Contents

Talk:Indian filter coffee

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

India: Karnataka / Tamil Nadu Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Karnataka (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Tamil Nadu (assessed as Mid-importance).

1. I'm not sure if coffee is more popular than tea in Andhra Pradesh. I know that coffee is in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and I know (?) tea is in Kerala. Anyone from Andhra, please edit article as necessary.
2. I'm not sure of the cultural significance of coffee in other regions of South India, and I didn't want to use generic terms like "South Indian culture". Someone with knowledge, please edit. Ambarish | Talk 05:06, 20 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
3. It appears that this webpage is famous - in an interesting example of cross pollination of information, the picture and text from this page made it (w/o attrib) to the state run "Podhigai" tamil language television as part of a quiz programme. See http://cheeni.livejournal.com/9272.html --Cheeni 11:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions the "decoction" or "filter" is "stronger" than Western coffee including espresso. This is an ambiguous statement. Does it refer to caffeine content? Or taste? Can't imagine the caffeine content to be higher compared to any of the coffees in the West to be lower, specially when not using Chicory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeneris (talk • contribs) 19:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The strength of the decoction is dependent upon the proportion of coffee powder and water being used. And when someone says "strong/stronger", it is not an indication of the caffine content. Spk100 (talk) 11:52, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the entire "Preparation" section is not cited & was written without any inline citations. Should we attempt to find citation to back this existing information? Or should we rewrite this section with citations? Whitestar12 (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be rewritten based on reliable sources. These sources^[1][2] are a good place to start.

- Ram1751 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much & for sharing some sources. I'll try to take a look and update this section accordingly. Whitestar12 (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the latest revisions, Ram1751 - do you think it's appropriate to remove the tags at the top of the article? The tags are: "This article includes a list of general references, but it lacks sufficient corresponding inline citations. (March 2013) This article possibly contains original research. (July 2013)" Whitestar12 (talk) 01:17, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Preparation section is now in good shape. However, the other sections need to be checked for the issues and rewritten if necessary. For instance, the Name section cites the Bangalore Mirror, a tabloid - therefore not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Is the Name section even necessary or appropriate for this article? Similarly, I'm in favor of deleting the Culture section since the single source cited does not appear reliable.

Thank you for your contributions! Ram1751 (talk) 02:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Considering the content is now updated with citations, is it okay if I remove the tag at the top of the article? Whitestar12 (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whitestar12, it appears you did not see my comments above, so I'm repeating them below. The template can be removed after the items below have been adequately addressed. Thanks.

I think the Preparation section is now in good shape. However, the other sections need to be checked for the issues and rewritten if necessary. For instance, the Name section cites the Bangalore Mirror, a tabloid - therefore not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Is the Name section even necessary or appropriate for this article? Similarly, I'm in favor of deleting the Culture section since the single source cited does not appear reliable.

Ram1751 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies; I responded too fast.

I agree with your comment regarding the Name section. In place of "Name," it may be more valuable to have a section on "Etymology?" Or perhaps remove it altogether. Any relevant content under the "Name" section could be moved to another section on the page.

I am also in favor of deleting the "Culture" section. Whitestar12 (talk) 15:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1751

For the "History" section - I reviewed the content & sources under this section. Do you think we should be good with removing the tag? Whitestar12 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi just wanted to see if there was any further opinion on the History section before I take down the tag.

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 02:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the cited sources are available only by subscription so they can't be verified. Can you provide the relevant quotes from the sources, or better, provide more easily verifiable sources? Thanks. Ram1751 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, I took a closer look at the sources. The first one is a book & the information is coming from a chapter in the book (The English Paradigm in India: Essays in Language, Literature and Culture). I don't have access to the book, but I did a quick search. Looks like the publisher is Palgrave Macmillan Singapore. At a glance, since this book contains essays, it feels like a primary source to me. This book could potentially be reliable but would love for someone else to weigh in.

As for the 2nd source, I agree. I'll try to see if I can find a more verifiable source here. If not, perhaps we remove the content?

Thanks!

Whitestar12 (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't even know what the relevant material is from the first source, it should not be cited. Since the material from both sources cannot be verified, the content of this section should be removed and it should be completely rewritten from scratch, based on a fresh search for reliable material. These sources^[1][3] may be useful for the rewrite. Ram1751 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whitestar12, I have rewritten this section based on verifiable, reliable sources and removed the template. Ram1751 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! sorry, didn't get a chance to help with this.

Whitestar12 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ram1751- Just curious, I know this article is currently start class. What is stopping it from moving it to a B class? Trying to explore ways to help improve it further.

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 20:11, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ram1751 just wanted to resurface my last question.

Thanks! Whitestar12 (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]