![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I do like the individual caffeine doses in types of coffee to be in the article. I can see Gamerpro thinks this is unnecessary. How do other folks feel? It needs better sourcing too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
NB: The IP is not me. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, listed here. Can we think of any other types to add? And review of reliable sources. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
what is the land and soil requirement for planting coffee seeds? what is the perfect climatic requirement for planting coffee seeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.194.121 ( talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
According to
"Caffeine-Related Psychiatric Disorders"
R Gregory Lande, DO, FACN
May 31, 2009
emedicine.medscape.com/article/290113-overview
The amount of caffeine in coffee and tea varies based on brewing times and methods. General guidelines for beverage caffeine content include the following:
Brewed coffee (8 oz) - 120 mg Instant coffee (8 oz) - 70 mg
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The caffeine content of Starbucks drinks can be viewed at www.starbucks.com/retail/nutrition_beverages.asp 24.60.190.107 ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Caffeine Content of Food and Drugs from the Center for Science in the Public Interest can be found at www.cspinet.org/reports/caffeine.pdf
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Caffeine content for coffee, tea, soda and more
By Mayo Clinic staff
www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
Adapted from USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, 2009; Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2007; Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2003.
Type of coffee Caffeine (milligrams) Dunkin' Donuts, brewed, 16 oz (480 mL) 143-206 Generic brewed, 8 oz (240 mL) 95-200 Generic brewed, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL) 2-12 Generic instant, 8 oz (240 mL) 27-173 Generic instant, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL) 2-12 Starbucks Espresso, 1 oz (30 mL) 58-75 Starbucks Vanilla Latte, 16 oz (480 mL) 150
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
what exactly is meant by "green coffee"? The article refers to it in several places, most notably in the second sentence of the lead, but doesn't really define what it is. Is it some kind of coffee produced in an "environmentally-friendly" manner, or something?
Also, regarding the 'citation needed' tag in the production sub-section, I think it's evident from the table that Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia are the top three producers of coffee. Why is coffee in Colombia "softer", and why is it being described as such? Not sure where we're going to find a citation for that -- I tried a few google searches but got nowhere. The softer coffee remark could probably be deleted, IMHO. WTF ( talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
When I was wiki-gnoming at this page back in August, I saw a number of people confusing this article for the article on the coffee bean. This caused, for example, some erroneous statements in the history section (e.g., that coffee has been used since prehistoric times). Around that time, I added the hatnote, that "This article is about the beverage. For the bean, see coffee bean."
To further clarify, I just substituted
[1] this photo of the beverage
for the picture of coffee beans,
. This reverses
Casliber's revision of a week ago.
[2]. I'll mention it to that person now.
Andrew Gradman
talk/
WP:Hornbook
21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Casliber writes "we always use two digits in refpage ranges" and "refs like this have two digits"
Where is that documented? Various citation generators use as few digits as necessary for the end of the range.
For example, from the Wiki and Blog citation maker
<ref name="pmid16284957">{{cite journal| author=Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, King WD, Jaakkola JJ, Cordier S, Lynch CF et al.| title=Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk. | journal=Int J Cancer | year= 2006 | volume= 118 | issue= 8 | pages= 2040-7 | pmid=16284957
| url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=clinical.uthscsa.edu/cite&email=badgett@uthscdsa.edu&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16284957 | doi=10.1002/ijc.21587 }} <!--Formatted by http://sumsearch.uthscsa.edu/cite/--></ref>
and from the Diberri template filler
{{cite journal
| author = Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, King WD, ''et al.''
| title = Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk
| journal = International Journal of Cancer. Journal International Du Cancer
| volume = 118
| issue = 8
| pages = 2040–7
| year = 2006
| month = April
| pmid = 16284957
| doi = 10.1002/ijc.21587
| url = http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21587
| issn =
| accessdate = 2010-01-08
}}
and from the Citation templates generator
{{Cite journal | last1 = Villanueva | first1 = CM. | last2 = Cantor | first2 = KP. | last3 = King | first3 = WD. | last4 = Jaakkola | first4 = JJ. | last5 = Cordier | first5 = S. | last6 = Lynch | first6 = CF. | last7 = Porru | first7 = S. | last8 = Kogevinas | first8 = M. | title = Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk. | journal = Int J Cancer | volume = 118 | issue = 8 | pages = 2040-7 | month = Apr | year = 2006 | doi = 10.1002/ijc.21587 | PMID = 16284957 }}
24.60.190.107 (
talk)
00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The section on Paris can be improved - see http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/16MB701.html
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the Ukers reference is online at http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/TOC.html
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the section Health and pharmacology:
Many high-end perfume shops now offer coffee beans to refresh the receptors between perfume tests. citation needed
An online search leads me to believe that this blog may be the originator. However, the author claims "I have experienced this is [sic] Chennai Pothys, while I was looking for a good perfume". As far as I'm able to ascertain, Pothys doesn't seem to sell perfume and the Chennai showroom sells clothing - I'm not certain about that, but it doesn't seem to be enough to elevate this claim above 'urban legend', imho. In addition, the book What the Nose Knows - The Science of Scent in Everyday Life by Avery Gilbert (ISBN-13: 978-1400082346) contradicts the notion that coffee beans refresh the scent receptors (book review here). Dr Avery Gilbert seems to have some reputation as an expert on scent, so I'm inclined to give weight to that view. Either way, I've removed the disputed statement for the moment. -- RexxS ( talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Murad IV's prohibition is sourced here and in his article to this site. Charming as that piece is, it's hardly a WP:RS unless Kate Hopkins is an expert – and I don't see her wikipedia biog to assert it. However, she replies to one of the comments on her blog, claiming that her sources are The Devil's Cup and The Devil's Picnic. We're already using the former, so can somebody check it out in either book? (or else we'll have to send Cas off to the library again). If confirmed, I'd prefer to see Murad's prohibition cited to a published work, rather than an admittedly engaging blog. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just dug up the book by Ian Bersten from my packing boxes - it doesn't mention Murad either. Be good to see a copy of Allen...Bersten has some other useful material to add. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just undone a series of good-faith edits which has changed the table in Production, resulting in it being squashed with level-2 text to the right of it. In addition, the notes and references which applied to the table have now been moved to the end, resulting in sections entitled Notes, References, Footnotes, and Notations, compared with the previous Notes and References. I simply can't see how this has improved the article, and as the editor making the changes gave almost no edit summaries, I am left guessing their intentions. I think this sort of change is best discussed here to see if there is an consensus for one version or the other. -- RexxS ( talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the distinction between kahveh and kahve allow me to draw attention to the article " 'Coffee': Its etymology" from Notes and Queries (1909):
The history of this word involves several phonetic difficulties hitherto unsolved. Of course the ' N.E.D.' is right in stating that the European languages got the name about 1600 from the Arabic qahwah, not directly, but through its Turkish form kahveh. The Turkish form might have been written kahvé, as its final h was never sounded at any time.
Is that sufficiently clear? Gabbe ( talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just finished checking the refs in History section and I was disappointed by the lack of correlation between the older refs and the text they supported. It's almost as if some of the old text had been lifted or written off the top of the editor's head, and then sources found that tangentially mention part of the text. I've corrected what I can, but the main remaining concerns are:
Assuming those are factual, we need to find some better sources to support the detail there.
Ought we to find a source to directly support "It has become the primary export and backbone for African countries like Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda ..." ? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor added the following:
This looks an interesting new finding, if true. Unfortunately no source was offered and I haven't been able to find one. Any thoughts? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Has dead external links from March 2010 and January 2010. Unsourced statements tagged from January 2010, August 2009, February 2010, December 2009 and potentially dated statement from 2006. Tagged as needing to be harmonized with the History of coffee article. Tom B ( talk) 22:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the two deadlinks, ref 8 would be good to update (it's 2005 figures anyway), and ref 40 is in the section in need of a complete overhaul. I will try to have a look at this soon. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The Prohibition section cites this article, but in the context, it seems like it's implying that Seventh-day Adventists are more susceptible to coffee's adverse health effects. The research seems to have more to do with the group's prohibition being used as a statistically clean sample population. I think this information belongs in the Health section where it isn't quite as misleading.
Quartz ( talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should be removed entirely. First off, citing one study out of probably hundreds done on SDA groups as evidence of coffee being harmful is spurious. What about the other studies done on the SDA? To not note that the other studious found no correlation is intellectually dishonest and misleading. It should have been qualified with, "But only one study..." If it takes only one study to to make the inclusion of the information within into an article valid, every wikipedia page would be filled with paragraph after paragraph of frivolous info. I'm sure there is a single study that claims chewing gum causes global warming or something as equally as frivolous. Does that mean that particular info should be included into the article about gum? Second, even if the Adventists observed refrained from alcohol and smoking (and how can you even know that for sure, they could be fibbing about that so as to not get into trouble) there are still many, many confounding factors. For example there is age, genetics, sex, race, diet, exercise and many, many more. To imply that SDA church members somehow constitute a "pure" sample and "completely free" from confounding factors just because they abstain from smoking and drinking is incredibly fallacious. Also, if they refrain from smoking and drinking, how can we know for sure that it's not those factors that contribute to them being supposedly healthier? The study just could have easily concluded that there is a "weak but statistically significant association" (more on that dubious phrase later) between alcohol intake or tobacco intake and "mortality from ischemic heart disease, other cardiovascular disease, all cardiovascular diseases combined, and all causes of death." Also, "all causes of death????" That's incredibly clunky phrasing, what does coffee intake have to with causes of death like being drowned, falling from a height, being electrocuted, being stabbed to death and the like? And do we need to say "all cardiovascular diseases combined" and "other cardiovascular disease?" Isn't that redundant? Not to mention vague as hell.
Also, the language and use of words is troubling. The study is described as "being able to show," this is very NPOV. Unless you are God and know for sure that study is 100% accurate, the best you can say is that the study "claims" to show. Studies are based on subjective human observation and conclusions, and can't be taken as gospel. "Being able to show" is absurdly over authoritative. Second, the phrase "weak but statistically significant association" is pure double talk. How can it be weak and also at the same time "statistically significant"? One precludes the other. That's like saying "that man is weak, but strong!" It makes no sense. It seems to me their is an agenda here, namely to try and saddle coffee as being bad for your health. If you're going to do that, fine, there are many views on that issue, but I cry foul when one very shaky and dubious study is used to further that claim.
P.S. I'm not implying Rexss that you intentionally are trying to push an anti-coffee message, but your re-write sure didn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 ( talk) 07:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Coffee can also be incorporated with alcohol in beverages" — Why would anyone want to mix uppers with downers like that? Tisane talk/ stalk 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, coffee at best is a very mild stimulant so mixing it with alcohol would have a very limited (if any) increased effect on mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 ( talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a placeholder for the moment. Both "coffee berry" and "coffee cherry" have usage for the fruit of the coffee plant, and it is probably a good idea to discuss which should be preferred for the article – or even should both be used (where appropriate) if there is a real distinction between the terms. Thoughts and sources? -- RexxS ( talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If coffee had originated in Ethiopia, why did it not spread to the the neighboring African lands, rather than across the sea over to the Arabian peninsula?! I am skeptical of the Ethiopian origin theory of coffee. Lugalbanda ( talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"200 millilitres (7.0 imp fl oz; 6.8 US fl oz), or a single shot of espresso—typically containing about 30 millilitres (1.1 imp fl oz; 1.0 US fl oz)—can be expected to contain 375 milliliters of caffeine."
This just does not make sense. 200 millilitres of coffee contain 375 millilitres of caffeine? 188% of the cup of coffee is caffeine? Perhaps it meant milligrams of caffeine, however I checked one of the sources cited, which said a cup of coffee contains from 100-150 (thereabouts) milligrams of caffeine, in which case it's still wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 ( talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
On Wikia can be found here [12] Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In Coffee can be found the psychoactive drug Caffeine.
The the headline of the article on Cannabis, is followed by (drug), which does not make sense, as cannabis is a plant and in itself not a drug. The chemical compound in the plant can be categorized as a drug - not the plant itself. This is misleading information and does not add to the accuracy and credibility of wiki.
However - if the cannabis article is to keep (drug) in the title, then this article should certainly also have (drug) added to the title.
( Pethol ( talk) 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)).
McKinnon-Agaard Pulping & pregrading system (East Africa)
Water consumption for wet processing coffee
McKinnon-Agaard disc pulping system Litres/tonne parchment Operation(1)Agaard without recirculation (2) Agaard with partial recirculation
(3)Agaard with full recirculation
(1) (2) (3) Pulping & pregrading (recirculated) 29,000 800 800 Convey pulped coffee (recirculated) 1,350 1,350 120 Intermediate washing (not recirculated) 950 950 950 Grading channel (recirculated) 4,400 4,400 2,120 Soaking (not recirculated) 1,100 1,100 1,100 Cleaning (not recirculated) 600 600 600 Total water - all operations 37,400 9,200 5,690
Equivalent in litres per Kg cherry 7.5 1.8 1.1
Discussion: Essentially the water usage for wet processing arabica coffee is the sum total of all operations (up to 6 in all) in a pulping/washing station which require processing water and produce wastewater. A number of articles analyze pulping systems and seem to ignore the other points of water consumption. Thus comparison between systems is not easy. The attached table sets out water consumption for the McKinnon-Agaard wet processing system widely used in East Africa (3,500 plus washing stations) with a breakdown and summary of water consumption. Most of the private sector washing stations have a full recirculation system. The data here may be quoted and used freely.
Regards, Alan Finney. Coffee Specialist Consultant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.241 ( talk) 12:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone has any information about the pulp of the coffee berry other than that it is discarded. In the article about Kopi Luwak it discusses the Asian Palm civet that eats the berries and defecates the seeds (beans). Is the pulp bitter? Does it have no nutritional value except for the civet? Just curious. Mylittlezach ( talk) 06:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory phrase that said that coffee has played a critical role in many societies throughout history, I deleted "throughout history". Alcohol has had impact throughout history (five thousand years). Coffee only throughout "modern" history (five hundred years). Please respect this change. I made the same change a year ago and it was reverted.-- Zachbe ( talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"Coffee required less land to grow and the lack of machinery to process made it immediately popular." - Should not that read something like "Coffee required less land to grow and the lack of machinery needed to process it made it immediately popular." Its lack of machinery needed for processing, not just general lack of machinery that made it popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.21 ( talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
And why does coffee smell different than it tastes. A section on this by a chemist would be nice or someone who can answer ths. -- Ericg33 ( talk) 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Referring decaffeination, I've heard somewhere (maybe on "How It's Made"), that there are only about five processing companies in the world that perform decaffeination. -- Jarash ( talk) 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I used 75 percent coffee and 25 percent soymilk the other day with sugar and it tasted like vanilla coffee. Does actual vanilla coffee exist? Is it vegan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to coffee being bitter. Colloquially, this might be true (especially with poor quality beans), but in food tasting circles it is not. Bitter refers to alkalines such as alum and is associated with caustic, astringent flavors. Coffee is slightly acidic, so is best described as tangy or piquant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Bollinger ( talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Frederick banning imports on behalf of Germany, - he was only the king of Prussia, does his legislatation grandfather to Germany after 1870? Otherwise, the talk of coffee colonies + Germany doesnt make much sense. Ottawakismet ( talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Some topics should be listed under the coffee culture article. icetea8 ( talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Depending on the specific plant breed the the coffee is grown on, the coffee produces a different flavour. Sometimes, it can be more "fruity" and sometimes more "nutty". I read about the different ways coffee connoisseurs describe coffee flavour, and am interested about the characteristics and tastes each type of bean produces. I think there can be greater explanation on the types of coffee and the taste each type produces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpfroggy ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336359/title/Coffee_delivers_jolt_deep_in_the_brain "Coffee delivers jolt deep in the brain; Caffeine strengthens electrical signals in rats’ hippocampus" by Laura Sanders Web edition November 21st, 2011 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Coffee is not a beverage served just hot, by any stretch of the imagination. 66.26.95.207 ( talk) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Climate change pushing coffee to extinction? October 17, 2011 9:23 AM CBS News
See Climate change and agriculture and Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee#Caffeine_content There are no measurements just a series of #s. What is it that is being described? 96.52.182.81 ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
it looks like there is something odd under etymology but I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.23.233 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The 3rd Paragraph under Cultivation appears to have been vandalized. Excellent article until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.17.230 ( talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says Ethiopia. Obviously... for the Coffee bean. But then in the 'History' section of the article it says "The earliest credible evidence of either coffee drinking or knowledge of the coffee tree appears in the middle of the fifteenth century, in the Sufi monasteries around Mokha in Yemen." So why is the origin still Ethiopia if the actual drink 'Coffee' originated in Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.9.199 ( talk) 04:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Locically, shouldn't Grinding be a separate subheading 4.3, before Brewing? What is now 2th, 3rd and 4th para under 4.3 could be moved to this new heading, but the present 1st para is about grind size in relation to brewing method. Ezr ( talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The table in this section is dubious. It talks about espresso as "fine grind". Absolutely not! Espresso demands a medium/coarse grind. A fine grind will not allow the espresso steam through and generally causes the pressure relief valve to operate. A fine grind is much more suited to filter coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.239.244 ( talk) 11:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have changed this once before adding my rationale here. If coffee tastes bitter, it is only because cheap beans were poorly prepared. Chefs call coffee a sweet beverage. I once again removed "bitter" and replaced it with "slightly acidic" and this time included a reference. To give you an idea of just how nearly neutral coffee's pH is, if you diluted vinegar to the same pH level as coffee (5.0-5.1) you could not taste the vinegar in the water. Studies have recorded a "perceived" acidity by coffee drinkers, but this has been attributed to flavors, not acids, and to coffee's aroma. Dan Bollinger ( talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was the one who made the flavor addition in the first place, a while back. Before my edit there was no mention of the flavor. Acidic is not a flavor. Sour, bitter, savory, salty, sweet, et cetera are flavors. The bitterness of coffee comes from the roasting process. I am restoring my original description, that coffee has a dark, bitter flavor. If you disagree with the characterization of dark, I will find a few sources by flavor connoisseurs and refute you. Dylan Hsu ( talk) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh and if you don't like "dark", what about "robust"? Dylan Hsu ( talk) 14:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this yesterday [13] but has now been added back in [14]. Some people may perceive a 'dark' character to the taste of coffee, but this is a poetic description (possibly caused by a type 1 mixing up of the visual and taste senses). As figurative language it has no place in the lead sentence of an encyclopedic article. In the same way that wine experts mostly can't tell red from white wine in blind tastings if coffee was asked to be described blind from amongst other substances I would expect the descriptions to be all over the place. We can describe the color plainly but should avoid figurative descriptions of taste. SkyMachine (++) 20:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 'roasting' section sentence reads, "The actual roasting begins when the temperature inside the sed reaches approximately..." It seems clear that this should read "seed" and not "sed." Simple type-o. Eumoria ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to make the suggestion that this article should be semi-protected. Now I'm not a writing contributor nor plan to be. It just doesn't make sense why this topic gets no protection at all while other articles on like "Cat, Dog, Tiger" gets them. Maybe this point was overlooked. I really have little faith in important enough topics that are easily susceptible to vandalism. I recently checked topics like "Mitt Romney, Barack Obama" and they got semi-protection I believe which makes sense.
I read the revision history section and saw some vandalism entries. This would be harder to commit if this topic's protected. I hope an authority reads this and gives this the protection it should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwwiki2012 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
So, there's a bit of an issue with the organization on the information contained in the "Health and pharmacology" section of this article. Namely, the boundaries are blurred between this and a few other articles, causing information to be both excluded and redundantly published. The two articles that most directly overlap with this section are the following:
/info/en/?search=Caffeine /info/en/?search=Health_effects_of_coffee
There is no obvious solution to the redundancy of the Health section of this article and the Health effects article, so anyone that can find guidance in the Wikipedia documentation should definitely let us know. I'll start migrating some of the details that more obviously belong in the Health effects article, give a brief but more explicative mention of caffeine's effects in the Coffee article, and look for a way to link to the Health effects article in the coffee article. However, I'm still very much a newb at Wikipedia editing, so any help, input, and guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Exercisephys ( talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I've started this, and it's really quite a job. The whole section is an impenetrable jungle of overly specific and scientific references to studies that belong in the "Health effects of coffee" article. I've been cleaning it up and migrating stuff, but I could definitely use help if anyone has the time.
Exercisephys ( talk) 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I fixed a vandalism in this table. Do not revert before have studied the table some editions before. It seems the vandalism was made by the IP 116.199.219.189. If this is right, better to block it.
Zimbres ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the Seattle Times "Starbucks lowers prices on bagged coffee at grocers" after "In recent months, global coffee prices have fallen more than 50 percent year-over-year"? [15] Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the map needs to be addended to include China as a coffee-producing country. Not all of China, just the southwest portions of Yunnan province. I live in Yunnan province and can verify that there is indeed coffee production here. It may be small compared to the other countries on the map, but it will surely grow in the future, especially now that Starbucks and Nestle are both heavily investing in coffee growing education here.
88.208.249.193 ( talk) 16:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Matt, Kunming, Yunnan, April 24, 2013
This timeline was an original creation at the Portal:Coffee. i have removed it from there, as its original research without references, but someone here might find it useful to begin an ACTUAL timeline of coffee article. Ive also restructured the portal so its actually potentially useful, and linked it to a handful of coffee articles. If anyone else thinks its worth linking, go ahead.
Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me not define encyclopaedia article but it is not an article from a pretencious magazine. So why doesn't someone tell the American consumer what "Cuban style" coffee is and if the weird taste from a fresh pack is supposed to be there. 69.115.19.134 ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The external links page needs to be updated.
This link no longer works: http://www.lokeshdhakar.com/2007/08/20/an-illustrated-coffee-guide
Might I also suggest adding this link about the science of coffee: http://www.coffeekrave.com/coffee-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.27.225 ( talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The presence of 4-Caffeoyl-1,5-quinide in coffee is IMO notable enough to be included somewhere in the article "even without reference to any effects on humans". Maybe a chemical constituents or other constituents section could be added - there is a lot more compounds that could be also added to the list. -- 122.111.254.165 ( talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
"In English and other European languages, coffee derives from the Ottoman Turkish kahve, via the Italian caffè. The Turkish word in turn is derived from the Arabic: قهوة, qahwah."
Coffee is derived from Italian, which derives from Ottoman Turkish, which derives from Arabic? If this is true, it needs to be written more clearly. Perhaps something like:
"In English and other European languages, coffee descends from the Italian word: caffè. In turn, caffè derives from the Ottoman Turkish word for coffee: kahve, which is itself derived from the Arabic: قهوة, qahwah."
Kupraios ( talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that twice in the article (at the top summary and under Health risks) it mentions that one of the main reasons coffee is bad is because of the diterpenes. I'd never heard of this before so I was interested to know how much the studies can be used. I'm not at all saying that the studies are wrong in anyway. I'm just interested to know if there's been any official recomendations and if I should be using paper coffee filters to soak the oils up. In short how bad are they? Could we perhaps add some kind of gauge to the article? (Along the lines of "X recomends the use of paper filters to avoid these" or "futher tests are underway".) Thank you. 80.7.27.189 ( talk) 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this information here at http://www.quora.com/Coffee/How-is-coffee-served-in-different-parts-of-the-world-and-why could make to some content here in this article - Just having this noted here for future self and other editors referece. - Karthik Sripal ( talk) 02:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Health effects of coffee was a long article composed almost entirely of original research building on non- WP:MEDRS sourced. I have filleted it down to a more-or-less reliable core that leaves a few points intact. I propose any novel material in this remnant be merged here. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the table at the end of the section on "Caffeine content" should be made clearer. It is not clear exactly what the numbers refer to, and what the units are. One can guess, but a reader should not have to guess. Also, I think somewhere there should be an explanatory phrase, something like, "Amount of caffeine removed" (or whatever it is). CorinneSD ( talk) 21:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Joe describes Joe_(coffee) as "Cup of Joe, American slang for a cup of coffee" - does anyone know the etymology behind this term? Snopes.com has a few theories, but nothing certain. -- 2001:470:67:E9:226:BBFF:FE00:D553 ( talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I do like the individual caffeine doses in types of coffee to be in the article. I can see Gamerpro thinks this is unnecessary. How do other folks feel? It needs better sourcing too. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
NB: The IP is not me. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
Okay, listed here. Can we think of any other types to add? And review of reliable sources. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
what is the land and soil requirement for planting coffee seeds? what is the perfect climatic requirement for planting coffee seeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.194.121 ( talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
According to
"Caffeine-Related Psychiatric Disorders"
R Gregory Lande, DO, FACN
May 31, 2009
emedicine.medscape.com/article/290113-overview
The amount of caffeine in coffee and tea varies based on brewing times and methods. General guidelines for beverage caffeine content include the following:
Brewed coffee (8 oz) - 120 mg Instant coffee (8 oz) - 70 mg
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
The caffeine content of Starbucks drinks can be viewed at www.starbucks.com/retail/nutrition_beverages.asp 24.60.190.107 ( talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Caffeine Content of Food and Drugs from the Center for Science in the Public Interest can be found at www.cspinet.org/reports/caffeine.pdf
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Caffeine content for coffee, tea, soda and more
By Mayo Clinic staff
www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211
Adapted from USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, 2009; Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2007; Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2003.
Type of coffee Caffeine (milligrams) Dunkin' Donuts, brewed, 16 oz (480 mL) 143-206 Generic brewed, 8 oz (240 mL) 95-200 Generic brewed, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL) 2-12 Generic instant, 8 oz (240 mL) 27-173 Generic instant, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL) 2-12 Starbucks Espresso, 1 oz (30 mL) 58-75 Starbucks Vanilla Latte, 16 oz (480 mL) 150
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
what exactly is meant by "green coffee"? The article refers to it in several places, most notably in the second sentence of the lead, but doesn't really define what it is. Is it some kind of coffee produced in an "environmentally-friendly" manner, or something?
Also, regarding the 'citation needed' tag in the production sub-section, I think it's evident from the table that Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia are the top three producers of coffee. Why is coffee in Colombia "softer", and why is it being described as such? Not sure where we're going to find a citation for that -- I tried a few google searches but got nowhere. The softer coffee remark could probably be deleted, IMHO. WTF ( talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
When I was wiki-gnoming at this page back in August, I saw a number of people confusing this article for the article on the coffee bean. This caused, for example, some erroneous statements in the history section (e.g., that coffee has been used since prehistoric times). Around that time, I added the hatnote, that "This article is about the beverage. For the bean, see coffee bean."
To further clarify, I just substituted
[1] this photo of the beverage
for the picture of coffee beans,
. This reverses
Casliber's revision of a week ago.
[2]. I'll mention it to that person now.
Andrew Gradman
talk/
WP:Hornbook
21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Casliber writes "we always use two digits in refpage ranges" and "refs like this have two digits"
Where is that documented? Various citation generators use as few digits as necessary for the end of the range.
For example, from the Wiki and Blog citation maker
<ref name="pmid16284957">{{cite journal| author=Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, King WD, Jaakkola JJ, Cordier S, Lynch CF et al.| title=Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk. | journal=Int J Cancer | year= 2006 | volume= 118 | issue= 8 | pages= 2040-7 | pmid=16284957
| url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&tool=clinical.uthscsa.edu/cite&email=badgett@uthscdsa.edu&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks&id=16284957 | doi=10.1002/ijc.21587 }} <!--Formatted by http://sumsearch.uthscsa.edu/cite/--></ref>
and from the Diberri template filler
{{cite journal
| author = Villanueva CM, Cantor KP, King WD, ''et al.''
| title = Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk
| journal = International Journal of Cancer. Journal International Du Cancer
| volume = 118
| issue = 8
| pages = 2040–7
| year = 2006
| month = April
| pmid = 16284957
| doi = 10.1002/ijc.21587
| url = http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21587
| issn =
| accessdate = 2010-01-08
}}
and from the Citation templates generator
{{Cite journal | last1 = Villanueva | first1 = CM. | last2 = Cantor | first2 = KP. | last3 = King | first3 = WD. | last4 = Jaakkola | first4 = JJ. | last5 = Cordier | first5 = S. | last6 = Lynch | first6 = CF. | last7 = Porru | first7 = S. | last8 = Kogevinas | first8 = M. | title = Total and specific fluid consumption as determinants of bladder cancer risk. | journal = Int J Cancer | volume = 118 | issue = 8 | pages = 2040-7 | month = Apr | year = 2006 | doi = 10.1002/ijc.21587 | PMID = 16284957 }}
24.60.190.107 (
talk)
00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The section on Paris can be improved - see http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/16MB701.html
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
FYI, the Ukers reference is online at http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/TOC.html
24.60.190.107 ( talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the following from the section Health and pharmacology:
Many high-end perfume shops now offer coffee beans to refresh the receptors between perfume tests. citation needed
An online search leads me to believe that this blog may be the originator. However, the author claims "I have experienced this is [sic] Chennai Pothys, while I was looking for a good perfume". As far as I'm able to ascertain, Pothys doesn't seem to sell perfume and the Chennai showroom sells clothing - I'm not certain about that, but it doesn't seem to be enough to elevate this claim above 'urban legend', imho. In addition, the book What the Nose Knows - The Science of Scent in Everyday Life by Avery Gilbert (ISBN-13: 978-1400082346) contradicts the notion that coffee beans refresh the scent receptors (book review here). Dr Avery Gilbert seems to have some reputation as an expert on scent, so I'm inclined to give weight to that view. Either way, I've removed the disputed statement for the moment. -- RexxS ( talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Murad IV's prohibition is sourced here and in his article to this site. Charming as that piece is, it's hardly a WP:RS unless Kate Hopkins is an expert – and I don't see her wikipedia biog to assert it. However, she replies to one of the comments on her blog, claiming that her sources are The Devil's Cup and The Devil's Picnic. We're already using the former, so can somebody check it out in either book? (or else we'll have to send Cas off to the library again). If confirmed, I'd prefer to see Murad's prohibition cited to a published work, rather than an admittedly engaging blog. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I have just dug up the book by Ian Bersten from my packing boxes - it doesn't mention Murad either. Be good to see a copy of Allen...Bersten has some other useful material to add. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just undone a series of good-faith edits which has changed the table in Production, resulting in it being squashed with level-2 text to the right of it. In addition, the notes and references which applied to the table have now been moved to the end, resulting in sections entitled Notes, References, Footnotes, and Notations, compared with the previous Notes and References. I simply can't see how this has improved the article, and as the editor making the changes gave almost no edit summaries, I am left guessing their intentions. I think this sort of change is best discussed here to see if there is an consensus for one version or the other. -- RexxS ( talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the distinction between kahveh and kahve allow me to draw attention to the article " 'Coffee': Its etymology" from Notes and Queries (1909):
The history of this word involves several phonetic difficulties hitherto unsolved. Of course the ' N.E.D.' is right in stating that the European languages got the name about 1600 from the Arabic qahwah, not directly, but through its Turkish form kahveh. The Turkish form might have been written kahvé, as its final h was never sounded at any time.
Is that sufficiently clear? Gabbe ( talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just finished checking the refs in History section and I was disappointed by the lack of correlation between the older refs and the text they supported. It's almost as if some of the old text had been lifted or written off the top of the editor's head, and then sources found that tangentially mention part of the text. I've corrected what I can, but the main remaining concerns are:
Assuming those are factual, we need to find some better sources to support the detail there.
Ought we to find a source to directly support "It has become the primary export and backbone for African countries like Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda ..." ? -- RexxS ( talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
An IP editor added the following:
This looks an interesting new finding, if true. Unfortunately no source was offered and I haven't been able to find one. Any thoughts? -- RexxS ( talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Has dead external links from March 2010 and January 2010. Unsourced statements tagged from January 2010, August 2009, February 2010, December 2009 and potentially dated statement from 2006. Tagged as needing to be harmonized with the History of coffee article. Tom B ( talk) 22:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the two deadlinks, ref 8 would be good to update (it's 2005 figures anyway), and ref 40 is in the section in need of a complete overhaul. I will try to have a look at this soon. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 07:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The Prohibition section cites this article, but in the context, it seems like it's implying that Seventh-day Adventists are more susceptible to coffee's adverse health effects. The research seems to have more to do with the group's prohibition being used as a statistically clean sample population. I think this information belongs in the Health section where it isn't quite as misleading.
Quartz ( talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I think it should be removed entirely. First off, citing one study out of probably hundreds done on SDA groups as evidence of coffee being harmful is spurious. What about the other studies done on the SDA? To not note that the other studious found no correlation is intellectually dishonest and misleading. It should have been qualified with, "But only one study..." If it takes only one study to to make the inclusion of the information within into an article valid, every wikipedia page would be filled with paragraph after paragraph of frivolous info. I'm sure there is a single study that claims chewing gum causes global warming or something as equally as frivolous. Does that mean that particular info should be included into the article about gum? Second, even if the Adventists observed refrained from alcohol and smoking (and how can you even know that for sure, they could be fibbing about that so as to not get into trouble) there are still many, many confounding factors. For example there is age, genetics, sex, race, diet, exercise and many, many more. To imply that SDA church members somehow constitute a "pure" sample and "completely free" from confounding factors just because they abstain from smoking and drinking is incredibly fallacious. Also, if they refrain from smoking and drinking, how can we know for sure that it's not those factors that contribute to them being supposedly healthier? The study just could have easily concluded that there is a "weak but statistically significant association" (more on that dubious phrase later) between alcohol intake or tobacco intake and "mortality from ischemic heart disease, other cardiovascular disease, all cardiovascular diseases combined, and all causes of death." Also, "all causes of death????" That's incredibly clunky phrasing, what does coffee intake have to with causes of death like being drowned, falling from a height, being electrocuted, being stabbed to death and the like? And do we need to say "all cardiovascular diseases combined" and "other cardiovascular disease?" Isn't that redundant? Not to mention vague as hell.
Also, the language and use of words is troubling. The study is described as "being able to show," this is very NPOV. Unless you are God and know for sure that study is 100% accurate, the best you can say is that the study "claims" to show. Studies are based on subjective human observation and conclusions, and can't be taken as gospel. "Being able to show" is absurdly over authoritative. Second, the phrase "weak but statistically significant association" is pure double talk. How can it be weak and also at the same time "statistically significant"? One precludes the other. That's like saying "that man is weak, but strong!" It makes no sense. It seems to me their is an agenda here, namely to try and saddle coffee as being bad for your health. If you're going to do that, fine, there are many views on that issue, but I cry foul when one very shaky and dubious study is used to further that claim.
P.S. I'm not implying Rexss that you intentionally are trying to push an anti-coffee message, but your re-write sure didn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 ( talk) 07:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
"Coffee can also be incorporated with alcohol in beverages" — Why would anyone want to mix uppers with downers like that? Tisane talk/ stalk 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, coffee at best is a very mild stimulant so mixing it with alcohol would have a very limited (if any) increased effect on mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 ( talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Just a placeholder for the moment. Both "coffee berry" and "coffee cherry" have usage for the fruit of the coffee plant, and it is probably a good idea to discuss which should be preferred for the article – or even should both be used (where appropriate) if there is a real distinction between the terms. Thoughts and sources? -- RexxS ( talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
If coffee had originated in Ethiopia, why did it not spread to the the neighboring African lands, rather than across the sea over to the Arabian peninsula?! I am skeptical of the Ethiopian origin theory of coffee. Lugalbanda ( talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
"200 millilitres (7.0 imp fl oz; 6.8 US fl oz), or a single shot of espresso—typically containing about 30 millilitres (1.1 imp fl oz; 1.0 US fl oz)—can be expected to contain 375 milliliters of caffeine."
This just does not make sense. 200 millilitres of coffee contain 375 millilitres of caffeine? 188% of the cup of coffee is caffeine? Perhaps it meant milligrams of caffeine, however I checked one of the sources cited, which said a cup of coffee contains from 100-150 (thereabouts) milligrams of caffeine, in which case it's still wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 ( talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
On Wikia can be found here [12] Jackiespeel ( talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
In Coffee can be found the psychoactive drug Caffeine.
The the headline of the article on Cannabis, is followed by (drug), which does not make sense, as cannabis is a plant and in itself not a drug. The chemical compound in the plant can be categorized as a drug - not the plant itself. This is misleading information and does not add to the accuracy and credibility of wiki.
However - if the cannabis article is to keep (drug) in the title, then this article should certainly also have (drug) added to the title.
( Pethol ( talk) 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)).
McKinnon-Agaard Pulping & pregrading system (East Africa)
Water consumption for wet processing coffee
McKinnon-Agaard disc pulping system Litres/tonne parchment Operation(1)Agaard without recirculation (2) Agaard with partial recirculation
(3)Agaard with full recirculation
(1) (2) (3) Pulping & pregrading (recirculated) 29,000 800 800 Convey pulped coffee (recirculated) 1,350 1,350 120 Intermediate washing (not recirculated) 950 950 950 Grading channel (recirculated) 4,400 4,400 2,120 Soaking (not recirculated) 1,100 1,100 1,100 Cleaning (not recirculated) 600 600 600 Total water - all operations 37,400 9,200 5,690
Equivalent in litres per Kg cherry 7.5 1.8 1.1
Discussion: Essentially the water usage for wet processing arabica coffee is the sum total of all operations (up to 6 in all) in a pulping/washing station which require processing water and produce wastewater. A number of articles analyze pulping systems and seem to ignore the other points of water consumption. Thus comparison between systems is not easy. The attached table sets out water consumption for the McKinnon-Agaard wet processing system widely used in East Africa (3,500 plus washing stations) with a breakdown and summary of water consumption. Most of the private sector washing stations have a full recirculation system. The data here may be quoted and used freely.
Regards, Alan Finney. Coffee Specialist Consultant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.241 ( talk) 12:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone has any information about the pulp of the coffee berry other than that it is discarded. In the article about Kopi Luwak it discusses the Asian Palm civet that eats the berries and defecates the seeds (beans). Is the pulp bitter? Does it have no nutritional value except for the civet? Just curious. Mylittlezach ( talk) 06:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
In the introductory phrase that said that coffee has played a critical role in many societies throughout history, I deleted "throughout history". Alcohol has had impact throughout history (five thousand years). Coffee only throughout "modern" history (five hundred years). Please respect this change. I made the same change a year ago and it was reverted.-- Zachbe ( talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
"Coffee required less land to grow and the lack of machinery to process made it immediately popular." - Should not that read something like "Coffee required less land to grow and the lack of machinery needed to process it made it immediately popular." Its lack of machinery needed for processing, not just general lack of machinery that made it popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.21 ( talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
And why does coffee smell different than it tastes. A section on this by a chemist would be nice or someone who can answer ths. -- Ericg33 ( talk) 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Referring decaffeination, I've heard somewhere (maybe on "How It's Made"), that there are only about five processing companies in the world that perform decaffeination. -- Jarash ( talk) 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
I used 75 percent coffee and 25 percent soymilk the other day with sugar and it tasted like vanilla coffee. Does actual vanilla coffee exist? Is it vegan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 ( talk) 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
The first sentence refers to coffee being bitter. Colloquially, this might be true (especially with poor quality beans), but in food tasting circles it is not. Bitter refers to alkalines such as alum and is associated with caustic, astringent flavors. Coffee is slightly acidic, so is best described as tangy or piquant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Bollinger ( talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Regarding Frederick banning imports on behalf of Germany, - he was only the king of Prussia, does his legislatation grandfather to Germany after 1870? Otherwise, the talk of coffee colonies + Germany doesnt make much sense. Ottawakismet ( talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Some topics should be listed under the coffee culture article. icetea8 ( talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Depending on the specific plant breed the the coffee is grown on, the coffee produces a different flavour. Sometimes, it can be more "fruity" and sometimes more "nutty". I read about the different ways coffee connoisseurs describe coffee flavour, and am interested about the characteristics and tastes each type of bean produces. I think there can be greater explanation on the types of coffee and the taste each type produces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpfroggy ( talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336359/title/Coffee_delivers_jolt_deep_in_the_brain "Coffee delivers jolt deep in the brain; Caffeine strengthens electrical signals in rats’ hippocampus" by Laura Sanders Web edition November 21st, 2011 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Coffee is not a beverage served just hot, by any stretch of the imagination. 66.26.95.207 ( talk) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Climate change pushing coffee to extinction? October 17, 2011 9:23 AM CBS News
See Climate change and agriculture and Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity.
97.87.29.188 ( talk) 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee#Caffeine_content There are no measurements just a series of #s. What is it that is being described? 96.52.182.81 ( talk) 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
it looks like there is something odd under etymology but I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.23.233 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
The 3rd Paragraph under Cultivation appears to have been vandalized. Excellent article until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.17.230 ( talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says Ethiopia. Obviously... for the Coffee bean. But then in the 'History' section of the article it says "The earliest credible evidence of either coffee drinking or knowledge of the coffee tree appears in the middle of the fifteenth century, in the Sufi monasteries around Mokha in Yemen." So why is the origin still Ethiopia if the actual drink 'Coffee' originated in Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.9.199 ( talk) 04:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
Locically, shouldn't Grinding be a separate subheading 4.3, before Brewing? What is now 2th, 3rd and 4th para under 4.3 could be moved to this new heading, but the present 1st para is about grind size in relation to brewing method. Ezr ( talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
The table in this section is dubious. It talks about espresso as "fine grind". Absolutely not! Espresso demands a medium/coarse grind. A fine grind will not allow the espresso steam through and generally causes the pressure relief valve to operate. A fine grind is much more suited to filter coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.239.244 ( talk) 11:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I have changed this once before adding my rationale here. If coffee tastes bitter, it is only because cheap beans were poorly prepared. Chefs call coffee a sweet beverage. I once again removed "bitter" and replaced it with "slightly acidic" and this time included a reference. To give you an idea of just how nearly neutral coffee's pH is, if you diluted vinegar to the same pH level as coffee (5.0-5.1) you could not taste the vinegar in the water. Studies have recorded a "perceived" acidity by coffee drinkers, but this has been attributed to flavors, not acids, and to coffee's aroma. Dan Bollinger ( talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I was the one who made the flavor addition in the first place, a while back. Before my edit there was no mention of the flavor. Acidic is not a flavor. Sour, bitter, savory, salty, sweet, et cetera are flavors. The bitterness of coffee comes from the roasting process. I am restoring my original description, that coffee has a dark, bitter flavor. If you disagree with the characterization of dark, I will find a few sources by flavor connoisseurs and refute you. Dylan Hsu ( talk) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Oh and if you don't like "dark", what about "robust"? Dylan Hsu ( talk) 14:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I reverted this yesterday [13] but has now been added back in [14]. Some people may perceive a 'dark' character to the taste of coffee, but this is a poetic description (possibly caused by a type 1 mixing up of the visual and taste senses). As figurative language it has no place in the lead sentence of an encyclopedic article. In the same way that wine experts mostly can't tell red from white wine in blind tastings if coffee was asked to be described blind from amongst other substances I would expect the descriptions to be all over the place. We can describe the color plainly but should avoid figurative descriptions of taste. SkyMachine (++) 20:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the 'roasting' section sentence reads, "The actual roasting begins when the temperature inside the sed reaches approximately..." It seems clear that this should read "seed" and not "sed." Simple type-o. Eumoria ( talk) 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to make the suggestion that this article should be semi-protected. Now I'm not a writing contributor nor plan to be. It just doesn't make sense why this topic gets no protection at all while other articles on like "Cat, Dog, Tiger" gets them. Maybe this point was overlooked. I really have little faith in important enough topics that are easily susceptible to vandalism. I recently checked topics like "Mitt Romney, Barack Obama" and they got semi-protection I believe which makes sense.
I read the revision history section and saw some vandalism entries. This would be harder to commit if this topic's protected. I hope an authority reads this and gives this the protection it should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwwiki2012 ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
So, there's a bit of an issue with the organization on the information contained in the "Health and pharmacology" section of this article. Namely, the boundaries are blurred between this and a few other articles, causing information to be both excluded and redundantly published. The two articles that most directly overlap with this section are the following:
/info/en/?search=Caffeine /info/en/?search=Health_effects_of_coffee
There is no obvious solution to the redundancy of the Health section of this article and the Health effects article, so anyone that can find guidance in the Wikipedia documentation should definitely let us know. I'll start migrating some of the details that more obviously belong in the Health effects article, give a brief but more explicative mention of caffeine's effects in the Coffee article, and look for a way to link to the Health effects article in the coffee article. However, I'm still very much a newb at Wikipedia editing, so any help, input, and guidance would be greatly appreciated.
Exercisephys ( talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I've started this, and it's really quite a job. The whole section is an impenetrable jungle of overly specific and scientific references to studies that belong in the "Health effects of coffee" article. I've been cleaning it up and migrating stuff, but I could definitely use help if anyone has the time.
Exercisephys ( talk) 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I fixed a vandalism in this table. Do not revert before have studied the table some editions before. It seems the vandalism was made by the IP 116.199.219.189. If this is right, better to block it.
Zimbres ( talk) 08:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
According to the Seattle Times "Starbucks lowers prices on bagged coffee at grocers" after "In recent months, global coffee prices have fallen more than 50 percent year-over-year"? [15] Ottawahitech ( talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I think the map needs to be addended to include China as a coffee-producing country. Not all of China, just the southwest portions of Yunnan province. I live in Yunnan province and can verify that there is indeed coffee production here. It may be small compared to the other countries on the map, but it will surely grow in the future, especially now that Starbucks and Nestle are both heavily investing in coffee growing education here.
88.208.249.193 ( talk) 16:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Matt, Kunming, Yunnan, April 24, 2013
This timeline was an original creation at the Portal:Coffee. i have removed it from there, as its original research without references, but someone here might find it useful to begin an ACTUAL timeline of coffee article. Ive also restructured the portal so its actually potentially useful, and linked it to a handful of coffee articles. If anyone else thinks its worth linking, go ahead.
Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me not define encyclopaedia article but it is not an article from a pretencious magazine. So why doesn't someone tell the American consumer what "Cuban style" coffee is and if the weird taste from a fresh pack is supposed to be there. 69.115.19.134 ( talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The external links page needs to be updated.
This link no longer works: http://www.lokeshdhakar.com/2007/08/20/an-illustrated-coffee-guide
Might I also suggest adding this link about the science of coffee: http://www.coffeekrave.com/coffee-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.27.225 ( talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
The presence of 4-Caffeoyl-1,5-quinide in coffee is IMO notable enough to be included somewhere in the article "even without reference to any effects on humans". Maybe a chemical constituents or other constituents section could be added - there is a lot more compounds that could be also added to the list. -- 122.111.254.165 ( talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
"In English and other European languages, coffee derives from the Ottoman Turkish kahve, via the Italian caffè. The Turkish word in turn is derived from the Arabic: قهوة, qahwah."
Coffee is derived from Italian, which derives from Ottoman Turkish, which derives from Arabic? If this is true, it needs to be written more clearly. Perhaps something like:
"In English and other European languages, coffee descends from the Italian word: caffè. In turn, caffè derives from the Ottoman Turkish word for coffee: kahve, which is itself derived from the Arabic: قهوة, qahwah."
Kupraios ( talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that twice in the article (at the top summary and under Health risks) it mentions that one of the main reasons coffee is bad is because of the diterpenes. I'd never heard of this before so I was interested to know how much the studies can be used. I'm not at all saying that the studies are wrong in anyway. I'm just interested to know if there's been any official recomendations and if I should be using paper coffee filters to soak the oils up. In short how bad are they? Could we perhaps add some kind of gauge to the article? (Along the lines of "X recomends the use of paper filters to avoid these" or "futher tests are underway".) Thank you. 80.7.27.189 ( talk) 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
I think this information here at http://www.quora.com/Coffee/How-is-coffee-served-in-different-parts-of-the-world-and-why could make to some content here in this article - Just having this noted here for future self and other editors referece. - Karthik Sripal ( talk) 02:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Health effects of coffee was a long article composed almost entirely of original research building on non- WP:MEDRS sourced. I have filleted it down to a more-or-less reliable core that leaves a few points intact. I propose any novel material in this remnant be merged here. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the table at the end of the section on "Caffeine content" should be made clearer. It is not clear exactly what the numbers refer to, and what the units are. One can guess, but a reader should not have to guess. Also, I think somewhere there should be an explanatory phrase, something like, "Amount of caffeine removed" (or whatever it is). CorinneSD ( talk) 21:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
Joe describes Joe_(coffee) as "Cup of Joe, American slang for a cup of coffee" - does anyone know the etymology behind this term? Snopes.com has a few theories, but nothing certain. -- 2001:470:67:E9:226:BBFF:FE00:D553 ( talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)