Talk:Coffee

Summary of ongoing discussions

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• **Health effects:** There are concerns about outdated sources, balance of viewpoints, and how to summarize medical research without giving undue weight to individual studies.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• **Production statistics:** Coffee production data may be outdated or inconsistent across sources, and editors have suggested updating figures to reflect current information.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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewC992 (talk • contribs) 01:49, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

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)

"Think Drink" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Processing language clarity and milling

Hello I am a coffee farmer I found some a few issues in the processing and language used.

I am not sure pre-processing and processing are good categorization for coffee. There are 6 stages more or less as I see it of the coffee life:

- Fresh Cherry

- Fermenting coffee (cherry or depulped)

- Drying coffee (cherry or depulped)

- Dried coffee (called parchment for washed/honey or dried cherry for natural)

- Milled coffee (mentioned in the article as green coffee)

- Roasted coffee

The most important element missing in my opinion is then milling. The article I feel is misleading by implying the coffee goes from dried to roasted which is not possible. Most coffee in Colombia for example is traded in parchment before it is milled. I feel like a section for milling would be nice.

Less importantly coffee is also traded "wet" after it is depulped and washed especially in regions like Huila.

I feel like articles should be restructured to better reflect the stages that coffee undergoes. From my perspective "Processing" is the stage of fermenting and drying the coffee, pre-processing is the selection of the cherries by floating for example. But from a roaster perspective I understand why "processing" is the roasting part. Maybe a miller would say the milling is the processing, and a coffee shop could argue that grinding, heating up the beans is the processing.

The headings "Pre-processing" and "processing" prevent the proper description of the reality. Instead we could have one category called "Processing" and then show all the steps from picking to cup.

The article Coffee production shows the steps in a lot of details a shortened version of this I found would be useful. Purplesoybean (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2026 (UTC)