohol

"Coffee can also be incorporated with alcohol in beverages" — Why would anyone want to mix uppers with downers like that? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Mebbe they just like the taste. I always kinda liked Kahlua. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Irish coffee is yummy! DMacks (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Berry or Cherry

Just a placeholder for the moment. Both "coffee berry" and "coffee cherry" have usage for the fruit of the coffee plant, and it is probably a good idea to discuss which should be preferred for the article – or even should both be used (where appropriate) if there is a real distinction between the terms. Thoughts and sources? --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

cherry strikes me as a specific term for a cherry of the genus Prunus. I'd not heard it used with coffee, which I've always seen "berry" written, so I'd go with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Cas, I was prompted by an editor changing all the "berries" to "cherries". My impression was the same as yours until I googled "coffee cherry", and now I'm not so sure (particularly with the Britannica article existing). --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Weird! Trying the search in Google books suggests the term is an older one. Upon thinking about it, some other non-cherry species are called cherries. In Australia we have "Brush Cherry" = Syzygium paniculatum, but it is still somewhat specific. We can leave this open and see what others think - a note on the food and drink wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yemen origin more likely

If coffee had originated in Ethiopia, why did it not spread to the the neighboring African lands, rather than across the sea over to the Arabian peninsula?! I am skeptical of the Ethiopian origin theory of coffee. Lugalbanda (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've no idea, but I added a new reference to the claim. If you find any reliable sources claiming anything to the contrary, feel free to introduce them. jonkerz♠ 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Ethiopia ruled part of Yemen in the 6th century, so it seems likely trade was well-established across the Mandab Strait since antiquity. In fact, it would be quite likely that links between different regions was much easier by boat than across possibly hostile terrain. There is of course a reference to coffee existing in "possible disjunct populations in nearby highland areas of Sudan and Kenya."[25] in the source that's just been removed. I expect the spread of coffee was in reality a complex process, rather than the simple linear model suggested, but that's more than our sources will support. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)