Talk:Dark chocolate/Archive 1

Archive 1

Removal of references/citations

In this edit, User:Zefr removed three references- amongst others- relating to the alternate names of "dark chocolate" claiming

"there are no proven health benefits; copyedit to remove misleading discussion of unproven benefits and cocoa compounds; add sources using Citation bot".

In two out of three of those cases, the references had nothing to do with health claims. I'd like to know in particular why the references for the names "plain chocolate" and "bitter chocolate" were removed before I put them back- thanks.

Ubcule (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

It's unclear which source(s) you specifically used or are defending, since the prior history does not contain your username. The sources I removed either provided little or no scientific evidence for the statement or were not reliable for an encyclopedia topic on human health. For "plain chocolate" and "bitter chocolate" definitions, the sources in the article now are not sufficiently descriptive. For topics concerning human health, such as antioxidants or nutrition (supposed 'superfood' status, a bogus term), please read WP:MEDASSESS for the source quality needed. Specifically, med-health.net and webmd.com are not good medical sources and neither seems qualified on chocolate chemistry that would help define "plain" or "bitter". --Zefr (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Since you ask, here's my name in the prior history. (Not that I'm restricted to defending my own edits or content, of course).

The reference position makes clear that it's there to back up the assertion that "plain chocolate" is an alternate name for "dark chocolate" as does the quotation ("Dark or plain [emphasis added] chocolate is chocolate made with cocoa solids, sugar and cocoa butter (or vegetable oils in cheaper chocolates"). No more, no less. This was one of the references you removed.

In the same edit you also removed someone else's reference (added after mine) that backed up the alternate name "bitter chocolate" with a reference taken from the dictionary website run by Cambridge University Press, which I would assume is a reputable source. ("a type of dark chocolate (= dark brown chocolate made without milk) that has very little sugar").

Neither of these have anything to do with "health". Your edit summary implies this is the reason for the edits ("there are no proven health benefits; copyedit to remove misleading discussion of unproven benefits and cocoa compounds"), so how exactly did these get lumped in with all that?

I'm not sure what "the sources in the article now are not sufficiently descriptive" is supposed to mean- they apparently back up (or backed up) what's claimed, and that's all that's required... but the sources were taken *out* of the article and are not there "now"?...! Ubcule (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

"Dissecting out" chocolate effects

This edit was reverted because it misleads and over-interprets findings from primary research reported in PMID 26026398 (similar to PMID 26456559). Both studies - and the edit made by SiebeA - rely on supposed beneficial effects of chocolate catechins (or other polyphenols) for which there is no direct in vivo evidence of having any physiological effects in humans. A Cochrane review (updated to 2017) of numerous cardiovascular clinical studies on potential chocolate effects showed little to no effect. As this is the stronger source, we rely on it as the basis for stating in the article that there is no scientific evidence for chocolate providing a beneficial effect. The 2018 Guardian report, a valid secondary source written for the lay public, is a good critical summary of how consumers are misled by advertising about the supposed - but unproven - benefits of dark chocolate. --Zefr (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2019 (UTC)