Talk:Flat white/Archive 1

Is a Flat White different to a Latte?

The style needs to be cleaned up in this article. Especially the use of the word "Dynamic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.25.109.195 (talk) 15:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at this page, and the pages it links to and google searches, a flat white is just a properly made latte in the US. Exact same thing. Take a look at David Shomers Cafe Vivace site, Coffeegeek.com, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesaf3 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to differ all that much from what Americans call a caffè latte. Could it be that it's a case of two names for essentially the same object, such as raisins versus sultanas, and thus appropriate to be merged? — :ArkansasTraveler 18:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

No, they taste and look different - but if the article is correct I'm not sure why they are. Latte is definitely milkier, maybe the flat white has water rather than milk? NZ tea drinker 19:56 30 Jan 2006

So more like cafe au lait then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.247.101 (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Flat white is "flat" (i.e. probably looking a little like tea) hence the name. Latte tends to have a little froth from the milk on top. It's distinct enough, and it's not found anywhere else in the world. One barista I spoke to said it's the ultimate type of coffee for baristas to brew - the "barista's coffee" - because it's much more about the brewing & appropriate mixing of milk than any other coffee -- Aussie coffee addict 03/06/2006

Wouldn't this more resemble a cappucino (which has similar proportions) rather than a latte? Is it prepared differently? — Nahum Reduta 00:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A flat white should be made with a double shot over which is poured milk steamed to a thick velvety consistancy. Its a good deal stronger than a latte and its distinguishing feature is that it is not served with foam(hence the flat bit)- or with chocolate or cinnamon dusted over the top etc. A barista will often make a nice design on the top when pouring the milk, which is good indicator of the consistancy. Bollax 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"I have been advised that a Flat White is essentially a Cappuccino without the froth on top. This may not be true today; it was put to me that this was the way it developed in Australia and New Zealand. It might be worth while finding out whether this story is true. John McDougall An Australian resident in Saudi Arabia, where I am forced to drink the products from Starbucks (with extra shots)"

(Comment originally made in the article body by 86.51.5.84)

I saw a claim somewhere that the difference between a flat white and a cafe latte is that the former is made with the froth and milk stirred together before pouring. Can any barristas confirm this? -- pde 21:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, this sounds like a properly made latte - what Bollax is referring to above. In order to make the design, you have to make good microfoam, which requires some artistry.

To clear some things up, Latte's have the foam mixed in with the milk but no barista uses a spoon so I wouldn't say stirred. The bubbles (which should be very very small) will create an emulsion with the milk when frothed and should remain suspended for some time. I believe that the difference between a Cafe Latte and a Flat white is the strength (flat white has more espresso/milk), the size of the cup and finally a flat white has less foam. Although these differences seem insignificant in description the resulting drink is quite distinguishable to a trained palate. Harris77 (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Have undone mention that Flat White has more foam than a latte as this really doesn't seem correct (thus the whole "flat" thing).118.90.8.0 (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My take is that flat white has more milk to expresso proportion (perhaps single shot for latte and double for flat white). A French who knows about the scene of coffee served in Australia told me cafe au lait would be equivalent to flat white. --JNZ (talk) 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

This is so silly. Flat whites are nothing but interpretations of the southern European coffee with milk (au lait in france, con leche in spain, com leite in Portugal and so on). The ones you get in New Zeland and Australia are localizsed nuances introduced by italian, spanish portuguese emigrants. Typically the main difference will be that expresso in southern Europe (the original expresso by the way) is made mostly of Robusta which is cheaper and has a stronger bitter taste, also having higher caffein content than Arabica. Please cut the crap with northern italian roast or spanish roast there is no such thing! Southern European coffee uses coffee mixes from pretty much the same regions (colombia, brazil, africa) usually with high robusta percentage and is roasted in the exact same way. Actually the coffee distributors selling the beans in southern europe are pretty much the same regardless of the country (Buondi, Illy, Segrafredo, Delta, Bogani, Lavazza etc)-- 16:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.181.4 (talk)

A Flat White differs from a Latte in that it is served in a smaller ceramic cup[2], whereas a traditional latte is served in a glass with the espresso shot poured over the steamed milk.

This is untrue as a latte also has the shot poured in first, a latte macchiato has the shot poured in last to "mark" the foam with the espresso — :j01t25g81 16:05, 06 March 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to a "traditional latte", as served in a glass. The main reason why the shot is poured over the milk is not to mark the milk with the espresso, but rather because there simply isn't sufficient clearance on a typical espresso machine to enable the espresso to be extracted directly into the glass. Thus, there is no distinction between the traditional (glass served) latte and the latte macchiato (a modern interpretation). Of course if you can find any references that suggest otherwise feel free to share! To reiterate - I am talking about the traditional latte, not modern interpretations of it. 88.144.10.150 (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have contributed, but regardless of what our individual opinions are, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and requires references to support what an article says. I've added a couple of references, which support the version as it is now. If you disagree with what is written, please read those references first - if you still disagree, find some further references to support what you think it should say. Of course, the nature of the beverage is that there isn't one version, and variations exist from country to country, as well as from city to city, and even café to café. Fundamentally, though, we need REFERENCES! OceanKiwi (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Should you really state "obscuring the complex flavours of the coffee"?? It sounds as if the writer objects to this drink. --80.4.79.81 (talk) 10:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Link expired

This link [1] seems to have expired and should be removed. --František K (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This wikiLink [2] is incorrect, and has nothing to do with coffee or related beverages. It should be updated or removed. -- AK2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.66.179 (talk) 16:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed to point to the correct article. — daranz [ t ] 21:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Distinction from Cafe con Leche

The Distinction from Cafe con Leche section is pretty silly, and almost original research. It is a pointless section: does anyone say the two beverages are the same? No? Then why a lengthy defensive section insisting they are different. Anyway there are several coffee and milk beverages and a range of interpetations (even from barista to barista) and we do not need lenthy sections arguing each and every little difference of each and every different beverage. Some of the elements in the section would not be true of all interpretations of the flat white anyway. I think I'll remove the section soon. Format (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Restore Australia 2011-Feb

User:Jcbeckettnz deleted all references in Australia from the article. This included the removal of a reference. The main section affected is below:

The beverage was reportedly created in the early 1980s in either Sydney, Australia or Auckland, New Zealand. Derek Townsend, the co-owner of DKD café in Auckland claims to have developed it, though acknowledges that the term "flat white" was already in use in Sydney to describe a similar style of coffee.

The nearest we have on the origins (referenced) of the beverage are that someone in NZ developed it, but that he understood something similar already existed in Australia at the time. Therefore we probably shouldn't remove all reference to Australia, so I have restored what was deleted. Format (talk) 07:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

U.S. temperatures

I don’t know why, but espresso thermometers in the U.S. typically are marked with the desired band as being 150–170 °F. Common brands like CBN’s IRB220, (which I own), and the the Espresso Supply, Inc. 11160 are ubiquitous and sold in a variety of forms under different brand names. I don’t know if it’s the “chicken or the egg” phenomenon, but not surprisingly, Web sites like MakingEspresso.com suggest steaming milk to 150–170 °F.

So rather than state the parenthetical to direct equivalence to degrees Fahrenheit, I showed the common steaming temperature for those individuals who commonly work in degrees F.

And for those who would decry that I am a big-time advocate of U.S. Customary units of measure trying to further darken the doorstep of an article closely associated with Australia, I am not. I modified by Rancilio Ms. Silvia with a pressure gauge reading in bar and a boiler-temperature gauge in Celsius. I would have bought a Celsius thermometer but couldn’t find one locally. Greg L (talk) 18:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

couple of recent media articles discussing origin

[3], [4], [5] Theodore D (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

very generous of Kiwi Wikipeians to restore mention of Oz in this Flat White article

Technically, it could be said that the Flat White originated in Oz. But saying it was developed in both Oz and NZ is a fair compromise. It is no less accurate than saying the pavlova was developed in both NZ and Oz. But wait, the pavolva article at present appears to falsely claim NZ as the sole origin. What gives?Theodore D (talk) 05:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Volume

"It is somewhat similar to the cappuccino or the latte although smaller in volume, therefore having a higher proportion of coffee to milk . . ." No. This is a ridiculous statement. The volume of a mixture and the proportion of an ingredient are independent quantities. Each one has nothing to do with determining the other. Will someone who knows about the "flat white" (but has no bias) please correct this erroneous statement.Daqu (talk) 13:24, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

In this case, the volume is pertinent to the proportion, as a 'shot' or 'double shot' of espresso are standard volumes irrespective of the cup volume. Thus, reducing cup volume will alter the proportion of coffee and milk. Davecw (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Australian coffee "facts" = all over the place

I've spent a few hours going through coffee articles on Wikipedia, and come to the conclusion that there are few agreed-on "official" facts about coffee in Australia, because: 1) almost everything we do in oz contradicts what they do in the traditional European origins of these drinks (i.e. definition/size/recipe for 'latte', 'cappuccino' having chocolate on it, and the supposed facts about beverage sizes despite being able to order these of any size in most cafes); and 2) there are endless of examples where food writers, barista training schools, journalists and WP contributors contradict each other, including in articles that contradict themselves . If you don't believe me please compare references to flat white in cappuccino article (suggests a flat white always has 2 shots and can contain latte art, whilst some blogs say in NZ they have 2 shots the current article mentions nothing of it), even the reference from this page here admits the author isn't confident of stating a definition of the flat white, and not one of the comments on that page agrees with any other comment - and they're supposed to be coffee snobs!! Anyway as it stands, I'm inclined to suggest that without bringing attention to the fact there's varying opinions offered by cafes/baristas and it seems to depend on who you ask, OR without mentioning that the 'official' recipes are disputed, then without good references a lot of these 'facts' border on looking like original research. It's really just a completely subjective topic and it annoys me that WP articles often try to state strict definitions.

A few statements attempt to reference a newspaper article to back up a claim, but the problem I'm seeing here is half these food writers also contradict each other, so shouldn't be relied on as good references. I could easily link to this to claim the 'cafe latte' was an American drink, 'popularised in Australia and is now making its way to Europe' (WTF?). And the very SMH article referenced in this page here claims the only difference in flat white and latte "is the vessel in which they're presented", a direct contradiction of the sentence immediately before it in the WP page! In the present article we see the flat white "is somewhat similar to the traditional 140 ml...although smaller in volume", but yet later we're told in Australia "a flat white is served in a ceramic mug" of volume 200ml. Make your minds up - does it have an official volume and if so then reference it, or if not then explain that it can be subjective.

And really, to me none of this is at all surprising. After all, every one of these drinks is just an invented variation on the same basic premise of extracting espresso and adding heated milk. Of course as different cafes copy similar methods they're all going to disagree on the exact recipe, and as recipes move from one country to another they evolve with local tastes. I think at best the most you can do is discuss the most commonly offered products, and treat 'official' definitions with utmost care. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing all these coffee pages rewritten with a tone along the lines of, "<drink X> is the name given to a number of variants of an espresso-based coffee beverage, typically sharing the characteristics that <etc etc>".

Doubtful anyone will go ahead and do that as it will upset those who made those unreferenced claims, but in the meantime if this brings attention to the worst contradictions someone might address? Tilgrieog (talk) 12:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty good summation. As you said, I think the best forward for these sorts of articles (which seem to be pretty common with food and drink items) is to "teach the controversy". It's better that the article end up as "A says X, B says Y, C says Z", rather than having one point of view put forward and having people edit war over it for eternity. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flat white. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130116071701/http://espressoitaliano.org/doc/istituzionale_inei_lq_ita.pdf to http://espressoitaliano.org/doc/istituzionale_inei_lq_ita.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:09, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Origin

In the Introduction, the article says it is of New Zealand invention, whereas in the 'Origins' section in mentions claims for both Australian and New Zealand invention with Australian claims arising before New Zealand claims. What is the reason for this? Should it be changed? Are there more references that should be mentioned in the 'Origins' section? Davecw (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the bloody Kiwipedians! They are the most aggressive, biased, and angry of all wikipedians. But you can be at least thankful that Oz actually gets a mention. In previous versions of the article any mention of an Oz origin had been deleted. I kid you not! The evidence points to an Oz origin. But good luck with getting the truth by the fanatical Kiwipedians. They will immediately revert to the cock and bull story they have invented about uncertain Ocker or NZ origins. A similar argument could be made for the origin of pavlova. But try and change the pavlova article to reflect the joint Oz/Kiwi origins and the Kiwipedians go nutso! They have a massive inferiority complex, which they attempt to hide using over the top aggression. Just watch the response to this comment. There will be no attempt to argue fact. Instead the Kiwipedians will feign offence. That's another of their tactics when faced with the truth of their own hypocrisy. A tosspot Kiwipedian administrator will no doubt ban me for speaking the truth! Theodore D (talk) 07:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Why not find primary sources from the 1980s that unambiguously show its existence from that time. There would be no controversy. Search in online databases like EBSCO etc.. . -- GreenC 01:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of controversy and, frankly, weird assertions around this topic. I think the problem is that there are a number of points people are arguing over:

- The name "flat white". There is certainly photo evidence that a coffee drink with the name flat white was being sold in Sydney and Brisbane in the late early 80's. The claim from an Auckland barista does not appears to provide any evidence.

- The variations of flat white: The barista from Wellington claims he invented the flat white variation with a double shot of Expresso and steamed milk, claiming the "flat white" he had in Auckland was based of a Sydney recipe, which was a shot of Expresso with a jug of (cold) milk on the side. There is no evidence anywhere that such a drink was ever sold anywhere (geez, a jug of cold milk? that is just weird). The Wellington claims they invented a variation where they use a double shot of Ristretto instead of Expresso (which is the variation being sold by US chain Starbucks in the US, so he appears to be claiming this variation is different from the more common Expresson based flat white), but again without citation. This is more likely to be variations with vendors rather than a distinct regional variation.

- The whole controversy appears to revolve around a couple of baristas that have recently made claims that they invented the "flat white" with absolutely not evidence except their own self serving arguments. There is at least evidence that a "flat white" existed in Australia long before both these claims. I see no reason to call this a New Zealand invention, and it should be Australasian at worst. IMHO, the evidence makes a pretty good argument that what we now call a "flat white" is of Sydney origin.

I've amended the lede paragraph to say 'Australia or New Zealand', and added a reference to an American newspaper article discussing the disputed origins. I would be happy to see this amended further if it were thought that this wasn't definitive enough. Felix116 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggest that we move the claims, evidence, discussion and links about the origins of the drink and the origins of the terminology down into the "origins" section of the page instead of in the first paragraph. From an encyclopaedic perspective, the origins of the term are interesting but they don't have to be the most important thing on the page. This approach should also help de-escalate the New Zealand vs Australia discussion. Peterjthomson (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The compromise on the Australia vs NZ claims seems to be to keep the article focused on reporting what the primary sources say without trying to insert point of view in the form of declarative statements that favour one country or the other. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic record, not a court of law in which to argue for a single version of the truth. The fact that both countries claim to have invented the drink is of encyclopedic interest. Under the Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute guidelines it seems best to let both claims be accurately reported on in the page and leave it to the reader to form their own conclusions. Peterjthomson (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Willful denial, and historic suppression.

Looking into the Editorial history of this article raises the question of Editors' possible self-denial, (of which they may be unaware, at best); I'm willing at present not to consider anything more suspicious; though it's written that by someone's actions they are known. The History to which I refer shows that in 'Danger by my Side', what I thought was a discovery of mine has been found by others, one in 2016. Regularly since then, the suppressive acts suggesting to the more naturally suspicious than I, in their consistency, have even denied the public the knowledge of the existence in Britain, over twenty, (20), years before of even the term itself, let alone the drink, before its alleged 'first' appearance in Australia. It can be seen, heard, in the film before our eyes; and is the equivalent of cctv footage in a courtroom; yet, for some, a still higher level of corroboration is demanded than by the Royal Courts of Justice. The film isn't even allowed to be mentioned in the article. Erasure of its existence is the most effect the the truth nay be allowed to have on the present day, allowable record. The film is identified; the timing of the name, "Flat white", (from memory it was I think 38 minutes and something-seconds, to the second !), has been established; the speaker of the words, to the listener of those cleaely-stated words, "Flat white", are known; I myself have tried to publicize the Screenwriters' names; finally, the film, on dvd, and upon request on You Tube, is available, either to buy, or merely to watch; it's all been authenticated: yet, its not allowed ever to be mentioned. Those few, whose interest leads them here, who have successfully evaded the capture of thought-imprisonment, may move on to other things of concern in their lives; but they do so without taking with them the respect for the inplementers of editorial policy the creators of Wikipaedia may believe its voluntary contributors have, and could have still, were the whole truth allowed to be spoken. And it is the whole truth, not a 'frothy', 'flat', and certainly not an edited version of the truth Wikipaedia purports to express. Flat White's earliest known reference, then, was definitely !, definitely !, whatever reasons others may have for not wanting people it to be known, in the 1962 British Film 'Danger by My Side', whether it was exactly the mixture we know today, or not. The Main Page is wrong; worse, its being engineered to remain wrong; worse still, it's encouraged readers to wonder whether they need voluntarily to bother logging on to participate further in promulgating untruth, when they could more easily practice it in their conversations with people in their daily lives. 92.16.83.163 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge the concession now placed in the article. The appearance of the name, 'Flat White', in Britain, over twenty years before it was once thought was first used in Australia, (the same drink or not), is finally on the record. Thank you, 79.73.43.190 (talk) 15:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

1962 Film

I've just removed: "In the 1962 film "Danger by my Side" a detective meets a girl informant in a coffee bar and orders a "flat white" The drink appears to match the description above." which had been added by 86.136.64.25 - first because it seems very unlikely that it has any direct link to the history of the current drink; and second because there was no RS ref given. Fascinating though... Snori (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It's still of encylopedic interest for readers to know that the term was in usage in the 1960s. If we can find a citation then the mention should be added back in. Peterjthomson (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, no argument about that, which is exactly why I've mentioned it here. But, remember that the article is about the current drink, not the term: i.e. WP:NOTDIC Snori (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Brought here by mention in exactly this film - and can’t see how you can make the declaration that this isn’t the same drink, and that this article is not about the term. The article is written as if there was no previous use of the term, and the drink was invented in the eighties. As the origin is already contentious, it should be included as a third option, for the same name for the same drink, and offer the option that the NZ/ Australia origin is possibly fallacious. There is always a possibility that this is the original drink and was exactly what is served under that name today, and neither NZ or Australia was the point of origin after all. Or evidence has to be provided that the drink in the film (which is treated as a regular request so presumably was expected to be familiar to audiences at the time) is different. Can’t see how the article can be treated as encyclopaedic otherwise, it’s just propagating one version of the story unnecessarily. Jock123 (talk) 09:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Current best version that has been in the article is "In the British film "Danger by my side" (1962), the detective is in a cafe. He is heard to order a 'flat white coffee', at 31 mins 58 secs into the film." It's been removed for not being cited to a source. Although the source is the film itself. I've viewed a copy of the film online, the timecode reference and dialogue are correct. I'm gonna let the deletion stand but we should really find a citation and add it back in one day. 124.157.101.1 (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

New candidate for a paragraph about the film to be placed in the article: Thus far, the earliest documented reference to the beverage dates back to 1962. The British crime thriller 'Danger by My Side' released in September of that year includes a scene (34 minutes) supposedly located in a café in Earl’s Court, London, where Detective Inspector Willoughby of New Scotland Yard (played by the Welsh actor Anthony Oliver) is meeting his informant, Lynne Marsden/Lynne Austin (played by the Kenyan-born British actress, Maureen Connell. Having called the waitress over, DI Willoughby orders “…a flat white coffee…”. 125.238.47.135 (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

There was also the 1962 play The Private Ear by Peter Shaffer, as mentioned in this blog post. Nurg (talk) 09:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I have watched the relevant scene from the film Danger By My Side which is available on Youtube. The scene appears at 26:50. A character enters a cafe and asks for "a flat white coffee." However, the scene then shows the coffee being dispensed from a large metal urn and cold milk added. It is not the modern flat white which is the subject of this article. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I acknowledge the concession. The appearance of the name in English, (the same drink or not), over twenty years before it was once believed was first used in Australia, has finally received acknowledgement. Thank you. 79.73.43.190 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I now realise that the coffee machine depicted in Danger by my Side is a 1950s espresso machine. So the flat white the character orders is an espresso-based drink. However, there is no way of telling whether it is the same as the modern drink. Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC) Aemilius Adolphin (talk) 09:22, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

This article reads like a blog post. Adding template and starting cleanup.

Paragraphs like "allowing the espresso to dominate the flavour, while being supported by the milk", " enhances the experience...adds texture to each sip", do not belong in an objective encyclopedia.

Please see the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/

Very Fantastic Dude (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

1989 Wellington Origin Doesn't Make Sense

The lower the milk fat content, the higher the foam. If they couldn't get fat free milk to foam then the machine was broken or they weren't baristi (physics). I concede that they may have had poor foam with trim milk but it wasn't because of the trim milk. Clearly they didn't invent it based on the history. Since 'flat white' is an obvious name and since NZ is typically parochial they may have coined in their head canon. Thedoctor916 (talk) 20:43, 20 October 2022 (UTC)