Talk:Types of chocolate

Discussion

I think Dark chocolate requires a separate entry or an expansion of this section. 131.215.7.105 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)Abhishek

06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)69.236.87.54"Cannibalistic chocolate"? If anyone's got a cite for this, please feel free to supply it. Paul.w.bennett 19:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. Sentence already removed. Paul.w.bennett 19:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bold textItalic text'Italic text Dark chocolate is know claimed to be "healthy" as scienctist say. Is this the truth ? Scianctist believe that this chocolate can cure diesesses and is heaklthy but to much is bad.

Well, you've probably already heard that dark chocolate is a "natural source of antioxidants." Many chocolate-based products sold in supermarkets and grocery stores tout these claims, especially Hershey's. It's good for you in moderation; chocolate bars and what-not still have calories, and, obviously, too much can make you gain weight. 71.172.239.187 05:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

If you look at the article on Antioxidants, you can see there is insufficient evidence of their health benefits. No claims of something being good for you can be made on antioxidant content alone. Raisedonadiet (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

As of today, which is March 24, 2007, there is a report afloat that dark chocolate has been shown in a study to promote vascular health. Here is an exerpt from the article:

Block quote

By Bill Berkrot

Sat Mar 24, 5:59 PM ET

"NEW ORLEANS (Reuters) - Chocoholics were given further reason to rejoice on Saturday when a small clinical study showed that dark chocolate improves the function of blood vessels.

"While the researchers cautioned against bingeing on bon bons, they said the findings of the trial were clear and called for larger such studies to confirm the results.

"'In this sample of healthy adults, dark chocolate ingestion over a short period of time was shown to significantly improve (blood vessel) function,' said Dr. Valentine Yanchou Njike of Yale Prevention Research Center, a co-investigator of the study.

"The results, presented at the annual American College of Cardiology scientific meeting in New Orleans, add to mounting evidence of the health benefits of dark chocolate."

The details of the study - or some details, as set forth in the article - aren't quoted here.

69.236.87.54 06:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Ira J. Ross, March 24, 2007

Comparing a 100% to a 60% Ghirardelli bar, the 100% has more iron and protein, and with less or no sugar. This is good, but dark chocolate also has more caffeine (it is not labeled, but shown on more than one study I've seen). The increased function of blood vessels could possibly be a side affect to the caffeine (which has plenty of bad side affects as well). Chocolate has less caffeine than drinks such as coffee or mountain dew, but enough to be wary of. Otherwise, dark chocolate is healthier, but too much is definitely bad. Joshuamonkey (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Clasification of ...

The below taken from the ingrdiant list of "Dark Chocolate" M&Ms seems to be in conflict with the classification of chocolate? The ingrediant list for SEMISWEET CHOCOLATE is given as follows. The important point being that it has milk in it.

Chocolate, Sugar, Cocoa Butter, Skim Milk, milkfat, Lactose, ....

In the US, semisweet chocolate is allowed to have up to 12% milk solids. See the table in Chocolate#Blending. --Ishi Gustaedr 17:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me if this is not in the correct place but I believe there is an error in the chart showing US FDA guidelines for chocolate classifications. Milk chocolate is listed as greater than 30% milk solids but using the already presented reference to the FDA website (Sec. 163.130 Milk chocolate.) states: "The finished milk chocolate contains not less than 3.39 percent by weight of milkfat and not less than 12 percent by weight of total milk solids.." so I do not see where anyone got 30 from. Am I mistaken? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nryan115 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Dark Chocolate (by alicia)

Known fondly by millions of women around the world as the irreplacable dietary staple, chocolate has been manufactured in many shapes, forms, mixtures, and combinations.

Factories everywhere have tried in vain to alter the expectations of pristiged women, replacing dark chocolate with such substitutes as the 90% wax milk chocolates, white chocolates (that, though bearing the name have absolutely no cocoa percentage), the gummy, chewy tootsie rolls and lastly, the most dreaded, the most detested, the most disgustingly deplorable carob.

However, though temptations press in at every side, the true women have stayed true to the true chocolate. They smile when the white chocolate caremel coffee stirrers are opened under the tree on Christmas morning, but choose to stand apart - if need be, to stand alone - while the rest of the family devoure them. They sneak off to their room, and, finding the hidden stash, settle confortable to enjoy the dark mounds of delight.

When Valentine's Day comes around, they watch as the foil wrapped kisses are handed to them from friends and acquaintances. They say their thanks again and again. To one person after another they hand out their own candies. A boy their age thanks them and moves on. Soon they see a girl. They hand one to her. Her face alights, her hands tremble, and her eyes shine as she slips the delicacy into her mouth. The reward is always the same: melting, smooth, rich, delicious.

Perhaps one day the truth will be accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.110.167 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Alicia, as to white chocolate you are totally incorrect. White chocolate has to contain cocoa butter, but no cocoa solids, CFR 163 contains the regs on what can be called each type of chocolate, and it's against the law to call something "white chocolate" unless it contains cocoa butter. An interesting note: there is no such thing as "white chocolate flavored", while there is a "milk chocolate flavored" and "dark chocolate flavored" those "flavored versions have no cocoa butter. Real white chocolate tastes much different from the fake stuff, just like real milk or dark chocolate tastes different than the chocolate flavored versions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skip-CCB (talk • contribs) 04:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Euro?

I recieved something called euro chocolate this easter. its a mixture of dark/milk chocolate apparently. maybe someone should add it in if they know anything about it. Evaunit♥666♥ 02:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Based on the name it could simply be European-style milk chocolate, which (according to this article) doesn't have added butyric acid. If so, it is already mentioned in the article, just not by that name. Zacronos (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry , but "Europe" doesn't exist. There's Belgian Chocolate , Swiss Chocolate , French Chocolate , Dutch Chocolate etc .. There is more than that , but I wouldn't recommend you look much further. Oh , and for Americans I've seen looking for "German Chocolate" to make "German Chocolate Cake" (something apparently popular in america for some reason) .. The cake is most probably for "German _______ chocolate cake" not "German chocolate _______ cake" . 83.101.79.138 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's German's chocolate cake. The recipe was used to promote a kind of chocolate developed by Mr. Sam German. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Hershey process/"american style" chocolate to europeans.

Something should probably be added on the fact that most Europeans, on tasting "Hershey process" chocolate tend to think it tastes like sour milk....--UltraMagnus (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Condensed milk

This page referenced in the article claims that Henri Nestlé invented Condensed milk, but both the condensed milk article and Gail Borden's article state Borden did. Which is it?Scottanon (talk) 22:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like the condensed milk article is well cited, where the International Herald Tribune article you reference is not a primary source and has no citations. I think we should stick with Gail Borden as the inventor unless more conclusive evidence is found which points to Nestlé (in which case further investigation is warranted). Zacronos (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The chocolate melts at a different piont — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.220.49.84 (talk) 22:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Don't Be Hate'n

Some aspects of the article have too much focus on how Americans don't know what "real" chocolate is or what it tastes like, so I am going to remove those statements as they don't actually add anything to the article or provide anything more than opinion (I will be specifically working on the Compound Chocolate section). Redrok84 (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not opinion, it's pretty much fact. If you've ever tasted real (European) chocolate you'd understand. --129.11.249.211 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Taste is entirely subjective, as is what "real chocolate" is, surely what the Aztecs originally made has more claim than European recipes? A reference source like Wikipedia is not the place for this. Raisedonadiet (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that the EU spent years in a major dispute about what constitutes "real" chocolate, and finally caved into the manufacturers of inferior products, the unregistered user's comments seem very strange. This American says that it's not real chocolate if it contains anything other than cacao (liquor and cocoa butter), sugar, natural vanilla, and soy lecithin. Europe now says that candy adulterated with other vegetable oils (like palm oil) is still "real" chocolate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, American chocolate has wayyy too much sugar and not enough cocoa in it. It tastes like wax to us here in Europe. Now I'm sure there's some inferior quality products you could buy in Slovakia or something, but on the whole the high quality chocolate of Europe is the finest worldwide; high on cocoa solids and an appropriate amount of sugar. --129.11.249.211 (talk) 20:40, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, it depends on what you choose to buy. I'll take the excellent American Felchlin or Scharffen Berger over that overly sweet European Cadbury's, or any kind of "family milk chocolate", any time. I've encountered European chocolate bars that seem to be little more than a thin veneer of chocolate flavoring poured over sugar. There isn't one single type of chocolate in either place.

(If you share my dislike for the insipid and overly sweet, then let me suggest that you seek out some of Felchlin's Bolivian line, with 68% cacao mass.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As much as I may personally prefer various types of chocolate, contributions to an article that denigrate a national style of chocolate are not helpful. There are European brands that aren't sugary. There are American brands that aren't waxy. People's preference for chocolate tends to be based on what they were raised with. Not that this means we can't debate it on the talk page. Raisedonadiet (talk) 14:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

The system cannot find the path specified.

Reference link 10, [1] is "broken". --Kektklik 10:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Health Benefits of Chocolate/Dark Chocolate

The health benefits of chocolate whether milk chocolate or dark chocolate with high cacao content needs to be a bit more specific and not just say that research indicates that the consumption of high cacao content chocolate may lead to improved health. That is a very broad statement and should be more focused to explain what kind of health benefits chocolate might have according to new research.

Some US references are actually incorrect

Here is an example:

"In March 2007, the Chocolate Manufacturers Association, whose members include Hershey's, Nestlé, and Archer Daniels Midland, began lobbying the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to change the legal definition of chocolate to allow the substitution of "safe and suitable vegetable fats and oils" (including partially hydrogenated vegetable oils) for cocoa butter in addition to using "any sweetening agent" (including artificial sweeteners) and milk substitutes.[9] Currently, the FDA does not allow a product to be referred to as "chocolate" if the product contains any of these ingredients.[10] To work around this restriction, products with cocoa substitutes are often branded or labeled as "chocolatey."

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=163.155 allows the use of the generic word chocolate for a vegetable oil based confection, there are also common sense exceptions for things like chocolate cake and a chocolate donuts, and they both have "prohibited" ingredients. http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074446.htm expands on the use of the word chocolate as guidance for the industry.

This article needs some work, just don't have the time right now to correct it.

Skip-CCB (talk) 04:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I'm pretty sure that if you made "chocolate doughnuts" and tried to sell them as being "chocolate", that you would be violating the US rules. There's presumably a reason that the official name is "Hershey's Milk Chocolate Bar" rather than "Hershey's Milk Chocolate". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Customers don't expect a chocolate doughnut to be made out of 100% chocolate, they know there are other ingredients involved, the industry guidance link covered that, it's called a "common sense" exception ( http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/ComplianceManuals/CompliancePolicyGuidanceManual/ucm074446.htm) . As for the second point, if you check the CFRs on chocolate you'll see no references to shape, the "bar" is just a shape, just as their drop ("Kiss") product is a shape. What matters is the ingredients list on the bar or bag. The FDA guidance makes it clear that cakes and doughnuts, ice creams and the like can use the term as long as they meet a few basic rules for the source of the chocolate taste. The maker of the bar is expected to follow the basic rules of CFR 163 for the type of chocolate referenced. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=163 . Basically CFR163 contains the rules and the guidance tells them how to interpret it. (you just can't expect a baker to understand the CFRs, they are written in technical jargon.) Skip-CCB (talk) 08:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

100% chocolate Comment

I've just finished a plate of 100% chocolate. It's bitter, not sweet, probably intended for baking and the like - but tastes great as it is in small quantities, and is refreshing like a cup af coffee. Why share this? Well, the article has:

Dark chocolate can be eaten as is, or used in cooking, for which thicker, more expensive baking bars with higher cocoa percentages ranging from 70% to 99% are sold.

It seems at least the percentage (99%) should be fixed. By the way, according to the package, the ingredients are cocoa solid and cocoa butter; nothing else.--Nø (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Baking chocolate redirects

Baking chocolate redirects to this article. There is just no mention of baking chocolate at all. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 20:41, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

• A new article has been created at Baking chocolate, and this article has a link to it. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:28, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Milk Chocolate

I found this sentence rather troubling for several minor but still important reasons, together they called out to me for a revision:

   the variety that accounts for,  at minimum , approximately  87.5% of the solid chocolate actually eaten in the United States alone

1) If it is a minimum, a lower bound, why approximate it?

2) 87.5% seems strangley precise for an approximation, is it 7/8? I changed it to over 85% though over 7/8 would be fine with me. Perhaps "by far the most popular" would be good enough.

3) Where does this figure come from? I added a citation needed tag.

4) Why "actually"? Are there other kinds of chocolate that are sold/gifted but not eaten?

5) Why "alone"? If it was over X tons in the United States alone it might make sense, consider other countries and the total goes up. But percentage? Is the claim that it is a higher percentage elsewhere. And the definition (and taste) of "milk chocolate" varies from country to country anyway. Gentlemath (talk) 06:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Vegan milk chocolate

Since there is no separate article on milk chocolate (the link redirects to this article), perhaps this would be the place to mention vegan alternatives to milk chocolate. Presumably any plant milk can be used in place of milk, but the ones I've encountered most are rice milk and soy milk. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ruby Chocolate

I shared this news about an alleged new chocolate type on the chocolate talk page. May be worth adding to this article as well. Kerdooskis (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Missing Article for Milk Chocolate?

Why is there no separate page for milk chocolate where dark chocolate and white chocolate have them? Links to "Milk chocolate" redirect here instead (such as on the main page for chocolate). Ron Stoppable (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why that is. Looking at the edit histories, the white and dark chocolate articles were spun off later, while milk chocolate just never has, which is surprising considering its dominant popularity. That said, there's not all that much to the white or dark chocolate articles that isn't already here, so we could instead merge them back in here if we so wish. But I think separate articles is better. So we just need to make a dedicated milk chocolate article by copying over the material here. oknazevad (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Orange chocolate redirect

It appears that Orange chocolate redirects to this page, but this page doesn't actually mention orange chocolate at all. Was a section related to orange chocolate deleted at some point? If not, is it worth adding one? --TheSophera (talk) 19:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Blonde Chocolate

I added the blond chocolate as a sub-type of the white chocolate, but I'm not sure it shouldn't be a type of its own... 94.230.92.124 (talk) 23:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I've promoted it to a type of its own. Also removed the reference to "caramelization", as both sources point out that no actual caramelization takes place. Barry Wom (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

European consumer view of American chocolate

@Oknazevad: I've reverted this edit for a number of reasons. Firstly, it's a completely different rationale from your first attempt at removing it which suggests WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, "classic British tabloid style" is absurd as it's sourced to The Times, which continues to be the UK's principal newspaper of record. Thirdly, "while the other sentence is solely sourced to a blog"...er, no the The Daily Meal is part of the same corporate group that publishes the Chicago Tribune and is WP:RS with the relevant editorial standards. Fourthly, your edit suggests a rather parochial lack of awareness of a well known and well reported European view of an American consumer product. To describe the opinion as "scare tactic" is somewhat blinkered. DeCausa (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

And, Oknazevad, if you continue to be in doubt that these are isolated "scare tactics" (?whatever that is is) take a look at The Guardian: "Why is American chocolate so disgusting? You really don’t want to know or HuffPost: "Why Hershey's Chocolate Tastes Like ... Well, Vomit". DeCausa (talk) 22:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of the complaint (which comes off as clickbait with those headlines, to be frank) it's very WP:UNDUE for this article, which is a general overview. Details like that belong at the specific milk chocolate article, not here. oknazevad (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I have https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.1471-0307.2003.00099.x and https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20231221-why-british-chocolate-tastes-the-way-it-does open, because I think this should be included in Wikipedia. The fact that milk chocolate tastes noticeably different between the US/UK/the rest of Europe seems appropriate for Types of chocolate#Milk chocolate to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree with oknazevad; we don't need this level of detail here when milk chocolate has its own article. I've moved the Hershey process details to the main article and provided a link. Barry Wom (talk) 12:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Barry Wom, a good WP:SUMMARY of a Main-linked article is generally supposed to be longer than four sentences. I added one well-sourced sentence –

Differences in flavor between different brands and regions are largely due to differences in how the manufacturers handle the milk during production, such as by choosing powdered milk, condensed milk, chocolate crumb, or partially lipolyzed milk.

– on a subject that seems to interest at least some readers, but without the unencyclopedic clickbait about "vomit". You've removed it as being better in the main article. Well, I agree that it should be in the main article, but it's already in the main article to the extent of a couple of paragraphs, not just a single sentence. I think a single sentence should be here, in addition to being in the main article.

The process chosen for milk is the most significant choice manufacturers make about milk chocolate. IMO this is more important than whether a defunct German company once managed to make a saleable product with donkey milk, or where the first Swiss manufacturer of milk chocolate bought his milk from.

On the subject above more specifically, I notice that the British tabloids don't tend to mention that the same chemical is characteristic of Parmesan cheese. About 1.5% of the fat in Parmesan cheese, and 2% of the fat in cheddar cheese, is butyric acid per doi:10.1111/1471-0307.12591. Additionally, doi:10.1038/s41598-023-28134-w mentions research showing that specifically the difference between telling someone that butyric acid is a flavor in 'Parmesan' or 'vomit' has a significant effect on the person's opinion of what the purified chemical smells like. Of course, the 'tastes like vomit' sources are trying to grab headlines, not trying to provide objective information, but we can and should do better on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Flavor chocolate

Hi Zacharie Grossen, I saw you removed flavor cocoa, which is probably for the best. I put it there because the previous entry was Criollo chocolate, but more than one type of cocoa bean is used for single-origin cocoa (i.e. Nacional). I think there's value in listing chocolate made from a single type of cocoa bean.

Oknazevad, as I was writing this out, I saw you removed vermicelli and ‎Chocolate para mesa. Vermicelli was removed for not having different ingredients; in that case, should aerated chocolate be removed? The reason I added these was because it is hard to establish a non-arbitrary criteria for what is a type of chocolate, and it was in a list of recognized types of chocolate.

The description of vermicelli in the source according to the codex standards chocolate:

Cocoa products obtained by a mixing, extrusion and hardening technique which gives unique, crisp textural properties to the products. Vermicelli are presented in the form of short, cylindrical grains and flakes in the form of small flat pieces. Chocolate vermicelli/chocolate flakes contain, on a dry matter basis, not less than 32% total cocoa solids, of which at least 12% shall be cocoa butter and 14% fat-free cocoa solids.

The description of chocolate para mesa:

Unrefined chocolate in which the grain size of sugars is larger than 70 microns. It shall contain, on a dry matter basis, not less than 20% total cocoa solids (including a minimum of 11% cocoa butter and a minimum of 9% fat-free cocoa solids).

We do have a wiki page for a type of chocolate para mesa: Ibarra (chocolate).

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 11:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the message. I think this page was intended to only list finished chocolate products like dark, milk, white or gianduja (pretty much the same list as in Beckett's Industrial Chocolate Manufacture and Use). So, I don't think having flavor or bulk cocoa in the same list is a good idea, it's a different topic. Perhaps we could have a separate section about single origin (typically flavor cocoa) vs blend cocoa, I can't see any problem with that. Zach (Talk) 11:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

A distinction between type, that is recipe, and form or shape needs to be made. The latter doesn't need separate entries. I would have no issue with removing aerated chocolate, as it's literally the same milk chocolate, just whipped before molding. oknazevad (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Zach, I agree, I want to create that page, I'm just not sure what to call it.

I think making the determination that types of chocolate are only differentiated by ingredient and not process is OR, especially when we have RS differentiating types of chocolate by process. They could be moved into a different section though to specify they're differentiated by process. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Bean-to-bar would be a good candidate. For the two other types (vermicelli and para mesa), I think it is ok to have them in the list, since Beckett lists them among the traditional types (p. 622, chapt. 28.3.1.6). Zach (Talk) 12:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

But is vermicelli (which, by the way, is Italian for "worms", a name referencing that rhe have the shape of small worms) anything other than a shape? Also, how are they anything other than chocolate sprinkles? Beckett doesn't do a very good job of differentiating between shapes and material differences. I maintain that is a substantive difference in a way shapes and molding techniques are not. That is also why the legal requirements were in this article, and I think the splitting out of legal definitions of chocolate was a mistake. Now readers have to go between two articles instead of a single one to get the full picture. The undiscussed split should be undone. oknazevad (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Bean-to-bar sounds good, although the article will need to be rewritten a bit.

It's a shape, but in the process of production, it undergoes a physical change; it's not just molding/enrobing etc. I understand that they're the same as sprinkles. I can't really think of an analogy to chocolate sprinkles that we would have to include if we were including them.

I've merged back in legal definitions of chocolate; I spun it out so I could flesh it out with the lobbying efforts around white chocolate and cocoa butter substitutes. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Blond chocolate discussion

Flin00 asked on my talk page why I removed blond chocolate. I'm refactoring the discussion here:

It seems like you have quite some edits on chocolate, and I wonder, why have you removed blond chocolate from Types_of_chocolate article, on your edit on September 7th?

I wanted to respawn it to the article, but I want to discuss it with you before that.

I'd like to give you some arguments for Blonde Chocolate as a Type:

• Unique Flavor Profile: The Maillard reactions alter the flavor profile of white chocolate, giving it a distinct taste that sets it apart.
• Different Production Process: The specific heating and stirring process involved in creating blonde chocolate is different from the standard white chocolate production.
• Distinct Appearance: The golden color of blonde chocolate is noticeably different from the traditional white color of white chocolate.

Ruby chocolate is considered as a type, not a milk chocolate variant of ruby cocoa. It also satisfies all the above. So why not blond chocolate?

I would appreciate your answer. 141.226.144.100 (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi IP, thanks for putting this together. A lot of it is irrelevant to Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter if we can argue the case that it is a "type" of chocolate distinct from white chocolate, it matters how reliable sources discuss that. The most reliable sources I have seen discussing blonde chocolate as a type frame it from the perspective of Valronha's lobbying efforts for governmental recognition as a distinct type. This distinction is not endorsed therein. Don't worry too much about how types of chocolate looks at the moment, I'm going to work on it once I get all the sub articles to good article status. I'll move this to the article talk page when I'm not on my phone later, but in the meantime you can respond here. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Rollinginhisgrave,

Thanks for your reply! I completely understand your point about reliable sources.

Honestly, I wasn't aware of the industry politics behind blonde chocolate (not from the US here). I initially looked for info on Wikipedia after a friend mentioned Maillard reactions creating its flavor. Since I couldn't find it, I added a short section based on this source. I also added a sentence about its short history.

Originally, I even put it under the white chocolate section because I wasn't sure of its classification.

I agree that regulatory recognition is important, but I also think the types list should reflect culinary characteristics. Ruby chocolate is another example, right?

I hope your reorganization of the chocolate articles will include the removed blonde chocolate information.

Flin00 (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

[end of talk page discussion]

They're largely French politics.

We can't be the ones making that determination of culinary characteristics; whether we believe they have enough characteristics to constitute a distinct type. That would be original research. Our job is just to report what reliable sources say: do they describe it as a variant or a distinct type? It is all kind of wishy washy opinions, there's not an objective approach to distinguishing the two, which makes it even more important that we aren't the ones to try. I might be missing sources on this, tell me if you have some. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 00:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)