Talk:Conching

At http://www.claro.ch/english/pagesnav/PR.htm I found this snippet:

"In order to allow the exquisite flavour to develop to the full, the ingredients are conched, that is to say refined in traditional mixer-grinder units, for up to 78 hours – three to six times longer than normal. Thanks to this process, the addition of emulsifiers can be dispensed with."

I don't know if it would be ok to quote this in the article itself ? Maybe more experienced folks can take this up.

I think this may be accurate but a little misleading - juxtaposing two aspects of what goes on at this stage of the process. There are certainly at least two distinct effects achieved during conching: the generation and/or modification of flavour through chemical reactions ("cooking") and the reduction of the viscosity of the chocolate. Emulsifiers are used to reduce the viscosity but (should) have no impact on the flavour. (Winstonchocsmith (talk) 19:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC))

Reference
Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 15:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Chocolate Manufacture' from Cocoa and Chocolate - Their History from Plantation to Consumer by Arthur W. Knapp

Conching edits
Discussion copied from User talk:Premeditated Chaos

A revert was made because no reliable source was provided. This omission was pointed out by @Donald Albury. I updated the relevant citation, and now it's gone. Q1abus (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * You did not update any citation in Conching. You removed content that was sourced and added unsourced content here, which I reverted. You then reverted me here, again removing sourced content and adding unsourced content. Donald Albury 21:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You are correct in your recollection, my initial revision cited no sources, we talked about tha omission, whereupon I then added the inline citation 'conching room' in the revision. It stayed until December when @Premeditated Chaos reverted back to the original. Q1abus (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, because your version was worse in both prose and sourcing. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 04:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I admire your devotion to properly maintaining Wikipedia. Prose is not my forte, but the manufacture of chocolate is. I cited one source, which happens to be a well known publication. @Donald Albury admitted his knowledge of chocolate is of a layman. Q1abus (talk) 01:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I missed that you had inserted a bare URL in the middle of a sentence, where it was hard to see, and was contrary to the guidance at WP:NOELBODY. Aside from a comment about how long conching may continue, I do not see anything in that New Yorker article that supports the material you added to the article. As the article was a profile of a worker, and not about the process of conching, I don't think it should be used as a source in this article. There is the also the issue that you improperly removed sourced content - Donald Albury 02:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)