Talk:Coffee/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Reise in die Morgenländer - Rauwolf

A passage from Reise in die Morgenländer (1582) by Leonhard Rauwolf is quoted, possibly in translation (the book also appeared in English and Dutch versions). This section of text appears online in several places (not WP:RS, but may be sufficient for someone to verify the translation). Here's the reported German text from one such site for comparison:

Unter anderen habens ein gut getränck, welliches sie hoch halten, Chaube von jenen genennet: das ist gar nahe wie Dinten so schwarz und in gebresten sonderlich des magens gar dienstlich. Dieses pflegens am Morgen frü, auch an offnen orten .. . zu trinken, aus irdenen und Porcellanischen tiefen Schälein, so warm, alß seis könden erleiden... Zu dem wasser nemen sie Frücht bunu, die außer Größe und farb schier wie die Lorbeer anzusehen..... Dieses trank ist bey ihnen sehr gemain...

— Kaffeegeschichte, Legenden, Herkunft des Kaffeebaums

Indian Filter Coffee

One of the popular variety of coffee (Filter or Degree Coffee) was totally missed in this. Please add that to this wiki.

Other Article : http://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/Food/kumbakonam-degree-coffee/article4034194.ece — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.213.119.208 (talk) 08:39, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This is just frustrating...

...at this stage. Ethiopian nationalists plugging in Ethiopia into this article for no good reason.

Some things first: the origin of coffee is in Yemen. Our sources agree on that, and our narrative in the article does, too. This article is about the beverage, and reverting additions of Ethiopia to the infobox, however many times, is an exception to 3RR because it falls under reverting vandalism. It is not a content dispute.

Anther editor has reverted my edits with no sources to back them up. I've explained why they are wrong on their talkpage and will copy here as well.

• What? You're reasonable enough to realize this article is about the beverage. There is really no way to defend this but nationalism on your part.
• This one. I suspect it's not a benign addition, but rather an attempt to throw in "Ethiopia" in there. Like we discussed last time, it's probably a good idea to get rid of the whole paragraph since the source discusses many, many possible etymologies, and he clearly states this Kaffa one is one the weaker ones (advocated by those with little authority).
• This one. I traced it back to a new, disruptive editor. I could be wrong, but the problem with this sentence is that it talks about coffee and not coffea.

Pending further input from others.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree that if this page is about the plant, then Ethiopia should be included. Instead, this page is about the beverage. We don't list Coca-Cola as originating in all the places of origin of its ingredients. Rmosler | ● 16:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a novel argument that an article about coffee should not mention the origin of coffea because it is thought to be Ethiopia, but not entirely a logical one. None of the sources about coffee make an artificial separation and eschew talking about one or the other for such specious reasoning, as the topics are clearly intertwined and relevant to one another. For many years, the infobox stated the origin to be "Ethiopia". Aua today changed that to "Yemen", and to be fair I changed it again to "Ethiopia / Eritrea / Yemen" since the entire region has a claim (and was not always considered distinct throughoutt these periods as it turns out they are closer neighbors than it seems many here realize). User:Aua then aggressively accused me of being a "nationalist" and "not a benign edit" on my talkpage (while simultaneously asking me to be "reasonable"). I would like to ask which of these nations does he suppose my "nationality" to be to immediately accuse me of "nationalism" for stating facts widely found in reference books? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, User:rmosler2100!

For the sake of any future editors who wish to contribute to this: I did fail to explain that one of the major disputes is that the other editor keeps adding Ethiopia to the infobox and claiming it's misleading not to. The article is about the coffee beverage (it's right there, in the first sentence of the intro!), and not the plant Coffea. Just because Potatoes came from Peru doesn't mean French Fries should list Peru as a place of origin (and it doesn't, thankfully). Same thing for everything else.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I see now that not only did you accuse me of nationalism for that edit, then inexplicably you reverted it back in and accused me of vandalism on ANI to get me blocked for it. This is being reasonable? And if it is ":vandalism", why did you revert yourself to put it back just before you reported me? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Aua did not acknowledge my questions of what "nationalism" I am supposedly promoting or what he imagines my "nationality" is, however he continues to accuse me on my talkpage of "nationalism". If so many reliable academic sources written by scholars about coffee mention Ethiopia extensively, and he doesn't like these sources, how is that "nationalism"? Are all of these scholars who write these books about coffee "nationalists" as well? Thanks, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I assumed nationalism because of your POV-pushing on this and other articles trying to promote Ethiopia (not to mention the Ethiopian flag on your userpage). In any case, please stop with the vague "all authors talk about Ethiopia" nonsense. We have a clear narrative of coffee's origins and we have clear guidelines. Let me break it down to you and you tell me which part you find objectionable:

1. Infobox should be about subject of article.

2. Subject of article is coffee, the beverage (and there is no other kinds of coffee, but to be crystal clear).

3. Coffee originated in Yemen (our sources are clear on this).

4. Therefore, country of origin of coffee is Yemen -> country of origin of the subject of the article is Yemen -> country of origin in the infobox is Yemen.

Does it matter how many other countries have a claim on it? No, and we don't give a rat's behind unless there is historical evidence. We are not here to baby others' nationalist feelings, but summarize reliable sources.

It's simple. Respond to this and stop derailing the conversations with vague assertions.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

"Does it matter how many other countries have a claim on it? No, and we don't give a rat's behind unless there is historical evidence. We are not here to baby others' nationalist feelings, but summarize reliable sources." There is no litmus test on sources. The sources about coffee that extensively discuss the Ethiopian origins are as academic and reliable as you can get. Your language is inflammatory and not at all reasonable here, we may as well begin mediation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's. There is no historical evidence (ever!) that links Ethiopia to coffee prior to the Yemeni invention of the drink. I'm not sure why you're failing to understand this point.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Which sources call it a "Yemeni invention"? It sounds like you are probably stretching what they say, though that is understandable given your apparent pov here. The article states "the earliest credible evidence" comes from monasteries in Yemen which sounds like a fair statement but changing that ino "Yemeni invention" would not be a good sign.Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

See encyclopedia below from nature for a source that calls it a Yemeni invention.

Now, do me a favor and look through the four steps above and tell me which, if any, you find objectionable.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Coffee origin

I'll start a new section to focus on one issue: what should the infobox list as the country of origin. The dispute: our sources and article state that coffee was first brewed in Yemen. The native coffea plant (the main ingredient in coffee) populations could have come from East Africa, and particularly Ethiopia. Since this article is about the beverage, and not the plant, it should only list Yemen as the origin. French fries doesn't list Peru in the countries of origin because potatoes came from South America. Per WP:INFOBOX, the infobox should summarize the subject of the article (in case, coffee and not coffea). What do other editors think? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 16:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It is true that the first record of brewing coffee comes from Yemen on the north side of the Red Sea. The Red Sea is a geographic separation more than a cultural one; that is the key fact people tend to overlook. Where it was first brewed is uncertain; where the brewing was first recorded is certain. For these reasons and not trying to be nationalist or favor any pov I emended it to "Ethiopia / Eritrea / Yemen" since these are the modern countries concerned. I do not understand the assumed goal here of trying to minimize Ethiopia's well-sourced role in coffee history. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Our sources say Yemen is where coffee was first brewed. Period. Anything else is OR on your part. What you believe in or don't is irrelevant to the discussion here.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Do they really say that is where it was first brewed, or do they say that is where the brewing was first recorded? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:05, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

First recorded but it may first been brewed in Harar, Ethiopia before making its way to Yemen. Christina jax (talk) 17:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It "may." That's not evidence. We stick to facts rather than postulations here.

And actually, they do say it was first brewed in Yemen. On the subject of Ethiopia, you might want to check our own page which says: "no direct evidence has been found indicating where in Africa coffee grew or who among the native populations might have used it as a stimulant or even known about it, earlier than the 17th century."

So, we have evidence from Yemen and lack of evidence from Ethiopia, and you're still pushing the Ethiopia narrative (which appears to be a myth stolen from the Yemenis)?

I'm pretty impartial since I neither have origins nor in any way am I connected to either country and I can tell you you're being exceptionally unreasonable.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Experts still believe Coffee originated in Ethiopia the only issue is that the eastern part of Ethiopia was considered Arab or Muslim. Modern Harar was not even considered Ethiopia until Abyssinians occupied and annexed it. Christina jax (talk) 17:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We need to see the exact reliable quote saying it was first brewed in Yemen (as opposed to "first credible evidence" or the like). It doesn't matter to me where you have origins but I have no idea why you are so keen here on causing disparities between wikipedia and the sources in this particular, just because so many academic sources talk extensively about Ethiopia in detail does not mean the field of scholarship is composed of "nationalists".Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what experts you're talking about. Weinberg, an authority on the topic, starts the first chapter with the title Coffee: Arabian Origins. He even ventures a guess that the Arabs could have known about it since the 8th century. I'm still confused what experts you're referring to and where can I find their works.

The burden of proof lies on the person making the claim. Is there any proof, whatsoever, that Ethiopians invented coffee? If so, bring it forth. Otherwise, our sources say it's Yemen. It's that simple.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The sources don't say "invented" unless they say "invented". It's that simple. "Earliest credible evidence of where it was brewed" is not the same thing as "invented". Claiming the sources say "invented" when they don't would be a bit of an emotional stretch, if you ask me. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

All evidence we have reasonably points at Yemen (and none points at Ethiopia). That's the bottom line. We can argue about the word "invention," and I'll attempt to find sources. In the meantime, anything to support Ethiopia should be included as the origin of coffee? We can have a footnote saying: earliest credible evidence next to Yemen. Adding Ethiopia is just based on mythical fairy tales.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you look some more at that academic source about coffee you tried to remove today, and see how many times it mentions Ethiopia, and tell me whether it is talking about scholarly evidence or "mythical fairy tales" (which is inappropriately inflammatory language for scholarship, use of language like that would be a dead giveaway of substandard scholarship.) Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 17:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Not an academic book focused on history (or even coffee; it's a zoology book). But I'll humor you. The first chapter mentions rather briefly the "legendary origins" of coffee in Ethiopia. That's about it. Then you get to cultivation, which it states Arabs held a monopoly on and so on. The book is not a history book and it's not about the drink or the plant. And even then, it describes it as a legend. Anything else you've got?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:56, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is a source saying it all began in Yemen: Jonathan D. Sauer. Historical Geography of Crop Plants: A Select Roster. 1993. Page 123.

It tells us that brewing began evidently there. Now, can we remove Ethiopia?

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 17:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

You have a funny way of looking at things when you describe an academic work about botany, and specifically the botany of coffee, to be a "zoology book". I don;t think we agree on that point nor your summary dismissal of academics you disagree with for trivial, ad hominem pretexts (I say ad hominem because you are not even refuting the central point but rather trying to discredit the credentials of the academic). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:01, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's listed under zoology and invertebrates, so don't blame me. The subject matter is the nematodes anyway. That's besides the point. You need to look up the definition of ad hominem. I said the book's subject matter seemed irrelevant to the history of coffee, and even if it weren't, it doesn't show anything you said since it describes the Ethiopian origins as legendary.

Clearly, there is nothing besides speculation on the Ethiopian origin and we didn't need to waste so much time on this.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:08, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion would be undue weight. Yemen has already been added as a possible origin when it goes against most reliable sources. Sources like these can easily be found [1] Christina jax (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Aua, Your way of looking at reality and stretching or exaggerating it to your end is so skewed I cannot agree with any of it. The source CLEARLY involves the history of coffee. The source CLEARLY says it may well have been cultivated first in Ethiopia where it originated, even though the first documented cultivation is Yemen. You don;t want to see it, but can;t refute the central point that it says that, so you attack the substance of the message rather than the message itself and say "Well, I know better than that scholar and know he;s wrong because he is only a scholar of zoology". (not true; he is a scholar of coffee). You have basically said that anyone supporting the idea that coffee comes from Ethiopia is a "nationalist" pushing "mythical fairy tales", so why don;t you just exclude this scholar on those grounds? Not only that, but you are running around trying everything to get me blocked now, first for "vandalism" then for supposedly being Christina Jax' sock, and all because you don;t want to face reality that not all sources agree with you. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Most of these books based their assertions on Ethiopian legends (and even that books talks about it in the legend form) and nothing historical. If you google "coffee originated Ethiopia" as you've done, and that's the best you came up with, then you would know something is wrong.

Fact of the matter is, there is no historical evidence. We can't make one up and we can only speculate. In this scenario, there is nothing linking Ethiopia with the beginning of coffee but legends that might be regurgitated back in some non-expert books. I'll start conflict resolution and mediation on this. Obviously, nothing is to be gained from conversing with you two.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 18:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Go right ahead. Just another case where you claim to have originally "debunked" and "refuted" all academic sources you disagree with because you know the Truth(TM) of the matter, and you're here to set it all straight and tell only your version instead of both views, that's all. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the reason that author (Souza) says it is thought it could have been cultivated in Ethiopia, if you read it, is on account of its Centre of diversity and centre of biological origin, not just traditions. The scientific view is actually that the plant "evolved" its robust character and chemical properties in the cooler highlands (Eritrea and Ethiopia), and not in the hotter lowlands (I know we've been here before) and therefore it is not ruled out that it was cultivated there first. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Ethiopian tribes knew of Coffee since ancient times [2]. This source also claims it started in ethiopia [3] Christina jax (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll start one and let you (both?) know in the next couple of days. I'm in the business of saving lives, so I'll do it when I get some free time (saving articles from bias is just a hobby).

Christina, have you bothered reading the entirety of the first source you quoted? It talks about knowledge of the coffee bean, but then talks about Yemen and the drink. I have not looked at the second source yet, but the fact your searches include "goat coffee Ethiopia" and other desperate terms that still come up short on evidence or strong assertions is amusing to say the least. Nothing you say or do will change the fact that Ethiopia's link to coffee is mythical (based on legends and myths) and Yemen's connection is historical (based on records and evidence).

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 19:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

In other words, no abundance of scholars saying otherwise will convince you, because you already know the Truth(TM) of the matter. So you find a revolving kaledoscope of shifting pretexts to try and get each the sources "disqualified" one by one (like attacking the search terms used by the editor rather than addressing what the academics are telling you) while vaguely proclaiming them all "nationalist"... Yep, this is gonna be another tough case... Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This book says that it was "possibly" Ethiopia. Rwenonah (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents is that it is Ethiopia. And we should keep it that way, and discuss it here. The edit war is not helping and I have no idea what purpose it serves b/c most accept Ethiopia, see Guns, Germs, and Steel. and if you want to add Yemen then discuss and wait.--Inayity (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, these books mention the Ethiopian legend, but without much else to substantiate the claims of those legends (and there is really none, and the literature is abound with refutations of these myths). This is not to say Ethiopian myths don't deserve a place here, but they should not be treated on equal footing with historical facts. As far as the historical record is concerned, what we have is indisputable (and even Til can't deny this): its first mention happens in Yemen, and nothing to support anyone in Africa knowing about it until 2 centuries later.

Could it have been Ethiopia and then knowledge moved it to Yemen? Maybe, and we could definitely reach a format to state that, but there is nothing to back that up in terms of evidence. Some books might mention the story of the flood as though it really happened, but we don't really go by that, do we? We rely on the historical record rather than biblical stories.

I wouldn't removing both countries from the infobox for now as a compromise.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I Just gave you a solid reference from an expert in domestication., which does not mention Yemen. I do not know what else you are looking for.--Inayity (talk) 22:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

GGS? He talks about domesticating the coffea plant, and not the drink. This page is about the drink. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. --Inayity (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand why user:Aua is linking WP:OR now for the idea that coffee "may" have been first cultivated in Ethiopia, how many sources now have we seen all saying this? Including the peer reviewed one stating (and citing other scholars' studies) that the Oromo knew of it "in ancient times"? You didn;t hear that, or you just know better than these scholars and can refute them? Either way, OR strictly means something not suggested in scholarship, something that somebody on wikipedia is making up without sources saying the same thing. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Because our sources say it was first cultivated in Arabia. That much is certain. And yes, I agree, the Oromo could have known about the stimulant effect, but the drink itself appears to come from Yemen.

(EC)Inventing the drink itself is generally attributed to Yemen. Sources unequivocally say that include:

• Christopher Martin Cumo. Encyclopedia of Cultivated Plants: From Acacia to Zinnia. Nature. Pg 302.

And many sources strongly state that the earliest evidence of drinking or knowledge of the Coffee beverage came from Yemen, including:

• Weinberg, Bennett Alan; Bealer, Bonnie K. The World of Caffeine: The Science and Culture of the World's Most Popular Drug
• John K. Francis. "Coffea arabica L. RUBIACEAE". Factsheet of U.S. Department of Agriculture
• David Waines. Food Culture and Health in Pre-Modern Muslim Societies.

And many, many other sources. Generally, these are works (save for the USDA source) that go a bit deeper into the history than a passing mention.

I'm being reasonable here (maybe a bit too accommodating catually) to offer to have both countries removed from the infobox for now.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

A more careful look at the source reveals that what it states is, not only was the bean known for its stimulating effect, but the Oromo anciently mixed the roasted beans with butter and fat. This is clearly relevant to the topic and deserves mention in this article regardless about quibbling over the infobox. I propose that because enough sources do consider it feasible to have originated in Ethiopia, we name all three modern countries in the region to be impartial without yapping about "nationalism" from editors. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Sir, for the 100th time, this page is about the drink. Coffee doesn't have butter in it last time I checked. And we already talk about legendary accounts in the article. Talk about possible domestication and cultivation of plant on Coffea if you so desire. This page is about the drink. This page is about the drink. Let's say it one more time: this page is about the drink. Let's stick with the drink. I've found an extremely reliable source: an encylopedia from Nature stating that Yemenis invented the drink. You asked, I delivered.

Fair enough? Moving on? Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It was first cultivated in Harar Ethiopia. [4] 2nd source says the same [5] Christina jax (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough? No, your unilateral exclusion of sources you don't like and your original claim to have personally rebutted these sources will never be "fair". And your unique position that its use as a stimulant with butter and fat as a precedent to the drink form is of no relevance here, belies your more apparent motivation to attack all the vast body of scholarship connecting coffee's roots with Ethiopia. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:55, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

@Christina: And I don't have a problem whatsoever mentioning that. We already say Arabs were the first to cultivate the tree anyways. That's not the issue. That's the plant, one of the constituents of coffee. The drink itself comes from Yemen. That's the issue.

This page is about the drink. This page is about the drink. Let's say it one more time: this page is about the drink. Let's stick with the drink. At some point, it might go through.

@Til, cut the nonsense buddy. Give me a source that says the drink started in Ethiopia and you might have a case. This page is about the drink. This page is about the drink. Let's say it one more time: this page is about the drink. Let's stick with the drink. At some point, it might go through.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 22:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If books about coffee talk about this stuff, why are you making up a rule that says the wikipedia page about the drink can't talk about cultivation or predecessors like its use as a stimulant with butter and fat? What hat did you pull that rule out of? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(RI)No one is saying you can't, and we obviously do talk a bit about Oromo and the stimulating effect in the article as it. We can do more of that, of course. I'm talking about the infobox, which should summarize the article. When I read country of origin in an infobox about coffee, I expect to see the country where coffee the drink was first made. Not where it was cultivated, and not where coffee beans were chewed. And certainty not where any other ingredient was discovered or made. That's the whole issue. See the section above for reasoning. Try to follow it and tell me where exactly you have a problem and we can work our way from there.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking through sources now for good ones, there are literally tons of RSS on this, here is a good example of scholarly treatment from a book about Coffee, now this reflects most scholarship on the topic of coffee but it's silly that we should have to turn a blind eye to what they say or cannot give a similar account in our article, simply because of an editor's unfounded concerns about "nationalism". Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's another great scholarly source with the detailed research that Arabs took it from Ethiopia to Yemen in the 13th century where the habit of drinking it was developed in the 15th century. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Til, you can't be serious. Did you read your first source up there? Give it a go buddy, and tell me what you understand from it. I can help you through this one. Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I've been reading this exchange with interest. I don't have any expertise in this area and haven't taken sides. I'd just like to point out a few things. Til, I can see you are getting frustrated, but your arguments become less effective when you veer toward attacking Aua personally. I think the point that there is evidence (it is evidence, isn't it, not just a traditional legend?) that the Oromo mixed roasted coffee beans with butter and fat is helpful, but I think you need to make a better argument that that really was the beginning of the drink "coffee". You might compare this with the fact that the Aztecs drank a brew of cacao beans without sugar. When Europeans got the cacao beans, they created a drink with sugar. Do we say the Aztecs drank hot chocolate? I don't know, but I don't think so, and I think there are very few people today who would drink a brew of ground-up cacao beans without sugar. So I think most people would say that Europeans invented hot chocolate.

You all sound like intelligent people to me. Til, I think you need to be more specific and less emotional when you rebut Aua. Be precise. Say why you think a particular work (give the title and page, and preferably quote a line) is (a) reliable, and (b) relevant. You are trying to persuade Aua that a work is reliable and relevant when Aua thinks it is not. Then Aua, try to be less dismissive. Rather, respond specifically: say why you think that source is either unreliable or irrelevant. I think if you proceed this way, you will get somewhere.

Christina, citing a source that says coffee was first cultivated in Harar, Ethiopia, does not help much. This article is about the drink called coffee, not the plant that produces the beans. On the other hand, one can ask the question, if not for brewing a drink, for what other reason would a people cultivate a plant that produces beans? Can one suppose that they simply ate the beans, for food, medicine, or religious rituals? What do the experts say? Hope this helps.CorinneSD (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) CorinneSD, thank you so much for commenting! I was losing hope in getting something out of this.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:34, 15 February 2014 (UT

Corinne, at this point it isn't really an editor versus another editor, or editors - it's an editor (Aua) versus the academic sources he doesn't like or disagrees with. I'm not clear if he is claiming to have superior expertise or credentials on this research or what, but it shouldn't have to be up to me to run every RS past his litmus test. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

This source offer san extension to the "goats" legend which suggest the drink was also discovered in Ethiopia. This source says that Yemenis claim the origin of coffee as a matter of "national pride". Rwenonah (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec) (reply to Aua) I understand that we are getting clearer and clearer a picture from uncovering more detailed research and academic sources than our wikipedia article gives. The picture now that emerges on the development of coffee is that Oromo roasted the beans and mixed it with butter and fat, Arabs found it growing wild around Harar and began cultivating it there and later in Yemen, where the habit of drinking it was developed. All of this is certainly within the scope of our article as much as it is in the scope of scholarly research on the history of coffee. Pretending we cannot talk about anything but the drink itself is a new and arbitrary rule. We can explain matters more fully in the body, infoboxes just attract quibbling of this sort because there isn;t room to give a detailed explanation. With the full range of scholarship on the origina and development of coffee, and since all areas make a claim, I consider that mentioning all of them is the more neutral and fair option, but then it gets to be like chopping a baby in half as Solomon reputedly suggested in hi wisdom, who really just wants to stop the other from being included? Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont see why they wouldnt drink it in Ethiopia before shipping it to Yemen? Can this source get any clearer. [6] Christina jax (talk)

@Til. Agreed. It's possible they used the beans with fat and butter (although we only have one source on that), but we can mention it (and we kinda already do). The drink itself though appears to be from Yemen (and almost all RS that make the distinction between the plant and the drink say so). Saying otherwise by trying to lump in a few other countries is disingenuous.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 23:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I also agree that what we are seeing is that coffee's drinkable version was developed in Yemen. But you are arguing for an exceptionally unprecedented and narrow WP:SCOPE for the drinkable version, when this is also ought to cover the history of coffee's uses as a stimulant, as academic works on coffee certainly treat the topic, and we don't even have a better article I know of for covering earlier uses as a stimulant (except History of coffee where this is equally relevant) I would argue that the brioader SCOPE includes coffee's use as a stimulant, and that sufficient academic, non-nationalist evidence has been presented to establish that the claim of all 3 nations to have had a role in the development of coffee is justified, and mentioning all of them in the infobox is equitable. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, as now we've narrowed down where our differences lie. It's not a matter of facts, but that of opinion, and I can deal with that. Do you think we should ask for a 3rd opinion on this? I think since coffee as we know it originated in Yemen, with no other verifiable predecessors (except possibly the ones mentioned in 8th century Arabia as well), we should have Yemen there. Chewing on the beans does not really qualify, in my mind, as a plausible origin of the same importance as Yemen. We could, and we should, talk about it though in the article.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:00, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Christina, I read that source, and if you read it carefully, you will see that it does not say where the drink was first consumed. It says cultivation of the plant began in Harar, Ethiopia. If we assume that the drink was first prepared and consumed there, we are just assuming. I'm not saying that Harar couldn't have been the place where coffee was first prepared and consumed. I'm just saying that the source you gave does not clearly say that.CorinneSD (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the reason why a drink is consumed should not determine whether it belongs in an article about the drink. If coffee was initially drunk for its stimulating effects in connection with religious rituals, it does not mean it cannot be included in the article, and it counts as far as pinpointing the origin of coffee as a drink (beverage). If it can be demonstrated through scholarly research that coffee was first drunk – even if only as a stimulant – in Harar, then Ethiopia needs to be in the info box. But, Til, maybe I've missed it in the long discussion above, but I haven't yet seen (that is, read) a source that says that unequivocally. Can you provide a link for me? I'd like to read it. Thanks.CorinneSD (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Besides the historical evidence, here is one explicitly talking about the beverage (as opposed to the plant). (Read page 302; here) It's as RS as they get.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:07, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Corrinne, I concede that I haven't seen much discussion of "drinking" coffee per se in Ethiopia before in Yemen, but clearly they do indicate it was "consumed", so would you agree that per SCOPE this would be the correct article to include its historical consumption as part of the development of modern coffee, and would this justify including Ethiopia and Eritrea in the infobox (where random readers are bound to add it every other week anyway since most people don't make such a fancy separation between "drink" and "non-drink" to give priority to only one of these). Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Although you're waiting for Corrinne's reply, I just want to say this: consumption of the plant (itself a contentious issue) is not really the same as making the drink coffee. South Americans consumed potatoes, but it'd be a stretch to include Peru as country of origin in every single plate or drink that uses potatoes as a major ingredient.

I do agree though that this would cause quite a bit of vandalism, but we can protect it then.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:17, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's stick to coffee since analogies usually don't hold up under closer scrutiny for proving anything. Coffee isn't like potato dishes, it is a commodity in itself and is mostly sold in form of a dry roasted bean, not a liquid "drink". All of that is in the scope of the article and part of the definition of "coffee", not really like potato dishes where each one has a name. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:25, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC)I read part of that article (the link was provided by Aua, just above). I see that it says that Ethiopians probably did not drink coffee as a beverage "in antiquity", but that they did chew the beans covered in fat. I would go along with including Ethiopia in the info box (with Yemen) because it is part of the history of the development of modern coffee. I assume that would all be explained in detail in the article. Aua, would you go along with it? Can we persuade you that, because of the history of consumption of the beans in Ethiopia, that Ethiopia can be included in the info box?CorinneSD (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, on that same page, it states that the beverage was invented in Yemen later on. I still find it very hard to include Ethiopia in the infobox (but have absolutely no problem with elaboration of the history in the article), but I'm willing to budge on this position. I'd prefer to have them both removed, or, alternatively, include them both with qualification as follows: "Yemen (earliest credible evidence of coffee drinking), Ethiopia (possible consumption of dry beans)", or the like.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:35, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Aua, I have no problem with your proposal for including such a qualification. That compromise ought to minimize the amount of readers tampering with it also, since it explains the occurrence of both names. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 00:41, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

(EC)Aua, I think you will agree that one reason for all the confusion and disagreement here is that the history is complicated and a bit obscure. I don't think the extra information is needed next to "Yemen" and "Ethiopia". Honestly, I don't think what is in info boxes is as important as what is in the article itself. If readers want to learn something, they will read the article. And it's not like we are talking about who built the Suez Canal, are we? You are to be commended for being "willing to budge". And Til, you are to be commended for your gentler tone. Wouldn't you agree, Christina?CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I just awarded a barnstar before reading this! Haha. I really would insist on that info to help clarify as a compromise and I'm happy Til wouldn't mind. Christina, we can definitely include the cultivation information from the Arabic colony in Ethiopia in the body of the article as well.

Cheers, Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 00:50, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Hope you don't regret giving the Barnstar ;-) The additional info is fine.CorinneSD (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Please don't vandalize I added many sources respect my tiredness just read it (especially "The Infinite Emotions of Coffee" it is very specified with pictures) then you will understand that no need to talk and remove because everything is clear and unanimous, talk here is a waste of time, it is originated in Ethiopia, I really don't know why there are many Asians claims that every thing came from their continent they are pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.200.60.145 (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed scientists do think the plant evolved / developed in the cooler highlands of Africa as I have noted, but let us be more diplomatic my friend, since as you should know we will also be judged by our choice of presentation. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 16:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Lumping in all Asians in one group (who supposedly like to claim things come from their continent) shows a pretty terrifying ignorance of ethnography, geography, linguistics, politics ... frankly, reality. Furthermore, let's not go calling entire (albeit nonexistent in a united fashion) groups pathetic. To address the only pertinent argument, not everything is unanimous, as shown by the large argument above. You're upsetting a stable version of the page without consensus. Please stop unless and until you get it. Rwenonah (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Economic impacts

I just saw the map at the right side of the section "Economic impacts". The caption reads, "Map of coffee areas in Brazil". However, there is no key or legend to indicate which areas are the coffee growing areas. I guess it is the areas shaded darker yellow rather than the areas shaded lighter yellow, but I don't think the reader should have to guess. Also, even if there were a key indicating which areas were the coffee growing areas, the map doesn't really add much to the article. I think it would be more interesting if the names of the provinces where coffee is grown in Brazil were indicated, either on the map or in the caption. CorinneSD (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)