Talk:Kopi luwak

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Qingyiwang.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Racist Photo

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

66.133.237.171 (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It is what it is. Kortoso (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain how a picture of an Indonesian man doing his job racist... Its more racist to think that the work he does is offensive and you think you are above him. You really should spend some time reassessing your outlook on the world, if afterwords you still think its racist, U would love to see what other jobs are racist and which ethnicities should not be pictured doing them. Myselfuenjoi (talk) 06:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Weasel words

Some of this article's authors are doubtless the same online realtors who go to such length to avoid explicit description of the coffee's production process. The beans don't just magically appear outside the animal's body as if beamed with a Star Trek transporter. The coffee is, literally, poo. Delicious poo, I'm sure, but also proof that you can get so-called connoisseurs to buy anything just by charging enough for it. By the way, look for my new line of Pre-Digested Corn Kernel Snacks at your local gourmet grocer's in 2007! Happy New Year!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.43.106 (talk • contribs)

Do other animals add their own enzymes to coffee beans? has anyone tried this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.101.9 (talk • contribs) .

If I could get my hands on some of those berries... I would try it. I guess that would mean I'd have to take a dump in the back yard. Maybe I should put up a fence first... to keep the neighbor's dog out... so he wouldn't eat it... and I wouldn't go picking through the wrong ones. Maybe I should try gorging on cherries first... pits and all... just to see how it feels going down. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.173.85.221 (talk • contribs) .

Did anyone besides me laugh when they read the title of this section? --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:14, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Cruelty

I have read that (but do not have a handy source) kopi luwak is intensively "farmed", with civets being force-fed beans, much like geese are to make foie gras. Does anyone have a source for this? Seems like it would be a relevant addition. adamrice 23:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that as well, but the only "source" I have is a friend who like coffee. Doctorfluffy 20:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCG31fSAr4M&feature=related this video is not about cruelty, but you can see a kopi luwak farm here. I suppose the beasts are not happy to leave in these cages. I think, "foie gras feeding" is too sophisticated procedure. It's much easier to have more civets and feed them with coffee only. --D'Arahchjan (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sources here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/nov/19/civet-coffee-abuse-campaigners http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/12/07/kopi-luwak-curiosity-kills-civet-cats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffiend (talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

These campaigns are largely proliferated by people who have never met a civet farmer. And the industry doesn't compare to some of our other animal-product industries. I can't handle the mass hypocrisy I've seen in the critiques of the civet farming industry. Plus, most critiques use photos from other civet-farming practices (China for meat, Ethiopia for musk). They google "civet cages" and use the first picture they find. I'm not in the industry, but I find the inaccuracy mind-boggling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.42.23 (talk) 23:56, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Source for price, commercial links

Hmm, coffeebreakgourmet.com is definitely a verifiable source that someone is selling the stuff at that price (they are), but on the other hand we can't really link to it in good conscience, because they'll get more traffic from Wikipedia readers and it isn't fair to the other companies selling Kopi Luwak. It seems like we're endorsing them. What should we do? —Keenan Pepper 01:17, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've bought a 50g jar of Cafe Alamid (at Bo's Coffee house) here in Manila and it set me back 550P or just over USD10. How one could pay $50 for a cup is beyond me!

Found some kopi luwak for sale at Alun-Alun in the Grand Indonesia mall in Jakarta today. Rp 200,000 (~US$20) for Balinese, Rp 250.000 for Sumatran. Not sure about the gram count, but it was preground and supposed to be enough for one pot. Jpatokal (talk) 12:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned how much emphasis the article gives to "most expensive coffee", and this seems to be tied to advertising/marketing claims. Several citations do make that point, but without giving any detail or indicate browsing as a source. They don't make the "verifiable, authoritative sources" hurdle.

Within some sources there are multiple prices - eg price to gatherers, price at retail of roasted product. KL is not a homogeneous product (different origins, raw material, certifications etc), with different prices along the chain. My thinking is that the current claim on KL is similar to "da Vinci is the most expensive artist" -- a meaningless claim -- while it is legitimate to say that "art by da Vinci is expensive".

My view is that the article should be edited to reflect these issues, and to reduce the emphasis on "most expensive coffee". Since this is a fairly major shift in tone, I wanted to seek any feedback first though. Kaffiend (talk) 02:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Safe to Drink?

Is it actually safe to drink this stuff? It's basically feces. Do they clean o sterilize it somehow?--Richy 12:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know it is quite safe. The beans are undigested, although slightly changed by the process, so it isn't feces. I think you have some research to do to edit the article to answer your question better. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

it is feces. just not fully-digested. this is entering a real hazy space for defining exactly what "feces" can and can't be. And it is not the only food that humans consume that is the result of digestion (ie: honey).

I guess the coffee is then produced in regular way meaning it is toasted and ground, where toasting process will surely kill any germs. Drevokocur 26.6.2008

Partially digested/Undigested?

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

History

How the heck did anyone think about making coffee of those beans? Is it known? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.12.106.109 (talk) 10:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

probably someone who ran out of coffee István 06:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

how can someone access the Indonesian National Geographic Traveler article that is the main citation for the history section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.234.42.23 (talk) 23:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

"Ig Nobel" prize

This is trivia. It's information about the prize, not about the coffee. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, it is trivia, not notable and should be grouped in popular culture instead or be gone already.Gunkarta (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Artificial enzymes?

"A hypothesis to justify this coffee's reputation proposes that the beans are of superior quality before they are even ingested; though this is not to say that the digestive enzymes play no role."

Personally, I find the superior coffee "hypothesis" to be more believable than the digestive enzyme "hypothesis". The wild civets are apparently choosy about the berries they ingest. Observation of this behavior would also help explain why the coffee came into existence in the first place-- Some people must have observed that the civet passes only high quality, ripe beans (the civets' sense of smell might be important here?) Though the beans may be "lightly" roasted-- they are still washed and exposed to high temperatures. To me there is a suspicious slant towards accepting this simulated process as legitimate in this article. The company applying the artificial digestive process has a lot at stake. More citations would be helpful Cuvtixo (talk) 03:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

University of Guelph experiments--not very good?

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

Kopi Muncak

Where is the citation for Kopi Mucak, where it comes from a barking deer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roseynose (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? I ask, my good chum, because your question is unclear. And if it's unclear, how can it possibly be answered? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.27.41.134 (talk) 08:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact is : that part of the article has no reference. I googled "Kopi muncak" and found nothing obviously older than july 2007 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kopi_Luwak&diff=141819774&oldid=141817735 ). Nothing on Googlebooks. Let's assume good faith : maybe Kopi muncak actually exists... but it's not proven yet. Chaoborus (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

No cite for blind taste study

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

I agree with that. We want to see the results of the study with more details. Also - the tests should be calibrated, meaning the volunteers should be blindly tested first if they can tell the animal poo from the human food. Drevokocur 26.6.2008

Popular culture

Kopi Luwak is a source of fun in The Bucket List, a 2008 movie with Jack Nicholson and Morgan Freeman. Can anyone include this in an article? Drevokocur 26.6.2008

No. That is trivia about the movie, not about the coffee. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, anyone CAN include it (that's one of the many drawbacks of the forum called wikipedia). Whether anyone SHOULD is an entirely different question. And a matter of opinion. Some people think that how item/idea is mentioned in culture and media is "notable", while others do not. In this particular instance, I would suggest that if the reference in the movie had a noticeable effect on sales (which shouldn't be impossible to verify), then include it. Listing every little "cultural reference", though, is generally frowned upon. (unsigned since the software should do it automatically)

I think the mentions of Kopi Luwak in The Bucket List (2008) is far more notable than that of Ig nobel prize, and probably the film contributed to its current global popularity. I think the Ig Nobel section should be renamed as popular culture section, also mentioning that Bucket List thing.Gunkarta (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for adding an External Link to the Kopi Luwak page

I'm new to wikipedia and have never done this process before so I apologize if I'm doing this incorrectly. I wanted to add some content to the Kopi Luwak page but rather than adding a bunch of stuff to the main page I just thought providing a link to a specific page on my personal blog might be better suited. I was going to include it in 'External Links'.

For clarity, I don't sell green or roasted Kopi Luwak, I don't have any commercial interest in profiting from Kopi Luwak, I just wanted to add an end-user's perspective on the comparison between Kopi Luwak as freshly roasted (by me) coffee tasted as pourover and as espresso over a period of a week. I think the material discussing Kopi Luwak on my blog post will be helpful for some.

You guys decide and let me know:

http://shaundoreenevankeegan.blogspot.com/2009/05/kopi-luwak.html

Regards,

Shaun

I guess this is where I sign?

Staylortravelling (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Using blogs as external links is a no-no. Please see WP:ELNO for details. --dragfyre_ʞןɐʇc 18:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

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

smaller peptides vs shorter peptides

Is shorter more accurate? I'm no expert, but I play one on Wikipedia. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The classifications of these polymers have mostly to do with their lengths, so I've switched to shorter in the text. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for making the switch, and fine copy editing, by the way. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

annual production, more

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

Kopi luak history (according to my primary school history teacher)

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

List under Civet Coffee, not Kopi Luwak

This is the English Wiki. Why not use the English name, Civet Coffee, for the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.89.1 (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps because "Kopi Luwak" is how it's marketed & it's on the boxes/packages when you purchase it? I, personally, have never even heard of it referred to as "Civet Coffee" until this article.

I mean, we don't call Vermont "Green Mountain", even though that's what Vermont means... Kailey elise (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thailand also produces civet coffee (and calls it Kopi Luwak), but I could only find company source for it. If someone finds an independent source, feel free to post it here. TGCP (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Uchunari on Kopi Luwak page

Dear KarlM,

We just realized that you removed the Uchunari Part on the Kopi Luwak page .... You first wanted to remove our own page and you got what you want. But now, seriously??

Yes, our product is for sale and is being sold all over the world, and yes it's not known everywhere. BUT, our product is REAL, and obviously in the Kopi Luwak page, everyone can see that the paragraph about the Uchunari coffee is NOT any kind of an advertisement, any sales procedure. It is purely FACTUAL and an additional information about the civet coffee. What the hell is going on here, what do you want!? Please stop hassling us and accept the fact this is real, you have no right to hide real and factual information about anything. --95.246.144.140 (talk) 11:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

What is going on here is, at its heart, that Wikipedia is not for promotion. It is not the right of every small niche product to get a promotional mention (and I should note that in reverting my edit, you restored several other deletions of other people's promotional material that should not be included). You openly stated that it was your intention to use WP to advertise your product, and to the outside observer your goal mainly seems to be to get a mention as "the most expensive coffee in the world," based on the expensive box it comes in. Moreover, you have repeatedly demonstrated that you have little regard for facts, sources, or references - e.g., you still do not seem to understand the difference between a coati and a civet despite having it pointed out to you multiple times, and I'm going to bet that you (being, presumably, the retailer, since your IP is located in Italy) don't actually know which one is used. KarlM (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

No longer the most expensive coffee?

This story broke recently. Same process but with elephants.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/15/elephant-dung-coffee-black-ivory_n_1968096.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Themoother (talk • contribs) 17:59, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like just a stunt to get people to spend a lot of money, not anything that will every be produced regularly. Unlike civets, elephants don't eat coffee beans (or most other fruits) naturally, so their digestion is unsuited to processing the seeds. KarlM (talk) 08:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

"violently expelled"

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

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

---

Kopi Luwak → Animal Processed Coffee – To incorporate minor variations beyond Kopi Luwak including the same process when applied to other species besids civets - eg elephants and barking deer. To clarify that Kopi Luwak is a form of processing and not a species of coffee or coffee beverage, and thereby allow the article to better fit into Wikipedia categorisations. To provide coverage for and recognise the coffee professional term "Animal Processed Coffee" Kaffiend (talk) 03:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Disagree. There's frankly nothing to indicate that the other things are anything but one-off gimmicks playing off of kopi luwak. Even if you think this is overhyped it's at least an established product. And it is a product, it's doesn't need to be renamed because some people can't be bothered to read the first paragraph and understand that it's not a coffee (plant) variety. KarlM (talk) 06:20, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose they can be mentioned here, but the main topic is still Kopi Luwak. "Animal processed coffee" seems like an original title where there is already a widely accepted title in use — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts how to prevent a proliferation of pages like Black Ivory coffee without taking this step? Kaffiend (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose shows bias. This is the popular form. You can write a separate article on your topic, with a pointer to this one if you want. -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Photos

The move you made screwed up the formatting with a picture on the left at the top of the article. The introduction is also the place for a general overview of the topic. You seem to be promoting an agenda on the animal cruelty aspect which is already well covered in the article, including the intro, without an out-of-place picture at the very top. KarlM (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging on the Talk page, Karl. I can see that you have provided valuable edits in the past, including addressing some of the vandalism and comercial interests that disrupt this page.

I'd ask that you refrain from deleting content until we have reached some concensus, possibly with the aid of a third party. We need to focus on getting the article content right, not on "ad hominem" name calling, and I think your current language and assertions are too aggressive. You may find it useful to refer to this page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

Please identify the formatting problem specifically and how specifically it is "screwed up". I reviewed the page with multiple browsers on multiple platforms and did not see any problem. If there is a problem with the placement, surely it can be rectified without removing content.

The article as it stands is fairly neutral (if poorly written in parts). The two images that were in the start are appropriate. Kopi luwak relates to a process where beans are eat by a civet, and then the feces are collected. It makes sense for the photos to match this basic story, with a civet in a photo, and the collected feces in another. After spending considerable time searching for free-licensed content, I found a good quality shot of a civet in a kopi luwak farm that is engaging and assists in the article's introduction to the topic. Thus far, no case has been made for deleting that contribution.

I hope we can reach a consensus on this talk page, otherwise I suggest we bring in a third editor to give an opinion.

Kaffiend (talk) 09:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Reverting in the absence of further discussion. Assistance in identifying and correcting any problems with photo formatting is always be appreciated. Kaffiend (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I've again reverted this pretty flagrant attempt to use the article as a soapbox which also ignored our very clear guidelines on lead image placement (in shirt: top right). An article about coffee beans should not lead with a photograph of an animal in a cage unless there is reason to believe that the subject is the animal and not the coffee. We already have two photos of civets located in the proper places in the article body. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Article is about a process involving civets and collection. Please engage and focus on the quality of the article and not on ad hominem arguments. Previous edits reflect a review of the guidelines - please cite if you feel there is inconsistency.

Kaffiend (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I already explained the role civets have here, along with referring to MOS:IMAGE's guidelines on placement of images in lead sections. That you're edit warring over this only confirms that your insistence on an image of an animal behind bars in the lead of the article is to push an agenda. I expect this to be reverted in due course, probably by the next editor who comes across it. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that reads pretty aggressively. Do you really think it improves the article to second-guess other editor's motivations and make that the central piece of your edit? When you say you explained, might you also give some weight to the insights of other editors, such as the ones which were already on the talk page? For example your key point "an article about coffee beans" is not correct because the article is largely about a process that is applied to coffee beans, not the beans themselves, and that process centers around civets. Does one revert with a request to engage on the talk page really constitute an 'edit war'? Please try to be well mannered, engage politely and assume good faith. Kaffiend (talk) 01:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree with KarlM and Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) per MOS:IMAGE and focus of the article. The main focus is coffee beans that get through civet digestive track, it is that coffee that being consumed by civets and finally.., humans. It is not solely about caged civet or maltreatment of the animal. If you read carefully about its history, the original (initial) civet coffee are collected from wild civet droppings in coffee plantation where locals collecting civet excrement containing coffee beans, the civets are roaming free. I had once accompanied farmers collecting civet droppings in Tambora coffee plantation Sumbawa, no civets kept in cages there, all wild and roaming free, that's why civet coffee beans are originally rare (prior to industrialization that kept civet in cages and feed them coffee beans). The civet coffee popularity (and high price) unfortunately has led to alleged animal cruelty on civets, this inhumane issues and caged civet image already well-covered in subsection, I hope you satisfied with this and can understand the points presented by other two editors and me. Moreover three editors against one, can we have a vote here?Gunkarta (talk) 06:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Gunkarta - that's a lot more civil and reasoned than the above. Are you joking about the 'vote' idea? My reading of wikipedia pratices is that popularity is not a good measure of suitability, and reasoned discussion is more the go. It is also worth saying that you're not on the same page. Karl seemed to back down on his 'screwed up' comment after the talk page discussion. Thumperward's comments seem to be an incoherent rant.

I'm truly surprised how far comments and associated edits by experienced editors deviate from basic wikipedia principles on discussion (eg assume good faith) even as they espouse guidelines and conventions as if they are policies. The specifics and merits of the article matter, and guidelines give way to quality and clarity of the article. Is there somewhere/someone I can turn to when presented with such behaviour? I can understand why so many good-faith editors give up on wikipedia when exposed to this kind of conduct.

In terms of progressing the article, I still feel the sense of a process is absent - earlier versions of the article had confusion about kopi luwak as being a varietal, or brand, rather than the outcome of a specific form of processing. I can't see any way to describe process in a single photo - before and after makes a lot more sense. And I believe the photos matter in giving a quick insight into the topic. Is the objection to the specific photo? Would a photo of a wild civet eating from coffee bush be seen as more suitable?

Kaffiend (talk) 09:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

In this case I'm agree with you, an image of a civet feeding on coffee berries are quite sufficient to explains the process on making luwak coffee. However it could not become the main picture as the current main picture is good enough. One more thing, the article should not be distorted too much to inhumane/animal cruelty issue, since the initial kopi luwak has nothing to do with captive civets and force feeding, it was collected from wild civets droppings. The animal welfare and the image of captive civets are already addressed in separate subsection. I just add one image of Luwak feeding on coffee berries on top of its excrement on Production section. Btw, I think the lead is sufficiently covers wide aspects on Kopi Luwak, including animal wellfare issue.Gunkarta (talk) 14:53, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice photo, Gunkarta! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaffiend (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't backing down, I just got sick of arguing over this stupid article that everyone seems to want to use for their own personal agenda, whether it's animal rights activism, personal taste in coffee, or advertising. This mess of an article is a minor snapshot of what drive people away from editing Wikipedia. KarlM (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, KarlM. We've come a very long way with this article in recent months - with quality cited sources for controversial topics, and much better text and images. Nevertheless, I've found it to be frustrating editing this page too, and that's partly been because of agendas (more commercial than personal), but much more because of the "navy-seal" behavior of experienced editors who swoop in and eradicate contributions and ban editors and decline to engage in discussions. Discussions involve two-way communication, not just lectures.

For example, Lmartval seemed to be making a genuine contribution. His contribution didn't have the balance and awareness of guidelines that might be expected from an experienced editor, but that's to be expected for a new editor. No one took the time to edit his contribution to make it more balanced while he was active. Maybe "delete and ban" is just easier and more fulfilling for some editors. Maybe Lmartval would have made better contributions in the future, but he wasn't given much of a chance to understand how things work. It was really sad to see what occured and I wish I knew of a process to put a caution notice on the editors/administrators involved for their over-zealousness. Killing off contributor involvement is bad for the future of the encyclopedia, even if it helps a particular version of an article. Kaffiend (talk) 00:07, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, Lmartval's edits are exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. They might have the knowledge to contribute, but they came on here for the purpose of promoting their stuff, ignored multiple warnings and reverts, before being blocked, and in their application to be reinstated showed no interest in learning or abiding by the guidelines (or rather had total contempt for them). An indefinite block straight away seems overzealous, but in hindsight looks like a correct read of their intentions. KarlM (talk) 22:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is this weasel coffee?

I have found several sites which indicate the beans are regurgitated, and when these beans are used, it is called weasel coffee For example, [1]. Do we need a more detailed explanation in the article, or are these people mistaken?__DrChrissy (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

USD 100 to 600 per pound

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

New category

There should probably be a category, something like Category:Foods and drinks produced with excrement for this article and panda tea and insect tea and whatever else. Then move Category:Feces and Category:Animal waste products off of the articles and onto that shared category, and also subcategorize it into the food and beverages category-trees. 50.78.103.6 (talk) 00:09, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Coprophagia perhaps? The Language Learner (talk) 18:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Ambiguous and too broad a topic, really. Coprophagia can mean a human practice (associated with certain religious and other cultural behaviors, with a sexual fetish, or with mental illness), or it can refer to an instinctive feeding behavior of animals with a coprophagous "lifestyle". It doesn't really have anything, in either case, to do with commercial production of human foodstuffs from waste material, especially when the end products are not recognizably waste. I created the category as Category:Foods and drinks produced with excrement, as being about the products. There's already Category:Coprophagous organisms, and Pica (disorder), and Coprophilia with their parent categories, so the behaviors (of all sorts) were already properly categorizable. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 19:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Biotech Kapi vs Imitation

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

Asian palm civets photo incorrect.

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