Talk:Coffee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Coffee has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.5
 This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Coffee as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French, Spanish, Norwegian or Vietnamese language Wikipedias.
Archive
Archives

Archive 1
Archive 2


Contents

[edit] 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 67.161.122.193 (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 24.33.239.198 (talk • contribs)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in April 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Dvandersluis 20:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Otheus 23:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tags

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)

[edit] Etymology

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 (www.etymonline.com). 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.

[edit] Caracoli

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 www.google.com. 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. http://www.vanhoutteocs.com/play/fr/s/the_coffee/glossary/c.html

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Coffee and Growth

I know this sounds dumb but does coffee prevent growth?69.221.247.31 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 69.221.244.43 (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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] Beans

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.

[edit] 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?: 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.Y 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"". Y 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.Y Done (changed to "important") Y 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. Y Done
  • This sentence: "Physically, the bean shrinks in weight the beans are heated and moisture is lost" needs punctuation I believe. Y 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 Image: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.Y Done
2. Factually accurate?: 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.Y 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.Y Done
  • In the history section, "...coffee 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.Y 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.Y Done
3. Broad in coverage?: 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?Y Done
4. Neutral point of view?: Well done.
5. Article stability? Yes.
6. Images?: 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 "...in 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)

Check markY 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

http://m-w.com/dictionary/coffee Etymology: Italian & Turkish; Italian caffè, from Turkish kahve, from Arabic qahwa

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coffee 1598, from It. caffe, from Turk. kahveh, from Arabic qahwah "coffee,"

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coffee [Origin: 1590–1600; < It caffè < Turk kahve < Ar qahwah]

http://atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/tlfiv5/visusel.exe?12;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).

http://www.infopedia.pt/pesquisa?Entrada=cafe (Do it. caffé, «id.», do turco qahvé, do ár. qahuâ, «vinho»)

http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltObtenerHtml?IDLEMA=13041 (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)

[edit] 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 thefreedictionary.com 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)

[edit] 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 209.47.31.5 (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 starbucks.com) 68.55.37.20 12:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyedit

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in October 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
  • Copyeditor(s): Galena11 18:37, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Proofreader: Finetooth 23:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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 75.45.86.134 (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Palestine

Coffee House in Palestine????

Where is Palestine??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.123.247.58 (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Unbalanced?

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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] Diuretic?

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)