Talk:Dark chocolate#Variants section

The article reads: "Dark chocolate is a form of chocolate containing only cocoa solids, cocoa butter and sugar."

And none of them contain Vitamin B12.

How come the USDA finds 0.28μg, after all 12% of the daily need in it?

I find no other source supporting B12 being in dark chocolate.

Sambirano (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

:The USDA FoodData Central database is the trusted analytical standard for food nutrient contents, and is used for most WP food articles. We should accept their analyses as the best available.

:[https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/?query=chocolate These USDA search results] show that 4 dark chocolate "legacy" foods and 2 dark chocolate "survey" foods have about the same amount of vitamin B12 per 100 g.

:I'm aware of no explanation for the presence of B12 in cocoa beans, although [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18727538/ this methods study] found it in "cocoa beverages". Some dark chocolate manufacturers may use an additive containing B12.

:Asking vitamin expert {{u|David notMD}} for thoughts. Zefr (talk) 20:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"cocoa beverages" are not "dark chocolate", they often contain milk products, or the B12 might be added.

12 days ago I asked the FDA:

"Dark Chocolate & Vitamin-B12

Dark Chocolate as I know it (and I know a lot of brands) consists of cocoa (mass), cocoa butter and sugar. And sometimes soya lecithin and/or vanilla.

None of them contain any Vitamin B 12.

How come that in your table 0,28 µg B12 is listed?

That is a lot, and I find it misleading.

E.g. people on vegan diet must be able to rely on such values."

I received the answer: "We will get back to you as soon as possible!"

It seems to be difficult to answer that question, and I guess why.

I have tasted many, many brands of dark chocolate. They all bear a list of ingredients.

E.g. cocoa, sugar, and cocoa butter, [and sometimes Bourbon vanilla]. None of them could contain that considerably amount of B12.

So I will erase that entry in the table as long as there is no reliable second source for it and the FDA is not able to explain it. Sambirano (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 07:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

{{Talk:Dark chocolate/GA1}}

{{archive bottom}}

The following highlighted statement appears to have as its only source the [https://www.technavio.com/report/dark-chocolate-market-industry-analysis technavio marketing summary], which is promotional, commercial (crazy expensive), and not WP:RS - technavio should not be used in this or any Wikipedia article.

The two sentences in question: {{tq|"As of 2024, gluten-free and gourmet dark chocolates are growing in popularity. Gourmet chocolates are made using flavor cocoa, dried fruits, and using sugars such as coconut sugar."}}

1. attributed to technavio, what is gluten-free chocolate? This is just a misleading marketing ploy, as there are no sources of gluten in cocoa used to make dark chocolate. There are too many variants where this would apply to chocolate-covered products that use other gluten components (not dark chocolate), such as wheat, barley, rye, etc. to have this in the article without a better RS.

2. attributed to technavio, "growing in popularity" is subjective, non-WP:NPOV, and not sourced to RS.

3. attributed to technavio, flavor cocoa, dried fruits, and using sugars such as coconut sugar are used to make "gourmet chocolates". Dark chocolate for gourmet chocolate-making isn't mentioned in this technavio non-RS source. An independent RS is needed for why these ingredients are used to make a "gourmet" chocolate (no indication why such ingredients define gourmet).

4. The sentence {{tq|"Single source dark chocolates are often from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela."}} doesn't have a RS source. The statement stretches credulity that these two countries are singled out as suppliers of premium cocoa beans. Zefr (talk) 04:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Zefr}} Technavio: There are a lot of market research firms releasing "research" on dark chocolate. Among these, I only included technavio when writing this, as [https://www.confectionerynews.com/Article/2015/07/29/Dark-chocolate-market-sales-forecasts-Technavio-predictions Confectionery News] has covered their reports on dark chocolate. Confectionery News has an editorial board with SMEs (I came to it by reading about Kristy Leissle who is on the editorial board after reading Cocoa (book) and they flag sponsored material.

::Although there are likely many market research reports used as sources on Wikipedia, this is not a good practice - such reports are a) clearly promotional and slanted to the sales concepts the market firm wants to preach, b) unavailable to the common Wikipedia user (this one costs $2500), c) misleading/misinformational (glibly states that dark chocolate provides health benefits (i.e., lowers disease risk), which clearly isn't true (fails WP:MEDRS), and d) not peer-reviewed and therefore not WP:RS. By using such a source, we are endorsing it and accepting the conclusions it makes. Better to take a dose of skepticism and avoid marketing scams about what is claimed in the report. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::None of this responds to my points on why I determined it was RS. I am not arguing for using market research generally, but specifically this one report. a) reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. b) We are not citing the paid report, but its free overview. c) Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. It can be an RS for market trends, which is what it is referencing, while not being RS for medical claims, which it is not. d) This is not supported by policy and guidelines.

1. I feel ambivalent about removing gluten-free chocolate. The report is evaluating the labels used by consumers and industry: I don't think "fair trade" chocolate is very fair, but we may still write fair trade chocolate sales are increasing and recognize we are not endorsing the label. I assume the gluten is referring to contamination. If you read this and still feel strongly, then I support removing. I've italicized these in the meantime. Alternatively, we can write "chocolates labelled gluten-free and gourmet"?

::"Gluten-free" - an illogical term to describe chocolate - is used to attract technavio's gluten-free customers, when there is no scientific basis to justify it. By mentioning it, we perpetuate the misinformation. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::{{tq|is used to attract technavio's gluten-free customers}} I think you are misunderstanding who the audience of the source is: it's not "gluten-free customers".

2. I am unsure what you mean here. It is discussing market trends based off data. I've attributed it.

::Discussing "popularity" is subjective only by technavio's goal of selling reports without analysis of consumer data in a peer-reviewed academic (or otherwise RS) source. Stating a commodity is used "commonly" (if RS-supported) avoids the impression of favor, WP:NPOV. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::The first sentence reads to me that you are saying it is subjective because they are not an RS for analysis; I addressed above why the analysis was deemed an RS in my initial comment, beginning {{tq|Technavio: There are}}. Would "the markets for ____ were growing as of ____" be sufficient if the term popularity is what is at issue? I do not think using "popular" implies endorsement.

3. Dark chocolate isn't mentioned in the sentence, but it is a report named "Dark Chocolate Market Analysis". {{tq|no indication why such ingredients define gourmet}}. This is going over my head a bit. It's describing industry trends. Why would such indication be required?

::Better to treat this report with the skepticism that "dark chocolate" is used in the title because it may be an eye-catching term to increase sales. We can't read the report for details because it is unaffordable for most Wikipedia users, and for this specific reason, shouldn't be used, failing WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:::There is no reason to think the report it is providing an overview of doesn't cover what it says it covers, per my reasoning I provided for why I used it as RS, starting {{tq|Technavio: There are}}.

4. I'm not sure why you say it doesn't have a RS: the text is published by the Royal Society of Chemistry and has been very well-reviewed (e.g. [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08893110902972611][https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1521-3757(20010803)113:15%3C3016::AID-ANGE3016%3E3.0.CO;2-M][https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/cen-v086n026.p038]). I'll have a go at finding corroborating sources, but it's not a particularly exceptional claim.

:Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

::The sentence, "Single source dark chocolates are often from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela" doesn't have a source. I'm questioning a) what "often" implies, and b) what RS stated that.

:::It does have a source. Inline citations don't have to be attached to every sentence, they can be at the end of a paragraph. It is attached to the next sentence. The text says "High cocoa content dark chocolates, greater than 70%, using cocoa beans from one source, are becoming increasingly popular. These often use flavour beans from countries such as Ecuador and Venezuela." The International Cocoa Organization tracks flavor cocoa statistics.

5. The subsection Projections is purely hypothetical and based on information a reader cannot access. It is WP:CRYSTAL about unknown future events, and is WP:NOTNEWS. For these and the above reasons, I am removing it and the technavio source from the article. Zefr (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

:I agree with this reasoning for removing the Projections section. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Posted at RSN for further input. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Zefr}} I've added some material back in, lightly rewritten per response at RSN. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

30px

The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Divrras_%C5%A1okolahta&redirect=no Divrras šokolahta] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at {{section link|1=Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 9#Divrras šokolahta}} until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)