Talk:Coffee/Archive 3

Caffeine amounts in different coffee types
I do like the individual caffeine doses in types of coffee to be in the article. I can see Gamerpro thinks this is unnecessary. How do other folks feel? It needs better sourcing too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

NB: The IP is not me. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * For explanation on why I removed that part is that if we show the caffeine doses in types of coffee, we might as well show everyone different type of coffee's doses. Also, I'm glad to here that you are not the IP. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I shouldn't think there'd be that many (? - instant/espresso/brewed/decaf (instant)/decaf (brewed)...what else?), and I was hoping to find a good source which states broadly and within reason average doses (i.e. ignoring the person who puts 4 heaped teaspoons of instant into a small cup). It is the sort of information which comes up from time to time in conversation so I for one feel it is encyclopedic - but I am open to consensus, so hopefully a few others will comment here. Casliber (talk · contribs)
 * I think there's no question that the listing of caffeine content is appropriate. Format and referencing are the relevant questions.jaknouse (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)Well, this is an encyclopedia and a list of typical (or range of) caffeine doses for different coffees seems to me to be a valid part of an article on coffee. It's quite handy to have the info in one place – for reference and comparison – and encyclopedias should be good at doing that. I'm not exactly sure what GP64 meant by "we might as well show everyone different type of coffee's doses", so I'd prefer to get a bit of clarification, rather than just putting the list back for now. I do agree with Cas about getting some good sources, if it were to be re-added. --RexxS (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

okay...just placing the types here...are there any others to be added?
Okay, listed here. Can we think of any other types to add? And review of reliable sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Espresso: 185 mg (2000 mg/L)
 * Drip coffee: 115–175 mg (560–850 mg/L)
 * Brewed/Pressed: 80–135 mg (390–650 mg/L)
 * Instant: 65–100 mg (310–480 mg/L)
 * Decaf, brewed: 3–4 mg
 * Decaf, instant: 2–3 mg

what is the land and soil requirement for planting coffee seeds? what is the perfect climatic requirement for planting coffee seeds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.194.121 (talk) 09:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * To be added - I will be at a library on friday...I really need to read some dead-tree refs on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The section Caffeine content is in a mess at the moment. It's currently suggesting that 200 ml of coffee contains 375 ml of caffeine. I would think that even Doctor Who couldn't manage that trick. For the moment, I've commented out the section, pending a re-write with sources. --RexxS (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds prudent. I have a book or two to read on it too still. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

According to "Caffeine-Related Psychiatric Disorders" R Gregory Lande, DO, FACN May 31, 2009 emedicine.medscape.com/article/290113-overview

The amount of caffeine in coffee and tea varies based on brewing times and methods. General guidelines for beverage caffeine content include the following:

Brewed coffee (8 oz) - 120 mg Instant coffee (8 oz) - 70 mg

24.60.190.107 (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice one - a scholarly ref :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The caffeine content of Starbucks drinks can be viewed at www.starbucks.com/retail/nutrition_beverages.asp 24.60.190.107 (talk) 19:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine Content of Food and Drugs from the Center for Science in the Public Interest can be found at www.cspinet.org/reports/caffeine.pdf

24.60.190.107 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * One of the original sources seems to have similar information (from the number of times it's been cited), but I only have access to the abstract at PubMed:
 * Sadly the online archives of Journal of the American Dietetic Association don't go back far enough. Perhaps someone with access to the full article can produce a list from that? --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly the online archives of Journal of the American Dietetic Association don't go back far enough. Perhaps someone with access to the full article can produce a list from that? --RexxS (talk) 20:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can try to get the article via the Resource Exchange. 24.60.190.107 (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine content for coffee, tea, soda and more By Mayo Clinic staff www.mayoclinic.com/health/caffeine/AN01211 Adapted from USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, 2009; Center for Science in the Public Interest, 2007; Journal of Analytical Toxicology, 2003.

Type of coffee	Caffeine (milligrams) Dunkin' Donuts, brewed, 16 oz (480 mL)	143-206 Generic brewed, 8 oz (240 mL)	95-200 Generic brewed, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL)	2-12 Generic instant, 8 oz (240 mL)	27-173 Generic instant, decaffeinated, 8 oz (240 mL)	2-12 Starbucks Espresso, 1 oz (30 mL)	58-75 Starbucks Vanilla Latte, 16 oz (480 mL)	150

24.60.190.107 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

green coffee?
what exactly is meant by "green coffee"? The article refers to it in several places, most notably in the second sentence of the lead, but doesn't really define what it is. Is it some kind of coffee produced in an "environmentally-friendly" manner, or something?

Also, regarding the 'citation needed' tag in the production sub-section, I think it's evident from the table that Brazil, Vietnam, and Colombia are the top three producers of coffee. Why is coffee in Colombia "softer", and why is it being described as such? Not sure where we're going to find a citation for that -- I tried a few google searches but got nowhere. The softer coffee remark could probably be deleted, IMHO. WTF (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hopefully I will find some answers after going to the library. After looking at the article I feel humbled by how little I know :0 The colombian statement sorta rings true I think...??? Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: Okay, green coffee is the name given to coffee beans once the berries have been harvested and processed. Now to fix the article. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the photo
When I was wiki-gnoming at this page back in August, I saw a number of people confusing this article for the article on the coffee bean. This caused, for example, some erroneous statements in the history section (e.g., that coffee has been used since prehistoric times). Around that time, I added the hatnote, that "This article is about the beverage. For the bean, see coffee bean."

To further clarify, I just substituted this photo of the beverage  for the picture of coffee beans,. This reverses Casliber's revision of a week ago. . I'll mention it to that person now. Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 21:00, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, I can see your rationale - why don't we have a vote on it?

coffee cup

 * 1) For your own sake, I recommend any photo that avoids confusion between this article & coffee bean -- since that has dragged me into edit wars with IP addresses. "Yemen." "Ethiopia." "Yemen." "8th Century." "15th century".  ---- --- . People don't read ... Andrew Gradman talk/WP:Hornbook 00:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) The coffee cup is more relevant. I liked the coffee beans picture better, but i can see how it may cause confusion with the coffee bean article.--Dunshocking (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) The cup. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 20:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

no preference

 * 1) Actually, come to think of it I can see rationales for both. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd be happy with either – not so sure about both :) --RexxS (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) I suppose the drink works too. Let's just be mellow :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 23:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Page ranges
Casliber writes "we always use two digits in refpage ranges" and "refs like this have two digits"

Where is that documented? Various citation generators use as few digits as necessary for the end of the range.

For example, from the Wiki and Blog citation maker

and from the Diberri template filler

and from the Citation templates generator

24.60.190.107 (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's been a preference at WP:FAC for some time. See for example Tony's comment at WP:Featured article candidates/Clement of Dunblane. However, this practice doesn't seem to have gained sufficient consensus to be documented as a guideline. The case of double final digits used in year ranges is documented at WP:MOS, but it's not a requirement for FA for page ranges at present – see Dabomb87's (collapsed) comment and retraction towards the end of WP:Featured list candidates/List of cutaneous conditions/archive1. Having said that, I would not rely on Diberri's tool or the Citation templates generator as defining our standards. They merely attempt to to incorporate our consensus and don't always do that flawlessly (for example the Citation templates generator produces "Int J Cancer", violating WP:Scientific citation guidelines). --RexxS (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried looking for the two digit requirement since I was pinged about it ages ago and gotten used to it. Looks nice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Paris
The section on Paris can be improved - see http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/16MB701.html

24.60.190.107 (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - the key is comparing some of these darned history books...as there seem to be variations...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All About Coffee by William H. Ukers
FYI, the Ukers reference is online at http://www.web-books.com/Classics/ON/B0/B701/TOC.html

24.60.190.107 (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good find! - I'll update the Ukers reference. --RexxS (talk) 04:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Coffee refreshes the scent receptors or not
I have removed the following from the section Health and pharmacology: Many high-end perfume shops now offer coffee beans to refresh the receptors between perfume tests. An online search leads me to believe that this blog may be the originator. However, the author claims "I have experienced this is [sic] Chennai Pothys, while I was looking for a good perfume". As far as I'm able to ascertain, Pothys doesn't seem to sell perfume and the Chennai showroom sells clothing - I'm not certain about that, but it doesn't seem to be enough to elevate this claim above 'urban legend', imho. In addition, the book What the Nose Knows - The Science of Scent in Everyday Life by Avery Gilbert (ISBN-13: 978-1400082346) contradicts the notion that coffee beans refresh the scent receptors (book review here). Dr Avery Gilbert seems to have some reputation as an expert on scent, so I'm inclined to give weight to that view. Either way, I've removed the disputed statement for the moment. --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Good call. Just ploughing through the last bit of teh Prendergast book - fun read :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Prohibition
Murad IV's prohibition is sourced here and in his article to this site. Charming as that piece is, it's hardly a WP:RS unless Kate Hopkins is an expert – and I don't see her wikipedia biog to assert it. However, she replies to one of the comments on her blog, claiming that her sources are The Devil's Cup and The Devil's Picnic. We're already using the former, so can somebody check it out in either book? (or else we'll have to send Cas off to the library again). If confirmed, I'd prefer to see Murad's prohibition cited to a published work, rather than an admittedly engaging blog. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agree - some ref buffing is needed. Will see what comes up. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly working through the refs, checking their content and trying to cite them uniformly. As I find weaker ones, I'm noting it in an html comment, but I'll try to flag them up here as well. It should at least eventually give us an idea of the size of the job needed for FA. --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have found commented out comments next to the refs very helpful in the past. I am just reading these books as there are still notable facts not so far covered. Once done, we can figure the page size and relegate the least important facts to daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have just dug up the book by Ian Bersten from my packing boxes - it doesn't mention Murad either. Be good to see a copy of Allen...Bersten has some other useful material to add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Production table and references
I've just undone a series of good-faith edits which has changed the table in Production, resulting in it being squashed with level-2 text to the right of it. In addition, the notes and references which applied to the table have now been moved to the end, resulting in sections entitled Notes, References, Footnotes, and Notations, compared with the previous Notes and References. I simply can't see how this has improved the article, and as the editor making the changes gave almost no edit summaries, I am left guessing their intentions. I think this sort of change is best discussed here to see if there is an consensus for one version or the other. --RexxS (talk) 07:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed - thanks for that. Apologies to the IP but it did go all weird. Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kahveh vs kahve
Regarding the distinction between kahveh and kahve allow me to draw attention to the article "'Coffee': Its etymology" from Notes and Queries (1909): "The history of this word involves several phonetic difficulties hitherto unsolved. Of course the ' N.E.D.' is right in stating that the European languages got the name about 1600 from the Arabic qahwah, not directly, but through its Turkish form kahveh. The Turkish form might have been written kahvé, as its final h was never sounded at any time." Is that sufficiently clear? Gabbe (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with either. That's a perfectly good source to support the 'kahveh' spelling from 1909. The other view would of course be that it is an early attempt to romanise a Turkish word, but it is now romanised in modern Turkish as 'kahve' (cf. Kahve). I can't see an overwhelming argument either way, but from a practical point of view, I'd guess every Turkish viewer is likely to want to delete the final 'h'! --RexxS (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, fine with me then. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Refs in History
I've just finished checking the refs in History section and I was disappointed by the lack of correlation between the older refs and the text they supported. It's almost as if some of the old text had been lifted or written off the top of the editor's head, and then sources found that tangentially mention part of the text. I've corrected what I can, but the main remaining concerns are: Assuming those are factual, we need to find some better sources to support the detail there.
 * "From Ethiopia, coffee was said to have spread to Egypt and Yemen."
 * "When coffee reached North America during the Colonial period, it was initially not as successful as it had been in Europe."
 * "During the Revolutionary War, however, the demand for coffee increased so much that dealers had to hoard their scarce supplies and raise prices dramatically;"
 * "After the War of 1812, during which Britain temporarily cut off access to tea imports, the Americans' taste for coffee grew"
 * "... high demand during the American Civil War together with advances in brewing technology secured the position of coffee as an everyday commodity in the United States."

Ought we to find a source to directly support "It has become the primary export and backbone for African countries like Uganda, Burundi, Rwanda ..." ? --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes to all of the above. I have the books - just besieged by juggling a few things. Will prioritise the above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * PS: Saw the tag on the Boston coffeehouse - Pendergrast gives a different date too. Will add info soon. Pendergast, p. 13, gives 1689 as the date of the first coffeehouse in Boston. It doesn't give specific references for each chapter, however. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:15, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pendergast pp.5-6 hypothesises that coffee may have spread from Ethiopia to Yemen when the former ruled over the latter for 50 years in the 6th century. I am not sure how generally held this view is. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * p 39 refs 2,3 and 4 above. But there is other info elsewhere. Am keeping reading.


 * The thing that bugs me - and this is just speculation - is why anybody would transport coffee beans or plants from their native habitat in Ethiopia to Yemen, if they weren't already brewing it as a beverage? Have we got a source for "It was here in Arabia that coffee beans were first roasted and brewed, in a similar way to how it is now prepared"? - or is that comma spurious, since it changes the meaning somewhat. Is there any source for the beans being chewed, or used in a way different from roasting and brewing? If coffee actually made the jump across the Mandab Strait in the 6th century, that would seem to push back its use by quite a stretch. All OR, unfortunately, but it makes you think. --RexxS (talk) 21:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It bugs me too now that you've pointed it out, but we're stuck with the fact that confirmed documented evidence of coffee doesn't start until the 15th century, leaving us with up to nine centuries of conjecture. Actually as I type this I am wondering why there hasn't been more vigorous debate on the matter....Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Dipertines
An IP editor added the following: This looks an interesting new finding, if true. Unfortunately no source was offered and I haven't been able to find one. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 23:24, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Studies have also indicated that the removal of diterpenes accelerates dihydrotestosterone in men, which is thought to be responsible for male pattern baldness. Usually triggered by a combination of hormonal activity and heredity, which together cause the hair follicles in the scalp to shrink, there exists a positive association between coffee consumption and baldness in men. According to a research team headed by the American Medical Association (AMA), this process has been observed to take place as early as the age of 17 in young males."

Misleading Prohibition Statistics for the Seventh-day Adventist Church
The Prohibition section cites this article, but in the context, it seems like it's implying that Seventh-day Adventists are more susceptible to coffee's adverse health effects. The research seems to have more to do with the group's prohibition being used as a statistically clean sample population. I think this information belongs in the Health section where it isn't quite as misleading.

Quartz (talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that an unwarranted implication exists in that text. Nevertheless I still think that it's an interesting example of abstinence/prohibition that works better in its present context than in the Health section (since the results only show a weak effect). As a compromise, I've re-written that paragraph to try to make it clearer that Adventists are considered as a clean sample, rather than having an increased susceptibility. I'm still not 100% satisfied, but please feel free to improve on my efforts if you can. --RexxS (talk) 03:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That's much better than I could have thought of. Thanks!  Quartz (talk) 03:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should be removed entirely. First off, citing one study out of probably hundreds done on SDA groups as evidence of coffee being harmful is spurious. What about the other studies done on the SDA? To not note that the other studious found no correlation is intellectually dishonest and misleading. It should have been qualified with, "But only one study..." If it takes only one study to to make the inclusion of the information within into an article valid, every wikipedia page would be filled with paragraph after paragraph of frivolous info. I'm sure there is a single study that claims chewing gum causes global warming or something as equally as frivolous. Does that mean that particular info should be included into the article about gum? Second, even if the Adventists observed refrained from alcohol and smoking (and how can you even know that for sure, they could be fibbing about that so as to not get into trouble) there are still many, many confounding factors. For example there is age, genetics, sex, race, diet, exercise and many, many more. To imply that SDA church members somehow constitute a "pure" sample and "completely free" from confounding factors just because they abstain from smoking and drinking is incredibly fallacious. Also, if they refrain from smoking and drinking, how can we know for sure that it's not those factors that contribute to them being supposedly healthier? The study just could have easily concluded that there is a "weak but statistically significant association" (more on that dubious phrase later) between alcohol intake or tobacco intake and "mortality from ischemic heart disease, other cardiovascular disease, all cardiovascular diseases combined, and all causes of death." Also, "all causes of death????" That's incredibly clunky phrasing, what does coffee intake have to with causes of death like being drowned, falling from a height, being electrocuted, being stabbed to death and the like? And do we need to say "all cardiovascular diseases combined" and "other cardiovascular disease?" Isn't that redundant? Not to mention vague as hell.

Also, the language and use of words is troubling. The study is described as "being able to show," this is very NPOV. Unless you are God and know for sure that study is 100% accurate, the best you can say is that the study "claims" to show. Studies are based on subjective human observation and conclusions, and can't be taken as gospel. "Being able to show" is absurdly over authoritative. Second, the phrase "weak but statistically significant association" is pure double talk. How can it be weak and also at the same time "statistically significant"? One precludes the other. That's like saying "that man is weak, but strong!" It makes no sense. It seems to me their is an agenda here, namely to try and saddle coffee as being bad for your health. If you're going to do that, fine, there are many views on that issue, but I cry foul when one very shaky and dubious study is used to further that claim.

P.S. I'm not implying Rexss that you intentionally are trying to push an anti-coffee message, but your re-write sure didn't help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's ok - no offence taken; I'm just disappointed that I wasn't able to make a better job of writing for you. Let's see if we can identify your concerns, then see how we can address them:
 * You feel that citing "Coffee consumption and mortality in Seventh-Day Adventists" out of hundreds done on SDA groups is spurious. Perhaps you could suggest some of those other studies that would be worth including. I usually find the solution is consider more sources to provide balance and I'd be happy to do so.
 * You raise the problem of confounding factors, but wouldn't you agree that taking into account the factors you suggest is a well understood statistical technique? As long as your sample contains significant numbers of examples of each, then any such effect can be estimated. For example, if the sample contains roughly equal numbers of men and women, then analysis can estimate the magnitude of effect that gender has on mortality from ischemic heart disease. The problem is that smoking in particular has a huge effect and is likely to swamp any weak effect (more on that later). Finding a population (SDA) that is virtually free of the effects of tobacco – as a matter of choice, not necessity – is what makes this study so sensitive, and allows it to examine factors which would be lost in the statistical noise that tobacco causes. This study is a 25-year follow-up with a sample size close to ten thousand on a population free of the principal confounding factor. I think that gives it sufficient credentials to distinguish it from many other studies looking at factors affecting ischemic heart disease.
 * You find the quote from the study clunky. Well yes, it does read awkwardly and I'd be happy to see a better formulation. The study concluded that they could show four associations: (coffee consumption – mortality from ischemic heart disease); (coffee consumption – mortality from other cardiovascular disease); (coffee consumption – mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined); (coffee consumption – all causes of death). That's a statistical association, not a demonstration of causality, so it is certainly does not imply that drinking coffee causes people to be stabbed to death.
 * I'd be happy to find a better phrase than "was able to show", but the point is that this study was capable of showing an association, because it eliminated the principal confounding factors.
 * I'm sorry but I have to simply dismiss your concerns that the study subjects might have been lying, or that smoking is good for your health.
 * Finally the phrase "weak but statistically significant association" is perfectly reasonable. What it is saying is that people who drink coffee have a very slightly higher empirical chance of death in a particular period than those that don't consume (a weak association); and that the study researchers are quite confident about the result (a statistically significant association). Perhaps it needs to be explained in full, but I'm not sure how much more space should be devoted to attempting to explain statistics in a page about coffee. --RexxS (talk) 12:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Mixing coffee with alcohol
"Coffee can also be incorporated with alcohol in beverages" &mdash; Why would anyone want to mix uppers with downers like that?  Tisane  talk/stalk 04:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Mebbe they just like the taste. I always kinda liked Kahlua. Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Irish coffee is yummy! DMacks (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, coffee at best is a very mild stimulant so mixing it with alcohol would have a very limited (if any) increased effect on mood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Berry or Cherry
Just a placeholder for the moment. Both "coffee berry" and "coffee cherry" have usage for the fruit of the coffee plant, and it is probably a good idea to discuss which should be preferred for the article – or even should both be used (where appropriate) if there is a real distinction between the terms. Thoughts and sources? --RexxS (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * cherry strikes me as a specific term for a cherry of the genus Prunus. I'd not heard it used with coffee, which I've always seen "berry" written, so I'd go with that. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cas, I was prompted by an editor changing all the "berries" to "cherries". My impression was the same as yours until I googled "coffee cherry", and now I'm not so sure (particularly with the Britannica article existing). --RexxS (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weird! Trying the search in Google books suggests the term is an older one. Upon thinking about it, some other non-cherry species are called cherries. In Australia we have "Brush Cherry" = Syzygium paniculatum, but it is still somewhat specific. We can leave this open and see what others think - a note on the food and drink wikiproject. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yemen origin more likely
If coffee had originated in Ethiopia, why did it not spread to the the neighboring African lands, rather than across the sea over to the Arabian peninsula?! I am skeptical of the Ethiopian origin theory of coffee. Lugalbanda (talk) 18:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I've no idea, but I added a new reference to the claim. If you find any reliable sources claiming anything to the contrary, feel free to introduce them. jonkerz♠ 19:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ethiopia ruled part of Yemen in the 6th century, so it seems likely trade was well-established across the Mandab Strait since antiquity. In fact, it would be quite likely that links between different regions was much easier by boat than across possibly hostile terrain. There is of course a reference to coffee existing in "possible disjunct populations in nearby highland areas of Sudan and Kenya." in the source that's just been removed. I expect the spread of coffee was in reality a complex process, rather than the simple linear model suggested, but that's more than our sources will support. --RexxS (talk) 20:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Caffeine content
"200 millilitres (7.0 imp fl oz; 6.8 US fl oz), or a single shot of espresso—typically containing about 30 millilitres (1.1 imp fl oz; 1.0 US fl oz)—can be expected to contain 375 milliliters of caffeine."

This just does not make sense. 200 millilitres of coffee contain 375 millilitres of caffeine? 188% of the cup of coffee is caffeine? Perhaps it meant milligrams of caffeine, however I checked one of the sources cited, which said a cup of coffee contains from 100-150 (thereabouts) milligrams of caffeine, in which case it's still wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.118.40 (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That's right. It doesn't make sense, which is one of the reasons I commented out the section a while ago. You might want to direct your question to the editor who replaced the section. --RexxS (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I commented out parts of the section as it didn't make sense. Feel free to re-add when the references are matching the text and there's no contradictions. jonkerz♠ 00:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Coffee wiki
On Wikia can be found here Jackiespeel (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Coffee categorized as a drug
In Coffee can be found the psychoactive drug Caffeine.

The the headline of the article on Cannabis, is followed by (drug), which does not make sense, as cannabis is a plant and in itself not a drug. The chemical compound in the plant can be categorized as a drug - not the plant itself. This is misleading information and does not add to the accuracy and credibility of wiki.

However - if the cannabis article is to keep (drug) in the title, then this article should certainly also have (drug) added to the title.

(Pethol (talk) 08:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)).
 * I would suggest instead requesting that Cannabis (drug) by moved (renamed) to Marijuana. Abductive  (reasoning) 09:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is common knowledge that coffee contains the drug caffeine and the two have become linked together, unless one is referring to decaffeinated coffee. However, the article should refer to caffeine as the drug, not coffee. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Coffee wastewater
McKinnon-Agaard Pulping & pregrading system (East Africa)

Water consumption for wet processing coffee McKinnon-Agaard disc pulping system	Litres/tonne parchment Operation(1)Agaard without recirculation (2) Agaard with partial recirculation (3)Agaard with full recirculation (1)  (2)     (3)		Pulping & pregrading (recirculated)	29,000	800	800 Convey pulped coffee (recirculated)	1,350	1,350	120 Intermediate washing (not recirculated) 950	950	950 Grading channel (recirculated)	        4,400	4,400	2,120 Soaking (not recirculated)	        1,100	1,100	1,100 Cleaning (not recirculated)	          600	600	600 Total water - all operations	        37,400	9,200	5,690 Equivalent in litres per Kg cherry	  7.5	1.8	1.1

Discussion: Essentially the water usage for wet processing arabica coffee is the sum total of all operations (up to 6 in all) in a pulping/washing station which require processing water and produce wastewater. A number of articles analyze pulping systems and seem to ignore the other points of water consumption. Thus comparison between systems is not easy. The attached table sets out water consumption for the McKinnon-Agaard wet processing system widely used in East Africa (3,500 plus washing stations) with a breakdown and summary of water consumption. Most of the private sector washing stations have a full recirculation system. The data here may be quoted and used freely.

Regards,  Alan Finney. Coffee Specialist Consultant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.241 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Coffee berry pulp
I was wondering if anyone has any information about the pulp of the coffee berry other than that it is discarded. In the article about Kopi Luwak it discusses the Asian Palm civet that eats the berries and defecates the seeds (beans). Is the pulp bitter? Does it have no nutritional value except for the civet? Just curious.Mylittlezach (talk) 06:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"throughout history"
In the introductory phrase that said that coffee has played a critical role in many societies throughout history, I deleted "throughout history". Alcohol has had impact throughout history (five thousand years). Coffee only throughout "modern" history (five hundred years). Please respect this change. I made the same change a year ago and it was reverted.--Zachbe (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Needs edit?
"Coffee required less land to grow and the lack of machinery to process made it immediately popular." - Should not that read something like "Coffee required less land to grow and the lack of machinery needed to process it made it immediately popular." Its lack of machinery needed for processing, not just general lack of machinery that made it popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.247.244.21 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)


 * added. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What are natural chemicals in Coffee
And why does coffee smell different than it tastes. A section on this by a chemist would be nice or someone who can answer ths. --Ericg33 (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Decaffeination
Referring decaffeination, I've heard somewhere (maybe on "How It's Made"), that there are only about five processing companies in the world that perform decaffeination. -- Jarash (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Vanilla coffee exists?
I used 75 percent coffee and 25 percent soymilk the other day with sugar and it tasted like vanilla coffee. Does actual vanilla coffee exist? Is it vegan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.42.105 (talk) 19:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Vanilla comes from the vanilla bean, not from coffee beans. Flavored coffee exists; the flavoring is added to the bean after roasting. Dan Bollinger (talk) 11:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Bitterness
The first sentence refers to coffee being bitter. Colloquially, this might be true (especially with poor quality beans), but in food tasting circles it is not. Bitter refers to alkalines such as alum and is associated with caustic, astringent flavors. Coffee is slightly acidic, so is best described as tangy or piquant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Bollinger (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Prussia
Regarding Frederick banning imports on behalf of Germany, - he was only the king of Prussia, does his legislatation grandfather to Germany after 1870? Otherwise, the talk of coffee colonies + Germany doesnt make much sense. Ottawakismet (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Coffee culture
Some topics should be listed under the coffee culture article. icetea8 (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Characteristics of different coffee beans from around the world?
Depending on the specific plant breed the the coffee is grown on, the coffee produces a different flavour. Sometimes, it can be more "fruity" and sometimes more "nutty". I read about the different ways coffee connoisseurs describe coffee flavour, and am interested about the characteristics and tastes each type of bean produces. I think there can be greater explanation on the types of coffee and the taste each type produces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kpfroggy (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like that would be some useful information. As Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", feel free to find some good references and write some content about it. DMacks (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Science News resource
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/336359/title/Coffee_delivers_jolt_deep_in_the_brain "Coffee delivers jolt deep in the brain; Caffeine strengthens electrical signals in rats’ hippocampus" by Laura Sanders Web edition November 21st, 2011 97.87.29.188 (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Hot" under the photo of the coffee cup
Coffee is not a beverage served just hot, by any stretch of the imagination. 66.26.95.207 (talk) 17:08, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Resource regarding Planetary boundaries and Holocene extinction
Climate change pushing coffee to extinction? October 17, 2011 9:23 AM CBS News

See Climate change and agriculture and Effect of climate change on plant biodiversity.

97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Table at the bottom of Caffeine Content
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coffee#Caffeine_content There are no measurements just a series of #s. What is it that is being described? 96.52.182.81 (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I came here to ask the same thing. What's the meaning of these numbers? --190.167.155.16 (talk) 20:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a citation to "Verlengia F, Rigitano A, Nery JP, Tosello A. Variations of the caffeine content in coffee beverages. ASIC, 2nd Int Sci Colloq Green and Roasted Coffee Chem. 1965, 106-114." in the preceding sentence. Anyone have access to that to know what it says? DMacks (talk) 18:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Spam type thing under Etymology
it looks like there is something odd under etymology but I don't know how to fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.116.23.233 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 February 2012‎ (UTC)
 * It has already been removed. Sometimes older edits can still be seen for a while until the cache has been updated. It is possible to purge the page to make it go away faster. jonkerz ♠talk 19:00, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

3rd Paragraph under Cultivation Vandalized
The 3rd Paragraph under Cultivation appears to have been vandalized. Excellent article until then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.17.230 (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It was taken care of by a bot the same minute it happened. It, again, seems like the cache was slow to update. Thanks for pointing it out. jonkerz ♠talk 18:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Country of Origin
The article says Ethiopia. Obviously... for the Coffee bean. But then in the 'History' section of the article it says "The earliest credible evidence of either coffee drinking or knowledge of the coffee tree appears in the middle of the fifteenth century, in the Sufi monasteries around Mokha in Yemen." So why is the origin still Ethiopia if the actual drink 'Coffee' originated in Yemen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.196.9.199 (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Grinding a subdivision of brewing?
Locically, shouldn't Grinding be a separate subheading 4.3, before Brewing? What is now 2th, 3rd and 4th para under 4.3 could be moved to this new heading, but the present 1st para is about grind size in relation to brewing method. Ezr (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Caffeine content
The table in this section is dubious. It talks about espresso as "fine grind". Absolutely not! Espresso demands a medium/coarse grind. A fine grind will not allow the espresso steam through and generally causes the pressure relief valve to operate. A fine grind is much more suited to filter coffee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.239.244 (talk) 11:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Wrong on two counts! Espresso is neither made from coarse ground nor with steam. See the WP espresso page, which says: "Espresso is a concentrated beverage brewed by forcing a small amount of nearly boiling water under pressure through finely ground coffee beans." I can personally attest to this since I've made over 4,000 shots of espresso using commercial equipment.Dan Bollinger (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Acidic, not bitter
I have changed this once before adding my rationale here. If coffee tastes bitter, it is only because cheap beans were poorly prepared. Chefs call coffee a sweet beverage. I once again removed "bitter" and replaced it with "slightly acidic" and this time included a reference. To give you an idea of just how nearly neutral coffee's pH is, if you diluted vinegar to the same pH level as coffee (5.0-5.1) you could not taste the vinegar in the water. Studies have recorded a "perceived" acidity by coffee drinkers, but this has been attributed to flavors, not acids, and to coffee's aroma. Dan Bollinger (talk) 21:25, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Coffee tastes somewhat bitter to me, including really good coffee. It doesn't taste acidic. I think readers will say "Acidic? No. Bitter!" Just my opinion.Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:27, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand, and one person's opinion does not a fact make. Coffee's acidity is very low, you need litmus paper to measure it. I've read about the so-called bitterness in a peer-review article that dismisses the "bitterness" claim, but could not find it to cite in my edits last week. One of the problems is that bitterness is subjective. I'll keep looking so we can perfect this article. Just so you know, acidity is what lay people call sour. Technically, sourness comes from fermentation, typically the bacteria acetobacter. Dan Bollinger (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I was the one who made the flavor addition in the first place, a while back. Before my edit there was no mention of the flavor. Acidic is not a flavor. Sour, bitter, savory, salty, sweet, et cetera are flavors. The bitterness of coffee comes from the roasting process. I am restoring my original description, that coffee has a dark, bitter flavor. If you disagree with the characterization of dark, I will find a few sources by flavor connoisseurs and refute you. Dylan Hsu (talk) 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh and if you don't like "dark", what about "robust"? Dylan Hsu (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all coffee is robust, though. Some is actually quite insipid. 'Robust' is more like an ideal, isn't it? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Dark bitter flavor
I reverted this yesterday but has now been added back in. Some people may perceive a 'dark' character to the taste of coffee, but this is a poetic description (possibly caused by a type 1 mixing up of the visual and taste senses). As figurative language it has no place in the lead sentence of an encyclopedic article. In the same way that wine experts mostly can't tell red from white wine in blind tastings if coffee was asked to be described blind from amongst other substances I would expect the descriptions to be all over the place. We can describe the color plainly but should avoid figurative descriptions of taste. Sky Machine  ( ++ ) 20:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I said a few words on this in the section above. Wine experts can discern white and red wine by taste; if they can't, who's the expert? Dark is not a figurative description of taste, it is a matter of how roasted the stock of a brewed beverage is. Coffee tastes dark--tea does not, because the tea leaves are not roasted. Pale ale doesn't taste dark--but porter and stout do, because the malt is roasted. Milk chocolate tastes creamy--but dark chocolate does not. The visual appearance is irrelevant. Dylan Hsu (talk) 22:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Some people want to be fooled. That is fine for them but this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia can introduce subjective opinions but only if they are sourced to reliable secondary sources. A wine expert is like a priest or witch doctor in that they don't have to be good in what they purport to be experts in, they merely have to sell the appearance of being good at this by mystery-mongering to their gullible marks (see Wine tasting). People use availability biases and other heuristics to come up with subjective descriptions of sensory phenomena. As regards to your chocolate example the difference there is in texture (or mouth feel), not taste, thus you have again made this same error by mixing the sensation of touch with that of taste.  Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 04:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dark chocolate tastes substantially different from milk chocolate, while actually having a very similar mouthfeel apart from from being slightly more brittle. I used the word creamy in reference to the flavor or milk or cream. If you are seriously contesting that dark and light, or dark-bodied and light-bodied, are inaccurate characterizations of flavor, please see here: Coffee roasting. The flavor column makes substantial reference to dark and light flavor. And actually, there are a couple mentions of the mouth-feel, which you contend has nothing to do with flavor, but others clearly disagree. Dylan Hsu (talk) 15:15, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * These others that disagree have fallen prey to the same biases that you have. The use of taste in that table is sloppy, the meaning of it used there is 'sensations experienced while consuming' which includes many senses interwoven(taste, smell, temperature, mouth feel, texture, sound, crispness etc). I do not argue that different things don't have different tastes, I argue that descriptions of these tastes are massively subjective and prone to suggestibility, and that it is best to leave these out. Sky Machine   ( ++ ) 21:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I seriously contest that any reliable source describes flavour as "dark". The article you point to Coffee roasting does not describe the flavour as dark, nor do either of the sources in that section - although neither coffeeglossary.net nor sweetmarias.com are reliable sources, since neither have "a reputation for fact-finding and accuracy". The lead of this article is no place for an editor to be expressing their personal opinions about flavours and I've restored the previous "strong" description which enjoyed consensus for some time. I understand that consensus can change, but I still maintain that the "dark" description is not usable, unless a reliable source can be found that supports it. --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You have reverted to "strong," which isn't a flavor. I've re-characterized the flavor as bitter and robust. If you disagree with this characterization, let's come to a consensus before any future edits. Dylan Hsu (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are we speaking the same language? A "strong flavour" is a perfectly meaningful English phrase, and is the phrase used in this article for a considerable time. The reason for that was that no consensus could be found for how people perceived the flavour of coffee. I have no problem with "bitter" as a flavour, but do not agree that it is characteristic of all coffee - which can can be prepared to exhibit a wide range of flavours. I do object very strongly to "robust" which is meaningless advertising jargon and has no place in an encyclopedia. Now you need to find some source that backs up your use of "bitter, robust" or put back the version that was in place before you started edit-warring your personal opinions into the lead of a major encyclopedic article. In the meantime, I've removed mention of flavour from the lead pending some consensus being formed. Let's indeed come to a consensus before you think about re-inserting your unsupported personal opinions. The third opinion noticeboard is there to be used, although you should realise you're attempting to force your version against the concerns of two other editors already. --RexxS (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Your confrontational attitude is unproductive. Please don't accuse of engaging in an edit war; this is your read, and not my intent. As a coffee lover, I originated the discussion on flavor by inserting a characterization of it. An encyclopedic article about a beverage must comment on its flavor. Regional variations in coffee preparation lead to a large variety of flavor bundles and different ways of thinking about coffee. So I have described it as a brewed beverage with a "distinct aroma and flavor," which is sufficiently broad so as to please all of you. Now relax, have a hot cup of joe, and let's try to find some sources. This may be of some use. Dylan Hsu (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't try to patronise other editors. It doesn't go down well, particularly following your edit-warring.
 * I don't have any problem with "a brewed beverage with a distinct aroma and flavor" in the lead, and I hope the other commentators here will find it acceptable as well - although I think "distinctive" would be better than "distinct" in this case. Unfortunately, your source doesn't meet WP:RS - what qualifies coffeeuniverse.com to give authoritative opinions on the flavour of coffee? Anybody can create a webpage, and as far as I can see, Bellissimo, Inc is simply a coffee business in Portland OR that did just that. If you're serious about sources, look at the ones already in the article. Casliber spent some considerable time finding books from reputable publishers to use, and I'd recommend Prendergast's Uncommon Grounds as a good general reference to coffee and its history. I'm sure many of the others would be worth reading as well. --RexxS (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahah, is that a threat? Excuse me, I don't need to waste my time dealing with Internet warriors. Nobody here is "warring" but you. I guess if someone here makes a good faith edit they deserve to be lectured via walls of text? I don't need to be reprimanded on my talk page, you already did so here. Oh, and you won't be receiving any more of my help on this article. Apparently, it is unwanted. So be it. Dylan Hsu (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 November 2012
In the 'roasting' section sentence reads, "The actual roasting begins when the temperature inside the sed reaches approximately..." It seems clear that this should read "seed" and not "sed." Simple type-o.

Eumoria (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Criticism about this article
I just wanted to make the suggestion that this article should be semi-protected. Now I'm not a writing contributor nor plan to be. It just doesn't make sense why this topic gets no protection at all while other articles on like "Cat, Dog, Tiger" gets them. Maybe this point was overlooked. I really have little faith in important enough topics that are easily susceptible to vandalism. I recently checked topics like "Mitt Romney, Barack Obama" and they got semi-protection I believe which makes sense.

I read the revision history section and saw some vandalism entries. This would be harder to commit if this topic's protected. I hope an authority reads this and gives this the protection it should have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwwiki2012 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's really tempting to replace the whole article with "AWESOME!!!!!!!!!" in really big letters. I wholeheartedly agree with you. XndrK (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see WP:PROT, the policy about protection. It's only done when there is an ongoing substantial problem, not just a vandalism every few days. If there is a problem, WP:RFPP is the place to report it (if editors don't notice the vandalism problem on the article, they probably also wouldn't notice a comment about it on the talk-page). Looking more deeply, there does indeed appear to be a problem (of which you were a part!), so I think protection might be appropriate. DMacks (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up "Health and pharmacology" section
So, there's a bit of an issue with the organization on the information contained in the "Health and pharmacology" section of this article. Namely, the boundaries are blurred between this and a few other articles, causing information to be both excluded and redundantly published. The two articles that most directly overlap with this section are the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_of_coffee

There is no obvious solution to the redundancy of the Health section of this article and the Health effects article, so anyone that can find guidance in the Wikipedia documentation should definitely let us know. I'll start migrating some of the details that more obviously belong in the Health effects article, give a brief but more explicative mention of caffeine's effects in the Coffee article, and look for a way to link to the Health effects article in the coffee article. However, I'm still very much a newb at Wikipedia editing, so any help, input, and guidance would be greatly appreciated.

Exercisephys (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I've started this, and it's really quite a job. The whole section is an impenetrable jungle of overly specific and scientific references to studies that belong in the "Health effects of coffee" article. I've been cleaning it up and migrating stuff, but I could definitely use help if anyone has the time.

Exercisephys (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

2011 Coffee production table
I fixed a vandalism in this table. Do not revert before have studied the table some editions before. It seems the vandalism was made by the IP 116.199.219.189. If this is right, better to block it.

Zimbres (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Did you know - lower prices?
According to the Seattle Times "Starbucks lowers prices on bagged coffee at grocers" after "In recent months, global coffee prices have fallen more than 50 percent year-over-year"? Ottawahitech (talk) 21:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Addend map to include China
I think the map needs to be addended to include China as a coffee-producing country. Not all of China, just the southwest portions of Yunnan province. I live in Yunnan province and can verify that there is indeed coffee production here. It may be small compared to the other countries on the map, but it will surely grow in the future, especially now that Starbucks and Nestle are both heavily investing in coffee growing education here.

88.208.249.193 (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)Matt, Kunming, Yunnan, April 24, 2013

Timeline
This timeline was an original creation at the Portal:Coffee. i have removed it from there, as its original research without references, but someone here might find it useful to begin an ACTUAL timeline of coffee article. Ive also restructured the portal so its actually potentially useful, and linked it to a handful of coffee articles. If anyone else thinks its worth linking, go ahead.


 * > 5 AD The coffee was discovered in Ethiopia.
 * 700-1000 Coffee was first known by the Arabs as an energy drink . The spread of coffee was started simultaneously with the spread of Islam.
 * 1000 Ibn Sina investigated the chemical substance of coffee.
 * 1400 The spread of coffee and coffee shops rapidly in the Arabian peninsula, especially Mecca and Medina.
 * Coffee was introduced in 1453 in Constantinople by the Turks (Ottoman Caliphate). Coffee shop which was first recorded there, named Kiva Han, which opened in 1475.
 * 1600 Pope Clement VIII, confirmed to consider that the 'coffee culture' is a heresy, 'foreign culture' that can threaten the (infidel) and therefore sinful for those who drink it. But then he allowed if the 'coffee' into the (alternative) from the food / beverages are kosher eaten by a Christian. In that year, the coffee was brought from Mekkah to India (Asia Minor)by a man named Baba Budan when pilgrims return from Mekkah.
 * 1616 was brought from Mocha Coffee (Yemen) to the Netherlands.
 * 1645 The first coffee shop opened in Venice, Italy.
 * 1650 The first coffee shop opened in Christian countries (Christendom) precisely in the Oxford.
 * 1658 Dutch opened the first garden in Ceylon (Sri Lanka)
 * 1668 coffee shop 'Edward Lloyd's' opened in London. From this coffee shop and then Edward opened the most prominent insurance companies in the world of Lloyd's of London Insurance.
 * 1668 Coffee began to be known in North America.
 * 1669 The coffee shop was introduced in Paris by the Turkish ambassador to the king of Louis XIV.
 * 1670 London devoted to coffee. Coffee shop opened in every corner of London. Coffee was introduced in Germany. In Brazil, coffee cultivation began. Types of coffee grown is the Coffea Arabica Lind.
 * 1674 Women's Petition against coffee issued in London.
 * 1675 dish of tea (tea house) began to be introduced in the Netherlands. Previously there was just serving drinks beer / malt.
 * 1675 King Charles II closes all coffee shops in London.
 * 1679 in Marseilles, a chemist testified that French coffee is destructive and dangerous to human health.
 * 1679 The first coffee shop opened in Hamburg, Germany.
 * 1688 More than 800 local coffee shop opened in Soho (England). Especially by Christian refugees from the French Calvinists (Huguenots).
 * 1689 typical French Café first opened, named Café de Procope, although the atmosphere of crisis after the announcement of coffee harmful to health.
 * 1696 The first coffee shop called The King's Arms opened in New York.
 * A Dutch citizen named Zwaardecroon, brought some seeds from Mecca to Bogor, Indonesia. And, being the most important crops in the Dutch East Indies.
 * 1706 Java Coffee studied Dutch in Amsterdam.
 * 1714 Java Coffee researched, by Dutch introduced and planted in the Jardin des Plantes by King Louis XIV.
 * 1720 Florian stay open coffee shop in Florence.
 * 1723 Gabriel du Clieu bring coffee beans from France to Martinique.
 * 1727 Francisco de Ello brings coffee beans from France for planting in Brazil.
 * 1730 British planted coffee in Jamaica.
 * 1732 Johann Sebastian Bach composes "Coffee Cantata", in Leipzig. Kantata describes the spiritual journey as well as a parody of the fear of Germans against the rapid popularity of coffee in Germany (the German beer enthusiasts).
 * 1777 King of Germany (Prussia) announced a ban on criticism and coffee, and announced as the national drink German beer Kingdom.
 * 1790 British coffee shop is a typical beginning to disappear slowly replaced by a beer tavern (tavern).
 * 1802 Cafe as a word that shows the place was introduced in the UK (formerly coffee house). This word comes from the French word 'café' and almost seakar in Italian 'Caffe'. Café shows a place that is a main restaurant with a menu of coffee drinks.
 * 1809 Coffee was first imported from Brazil into the U.S. market in Salem, Massachusetts.
 * 1820 Substance Caffeine found in coffee drinks in unison by three different studies - and, of course, each researcher was working on their own - made by Runge, Robiquet, Pelletier and Caventou
 * 1822 prototype of an espresso coffee machine made in France.
 * 1839 The word 'Cafeteria' was introduced as the word hybrid (combined) from eksiko, Spain and England.
 * 1859 Michael Thonet's Vienna Café chair No.. 14 (bench particular coffee shop was first introduced as a 'bench suitable for use while sipping coffee. "
 * 1869 Coffee leaf rust (fungus coffee) was first discovered in Sri Lanka and coffee plants in Asia.
 * 1873 Coffee in bulk packaging was first introduced in America by John Arbukle.
 * 1882 The New York Coffee Exchange formed.
 * 1869 outbreak of a fungal disease across Asia that causes destruction of Coffea Arabica coffee manifold Lind, who was widely planted in Asia. Until this year, people started planting various kinds of coffee are numerous in the Congo region.
 * 1904 espresso machine made modern by Fernando Milly.
 * 1906 Brazil raises coffee prices after creating the price (exchange rate) fixed for the commodity coffee.
 * 1910 Germany makes decaf coffee (caffeine in coffee substance reduction to a minimum), Dan was introduced to America by the name Dekafa.
 * 1911 coffee traders in the U.S. to form the National Coffee Association.
 * 1915 Pyrex found. First used as a lamp lighting especially on the railroad as a heat-resistant lamp cover and weather or physical impact. Start introduced as a kitchen tool, as a substitute for glass. Coffee shop using a pyrex heat resistant glass.
 * 1920 coffee shop 'new' booming in America.
 * Vienna Café chair No. 1925. 14 were included in the exhibition L'esprit Nouveau in France by Le Corbusier. Until 1933 this bench model produced more than 50 million.
 * 1927 espresso coffee machines were first introduced in America. The first coffee shop wearing 'La Pavoni' in New York. Machine is specially designed by renowned Italian architect Gio Ponti.
 * 1928 Colombian Coffee Federation is formed.
 * 1930-1944 Coffee growers destroy 78 million bags of Brazilian coffee to stabilize prices.
 * 1938 Cremonesi: a piston pump that can spray hot water with high speed to brew coffee.
 * 1938 Nestle find instant coffee in Brazil, Nestle until now the largest producer of instant coffee in the world.
 * 1939-1945 U.S. forces bring instant coffee in the war and introduce it to the world.
 * 1942 People begin hoarding coffee due to wartime shortages. In England at this time coffee is rationed.
 * 1946 Gaggia Factory produces commercial cappuccino machine for the first time. The word cappuccino comes from the color of Capucin Coat.
 * 1948 Achille Gaggia invented the espresso coffee in bulk at Milan.
 * 1952 Gaggia machines imported into the UK. In this year's coffee shop after the second world war for the first time opened in London in July.
 * Espresso Bar 1953 spread all over Soho. The first time was on the road Mocha 29 Frith Street.
 * 1954 restricted the ownership of some commodities such as coffee ends with the end of the second world war transitional period.
 * Catherine Uttley 1957 there were 200 registered coffee bar in London. Starting a lot of coffee bars that use plastics ranging from kitchen equipment, dining, floor to furniture.
 * 1960 carrying coffee bar doubled from 1.000 to 2.000 across the UK, most in the London, about 500 pieces.
 * 1962 Peak of coffee consumption per capita in the United States, 3 cups per person per day.
 * 1962 International Agreement on trade in coffee is made, the intent is to control prices.
 * 1964 Coffee Bar dying in England, replaced by restaurants with a variety of dishes.
 * 1970 Mokha cynical café closed after complaints by American writer William S. Burrough.
 * 1971 Starbuck Outlet first opened in Seattle.
 * 1973 Fair Trade Coffee was first imported to Europe from Guatemala.
 * 1975 Brazil suffered because of failed harvests, world coffee prices soared.
 * 1989 International Coffee Agreement fails to stabilize prices. In the history of the coffee trade down to its lowest level.
 * 1990 Some coffee shops close due to the arrangement of space (redevelopment) in the UK. Introduced organic coffee that are excellent in the world coffee market.
 * 1998 Starbucks reach 2000 Outlets in the U.S. and 5,715 outlets worldwide. Starbucks positioned itself as a coffee shop with the largest network worldwide.

Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Let me not define encyclopaedia article but it is not an article from a pretencious magazine. So why doesn't someone tell the American consumer what "Cuban style" coffee is and if the weird taste from a fresh pack is supposed to be there. 69.115.19.134 (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

External Links Needs Updating
The external links page needs to be updated.

This link no longer works: http://www.lokeshdhakar.com/2007/08/20/an-illustrated-coffee-guide

Might I also suggest adding this link about the science of coffee: http://www.coffeekrave.com/coffee-science/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.27.225 (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

4-Caffeoyl-1,5-quinide
The presence of 4-Caffeoyl-1,5-quinide in coffee is IMO notable enough to be included somewhere in the article "even without reference to any effects on humans". Maybe a chemical constituents or other constituents section could be added - there is a lot more compounds that could be also added to the list. --122.111.254.165 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Etymology
"In English and other European languages, coffee derives from the Ottoman Turkish kahve, via the Italian caffè. The Turkish word in turn is derived from the Arabic: قهوة‎, qahwah."

Coffee is derived from Italian, which derives from Ottoman Turkish, which derives from Arabic? If this is true, it needs to be written more clearly. Perhaps something like:

"In English and other European languages, coffee descends from the Italian word: caffè. In turn, caffè derives from the Ottoman Turkish word for coffee: kahve, which is itself derived from the Arabic: قهوة‎, qahwah."

Kupraios (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Your alternative reads much better. Cheers, &Lambda; u α  (Operibus anteire) 22:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How bad are the diterpenes in coffee?
Hello, I noticed that twice in the article (at the top summary and under Health risks) it mentions that one of the main reasons coffee is bad is because of the diterpenes. I'd never heard of this before so I was interested to know how much the studies can be used. I'm not at all saying that the studies are wrong in anyway. I'm just interested to know if there's been any official recomendations and if I should be using paper coffee filters to soak the oils up. In short how bad are they? Could we perhaps add some kind of gauge to the article? (Along the lines of "X recomends the use of paper filters to avoid these" or "futher tests are underway".) Thank you. 80.7.27.189 (talk) 06:12, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

How is Cofeee served in different parts of the world ?
I think this information here at http://www.quora.com/Coffee/How-is-coffee-served-in-different-parts-of-the-world-and-why could make to some content here in this article - Just having this noted here for future self and other editors referece. - Karthik Sripal (talk) 02:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal
Health effects of coffee was a long article composed almost entirely of original research building on non-WP:MEDRS sourced. I have filleted it down to a more-or-less reliable core that leaves a few points intact. I propose any novel material in this remnant be merged here. Alexbrn talk 10:14, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm hearing no objection to this. If no objection is raised in the next week or so, I'll go ahead and perform the merge ... Alexbrn talk 08:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd support a merge but suggest that it be rewritten as prose and not bullets. WP:USEPROSE  Morphh   (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. I also think an effort should be made to organize the statements, if possible, into beneficial effects and detrimental effects.  Perhaps more information can be added later.  Regarding the second bulleted item, about the liver, I don't understand how that contributes anything.  It is vague and does not really say much.CorinneSD (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Closing as merge Alexbrn talk 08:52, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Caffeine content
I think the table at the end of the section on "Caffeine content" should be made clearer. It is not clear exactly what the numbers refer to, and what the units are. One can guess, but a reader should not have to guess. Also, I think somewhere there should be an explanatory phrase, something like, "Amount of caffeine removed" (or whatever it is).CorinneSD (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Joe
Joe describes Joe_(coffee) as "Cup of Joe, American slang for a cup of coffee" - does anyone know the etymology behind this term? Snopes.com has a few theories, but nothing certain. -- 2001:470:67:E9:226:BBFF:FE00:D553 (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it would take a major effort to out-research snopes! Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)