Talk:NōKA Chocolate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Sourcing 2 Dallas Food Article 3 PR Firm Infection? 4 Recent Edits 5 Latest Changes

[edit] Sourcing

Relying wholly on reliable sources is going to be important for this article, as much of the recent online coverage of the firm comes from blogs, which generally do not qualify. In creating the article, I have purposely relied on the firm's own website, on coverage in mainstream media outlets and sources (such as Webpronews) already used as sources on WP, and on the firm's own statement. For the record, the ten-part series that appeared in late December is at DallasFood. Robertissimo 19:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC) ...And, given that his firm already had a WP article, I've added an article written by Noka's PR representative. Robertissimo 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, board. Dan Keeney here from DPK Public Relations. Just my two cents -- and I won't make this change myself since doing so is akin to the spread of a disease, I guess -- but the article cites multiple examples of negative quotes from news reports, but fails to cite the many positive quotes that NOKA has generated. NOKA did not award itself the designation of Best Chocolate in America; it won it from The Nikkei. Reliable source? It's the largest circulation daily business newspaper in the world. NOKA has been enthusiastically greeted by people around the world as evidenced by photos of people lined up to get into their store in Tokyo Midtown. There has been much reporting, including the July edition of Modern Luxury magazine that states, "...these petite truffles and tasting tablets are coveted for their distinctness...." There are many other examples of positive takes on NOKA's craftsmanship and taste, none of which are included in this article. I just think it's valid to expect this allegedly balanced, unbiased article to have some of that if it's going to also include the critiques. If you have one side of the story represented, you should have the other. KeeneyPR 19:05, 16 July 2007

[edit] Dallas Food Article

I think the information here misses the point of the Dallas Food investigation... it's not that the couveture comes from a commercial firm - they all do. It's that NOKA tried to give the impression that they made their own (the reluctance to disclose the chocolate makers is presumably related). MaskedEditor 15:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PR Firm Infection?

It appears that the latest set of changes have heavily moved this into the Noka propaganda realm. 66.190.75.238 is most likely one of Noka's PR representatives. I would suggest that this article be reverted to Robertissimo's version since he's obviously a dispassionate observer, while whoever posted the changes in March is practicing apologetics for the company. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Extramsg (talk • contribs) 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC). --Extramsg 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

btw, I noticed that the only other thing that the IP address at the latest entries edited besides the Noka article is an article on a PR firm. Again, I recommend reverting it to the February version. --Extramsg 01:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This article is a shame to wikipedia--I'm going to revert back to February version and see if I can clean it up a bit.Russell Abbott 04:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have been wanting to do something about this, but a combination of lack of time and not wanting to appear to own the article prevented me. Robertissimo 11:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits

The following was left on my User Talk page, and I thought it best to reply here:

I don't understand why you have removed my changes. I spent a lot of time researching this topic to ensure it was factual and unbiased. I understand Press Releases can be biased but I used only the facts from those releases and nothing to promote the company itself? In fact, I see that you have reverted the article back to a version that, in my opinion, is more biased than my version.

Roxbury13 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

As the article's originator, I have tried very hard not to own it. However, I did note from the beginning my feeling that sourcing is extremely important, given both the contentious nature of the publicity generated by the DallasFood series and by the hyperbole used in the press releases the company has been issuing since. Many of Roxbury13's edits used buzzwords drawn directly from those releases, and at least one removed a genuine, sourced quote, saying that the source in question did not contain the quote; it in fact does. That the contributor is in addition an apparent single-purpose account makes me question whether the goal of the edits is an NPOV result or a return to the PR version from April/May noted above. Robertissimo 14:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest Changes

I don't work for NoKA. I am not in PR. I am an MBA student studying NoKA. I have no ulterior motives other than I enjoy luxury goods and find it an interesting company. I also find the suspicion surrounding the company fascinating. This suspicion was very ingeniously aroused by one anonymous individual who did a very good job (and spent a great deal of time) to defame this particular company.

I will not go to war over this issue (I simply do not have that much free time) though I question the authors motives and encourage everyone to look deeper before they take what is posted here and on other wikipedia sites as the truth and to question the media. Roxbury13 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I, personally, am much more suspicious of editors whose entire contribution history concerns a single article on a commercial company -- a company with a documented history of aggressive image management, no less. These editors are known as single-purpose accounts (SPAs) around here.

Wikipedia also has an "assume good faith" policy, but it's a policy that has a limited lifespan if evidence to the contrary shows up. Just so you know. --Calton | Talk 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)