Talk:Coffee

Less sections

In an effort to conform to CZ style, I've removed a section header. I'm now a firm believer that entries should be more or less a narrative, forcing the reader to read the entire article than being able to pick and choose their content.

Also, I believe there's a grinding scale that is an actual measurement of grain/particle; I'll find it and add it as I don't believe many people are familiar with "medium".--Robert W King 09:05, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Are there any references to the statement that there are 6000 coffae species? It seems to me a rather large number. If it is true it should be referenced, because it sounds a bit unbelievable, at least to me Jasper Wubs 10:32, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Here's the ITIS Report for Genus "Coffea", http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=35189. Note that there are 6 Direct Children Species of the Genus. --Robert W King 10:47, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Okay, so there is one genus with six species, how do you then arrive at 500 genera with 6000 species? I checked the articles history, you wrote that right? Or do you mean subspecies/varieties? Jasper Wubs 10:58, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I mean subspecies/varities, but that all falls under "Species" of the "Genus" Coffea. --Robert W King 11:01, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Yes but they are then not species in the biological sense, to which the article links, right? Perhaps you could say there are six species (linking to biological species there) and than that man has produced some 6000 varieties of these species? I guess that would be more accurate. Jasper Wubs 11:05, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

We're going into theoretical ground here if we start discussing natural versus genetically modified species, and that's not really within the scope of this article.--Robert W King 11:06, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Let me just say, in advance, I am not a biologist so I'm not really an expert in this field, but if you can word it in such a way that it pertains to the subject of the article (so it doesn't go into GM specific-technicality-land) then by all means ;).--Robert W King 11:09, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

There's a USDA link I think we ought to use, let me see if I can find it.--Robert W King 15:22, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Found it.--Robert W King 15:26, 9 August 2007 (CDT) Great! Jasper Wubs 15:35, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I changed it, and I think it is in pretty straightfoward way. There is no need to go in details in this article, but for the sake of the accuracy of the wording I think its for the better. As a biologist I was astonished to read that there were 6,000 species of coffee, it just seemed to be very unlikely to me, and I think that such kinds of, unintentional, errors can cost the project some of its credibility. That is why I asked you for a reference. That there are some 6,000 varieties of coffee is far more likely, given the amount of change selective breeders can induce on a species and the economic importance of the commodity, it just screams for innovation of the breeds. I hope you can agree with the changes I made. Jasper Wubs 15:32, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I think it's a good, and more clear change. Thanks much! --Robert W King 15:34, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

I'm a bit confused by the title/original subject of this comment. In regard to the more/less sections issue, I think it's fair to say that the purpose of sections and subsections is to add clarity and organization, regardless of whether one believes the article should flow like a narrative. As this article becomes more developed and lengthier, sections and subsections will be helpful tools for keeping everything tidy and clear. When used correctly and in moderation, they can also refer to each other and easily enhance each other. Is the point to force someone to read the entire article when they're only looking for a certain bit of information? Who are we to say what information readers need or want? Well, regardless, I've added a section on coffee and health and will be adding to it significantly over the next week or so.  ;) -- Sarah R. Taylor 11:18, 21 January 2008 (CST)

Coffee, caffeine, and health

Over the next couple of weeks (as my busy grad student schedule allows), I'll be adding a significant amount of information to this section: it will address what is known and what still remains to be investigated about the effects of coffee consumption on cardiovascular disease, physical fitness, brain function, reproduction, bone and joint health, type 2 diabetes and weight loss, and the digestive system. It will cite quite a few academic sources, which means it'll take forever to edit/add the references (unless anyone has any tips/tricks to offer?), but it should ultimately end up being a fairly thorough summary and synthesis of current information on the topic. (Researching coffee and its health risks/benefits is something of a hobby of mine.) I'm new to the "wiki" thing, so feel free to offer editing tips and suggestions, especially where it seems like I fall short.

Eventually, adding a subsection somewhere in the article referring to preparation methods would be helpful. That way, when I refer to the differences in health risks/benefits due to preparation, I can easily link or refer back to the different methods and how they're performed, etc. so that readers can distinguish for themselves and make informed decisions about their coffee drinking habits.

I think that's it for now... for those keeping an eye on this topic, feel free to add/comment/inquire/etc. throughout the process! -- Sarah R. Taylor 11:27, 21 January 2008 (CST)