Talk:History of coffee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Food Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Food and drink, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of food and drink articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Copyedit please

A few sections including the references need minor cleanup and copyediting to maintain the flow of sentences. Some of the sections need to be expanded, as details such as the USA's Boston Tea Party (which is relevant in the spreading of Coffee) are missing; compared with the Wikipedia Spanish Coffee article, section on History: [1]. Thanks to anyone who can expand the article.

--130.194.13.106 11:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyediting but I agree that more info on the us is needed, as well as perhaps a restructuring of the article (pure chronology rather than by nation makes a lot more sense for a history article) Philmcl 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Under the etymology heading, after a sentence-long explanation of where the word "coffee" originates, the next sentence is: "Its initial origin is uncertain." The initial origin of what is uncertain? I would just delete it, but I'm trying to see if the writer had a certain purpose in mind for this sentence that I'm not grasping. The origin of the word is obviously uncertain, since in just the last sentence it says qahwa is of uncertain etymology...Cela 16:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)COFFEE IS NOT FROM ETHOPIA BITCHES U HAER THAT NATENA COFFE IS NOT FROM ETHOPIA

  • I agree with you Cela. The sentence is unclear: "Its initial origin is uncertain."; IMHO I think whoever first added the sentence meant "qahwa" being of uncertain etymology. IMHO I think it can be safely deleted. --130.194.13.106 09:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm deleting it. Cela 18:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] removed contradiction

the prior version of this article said:

The first coffee plantation in the New World was established in Brazil (another contradiction: was the first in the islands or in Brazil?) in 1727 when Lt. Col. Francisco de Melo Palheta smuggled seeds from the French Guiana

this is indeed contradiction - Not only with the prior sentence (which says that the french first brought it to America), but also with itself. If Palheta smuggeled the seeds from French Guiana, it can't be the first in the new world. Felagund 08:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Coffee in Europe

The article states that coffee first appeared in Europe in Venice. While this sounds credible, I thought to mention a widely circulated story that coffee was first introduced to Europe when the Turkish army was repelled from invading Vienna. According to the account, the Viennese found many abandoned sacks of coffee (which hadn't previously been known in Europe) and began experimenting.

Unfortunately I don't have a reference.

Any comments?

--Philopedia 22:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Coffee had been traded in by Italian (Venicians especially) with the Turks before the debacle in Vienna. In fact, an argument over consuming the "infidel's wine" was settled by the Pope, in a pre-Vienna documented case, who felt that the Turks should not be able to monopolize such a wonderful drink. The Vienese first contact story is convienent, and simpler, and represents the earliest widespread European coffee consumption. But certainly it was well known to experienced mercahnts (as were other "new" commodities waiting to be "Discovered") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Forest (talk • contribs) 05:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

The citation for Ibn al-Imād, Shadharāt al-dhahab fi akhbār man dhahab, was half done, and the year of publication in Christian Era numeration was off by one. Citations should include a place of publication and/or publisher.

Often cited as just Shadharāt al-dhahab, Shadharāt al-dhahab fi akhbār man dhahab is a 900 year old encyclopedia of biography. Interestingly, there is another Cairo edition of this work, 1351 AH, add 622 to get 1973 AD (see http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FMES%2FMES38_02%2FS0020743806412344a.pdf&code=dc0cbbb7df5783e813924f0d065b8fde

where there is the citation, Ibn al-Imad al-Hanbali, Shadharat al-dhahab fi akhbar man dhahab (Cairo: Maktabat al-qudsi, 1351 H)

The two sources below (plus others) agree on 1931 AD, not 1932 AD, as the date of a previous Cairo edition. Apparently the contributor added 622 to 1350. Matching Christian dates to Islamic dates is computationally involved because the Moslems use a lunar calendar, not a solar calendar.

(a) http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/arabic_reference_works.html. Compiled by prof. Brannon M. Wheeler, http://www.usna.edu/Users/humss/bwheeler/cv.html Ibn al-'Imad al-Hanbali [1032-1089], Shadharat al-dhahab fi akhbar min dhahab, 8 vols. (Cairo, 1350-1931).

(b) http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1478-1913.2006.00135.x —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurmata (talk • contribs) 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] women in coffehouses

It is simply untrue that "women were not allowed in coffeehouses." As Adrian Johns puts it in The Nature of the Book,

"High Churchmen and nonconformists, gentlemen, retailers and mechanicks—and men and women, for the notion that coffeehouses excluded women is baseless—all flocked to this attraction"

I will be changing the article accordingly. --Spudstud 06:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably in some places they were, others not, and it probably changed over time. One of the dangers of over-generalization. When you make your edit, please help with this by making the context time- and place-specific! --Margareta 06:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh good. You did. Thanks!--Margareta 06:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

So probably we should make a similar clarification in the coffeehouse article proper (which also suggests that women were usually excluded). I'll at least add it to the discussion there, probably just by transplanting my comment above.--Spudstud 06:49, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major Work Needed

The page needs a lot of work.

History of Coffee says: The first coffeehouse in England was opened in St. Michael's Alley in Cornhill. Coffehouse says: The first Turkish coffeehouse in England was set up in Oxford by one Jacob or Jacobs, a Turkish Jew, in 1650. The answer is that nobody knows when the first coffeehouse was opened. Was it a tavern that served coffee? a restaurant? hotel? or a true dedicated coffee shop? We arent sure, and the article should reflect that.

"[Ethiopian] Monks ate the beans to help them stay awake during prayers. The leaves of the coffee tree, however, were used to make a beverage similar to tea." - wrong. Ethiopian holy men (not, strickly speaking, monks) and "average joes" ate the beans after mushing them to a pulp and making a ball (like Japanese rice balls). The religious use had little to do with "staying awake to pray" untill the beans reached the Suffis is Yemen. The tea like beverage described here is called Kuti, which is also mixed with husks, salt, and milk.

"This word [coffee] was created via Turkish kahve, which in turn came into being via Arabic qahwa, a truncation of qahhwat al-bun or wine of the bean." - Highly unlikely, because Arabic culture came into contact with Coffee before the Turks. At any rate, the Turks spoke Arabic as a second language, probably creating their own word in later.

"That women were not allowed in English coffeehouses during this period is a myth" - True, but incomplete. The reason this clarification is needed is because of the numerous pamphlets, allegedly written by women, against coffee. See the famous "Woman's Petition Against Coffee." The paragraph goes on to point out the coffee houses' democratizing effect, also true. But many shops barred certain people based on rank, smoking (or non), sex, and so on.

Somewhere in one of the coffee articles it sais that Cafe Procope was the first coffee shop in France - It was not, though it is the oldest still existing, and it founded by one of the baristas at the true first French shop (its name escapes me).

"We are indebted to these great [Arab] physicians for introducing coffee to the modern world through their writings, as well as sugar, tea, and chocolate" - Neither sugar nor chocolate were introduced from the Arab world. Tea was known to the Arab world, but given that there are so many herbal infusions which when described sound like (the) tea, its unclear. At any rate, tea only hit Europe on a large scale after coffee did when the Dutch started trading large scale (eventually England). Untill then it received only passing references from travellers like Polo. I realise this qoute in question was from a primary source, but it is both wrong and uncited. Either its fake or needs to be clarified.

"Austria and Poland"

The Franciszek Jerzy Kulczycki in question was not an officer. He recieved the beans for slipping behind enemeny lines as a spy, and probably was the only one who immediately recognised the beans for what they were, having lived in Turkey. The Melange is made usually with cream, not milk. Soemtimes topped with whip or chocolate, consumed in a special way, and sometimes also called a cappuccino (not like the Italian one) because of its colour/foam dollop.

I could go on. You left out the French smuggler who was responsible for bringing coffee to the new world, almost dying of dehidration and lack of sleep from gaurding the plant onbaord a ship.

I think the entire section on Coffee needs to be reworked, both for factual errors and confusing layout. Why, for example the "origin" and "history" section? The difference is slight and the information highly similar.

[edit] coffee prohibition

I would like to see more information about coffee prohibition throughout history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.121.134 (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Someone put that Origins of coffee should be merged here and I agree... until this article is fleshed out and well sourced there is no difference between the articles. gren グレン 00:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Merge with Social Aspects

I disagree with this merge. Social Aspects and History are very different, although I can see some overlap (such as the history of social aspects which might appear in both but are really slanted a bit differently... or at least should be- to focus on the respective article topic.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.104.68 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)