Talk:Coffee/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Grammar Issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Sorry but I can't edit this page. The following excerpt has a misplaced apostrophe:

"He was a trainer and supplier to the founders of Starbuck's.[175]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.127.232.115 (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Short black?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is a "short black" the same as an "espresso"? Should we distinguish or explain? Whiteghost.ink (talk) 03:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

another health benefit?

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nothing I see in this entry about coffee's helping prevent liver cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:4D52:153E:73FD:E7D7 (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Instant coffee invention

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi,

Should you mention the patented 1890 invention by David Strang in NZ, as cited in the main instant coffee article? Kind regards, John 49.224.199.211 (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Latest comment: 8 years ago27 comments7 people in discussion

On Abu rais's edits. Princeton university is not netural? After doing some research it looks disputed maybe we should add both countries. Zekenyan (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. My concern was that one of the reasons the article was edit protected was because of competing counter-claims about coffee's origin. WQUlrich (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: As regards neutrality, I was referring to "OMICS Technologies". WQUlrich (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok for the cultivation part. How should we go about including both viewpoints?. Zekenyan (talk) 23:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the evidence points towards Yemen as the single source. Historical evidence points in Yemen's direction. Folk stories point at Ethiopia. We can only include facts here. No reason to change anything in my opinion.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Those sources do not mention any folk stories. example A short history on egypt. Perhaps a caveat that includes both viewpoints. Zekenyan (talk) 00:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

But there is no historical evidence whatsoever for Ethiopia. Including both viewpoints wouldn't be the right thing to do here. We always get a new editor here every once in a while who wants to include Ethiopia. Please refer to previous discussions on this matter. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

We should go by what the sources say. If there are conflicting statements then including both sides would be neutral. This book proves the historical origin is not clear Coffee: A Dark History Zekenyan (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not just put "Red Sea region" for the origin, thereby avoiding any dispute? It seems odd to connect a country which didn't exist for numerous centuries after the discovery of coffee as its place of origin, since sit implies a connection between drink and country that doesn't exist. The geographic descriptor seems better in every way. Rwenonah (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

While Yemen, as the modern country, didn't exist back then, that area was still known as Yemen when they first made coffee 500-600 yrs ago. An alternative would be "Southern Arabia," but that'd be too ambiguous if you ask me.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 11:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The origin seems obscure I suggest placing unknown in the infobox. As per Rwenonah to avoid future disputes. A few google searches gives me mystery behind coffee origin. Several sources point out to probability so its unclear [1] [2] Zekenyan (talk) 15:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan, biologists have even said coffee evolved In a cooler higher altitude than Yemen, but consensus on Wikipedia is maintained by blocking dissent, which creates a bottleneck for Wikipedia whenever a great number of incoming editors and sources diverge from the established Wikipedia viewpoint. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 16:23, 14 May 2015

Very interesting. Zekenyan (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Not really, just the usual conspiracy baloney from an indefinitely blocked editor. Paul B (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

"Indefinitely blocked" is exactly what you will get if you as a mere peasant make too much unruly noise about all them there funny books saying coffee originated in Ethiopia, when Wikipedia authorities have already decided such a thing is clearly impossible. So actually Paul is confirming what I'm saying 100 percent. Indefinitely blocked is exactly what you will get. 172.56.29.210 (talk) 11:37, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

No one's denying that the plant originated there, but it was first drunk in Yemen, according to the vast preponderance of sources. Rwenonah (talk) 12:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

You got blocked for using sockpuppet accounts, like the hypocrite you are. And you are not remotely interested in fairness or accuracy and never have been. You ruthlessly promote fringe theories you like and try to suppress or denigrate any theories, fringe or not, you don't like. Paul B (talk) 12:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Per this [3] I propose that the infobox origin section to be changed to "Red Sea Region" Zekenyan (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

That source says "first cultivated". It never denies that coffee was first drunk in Yemen. Therefore, there's no need to change the info box. You'd need a source saying it was first drunk in Ethiopia to justify that.Rwenonah (talk)

I added numerous sources that clearly mentions that coffee first was originated in Ethiopia. Some sources even states that it was drunken in Ethopia first. It was exported from Ethiopia to Yemen. The plant is also not native to Yemen. How can you come to conclusion that it was orginated in Yemen? Based on?Richard0048 (talk) 10:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is also a soure that mentions that it was drunken in Ethiopia first. Then it was exported to Yemen, they used the Ethopian recipe to make coffee in Yemen. http://www.turkishcoffeeworld.com/History-of-Coffee-s/60.htm Richard0048 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There's countless sources stating it originated in Yemen. I dont think its a good idea to clog up the infobox. Zekenyan (talk) 10:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here are more sources stating that it did orginated in Ethiopia and that the Yemen people used the recipe that came from Ethopia. http://www.mehmetefendi.com/mehmetefendi/eng/pages/kty1.html, http://www.worldofchemicals.com/453/chemistry-articles/how-coffee-keeps-us-awake.html, Please provide me with the countless sources that Yemenis did drink before the Ethopians and that it did spread to Ethopia and not vice versa. It could not be orginated in two places at the same time.Richard0048 (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Per your request [4] [5] .Yes your right it could not originate in two places but Yemen is no doubt credited for introducing Coffee to the world by the 15th century. If indeed Coffee orginated in Ethiopia its obscure unlike Yemen so this is the reasoning behind including both countries for neutrality purposes. Zekenyan (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources, however they do not fully state what you are writing. I agree that Yemen played a part of introducing it to the world. But with the recipe they got from Ethiopia. That makes Ethiopia the orignator of coffee, the coffea bean is native to Ethiopia and the recipe came from Ethiopia and it was drunken first in Ethiopia. That is why I am objecting to write that Yemen is the orginator. If you do not agree on this one we can ask for third and fourth opinion. Richard0048 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors have to say. Zekenyan (talk) 10:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Since nobody has given an opinion in this matter. I will take other actions and ask for a third opinion in the third opinion board. Richard0048 (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I still maintain there is no source that states that there is any historical evidence it came from Ethiopia. The evidence emerges from Yemen. I know the nice thing is to placate editors pushing for Ethiopia by including it here as a compromise, but we don't compromise with flat-earthers or creationists just to be fair, now do we?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was to include both countries. If you revert again ill have to take this to an admin. Read the source that was added in before making comments like that. Looking at the history. The infobox initially only said Ethiopia until you changed it. Have a look at these sources [6][7] We can find many sources for both countries now both of you stop the tug of war and discuss your edits. One thing to note is that in the 15th century, Most of Ethiopia was occupied by the Adal Sultanate, which explains why Ethiopia may have been open with the Arab World, and Coffee all of a sudden pops up in the 15th century. The source explains that there was trade between the two countries at that period. After the collapse of the sultanate. Ethiopia became isolated and most europeans wouldnt travel there. Lets also make things clear that "first documented" is not the same as origin. Zekenyan (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Coffee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Latest comment: 8 years ago25 comments4 people in discussion

Every once in a while, we get someone here trying to push the mythological origin of Coffee (generally somewhere to Arab colonies in Ethiopia). This issue was settled after a very long and multi-editor debate on this discussion page (see here). At that time, the consensus for origin was: "Yemen (earliest credible evidence of coffee drinking), Ethiopia (possible consumption of dry beans)." Changing it now requires more than a few edits on the page. Please discuss here before going on an edit war. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No consensus was to include both countries. I have been upholding consensus since this edit [8] I have not seen you active. I tried to compromise with you, by removing the origin section completely because "first sighting of a man drinking coffee" is not equivalent to origin. It makes no sense to say it orginated in Yemen, because someone happened to see coffee being drunk. You seem to be censoring material as you have removed my sourced content, therefore i would like an explanation on why you reverted my edits of the history section. Why do you keep repeating the line "earliest credible evidence" in the introduction and body? All sources point to africa its just that the first time coffee entered yemen was through the sufi orders. You did not even reply to my post from november but you are available to revert. If its simple wp:idontlikeit that wont fly. Zekenyan (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

There are two points here, and I hope you'd respond to each separately:

Please look at the link above (see here). I will draw your attention here specifically. Scroll down and see the consensus we actually came up with. It took a lot of back and forth, but it was the compromise we agreed upon. I am not happy with it because there is no historical evidence for Africa at all, but I grudgingly went along. Now, find me where, exactly, are you drawing your "consensus" version from? Who agreed to it and when? What was the phrasing exactly?
There is no historical evidence for it being made in Africa. At all. Yes, some will speculate about its origin there, but there really is nothing to support that beyond a few Ethiopia myths. Please don't copy-paste "author X says it was likely in Africa," because that doesn't really prove much. We can't go with speculation here. This is why I am not pushing for "Coffee was invented in Yemen," but rather a more neutral and descriptive position.

What is my personal opinion? That's irrelevant. I personally think the paucity of inventions on the African continent as well as the historical evidence is much, much in favor of Yemen. There is as much room for Ethiopia here as flat earth in the earth article. That said, that's OR, and it has no place here. I try to be as objective here and include the facts. Basically, what I'm saying is that my compromise position is really that: a compromise. If I wanted to bulldoze my opinion through, I would be a lot more hardline. I'm trying to be as neutral and facts-based as possible.

Cheers,

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

See previous discussion above about consensus to include both countries. Even the other user was upholding consensus [9] Changing consensus without my agreement just because I added information in the history section is not acceptable. All your doing is censoring reliably sourced material that points to Ethiopia. Dont falsely accuse me of OR and copy paste, I clearly sourced my addition. You are coming up with your own conclusions that the source did not explicitly say sort of like wp:snyth! heard of it? For example deleting testimonies by Ibn Hajar al-Haytami is another red flag. Yes you are pushing for Coffee being invented in Yemen under the pretexts of "earliest historical evidence". Adding "earliest credible source of coffee drinking" in the infobox is a serious violation. It only misleads the reader to think Coffee was invented in Yemen. There are countless testomonies of Arab historians mentioning the origin of Coffee to be in Ethiopia before it arrived in Yemen. Sources [10][11][12] Even the weinberg source admits that the kaldi story is embellishing the credible tradition that the sufi encounter with coffee had been in ethiopia. [13] Weinberg also mentions most reliable history of coffee connected to ethiopia which you deleted [14] Therefore the arab historians were not simply guessing that a beverage was used in Ethiopia. The earliest MENTION of Coffee in Yemen is by the Sufis" that is what it should say not imply that it originated in yemen because it was first seen drunk in Yemen. So can you please stop deleting my sourced content? Zekenyan (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above led to no consensus that I can see, so the last consensus was the one I linked to. I suggest WP:CON for definitions of consensus.

I appreciate you upholding the inclusion of two countries however. I'm curious as to why you object to qualifying the inclusion of each.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 13:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I would agree to inserting Yemen in the box by itself but allow me to add historical references in the history sections and several different views about the origin of Coffee. The infobox should just say Yemen not add descriptions like "first consumption". If readers want to know why and how it originated in Yemen in the 15th century they can read the whole article.I would also appreciate other editors opinion. If however an editor feels that Ethiopia should be included then the discussion can be re opened. Do you agree to this? Zekenyan (talk) 21:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I apologize. I completely misunderstood what you are trying to do. So you're proposing to have Yemen by itself in the box, and then have a more expanded history section on the origin?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Zekenyan (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, good sir. What do you suggest specifically? Maybe we can get some input from other editors and we can declare a new consensus should one be found.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Stop reverting that was not consensus. The edit I made is clear and you removed it so tell me whats wrong with it or ill restore the history section. Zekenyan (talk) 00:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You are not actually reverting to any consensus version. Please tell me which consensus you are reverting to. Please copy/paste exactly what you think it is and where and who agreed to it. I am reverting to the consensus version I linked to above. You have been reverted by another editor previously for the same disruptive editing.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:09, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Everyone has been upholding consensus. Several uses have reverted back to that version, for example [15] Zekenyan (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Erm...that's not consensus. Consensus is what people reach after discussing here. See my link above. Try again.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that you dont want the infobox to say Yemen by itself. We will keep both countries and i will add more sourced content. If you continue censorship then ill have to take it to an appropriate noticeboard. You had your chance to discuss back in November when I discussed the issue with another editor (richard), you didnt reply to my statement, just look at the discussion above I was the last to comment. Silence means consensus. Zekenyan (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Did you even read the discussion above? It had more than you and Richard and there was no consensus reached. Each person had their own version and no one agreed to anything (including, among others, Rwenonah and paul B). I already listed this at 3O, but please, please, please take this to a noticeboard. Please.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:34, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Consensus was reached when you did not challenge the others above when they were reverting to keep both countries in the infobox. You failed to respond to me [16] but decided to re open the discussion when I started making edits to the history section [17] Please see WP:SILENCE Zekenyan (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Linking to your own edit doesn't really show consensus...

Let's take this to noticeboard. I'm getting frustrated to be honest.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The source explicitly says beverage origin ethiopia and yemen 15th century. The source you added in says "first consumption of coffee" therefore it wouldnt even matter if there was no consensus even though there is one. Consensus can not override a source that explicitly says it originated in a specific country. Do you understand? Zekenyan (talk) 01:55, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. Is the question limited to the infobox? If so, and reliable sources say Yemen, the infobox should say Yemen, and leave the details in the article body. But is that what reliable sources say? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The reliable sources doesnt just say Yemen. It says Ethiopia and Yemen, although I do agree with your proposal, infact I said the same thing in the discussion above . This isnt just about the infobox. I added a historical analysis and it was removed. [18] The user said my addition to the historical section is OR so I would like your opinion on the matter. Zekenyan (talk) 03:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for volunteering a third opinion. The issue at hand is the infobox, for which a series of reverts occurred recently.

So we are debating what should the infobox list while a new consensus is reached. I support the phrasing "Country of origin: Yemen (earliest credible evidence of coffee drinking), Ethiopia (possible consumption of dry beans," while Zekenyan supports "Country of origin: Ethiopia and Yemen."

The question is twofold really: what was the most recent consensus and what do the sources say. The old consensus was reached here. To spare you time reading a very long thread, it was agreed, after a discussion of both sides and supporting evidence for each, that both countries should be listed, but with qualification.

For the second part of the question: the issue is unfortunately not black and white. The origin of coffee is obscure, although the first historical evidence we have is from Yemen. There is really nothing that supports Ethiopia except a few Ethiopian myths and speculation from some experts (whom Zekenyan will selectively reference, including the source above). This is why I suggested the old format which everyone agreed in our most recent linked consensus to demonstrate the most neutral and evidence-supported phrasing for country of origin:

"Country of origin: Yemen (earliest credible evidence of coffee drinking), Ethiopia (possible consumption of dry beans"

Zekenyan was reverted as recently as Jan 11 by other editors for trying to remove that qualification.

Thank you,

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You DONT want Yemen in the box by itself like ME and THIRD OPINION suggested? Your clogging the infobox with unnecessary information as well as repeating the statement "earliest credible evidence" in multiple parts of this article, the intro and history. My issue is that your omitting credible tradition that Sufis encountered Coffee in Ethiopia. Historical connections like Abd al-qadir al Jaziri, after speaking of the introduction of coffee to the Yemen, cautions the reader "We say that this account pertains to the Yemen alone not anywhere else because the appearance of coffee was in the land Ibn Sa'ad al-Din and the country of the Abyssinians and of the Jabart, and other places of the land of the Ajam, but the time of its first use is unknown, nor do we know the reason"-Coffee and coffeehouses-p.13 [19] Omitting historical facts like this from the article is POV. Zekenyan (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

We can see eye-to-eye on the infobox and remove Ethiopia then.

We can debate what the intro and the historical section say. There is definitely room for inclusion of all reliable sources.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

And remove everything between the brackets as well, so just Yemen stays.

We can discuss all else here until we compromise. I have no issue with that. I apologize if my edit looked like reverting everything.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've edited the article per the consensus above, and I've removed the full protection as the dispute has been resolved. Thanks all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

Latest comment: 8 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

Coffee was first cultivated in Abyssinia.^[1]^[2] The earliest credible evidence of coffee-drinking appears in the middle of the 15th century in the Sufi shrines of Yemen.[4] In the Horn of Africa and Yemen, coffee was used in local religious ceremonies. Zekenyan (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

References

^ "Coffee Cultivation and Exchange". University of Santa Carla. University of Santa Carla. Retrieved 25 January 2016.
^ Ulkers, William. All about Coffee. New York. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

@Aua I believe this was in the article but was removed for whatever reason so I am proposing that it be reintroduced. Zekenyan (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing it up here and giving us a chance to look at it in lieu of just inserting it.

I appreciate the sources as well. Because of this respectful approach this, I need slightly more time to reply addressing the sources you have brought it up.

I will just state a couple of concerns:

First source: it doesn't have an author and statements re: history are not sourced. Moreover, it doesn't explicitly state coffee was cultivated in Abyssinia - it states bushels were traded, but that's not exactly cultivation. Don't you agree?
Second source: it appears to be better identified. The source, La Roque, while not ideal, is pretty sufficient for our purposes.

I have not looked too much into cultivation, but a variant of that statement can be included at some point. We just need to agree on the phrasing. Give me a couple of days to get back to you on this.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are my concerns: The next few lines makes reference of early religious ceremonies pertaining to early use of coffee both in the yemen and horn of africa. This is why for neutrality purposes, the most common academic connection to coffee in ethiopia is the farmer argument so it should be mentioned. The first source discusses harvesting and the second discusses cultivation so either one can be used. Here is another source on cultivation [20] I think academics have agreed that farming originates in ethiopia most likely because of the fact that the plant is indigenous [21] In the 2005 book Coffee: A Dark History the author believes that Coffee use was first discovered by Ethiopian farmers. Zekenyan (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with your concerns: I always found that whole religious ceremonies chunk a bit misplaced. It really doesn't fit into the flow. I would suggest having that removed and maybe having that section in the intro read something like:

"Coffee's exact origin is obscure, but the plant is native to the highlands of Ethiopia and Yemen. Coffee was first cultivated in that region and spread to other parts of the world through European and Arab travellers. The earliest credible evidence of either coffee drinking or knowledge of the coffee tree appears in the middle of the 15th century, in the Sufi Muslim monasteries around Mocha in Yemen."

Or the like. To be fair, no one will ever know where it is cultivated first. It could be the Arab colonies in Abyssinia like your source says or it could be in Yemen. Saying "that region" seems to be the most factual thing since we are at least sure it's somewhere there, although no one will ever know which country.

What do you say?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 01:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

From my findings the general fact is its indigenous to Ethiopia, if we are going to mention nativity of the plant [22][23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] Therefore I can agree to this "Coffee's exact origin is obscure, but the plant is native to the highlands of Ethiopia. The earliest credible evidence of either coffee drinking or knowledge of the coffee tree appears in the middle of the 15th century, in the Sufi Muslim monasteries around Mocha in Yemen." This also goes in line with britannica's analysis that the plant orginated in africa. [29] I believe one of the sources mentions how coffee was first cultivated commercially in Yemen, although since its source is ulkers it may be problematic. Ulkers claims Coffee was first cultivated in Abyssinia but commercially in Arabia. Zekenyan (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why has the origin of the coffee bean and drink suddenly changed? As far as I am aware, nothing new has been found out about Coffee so I don't understand why the origin section has all of a sudden changed. What next, is the oldest human fossil going to be allocated in Saudi Arabia, not Ethiopia? For they believe that Coffee originated from their country, and there are just as many sources saying it did in comparison to sources saying it originates in Yemen. Both countries should definitely be included in the fact-box. Resourcer1 (talk) Resourcer1 (talk) 16:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There are no credible sources saying that coffee was first consumed in Ethiopia; all sources assign the origin to Sufi monasteries in Yemen. There's an important distinction between the plant's origin and the drink's origin; this article is about the latter. Rwenonah (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe the origin of the coffee bean should still also be mentioned in the fact-box, however.Resourcer1 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Why? We don't mention the origin of grapes in wine or the origin of sugar cane in rum, to name a few of numerous examples. Just because sugar cane originates in New Guinea doesn't mean New Guinea can also claim to be the origin of rum, just as the fact potatoes originated in Peru doesn't mean that country can claim to be the origin of schnapps. There's no logical reason to do as you suggest; the two subjects are separate.Rwenonah (talk) 21:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's rather different. If Ethiopian's were first to notice the energising effect of the coffee plant, the reason why it was turned into a drink. Wine and rum follow a different production process, not as simple as serving grape juice and sugar cane juice, unlike coffee.Resourcer1 (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To begin with, there is no evidence Ethiopians even knew the plant had energizing effects, so that annuls the first sentence. Moreover, this article happens to be about the drink - not the plant. If we are going to break it down by component, then maybe we should include ocean as its origin, too, you know. Water is the major component in coffee.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

But coffee was taken to Yemen from Ethiopia for a reason, and it is perfectly valid to assume this was because of the plants energising effect. The story of Kaldi also did not appear in writing until the 1670's. From research, this is an Oromo name and the language itself at the time this legend was said to be happening in was only a spoken language, not a written one. You did discuss in the previous parts of this page where Ethiopia should be allocated on the article, and I do honestly think it should be in the fact-box. Thank you.Resourcer1 (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

"and it is perfectly valid to assume this was because of the plant's energizing effect." No, according to wikipedia guidelines it is not. Rwenonah (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

So is there consensus to include my proposal bit in the article? as far as Resourcer --keywords "15th century Introduction to the world" That is why I believe Yemen should be in the box by itself. I understand that Coffee's historical connection to Ethiopia has been ignored in this article in favour of "myths". I hope to fix these issues by referencing actual historical accounts. I think we can all agree at least that Coffee became popular through Yemen. Zekenyan (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I am proposing to add this into the historical transmission section. I would like editors opinion on the matter.

Earliest mention of coffee in Yemen was by Ahmed al-Ghaffar in the 15th century. It was used by sufi circles to stay awake for their religious rituals. [30] Muhammad b. Said other wise known as Dhabhani is credited for bringing the beverage to Aden from the African coast. [31] Other early accounts ascribe Ali b. Omar of the Shadhili sufi order for the introduction of coffee to Arabia. [32] According to al Shardi, Ali b.Omar may have encountered coffee when he lived with the Adal Sultan Sadadin’s companions in 1401. Famous 16th century Islamic scholar Ibn Hajar al-Haytami notes in his writings of a beverage called qahwa developed from a tree in the Zeila region. [33] Zekenyan (talk) 11:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the effort to write this.

Just give us some time to go through the sources and I think we can reach an acceptable format.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My concerns with this paragraph:

Fragmented: jumps from one account to another abruptly,
Needs improvement on formatting: both grammar and spelling,
Not quite supported by the sources. Take this for instance. While the sentence it supports is stated as a fact, the source not only diverges from it, it casts doubt on its reliability. The rest of the book after that quote paragraph goes on to doubt how accurate that account is.

Writing the whole history with all the accounts we have without being selective is going to be tough, especially because whatever we do, we will just be spouting off someone else's speculation on where it came from, don't you agree?

I'd be curious what other editors think.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 03:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ahmed al-Ghaffars account is the source of "earliest credible evidence of coffee drinking" attributed to sufis in Yemen. That is why it is regarded as the most reliable source by weinberg.[34] Omar's account is the less reliable account. We dont have alot of accounts there's only 3 at most therefore I dont see a "selective issue" If you read the whole section on Coffee in the Brill source [35] The accounts give credit to introduction of Coffee from Africa, this is the basis of the fictional kaldi story. Weinberg makes note of this here [36]. We cant simply accept Ghaffar's account without telling the whole story. @Aua Your recent edit makes the whole historical transmission section redundant therefore my proposal on including accounts should be replaced with it. Nobody wants to read the same thing twice. Zekenyan (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

@Zekenyan, I agree with you completely that we should include those accounts. I apologize for the delay in replying; real life has been keeping me busy.

Let's work on the best formulation going forward to include.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:14, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem. The roasted and brewed line is repeated twice perhaps a different wording? @User:Resourcer1 simply reverting edits will not help if you wont discuss them. What exactly is your argument? The plant is not the same as the beverage. Zekenyan (talk) 13:27, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel particularly strongly about the repetition (it happens in other articles), but if you'd like, I can find different wording.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The plant and drink is native to Ethiopia. Once agian the plant is native to Ethiopia, not Yemen! Just becuase Yemenis brought it to Yemen from Ethopia and started exporting it and trading with it does not mean they are the originators. Coffee orginated in Ethiopia, both bean and drink many of the sources point to that. The Ethiopians did know the effects of drinking coffee, long before the Yemenis did. Why eaven mention Yemen as orginators??? , they should be mentioned as the ones who exported it?? Are you trying to rewrite history? Selium09 (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Selium09: Did you read the source? It doesn't say it originated in Yemen it says it was DEVELOPED. I know the infobox is a bit contradictory though. Zekenyan (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Coffee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:44, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Berry vs. Drupe

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, changes were accepted to the Coffea page to reflect the fact that while Coffee is arguably an epigynous berry, the proper taxonomic classification is drupe. Please see pg. 466 of "An annotated taxonomic conspectus of the genus Coffea (Rubiaceae)" referring to coffee as a "indehiscent drupe." This page should reflect the same. While the current term "berries" does have a link to epigynous berries, neglecting to use the proper taxonomy only adds confusion to the already-muddled distinctions between botanical berries, epigynous berries, and drupes. Furthermore, coffee fruits are referred to as "cherries" in the industry, so even if the intention is common or colloquial usage, it should still be changed (see the Coffea page referring to coffee fruit as "cherries"). For maximum educational value, an editor should change all references to berries to drupes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.93.82.35 (talk) 21:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Subdivision

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that this page is a little bit long, so can we split this page up into separate pages, with the respective topic? Kai2004 (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2016

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to Coffee has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Saint-Domingue (now Haiti), saw coffee cultivated from 1734, and SHOULD BE REPLACED BY Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) saw coffee cultivated from 1734, and OR BETTER YET Coffee was cultivated in Saint-Domingue (now Haiti) from 1734, and

75.150.107.29 (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Done Makes sense. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

[1] "Coffee Cultivation and Exchange". University of Santa Carla. University of Santa Carla. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[2] Ulkers, William. All about Coffee. New York. Retrieved 25 January 2016.

[1]

[2]