Talk:Big Chocolate

Chocolate and slavery
If this article survives AfD, I'd like to see most of chocolate and slavery merged here. The vast majority of companies that have been accused of engaging in that practice, at least currently, are part of Big Chocolate.

Conversely, I wonder if we could put both into an article on the History and culture of chocolate? That would put both articles into more context. Jacqui ★ 06:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the chocolate industry merits a separate article from History and culture of chocolate. If there was more info on the development of the global chocolate industry, its size, the major cacao-growing regions, etc etc etc, I would be okay with renaming this to Chocolate industry and merging Chocolate and slavery here. But if the merge was going to make the resulting article mostly about chocolate and slavery, then it would be better to leave that info at Chocolate and slavery. FreplySpang (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the merger with Big Chocolate, there is a hidden implication here that Big Chocolate causes the slavery when in fact they are taking some weak action to end it. I think there is enough material in chocolate and slavery for it to justify its own article. see What Wikipedia is not. Lumos3 15:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC) Barbara Shack 14:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)I started the Chocolate and slavery article. I think Chocolate and slavery should stay separate from Big Chocolate. Readers wanting to find out about the issue of slavery in chocolate production are more likely to find the information with the article separate.
 * The implication isn't that Big Chocolate "causes" slavery, it's that a good portion of the companies do engage in slavery. I never said that a Big Chocolate company *had* to engage in slavery, and we could be sure that the article, once merged, still maintained that NPOV stance. If some are taking "weak actions" to oppose it, then that shows that Big Chocolate is still involved, just in a different way, and that fact could still support a merge. Jacqui ★ 00:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Opposing merge
One ("Big chocolate") is about the macroeconomic effects of the hyperconsolidation of the chocolate industry into a handful of major players; the other is about actual and purported labour abuses. An article about energy cartels is probably best separate from (but linked to) an article about abusive labour practices in coal mines; the two are potentially related, but somewhat separate. The same should apply here. Rlquall 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"hyperconsolidation"? "Big Chocolate"? Since when did 12% market share (split up among 4 or 5 different players!) become a 'dominated" market playing field?!?

Choclate and neo-Imperialism
I'd hate to start a new hare in what is already quite a controversy, but I am doing research for a paper, and normally I don't ask this, but I have heard a number of sources claim that a large reason for the current French intervention throughout much of Africa is because the "choclate might flow" (to borrow a phrase from Dune) and that accusations have been made, of Blood for Chocolate, much in the same way that people make the same accusations about the United States and Oil. (As well as Europe and Russia). Does anyone know the truth or even have some kind of evidence for or agaisnt these rumors? Appreciate it. Reply on my talk page, and maybe we can expand this article or make a new one. Cheers V. Joe 16:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Clean-up
This is an interesting subject, but we need to clean it up. The last paragraph looks particularly bad. It starts out innocently enough with "In US politics," but it quickly digresses into "Conservative commentators such as the corpulent [read fat] Rush Limbaugh...." No other conservative commentators are mentioned. I'm tempted to strike the whole thing, because it is out of place and takes away from the rest of the article. Would someone please take a look at it and fix this. I'm looking forward to re-reading the improved article. --Spcleddy (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. If you have concerns, please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin section
The "Origin" section is almost entirely about the origin of chocolate, rather than the origin of "Big Chocolate"&mdash;that is, the titans of the chocolate industry. Perhaps the existing section should be deleted and someone can write an origin section on the industry if they have the info available? Isaac Lin (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally 91.104.101.235 (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and title
It seems to me this topic would be better approached with an overview of the chocolate industry, which mentions the term "Big Chocolate" in the context of criticism of the industry. Considering the term is pejorative and the scope of the article goes beyond the term itself to explain about the actual industry, the current title does not seem neutral. I recommend merging this article with chocolate or making a new subarticle chocolate industry with content from both. -- Beland (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Origin Section
I've removed the Origin section, since it had nothing to do with the article. The section is preserved here if anyone's interested:

Chocolate (Latin name Theobroma cacao'') has been in consumption for over 2000 years. The Maya of the Yucatán Peninsula and neighboring Central America who have possibly been using cacao since prehistoric times and was possibly first domesticated by the Olmec. The Mayan people used cocoa beans as a means of commodity (means of payment and calculation), and they made it into a drink called “cacao”. In the fourteenth century, Aztecs began taxing the beans to restrict their consumption to upper class citizens and nobles. In 1518, upon exploring Mexico, Hernan Ferdinand Cortez recorded the cacao usage in the Aztec court of emperor Montezuma. He then built a cocoa plantation to “grow money” in the name of Spain, beginning a Spanish cocoa monopoly lasting more than two centuries. From there the chocolate industry expanded as more European countries began producing and distributing chocolate. A few centuries later, the U.S began a mass production of chocolate.''

JameiLei (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Big Science which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Big Chocolate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071012021409/http://www.reportbuyer.com/food_drink/confectionary/chocolate/chocolate_challenges.html to http://www.reportbuyer.com/food_drink/confectionary/chocolate/chocolate_challenges.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091229215758/http://www.candyusa.com/candy/chocolate.cfm?navItemNumber=518 to http://www.candyusa.com/Candy/Chocolate.cfm?navItemNumber=518

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Big Chocolate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105004627/http://www.newint.org/issue304/farmer.htm to http://www.newint.org/issue304/farmer.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105004627/http://www.newint.org/issue304/farmer.htm to http://www.newint.org/issue304/farmer.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060221034539/http://www.newint.org/issue304/facts.html to http://www.newint.org/issue304/facts.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)