Talk:Coffee/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Price by type 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: If no-one replies in the next few days with objections, I'll remove the tag. Cheers, Jude. 01:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Improvement 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Seems Biased 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History of coffee 

message: 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)
replies: text: Regarding the "" note for , 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)

text: Regarding  the  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Caracoli 

message: 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?  Donny417 03:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Coffee Beans to mask odor 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I couldn't agree with you more, good point. Dieter Simon 23:52, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  U. S. Colonies? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Etymologies of English word coffee and French, Portuguese, Spanish word café are all Italian word caffè 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Steeped is really a tea term. VanTucky Talk 07:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brewed vs. drip preparation methods 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Coffee following 

message: 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)
thread_title:  First line rewrite 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: I added a cite for the environmental concerns/storage guidelines. There is some specific item that I did not find readily, so I 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Thanks for the improvement, this article will remain as GA. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA Sweeps (on hold) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unbalanced? 

message: "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)
replies: text: Listing Port (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of article not in English 

message: I notice that the numbers in ref 81 on caffeine content  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)
thread_title:  Caffeine content 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think "Coffee turns out not to be a diuretic" is a faithful summary of an article that states "people who consumed drinks with up to 550 milligrams of caffeine produced no more urine than when drinking fluids free of caffeine. Above 575 milligrams, the drug was a diuretic." Talk:Caffeine just went over this same topic, and found a scientific review article (vs popular-press that doesn't cite its sources) that found it was diuretic but was dependent on dose and also acquired tolerance. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diuretic? 

message: This article talk page was automatically added with  banner as it falls under :Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FOOD|WikiProject Food and drink]] Tagging 

message: *The word qahwa is an innate arabic word that was used for wine before the discovery of coffee, I have an old text about arabic named "omdat al-safwa fi hil alqahwa" it was mentioned somewhere in wikipedia as one of the oldest texts about coffee and it doesn't mention the "kaffa theory" at all.
*In arabic the name is "qahwat al-bun" also in amharic buno. in arabic the name "bun" is used for the plant wheras qahwat al-bun for the drink derrived from it.
*The word "qahwa" in arabic doesn't have a single similar letter with the word "kaffa", in arabic the letter ق (Qahwa) is pronounced differently from the letter ك (Kaffa) and all the other letters are different.
I know this has been discussed before, there are 2 explanations:
#from the arabic word of qahwa.
#kaffa regoin.
I think we can say with certainty that the arabic word qahwa didn't originate from kaffa, there is no mention of that in any arabic source and the use of the word qahwa precedes the use of the invention of coffee. so it should be like this:
"coffee from It. caffe, from Turk. kahveh, from Arabic qahwah... Others claim ...kaffa..."
I tend to beliebve that it originated from qahwa and kaffa has nothing to do with it (a coincidence) but because of the similarity in English (not in Arabic) western scholars came up with this theory... but i have no source to back me on this. --Histolo2 (talk) 10:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology 

message: Just passing by; noticed the "Culture of Seattle, Washington" category. What is it doing here? The article doesn't even mention Seattle anywhere. --Jashiin (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...culture of Seattle? 

message: Coffee berry juice should be mentioned. Badagnani (talk) 06:48, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee berry juice 

message: Dear Sir/Madam,
Although I am a registered user, I am unable to edit this page. That is fine but I have two suggestions to make of which one is very important. In "health and pharmacology" section, under "American scientist Yaser Dorri has suggested that the smell of coffee can restore appetite and refresh olfactory receptors. He suggests that people can regain their appetite after cooking by smelling coffee beans, and that this method might also be used for research animals.", I think the following changes should be made:
1) at the end, "...this method might also be used for animals in research institutes". It does not makes sense to say for research animals. it is not professional writing.
2) at the beggining, "....has suggested that the smell of coffee BEANS...."
I appreciate if you review my suggestions and change them if appropriate.
I am very interested to edit pages and I appreciate if that could be granted, if not now but over time.
Sincerely,
Parvazbato59 (talk) 22:32, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  some suggestions for "health and pharmacology" section 

message: I'd dispute the origin of the Americano in terms of chronology, but not in terms of broad accuracy. In late 70s Italy and France, it was extremely difficult to get a filter coffee - for those liking coffee with milk this was not a problem, however those from filter loving countries (UK, US, Germany, Scandinavia) found it hard to get a "black" coffee. Often ending up with a double espresso that was too strong to drink. By the late 80's it was easily possible to get a watered down Espresso which approximated to black filter coffee by asking for Cafe Americain (in France) or Caffe Americano - in Italy.
78.32.193.115 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 08:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americano ? 

message: The table at Coffee#Production indicates that the total world production of coffee is less than half the production of Brazil alone, which is obviously incorrect. The world total is sourced, but the Brazilian total is not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production table 

message: The sentence, "Coffee is the second-most-traded physical commodity in the world, exceeded only by petroleum," is an urban legend. This has been discussed at length in the past; see here and here and here. Let's keep it off this page.--216.113.200.137 (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Urban Legend 

message: I propose adding a section on the legality of coffee, in different countries as well as throughout history.  If you have objections please reply here.  Thank you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.227.136 (talk) 02:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  as no objections were mentioned I will now put it in the article. 82.120.227.157 (talk) 04:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Use some common sense. There are lots of articles that don't mention that their usage is legal. Now, if you have sourced material that shows coffee was banned/illegal in certain countries during history then that might have some encyclopedic value, but that's trivia. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 09:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  legality 

message: In the "Social" Section, the following is written:
"Studies conducted on Adventists have shown a small but statistically significant association between coffee consumption and mortality from ischemic heart disease, other cardiovascular disease, all cardiovascular diseases combined, and all causes of death."
Surely coffee consumption cannot be proven to increase mortality from "ALL causes of death". How is it possible to research the link between absolutely every cause of death and coffee consumption? Car crashes, suicides, bomb attacks, for example, are all causes of death, but are unlikely to have been caused by coffee. (80.152.188.240 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  All causes of death 

message: I see the term "single origin" in several individual coffee pages here on Wikipedia, but no explanation of what "single origin" means. I gather that it means the coffee comes from just one place—but this term is presented by coffee shops and vendors who sell it as having a highly positive connotation, so I gather the term has a greater meaning than just "coffee from one place."
I can probably Google it and turn up half a dozen coffee vendors' pages explaining it, but it would be nice to have a neutral Wikipediaesque explanation in the article somewhere.
—Robotech_Master (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is "single origin" coffee? 

message: Brazil Total is 17,000,000 Tonnes
World Total is 7,742,675 Tonnes
I would think that Brazil's total would be added into the world. <grin>  Source may be truncated.
159.53.110.141 (talk) 20:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production Totals Do Not Add Up. 

message: I don't think the section on Italian coffee belongs in this article.  As the article makes clear, coffee is consumed around the world in dozens of unique ways - Italy is by no means more important than Greece or Hungary or the United States.  Additionally, the section contains no citations, and the information reads as a tourist guide.
Italian coffee culture might be worthy of its own page, but I am eliminating the section here unless it can be better justified.  Pocklecod (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Italian Coffee. 

message: I'm not a coffee/caffeine expert, but this struck me as odd:
"Due to its caffeine content, coffee has a stimulating effect in humans."
If a dog drinks coffee does it stimulate the nearest human? Surely something simple like "Coffee contains caaffeine, which is a known stimulant" would be clearer? Just a thought! Frognsausage (talk) 19:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stimlating effect in humans 

message: This section seems to be out of date and the online sources listed under this section don't agree with the caffeine contents on the page.
Torsin (talk) 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine content 

message: "Muslim monks began cultivating the shrub in their gardens"
The problem is that there is no such thing as a Muslim monk.Peppermintschnapps (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  social aspects 

message: It may be debatable whether the lead image for this article should be a cup of coffee. It could be a cup of almost any brown fluid in the picture. Wouldn't a coffee plant be more appropriate for this?Landroo (talk) 13:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: agree that a pile of coffee beans might be better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A cup of coffee is a useful main image? 

message: Yum coffee!  I was out of mocha this morning so had to get regular. UnderwaterRainbows (talk) 13:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ahh, I'm drinking mine right now 

message: skimming over tis article the only mention i see of instant coffee is in the caffine comparison list.  given the popularity of instant coffee, at least in the US, it surely deserves a bit more attention.
it would be intesting to learn a bit about how instant coffee is made ahd how the amount of processing involved differs from ground coffee, espically when both are decaffinated.
a cost comparison between ground and instant coffee would be welcome as that information is not espeically easy to find.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.248.248.11 (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intsant coffee? 

message: I have read information on coffee before and that It was originally from Ethiopia. By knowing that it is from that country which is our sister country, from that part of world, to our European christian world. Please add some more information on that do not delete it. when I checked in between it was deleted and not there. Please do not change history. Add some information on Indian coffee. I am an Indo-European.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ureddy (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  I am a great coffee drinker 

message: I like how my article is coming along. Make me proud wikipedia, and I'll pour a cup. --Coffee // have a cup // ark //  02:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make me proud 

message: The figures given in the table are totally inconsistent. The three biggest producers produce more coffee each (17M, 15M and 9M tonnes), than the total world production (7M tonnes). The FAO page gives 2M tonnes for Brazil and 0.9M tonnes for Vietnam for 2007. Somehow I doubt that coffee production multiplied itself by 8 in Brazil and by 17 in Vietnam from 2007 to 2008. If these figures are not revised, I will substitute them for the FAO numbers for 2007. — isilanes (talk|contribs) 10:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production 

message: I think coffee is sold on markets as green unroasted coffee, lasting 6 months or so. This is a far longer shelf life than fresh produce, albeit shorter than gold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by BColeKid (talk • contribs) 10:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  coffee as fresh produce? 

message: Haven't read the whole article but there does not seem to be a mention of the use of coffee ground as a fertilizer shouldn't this be mentioned.
Kevin hipwell (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cofffee as Fertilizer 

message: Please update the map, The Philippines produces coffee.
check out this Wikipedia article Coffee production in the Philippines
::--JoshuaCruzPhilippines (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  World map of coffee sources 

message: There is a paragraph in the opening of the article that better fits in the section on Fair Trade. If there are no objections, I will move it.KartoumHero (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair Trade 

message: Maybe we could add a temperture at which coffee is served?  Don't ask me what it is; but I think it is not a boiling temperature to keep the flavour?--Dunshocking (talk) 10:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, should be added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Iced coffee is quite popular in Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand (and likely other countries). This popularity has spread to at least areas of other countries in recent decades, notably in the US post-1975. There has also been some relatively minor but more tradition use of iced coffee as a summer drink in the US that I'm certain of and perhaps in the UK. Don't have cites to provide but I'm sure Indochinese use can be verified as it's traditional. Only considering hot coffee is lacking in regard to world wide view. Nice looking article here. Moss&Fern (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The temperature coffee is served at 

message: *Detail - I'm copyediting bits of the article, and I've found that certain things are referenced but aren't fully elaborated on. We should expand on the things we do have. ceranthor 14:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay then, list specific bits below. It gets very tricky when one is doing an overview-type article that is quite large already, so we need to be careful here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing? 

message: Kudos to Cas for trying to get dates consistent. At present there is a mixture of DD-MM-YYYY (en-gb), MM-DD-YYYY (en-us), and YYYY-MM-DD (pseudo-ISO). I was about to start overhauling those dates, but then I realised it would be sensible to establish consensus first on whether the article should be written in UK-english or US-english. If we examine the guidance at WP:MOSDATE:  we get a difficulty. The article still contains a mix of "flavour" and "flavor", for example. The first major contributor to distinguish between UK- and US-english used "flavour" (diff), but the article has gradually drifted to a majority US-english use. Can we reach a consensus here that we go with US-english (as that requires least work for consistency)? or should we abide by the guidance in MOSDATE and restore spellings and dates to UK-english? I'm happy with either decision, but as I still bear the scars of WP:ARBDATE, I'd rather see some consensus before I start wholescale changing of spellings and dates for consistency. Any advice welcome. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt the accessdates are more user-friendly in a format i am converting to. I don't know what some were (i.e. all those for which the date was one of the forst twelve days of the month!) but doesn't matter as they can all be revisited and teh current date substituted as we check them. As far as spelling...yes we need one...given the americans drink so much coffee...we can (shudders) go with US english I guess....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Language

message: Since Cas asked my opinion on the biology section, I thought I'd throw out a few thoughts.
* Since the history section is before the biology section, it's a bit strange to see the native range of coffee mentioned after the story of its discovery and domestication.  It gets a little more problematic since the daughter articles (Coffea arabica and Coffea canephora) give native ranges that don't include Ethiopia. (fixed)
**We either need to move the biology section up before the history section or mention explicitly what species we're talking about in the history section (and, ideally, fix the contraction between this article and the C. arabica article. (fixed)
**For that matter, how did C. canephora come to be cultivated? (see para 2 of 'Cultivation section - could add that it had been traditionally chewed in Uganda too)
* Since we discuss shade versus sun coffee, we need to talk a little bit about the underlying physiology.
* I think it's important to mention where the inflorescences are formed - clearly they're axillary, not terminal - and the type of inflorescence.
* Although the flowers are described as "fragrant", there's nothing on their pollination mechanism and whether they're self-pollinating or cross-pollinating.  This is important in explaining their successful spread around the world. (each of the main species does one - will add now added)
* Domestication and breeding - there's nothing on either of these (very important) topics.  Domestication may belong in the history subsection.  But the difference between crop species and their wild ancestors is important.  In addition, are wild relatives used in coffee breeding?  Are there hybrids between C. arabica and C. canephora?  (This may belong in the cultivation section)
* Disease - what are the major pests and pathogens?  How are they managed?  (This may belong in the cultivation section) (wow, there's a lot of info  - added some on pests)
Guettarda (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Biology section