Talk:Flat white

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archives: 1

Volume[edit]

"It is somewhat similar to the cappuccino or the latte although smaller in volume, therefore having a higher proportion of coffee to milk . . ." No. This is a ridiculous statement. The volume of a mixture and the proportion of an ingredient are independent quantities. Each one has nothing to do with determining the other. Will someone who knows about the "flat white" (but has no bias) please correct this erroneous statement.Daqu (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the volume is pertinent to the proportion, as a 'shot' or 'double shot' of espresso are standard volumes irrespective of the cup volume. Thus, reducing cup volume will alter the proportion of coffee and milk. Davecw (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Origin[edit]

In the Introduction, the article says it is of New Zealand invention, whereas in the 'Origins' section in mentions claims for both Australian and New Zealand invention with Australian claims arising before New Zealand claims. What is the reason for this? Should it be changed? Are there more references that should be mentioned in the 'Origins' section? Davecw (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the bloody Kiwipedians! They are the most aggressive, biased, and angry of all wikipedians. But you can be at least thankful that Oz actually gets a mention. In previous versions of the article any mention of an Oz origin had been deleted. I kid you not! The evidence points to an Oz origin. But good luck with getting the truth by the fanatical Kiwipedians. They will immediately revert to the cock and bull story they have invented about uncertain Ocker or NZ origins. A similar argument could be made for the origin of pavlova. But try and change the pavlova article to reflect the joint Oz/Kiwi origins and the Kiwipedians go nutso! They have a massive inferiority complex, which they attempt to hide using over the top aggression. Just watch the response to this comment. There will be no attempt to argue fact. Instead the Kiwipedians will feign offence. That's another of their tactics when faced with the truth of their own hypocrisy. A tosspot Kiwipedian administrator will no doubt ban me for speaking the truth! Theodore D (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Why not find primary sources from the 1980s that unambiguously show its existence from that time. There would be no controversy. Search in online databases like EBSCO etc.. . -- GreenC 01:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be a lot of controversy and, frankly, weird assertions around this topic. I think the problem is that there are a number of points people are arguing over:
- The name "flat white". There is certainly photo evidence that a coffee drink with the name flat white was being sold in Sydney and Brisbane in the late early 80's. The claim from an Auckland barista does not appears to provide any evidence.
- The variations of flat white: The barista from Wellington claims he invented the flat white variation with a double shot of Expresso and steamed milk, claiming the "flat white" he had in Auckland was based of a Sydney recipe, which was a shot of Expresso with a jug of (cold) milk on the side. There is no evidence anywhere that such a drink was ever sold anywhere (geez, a jug of cold milk? that is just weird). The Wellington claims they invented a variation where they use a double shot of Ristretto instead of Expresso (which is the variation being sold by US chain Starbucks in the US, so he appears to be claiming this variation is different from the more common Expresson based flat white), but again without citation. This is more likely to be variations with vendors rather than a distinct regional variation.
- The whole controversy appears to revolve around a couple of baristas that have recently made claims that they invented the "flat white" with absolutely not evidence except their own self serving arguments. There is at least evidence that a "flat white" existed in Australia long before both these claims. I see no reason to call this a New Zealand invention, and it should be Australasian at worst. IMHO, the evidence makes a pretty good argument that what we now call a "flat white" is of Sydney origin.
I've amended the lede paragraph to say 'Australia or New Zealand', and added a reference to an American newspaper article discussing the disputed origins. I would be happy to see this amended further if it were thought that this wasn't definitive enough. Felix116 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Suggest that we move the claims, evidence, discussion and links about the origins of the drink and the origins of the terminology down into the "origins" section of the page instead of in the first paragraph. From an encyclopaedic perspective, the origins of the term are interesting but they don't have to be the most important thing on the page. This approach should also help de-escalate the New Zealand vs Australia discussion. Peterjthomson (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

1962 Film[edit]

I've just removed: "In the 1962 film "Danger by my Side" a detective meets a girl informant in a coffee bar and orders a "flat white" The drink appears to match the description above." which had been added by 86.136.64.25 - first because it seems very unlikely that it has any direct link to the history of the current drink; and second because there was no RS ref given. Fascinating though... Snori (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still of encylopedic interest for readers to know that the term was in usage in the 1960s. If we can find a citation then the mention should be added back in. Peterjthomson (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, no argument about that, which is exactly why I've mentioned it here. But, remember that the article is about the current drink, not the term: i.e. WP:NOTDIC Snori (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Brought here by mention in exactly this film - and can’t see how you can make the declaration that this isn’t the same drink, and that this article is not about the term. The article is written as if there was no previous use of the term, and the drink was invented in the eighties. As the origin is already contentious, it should be included as a third option, for the same name for the same drink, and offer the option that the NZ/ Australia origin is possibly fallacious. There is always a possibility that this is the original drink and was exactly what is served under that name today, and neither NZ or Australia was the point of origin after all. Or evidence has to be provided that the drink in the film (which is treated as a regular request so presumably was expected to be familiar to audiences at the time) is different. Can’t see how the article can be treated as encyclopaedic otherwise, it’s just propagating one version of the story unnecessarily. Jock123 (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Australian coffee "facts" = all over the place[edit]

I've spent a few hours going through coffee articles on Wikipedia, and come to the conclusion that there are few agreed-on "official" facts about coffee in Australia, because: 1) almost everything we do in oz contradicts what they do in the traditional European origins of these drinks (i.e. definition/size/recipe for 'latte', 'cappuccino' having chocolate on it, and the supposed facts about beverage sizes despite being able to order these of any size in most cafes); and 2) there are endless of examples where food writers, barista training schools, journalists and WP contributors contradict each other, including in articles that contradict themselves . If you don't believe me please compare references to flat white in cappuccino article (suggests a flat white always has 2 shots and can contain latte art, whilst some blogs say in NZ they have 2 shots the current article mentions nothing of it), even the reference from this page here admits the author isn't confident of stating a definition of the flat white, and not one of the comments on that page agrees with any other comment - and they're supposed to be coffee snobs!! Anyway as it stands, I'm inclined to suggest that without bringing attention to the fact there's varying opinions offered by cafes/baristas and it seems to depend on who you ask, OR without mentioning that the 'official' recipes are disputed, then without good references a lot of these 'facts' border on looking like original research. It's really just a completely subjective topic and it annoys me that WP articles often try to state strict definitions.

A few statements attempt to reference a newspaper article to back up a claim, but the problem I'm seeing here is half these food writers also contradict each other, so shouldn't be relied on as good references. I could easily link to this to claim the 'cafe latte' was an American drink, 'popularised in Australia and is now making its way to Europe' (WTF?). And the very SMH article referenced in this page here claims the only difference in flat white and latte "is the vessel in which they're presented", a direct contradiction of the sentence immediately before it in the WP page! In the present article we see the flat white "is somewhat similar to the traditional 140 ml...although smaller in volume", but yet later we're told in Australia "a flat white is served in a ceramic mug" of volume 200ml. Make your minds up - does it have an official volume and if so then reference it, or if not then explain that it can be subjective.

And really, to me none of this is at all surprising. After all, every one of these drinks is just an invented variation on the same basic premise of extracting espresso and adding heated milk. Of course as different cafes copy similar methods they're all going to disagree on the exact recipe, and as recipes move from one country to another they evolve with local tastes. I think at best the most you can do is discuss the most commonly offered products, and treat 'official' definitions with utmost care. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing all these coffee pages rewritten with a tone along the lines of, "<drink X> is the name given to a number of variants of an espresso-based coffee beverage, typically sharing the characteristics that <etc etc>".

Doubtful anyone will go ahead and do that as it will upset those who made those unreferenced claims, but in the meantime if this brings attention to the worst contradictions someone might address? Tilgrieog (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summation. As you said, I think the best forward for these sorts of articles (which seem to be pretty common with food and drink items) is to "teach the controversy". It's better that the article end up as "A says X, B says Y, C says Z", rather than having one point of view put forward and having people edit war over it for eternity. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)