Talk:Coffee

@Socialwave597 and CoffeeKings: it would be very helpful if you could discuss the dispute you're having instead of edit warring. Especially for the rest of us page watchers. Guettarda (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

@CoffeeKings Can you please explain why you decided to remove all my edits on this page? Socialwave597 (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Hey Socialwave597, the Kaldi story is sourced, but scholars treat it as legend and its earliest written attestation dates to 1671. Coffee use and transmission are documented earlier, in 15th–16th century sources, so under Wikipedia chronology it should follow the historically attested material. Per WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV, myth or legendary material should not precede the historical summary, doing so reduces coverall article quality imho. Also, could you explain your other edits ? --CoffeeKings (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV actually never says that, it says nothing about how Wikipedia paragraphs should be ordered. Where does it say anything about Wikipedia chronology? And what is the problem with my other edits? Socialwave597 (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2025 (UTC) Reply

Socialwave597, WP:UNDUE, Undue weight can be given by the structure of the article, the amount of space given, or the placement of material. so the 15th–16th century evidence for coffee use should precede a legend or myth first attested in the 17th century. You also removed cited content, which I will be restoring.

As a compromise, the Kaldi story can be included as a clearly labeled 17th-century attested legend placed after the historically documented material.--CoffeeKings (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Also, to be clear, the material I restored was fully sourced. This included the statement that the Christian Ethiopian Empire avoided coffee until the late 19th century. Please avoid removing cited content without prior discussion on the talk page, as that risks unnecessary edit warring. --CoffeeKings (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

That was not removed? It was put into the "Prohibition and condemnation" tab, where it should be included. And where does WP:STRUCTURE say anything about the "amount of space given, or the placement of material"? Socialwave597 (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

The source does not say that the Christian Ethiopian Empire avoided coffee, but that Ethiopian Christians avoided it until the 19th century. WP:SYNTH, it absolutely belongs in the #Prohibition and condemnation section. Socialwave597 (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Socialwave597, please avoid edit warring. My concern is overall article quality. Material that is academically supported and historically attested should not be minimized or pushed downward, while legendary accounts are given greater prominence earlier in the article. The prohibition of coffee should be part of the historical discussion, not separated in a way that obscures context. As discussed above, placement and framing can mislead readers, especially when myths and legends are presented before factually verified history. I’m happy to continue discussing structure and placement here to reach consensus. Perhaps a subsection on prohibition within the history section, with myths and legends placed below the academically supported historical narrative. Do you agree that the current structure may mislead readers? --CoffeeKings (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

BTW, my guess is that >99.9% of readers dont give a shit about this debate about historic precedent. We're here to read about coffee, and that info is nicely available now. Maybe there is a more productive way to contribute to this encyclopedia.--Smokefoot (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Smokefoot, I get what you're saying, but accuracy and placement matter because leading with legend over documented history can mislead readers about what is historically attested versus folklore. --CoffeeKings (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Several recurring issues have been raised regarding the Coffee article:

• **Scope and structure:** Editors have discussed how much content should remain in the main article versus being moved to sub‐articles, particularly in the history, culture, and economics sections.

• **Health effects:** There are concerns about outdated sources, balance of viewpoints, and how to summarize medical research without giving undue weight to individual studies.

• **Cultural and historical coverage:** Some editors have noted that the history and cultural sections may be uneven, with potential gaps in coverage of African, Middle Eastern, and Asian traditions.

• **Production statistics:** Coffee production data may be outdated or inconsistent across sources, and editors have suggested updating figures to reflect current information.

• **Images and layout:** Discussions include whether certain images are necessary, appropriately licensed, or optimally placed within the article.

This summary is provided to help editors quickly identify active or recurring areas needing attention.

How is the legendary accounts given greater prominence in the article when the text emphasizes that it is unreliable and section dedicated to it is relatively small? And coffee was prohibited in various religions, why is the mention of coffee being avoided by Ethiopian Christians mentioned in the historical section but not all the other religions listed in the #Prohibition and condemnation? How would you even merge the two together? I do not believe the current structure is misleading in any way, I believe perhaps a third opinion should be requested. Socialwave597 (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi everyone, found out something interesting, thought I'd share.

In the earliest written account of the coffee herder story appears in Antoine Faustus Nairon, De saluberrima potione Cahue, seu Cafe nuncupata discursus (Rome, 1671). Nairon places the episode in Arabia Felix (Yemen), not Ethiopia. In the commonly used digitized edition, the relevant passage appears on PDF p. 18/69, where he states "in Ayaman Regione, quae est Arabia Felix."

Also some scholarly source describe him Arabian or Arab goatherder. Brill publications discussing coffee lore, following William H. Ukers, describe the figure as an "Arabian goatherd," and Encyclopaedia Britannica has referred to Kaldi as "an Arab goatherd." Academic works published by Springer also note variants in which the herder is described as Arabian. No idea how the Ethiopian one developed, but the first source and other academic sources mention Arabian goatherd. Thought I'd share it here too. --CoffeeKings (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2026 (UTC) Reply

This is useful context. The Nairon source placing the story in Arabia Felix rather than Ethiopia is worth noting in the article, especially since the article currently hedges with "Ethiopian or Arab goatherd" -- if the original 1671 account consistently points to Yemen, that should probably be reflected more clearly. On the broader ordering dispute in the "Ongoing dispute" thread: the current structure with a clearly labeled "Legendary accounts and myths" subsection seems like a workable middle ground. The label does the job of telling readers what they are reading. That said, having a brief orienting sentence at the top of the History section before the legends subsection -- something that establishes the 15th-century Yemen evidence first -- might address both sides' concerns without a major restructure. Just a thought. Bohosquare1 (talk) 11:09, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The redirect Think Drink has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 June 15 §Think Drink until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2026 (UTC) Reply