This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
I'm not sure if coffee is more popular than tea in
Andhra Pradesh. I know that coffee is in
Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu, and I know (?) tea is in
Kerala. Anyone from Andhra, please edit article as necessary.
I'm not sure of the cultural significance of coffee in other regions of South India, and I didn't want to use generic terms like "South Indian culture". Someone with knowledge, please edit.
Ambarish |
Talk05:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)reply
It appears that this webpage is famous - in an interesting example of cross pollination of information, the picture and text from this page made it (w/o attrib) to the state run "Podhigai" tamil language television as part of a quiz programme. See
http://cheeni.livejournal.com/9272.html --
Cheeni11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Stronger than espresso?
The article mentions the "decoction" or "filter" is "stronger" than Western coffee including espresso.
This is an ambiguous statement. Does it refer to caffeine content? Or taste? Can't imagine the caffeine content to be higher
compared to any of the coffees in the West to be lower, specially when not using Chicory. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sgeneris (
talk •
contribs)
19:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The strength of the decoction is dependent upon the proportion of coffee powder and water being used. And when someone says "strong/stronger", it is not an indication of the caffine content.
Spk100 (
talk)
11:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Preparation
It looks like the entire "Preparation" section is not cited & was written without any inline citations. Should we attempt to find citation to back this existing information? Or should we rewrite this section with citations?
Whitestar12 (
talk)
03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It should be rewritten based on reliable sources. These sources[1][2] are a good place to start.
With the latest revisions,
Ram1751 - do you think it's appropriate to remove the tags at the top of the article? The tags are: "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (March 2013) This article possibly contains original research. (July 2013)"
Whitestar12 (
talk)
01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the Preparation section is now in good shape. However, the other sections need to be checked for the issues and rewritten if necessary. For instance, the Name section cites the Bangalore Mirror, a tabloid - therefore not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Is the Name section even necessary or appropriate for this article? Similarly, I'm in favor of deleting the Culture section since the single source cited does not appear reliable.
Whitestar12, it appears you did not see my comments above, so I'm repeating them below. The template can be removed after the items below have been adequately addressed. Thanks.
I think the Preparation section is now in good shape. However, the other sections need to be checked for the issues and rewritten if necessary. For instance, the Name section cites the Bangalore Mirror, a tabloid - therefore not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Is the Name section even necessary or appropriate for this article? Similarly, I'm in favor of deleting the Culture section since the single source cited does not appear reliable.
I agree with your comment regarding the Name section. In place of "Name," it may be more valuable to have a section on "Etymology?" Or perhaps remove it altogether. Any relevant content under the "Name" section could be moved to another section on the page.
Both of the cited sources are available only by subscription so they can't be verified. Can you provide the relevant quotes from the sources, or better, provide more easily verifiable sources? Thanks.
Ram1751 (
talk)
03:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)reply
So, I took a closer look at the sources. The first one is a book & the information is coming from a chapter in the book (The English Paradigm in India: Essays in Language, Literature and Culture). I don't have access to the book, but I did a quick search. Looks like the publisher is Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. At a glance, since this book contains essays, it feels like a primary source to me. This book could potentially be reliable but would love for someone else to weigh in.
As for the 2nd source, I agree. I'll try to see if I can find a more verifiable source here. If not, perhaps we remove the content?
Since we don't even know what the relevant material is from the first source, it should not be cited. Since the material from both sources cannot be verified, the content of this section should be removed and it should be completely rewritten from scratch, based on a fresh search for reliable material. These sources[1][3] may be useful for the rewrite.
Ram1751 (
talk)
20:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ram1751- Just curious, I know this article is currently start class. What is stopping it from moving it to a B class? Trying to explore ways to help improve it further.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
I'm not sure if coffee is more popular than tea in
Andhra Pradesh. I know that coffee is in
Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu, and I know (?) tea is in
Kerala. Anyone from Andhra, please edit article as necessary.
I'm not sure of the cultural significance of coffee in other regions of South India, and I didn't want to use generic terms like "South Indian culture". Someone with knowledge, please edit.
Ambarish |
Talk05:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)reply
It appears that this webpage is famous - in an interesting example of cross pollination of information, the picture and text from this page made it (w/o attrib) to the state run "Podhigai" tamil language television as part of a quiz programme. See
http://cheeni.livejournal.com/9272.html --
Cheeni11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)reply
Stronger than espresso?
The article mentions the "decoction" or "filter" is "stronger" than Western coffee including espresso.
This is an ambiguous statement. Does it refer to caffeine content? Or taste? Can't imagine the caffeine content to be higher
compared to any of the coffees in the West to be lower, specially when not using Chicory. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Sgeneris (
talk •
contribs)
19:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)reply
The strength of the decoction is dependent upon the proportion of coffee powder and water being used. And when someone says "strong/stronger", it is not an indication of the caffine content.
Spk100 (
talk)
11:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Preparation
It looks like the entire "Preparation" section is not cited & was written without any inline citations. Should we attempt to find citation to back this existing information? Or should we rewrite this section with citations?
Whitestar12 (
talk)
03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)reply
It should be rewritten based on reliable sources. These sources[1][2] are a good place to start.
With the latest revisions,
Ram1751 - do you think it's appropriate to remove the tags at the top of the article? The tags are: "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (March 2013) This article possibly contains original research. (July 2013)"
Whitestar12 (
talk)
01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)reply
I think the Preparation section is now in good shape. However, the other sections need to be checked for the issues and rewritten if necessary. For instance, the Name section cites the Bangalore Mirror, a tabloid - therefore not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Is the Name section even necessary or appropriate for this article? Similarly, I'm in favor of deleting the Culture section since the single source cited does not appear reliable.
Whitestar12, it appears you did not see my comments above, so I'm repeating them below. The template can be removed after the items below have been adequately addressed. Thanks.
I think the Preparation section is now in good shape. However, the other sections need to be checked for the issues and rewritten if necessary. For instance, the Name section cites the Bangalore Mirror, a tabloid - therefore not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Is the Name section even necessary or appropriate for this article? Similarly, I'm in favor of deleting the Culture section since the single source cited does not appear reliable.
I agree with your comment regarding the Name section. In place of "Name," it may be more valuable to have a section on "Etymology?" Or perhaps remove it altogether. Any relevant content under the "Name" section could be moved to another section on the page.
Both of the cited sources are available only by subscription so they can't be verified. Can you provide the relevant quotes from the sources, or better, provide more easily verifiable sources? Thanks.
Ram1751 (
talk)
03:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)reply
So, I took a closer look at the sources. The first one is a book & the information is coming from a chapter in the book (The English Paradigm in India: Essays in Language, Literature and Culture). I don't have access to the book, but I did a quick search. Looks like the publisher is Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. At a glance, since this book contains essays, it feels like a primary source to me. This book could potentially be reliable but would love for someone else to weigh in.
As for the 2nd source, I agree. I'll try to see if I can find a more verifiable source here. If not, perhaps we remove the content?
Since we don't even know what the relevant material is from the first source, it should not be cited. Since the material from both sources cannot be verified, the content of this section should be removed and it should be completely rewritten from scratch, based on a fresh search for reliable material. These sources[1][3] may be useful for the rewrite.
Ram1751 (
talk)
20:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Ram1751- Just curious, I know this article is currently start class. What is stopping it from moving it to a B class? Trying to explore ways to help improve it further.