Talk:Coffee/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3


Price by type

If instant coffee has less favorable taste among consumers, why do even the generic brands cost more than ground coffee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:32, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume it costs more just because more processing goes into making it.--Jude. 04:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing improvement needed ...

Re: "Coffee is often enjoyed in different flavors, such as hazelnut, french vanilla, and Columbian, just to name a few." I think that sentence should be recast for a couple of reasons, but am not coming up with the perfect phrasing myself yet, so perhaps someone else will. 1) Flavors may be added, but I don't think it quite scans to say that it's "enjoyed in different flavors." Unlike a popsicle or ice cream, coffee has a strong, dominating flavor all by itself; you might spice or otherwise add flavoring to steak, but you wouldn't say that "people enjoy steak in different flavors, such as peppercorn and A1 sauce." That sounds sarcastic, but I don't mean it to! Coffee can be flavored, but I'd be a bit offput if a waitress asked "What flavor coffee would you like?" Is it just me?

2) "Columbian" isn't a "flavor" anyhow, is it? I'm not sure what was meant there.

timbo 04:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Colombian isn't a "flavour" (not to mention it was misspelled). It's a brand promoted--very successfully--by the government of Colombia. The name "Colombian milds" also refers to the highest-quality of the four varieties of coffee, but this type of coffee is (somewhat ironically) also grown in other countries, for example Kenya. However, Colombian milds can be given any of the "flavours" that other types of coffee can.
In any case, I don't really think the sentence on flavours is appropriate for a lead, and I've deleted it. Perhaps it could be placed in The Drink if people feel it's important enough to keep in the article somewhere.--Margareta 17:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation Improvement

For some time this article has relied heavily on inappropriate sources such as Glamour magazine and coffee roasters' own web sites. The recent addition of the "prehistoric uses" paragraph has finally spurred me to action. I've added a "Citecheck" tag to the article and I hope some folks will get involved in cleaning up the references and deleting poorly sourced or unverifiable statements. If you're not sure if a source meets Wikipedia standards, see WP:V for more info.--Margareta 22:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

over first view i totally agree on lack of citation, for at least in the USA coffee is a major household item, so in my opinion this article should have tons of citations. CrazyRob926 11:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I cited all the facts in the first paragraph that you tagged. The facts were cited when in the main body of the article, but not the intro, so it was easy to fix. Are there any other sections that you think need more cites, or was it just the intro?--Jude. 12:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
If no-one replies in the next few days with objections, I'll remove the tag. Cheers, Jude. 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems Biased

"The implication for coffee drinkers seems quite clear: the caffeine argument is, at best, a half-issue. Coffee drinkers who value a healthy mind and body will quit drinking coffee entirely." Is it just me or does the health and pharmacology section seem extremely biased? There are facts supporting both sides of the issue, I'd like to see a more neutral version of this section created.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I revered that addition. I think there may be some useful stuff in there, but large amounts of it are unreferenced POV, and in some cases at odds with Coffee and health, which is heavily referenced.--Curtis Clark 17:27, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
The whole article has various biases throughout. It is an "owned" article, and, as such, could be rather difficult to improve. KP Botany 23:54, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

History of coffee

Just wanted to let interested editors know, I moved some material from the "History of coffee" section to the main article History of coffee. I didn't delete anything, just moved it around. The section was becoming pretty detailed for a general overview--and the History of coffee article also seemed like it could benefit from more content.--Margareta 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Currently there's a statement that says coffee had a big impact "throughout history." The most universally accepted definition of the length of history is since the invention of writing, in the ballpark of 3000 BC. Since coffee has only had a global impact in the last 500 years, aka the modern age (1500 to the present), I'm going to change it to reflect that. I know that in other fields (art history, literature, etc), modern is defined differently. In history is pretty accepted that modern starts at 1500. If you've got a better term for that period, feel free to change it. --Zachbe (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)



Those tags are horrid. Please, someone, address the issues and remove them. It is also time to bring this article up to Good-Article status. Don't make me do this myself. RedRabbit1983 04:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the "<!--inadequate reference-->" note for Léonard Rauwolf. Reise in die Morgenländer (in German). , what's the actual concern here? Incomplete/underspecified bibliographic information, reasonable belief that the text does not support the statement, something else? DMacks 04:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the {{citationneeded}} for caracoli as a synonym for peaberry, I just added some notes to the Talk:Peaberry page that should suffice. Can we just remove the cn tag since we wikilink to Peaberry, or should we just add those two as <ref> here to avoid future complaints about being uncited? DMacks 05:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I say add a reference. For, some day, reviewers will gush over it when they see the reference section, and then they'll promptly promote this article to Featured. RedRabbit1983 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit I added the horrid "inappropriate citations" tag at the top, for the reason that a great many of the citations used here fall far short of WP:V standards: references such as Glamour magazine and coffee roaster web sites. There is a wealth of good secondary literature out there that should allow the replacement of most of these questionable citations with acceptable ones, and that has been on my "to do" list for some time now, but alas I have not had time yet to sit down and work on it (and my own two boxes of coffee references are currenty buried somewhere in my garage, awaiting unpacking from a recent move. RedRabbit1983, if you are able to tackle some of the referencing, I am sure we will all love you for it!--Margareta 18:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

While heavy reliance solely on coffee-roaster websites (especially only one such site for many refs, or only one site to support each issue) might not be ideal, I think of them as expert-voices on matters related to their business. Not sure I'd be confident in their writings about history or other things that seem to have a zillion legends and word-of-mouth variations unless they cited or agreed with some more-scholarly source, but at least factual present-day things. DMacks 18:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
One would hope, but unfortunately it's often not so. There are a huge number of myths and urban legends relating to coffee, which are repeated frequently on roaster (and advocacy) web sites. Roaster web sites are probably fairly reliable (though not necessarily unbiased) sources for information on roasting and retailing of coffee only. Also, using individual roaster web sites as citations for information that could be also be verified by non-commercial sources does risk looking like commercial spam. (Hmm, now I'm thinking... a "Myths" section ight nt be totally out of place. I'll put that on the "to do" list after fixing the citations...)--Margareta 18:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I just came across an example of what I mean about the roaster sites being good sources for roasting and retailing, but unreliable for other things. This page at Starbucks purports to tell how coffee is processed. A pretty reliable source, right? But read this sentence: "Through the natural method, ripe coffee cherries are allowed to dry on the tree or on the ground before the beans are removed by hulling." Um, no. Coffee cherries won't dry if left on the tree. They'll overripen, fall to the ground and rot. This page from the International Coffee Organization gives a much more accurate account of the dry or "natural" method. While I'm sure Starbucks is spot-on as regards how their coffee is roasted once it gets to their facilities, they (or whoever wrote their page) clearly have a much less concrete understanding of what happens to the beans before they reach Starbucks' hands. (BTW, for those with the time, the ICO site actually is a very good place to start to get reliable citations).--Margareta 16:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I cleaned up the references and removed the tags. Thanks for pointing out areas for improvement. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


This section starts by stating that the english word "tea" derived from "qahhwa". Is this a mistake, vandalism or am i just missing something? Epeeist smudge 10:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ayup, vandalism. Fixed, thanks for noticing it! DMacks 12:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The text gives the impression that English 'coffee' is derived from Kaffa (region in Ethiopia) whereas Arabic 'qahwa' means wine. English Coffee is however derived from Arabic (via Turkish 'kahveh') so there can be no difference in origin of 'coffee' and 'qahwa'. They either both mean wine or both are rooted in Kaffa. Unless opposed i will rewrite this section. Sources: Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology and Online Etymology Dictionary ( 07:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

If you look into it you will find abundant sources claiming that the origin of all these words is Kaffa, Ethiopia. Perhaps there is more than one POV, in which case we mention both POVs without claiming one is correct and the other incorrect. Til Eulenspiegel 13:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
To the first user: I think this is what you're saying, but I'm not entirely sure: we know that the word "coffee" is derived from the Turkish "kahveh", which comes from the Arabic word "qahwa". The uncertainty is where the word "qahwa" comes from. It is either derived from the region, or from the Arabic word for wine. I don't think the article makes it crystal clear that there is some question about the origins of the Arabic word. Would something along these lines be acceptable?

"The English word "coffee" first came into use in the early to mid 1600s, but early forms date back to the last decade of the 1500s. The English term stems from the Italian "caffè" and the French, Portuguese and Spanish "café". These words were borrowed from the Ottoman Turkish "kahve", a derivation of the Arabic "qahhwa".

The origin of the Arabic "qahwa" (قهوة), is uncertain. It is either derived from the name of the 'Kaffa' region in southern Ethiopia, where coffee was cultivated, or by a truncation of "qahwat al-būnn", meaning "wine of the bean" in Arabic."

(First user) You understood me correctly, and I think your suggestion is good and will put it in the article.


Mod Staff, I'm REALLY starting to get tired of this, guys. This is getting very very old. Just because you didn't write the article yourself doesn't mean it's flooded with falsehoods. You need to start accepting the fact that some of the entries on Wikipedia are True! It took me all of 3 minutes to verify what a Caracoli is. I'd like you all to take a moment and open up a web browser. There is this page, it's called Google. I realize that the internet is "big and scary", but there are ways to use it. Assuming you have the intellect required to understand what a browser is, click on the address bar, and type in Then, hit the Enter key. You can like, go there and learn stuff. 3 minutes? You editors on this site are astonishingly lazy, and astonishingly haughty. You all seem to have the attitude of "Well, I've never heard it, so it MUST be a lie". Use google before you go and start tagging someone else's words as lies.

I found the following, and translated via the online Translator, Babel Fish.

Round coffee bean which one rather finds containing on the occasion in a cherry only one seed than the usual pair of flattened seeds. Because some believe that they contain more savours and flavours that the usual grains, the caracolis are very preferred. CameronB 03:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cameron, please show a little more courtesy. Google is a good source for quick reference, but not every resource it yields is reliable. In this case, you're right — as the website indicates. But if for every claim that elicited suspicion, the reader turned to Google for verification, Google could deceive him with many falsehoods, as the sheer volume of rubbish on the web exceeds even the most cynical imagining. For claims like the coffee bean, Google can provide answers without spewing out rubbish, but it's clearly not reliable in every case. RedRabbit1983 10:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Coffee Beans to mask odor

I recently found this article on a website hosted by Arkansas State Department. It expresses a growing usage for coffee beans or ground coffee being used to cover up the smell of Marijuana. Does anyone else think this might be something note worthly? [1] Donny417 03:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This was on a Cops episode a while back. I imagine all sorts of odoriferous things can be used in a similar manner.--Curtis Clark 05:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really noteworthy enough for an encyclopedia article, though.--Margareta 01:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

an ex-girlfriend of mine worked at starbucks in Toronto. They all used to smoke up in the basement, and you couldnt smell it upstairs because of the coffee. Now THATS original research! Eric Forest (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Coffee and Growth

I know this sounds dumb but does coffee prevent growth? 02:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

So does all this mean that coffee doesn't prevent growth in humans on early stages like 1-13 year old children who are still developing?— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Anonymous IP, I think it means either none of us know, or no one have the time to look it up for you. It kind of sounds like an urban legend to me, but do you have a reference?--Margareta 17:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
As a devout coffee aficionado, I can submit that I've found no conclusive studies proving much of anything about coffee. For every article touting health benefits of the drink, one could probably find an equal and opposite article espousing a counter opinion, with just as much "scientific research" behind it. I suppose then that we could surmise that coffee articles follow the laws of thermodynamics rather well. I started drinking coffee at the age of 13, and I am very close to the height of my own father, perhaps even an inch taller. While hardly scientific, it does seem to indicate that such statements are nothing more than urban legends and old wivestales. I was once told that it would turn my knees black in a couple of years, like they were permanently bruised. Such has never occurred. CameronB

Headings and subheadings

It might just be me, but the names and organization of the headings and subheadings seem odd. For instance, "The plant", which has a single subheading, "Coffee seed types". Isn't it simpler to name the section "Coffee seed types", or just "Coffee seeds"? The second heading is "The drink". Isn't the article about the "widely consumed beverage prepared from the roasted seeds...of the coffee plant"? Then the subsection titles "Processing and roasting" and "Preparation" don't make it clear whether they talk about beans of the liquid beverage... I think the layout needs to be changed, just to make things more clear. Does anyone object? -Jude 20:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the focus of the article being on the drink, and about the singleton seeds section...maybe "Growing the bean" or "Coffee plants"? Then we could promote the "Processing and roasting" and "Preparation" subsections from the "The drink" up to being top-level sections. Sections 1-3 then progress along the steps from field to cup. The next three subsections of "The drink" ("Caffeine content", "Tasting", "Coffee with food") all seem to go together--all kinds of food-like qualities and related issues--so could leave them as subsections of...not sure what to call that section. Or make them subsections of the newly-promoted "Preparation" main section? DMacks 21:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The "Processing and roasting" and "Preparation" subsections could be top-level sections, as you suggested. Or, since there are 3 articles ("Coffee processing","Coffee roasting", and "Coffee preparation") which follow coffee from seed to beverage, these could be 3 subsections in a section about the creation of coffee? I agree that "Tasting", "Coffee with food", and "Caffeine content" all seem to go together. Something about the consumption of coffee? (I seem to be attracted to words that begin with "c"...Caffeine content, coffee creation, coffee consumption!)--Jude 22:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, I think that "Economics of coffee" and "Health and pharmacology of coffee" could be level-one headings.

U. S. Colonies?

Too right, they were the American Colonies at the time. Just in case someone else thinks they ought to be U. S. Colonies. They United States didn't exist until after the American Revolution. Dieter Simon 00:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that "the U.S colonies" is incorrect. But I think that "the American Colonies" is incorrect as well. They were hardly the only colonies in America. The French, the Dutch, and the Spanish all had colonies in the Americas at the time. Oh, and the Portuguese. Therefore, wouldn't it be correct to say that they were the British Colonies in North America? Would that solve the problem? --Jude. 02:41, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't agree with you more, good point. Dieter Simon 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, that brings up the problem of other British colonies in North America that didn't become the United States. These would include Nova Scotia, the Province of Quebec, Newfoundland, Rupert's Land, and if one chooses to include Central America and the Caribbean, British Honduras, the Bahamas, Barbados, Jamaica, etc. Gentgeen 00:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The issue of the other North American British colonies is a good point. But how would a reader confuse "the British Colonies in North America" with colonies in Central America and the Caribbean? Anyway, how about the Thirteen Colonies, then? It's how the article on the American Revolution refers to them. --Jude. 01:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


I edited the first sentence of biology to remove the redundant usage of telling the reader that coffee comes from beans. I think they will have picked up on that info the previous THREE times that the article mentions that fact. Wuapinmon 23:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Good point about the repetition of the bean/seed line. I deleted the second mention of it, and changed the third to "Coffee is made from the seeds of the Coffea plant.", which gets rid of the bean repetition, but still connects the plant and the beverage. Jude. 01:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
p.s.: when replying to messages on your talk page, you should generally reply on the other user's talk page, because that causes an alert to pop up on their page. If you reply on your own, the other user has no way of knowing, which is why I didn't respond to the message you left on your own page.

Good Article nomination on hold

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of August 1, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Symbol wait.svg The article mostly follows the Manual of Style, but a few things need fixing.
  • Later in the article, robusta and arabica are italicized as scientific names. This should probably be the same in the intro and the economics sections.
    • Done. DMacks 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Some changes made: See my comments below.--Margareta 18:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There was quite a bit of redundant word usage and phrasing, even within single sentences. The following sentence is an example of what I'm talking about: "Coffee berries and their seeds undergo multi-step processing before they become a beverage ready for consumption. The berries are picked, processed, and dried." Another instance is the first sentence of the intro's 2nd paragraph. As you've already disambiguated "coffee plant" in the first sentence, restating it is redundant. I'd suggest just removing it. This type of repetitive word use makes for a dry and uninspiring read. I've tried to clean some of it up and expand the vocabulary, but I would still like someone to go over the article with a fine-tooth comb for this.
    • I corrected the examples you mentioned, as well as a few others. If I missed anything, just point it out and I'll correct it. --Jude. 18:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The following sentence needs clarification. "its volume amounting to about a third of that of tap water in.." Does this mean the amount of tap water drunk, or the amount of water in reservoirs altogether? Also, tap water should probably be changed to "municipal drinking water" for accuracy. This needs to be fixed in both the intro and the economics section, and stating it twice is again a redundancy that needs to be corrected. Done
  • Some disambiguation is needed throughout the article, examples include: Kraft, Nestlé, Procter & Gamble, and Sara Lee, brewed (in the preparation section), pulp, starches, simple sugars (as one word?), and Sufi. In the preparation section, black should either be A. disambiguated if some article or page makes mention of the word's meaning in a coffee context or B. given some parenthetical or other expression of its connotation of "with no additives". Or better yet, just begin with the simple definition and then say, "also colloquially known as "black"".  Done
  • The sentence "Coffee has played a role in many societies throughout history" needs clarification. What kind of role? Anything that has existed has played some sort of role in history. At least try and assert the importance of the subject with an adjective like notable or important. Done (changed to "important")  Done
  • The last paragraph in the intro, about health effects, needs some grammar work, it's a bit cyclical. Saying its health effects has been questioned is a little bit off, it should probably say controversial.  Done
  • This sentence: "Physically, the bean shrinks in weight the beans are heated and moisture is lost" needs punctuation I believe.  Done
  • The paragraph on the ecological impact of coffee-growing currently in the economics section needs to go in the cultivation section. I strongly suggest that instead of the pretty, but slightly pointless, close-up of the Brazilian plant in the Biology section, this image File:Coffee Flowers Show.jpg of mono-cropped coffee be used to replace it. This would also be in accord with a move of the info on cropping methods to the proper section. Expanding the information on fair trade into its own paragraph is also in order, if possible. Done
2. Factually accurate?: Symbol wait.svg Mostly great, but I have just a few suggestions below.
  • The edict against coffee led to the death of thousands of people? I know that wasn't it, but the end of the sentence about the Ottomans is confused. The mention of the deaths is trivial detail, as it doesn't actually have to do with social aspects of coffee. Done
  • While the article is usually very good about knowing when direct citations are necessary, the sentence about how "good quality robustas are used in some espresso blends..." needs a direct citation, if only bc the reason for doing so that the article presents is potentially controversial. Done
  • In the history section, " spread to Italy, according to historical sources." If you're going to say "according to" instead of citing the fact directly (a general one would be fine for this as well, as it is cited elsewhere), attributing it to unspecific sources is inappropriate. Better to name a particular credible historian. Done
  • Again in the history section, a general citation for most of the American history is fine, but the opinion that coffee was thought to be a "generally poor substitute for tea." needs to be directly cited. Anytime you assert the general tastes of a historical population of people there should be attribution. Done
3. Broad in coverage?: Symbol wait.svg Yes, but some expansion of the free trade movement is necessary. Simpy saying what it is, and when it started is insufficient. What has its affect, if any, been? What is its status and percentage of coffee sold today? Done
4. Neutral point of view?: Symbol support vote.svg Well done.
5. Article stability? Symbol support vote.svg Yes.
6. Images?: Symbol support vote.svg Good, but please consider the change I suggested above.

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far. — VanTucky (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note about italicization of "arabica" and "robusta." Robusta is not a species name. Arabica coffee is Coffea arabica and has numerous varieties (e.g. "typica"). Robusta coffee is Coffea canephora var. robusta. See, for example, the International Coffee Organization [2] and the USDA Plants Database [3][4]. Nevertheless, varieties are italicized as well (when used to discuss the plant, but not the coffee itself). I'll try to make the necessary changes where "robusta" is referred to as a species.--Margareta 17:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that clarification Margareta. VanTucky (talk) 18:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The wording was the result of this discussion, where "tap" is the wording used in the cited ref. I would presume that this term is being used fairly casually here, probably including well-water and other sources not really "municipal". The lead sentence wording does need help...the idea was to give an indication of how popular/important coffee is, leaving the details of it until later in the article. However, this lead sentence became detailed, technical, and cited (and hence redundant-looking) because editors didn't believe it was true otherwise. I'd love to hear suggestions for improved lead wording. DMacks 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, tap is fine then. But it still doesn't directly answer my primary question. I take it the study means tap water drunk. Is this correct? Just saying tap water is far too ambiguous to factually accurate. If it means the tap water that simply exists, then it needs to end with " North American and European reserves." or resevoirs, repositories, something. VanTucky (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll change it to "tap water drunk".--Jude. 00:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I direct the attention of VanTucky and others to the "this discussion" link I posted, in which you can read the actual quote from the study. DMacks 03:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I read the linked abstract of the article, and it does directly refer to the volume of tap water that was consumed. VanTucky (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Green tickY Since all the issues I brought up have been addressed in some way or another, I'm calling all done and promoting the article to GA-status. Good work everyone! VanTucky (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Economics section problems

Three things: 1. "A study in 2002 found that fair trade strengthened producer organizations, improved returns to small producers, and positively affected their quality of life and the health of the organizations that represent." This is obviously nonsense, but I can't tell what it's supposed to say. 2. The section mentions "tons" and "metric tons." In neither case does it matter which ton we're talking about, because the point is the ratio, not the amount (making conversion unnecessary). Still, the reader wants to know which of the six or so different kinds of ton he's being asked to care about, especially after having to switch to metric late in the section. What ton is being discussed in the first paragraph? 3. The jumping-bean initial caps in F(f)air T(t)rade are distracting at best. I can't tell when caps are appropriate, because I don't know the source material. I hope someone will sort that out and only use caps when talking about certification schemes. --Milkbreath 12:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not sure what you mean by it being nonsense, but the study it refers to is here.
2. They're all metric tons. Should it say metric tons or metric tonnes? Does it matter at all?
3. I put the two that talk about certification as "Fairtrade", and the others in lower case.
Cheers, Jude. 02:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is "organizations that represent." Represent what? On first reading, my first asinine thought was that a word had gotten chopped off the end, and it should be "organizations that represent them", but why should I care about the health of an organization, and how is that parallel to the quality of life of a Rwandan dirt farmer? That would be even worse nonsense. I just now followed that link you provide and searched the document for "organizations", hoping to find the identical broken English so I might understand it in context, but no go.

Thanks for fixing the other stuff. I'll sleep like a baby tonight, once my after-dinner cup of jamoke wears off. This is my favorite Wikipedia topic so far. --Milkbreath 02:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Etymologies of English word coffee and French, Portuguese, Spanish word café are all Italian word caffè

Please visit below webpages. On the each page you can notice following phrases. Etymology: Italian & Turkish; Italian caffè, from Turkish kahve, from Arabic qahwa 1598, from It. caffe, from Turk. kahveh, from Arabic qahwah "coffee," [Origin: 1590–1600; < It caffè < Turk kahve < Ar qahwah];s=2874421710;r=1;nat=;sol=1; Empr. au turc qahve (ARV.; BL.-W.5; FEW t. 19, p. 79; empr. à l'ar. qahwa, v. caoua) soit directement, soit par l'intermédiaire de l'ital. [à partir de la région de Venise, DEI] (BRUNOT t. 3, p. 221; PRATI; EWFS2; DG; DAUZAT 1973) attesté d'abord sous les formes caveé (1570, G.F. MOROSINI [diplomate vénitien], Relazioni degli ambasciatori Veneti al Senato d'apr. DEI); la forme caffè est attestée en 1615 à Venise (DEI). (Do it. caffé, «id.», do turco qahvé, do ár. qahuâ, «vinho») (Del it. caffe, este del turco kahve, y este del ár. clás. qahwah).

Don't all those say it came from Arabic? DMacks 02:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, I mis-read your intent here...thought you were claiming Italian as the original, rather than (as your article edit indicates) just removing the other Romance languages as contributors. DMacks 02:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with our anonymous friend that the English word "coffee" owes its final shape to the Italian, as do the other words for it in the Romance languages. He was right to edit the way he did. But I'm not sure that the matter is so clear-cut. The OED shows a kind of orthographic groping early on through such forms as chaoua and cahve, clearly English attempts to render the Arabic or Turkish directly, until the spelling "coffee" seems to snap into place around the middle of the 17th century. This rather sudden resolution, and not the word itself, is what seems to be due to the Italian word. --Milkbreath 02:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Brewed vs. drip preparation methods

I don't understand the distinction between drip coffee and brewed coffee in the list of caffeine content for various preparation methods. I thought "brewing" coffee normally meant drip brewing? hajhouse 05:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For most Americans, this is true (since most brewed coffee in the U.S. is by the drip method). But there many many varied methods of brewing (which in the context of coffee and tea, simply means to mix with hot water) which do not connotate the drip method. VanTucky Talk 06:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

At it defines brewed as: "To make (a beverage) by boiling, steeping, or mixing various ingredients: brew tea." and "To be made by boiling or steeping: As the coffee brewed, I paced in the kitchen." Today this is commonly called "steeped" in everyday language, because the boiling water and the grounds are mixed directly together like preparing a traditional proper tea. Maybe the word "brewed" should be changed to the more accurate "steeped" as "brewed" seems to be common slang for making any type of coffee. Anonymous.

Steeped is really a tea term. VanTucky Talk 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammounts of Caffeine in drip Coffee

How is it possible that drip coffee has more caffeine than brewed? Assuming that the same grounds/amounts are used in both. Please someone explain. This seems physically impossible since drip comes in contact with the water for a couple seconds and brewed absorbs all it can from the grounds for approx. 3-5 minutes. What is the scientific reason for this? Also where are the amounts of caffeine listed refrenced from? Please add a reference if possible. Personally I have found brewed coffee to have more caffeine than drip. I have always found drip to be weakest of all 3 types. I also noticed that the Espresso article states that Espresso coffee has twice the caffeine content than regular brewed coffee. This puts Espresso 1st, Brewed 2nd, and Drip 3rd. The article seems to make sense, is this true? Anonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

With "brewed" (like in a cafetiere) coffee, the grind is normally much coarser than that used for "drip" coffee. The finer a grind, the more surface area is in contact with the water, and so the more extraction that can happen. I don't know which kind actually has more caffeine, but the coarseness could be a factor.
Also, I think it's important to note that espresso has more caffeine per unit of liquid, but not necessarily more caffeine per beverage serving - that is, 1 ounce of espresso probably contains more caffeine than 1 ounce of drip coffee. A typical espresso drink (at least in this region of the u.s.) has 1 or 2 1-ounce shots of espresso, for a total of ~150mg of caffeine, whereas a similar-sized drip coffee would probably contain closer to 350mg. (Figures from nutrition info section of 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Coffee following

How about a section with how popular coffee is and how people always talk about it. Like ads, or different blogs [blog spam removed—DMacks]??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

First line rewrite

Coffee is a widely consumed stimulant beverage prepared from roasted seeds, commonly called beans, of the coffee plant.

change to -->

Coffee is an infusion made from steeping roasted seeds into hot water.

This rewrite should be done to show the similarities between herbal tea, mate, tea, ...

Please look into and change this line. Thanks.

KVDP (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


Coffee House in Palestine????

Where is Palestine??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Right where the "Palestine" link from that caption says? DMacks (talk) 20:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed.

  • Storage section does not have reference (but this is a minor issue and should be very easy to fix)

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, OhanaUnitedTalk page 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a cite for the environmental concerns/storage guidelines. There is some specific item that I did not find readily, so I {{cn}}ed it, could remove the statement if "presence of uncited info" is a fatal flaw for the GA status, but this is the first that item specifically been flagged as needing citation. DMacks (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
On further research, that information didn't appear correct at all, so I removed it. For the record, it was that the one-way valve allows CO2, a byproduct of roasting to escape. That suggests that CO2 presence is bad, however, while trying to source that statement, many other writings (including Home roasting coffee) explicitly say that keeping CO2 around is good, because it helps exclude air (air is cited as bad). DMacks (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the improvement, this article will remain as GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


Regarding the unbalanced tag placed at on the history section of this article, in exactly what ways do you feel that "the section's coverage of a controversial issue may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favor of certain viewpoints?" – ClockworkSoul 16:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of article not in English

"An American scientist Yaser Dorri has recently suggested that coffee beans can restore the appetite after cooking and refresh olfactory receptors. He believes the intense odorants in coffee release the sensory receptors in the nose. This scientist suggest that people can regain their appetite by smelling coffee beans. He has suggested this method to be also used for animals in research institutes."

I can't be bothered myself at this time in the morning, but does anyone fancy making the above paragraph make sense? Thanks. DanTheShrew (talk) 07:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done Listing Port (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine content

I notice that the numbers in ref 81 on caffeine content [5] do not match the numbers in the article. That ref has:

  • Caribou Cappuccino, 12 oz. 160-200
  • Decaffeinated, instant, 8 oz. 2 mg
  • Decaffeinated, brewed, 8 oz. 2
  • Espresso, 1 fluid oz. 64
  • Instant, 8 oz. 62
  • Plain, brewed, 8 ounces (oz.) 95
  • Starbucks Caffe Latte, 16 oz. 150
  • Starbucks Coffee Grande, 16 oz. 330

Either the numbers or the refs need to be changed. Radagast3 (talk) 09:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

At home, we keep regular and decaffeinated coffee in separate containers. Stored in the refrigerator, they will keep better. Usually we brew a 50/50 blend of both types at breakfast time. Some retail food markets in the US have many types of coffee beans in bulk storage, where the customer can dispense his favorite one into a paper bag after which it gets dumped into a grinder. This enables one to have fresh ground coffee. Musicwriter (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


Could a knowledgeable editor please add to the 'effects' section: Is coffee a diuretic? Does it even satisfy thirst or do most people feel thirstier after drinking coffee? Tempshill (talk) 03:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Coffee turns out not to be a diuretic NY Times. Beanbuff (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think "Coffee turns out not to be a diuretic" is a faithful summary of an article that states "people who consumed drinks with up to 550 milligrams of caffeine produced no more urine than when drinking fluids free of caffeine. Above 575 milligrams, the drug was a diuretic." Talk:Caffeine just went over this same topic, and found a scientific review article (vs popular-press that doesn't cite its sources) that found it was diuretic but was dependent on dose and also acquired tolerance. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


  • The word qahwa is an innate arabic word that was used for wine before the discovery of coffee, I have an old text about arabic named "omdat al-safwa fi hil alqahwa" it was mentioned somewhere in wikipedia as one of the oldest texts about coffee and it doesn't mention the "kaffa theory" at all.
  • In arabic the name is "qahwat al-bun" also in amharic buno. in arabic the name "bun" is used for the plant wheras qahwat al-bun for the drink derrived from it.
  • The word "qahwa" in arabic doesn't have a single similar letter with the word "kaffa", in arabic the letter ق (Qahwa) is pronounced differently from the letter ك (Kaffa) and all the other letters are different.

I know this has been discussed before, there are 2 explanations:

  1. from the arabic word of qahwa.
  2. kaffa regoin.

I think we can say with certainty that the arabic word qahwa didn't originate from kaffa, there is no mention of that in any arabic source and the use of the word qahwa precedes the use of the invention of coffee. so it should be like this: "coffee from It. caffe, from Turk. kahveh, from Arabic qahwah... Others claim ...kaffa..."

I tend to beliebve that it originated from qahwa and kaffa has nothing to do with it (a coincidence) but because of the similarity in English (not in Arabic) western scholars came up with this theory... but i have no source to back me on this. --Histolo2 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

" berries are picked, processed, and dried. The seeds are then roasted..." Okay, I'd say that drying and roasting are stages of coffee processing which follow picking; what else, exactly, happens to the berries, apparently prior to the drying? Say that, not "processed." Spark240 (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

...culture of Seattle?

Just passing by; noticed the "Culture of Seattle, Washington" category. What is it doing here? The article doesn't even mention Seattle anywhere. --Jashiin (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Coffee berry juice

Coffee berry juice should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

some suggestions for "health and pharmacology" section

{{editsemiprotected}} Dear Sir/Madam,

Although I am a registered user, I am unable to edit this page. That is fine but I have two suggestions to make of which one is very important. In "health and pharmacology" section, under "American scientist Yaser Dorri has suggested that the smell of coffee can restore appetite and refresh olfactory receptors. He suggests that people can regain their appetite after cooking by smelling coffee beans, and that this method might also be used for research animals.", I think the following changes should be made:

1) at the end, "...this method might also be used for animals in research institutes". It does not makes sense to say for research animals. it is not professional writing.

2) at the beggining, "....has suggested that the smell of coffee BEANS...."

I appreciate if you review my suggestions and change them if appropriate.

I am very interested to edit pages and I appreciate if that could be granted, if not now but over time.


Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)D

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Americano ?

I'd dispute the origin of the Americano in terms of chronology, but not in terms of broad accuracy. In late 70s Italy and France, it was extremely difficult to get a filter coffee - for those liking coffee with milk this was not a problem, however those from filter loving countries (UK, US, Germany, Scandinavia) found it hard to get a "black" coffee. Often ending up with a double espresso that was too strong to drink. By the late 80's it was easily possible to get a watered down Espresso which approximated to black filter coffee by asking for Cafe Americain (in France) or Caffe Americano - in Italy. (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC).

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Production table

The table at Coffee#Production indicates that the total world production of coffee is less than half the production of Brazil alone, which is obviously incorrect. The world total is sourced, but the Brazilian total is not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Coffee's impacts

Most of this material is good, but to some extent I think that the sum total needs clarification. For example, aspects of The History of Coffee can be combined with the main Coffee page and the Social Impacts to create something new. Im proposing a page that talks about how coffee drove so many aspects of society: science, invention, literature, politics, political theory, etc. And this argument does not root itself in anything silly like "caffeine makes you think" (though Voltaire consumed mythic amounts, 50 cups a day). At any rate, if you want me to do an artile on this post a heading and a go ahead. I wont bother with all the work unless there some degree of certainty that it will not all be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, April 5, 2007

a small change

{{editsemiprotected}} American scientist Yaser Dorri has suggested that the smell of coffee beans can restore appetite and refresh olfactory receptors. He suggests that people can regain their appetite after cooking by smelling coffee beans, and that this method could be also used for animals in research institutes.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvazbato59 (talkcontribs) 6:07, September 7, 2008

Urban Legend

The sentence, "Coffee is the second-most-traded physical commodity in the world, exceeded only by petroleum," is an urban legend. This has been discussed at length in the past; see here and here and here. Let's keep it off this page.-- (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Health and Pharmacology

Speaking of the health and pharmacology section, does everyone think it really belongs under "Coffee and Society?" Also there are two sections on caffeine, one under "Society" and one under "The Drink." What do people think about merging the different sections on health and caffeine into a new category of its own, as it's realy separate from "The Drink" and "Society"?--Margareta 19:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Coffee has much more than caffiene that can impact people who drink it, including a good section on this information, in its own section could be useful and clean things up a bit. It really is its own section, after all. KP Botany 19:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Is this something you have an interest in? Would you feel up to doing it?--Margareta 19:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

How is coffee associated with lower rates of type two diabetes? The disease has skyrocketed to epidemic proportions and most people drink coffee. How is it helping something that is skyrocketing in the big picture? Doesn't coffee increase stress hormones like cortisol and caused unbalanced blood sugar and eventually insulin resistance? Isn't the proven stress effect that coffee and caffeine creates reason enough to avoid it like the plague? Aren't people just so addicted to it that its use is defended with isloated silly studies or food or health police accusations when the fact of the matter is we are drinking a stress enhancing mood/mind altering roasted bean full of pesticides? Essentially junkies.

I know people who have quit smoking who cannot quit coffee - even when using a caffeine containing substitue like tea, never mind quitting caffeine. The reason - not the headaches, not the fatigue but the accompanying profound depression and constipation.

Coffee helps people to eat a diet that may not agree with them. It doesn't allow proper feedback to come from the food. Many people after eating wheat and dairy get fatigued but this effect is blocked or at least changed by the consumption of coffee or caffeine. The fatigue effect is a warming that food is not proper for the person. Instead of registering that effect, people cover it with a stress hormone drink like coffee, injuring themselves with the food and with the coffee in the long run.

I've heard studies about people over 40 that can increase their mental clarity and memory with some amounts of coffee. Also, with the energy drink industry booming, it seems that increased metabolism is what people are asking for. Although it should be noted that a balanced and healthy food plan should be consumed with it.Neenbail 03:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as the argument that diabetes rates are skyrocketing, so coffee must not prevent it, don't confuse correlation with causation. People are drinking more coffee, it's true. They're also eating more processed foods. They're also drinking more sugary beverages. They're getting less exercise. There are many more factors involved than just the drinking of coffee and the rates of diabetes. It's possible that if people didn't consume the amount of coffee that they do, rates would be even higher. Or not. More people are taking heart medications than ever, but the rates of death from heart disease are still high. It doesn't mean that the medications have no impact.
The connection between consumption of coffee and lower risk of getting type two diabetes isn't connected to the caffeine in coffee; decaf coffee had the same benefits. Researchers have done numerous studies on the subject, but haven't isolated the substance in coffee which is responsible for the benefit. Your main argument seems to be against caffeine, butt caffeine is not the only compound in coffee that has an impact on health. However, if you haven't already, you might want to look at the Caffeine article, which discusses many negative effect of caffeine. Cheers, Jude. 16:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

A recent study (Marjo H. Eskelinen, Tiia Ngandu, Jaakko Tuomilehto, Hilkka Soininen, Miia Kivipelto Midlife Coffee and Tea Drinking and the Risk of Late-Life Dementia: A Population-Based CAIDE Study) Journal of Alzheimers Disease Volume 16, No 1 has some useful health insightsCelsius100 (talk) 01:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


I propose adding a section on the legality of coffee, in different countries as well as throughout history. If you have objections please reply here. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

as no objections were mentioned I will now put it in the article. (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Use some common sense. There are lots of articles that don't mention that their usage is legal. Now, if you have sourced material that shows coffee was banned/illegal in certain countries during history then that might have some encyclopedic value, but that's trivia. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

All causes of death

In the "Social" Section, the following is written:

"Studies conducted on Adventists have shown a small but statistically significant association between coffee consumption and mortality from ischemic heart disease, other cardiovascular disease, all cardiovascular diseases combined, and all causes of death."

Surely coffee consumption cannot be proven to increase mortality from "ALL causes of death". How is it possible to research the link between absolutely every cause of death and coffee consumption? Car crashes, suicides, bomb attacks, for example, are all causes of death, but are unlikely to have been caused by coffee. ( (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC))

What is "single origin" coffee?

I see the term "single origin" in several individual coffee pages here on Wikipedia, but no explanation of what "single origin" means. I gather that it means the coffee comes from just one place—but this term is presented by coffee shops and vendors who sell it as having a highly positive connotation, so I gather the term has a greater meaning than just "coffee from one place."

I can probably Google it and turn up half a dozen coffee vendors' pages explaining it, but it would be nice to have a neutral Wikipediaesque explanation in the article somewhere.

Robotech_Master (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Production Totals Do Not Add Up.

Brazil Total is 17,000,000 Tonnes World Total is 7,742,675 Tonnes

I would think that Brazil's total would be added into the world. <grin> Source may be truncated. (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC) Pardeek

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

Stimlating effect in humans

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)

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 (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Caffeine content

This section seems to be out of date and the online sources listed under this section don't agree with the caffeine contents on the page.

Torsin (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

social aspects

"Muslim monks began cultivating the shrub in their gardens"

The problem is that there is no such thing as a Muslim monk.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

A cup of coffee is a useful main image?

It may be debatable whether the lead image for this article should be a cup of coffee. It could be a cup of almost any brown fluid in the picture. Wouldn't a coffee plant be more appropriate for this?Landroo (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

agree that a pile of coffee beans might be better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, I'm drinking mine right now

Yum coffee! I was out of mocha this morning so had to get regular. UnderwaterRainbows (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a great coffee drinker

I have read information on coffee before and that It was originally from Ethiopia. By knowing that it is from that country which is our sister country, from that part of world, to our European christian world. Please add some more information on that do not delete it. when I checked in between it was deleted and not there. Please do not change history. Add some information on Indian coffee. I am an Indo-European. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talkcontribs) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Note to editors

'It is supposed that the Ethiopians, the ancestors of today's Oromo people,'

This cannot stand, since it reflects, or would reflect, an Oromo ethnic nationalism. The Oromo are one of several 'Ethiopian' ethnic groups. The line as it stands suggests that they are the original descendents of the people Homer called Aithiopes (Odyssey), unlike all other ethnic groups in Ethiopia today. The classical 'Ethiopian' is one thing, the several ethnic groups living in Ethiopia another. We do not know if the Oromo were the autochthones referred to by Homer and Herodotus, etc.Nishidani (talk) 23:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, that's been there awhile. I am a neophyte at the ethnology of the horn of africa so will have to do some reading. I would be grateful for the input of any more knowledgeable than me on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
I could give you the ethnology, but the point is not strictly ethnological. 'Ethiopians' is a (a)generic term for a modern nation's varied population, constituted of different ethnic groups but (b) it is an historic term going back to antiquity, rooted in mythological cosmology, and was used later to refer to the Nubians. The Nubians speak a Nilo-Saharan language, while Oromo is Cushitic. So throughout antiquity the 'Ethiopians' were mythical, or 'Nubians', then later the the Amhara who spoke a language from a third linguistic group (south Semitic). The RS implied that the Oromo were the people that until recent centuries, Western or classical sources on Ethiopians understood to be what we now call either Nubians or the Amharic peoples of Ethiopia.
That is why I re-edited according to the source quoted, altering it to remove this slippery and dangerous equivocation. Unfortunately (and my insistence on this in the past has occasionally gotten me into hot water by editors who refuse to understand the difficulty) often very good sources get things wrong, or phrase things badly when the scholars writing them draw on material outside their specific area of competence, and this has happened here. While a wiki editor is not supposed to note when a RS gets things wrong, or uses misleading phraseology, at the same time, an editor who cares for the quality of his text should exercise commonsense and close judgement, by not following verbatim an RS that slips up (the endless argument I was compelled to make on using Walter Laqueur on the Qur'an: Laqueur is RS, but he got things drastically wrong on a point of textual citation). So, good judgement, not, as often asserted even by fine editors, WP:OR, requires one not to cite him on that point, etc).
To repeat what the RS says is to endorse an ideology, against the known facts of African history and ethnography, that one modern and major ethnic group, the Oromo, constitute the essence or heart of Ethiopian culture, and tradition, as opposed to the other populations which, by this slipshod use of language, are made out to be 'intruders' without the same long historical roots in that country.
If there were an Oromo nationalist editing this page, he could theoretically challenge me and take me to arbitration for WP:OR violations in refusing to use those words verbatim. He would have a technical point in his favour, in insisting the exact words of the RS be repeated. But, while winning the point according to the rules, he would be using the rules to justify the retention of a carelessly phrased remark in an RS which, as it stands, legitimates an implication that supports an ideology, that the Oromo are the real Ethiopians, and others secondary.
I've used this to illustrate a point that I haven't found addressed in general editing. Discretionary intelligence in the use of first class sources is often necessary to avoid a deeper violation, of WP:NPOV. It's a neglected issue, but quite serious, esp. in sensitive areas of the encyclopedia. Enough! Best wishes for the FA qualification.Nishidani (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

One way to look at this is that the sourcebook on coffee might very well be a secondary source on coffee, but that the topic of Ethiopian ethnographic history is probably tertiary (i.e. probably taken verbatim from some other source) - hence a secondary source can be said to trump this (tertiary) source when it comes to ethnography, and a peer-reviewed one better still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The text reads:-
'Coffee became the substitute beverage in spiritual practices where wine was forbidden.[citation needed] Coffee drinking was briefly prohibited by Muslims as haraam in the early years of the 16th century, but this was quickly overturned.'
(a)Citation needed = Ken Albala, Food in early modern Europe, Greenwood Publishing Group, 2003 p.84
(b)Haraam should be d wikilinked = Haraam
(c)On the final sentence, perhaps the technical details are useful.

‘God, for instance, was widely known to have prohibited wine, or, to be more precise, a beverage which the Qur’ān called khamr, the definition of which was a matter of disagreement. If the reason for the divine proscription on khamr was found to be in its intoxicating properties, then the prohibition might be extended, by application of qiyā, to other intoxicants. This was exactly the approach that some jurists took, arguing that any intoxicant was forbidden by analogy with khamr.

The jurists gathered in Mecca in 1511 were apparently open to such an argument: if coffee could be shown to be intoxicating, it must be forbidden. They were aided by a linguistic peculiarity. The word qahwa, used for coffee, was also one of the words used for wine. In the end their final decision did not rest on a systematic argument linking coffee and wine. There were others willing to take up such a position, however. The argument for prohibition of coffee by analogy with wine must have had proponents, since defenders of coffee offered vigorous refutations. The reasoning adopted by the Meccan council of ‘ulamā’ turned out to be more pallid. Coffee was prohibited simply because it is vaguely harmful to one’s well-being.

Although the assembled jurists of Mecca had reached their verdict, however, that was hardly the end of the matter. Anti-coffee jurists very soon had to face the inconvenient fact that other jurists, and as it turned out, more influential ones, disagreed with their decision. What the Meccan jurists had arrived at, in other words, was not God’s law in an objective sense, but simply their own understanding of God’s law. No Muslim jurist would doubt that God had an opinion about coffee, but most of them shared a healthy sense of their own fallibility in understanding his opinions. They could only do their best, and their best might not be enough. This process of seeking to understand God’s law the legal scholars called fiqh – understanding. Scholars who engaged in this process were fuqahā’. Fiqh and the rulings that resulted from it were, at best, an approximation of the true law of God, and the pro-coffee lobby was free to argue that the assembled Meccan ‘ulamā’ had gotten it quite wrong.’ Daniel W. Brown,A new introduction to Islam, Wiley-Blackwell, 2004 pp.119-120

Just as a piece of trivia, finally, re the Oromo and coffee. Until recently it was customary for the Oromo to plant a coffee tree on the graves of particularly powerful sorcerers. They say that the first coffee bush sprang up from the tears that the god of heaven shed over the corpse of a dead sorcerer.
This is mentioned by a source your page uses, i.e. Stewart Lee Allen,The devil's cup: coffee, the driving force in history, Soho, 1999 pp.27ff. I can't access it on Google, but I've read it in the Italian translation (by Cecilia Veronesi), S.L.Allen, La tazzina del diavolo. Viaggio intorno al mondo sulle vie del caffè, Feltrinelli, Milan p.31
Oooh goody, folklore and cultural stuff. Love it. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:29, 1 January 2010 (UTC)  Done Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Make me proud

I like how my article is coming along. Make me proud wikipedia, and I'll pour a cup. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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, 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, [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] User:Agradman/coffee, and best wishes! Agradman talk/contribs 05:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) 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. [18]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.( (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC))

As I understand, Oromia since 1995 includes the former Kaffa Province. Moreover, according to the reference [19], 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 (talkcontribs) 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)
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 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)


  • 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)


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.