Talk:Coffee/Archive 1

message: MSDS for caffeine is irrelevant to this page; if anything, it fits with caffeine better, and most of the relevant info is already there.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''MSDS:CAFFEINE'''

message: Still not 100% happy with this, but its getting there.  Still to come: coffee in cold drinks, coffee-essence, liquid soluble coffee.  I also want the wordy paragraphs shifted around a bit and some of the major types extending in details (sensibly)Mat-C 02:54, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Caffeine levels are related to type/roast of bean and amount of raw grounds used in preparation, not to the method of preparation directly. --VampWillow 08:12, 2004 May 20 (UTC)
I've added in the bits on the drink from coffee; it might still need a bit of slicing and dicing to make it read more smoothly though. Markalexander100 20:05, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Not 100%

message: This article really needs something about Greek/Arabic/Turkish coffeeHarry R 16:08, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an ethnic thing. Greeks have strong feelings about Turks, and themselves always call it Greek coffee. It seems to be most generally known as Turkish coffee though, and so that's what we should call it here.  (Also, although it's distribution and names in various languages is discussed in the Preparation section, someone wants it repeated in under Presentation.  It plainly doesn't have to be in both places.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Turkish coffee

message: To the anon that removed the accent from latté: In my experience the variant with accent has seen more general use than the variant without the accent; I would believe that the version with the accent is most closely intended by the original. I would appreciate an explanation for your logic behind your removal thereof. -- Grunt (talk) 00:27, 2004 Jun 27 (UTC)
Glad to explain. First, English doesn't have accents, although English speakers often copy them from foreign languages in loanwords. Second, the loanword "latte" is from Italian, and the Italian word doesn't have an accent. (Caffe does.) So, I don't think it belongs there. 
:I don't really care all that much one way or the other, but the ubiquitous Starbucks spells it without the accent. Not that that proves anything, but for an awful lot of Americans, Starbucks is synonymous with specialty coffees like latte. older≠wiser 00:37, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Websters spells it without an accent; it gives the derivation as the Italian caffelatte (one word, no accents), which is a contraction of caffè e latte (grave accent).   If it's right, I think no accent wins. Markalexander100 03:01, 27 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latte vs. Latté 

message: A friend of mine said someone on Oprah said that something in coffee causes fat retention...anybody know anything about this? jengod 23:39, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
:I really don't know. The ancient Arabs believed coffee caused loss of sleep and loss of manhood. Heck, they even banned coffee for a while on that count (circa 1539 CE). :-) BTW, Oprah? Oprah? *groan* Cheeni 21:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably taken out of context.  The American coffee-drinking habits, with lots of sugar and milk in their coffee cups, is probably the real culprit.  The elevated heart rate from the caffeine contributes an insignificant amount of calorie-burning throughout the day, but not enough to help you lose or gain weight.  The problem may be the mood-swing that it can induce in certain people, which may lead to more eating to compensate for the caffeine low.  Either way, I have never heard anything about this and a quick google search brought back nothing useful.  Julius.kusuma 14:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Fat retention b/c of coffee

message: I was thinking of editing the "Presentation" section to reflect the fact that "White Coffee" is commonly called a "Flat White" in Australia, and "Black Coffee" is commonly called a "Long Black", but thought that there is probably further variations on this in other countries. Perhaps we could have a table with the regional terms for each style of presentation? Mmmmm, coffee! Malcolmj 00:23, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Presentation

message: There's currently a straw poll about an image at Talk:Coffee percolator. I cross-posted to here as that article gets very little traffic.
Thanks, — Asbestos | Talk 20:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw poll 

message: I was thinking of editing the history of coffee. I can offer a timeline of coffee that would be of interest to everyone. I'm the author of a new book called "The Truth About Caffeine" which is published by SCR Books, LLC.  An example is below.
525 - Early in the sixth century, the Abyssinian nation (what is
now known as the modern-day country of Ethiopia) unknowingly
brought wild coffee plants to the Arabian Peninsula when its troops
invaded the country of Yemen.
600 - While dates vary from 600-850, most sources credit the
discovery of coffee to an Abyssinian goatherd called Kaldi who
notices his goats acting strangely after eating the berries from a
nearby bush. Seeing the increased feistiness of the goats, Kaldi
tastes the berry himself, and appreciating the jolt of energy - without
any way of foreseeing the phenomenal global trend he was starting –
begins more than a millennium of coffee-ingesting.
650 - After learning about coffee from Kaldi, local monks
experiment with the beans. The monks tried mixing them with
water, as well as drying the coffee berries and transporting them to
far-off monasteries, because they understand the power of the
beans to keep them awake during prayers.
:Are you the one who added the timeline to the history section, which was recently reverted?  This seemed like a worthwhile addition to me, but it's perhaps too lengthy to be part of this article.  I suggest adding it as a seperate article Timeline of coffee and adding a "See also" link to the History section. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional note... I think "The Women's Petition Against Coffee", 1674 should be given a mention.  As early evidence of coffee's ills.  I saw it in a newspaper article today.   Mdrejhon 15:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of Coffee 

message: I expanded this section a bit, including more information on the coffee growing regions for the different varieties, and tried to seperate the list of beans themselves from the discussions of coffee blends and other subjects.  If other blends merit special attention, perhaps that can be a new list, but I think mixing blends and beans confuses the subject somewhat.  Hopefully more varieties can be added as people think of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:19, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is your chance to do exactly that, enter all the details you feel ought to go into the article about Colombian coffee. That's what we Wikipedians do, we fill in what is missing. Dieter Simon 23:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee bean varieties 

message: Latte: "It is stronger than cappuccino because it comprises 50% espresso, 50% milk (compared to cappuccino's one-third espresso, one-third steamed milk and one-third frothed milk)."
this is wrong im'a change it. --Ballchef 11:52, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  latte 

message: Some of the things stated as facts in the Benefits/Risks sections seem like a study may have reached that conclusion, but are not necessarily widely accepted facts. I don't know enough about these studies to edit those sections confidently, but could someone who knows a bit more consider whether each item in those sections is just a claim based on a study, or a widely accepted fact? - James Foster 08:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits / Risks sections 

message: Replaced biased ending referencing "caffeinism" with "Its potential benefits and hazards have been, and continue to be, widely studied and discussed." Vassyana 16 October 2005
:Removed reference to "caffeinism". Again. "Caffeinism" is a neologism with little, if any credibility. It is notable that Caffeinism was very controversial and now leads to caffeine. Vassyana 03:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: First, before anyone goes demanding a certain protocol, it would be minimially courteous to create an account. It's very difficult to carry on a discussion with an IP address.
:Really?  Does it strain your mental abilities?  Do you not like having a name you can make fun of?  How is it "difficult"?  Signing with an IP address introduces no discursive difficulties.  You know, I checked out this page and, in all the advantages of registering that it lists, "not being looked down upon by regular users" isn't on the list.  Maybe you should add it. 148.104.5.2 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It would hardly be an issue if you'd done more to recommend yourself instead of coming in and repeatedly vandalizing the article. Believe it or not, many of us here regard other editors as people and not simply input devices attached to the computers they use. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Be nice, 148.104.5.2. See WP:CIVIL. There are at least two problems with talking to an IP address, but it's true that neither is that big a deal. 1) A lot of people have dynamic IP addresses, which change every time they log on. 2) It's harder to remember a number than a name, so it's harder to determine if edits or comments are from the same person. Phrased differently, all IP addresses tend to blur into one big, hazy identity. That said, if you have some reason you don't want an account, nobody should try to stop you. If you have an account and just enjoy baiting people anonymously once in a while, that's a different matter.—Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: TCC insults me for not registering, calls me a vandal for taking the article further, and then claims I regard others as input devices, and when I protest this, you tell me to be civil?  This is outrageous!  I'm definitely going to add "not treated as a second-class citizen" to the "benefits of registering" article. 148.104.5.2 18:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See, now you're looking for insults where there are none.  Not registering doesn't make you a second-class citizen, but if you're going to insist on the courtesies that benefit you, as you insisted on this discussion, then I think some reciprocal courtesy on your part is called for.  I simply prefer to talk to a person and not to a machine; and an IP address identifies a machine, not a person. If you take impute any further meaning to what I said, you're taking it beyond my intention. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:28, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: TCC said "it would be minimially courteous to create an account," which isn't much of an insult, but I suppose you could make the case that the implication that you are discourteous is a minor insult. You asked TCC "Does it strain your mental abilities?  Do you not like having a name you can make fun of?", implying that TCC was both stupid and apt to name-calling. That isn't civil at all. The accusation of vandalization came after your comment which prompted my asking you to remain civil; it probably should not have been made. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly not.  But as you point out below, edits that make bad writing deliberately worse indeed border on vandalism, if not quite as obviously as blanking an article or replacing it with nonsense text.  Repeatedly insisting on it with multiple re-reverts I thought crossed the line. But I could be wrong. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: What problem might anyone have with creating an account? I agree that there should be a low threshold for newbies, but creating an account when you get serious with editing Wikipedia is a matter of courtesy for the reasons you mention. DirkvdM 07:05, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong.  Anonymous users have the right to edit and discuss on Wikipedia just like everyone else.  You know, the funny thing is, I've seen a lot of left-wing Wikipedia users gripe about people not registering because it's "so simple", but when you point out that applying for a job is "so simple", they manage to come up with excuses for others! 148.104.5.2 18:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: People might not want to create an account because they perceive it (falsely, I know) as a loss of privacy. Or because they don't want to allow cookies on their machine. It's not a big deal. See Wikipedia:Welcome anonymous editing. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree, and I'll add, if this is an exercise to point out that there is some other less-than-stellar ("fruity", I believe the anon said) writing in the article, then it is misguided. See WP:POINT. We know the article isn't perfect and hope to see it improved. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 21:55, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, so I guess you both agree that the article should be more professional in tone.  Therefore, I have made some changes that remove the "breeziness" of the version you prefer.  I hope you like it. 148.104.5.2 22:51, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you'd done something more like this in the first place, your contributions would have been welcome from the beginning.  Instead you chose to be obnoxious. Of course the article needs lots of work.  Both Bunchofgrapes and I objected to FAC status on that ground. It was not a point that needed to be made, and certainly not by the method you used. TCC (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: All I did was give it "more of the same".  It was already breezy.  I made it more breezy and suddenly I'm a vandal?  Who put in such bizarre lines as "perhaps with sugar"?  If you're going to copy and paste a cutesy coffee guide into Wikipedia, at least try to cover it up a little.  ("you" in the generic sense, no you personally, in case you were about to invent another grievance against me) 148.104.5.2 18:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Edits which make bad writing worse are bad. Edits which make bad writing better are good. Edits which make bad writing deliberately worse are in bad faith and border on vandalism. But this is obvious. What is your point here, really? —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Looks fine to me, except maybe for the change from frothed to whipped milk, a factual change of which I am not sure. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 23:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're basically the same.  "Frothed" is more of a term you'd use in advertising to make it seem "rich and dreamy" ... I think it borders on POV, plus it leaves ambiguous how it became frothed. 148.104.5.2 18:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have said the opposite. "Whipped" sounds richer than "frothed"; it reminds one of whipped cream.  You could call it whipped, since one method of whipping milk (or cream) is to inject gas into it, but hot water vapor is really suboptimal for this purpose -- it works best when the milk is cold -- and it normally isn't done long enough to properly whip the milk anyway. Something like one of those plunger-type milk "frothers" does the trick, but from what I've seen it generally gives you something thicker than what you get at the coffeehouse. If someone has a different experience of this, it'd be worth discussing. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:36, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Frothed" and "whipped" are utterly distinct for the purposes of this discussion. Frothing is done by injecting a pressurized stream of steam into the milk. Whipping is done by hand or machine, usually with a whisk. Vassyana 23:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reverts 

message: Any objections if I cut this section? I don't really see how it belongs here, and coffeehouse adequately covers the subject. Is anything more than a link in the "See also" section called for? TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. And I don't think it needs a see also link. A link to coffeehouse can fit somewhere in the history section, if there isn't one already there. —Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 05:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't like to see it cut altogether; the social aspect of coffee is important.   We should either have  a broader discussion of the social aspect, or follow Wikipedia: summary style and have a summary of the coffeehouse article and a "main article: Coffeehouse" link to it. Mark1 07:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice we have a seperate section called "Social aspects of coffee" which I think serves this purpose better.  It's also better placed in the article and more focused; "The Cafe" goes into uses of the word that have nothing to do with coffee as such. TCC (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have eaten many meals in a café. Gentgeen 21:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been wanting to cut this section for a while since as it stands it's mostly tangential, having little to do with the service of coffee as such.  See my remarks above. Unless there's a strong objection, I'll do so before long. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The cafe 

message: As a 4th year med student, I'd have to say that the idea, found in the following quote, that coffee does not adversely impact higher mental functions, is at the worst wrong and at the least quite misleading.  If the idea is to say that it is a relatively benign stimulant compared to other illicit drugs, then perhaps it is just better to say something to that effect.  "Because of the stimulant properties of coffee and because coffee does not adversely impact higher mental functions, coffee is strongly associated with white collar jobs and office workers."  
I've otherwise enjoyed reading this article, although I am frustrated by coffee being referred to as a "bean" in popular reference.  Although it is good to see it referred to as a seed in the article, I'm wondering if it would be good to point out that it is the pit of a fruit.  Ok, if you have read this far, I thank you for your time. 
:If you agree with this, please CITE sources that disprove its premise. I'm not sure why you disagree with the "bean" thing. The whole world calls it a bean; you may want to insert a comment that biologically it is not a bean. JFW | T@lk 15:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee does not adversely impact higher mental functions? 

message: Clearly the spoon is misplaced.  The handles of the cup and spoon need to point in the same direction, with the spoon on the other side of the cup! Kd4ttc 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoon Position

message: A study has shown that cafestol, a substance which is present in boiled coffee drinks, dramatically increases cholesterol levels, especially in women. Filtered coffee only contains trace amounts of cafestol. – define "boiled coffee drinks"; does it include instant coffee? MartinHagberg 20:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an entire section in the article on preparing coffee by boiling. It would include Turkish and "cowboy" coffee. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no need to define "boiled coffee drinks". The literal reading of the phrase is quite sufficient and clear. I fail to see how such a phrasing is in the least unclear. Addtionally, your question about instant coffee would only apply when using boiled water which is still near or at the boiling point. Instant coffee only requires hot water, not boiling. Vassyana 23:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect -- although I do not know for sure since I haven't looked at the source for the study mentioned -- that the distinguishing factor here is that that coffee grounds are in contact with the boiling water for a relatively extended period.  Compare to drip coffee where water at lower than boiling temperature is simply passed through once. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can gather by researching the issue, the time exposure is a factor not well studied. It seems to be a mostly academic question, since "single pass" methods using boiled water (such as traditional percolators) still contain the elevated levels of cafestol. Drip coffee's lower risks and higher benefits also derive from the use of paper filters, according to medical and scientific papers on the matter. (Presumably the paper filtration removes some harmful contents.) Vassyana 04:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the same true then for coffee made in a French press?  If so, then this has nothing at all to do with "boiled" coffee as such because you brew in a press with water of the proper temperature, which should not be boiling, and it is indeed the paper filter. (There would also then be higher cafestol levels in drip coffee made with one of those permanent gold-plated filters, I would think.) TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great questions and observations. I am taking the time to carefully read the sources before making any final statements. There seems to be a lot of discussion of paper filtration and temperature, but I am having difficulty locating sources discussing the differance between paper filter and metal filter drip coffee. French press coffee cafestol levels seem to be directly tied to temperature. I have found one source that states that are more harmful constituents in french press and electric percolators than drip coffee (unspecified filtration), but the source is non-academic and I am therefore wary of it. I will keep digging and get back on the topic. Vassyana 22:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear 

message: I read in new scientist it think it was about a new study of the supposed negative effects of coffee. In this the apparently found that a lot of negative effects could be down to the relationship with smoking, eg almost everyone who smokes drinks  a ot of coffee but virtually noone who doesn't drink coffee smokes. I think also they found that the filtering of coffee removed some negative substance/s but they didn't know what. Just thought twas quite interesting, don't know if anyone has seen the study and could give any details as to te surety of these statements.131.111.8.96
:Smoking can be a confounding variable in any study, and I would assume that most good researchers would take that into account, and separate smokers from non-smokers in their results. The filtering of coffee through various methods (such as drip brew, I believe) removes the majority of cafestol, a diterpene that can raise cholesterol levels. It is interesting, however, that cafestol also has anticarcinogenic activity . It's not the filtering, so much as the particular brew method, that can trap cafestol. --Muugokszhiion 22:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: coffee negative effects

message: "Electronic coffee makers boil the water and brew the infusion with little human assistance and sometimes according to a timer. Some even grind the beans automatically before brewing. Connoisseurs shun such conveniences as compromising the flavor of the coffee; they prefer freshly ground beans and traditional brewing techniques."
So we're saying the coffee maker freshly grinds the coffee for each cup, but connoisseurs (ALL connoisseurs mind you) shun these machines because they want freshly ground coffee. The machines brew the infusion according to a set time, but ALL connoisseurs shun these machines in favour of traditional brewing techniques, such as espresso machines and brewing the infusion for a set amount of time? These connoiseurs must be different to the connoiseurs I've met, whose entire job is brewing and tasting coffee. 57.66.51.165 14:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing

message: Per WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information point 8, I'm removing the list of alcoholic drinks entirely.  They're almost all redlinks, they're nothing but recipes, which is unencylopedic.  Someone could write a wikibooks article on alcoholic drinks with coffee, including recipes, or a wikipedia article on them (without recipes) and we could have a link to that here, if this is desired.  --Xyzzyplugh 23:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm removing the recipes 

message: This article was unreasonably long.  It is now shorter, because i have tried to summarize and move lists off to their own articles.
It still, however, needs work:  the entire medical section near the end should be made into its own article, and simply summarized here.  Go to it.  Nandesuka 19:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch all of that.  It was one guy who deleted more than half the article.  I'm gona have a talk with him.  Tobyk777 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of all the changes made by the vandal Nandesuka. - brenneman{L}  07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This change] moved it to a separate page and left a link to that page. The only concern I have is that the overview paragraph that remains seems to underdescribe that new page. Wouldn't hurt to have a sentence or two more than just "grinding, brewing, mixing with other stuff". DMacks 17:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with expanding the description.  The goal, though, should be a description, not a laundry list.  Laundry lists are almost always bad.  I considered putting in a mention of espresso vs. infusion coffee, but my fear is that the next guy comes in and decides that in addition to espresso and infusion coffee, we also need to mention White Chocolate Caramel Macchiato, and then we're off to the races.  But if you think you can expand it sensibly without laundry-listing, be my guest! Nandesuka 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your joking right, the drinks were the most important part.  Tobyk777 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah no, it was a long list of largely irrelevant material. There is only one real coffee drink which is an espresso. Most of the drinks listed were based on that so didn't belong in an article about coffee itself. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit Without Mercy 

message: Hi, I just saw that the portion of the article listing drinks was taken out.  I can't believe this.  The definitions of drinks are by far the most important infomation in the article.  So many people have edited the article since I last saw it that I can't figure out who deleted all the most impotant info.  And I can't revert to get it back.  Whoever it was, it was probably a vandal trying to delete all the useful information.  He left the useless part intact to look like the article was unvandalized.  Seriously, we need to re-add that info soon Tobyk777 06:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scratch all of that.  It was one guy who deleted more than half the article.  I'm gona have a talk with him.  Tobyk777 06:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I approve of all the changes made by the vandal Nandesuka. - brenneman{L}  07:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: This change] moved it to a separate page and left a link to that page. The only concern I have is that the overview paragraph that remains seems to underdescribe that new page. Wouldn't hurt to have a sentence or two more than just "grinding, brewing, mixing with other stuff". DMacks 17:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm fine with expanding the description.  The goal, though, should be a description, not a laundry list.  Laundry lists are almost always bad.  I considered putting in a mention of espresso vs. infusion coffee, but my fear is that the next guy comes in and decides that in addition to espresso and infusion coffee, we also need to mention White Chocolate Caramel Macchiato, and then we're off to the races.  But if you think you can expand it sensibly without laundry-listing, be my guest! Nandesuka 18:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Your joking right, the drinks were the most important part.  Tobyk777 05:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah no, it was a long list of largely irrelevant material. There is only one real coffee drink which is an espresso. Most of the drinks listed were based on that so didn't belong in an article about coffee itself. Garglebutt / (talk) 07:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most important part of this article was taken out 

message: I just whacked the article with a stick again, this time with an eye towards reorganizing it so it made sense.  I moved the "economics of coffee" and "health" sections up substantially, since we are talking about one of the most widely traded commodities in the world; I put them ahead of the "preparation" section because it is more important that we tell people what coffee is, and why it is important, than that we tell them how to make it.  I rewrote and tightened up a lot of unnecessary verbosity (we could still do a lot more here).  A number of minor sections had section headers when they didn't really warrant it -- they interrupt the flow of the article.  I massively tightened and trimmed the whole section on "quick coffee".  I added a citeneeded to a statement that needed it.  (I also eliminated or moved to other articles a number of interesting but nonessential tidbits (such as where the mother plant for Arabica is).
Still lots of work to be done.  This article is still 30k long.  Any suggestions for good candidates for removal or things that could be moved to their own article?  Nandesuka 22:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phase 2 restructuring 

message: I am removing the paragraph concerning the use of the word cafe.  Its information can be found at Coffeehouse (to which readers are already directed) and doesn't really contribute further towards defining "coffee". Turly-burly 02:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of the word Cafe around the World 

message: Consumption of coffee is associated with reduced risk of death attributed to inflammatory and cardiovascular diseases in the Iowa Women's Health Study --Rotten 13:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New study 

message: This barbarism is featured on the very first sentence for crying out loud. Why not add coffee-flavored ice creams and candy? Conversely, why not give the hot beverage the deserved right of way?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elpincha (talk • contribs) 
:That was added by a repeat vandal, User_talk:65.12.134.148, some time ago - I found it while hunting through his list of changes to articles. I reverted it as suspicious - although he did make one or two valid edits in amongst his widespread acts of minor vandalism. Evidently Interestingstuffadder thinks it's legitimate enough to put back in; I don't have strong feelings either way. Paddles TC 15:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel that "or with ice" does not belong to the first sentence. There might be drinks that include both coffee and ice as ingredients, but I have never seen or heard of coffee by itself being served with ice.--Teemuk 09:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Iced coffee is seriously popular in Japan. Interestingstuffadder 15:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "or with ice" 

message: A coffee varietal is simply the genetic subspecies of coffee.  This includes Caturra, Bourbon, SL-28, and any other species of coffee.  Kona, Jamaican Blue Mountain and Kenya AA do not count in any way as varietals.  Kona is a place in Hawaii, not a coffee.  Jamaican Blue Mountain means it comes from Jamaica, nothing more.  And Kenya AA is used to describe the size of the beans.  Not to mention in the Coffee varietals section it lists "Colombian" as a varietal.  Considering Colombia is one of the world's largest suppliers of green coffee (#4), I would assume there is more than one subspecies of coffee there.
Also, where it says "Coffee beans from two different places, or coffee varietals, usually have distinctive characteristics", places do not equal varietals.
James 18:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varietals 

message: A few years ago, I remember reading about a study/studies which showed that coffee improved scores on mental skill tests.  But I seem to remember subsequently reading that somebody reviewed the study/ies and found that when coffee withdrawl was controlled for, the effect went away.  That is, among subjects who didn't get coffee were coffee drinkers experiencing withdrawl and subsequently lower test performance!  But I can't remember where I read this, if I'm remembering correctly, or how to search for it.  Anybody have a clue?
:I remember exactly the same thing, but not where I read it...Gzuckier 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee improves test performance?? 

message: Diabetes prevention is even better in decaffeinated coffee. JFW | T@lk 09:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diabetes 

message: I think it would be interesting to mention that coffee was "baptized" by Pope Clement VIII in 1600, and that the drink's popularity in the U.S. owes some debt to revolutionaries moving from tea to coffee after the Boston Tea Party.  Both are interesting parts of coffee's story.  I am new around here, so I didn't want to change anything but did want to highlight these two things.  Below is a link to a timeline from a book by Mark Schapiro that mentions these two bits.  
--Jasonguit 19:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about being new! We encourage newcomers to edit articles! Go right ahead, that's the whole idea of a wiki. :) —BorgHunter  (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More History 

message: with a strong dependance effect.
how can you write an article on coffe without saying once that coffee is a drug. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.15.19 (talk • contribs)  22:30, 2 July 2006
:Moron!
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.74.201 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Coffee is a beverage; caffeine is a drug. The article includes a link to the caffeine article where the issue is explained in detail.--Teemuk 06:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coffee is a strong drug 

message: My suggestions:
* in the lead + section Coffee bean types, there are many bracket structures, please fix it
* in section Etymology and history, there is a quote, but « mark is not the best to show a quote
* in section Health and pharmacology of coffee + Social aspects of coffee, there are citation needed templates, without fixing these, it can't pass
Anyway, it's an exceptional, well-referenced, illustrated article, I found it interesting. NCurse  work 07:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What does "bracket structures" mean? DMacks 18:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, I wasn't understandable: "(flavor criteria include terms such as "citrus-like" or "earthy"), aroma (sometimes "berry-like" or "flowery")"... NCurse  work 08:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That one is fixed now. DMacks 04:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kewl.  Having spoken with NCurse on our talk pages, I'm going to bow to her request that y'all fix the couple of things that she (he?) pointed out.  NCurse has more experience with this than I do.  My apologies for renigging.--*Kat* 18:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination 

message: This article derives the word Coffee from Kahve meaning wine or other intoxicating liquors in Ottoman Turkish, but the article Caffè states that "Caffè is the Italian word for coffee, (itself from Kaffa, the region in Ethiopia where coffee originated".  If Kahve was, indeed, a general term for intoxicating liquors then there seems to be a contradiction here.
Also I don't understand the quotation from  Léonard Rauwolf that "Its consumers take it in the morning, quite frankly, in a porcelain cup that is passed around and from which each one drinks a cupful. It is composed of water and the fruit from a bush called bunnu."  Surely after the first consumer drank a cupful from the cup it would have been emptied?  Could it be that the words translated as "porcelain cup" should be rendered "porcelain jug" or else that the consumers each drank a mouthful rather than a cupful? Struman 19:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: One fairly consistent finding has been the reduction of diabetes mellitus type 2 in coffee consumers, an association that cannot be explained by the caffeine content alone and indeed may be stronger in decaffeinated coffee.[24]
More sources are needed to back up this point, if the study is consistent - ive never heard of this mentioned before. Also, logically that finding doesnt make any sense. More sources please, and credible ones - not some minor statistical research. 
Timmah01 12:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Decaffinated Coffee

message: Although the article mentions year 1538, the citation doesn't mention the book's publication date. Chapter, quote and an ID are also missing. It would be also very good to have a link to a (free) electronic copy of the book in english... there must be some; the copyright must have been void since a long time ago ;) --_N_e_g_r_u_l_i_o 03:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing information in book reference: "Reise in die Morgenlander" 

message: The role of caffeine in coffee's popularity seems pretty central to me, but the word "caffeine" only gets mentioned about 3 times in the article.  It definitely should get more mention.
Someone mentioned decaffeinated coffee -- I think that should get some attention somewhere in the article, too.  It shows that coffee has become so central to life -- or so popular for its taste --  that some people will resort to drinking it without the factor that brought about its popularity in the first place. --Rschmertz 06:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to start by taking a look at caffeine. A number of the other metabolically active substituents of coffee are compounds that are directly related to that lovely alkaloid, and are at least given mention in the article. – ClockworkSoul 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and for the record, coffee has quite a bit more caffeine than tea. – ClockworkSoul 03:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caffeine 

message: I wonder if this is the most appropriate title for a section talking about things like coffee houses.  "Social Aspects of Coffee" to me implies a section that will be talking about things like labor, effects of price swings, fair trade, etc.  I think it would be best to retitle this section something like "Coffee and Society" and add a new section called "Social and Environmental Concerns," where the instances mentioning things like "fair trade," "shade grown" coffee, organic, etc can be collected together into a coherent piece.  Or perhaps, inctead of having a separate section to talk about the history and importance of coffee in society, that information can be collected together under "Etymology and History." Margareta 04:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social Aspects of Coffee" 

message: I want to know, what are the list of coffee flavours available? --AAA! (AAAA) 02:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty open-ended and not-well-defined list you want. What exactly is a "flavour"? Do you mean the effect of different types of beans and different roasting styles? Or various added non-coffee solids to the grounds? Or various added flavorings to the grounds? DMacks 05:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Flavours?

message: Starbucks has joined fair trade?  The link cited seems be campaigning to get Starbucks to go fair trade! 86.131.246.54 21:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starbucks does sell some certified Fair Trade coffee.  I don't know about P&G though, and you are right, the link doesn't support the statement made--actually, it doesn't mention either roaster.  I have removed the unsupported part of the sentence.--Margareta 07:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starbucks 

message: In the opening paragraph, one user changed the abbreviation "ml" to "mL", citing Wikipedia standards. I ask Wikipedians to in the future please identify the specific standard claimed, or link to it. Having a bachelor's degree in engineering, I am very familiar with the standard units of measurement. I spent several minutes trying to find the standards relating to *units of measurement* in the *Manual of Style*. Then I undid the use of "mL". Then I *did* find it via main section 11, "Scientific Style". Eventually, the answer was in the main article, International System of Units: "mL" is a widely *recommended alternative* to "ml". So I am about to restore "mL". Hurmata 04:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for sending you on such a long trail:( DMacks 05:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How to abbreviate "milliliter"?