Talk:Chocolate/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Good Article Review

This article has been brought to WP:GA/R for review and possible delisting of its Good Article status. Reasons for this have been listed with the nomination. Regards, LaraLoveT/C 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article improved since nomination, and so there was no consensus to delist, and possibly a consensus to keep. However, the article does need improvement. The archived discussion contains some comments and suggestions. Geometry guy 17:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture section

I think the following material may be unencyclopedic, so I have removed it from the article. Instead, I think the article really needs a section on chocolate in modern society. Some of the material below may be very useful for such a section, which is why I have copied it here. Geometry guy 23:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Chocolate in popular culture

Phenethylamine

Under the physiologic effects section, it is stated that phenethylamine is an endogenous amphetamine. This is false. Amphetamine and phenethylamine are very similar chemicals, but altogether different pharmacologically. There are no known endogenous amphetamines in the human animal. There are many endogenous phenethylamines, like epinephine, dopamine, norepinephrine, etc. It would be more correct to say: "Amphetamine is a synthetic phenethylamine derivative, though phenethylamine does not share its synthetic cousin's pharmacological effects when ingested due to degradation by MAO enzymes."

My quick review of the Phenethylamine entry agrees with your analysis. I tagged the offending phrase as needing citation. Rsheptak 00:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
such a questionable statment should be removed from the article until cited. Brentt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brentt (talk • contribs) 23:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Production Quantities

I'd like to see answers to the following questions:

  1. How many pounds of cacao beans does it take to make a pound of chocolate liquor?
  2. If a pound of chocolate liquor is fully pressed, how many pounds of cocoa powder and how many pounds cocoa butter is produced?
  3. To make a pound of "dark" chocolate, how much chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, and sugar are used? What about a pound of "milk" chocolate? (Obviously that varies with the type of chocolate. I can figure out how much chocolate liquor is used from the Types of chocolate page, but I don't know about the amount of cocoa butter and sugar. For example, would 1/3 each of chocolate liquor, cocoa butter, and sugar be used?) Maybe the answers to this last question belong more on the Types of chocolate page.

--Ishi Gustaedr 13:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


Blending

I'm removing the fake links, they redirect here, so they're unneccary. Shadowedmist 02:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

60 degress OF WHAT?

There is a sentence under The Bean>Varietes "The temperature for cacao trees cannot drop below sixty degrees without damaging the tree." 60 degress of what? C, F, K?

You could easily have guessed. 60 degrees celsius would be too hot for a tropical tree, and 60 degrees kelvin much too cold. I have it on good authority that if the roots of the tree get below 70 degrees fahrenheit the tree does poorly. Your nit has been fixed in the article. Rsheptak 19:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


Anandamide

It seems like the detection of anandamide in chocolate by di Tomaso et al (Brain cannabinoids in chocolate. Nature 1996; 382: 677–8) was due to contaminations, as another study didn't find anandamide in chocolate (GC Willi, A Berger, V Di Marzo, T Bisogno, L De. Lipids in Neural Function: Modulation of Behavior by Oral Administration of Endocannabinoids Found in Foods. Nestle Nutr Workshop Ser Clin Perform Programme, 2001), and also not in raw, fermented or roasted cocoa beans. Icek 11:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed the material on anandamide from the articles now. Icek 02:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Connection with oxalates and SSRI?

(Also posted on the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor discussion page.)

A friend of mine was saying that dark chocolate helps fight depression due to selective serotonin reuptake inhibition (SSRI). She didn't know what that meant, though, but she was all for it. I found some such indication in an article about oxalates at something called reciprocalnet.org. There's no sniff of such in this Wikipedia article or the one on SSRI, though. Are there any experts monitoring this discussion page who can comment knowledgeably? If the idea is out there but controversial, a mention of such would be appropriate in the article. Kkken 07:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As someone on the other talk page already said, that's nonsense. Rhubarb has got high oxalate content, way more than chocolate. And oxalate just damages the kidneys. What the linked webpage refers to is escitalopram, which is an SSRI, and is only sold as an oxalate salt (presumably to make it water-soluble, but I've no idea why they didn't just take the chloride salt which is usually used for such purposes); the serotonin reuptake inhibition is effected by escitalopram, oxalate doesn't have anything to do with that. Icek 01:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The person on the other talk page said that's nonsense, but nothing more. Harsh, hyperbolic, and not quite what I meant by "comment knowledgeably." Thanks for a more technical reply. I'll pass it along to my friend. Kkken 08:40, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (on hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. The main concern is the # of "citation needed" tags, especially under "Bean" section. References need to have same format. I also believe that the "furthur reading" can be shorten as well as giving the ISBN # for the books. I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GA/R). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAC. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Regards, OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm now delisting Chocolate as the problems I indicated were not fixed. OhanaUnitedTalk page 15:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
And this actually is symptomatic of what's wrong with the "editing" process on Wikipedia. Any idiot can put in a "cite" tag, even on well known, and correct info. The article is largely finished, and therefore not actively being edited, and then the malicious tagging doesn't get addressed. The info that "requires" a citation is correct, so there's no real concern. You, an editor, knowing nothing, then come and decide the article is bad because someone tagged valid info as needing a citation. Not exactly a valid or good process. Just my opinion. Rsheptak 18:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
There's a small grain of truth to what you say, but that could apply to everything in life, not just Wikipedia. Let's just fix the problems and get the GA back. —Viriditas | Talk 23:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

How is chocolate produced?

How is hard chocolate made of cocoa? What is the process like? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.77.97.204 (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "hard chocolate"? If you mean just ordinary chocolate, please first read the article and then ask more specific questions if you think something is unclear or missing! Icek 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential health benefits.

A small pilot study by prof. Steve Atkin from Hull York Medical School have found interesting results regarding dark chocolate and chronic fatigue syndrome. Although it was a very small study of 10 patients, results were surprising according to prof. Atkins.

News at Hull York Medical School (HYMS) dated 1 October 2007: http://www.hyms.ac.uk/news/Chocolate.asp

But I also found a press release from Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals dated December 2006. http://www.hey.nhs.uk/pdf/media/chocolate.pdf

I'm not really sure of the differences between these two. Although a small study, it may be worth citing. What do you make out of this? --Pidno 13:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that it is necessary (but not sufficient!) that this research has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Please cite the publication, if it exists. Icek 17:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Potential Spam Link?

Does the external link to http://www.dmoz.org/Shopping/Food/Confectionery/Chocolate// qualify as a spam link to be removed? 75.185.66.16 01:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

No, dmoz is not considered a spam link; in fact, WP:EL calls it "often neutral" and suggests using it or another web category when the community can't determine whether a list of external links contains spam or is just too long. Petershank 03:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Citations needed

I fixed one that I noticed, then I saw many others that could be cited from the New Yorker article I read this morning in my favoriate local coffee shop: Bill Buford, Notes of a Gastronome, "Extreme Chocolate," The New Yorker, October 29, 2007, p. 68 Choc-a-bloc with chocolate facts. Full text not presently available on line. MaxEnt (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Vegetable fat

There's nothing in the article about the fact that most British (and Irish) chocolate contains vegetable fat. Well, there's a bit saying that "allowing chocolate to be made with vegetable oils could have serious consequences" - but the vegetable fat has been in British bars for a century and more. Various Commonwealth countries also have this sort of chocolate. It's why a Cadbury Dairy Milk bar from Canada tastes different from a Cadbury bar from the United States: the Canadian bar is made to the British recipe, with vegetable fat, whereas the American bar is made (under licence, by Hershey) to a completely different recipe, without vegetable fat, to satisfy the FDA.

There have been occasional attempts by the European authorities to stop British (etc) manufacturers referring to this as "chocolate", but they've never come to anything because of extreme public resistance in the UK. My personal experience has been that most British people (me included) on tasting US Cadbury chocolate don't like it as much as the home-grown variety. Anyway, my point is that the article mostly ignores the fact that a major chocolate market has allowed vegetable fat in its chocolate for a very long time - and that it still far outsells "cocoa-only" bars which are just as easily available here. Loganberry (Talk) 02:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

blending, and coca percentages in dark chocolate

In the "Blending" subsection under the section "Cacao", the article claims that "The finest plain dark chocolate couvertures contain at least 70% cocoa" however, 85% cocoa is also quite common. Lindt Chocolates actually sells 99% cocoa content dark chocolate as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.79.207.191 (talk) 02:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Chocolate-Yummy

Most people luv chocolate ,such as me but unfortunatel some people can be alergic.If u r like me and luv it then get back to me and tell me your favourite chocolate.Mine is Crunchie.Yum


Cheers hannah —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amathist919 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

item needs sourcing

in the UK, 99.999% of chocolatiers

If this is factual, then presumably a source can be found for it.

Note that edit of the article seemed to be disabled for me, although there was no protection template present on the page (and it seems an odd article to need protection, although I guess anything can end up contentious around here). --86.144.20.95 (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly suspect the percentage figure was meant for dramatic effect rather than as an assertion of fact. Is it plausible that a hundred thousand chocolatiers even exist? According to discussion above, it's protected due to vandalism, not controversy. I don't know how edits occur now that it's semi-protected, but I would change it to something like "the vast majority." I don't have a source for even that, but I don't have any trouble believing it. Petershank (talk) 22:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm getting sick of people criticising peoples edits without having taken the trouble to refer to the reference/s provided. It's making Wikipedia a progressivly nastier place to inhabit. Why didn't you read the reference ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 16:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Harvest

Harvesting cacao beans is a delicate process. First, the pods containing cacao beans, are harvested [[(The pods are cut from the tree using either a machete or a long stick.). It is important to harvest the pods when they are fully ripe because if it is unripe, it will result in either a low butter content, or insufficient fermentation creating a weak flavor.]] The beans with their surrounding pulp are removed from the pod and placed in piles or bins to ferment for three to seven days. The fermentation process is what gives the beans their familiar chocolate taste. The beans must then be quickly dried to prevent mold growth; weather permitting, this is done by spreading the beans out in the sun.

I think we should be able to edit this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Maya93 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you're trying to say - is there vandalism on the page? Do you wish to add the text? Based on a reasonable suggestion, I can edit the page. WLU (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
With a user account (like you have) instead of just an IP address you can edit the page. I've updated the "Harvest" section with your contribution, slightly rewritten. Good addition. Rsheptak (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed material for review

Below is the material I removed from the Production section (originally put there by Kamayav), as per the request of Viriditas Eldar (talk) 02:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

However, the preponderance of unsustainable cocoa production methods is contributing to deforestation and soil depletion in the tropics[1]. A further threat to the sustainability of the chocolate industry is the ongoing spread of devastating fungal diseases of the cacao tree that destroy cocoa harvests. The strict observance of quarantine measures for the movement of cacao planting material is a prerequisite for the continued health and productivity of cacao plantations world-wide[2].

Note: This material was added into the article by User:Kamayav here. Viriditas (talk) 03:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am relatively new to Wikipedia as an editor, and so I am happy to receive help on how best to edit. (And my apologies if this is not the right place to insert my comment). I should say that I am an agricultural scientist and resident in a tropical country with quite a bit of experience with the cultivation, quality production of cocoa, including chocolate making. So, I guess I know what I am talking about. Having said that, I 'd appreciate Eldar giving me his/her reasons why my edit of yesterday was removed. The two issues I raise are important to the sustainability of the chocolate industry (certainly more so than the linguistic subtleties of the article). My first "claim" is not a POV. I provide the pdf source of a scholarly article that reviews much academic literature, concluding that cocoa and coffee production leads to much environmental degradation, particularly the loss of forest cover. Even the chocolate industry is hugely concerned about that (see last COPAL congress). The second claim is about about the threat emanating from he spread of fungal cocoa diseases. This is of huge importance to the chocolate industry. I would agree that I should perhaps add an additional source to back up this claim, but why does Eldar remove my reference to the "guidelines for the safe movement of cacao". Why should the interested reader not be referred to an article describing best practices that are of utmost global importance? It is a publication by a scientific institution internationally known for their research? Kamayav (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure we'll get this worked out. Eldar seems to believe that Conservation International and the Center for Applied Biodiversity Science (CABS) is a POV source. That may or may not be, but if the information is supported by reliable authors (seems to be the case as the authors are all scientists in their respective fields) it should be considered reliable. I'm not sure that particular publication is a "scholarly article"; it's officially classified as a "report" and should be treated as such. That said, if the information checks out, I see no reason not to attribute it and add it to the article. The same holds true for the second link, which is a reliable technical guideline.[3] Viriditas (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I did not view CABS as a reliable source because of its POV issues. As for the claim about the fungal diseases, for a while I was not sure whether it is better to remove it or to move it to a subsection about sustainability. Eventually I decided in favor of the first option because the technical guideline, while seemingly a worthy source in itself, does not seem to verify the specific claim (it provides data as to what could be done to reduce infection, but I could not find in it information about current massive infection damage as the claim hints). As a sustainability subsection does not exist yet, I did not want to start one with only yet unverified claims. I agree with Viriditas that if and when validating data is found the claims should be put back.Eldar (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
While all of what User:Kamayav added to the article can be shown to be "true" and supported by scholarly research (and I'll add my voice in support of that), I do think it was, at best, misplaced in the article. There is no discussion of chocolate agriculture other than simple production numbers. If User:Kamayav wants to add a section on agricultural production, and then point out sustainability arguments, I'd be fine with it, but I was about to edit it out myself because it comes out of left field where it is in the article. Rsheptak (talk) 03:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus that the sustainability issue I raised is worth retaining but the issue of cocoa diseases needs to be backed up by authoritative literature. I am currently looking for that, although it might be difficult to find one particular source for a phenomenon that has many (regionally varying) manifestations and that the industry is very well aware of. Witches broom disease now spreads into Central America (a few years ago it arrived in Panama), the introduction of Moniliasis into Africa has long been feared. The introduction of a single diseased fruit into African cocoa regions could trigger disaster, hence the importance of pointing this out and to make Wiki readers aware of the guidelines for the movement of cacao germplasm.
I agree that the above would be best placed in a production or agricultural subsection, but this seems to make sense only if the article is tidied up. Currently, the section on production refers to both the production of cocoa and the chocolate making. I think the 2 issues need to be separated. I'd be happy to do that and write a succinct section on agricultural production and its links to chocolate production and quality. I would also argue that the article should be divided into the following sections, and re-arranging some of the existing text:
- Introduction
- History
- Production of cocoa (where, how much, by whom, cacao varieties and their relation to chocolate quality, threats, etc.)
- Production of chocolate (where, major players, etc.)
- Chocolate manufacture
- Consumption and nutritional value.
Eventually, one could also improve the description of the chocolate making. Whta is there already is a good start, but can be vastly improved.... Could anyone advise me how to proceed. Should I submit a draft for both the agricultural section and the re-arranged text (with additions) on this discussion page? Kamayav (talk) 21:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You can submit a draft, but place it on the temp page: Talk:Chocolate/Temp. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
If I were you I would not attempt a complete rearrangement of the entire article right away, but start with just splitting the production into growing and processing as discussed (I always prefer evolution to revolution). If you have a clear picture of what to do in that respect, you can also be bold and edit it in right away. Now about the disease claim: if you cannot find a source apart from the safe movement guidelines, then you can still describe what is in this source, i.e. that special precautions for reducing infections have indeed been mandated. If you can also find a couple of specific examples of infections (even without finding a claim of sustainability threat), then by all means describe those specific examples too. Just be careful to stick to the proven and not cross to the provable. Good luck.Eldar (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

If Eldar could also produce cites for both CAB and Conservation International being POV? I'd like Kamayav to be see that WP:RS applies to experienced editors raising objections too. SmithBlue (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I'm sure "chocolate" is a 3-syllable word with the vowel in the second syllable being a schwa.--24.5.184.255 (talk) 02:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Considering there's only one category listed, I think we might want to expand. Category:Cigarette_additives, for example. I can't edit, because the page is locked. 129.237.90.22 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ Rowling, J. K. (1999). Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. US: Scholastic Press. p. 84. ISBN 0-439-13635-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chocolate/Archive_3&oldid=1136610670"