|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
"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)
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)