Talk:Big Chocolate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Lumos3 15:08, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
- 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)
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.
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
[edit] 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)
