Talk:Kopi luwak

message: Is the photo of an Indonesian man holding civet feces really necessary? Or does it just appeal to a stereotypical idea of strangeness and otherness of Asian culture? From what I've read on this talk page the article originally had a picture of a civet in a cage. Having an agenda against animal cruelty is one thing, but we don't have to dump on Indonesian people either. Is that the only picture of an Indonesian person I'm going to see this month, a person grasping fecal matter? Do I really even have to explain why this is racist? Should a person's anger about the civet coffee industry even be this apparent on a Wikipedia article? 
66.133.237.171 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is what it is. Kortoso  (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

text: 100% agree! 2604:3D08:7A71:E600:A55D:BCAF:2177:61E9 (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racist Photo 

message: Some of this article's authors are doubtless the same online realtors who go to such length to avoid explicit description of the coffee's production process. The beans don't just magically appear outside the animal's body as if beamed with a Star Trek transporter. The coffee is, literally, poo. Delicious poo, I'm sure, but also proof that you can get so-called connoisseurs to buy anything just by charging enough for it. By the way, look for my new line of Pre-Digested Corn Kernel Snacks at your local gourmet grocer's in 2007! Happy New Year!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.43.106 (talk • contribs) 
Do other animals add their own enzymes to coffee beans? has anyone tried this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.9 (talk • contribs) .
If I could get my hands on some of those berries... I would try it. I guess that would mean I'd have to take a dump in the back yard. Maybe I should put up a fence first... to keep the neighbor's dog out... so he wouldn't eat it... and I wouldn't go picking through the wrong ones. Maybe I should try gorging on cherries first... pits and all... just to see how it feels going down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.85.221 (talk • contribs) .
Did anyone besides me laugh when they read the title of this section? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words 

message: I have read that (but do not have a handy source) kopi luwak is intensively "farmed", with civets being force-fed beans, much like geese are to make foie gras. Does anyone have a source for this? Seems like it would be a relevant addition. adamrice 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard that as well, but the only "source" I have is a friend who like coffee. Doctorfluffy 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCG31fSAr4M&feature=related this video is not about cruelty, but you can see a kopi luwak farm here. I suppose the beasts are not happy to leave in these cages. I think, "foie gras feeding" is too sophisticated procedure. It's much easier to have more civets and feed them with coffee only. --D'Arahchjan (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cruelty 

message: Is it actually safe to drink this stuff? It's basically feces. Do they clean o sterilize it somehow?--Richy 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know it is quite safe. The beans are undigested, although slightly changed by the process, so it isn't feces. I think you have some research to do to edit the article to answer your question better. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Safe to Drink?

message: I changed part of the first paragraph to reflect the fact that while the bean passes through the animal's digestive system, it is undigested when it comes out the other end (the berry is digested). This matches my understanding of the topic and is also in line with later sentences in the article. Does anyone disagree? The original sentence read "The animals gorge on the ripe berries, and excrete the partially-digested beans, which are then harvested for sale." I replaced with "The civets eat the berries but the beans inside pass through their system undigested." Katwin 20:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Partially digested/Undigested?

message: How the heck did anyone think about making coffee of those beans? Is it known?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.12.106.109 (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: probably someone who ran out of coffee  István 06:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: This is trivia. It's information about the prize, not about the coffee. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, it is trivia, not notable and should be grouped in popular culture instead or be gone already.Gunkarta (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ig Nobel" prize 

message: "A hypothesis to justify this coffee's reputation proposes that the beans are of superior quality before they are even ingested; though this is not to say that the digestive enzymes play no role."
Personally, I find the superior coffee "hypothesis" to be more believable than the digestive enzyme "hypothesis".  The wild civets are apparently choosy about the berries they ingest. Observation of this behavior would also help explain why the coffee  came into existence in the first place-- Some people must have observed that the civet passes only high quality, ripe beans (the civets' sense of smell might be important here?)  Though the beans may be "lightly" roasted-- they are still washed and exposed to high temperatures. To me there is a suspicious slant towards accepting this simulated process as legitimate in this article. The company applying the artificial digestive process has a lot at stake. More citations would be helpful Cuvtixo (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Artificial enzymes? 

message: from Univ. of Guelph web reference "But the big question was whether passing through the GI tract of the Luwak really makes Kopi Luwak coffee beans different from regular beans. So, Marcone and other members of his department completed a series of tests on the Kopi Luwak beans and compared them with Columbian beans, which were used as a control."   That's not good- they need to be compared to beans from the same area.  At the very least, compared to other Indonesian beans, not beans from an entirely different continent.  Cuvtixo (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  University of Guelph experiments--not very good? 

message: Where is the citation for Kopi Mucak, where it comes from a barking deer?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseynose (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck are you talking about? I ask, my good chum, because your question is unclear. And if it's unclear, how can it possibly be answered?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The fact is : that part of the article has no reference. I googled "Kopi muncak" and found nothing obviously older than july 2007 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kopi_Luwak&diff=141819774&oldid=141817735 ). Nothing on Googlebooks. Let's assume good faith : maybe Kopi muncak actually exists... but it's not proven yet. Chaoborus (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kopi Muncak 

message: There is no cite for the 2008 study that supposedly found no taste differences between the Kopi Luwak coffee and the undigested beans from the same plant.  I searched for it, and I can't find any online evidence that this study actually exists, and the claim that there is no detectable difference is suspicious.  If it can't be cited, it should be removed.76.226.100.181 (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  No cite for blind taste study 

message: Kopi Luwak is a source of fun in The Bucket List, a 2008 movie with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. Can anyone include this in an article?
Drevokocur 26.6.2008
:No. That is trivia about the movie, not about the coffee. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the mentions of Kopi Luwak in The Bucket List (2008) is far more notable than that of Ig nobel prize, and probably the film contributed to its current global popularity. I think the Ig Nobel section should be renamed as popular culture section, also mentioning that Bucket List thing.Gunkarta (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I'm new to wikipedia and have never done this process before so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly. I wanted to add some content to the Kopi Luwak page but rather than adding a bunch of stuff to the main page I just thought providing a link to a specific page on my personal blog might be better suited. I was going to include it in 'External Links'.
For clarity, I don't sell green or roasted Kopi Luwak, I don't have any commercial interest in profiting from Kopi Luwak, I just wanted to add an end-user's perspective on the comparison between Kopi Luwak as freshly roasted (by me) coffee tasted as pourover and as espresso over a period of a week. I think the material discussing Kopi Luwak on my blog post will be helpful for some. 
You guys decide and let me know:
http://shaundoreenevankeegan.blogspot.com/2009/05/kopi-luwak.html
Regards,
Shaun
I guess this is where I sign?
Staylortravelling (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Using blogs as external links is a no-no. Please see WP:ELNO for details. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion for adding an External Link to the Kopi Luwak page 

message: So, is it to be luak or luwak? The article uses both, with a fairly heavy weighing to the latter. I know that transliteration isn't always easy, but there should be an official transliteration, and WP should use it consistently. Kay Dekker (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Is shorter more accurate? I'm no expert, but I play one on Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The classifications of these polymers have mostly to do with their lengths, so I've switched to shorter in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for making the switch, and fine copy editing, by the way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  smaller peptides vs shorter peptides 

message: Sources don't agree as to annual production. There are hints that lots of coffee sold as true "kopi luwak" never saw the inside of a civet. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: annual production, more

message: I was born in Java island, Indonesia. My only recollection about this (most expensive) Kopi Luwak/Luak was that my history teacher told us back in '80s. He told us that during Dutch colonial era (1600 - 1900's), the Dutch forced the local farmers to produce crops meant to be exported to Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultuurstelsel), which led to famine among the local farmers. One of the popular commodity was of course coffee. Due to that system, the local farmers cannot enjoy their own coffee anymore. Desperate, they collect whatever left not exported to Europe, and one of them was the kopi luak (Civet/Luwak coffee). I tend to believe this version because, consuming what's been digest and defecated by animal never been glorified in Indonesian culture, or any cultures, perhaps. 
Instead of a gracious invention, this much hyped Kopi Luwak was a symbol of poverty back then, similar as the cassava compare to Indonesian main staple rice. The rice is symbol of prosperity in many indonesian cultures. When the famine strikes, many Indonesian were forced to survived on cassava, which was easily found and grown. Despite the nutritional value, eating cassava instead of rice is still considered as "poor" until now in many parts of Indonesia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.236.239.170 (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kopi luak history (according to my primary school history teacher) 

message: Dear KarlM,
We just realized that you removed the Uchunari Part on the Kopi Luwak page .... You first wanted to remove our own page and you got what you want. But now, seriously??
Yes, our product is for sale and is being sold all over the world, and yes it's not known everywhere. BUT, our product is REAL, and obviously in the Kopi Luwak page, everyone can see that the paragraph about the Uchunari coffee is NOT any kind of an advertisement, any sales procedure. It is purely FACTUAL and an additional information about the civet coffee. What the hell is going on here, what do you want!? Please stop hassling us and accept the fact this is real, you have no right to hide real and factual information about anything.
--95.246.144.140 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What is going on here is, at its heart, that Wikipedia is not for promotion.  It is not the right of every small niche product to get a promotional mention (and I should note that in reverting my edit, you restored several other deletions of other people's promotional material that should not be included).  You openly stated that it was your intention to use WP to advertise your product, and to the outside observer your goal mainly seems to be to get a mention as "the most expensive coffee in the world," based on the expensive box it comes in.  Moreover, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have little regard for facts, sources, or references - e.g., you still do not seem to understand the difference between a coati and a civet despite having it pointed out to you multiple times, and I'm going to bet that you (being, presumably, the retailer, since your IP is located in Italy) don't actually know which one is used.  KarlM (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uchunari on Kopi Luwak page 

message: This story broke recently. Same process but with elephants.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/elephant-dung-coffee-black-ivory_n_1968096.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoother (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like just a stunt to get people to spend a lot of money, not anything that will every be produced regularly. Unlike civets, elephants don't eat coffee beans (or most other fruits) naturally, so their digestion is unsuited to processing the seeds.  KarlM (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer the most expensive coffee? 

message: Removed silly language of "violently expelled from the anus", as there is no evidence of said violent defecation.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.1.1.102 (talk) 19:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  "violently expelled" 

message: I have found several sites which indicate the beans are regurgitated, and when these beans are used, it is called weasel coffee  For example, . Do we need a more detailed explanation in the article, or are these people mistaken?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this weasel coffee? 

message: The article says "Kopi luwak is one of the most expensive coffees in the world, selling for between US$100 and $600 per pound in 2010." It uses http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/world/asia/18civetcoffee.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 as the reference, however that page doesnt say USD 100-600. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  USD 100 to 600 per pound 

message: There should probably be a category, something like :Category:Foods and drinks produced with excrement for this article and panda tea and insect tea and whatever else. Then move :Category:Feces and :Category:Animal waste products off of the articles and onto that shared category, and also subcategorize it into the food and beverages category-trees. 50.78.103.6 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Coprophagia perhaps? The Language Learner (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ambiguous and too broad a topic, really.  Coprophagia can mean a human practice (associated with certain religious and other cultural behaviors, with a sexual fetish, or with mental illness), or it can refer to an instinctive feeding behavior of animals with a coprophagous "lifestyle". It doesn't really have anything, in either case, to do with commercial production of human foodstuffs from waste material, especially when the end products are not recognizably waste.  I created the category as :Category:Foods and drinks produced with excrement, as being about the products.  There's already :Category:Coprophagous organisms, and Pica (disorder), and Coprophilia with their parent categories, so the behaviors (of all sorts) were already properly categorizable.  — AReaderOutThataway t/c 19:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New category 

message: Should the information in the “Biotech Kapi” section be part of the “Imitation” section instead of its own section? CloudySunsets (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biotech Kapi vs Imitation 

message: The animal pictured here in this article is not an Asian palm civet 2604:3D08:7A71:E600:A55D:BCAF:2177:61E9 (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asian palm civets photo incorrect.