Talk:Dutch process cocoa

Untitled
Asserting that Dutch process chocolate is superior in taste seems an awful lot like relating a subjective thing as fact. Should that line not be changed to emphasize that it is an opinion (albeit a widely held one) -198.187.174.15 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Who calls this "dutch process chocolate"? The Good Eats episode cited called it "dutch process cocoa", which makes more sense considering this product would lack the cocoa butter required for chocolate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.128.96.162 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Do people really consider it milder? Everytime I use it, it's a more intense chocolate flavor (even Alton mentions that, I beleive). If I make pudding with regular cocoa powder it's basically milk-chocolate flavor and color. If I use dutch, it comes off more like Dark chocolate pudding, and the color is almost black.Mbourgon (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

needs sources - article contradicted by daily experience/public knowledge
As far as i know dutch cocoa powder is the right name, never heard of a distinction of chocholates, only about the distinction in the cocoa powder. Dutch cocoa powder contains about 20 percent cocoa-butter as contrary to the cheaper ordinary, or semi-skimmed cocoa powder that contains only 10 percent cocoa-butter. I know, this is personal research/primary source, sorry for that, but this should at least indicate that the article needs reliable (secondary) sources, as what the article says about the dutch cocoa containing less cocoa-butter is probably incorrect.94.21.25.82 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dutch process 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/20080917105652/http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_ea/episode/0,1976,FOOD_9956_20218,00.html to http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/show_ea/episode/0,1976,FOOD_9956_20218,00.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) 08:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

the article is a stub (at best) needs complete rewrite
1. this article seems orphaned as it is full of incorrect ideas about its alleged topic and it has not been corrected for years.

2. the problems are already listed on this talkpage for years. everyone knows dutch COCOA POWDER, no such thing as "dutch chocholate" exists. chocholate produced in holland is just the same generic chocholate as all over the world.

3. another remarkable discrepancy that the article fails to correspond the cocoa powder distinction all over the world: theres the dutch one (20% cocoa butter content) and the other, the cheap residues that contain about half of that. while the article states theres a process of alkalization it doesnt even try to add any information about this process which should be the sole most important section desribed give that the whole article is written around the statement, that exacly this process makes dutch cocoa powder different from "neutral/unmodified/generic cocoa powder" - while noone has ever seen this "normal" cocoa powder because such product is not sold in the market.

4. the article should be renamed "cocoa powder" and then make a distinction between the dutch, the lowered cocoa butter type, the instant (50% and up sugar content added)band only after these described might it go as far as state, that theoretically one could get a "real 100%" cocoa powder by crushing beans at home.

5. the topic of desroyed nutrient content is of high interest but should be more precise with citations.

89.134.199.32 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC).

Requested move 3 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved as requested  Mike Cline (talk) 13:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Dutch process cocoa → Alkalized cocoa

The name article title Alkalized cocoa is more logical than Dutch process cocoa in my opinion for the following reasons:
 * Alkalized cocoa was invented in the Dutchland, but is now used worldwide. For example, I just bought a package of organic cocoa powder and the text "acidity regulator (E510, potassium carbonate)" is written on it, not "Dutch process cocoa"
 * Non-aklalized processed cocoa is also manufactured in Dutchland. --Bawanio (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The current title appears to be the more common name according to the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:08, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, although I'd probably support renaming it to Dutched cocoa per WP:CONCISE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Dutched cocoa" seems to be a much less common term than either of the other two options according to the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I vote for "Dutch cocoa" (not "Dutched"), the term is more common than "Dutch process cocoa": . --Bawanio (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose either "Dutch" or "Dutched", they are both better than the current name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per wp:COMMONNAME—blindlynx 18:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Dutch cocoa I was initially opposed to it as I felt it would confuse the alkalized variety with any other possible Dutch cocoa products, but it seems the internet agrees the term refers to alkalized cocoa after a few searches. Google Trends and Ngram viewer appears to support it as well. ASUKITE 16:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 14 February 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Dutch process cocoa → Dutch cocoa

The term "Dutch cocoa" is more common than "Dutch process cocoa":. Do you still support this move  ? --Bawanio (talk) 19:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * , Your 2nd sentence in this RM request comes very close if not to violating WP:CANVASSING. You might want to review the guideline for future reference.Mike Cline (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose as ambiguous: The article is not about cocoa produced in the Netherlands or cocoa produced by Dutch people. It is about cocoa produced by the Dutch process. Swiss chocolate is chocolate produced in Switzerland, and Belgian chocolate is chocolate produced in Belgium, but this article is not about cocoa produced in the Netherlands. It is about cocoa produced by a particular process. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per BarrelProof. The n-grams give only a tiny edge to "Dutch cocoa", so in the interest of WP:ASTONISH I think it is better to be more verbose. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. I agree with the above comments that there is a possible ambiguity in using "Dutch cocoa" as the article title, even though it appears slightly more common based on the Google Ngrams. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds outlined by Rreagan007 above (Anecdotally, as someone with a baking hobby: I agree that "Dutch cocoa" is more common in colloquial usage even on baking blogs, e.g., but as BarrelProof points out above, this article is about a type of cocoa, not once produced by specific persons or in a particular place). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nieuwe Nederlander (talk • contribs) 08:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Bitter or sour?
The first paragraph says Dutching reduces bitterness but the rest of the article is about pH, aka acidity or sourness.

Which is correct? 74.72.136.132 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Logically inconsistent
Intro: "Dutch processed cocoa, Dutch cocoa, or alkalized cocoa, is cocoa solids that have been treated with an alkalizing agent to reduce the natural acidity of cocoa" '''Cooking Properties: Dutch processed cocoa has a neutral pH, an acid must be added to the recipe, ... There is no need to add acidity when Dutch process cocoa (or natural cocoa).''' Dagelf (talk) 12:24, 8 May 2024 (UTC)