Talk:Chocolate
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chocolate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Chocolate was one of the Agriculture, food and drink good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Add to Industry of Chocolate section
[edit]The chocolate manufacturer market is dominated by only a few large corporations, such as Mars and Hershey, but the production of Cacao is a different story. The farming and production of cacao is 90% comprised of many small family farms, that are 2-5 hectares in size. These small farmers are the most vulnerable part of the chocolate supply chain, they face low wages, harsh working conditions, and even use child labor. The few corporations at the top of a billion-dollar industry control the market, and keep the prices of cacao low, and these small farmers do not see any of the massive amount of money generated by the industry.[1]
Add to chocolate Industry Section
[edit]There is an interesting disparity between the production and the consumption of chocolate. Chocolate is consumed heavily in the global north, while cacao is produced in the global south.[1]
Removed chocol + atl text
[edit]Removed "It is possible that the Spaniards coined the word (perhaps in order to avoid caca, a vulgar Spanish word for "faeces") by combining the Yucatec Mayan word chocol, "hot", with the Nahuatl word atl, "water"."
Kaufman and Justeson (2007 p. 226): "Da´vila Garibi (1939) proposed that the Nawa word chokola:tl for the drink chocolate originated, in part, in a Mayan language. This proposal was accepted and elaborated by Coe and Coe (1996:118–119) with data from Yukateko and colonial Kaqchikel. It has been uncritically accepted by some scholars— for example, by Tedlock (2002:170)—but it is demonstrably false. It depends on a misunderstanding of the Kaqchikel sources and on a lack of understanding of the history of a Yukateko word meaning ‘hot’."
Elaborated further on the page. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Etymology of Cacao
[edit]This is really contested, largely between Kaufman & Justeson and Dakin & Wichmann. I've tried to find where the consensus is and have written out a timeline of sources, NPOV will likely just be "it's heavily contested." Cacao is generally accepted as coming from kakawa-tl. It's being debated whether it's from the Uto-Aztecan language family (which includes Nahua, referred to as UA) which would be a lot more recent, or from Mixe-Zoque language family (includes Olmec, a lot older, referred to as MZ).
- Campbell and Kaufman 1976 argue it originates in MZ.
- Coe and Coe 1996 repeat this, citing Kaufman.
- Dakin and Wichmann 2000 (59) argue the word actually has a UA origin.
- Macri 2005 says archeological evidence supports Dakin’s theory.
- Kaufman and Justeson 2007 release a polemic article arguing the word has a Mixe-Zoquean origin.
The journal Kaufman and Justeson publish in solicits comments and publishes responses to the article in 2011.
- Beekman calls the MZ origin “convincing.”
- Dakin and Wichmann responds, noting that historical linguists often disagree about where words come from and researchers are hypothesizing. They argue against MZ and for UA, taking some things into account, disregarding others.
- Hopkins finds Kaufman’s thesis “convincing.”
- Rosenwig is more muted in approval, citing inability to evaluate etymological minutiae.
- Trivino 2013 says the controversy is still alive, and linguists have “joined the controversy.”
- Coe and Coe 2013 print the MZ origin in their 2013 edition of A True History of Chocolate.
- Law 2017 describes Kaufman 2007 as thoroughly refuting UA theory.
- Swanton 2024 says there is an ongoing and robust debate involving the etymology of cacao.
- The OED and Merriam Webster use the Nahuatl origin.
In terms of substance of debate, this is the best summary: Hill 2019. On the whole, there seems to be more support for the MZ theory, although it is very contested. I'm not sure how to word or source this beyond just saying it's contested, as I'm worried about NPOV if I present them as too equally supported or if I present MZ as more popular by selecting sources (i.e. the 2011 article comments, the Law piece and the Coe and Coe reprint), and ignoring the sources implying equivalence or the dictionaries favouring UA.
Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2024
[edit]This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Citation needed for "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#:~:text=A%202018%20report%20argued%20that%20international%20attempts%20to%20improve%20conditions%20for%20children%20were%20doomed%20to%20failure%20because%20of%20persistent%20poverty%2C%20the%20absence%20of%20schools%2C%20increasing%20world%20cocoa%20demand%2C%20more%20intensive%20farming%20of%20cocoa%2C%20and%20continued%20exploitation%20of%20child%20labor.", cannot find mentioned report. TitanFallout (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not done for now: I think it's references 160 and 163? NotAGenious (talk) 13:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thinking of a split
[edit]Hi all, I'm thinking of trying to broach whether a split is a good idea and how it would be done. The issue is chocolate and cocoa are two different concepts, but the article opens with "Chocolate or cocoa is a food made from roasted and ground cocoa seed kernels". Cocoa, according to how I understand it, refers more to the cocoa bean, in the various stages of being processed, particularly as a commodity. In British English, cocoa is what is referred to in American English as cacao. On future exchanges, "cocoa" is traded. Here is a quote from academics Carla Martin and Kathryn Sampeck:
In the Anglophone context, “cocoa” is used commonly in reference to the tree and the seed, and especially as a referent for the commodity once it has been sold or processed. An important caveat is that the use of the word “cacao” (instead of “cocoa”) is symbolically important in the niche, fine/specialty/craft cacao-chocolate community, where many see it as a return to the historical roots of the crop and a point of distinction from bulk commodity cocoa.
Chocolate generally refers to an end product. I think these concepts are obviously closely linked, particularly around the chocolate industry and chocolate making.
I'm not sure how a split would be done, but I think it's a) unhelpful to have them smushed into one article, especially without any effort at defining terms, and b) the first sentence is just flat out wrong for most uses of the term cocoa.
- Delisted good articles
- Old requests for peer review
- B-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class level-4 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-4 vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class vital articles in Everyday life
- B-Class Food and drink articles
- Top-importance Food and drink articles
- WikiProject Food and drink articles