Talk:Chocolate/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

soccerisawesome updates

can somebody with appropriate permissions remove 'soccerisawesome' updates Capsticm (talk) 00:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Eldar (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Cancer

This sentence:

Very little evidence exists to suggest whether consuming flavonoid -rich dark chocolate may increase or decrease the risk of cancer

doesn't seem to add anything to the health portion of the article. I could also say that little evidence exists that it does or does not cause still born pregnancy or alien abduction as well. It's very awkward and I think it should be removed. Thoughts?--Unopeneddoor (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It was a weird sentence that just seemed to stick out there. I got rid of it for the sake of quality.

Now, if someone feels that there must be something said about this flavonoid cancer thingy, then this sentence needs a little lead-in. For instance, it could be said that there are reports that flavonoids cause cancer or stop cancer or are dating cancer or maybe just friends. There would be some verification for this. Then would come the big payoff: "Very little evidence exists to suggest whether consuming flavonoid -rich dark chocolate may increase or decrease the risk of cancer. As well, there would be some verification for this statement. Gingermint (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving current discussions

Why has the current contents of the discussion page been archived, restored and then archived again? The past year's worth of discussion wasn't that big. I think it is important to see the history of what's been discussed regarding this article. Please don't archive the current contents of the talk pages. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

• Disagree this talk page is annoyingly long already. All talk pages ought to be archived at least once a year, but this page looks like it might ought to archived every three months. --ErinHowarth (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

-"Cacao, native to lowland, tropical South America,"-------- I just want to point that this frase which its repeated twice in the article its wrong. Mesoamerica its correct, north and central america its correct but SOUTH AMERICA NOOOO!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcudia (talk • contribs) 06:24, 10 June 2009 CEST

Nope, zzzzt. Tests on the genetics of cacao show an origin in the Amazon and Orinoco basins, last time I checked. If you've got a recent, genetics based article that disputes that, the go ahead and add it to the article. Rsheptak (talk) 04:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Ishi's changes

I (Ishi Gustaedr) am putting in a description of some changes (in some case reverts) I've made in case any are controversial:

• "one of the most popular flavors in the world" was changed to "one of the most popular foods in the world" which is a very different statement. I changed it back. In either event, it might be that these statements needs some fact checking. (Although, does "popular" mean "best selling" or "most liked" or what?)

• "Chocolate contains alkaloids such as theobromine and phenethylamine, which have physiological effects on the body. It has been linked to serotonin levels in the brain." was changed to "Chocolate contains alkaloids such as theobromine and phenethylamine, which have physiological effects on the body, and has been linked to serotonin levels in the brain." At first I thought there was a grammar error ("has been" instead of "have been") but then I realized the reference was back to "chocolate". It's trying to jump back over too many phrases. I changed it back to be clearer.

• A reference was added to the end of the sentence "Dark chocolate has recently been promoted for its health benefits, including a substantial amount of antioxidants that reduce the formation of free radicals, though the presence of theobromine renders it toxic to some animals, such as dogs and cats." Since the reference only included information about toxicity to animals, I moved it to that phrase.

• A reference to "the Mayan god of fertility" was changed without citing a reference to "Akna, the Mayan god of fertility." There are many Maya gods of fertility so I changed it back to the general.

• In the section on "Cacao Varieties", a reference was changed, presumably because the original reference had disappear. Unfortunately the new reference didn't actually have any information about the numbers cited. I looked up the old reference at archive.org and restored it.

• In the sections "Harvesting" and "Chocolate Liquor", the same reference was added to several sentences in the same paragraph. Although this common information does not need references, I left one reference at the end of the paragraph.

• In the last paragraph of the section on blending, the reference to the CMA letter explaining their position on the petition to the FDA was removed. I restored it.

• The section on conching had the same reference applied to three sentences in an otherwise unreferenced paragraph. I move the refenerce to the end of the paragraph.

• "Farmers in West Africa sometimes use slave labor" was changed to "Farmers in West Africa use slave labor". I changed it back to "Some farmers in West Africa use slave labor".

I also changed use of the word Mayan to Maya, except when refering to linguistic aspects, as suggested in the article Mayan. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to reference the edit those changes referred to. It's this edit.

Chocolate good article nomination - a success

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of May 26, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to Good article reassessment. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status and congratulations. ——Ryan | t • c 13:54, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

GA QA Review Probably just barely acceptable as meeting the GA criteria, but I still have major reservations on the organization of the article. The use of lots of subsections and subsubsections throughout the article can be very confusing, and some of them (like particularly in the 'consumption' section, with a 3rd-level heading for 'health benefits' and 4th-level headings for those underneath) make it a little more difficult to discern whether those 4th-level headings actually fall under 'health benefits' and which ones begin a new 3rd-level heading. I would strongly recommend reorganizing this article to focus more on the 2nd-level headings, and use far less subsubsections. I won't delist it right now, because otherwise, I think the article is reasonably good; but it could be delisted at some point in the future if the organization issues are not dealt with. Dr. Cash (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation checking

I've noticed a couple of places where a citation doesn't really support a fact stated. If people have some time, please run through the article and double check the references.--Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 11:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I've found a few more statement in the Circulatory benefits subsection that look like they need cites. Also, a couple of refs do not go to the links expected.
Jim Dunning | talk 14:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed one example of a citation that needs to be changed: Other beneficial effects suggested include anticancer, brain stimulator, cough preventor and antidiarrhoeal effects. [1]. Click on the reference link and you'll see that the end of that article concludes: Not so fast. The women who ate chocolate were all younger than the ones who didn't; it was age and not chocolate that made the difference. Estesark (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In the 'acne' section, the claim that "milk is known to cause acne" is in no way supported by the citation. 17:42 9 January 2009 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.167.96.195 (talk) 16:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead concern

The paragraph in the Lead mentioning the various chocolate confections associated with holidays is not fully supported. All of the specific confections mentioned need to appear in the article body and be sourced per WP:LEAD.
Jim Dunning | talk 13:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Pantagraph reference and cocoa growers objections

This Wikipedia article states "Cocoa growers object to allowing the resulting food to be called 'chocolate', due to the risk of lower demand for their crops." with a reference to pantagraph as a source. I removed that reference because I did not see that in the article. Delirium reverted that change stating " the linked article does say that: 1) cocoa growers object to the proposed change". I certainly don't see that in the article. The only statements I could find in that article are:

Hundreds of chocoholics have joined the fray, the outcome of which could in turn affect the livelihoods of millions of cocoa farmers in Africa and South America. ....

Cacao is grown around the globe, within a narrow band that straddles the equator. As many as 50 million people depend upon cocoa for their livelihood, according to the World Cocoa Foundation.

Allowing chocolate in the U.S. to be made with vegetable oils could have an "extraordinary and unfortunate impact" on those millions, Steven J. Laning, an executive with Archer Daniels Midland Co.'s cocoa division, wrote the FDA.

I do see Archer Daniels Midland saying it will have an impact on the growers, but I don's see anything saying the growers object to it. Certainly I can believe that the growers wouldn't like it (because I sure wouldn't like it) but I don't think the pantagraph article supports the statement in our article: "Cocoa growers object to allowing the resulting food to be called 'chocolate', due to the risk of lower demand for their crops." Am I being too literal in looking for objective evidence? Maybe I'll do some research and see if I can find a better reference. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Some feedback

User:Limetolime got this passed at GA and asked me if I thought this was ready for FA so I looked it over. I think a lot of serious work needs to be done before it could be considered for FA. In my opinion, this is not at GA level either (according to their criteria) but I'll leave that for others to work out. Among a few of the major problems:

• It appears that the article does not make proper use of any of the major written works on chocolate. This is a major topic and serious research will be needed to a) discover what the canonical works on chocolate are, and b) use them to write the article. You have some possibilities listed in "Further reading" but why haven't they been used to write the article?
• The History section is very light and poorly sourced. Its parent article is also poorly sourced.
• Many other statements are poorly sourced, including two major assertions in the lead that are sourced to a local newspaper and About.com. --Laser brain (talk) 14:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the GA status: the article quality is not there yet. In addition to Laser_brain's observations, see my comments about the Lead and references issues above. Just a quick scan found problems with citations not supporting the statements they're with or statements missing citations. Right now there are seven Fact tags, and the article hasn't been completely checked yet. These issues should be addressed ASAP by editors familiar with the topic so the GA status is not questioned further.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is great feedback, Laser brain, thanks! I especially like the part about looking for the canonical works on chocolate. That will help us understand what are "obvious" facts that don't need footnotes. I guess we'll have to visit a library instead of just searching online. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have sourced the "Holidays" section and I will be adding more refs. to replace the tags.--Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I checked three of your citations and reverted them. One said the Aztecs used a different word than what the article said. The other was a candy company saying "moulded Chocolate Easter Egg was fast becoming the Easter Gift of choice in the UK and parts of Europe, and by the 1960's it was well established worldwide" to support the statement "On Easter, chocolate eggs are popular gifts" -- hardly an unbiased source. Someone must have figures. And are chocolate eggs more popular than chocolate rabbits, I wonder? The third was that same source cited for the statement that eggs "can either be solid, hollow, or filled with cream", however the article cited mentioned nothing about creme-filled eggs. (To be honest, I don't think that really needs a citation anyway.) Please, please be more careful when citing references. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, the holiday section says chocolate is one of the most popular treats given on holidays. Another change you made is to say how much candy is sold on four major holidays, but no indication how much of that is chocolate. What's the relevance of those figures, then? I hope I don't seem harsh or like I'm singling you out; I just want to make sure the changes we all make move this article forward. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Beat me to it by seconds — was just about to do same. Also, none of the edits has an Edit Summary, so I was very tempted to revert just because they are all unexplained.
Jim Dunning | talk 03:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Could some effort be made about the creation of chocolate in the beginning of the history section? Something should be added about process of making the chocolate, it is a long somewhat complicated procedure. Yet someone reading this entry may well get the wrong idea that chocolate simply grows from trees and is not a sophisticated product. You should give credit of the product to the people who invented it! RM

I'm reverting three edits that were made today: [2], [3], and [4]. Comments are on User_talk:Limetolime#Your_changes_to_Chocolate. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Use of {{main}} template

User Limetolime added the Chocolate in Popular Culture section (at the time, called "Major Works") and included a {{main}} template referencing the movies and books he talked about in the section. As far as I know, the {{main}} template is used when the section is summary of another article or articles. That is definitely not the case here -- we aren't trying to summarize those media articles. I'd say those links are more of a {{see also}}, but there's no point in using that since those links are in the text. I deleted it and he added it back in. I feel like I am reverting a lot of Limetolime's changes and I want to make sure I'm on solid ground here. Suggestions? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 23:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Aztecs and xocolatl

Hi, Limetolime. In response to my reverting a reference you added for this topic you found another reference and made this edit. While I appreciate your efforts to help get references, this new reference (from ancientworlds.net) also lists the Wikipedia Chocolate article as a source (along with a few other Web sites, but the others didn't seem to mention xocolatl).

I have gotten a few books out of the city library, but they don't seem very scholarly. One does talk about the history and lists the Aztek word for their beverage as "chocolatl", but I'm not sure I trust it. Perhaps I can get to the University some time soon and find a scholarly work on the history of chocolate.

I'm a little nervous about reverting this change on you yet again -- I don't want it to look like edit warring or like it violates WP:3RR -- so I'm hoping you will revert the change yourself.

Oh, and thank you for adding meaningful edit summaries. It really does help in reviewing. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 03:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime's comments

Well. I guess it's about time I said something. I see I've caused a lot of trouble on this page, and I'm hoping it can get settled soon. I would like for you guys to list the references that are not good, so I can replace/remove them. Thanks! Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 13:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion. We have been trying to point out the references that are not good, albeit piecemeal. If I have some time, I will try to go through the entire reference list (there are 72 of them to check!), but at this point I'm just trying to make sure we only add good references from now on.

Hopefully you already have a sense of what is and is not a good reference. (Jim Dunning listed some guidelines on your talk page, although I assume you have already read those guidelines pretty carefully at this point in your Wikipedia career.)

I assume some of the recent issues with the references you added (referencing sources that cite Wikipedia as a source, for example) are just a side effect of rushing.

As I said I am trying to find some high quality, scholarly reference books to rely on. I'm not happy with the ones I found in the library. A good, although dated, source available online is Arthur W. Knapp's

• Cocoa and Chocolate: Their History from Plantation to Consumer at Project Gutenberg

Things we need to do:

This is just a list of all of the things we need to do to improve the article (And yes, it will be improving it for everybody).

1. Add authors to all of the references that credit them.
2. Copyedit article.
3. Expand "History" section.
4. Cite "History" section more.
5. Mention that white chocolate contains no theobromine, and thus is not toxic to dogs/cats (I would do this myself, but I can't edit the page) Flamingpies (talk) 06:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 21:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "here is a list of things I think we should do to improve the article". As in, this a collaborative effort, right? --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Right. :) Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 22:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I will continue to do steps three and four. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 20:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlink years

In my latest perusal of the style manual, I came across this interesting infomation on linking dates. I know that it is important to link dates so that they format in the correct form for the user. I like the YYYY-MM-DD format myself. I've seen some articles that link bare years and always wondered why they bothered. Apparently, it is discouraged:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Linking_years:

Solitary years remain unlinked (preferred) and should not generally be 'piped to articles (e.g. [[1989 in music|1989]]), especially when part of a date. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style (links) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(links)#Dates:

Avoid piping links from "year" to "year something" or "something year" (e.g., [[1991 in music|1991]]) in the main prose of an article in most cases. Use an explicit cross-reference, e.g. ''(see [[1991 in music]])'', if it is appropriate to link a year to such an article at all. Exceptions include:

• Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Autoformatting_and_linking (aka MOS:UNLINKYEARS):

• A combination of a day number and a month can be autoformatted by adding square brackets ([[5 November]]). If a year is also given, with a separate link, all three items are autoformatted as a single date. The square brackets instruct the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences if a setting has been chosen by registered users. ....

Links to date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month are not required; for example, solitary months, solitary days of the week, solitary years, decades, centuries, and month and year combinations. Such links must not be used unless the reader needs to follow the link to understand the topic; see WP:CONTEXT. Autoformatting must not be used for the following purposes:

• piped links to date elements ([[20 June|20]], [[20 June]] [[1997 in South African sport|1997]]) (several forms of piped links break the date formatting function);
• links to date ranges in the same calendar month e.g. December 13–17 or the night of 30/31 May – the autoformatting mechanism will damage such dates (30/May 31);
• links to date elements on disambiguation pages;
• links to date elements in article and section headings; and
• links to date elements in quotations (unless the original text was wikilinked).

I guess I'll take pass through our article and fix that up. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Main types of chocolate section

This information is redundant, please remove that new section. See Chocolate#Blending and Types of chocolate. In particular, the Blending section says:

Blending

Main article: Types of chocolate

Chocolate liquor is blended with the cocoa butter in varying quantities to make different types of chocolate or couvertures. The basic blends of ingredients for the various types of chocolate (in order of highest quantity of cocoa liquor first), are as follows:

• Dark chocolate: sugar, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, and (sometimes) vanilla
• Milk chocolate: sugar, cocoa butter, cocoa liquor, milk or milk powder, and vanilla
• White chocolate: sugar, cocoa butter, milk or milk powder, and vanilla

That's more than enough detail for the main article. The rest can go in Types of chocolate.

In addition, the page is 54 KB which is considered by some to be too long -- see archived talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishi Gustaedr (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, Limetolime responded on my talk page, so I replied there. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this talk section (must have missed it before) -- it seems this is saying the Chocolate#Types of chocolate section should be removed. It is 7 months later, and the section is still there. I recently proposed merging Types of chocolate into Chocolate#Types of chocolate. If anyone still thinks Chocolate#Types of chocolate should be removed instead, please say so in Chocolate#Types of chocolate merger proposal. --Zacronos (talk) 16:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

more thoughts

I've REALLY fixed up the Histry section, and the article may be ready for FAC. Please tell me what you think AT MY TALK PAGE. Also, if we had to get ready of something in the article for length issues, what would you suggest? (Don't say Types of Chocolate, please?) Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No, keep the discussion here so everyone can see it. Why should we discuss it on your page?

I think the History section (and a lot of the other new stuff) needs some heavy copyedit work (e.g., "that brought the hard, sweet candy we love today to life") to bring it to even GA status. I think you are way rushing FAC status; we just got comments from an editor that it doesn't meet GA. In particular: It appears that the article does not make proper use of any of the major written works on chocolate. This is a major topic and serious research will be needed to a) discover what the canonical works on chocolate are, and b) use them to write the article.

Please remember that the History section is supposed to be a summary of the History of Chocolate article. Make your updates there and summarize them here.

See also, the response I left on my talk page. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 01:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, this is the appropriate place to discuss the article, not your Talk page. You seem really enthusiastic about getting articles promoted, but this is not ready by any means. As Ishi Gustaedr reiterated, the serious research has not even been done. After the research is composing, then revising, then copy-editing, then peer review, then FAC. Skipping over steps to rush to FAC is going to reflect poorly on you. --Laser brain (talk) 03:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've said this before: I have serious qualms about this article being listed as GA, much less even talking about it being considered for FAC. Yes, there is lots of information in the article, but there are many problems with sourcing (Fact tags have been removed and no cites replaced them, and many statements have no refs attached to them), prose quality, and organization. These things take time. I echo Laser brain: what's the rush? Focus on the quality of the article, not its status!
Jim Dunning | talk 10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

LimeToLime, I also have qualms about the article. I found several citations you added that don't support the statement they're attached to, all of them from the field museum website. I don't actually think you understood what you read there. Also, there's no indication that website has anything to do with Justin Kerr, who is a photographer whose images might have been used on the website. The appropriate citation would be to the Field Museum and Anamari Golf, as that's whose copyright appears on those pages. It needs a serious sit down and rewrite using scholarly sources, not websites. Those sources should be (1) Michael and Sophie Coe's book cited in the additional references, and (2) Cameron McNeil's book for an update to Coe, with specialist articles cited for details like the genetics of cacao. The citations, as they stand, are of low quality. I'd also recommend Robert Steinberg and John Scharffenberger's The Essence of Chocolate: Recipes for Baking and Cooking with Fine Chocolate. Rsheptak (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see that the references were cited wrong; but YES, they verified the claims AND I understood what I read. Why are you guys always putting down my changes? It's NOT easy to find reliable sources on the internet, and I've worked FOREVER trying to find good ones. And of course, YOU guys get the eas job of saying my references are bad. Why can't you guys just cite GOOD sources? If a site by an ACTUAL MUSEUM is bad, then just be quiet. I CAN'T go to a library by myself, because there's no way I can whenever I want to. If you want to cite books, then just go do so, since YOUR changes are always better than mine. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 13:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is getting silly. You've asked for and received constructive criticism, much of which you've ignored. If you continue to make unsubstantiated changes to the article, I wouldn't be surprised if other editors start reverting you on sight. It's getting disruptive. --Laser brain (talk) 21:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Limetolime, I've seen you express frustration a couple times at various articles over the difficulty in finding good, solid sources. And yes, it can be frustrating, given the dubious and useless "sources" that abound across the Internet. What is perplexing, however, is your feeling that because solid sources are few and far between — or may take significant effort to obtain — that the more abundant, but weak ones, should be good enough. I can also understand your frustration that other editors may be perceived as having the "easy" job of poking holes in your efforts while not adding suitable cites to this article. What you may be missing, though, are the time and effort we are putting in on other articles doing just that — adding solid material backed up by solid sources. I admit, the Chocolate article does not hold my interest (I like literature and films more), but I (and apparently others) are willing to put in time and expertise on this article to ensure it is the highest quality possible by guiding and assisting editors who are interested in the topic. And at this point I won't bother repeating myself about the focus on quality, not GA and FA belt notches.

PS: If you can obtain access to academic and professional search engines and databases through a school or local library, that may facilitate your search for good sources without the need to travel. Quite a bit of valuable research can be done online.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

I ran an automated script on this page to look at basic MoS issues and this is what it found:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (numbers), there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 3 grams, use 3 grams, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 3 grams.^[?]
• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?]
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: flavor (A) (British: flavour), flavour (B) (American: flavor), favorite (A) (British: favourite), meter (A) (British: metre), recognize (A) (British: recognise), ization (A) (British: isation), diarrhea (A) (British: diarrhoea), diarrhoea (B) (American: diarrhea), mold (A) (British: mould), molt (A) (British: moult), programme (B) (American: program ).
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• The script has spotted the following contractions: wasn't, doesn't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I will run through and correct any simple problems relating to structure. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 06:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this reference okay?

I will fix up the Justin Karr references, but I added another one and I was wondering whether or not it was okay.

• "Aphrodisiacs: Fact or Fiction?". Medicine Net. Retrieved 2008-06-05.

The source, a web article written by a dietician/nutritionist, doesn't actually support that sentence in the article. In fact, it states that research has shown that, apart from whether PEA has any sexual stimulant properties, we don't absorb the indicated compound (PEA) from chocolate so it contradicts the statement that chocolate, and PEA, have any aphrodisiacal properties. The article says that any such effects attributed to anything are psychological, not physical, effects. It does not say anything about Theobromine being an aphrodisiac. It cites no sources, like most web articles It doesn't support either claim in the article. Rsheptak (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you guys want to remove the reference and/or statment, go ahead. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 19:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure which disturbs me more: (1) the fact that you added yet another "reference" that doesn't support what we are trying to show or (2) this response you had when it was pointed out. Clearly, it doesn't support the facts being claimed. I would have hoped you would have understood that and removed it yourself. --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Delisting

The problems with this article have been thoroughly listed in recent discussion, but I think it's fairly obvious it is a way from GA quality, according to the criteria. Main issues:

• 2b: Many sources have shown to have been wrongly applied. Major works in the topic are not used. A thorough citation review is in progress.
• 3a: Coverage will not be broad until sufficient research is done. --Laser brain (talk) 04:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Obesity Risk

The comment "On the other hand, eating large quantities of any chocolate increases risk of obesity." is an unsourced assertion, and I marked it as such. It also is written in such a way that implies that eating chocolate increases the risk of obesity...which is a major assertion which I think is false. I did a preliminary search using google scholar and was unable to find any evidence supporting a link between Chocolate and obesity. I also found some evidence to the contrary. There is also a section titled "Obesity Risk" which contains little more than a single person's remark speculating about what would happen if one ate large quantities of chocolate. I propose deleting both the comment and the section unless one can come up with better evidence. The current setup in a bit misleading...suggesting that somehow chocolate causes or contributes to obesity, whereas I see no evidence that it does. Cazort (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I have the same concern. At least the word "may" needs to be in there since the single source article is by no means conclusive. It would be better if the study referenced in the source (Cameron AJ, Welborn TA, Zimmet PZ, et al . Overweight and obesity in Australia: the 1999�2000 Australian Diabetes, Obesity and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab). Med J Aus t 2003; 178: 427-432) was used directly. Also, since the source article references the possible obesity risk relative to concerns about using chocolate as a health food, it is misleading to give "obesity risk" its own section. At the very least it should be merged with the information above or more accurately named.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Right now, without a good source, I take it to be as informative as saying eating large quantities of any food with sugar and fat increases the risk of gaining weight. In general, I'm in favor of moving anything questionable and unsourced out of this article and into the talk pages. (As an aside, the reference books in the public library were not helpful and I haven't made it to the university yet.) --Ishi Gustaedr (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not this section is removed, the last sentence, "As a consequence, consuming large quantities of dark chocolate in an attempt to protect against cardiovascular disease has been described as 'cutting off one's nose to spite one's face'," absolutely should be. It is a complete misapplication of the phrase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathje40 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

New and Improved!

Can someone please replace the image of the Creme Egg with this modified version. The semi-protection means I can't do it myself under this account. Thanks! CarbonCaribou (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Be careful with this: the wrappers may not be the same around the world. They're not on sale right now, but I believe UK-spec Eggs have purple (Cadbury's colour) instead of blue on the foil. Loganberry (Talk) 18:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first and foremost, it's an edited version of the current image- the Creme Egg itself is unchanged! So there's nothing wrong with the new one that isn't already in the current one anyway- the new one just has the distracting plate pattern removed.

But to address your concern- there's nothing in the captioning or the usage that implies that it's specifically meant to represent a UK Creme Egg anyway, so what's the problem?!

It's just "a" Creme Egg, it's representative enough, and that's all that really matters in a generic article on chocolate.yes!! i know we all love chocalate its ok to give in sometimes but not to much ladys!!

If you wanted to nitpick, the UK Creme Eggs don't even use the same wrapper design nowadays anyway. CarbonCaribou (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Etymology of chocolate

We should mention what is mentioned in the history of chocolate:

In a controversial recent study, linguists Karen Dakin and Søren Wichmann found that in many dialects of Nahuatl, the name is 'chicolatl', rather than 'chocolatl'. In addition, many languages in Mexico, such as Popoluca, Mixtec and Zapotec, and even languages spoken in the Philippines have borrowed this form of the word. The word chicol-li, refers to the frothing or beating sticks still used in some areas in cooking. There are two different sticks used, either a small straight stick with small strong twigs on one end, or a stiff plant stalk with the stubs of roots cleaned and trimmed. Since chocolate was originally served ceremonially with individual beater sticks, Dakin and Wichmann argue that it seems quite likely that the original form of the word was 'chicolatl', which would have meant 'beaten drink'. In many areas of Mexico, 'chicolear' means 'to beat, stir'

This etymology is very attractive. Dakin and Wichmann point out that there are no other instances of the change of x [sh] to ch in Nahuatl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.77.129 (talk) 16:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

While I despise the entymology section, I'm not sure this study needs to be mentioned. It is generally rejected by linguists. Rsheptak (talk) 19:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Who are the linguists who reject it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.77.129 (talk) 15:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The etymology that was deleted, that from eastern Nahuatl chikolli, beating stick, is the one preferred by the latest edition of the Merriam Webster collegiate dictionary. The xocoatl etymology does not make any sense from the perspective of Uto-Aztecan historical linguistics.

In response to the unsigned comment above, the Dakin and Wichmann argument was rejected in a 2007 article in Ancient Mesoamerica written by Kauffman and Justeson. Interestingly, their article places the diffusion of the term from a northern Mixe-Zoquean speaking group in the 200 BC to 400 AD time period, NOT by the Olmec! Rsheptak (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

And Switzerland?

No mention in this article of all the Swiss inventions to improve chocolate. That's quite unbelievable! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.1.105.11 (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I wondered about the same. The article looks US-whitewashed, no mentioning of chocolate factories in Switzerland in the 19th century, no word about 1879 and the introduction of the Conche (which basically made chocolate popular in Western culture). - 83.254.214.192 (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of descendants of the people who invented chocolate all over North America. I’m not sure what to say about it being "introduced" to us in the US by by people who only recently acquired it. (Roberto Miguel) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.19.132 (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Xocoatl, the Native South-Americans called it. Nothing wrong with that. Todays chocolate is quite different, and the first to refine it into different products were Europeans. And thus it has come full circle. --Kebman (talk) 19:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Kebman, Xocoatl is what the North Americans called the product very long ago. Xocoatl is a Nahuatl word -( [ˈnaː.wat͡ɬ] , stress being on the first syllable). Nahuatl is a group of related languages and dialects of the Nahuan (traditionally called "Aztecan") branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family. Collectively they are spoken by an estimated 1.5 million Nahua people, most of whom live in Central Mexico. Mexico, including central Mexico where my ancestors are from, is in North America. I think it is unfair to split hairs by talk about refining it, it would be like claiming to be the first to create refined feta. Does it matter that it may not be the Greeks. RM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.129.13.79 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Further reading section & external links suggested addition

I would suggest adding the following book to the "Further reading" section:

Stephen Beckett, "Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use 4E", Wiley-Blackwell, 2008, ISBN: 978-1-4051-3949-6.

Also possibly adding a link to the publisher's website where information is given about the book:

• Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use 4E, ISBN: 9781405139496

Thanks,

Amullen (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)amullen

Oppose...user appears to be advertising/spamming this niche publisher's materials across multiple articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

About the chocolate effects - Do you like chocolate? No one raise an objection to the point that chocolate is specialty food enjoyed by people of all ages. Children like chocolate because of the sweet flavor. Well then, what is the reason that children prefer chocolate to sugar? The main reason is ‘alkaloid’, which is chemical substance that stimulates a nerve in a similar way to caffeine. Due to this alkaloid, children prefer chocolate to candy. As alkaloid is a kind of stimulant drug, if we eat chocolate containing alkaloid, then our body is stimulated. This stimulation, of course, is so less powerful than that of coffee or tea that although the elderly or children intake chocolate, they can sleep at night. And when we eat chocolate, we can get pleasure as we are being stimulating state. Furthermore, because chocolate is mixed with smooth milk, sweet sugar and nuts, sweet flavor of chocolate is doubled and it gives us more pleasure. Especially, when we eat sweet foods, we feel secure and pleasure. The scent that we feel through the sense of smell and the flavor that we feel through the sense of taste are closely related to our mood. Because cerebral that feels scent and flavor are closely related to limbic system which feels the emotion. Therefore, as there are nice smell and bad smell, foods also have the same effects. One of these effects that foods have is that we exceed in eating, when we feel insecure or are stressed out. This is due to that when we eat foods, as the scent and flavor that we feel through the sense of smell and taste stimulate cerebral limbic system, we feel more comfortable. So we eat too much when we feel insecure. We commonly give girlfriend or boyfriend chocolate as a gift, this is because feeling of love is similar to the effects that chocolate have on our nerve. Giving chocolate as a present on February 14th, Valentine’s Day originated in a department store of Japan to emerge from recession. But since then it became a big event that girls tell their boyfriends how much they love them, and give them chocolates on February 14th. This is because chocolate has the power of giving love. When we fall in love, the brain makes endorphins - the chemicals that make people feel happy, so we feel secure and relief. And these endorphins are made a lot when man and woman meet for the first time and feel love each other. Similarly, Alkaloid contained in chocolate causes effect similar to the effects of endorphins, so when we eat chocolate we feel similar feeling of love. Therefore, eating chocolate when people have a lover’s quarrel or people are so stressed out that they feel insecure, is because they can feel pleasure and secure through alkaloid. And this is what ‘the chocolate effects’. But though chocolate gives us emotional stability, chocolate is high calorie food containing sugar, butter, nuts and so on. Since if we eat chocolate too much, then it causes obesity and also various adult diseases. So we have to eat chocolate in moderate amount. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.129.30.208 (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

No caffeine in chocolate!

See this page: http://www.xocoatl.org/caffeine.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.183.135.231 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous to cats: yes or no?

According to this article cats and humans are okay with chocolate, while it's deadly for dogs. On the other hand, this article and its child article say that cats are even more sensitive to chocolate than dogs, but just less attracted to it. Can someone provide some references to toxicity studies, so that we can check which is correct? And now I'm on the subject, how did this difference in susceptibility to chocolate poisoning arise? Shinobu (talk) 06:27, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your newspaper article is wrong. If you do a google search for "chocolate poison cats" you'll see that there are multiple pet sites that indicate chocolate is equally poisonous to cats and dogs. My understanding is the toxicity is directly related to the amount ingested and the body mass of the animal and not having enzymes to process theobromine. Rsheptak (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

chocolate is posionous to humans as well the Lethal dose is 22 pounds though

article needs expansion

The article needs expanding there should be more depth on the history of chocolate and there should be more pictures and more infomation on how chocolate in colder nations is sweater than chocolate in warmer nations as well as more infomation on the diffrent brands of chocolate and there popularity and sales in diffrent nations.

Low-calorie chocolate

Is it possible to add a picture of sweetened cocoa powder (eg canderel cankao; this has added fibres too). This powder can be used to make a chocolate replacement. I use it myself to make eg chocolate mousse (with 500gr non-fat fresh cheese (50kcal/100gr). As cankao only has some 200kcal/100gr, mixing it makes eg a mousse of 500kcals, perfect as an evening meal without overeating (and you still get allot of mousse). May make contribution to decrease obesity. Btw, I know that the sweetener is not very healthy, but getting in too much kcal's is definitly worse still.

Pronunciation

The pronunciation given, which amounts to "chawklut," is a local Midwestern American variant which would grate upon the ears of many speakers of English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.15 (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Types of chocolate merger proposal

The Chocolate#Types of chocolate section seems like it needs to be reorganized; the first paragraph talks about milk chocolate, white chocolate, and dark chocolate, but then there is a later paragraph devoted solely to white chocolate, and another paragraph which primarily discusses dark chocolate but which also mentions semisweet and bittersweet chocolate. In addition, the first paragraph has some information also stated in later paragraphs. I was considering how to revise this section when I looked at the Types of chocolate page. It isn't a very long page, but the Types of chocolate#Classification section seems to be everything that Chocolate#Types of chocolate should be. On the other hand, the other sections of Types of chocolate already overlap with information in other sections of Chocolate, so copying over just the Types of chocolate#Classification section would make Types of chocolate almost completely redundant. Does anyone have any comments or strong opinions/objections on my logic up to this point?

The other aspect I would like to discuss is what to do with the Types of chocolate#United States and Types of chocolate#Japan sections. I was thinking that perhaps they should be merged into the Chocolate#Labelling section (as it already contains some information redundant with Types of chocolate#United States); however, although the US section is fairly short, the Japan section is fairly long, and I'm afraid it would add a degree of clutter if included in the main Chocolate page. Instead, perhaps a new article should be created for information about the legal definitions of chocolate used by various countries -- other countries' restrictions could then be safely added without undue clutter. Anyone have suggestions or opinions on this?

Zacronos (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there was a suggestion months ago to remove the Chocolate#Types of chocolate section. Would that be a better solution, given that Chocolate#Blending has some basic info about the different types of chocolate, and the main Chocolate article is so long already? --Zacronos (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Protected since when?

There is no notice at the top of the article indicating when the article was protected, why, or for how long. Nor is there any indication in the talk page that this is a "hot-button" article and will remain protected indefinitely. As far as I can tell from edit summaries, it has been protected since July 2008 - 6 months. I have to ask - why? This isn't an article trying to define (insert impolitic term here), nor is it aimed at denigrating (insert religion/country/color here). It is just chocolate. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There were several waves of repeated vandalism, sometimes five or more vandalizing edits a day - a rate that was enough to preclude any constructive editing. After several failed attempts to remove the semiprotection of this page (usually it was less than a week since the removal of the protection until vandalism has again reached unacceptable level) this page was semiprotected indefinitely. You can check the talk archives about this. Just chocolate or not, experience has shown that it cannot be otherwise. Eldar (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Would it be asking too much for the article itself have a banner at the top indicating why/how long/etc. it has been locked? To come across such an article that should not normally be so controversial yet find it find it locked for a reason buried in the edits is very aggravating. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well there is a little silver lock at the top indicating the the article is protected. Banners are almost never used, as they are very obtrusive. --Terrillja _talk 16:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The article seems unprotected again, and vandalism is at full swing again (well almost full swing, it is still less than the dozens a day it was in the worst times). The article clearly cannot move forward unprotected, all resources are spent reverting vandalism. Eldar (talk) 00:46, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Grand Cru

What about the Grand Cru chocolates, or the more exclusive types? --Kebman (talk) 19:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

"distingueshed"?

why cant i edit this article. it now reads Several types of chocolate can be distingueshed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.85.178 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it, thanks for the heads up. The article is protected because of repeated vandalism.--Terrillja _talk 21:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Aztecs is misspelled as Azetcs within the Article

Fixed. Thank you.
Jim Dunning | talk 21:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

"Cacao, native to lowland, tropical South America"

NO SOUTH AMERICA... MESOAMERICA, north and central america. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alcudia (talk • contribs) 06:25, 10 June 2009 CEST

Slavery and contamination in the chocolate industry

I'm surprised that this article, although seemingly well-researched, does not include two of the darker aspects of the chocolate industry, i.e., human slavery, specifically child slavery, and the industry's sanctioning of contamination of the final product with insect and rodent residues. I use only three references, of which there are many, that highlights these two issues.

(In) the summer of 2001 ... the Knight Ridder Newspapers across the country ran a series of investigative articles that revealed a very dark side to our chocolate consumption. In riveting detail, the series profiled young boys who were tricked into slavery, or sold as slaves, to Ivory Coast cocoa farmers. Ivory Coast, located on the southern coast of West Africa, is by far the world's largest supplier of cocoa beans, providing 43% of the world's supply. There are 600,000 cocoa farms in Ivory Coast which together account for one-third of the nation's entire economy. (http://www.foodrevolution.org/slavery_chocolate.htm) The U.S. State Department estimates 15,000 children, aged nine to 12, are “enslaved” on farms in the Ivory Coast and Ghana. (http://freegan.info/?page_id=136)

CHOCOLATE AND CHOCOLATE LIQUOR 1. Insect filth - Average is 60 or more insect fragments per 100 grams when 6 100-gram subsamples are examined OR Any 1 subsample contains 90 or more insect fragments 2. Rodent filth - Average is 1 or more rodent hairs per 100 grams in 6 100-gram subsamples examined OR Any 1 subsample contains 3 or more rodent hairs (http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/dalbook.html)

The issue of child slavery in cocoa production in Africa is covered in another article, misleadingly named (by its main authors) Economics of cocoa and is linked to from this article, so it does not need to be covered here. As for the contamination aspect, in general, I don't see any point in covering it. The allowable levels of contamination are defined at government levels, and yes, they can really be shocking sometimes. We can't cover the regulations of each country in an article like this, so no, I don't think its appropriate content for this article. Rsheptak (talk) 20:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You can say the same about any food: insect parts, etc. allowed... They're pasteurized. We could, of course, link to an article about food safety standards by country or by food product. -Monado (talk) 06:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Typo in image

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Main_health_effects_of_chocolate.png "Red = GenArally 'bad'" in red... Can anyone fix it? Thanks! Xbrasil (talk) 18:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate and Acne

I am requesting that the section on acne be edited to correct common and persistent misconceptions about chocolate and acne and to supply more extensive and current citations to research. There is no scientific support for the myth that chocolate causes acne. Low-glycemic dark chocolate, which contains no milk, can actually be beneficial to skin. It is clear from the USDA’s ORAC score that chocolate would have a beneficial effect on skin health due to its high antioxidant rating, as long as it is not Dutch processed, does not contain sugar, and is dark chocolate. Such research findings recently led to the development of a new product, Frutels, the vitamin chocolate for acne.

The following is my proposed enhancement of the section of the Chocolate article entitled Acne. As a procedural matter, I am not sure whether the footnotes are accessible in this Request Edit format. Please let me know if you can read the footnotes. Cathleen242 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

There is a popular belief that the consumption of chocolate can cause acne. This belief is not supported by scientific studies. Various studies point not to chocolate, but to the high glycemic nature of certain foods, like sugar and corn syrup in addition to other simple carbohydrates, as a cause of acne. Chocolate itself has a low-glycemic index. In addition, it has been suggested that since chocolate boosts the serotonin levels in the brain, it might reduce stress and actually aid in restraining acne.

In 2008, a new company, Frutels, drew upon scientific research on the health benefits of chocolate in its development of a low-glycemic, non-Dutch-processed, dark chocolate nutraceutical for acne care. The basis of Frutels' vitamin chocolate for acne was the finding that it was the sugar in chocolate that contributed to the development of acne, not the chocolate itself. Since dark chocolate is known to be 600 % higher in antioxidants than blueberries, it would instead be beneficial to skin, so long as the sugar is eliminated.

In addition, milk may be a contributor to acne. Dark chocolate, which does not contain milk, eliminates this possible contributor, leaving the beneficial aspects of dark chocolate. Cathleen242 (talk) 20:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

These are the footnotes. I am not sure why they are not showing up.

1. Kruszelnicki, Karl S. (June 8, 2004), “Chocolate-Flavoured Acne” (http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2004/06/08/1110361.htm). ABC Science; Porter,Leah L. (June 2006). “Benefits of Cocoa Polyphenols.” (http://www.chocolateusa.org/pdfs/PMCA_article_June06_MC.pdf) The Manufacturing Confectioner, p. 52.

2. Smith, Robyn N., Mann, Neil J., Braue, Anna, Maekelaeinen, Henna, Varigos, George A. (July 2007). "A low-glycemic-load diet improves symptoms in acne vulgaris patients: A randomized controlled trial" (abstract at http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/86/1/107). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 86(1), pp. 107-115; Smith, Robyn N., Mann, Neil J., Braue, Anna, Maekelaeinen, Henna, Varigos, George A. (August 2007). “The effect of a high protein, low glycemic-load diet versus a conventional, high glycemic-load diet on biochemical parameters associated with acne vulgaris: A randomized, investigator-masked, controlled trial” (abstract at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WM8-4NHV6SR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=426815b2ef751df1def77459f988c48c). Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 57(2), pp. 247-256; O’Connor, Anahad (February 23, 2009). “The Claim: Sugar in the Diet Can Lead to Acne” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/health/24real.html). New York Times; “Chocolate” (http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/(Pages)/Chocolate?OpenDocument). Better Health Channel. Retrieved April 3, 2009; Cordain, Loren, Lindeberg, Staffan, Hurtado, Magdalena, Hill, Kim, Eaton, S. Boyd, Brand-Miller, Jennie (December 2002). "Acne Vulgaris: A Disease of Western Civilization” (http://archderm.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/138/12/1584). Archives of Dermatology 138 (12), pp. 1584-1590.

3. “Sweet News for Managing Blood Sugar.” allchocolate.com. http://www.allchocolate.com/health/basics/glycemic_effects.aspx. Retrieved April 3, 2009.

4. “The Chocolate and Acne Myth.” The Acne Resource Center Online. http://www.acne-resource.org/acne-articles/chocolate-myth.html. Retrieved April 3, 2009.

5. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Center, Nutrient Data Library. "Oxygen Radical Absorbance Capacity (ORAC) of Selected Foods – 2007." http//www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata/ORAC. </ref> it would instead be beneficial to skin, so long as the sugar is eliminated.

6. Cosgrove, Joanna (2008). "Good-For-You Candy." Nutraceuticals World. http://www.nutraceuticalsworld.com/articles/2008/07/online-exclusive-goodforyou-candy; "Hitting the Shelves: Chocolate … to Treat Acne? -- January 2009." Prepared Foods. http://www.preparedfoods.com/Articles/Product_of_the_Week/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000507000.

7. Weil, Andrew, M.D. “Acne Treatments and Skin Care.” http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART00292/acne-treatments.html. Retrieved April 3, 2009; Adebamowo, Clement A., Spiegelman, Donna, Danby, F. William, Frazier, A. Lindsay, Willett, Walter C., Holmes, Michelle D. (February 2005). "High school dietary dairy intake and teenage acne" (abstract at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15692464). Journal of American Academy of Dermatology 52(2), 207-14. Cathleen242 (talk) 20:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

With the exception of the paragraph on Frutels, source 6, I think this is a fine addition. As a registered user you can edit the article yourself. Rsheptak (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Rsheptak. Unfortunately, I cannnot post the edit because the article is semi-protected and I do not yet have ten edits that would qualify me to edit this article. Do you have any ideas as to how I can get the edit posted?Cathleen242 (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Make 10 small edits somewhere! Surely there are some unprotected articles you know enough to improve. If you don't manage to get the required number of edits in the next week I'll see about posting it....Rsheptak (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Production companies

I came here looking for sustainability issues related to chocolate growing. Currently the article states: The industry is dominated by three chocolate makers, Barry Callebaut, Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)Company. I was thrilled, just three companies, that's a lot less to keep track of. I wanted to figure out which companies supply the brands I buy (Hershey, Mars, Nestle, Cadbury, etc.) and which ones practice sustainable agriculture. But when I read the wiki articles about these three companies, only one (Barry Callebaut) seems to be a chocolate company. Cargil seems to be a meat company, growing soy in the Amazon to feed poultry, and ADM seems to be a corn company growing ethanol like mad men. So, I'm placing a fact tag on the statement that these are the three great chocolate companies. --ErinHowarth (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the author of that sentence meant by production? Those aren't the biggest growers, or importer/exporters of cacao beans in any given region that I can identify. Like bananas, the individual growers take all the risk and its the middle men who control the import/export businesses that establish the prices. There's a large literature on sustainable agriculture and cacao. Rsheptak (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I found it. The information I was looking for regarding the sustainability of chocolate is in the cocoa article. I think of cocoa as a wonderful warm drink for a cold day, but according tot he article cocoa is the seeds from the cacao (tree). I recommend the lead section of this article be re-written to better explain the scope of this article. This article is already very long, and it seems logical to me it it didn't try to address any of the issues associated with agriculture. All those issues could be covered in the cocoa article. I just think its important to make that clear to the reader in the lead section.

Organization

This seems a very large and unweildy page. I found a great page all about chocolate over at http://www.fieldmuseum.org/CHOCOLATE/about.html. We might adopt some of characteristics of how that page is organized. Something like this

• Growing Chocolate
  • Introduction: Growing Cacao for Chocolate
  • The Cacao Tree’s Basic Biology
  • Cacao Farming
  • Explore a Cacao Farm
• The History of Chocolate
  • Introduction: Chocolate’s History at a Glance
  • Chocolate: A Mesoamerican Luxury
  • Chocolate: A European Sweet
  • Chocolate: A Contemporary Confection
• Eating Chocolate
  • Introduction: Eating and Using Chocolate
  • Cooking with Chocolate
  • The Lure and Lore of Chocolate
  • Chocolate: Quick Health Facts
  • More About Chocolate and Your Health
• Making Chocolate
  • Introduction: Making Chocolate from Cacao Seeds
  • Stage 1: Harvesting Cacao
  • Stage 2: Selling Cacao
  • Stage 3: Manufacturing Chocolate
  • The Chocolate Challenge

This page seems primarily concerned with eating chocolate and making chocolate, which seem out of order to me. You have to make chocolate before you can eat it. I think growing chocolate should be a brief section with a link to the cacoa page. Likewise the History of chocolate is a brief section here (as appropraite), but there is a lot of material for a complete article. Anyway, its a great site, and I think it could help us alot in wrestling this beast into a better organized article.--ErinHowarth (talk) 21:10, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The article is long because Chocolate is a complex topic. That said, I don't like the Field Museum's organization and would not like to see the article reorganized to match what they did. That's not to say it doesn't need some rethinking. Think encyclopedic. Chocolate primarily is a reference to the manufactured good, not the raw product. There's an entirely separate article, cacao that talks about the tree, the seeds, and the mesoamerican heritage. This article should at most summarize that in a few sentences, and point the reader to the existing [[[cacao]] article for more info. This article should focus on the manufacture of chocolate, the kinds of chocolate, etc. 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rsheptak (talk • contribs)

C-Reactive Protein

The article does not currently specifically reference CRP or the key 2008 published study. I can't add this material, since the article is locked. So, now it is up to you-all-everybody. Suggested additional paragraph follows.

Health > Circulatory benefits

A study published in the Journal of Nutrition in 2008 by Dr Romina di Guiseppe and colleagues from the National Cancer Institute in Italy[5] found that "Regular Consumption of Dark Chocolate Is Associated with Low Serum Concentrations of C-Reactive Protein in a Healthy Italian Population". This study only examined dark chocolate, and only found benefit from limited, moderate consumption. Consumption of less than 19g per week was as beneficial as 19 to 47g per week. Subjects consuming over 47g per week were grouped together; chocolate-related reduction in CRP was lost in people who were in this highest third (or tertile). [6] [7]

-96.233.20.183 (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated by the NHS, this study only shows a correlation between chocolate consumption and CRP level. It didn't assess a link with heart attacks - that would be purely speculative. So is their suggestion that dark chocolate may reduce inflammation, which is only based on deduction (chocolate <=> CRP CRP <=> inflammation = chocolate <=> inflammation), not on experimental evidence. I don't think it is relevant to talk about that on wikipedia. Calimo (talk) 14:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Review needed

I was checking the refs of this article, and I found two factual errors ([8] and [9]). The refs were actually telling the opposite to the article. I also corrected smaller inaccuracies ([10], [11] and [12]) where the statments in the references where not exactly what was reported here. As a side-note:

• "Milk and acne" was added almost 3 years ago by Lanxxelot [13]. It is his only contribution.
• The trick about biomarkers has been here for more than 3 years [14]. 211.27.251.98 has no other contributions.

Thanks wikiblame for quickly finding that.

I believe this section needs a thorough proof-reading, preferably from an expert of the subject.

Calimo (talk) 14:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate fever

A book by Robert Kimmel Smith in wich a boy is so obsessed with eating chocolate he gets a disease of chocolate spots (Chocolate Fever). That isn't all for as he leaves school he gets involved in a very unusual hijacking.

File:Image://www2.scholastic.com/content/media/products/99/0440413699 xlg.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.187.38 (talk) 09:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Locked 20 months and counting

• Jreferee (who has not edited since Nov 2007) locked this page on 14 September 2007
• On 11 July 2008 the article was protected from move except by sysops

Come on. The motto of Wikipedia is Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unlock it. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 05:50, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Y Done John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 09:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• The last several times (before that indefinite lock 20 months ago) all unlocking attempts resulted in fast unmanageable vandalism (usually it took less than 24 hours until useful edits were impossible due to drowning in vandal edits - I'm talking dozens of them each day). I hope this time will be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldar (talk • contribs) 22:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

As expected, vandalisms started as soon as the page was unblocked. Even if it is not at the level feared by Eldar, I think this article should be semi-blocked indefinitely. Calimo (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I find it strange that chocolate should be vandalised; other things seem worthier, such as religions (Islam, Judaism) and Kurt Cobain. POV aside, if it is being vandalised so aggressively, lock the article indefinitely. At least the 20 month moratorium was lifted for a while. Temporary silver does not equal indefinite gold. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:48, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ther's a sample of it already. Even while the article's still locked, there are sentences highlighted in yellow in the health section. Will somebody please take it off? Alphapeta (talk) 02:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

chocolate is very good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.148.103 (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Silver does not equal gold, no matter what has been sung. If an article needs an indefinite block then by all means block it - GOLD. If an article is suffering only current anon spam then lock it - SILVER - and let it loose in a reasonable time. 20 months for a temporary block is way too long for a "temporary" block. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Considering the last couple of days, it is painfully clear that removing the protection is not working. Please put it back Eldar (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

STYLE

This page is full of info and I learned a lot from it, but I couldn’t help noticing parts of it were written oddly for an encyclopedia. I suggest the following changes (I would do the job myself but I’m defeated by hyperlinks and footnotes).

“Until the 16th century, no European had ever heard of the popular drink from the Central and South American peoples.[16]”

Could we simply change this to:

Until the 16th century, chocolate was unknown in Europe. [16]

And: Before long, the Spanish began growing cacao beans on plantations, and using an African workforce to help manage them.[19]

It sounds as though the Africans were employed to manage the plantations. Can we change to:

Before long, the Spanish began growing cacao beans on plantations, and importing African slaves to work them.[19]

And: The situation was different in England. Put simply, anyone with money could buy it.[20]

Wasn’t the same everywhere, i.e. anyone with money could buy it? Or did some countries have sumptuary laws restricting its consumption to the nobility?

And: In 1689, noted physician and collector Hans Sloane developed a milk chocolate drink in Jamaica which was initially used by apothecaries, but later sold to the Cadbury brothers in 1897.[21]

Sounds like Sloane sold the Cadbury brothers a chocolate drink. Could we put:

… but later sold the rights to the product to the Cadbury brothers…

And: When the people saw the Industrial Revolution arrive, many changes occurred…

Change to: The Industrial Revolution brought many changes…

And: Not long after the revolution cooled down…

Omit the above: revolution still going strong.

And: When new machines were produced, people began experiencing and consuming chocolate worldwide.[24]

Change to: Increased production enabled far more people to consume and enjoy chocolate worldwide.[24]

Sorry to sound pedantic!Ettormo (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Erroneous statement

The article states:

"The world's top producer of cacao beans is Africa, where recent controversy has focused on the use of child labor in cocoa production."

This is totally false. Actually, the world's top producer of cacao beans is Africa plus South America.Daqu (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

In the Outline of Chocolate, Producers and trade organizations should be unrelated concepts

ICI (the trade organization) and Grenada Chocolate Company (the producer) do not deserve to be grouped together.

If you start to list chocolate producers (do you also include cocoa processors in that group?) the list could go into hundreds (and I notice that there are related lists that cover bean-to-bar (which Grenada is) - and the list of trade organizations is also non-trivial (ICCO - the International Cocoa Organization and the WCF - World Cocoa Foundation are just two very important groups to add).

Overall, there are many concepts that appear to be mixed in this way and should be disentangled.

While I am a newbie here, I do have the knowledge and cred to work on this, but as a newbie I know I have a lot to learn about the community and about the fine points of wiki editing so I don't want to dive right in and offend.

Claygordon (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

There is now a standard of identity for White Chocolate.

Since the summer of 2004 it has been legal to use the term White Chocolate to denote a food made primarily with cocoa butter, sugar, and milk (with optional added ingredients) - in the US.

The SOI for White Chocolate can be found here: 21CFR163.124

So - the following sentence in the second paragraph of the article is no longer true:

White chocolate contains cocoa butter, sugar, and milk but no cocoa solids (and thus does not qualify to be considered true chocolate).

It's also important to recognize, for consistency's sake that cocoa solids refers to both the fat (cocoa butter is solid at room temp) and non-fat components. What is called cocoa powder virtually always has cocoa butter in it. Standard levels for a low-fat cocoa powder range from 10-12 per cent and between 22-24 per cent for a high-fat powder.

I mention this because under "Types" white chocolate is said to contain no cocoa solids. That's untrue according to the FDA's vocabulary.

I am not sure where in the EU's corresponding standard this issue is addressed.

Claygordon (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Vegan?

Why is there no mention of the veganinity of chocolate, as well as vegan chocolate?IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate in popular culture

I very much recommend mentioning the book "The Discovery of Chocolate", a fictional story by James Runcie, of a man who falls in love and is introduced to chocolate in 1518. His lover adds the elixir of life to his chocolate, and he lives for 500 years. The story chronicles major changes in the true history of chocolate, and each event somehow involves the fictional character.

A preview can be read at Google books: http://books.google.com/books?id=zfw8-SmFG9wC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_navlinks_s#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Then of course there's the book and movie "Like Water for Chocolate" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Like_Water_for_Chocolate - how on earth did that one get overlooked? 67.181.177.250 (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Labour figures

Shouldn't this section belong with Production? The section 'Labor in the chocolate industry' makes several claims about slavery in the chocolate industry which are not supported by the references used. It gives the false impression that the work force is 100% child labour with no adults at all - a fact not supported by any of the linked pages or other articles on the subject. It then claims that 90% of those children work as slaves - whereas the references linked to prove this statistic show that it is more like 9%, which is quite a difference. The figure of US$30 as the price of a slave kid is also not to be found on the referenced website - doesn't mean it isn't true but we need to be able to prove this. The final claim that 'Most of the time, poor parents from slums sell their own sons and daughters into slavery to make a quick profit and to decrease the number of mouths to feed.' is referenced to a BBC article no longer viewable and sounds like original research. The main article on Children in Cocoa Production should provide the answers but it is very poor, mostly a list of reports into the industry, so there's no enlightenment there. Until this topic is properly covered then we can't consider the chocolate article to be close to completion. Per1892 (talk) 11:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Dietary Antioxidants

In the third paragraph, the article claims the following:

" Dark chocolate has recently been promoted for its health benefits, including a substantial amount of antioxidants that reduce the formation of free radicals, although current scientific evidence is against health improvements by dietary antioxidants."

This statement implies that the balance of evidence suggests that dietary antioxidants do not improve health. Such an assertion is contradictory to several of Wikipedia's other articles on the subject, as well as to many articles published in peer-reviewed journals. Such a highly contentious and (quite possibly false) statement should not be left unsourced. Please add citations to verifiable references supporting this. if such sources can not be found than the statement should be removed promptly. I have added the relevant tags requesting this.

WaynaQhapaq (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Toxicity

The article mentions health benefits but has no special section on toxicity, which is unbalanced given that cacao/chocolate/cocoa allegedly contains dopamine, phenylethylamine, phenylanine, arginine, anandamide, caffeine, oxalic acid, theobromine, theophylline, serotonin, tryptan (tryptophan), enzyme inhibitors, monoamine oxidase enzyme inhibitors, and other neuro-toxins, stimulants, suppressants and mood alterants. Theobromine, caffeine & theophylline are methylated xanthines.

Well done on this page

This page looks so delicious!!, my kudos to those who decided on the which photos to place here, well done. Ottawa4ever (talk) 15:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aphrodisiac effects

There is some research by Dr. Andrea Salonia in the Journal of Sex Medicine. They found that women who consumed chocolate daily had significantly higher total and domain desire scores on the Female Sexual Function Index than women who did not. However, "no differences between the two groups were observed concerning sexual arousal and satisfaction, sexual distress and depression", and when the data was adjusted to take into account age differences between the two groups effects became weaker but still marginally significant.

Patmc90 (talk) 09:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

unscientific health references

Many cited reference in the health section ( #5 of article contents) are merely news items. See e.g., references 27,60,62 or 63. Such references are not generally accepted as scientific or as authoritative. This is poor scholarship in this very important section on health. Either delete the health section or get proper scientific references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.65.13.80 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Where is Barry Callebaut?

Barry Callebaut is the world's largest chocolate manufacturer and it is not mentioned in this article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karliwalti (talk • contribs) 05:13, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Optimal storage conditions of chocolate

The optimal storage conditions for chocolate are slightly wrong in the article. The relative humidity should be between 57 and 62 % and especially not above 65 %. The optimal temperature is 15-18 °C. Source for this is Valrhona employee Jarmo Laitinen, from their Finnish shop, who verified the numbers from Valrhona main office. In modern houses with central heating, the room temperature is often higher than the optimal storage conditions, but temperatures up to 22 °C will do quite well for shorter storage. Kummitus (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Vincent Strega, 11 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} please edit the picture comment:

A model of the Reichstag made of chocolate at a Berlin shop

to:

A model of the Reichstag made of chocolate by Fassbender&Rausch at the Gendarmenmarket in Berlin

cause: the pictured model was made by and resides in the Fassbender&Rausch Shop in Berlin (http://www.fassbender-rausch.com) Vincent Strega (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Caption accurately describes the photo. I don't see that the shop is notable. SpigotMap 13:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some child has inserted the word "poop" throughout the Chocolate article.

But it's semi-protected and I don't have an account, so I can't change it. 206.251.213.189 (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I just took a look at the history of the article and it looks like the vandalism has be reverted. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Chocolates

The link for chocolates from the Confection article leads here. But this article deals with bulk chocolate and types of (bulk) chocolates. Not chocolates you'd buy in a box of chocolates. Could s.o. put something here or redirect that link? (Not sure, but Praline might fit. 99.11.160.111 (talk) 09:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Reworded sentence/link in Confection article to resolve concern. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 16:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Chocolate/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

Uh, about the "GA" rating... I thought the article was GA or A-class, and I thought it would be probably safer to rate it GA for now... but it is very close to A-class. I'll list some reasons and stuff later becuase im busy. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:16, 28 July 2006 (UTC) Some things I found that could be made better: The "Origins" and "etymology" sections are well-written, but entirely uncited. I don't see anything indicating where the info came from. This is probably just me, but wouldn't the "Types of Chocolate" section work better as a definition list? Otherwise, this is clearly a very good article, and with a tiny bit of effort I'd give it an A. But then again, a better reviewer might come along first. -- Chris Ccool2ax contrib. 03:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC) i <3 chocolate —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.96.70 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Last edited at 19:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC). Substituted at 20:19, 2 May 2016 (UTC)