Talk:Iams

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Business and economics Portal
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
Stub rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the assessment scale.

PLEASE ADD NEW COMMENTS TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE

Contents

[edit] criticism?

The last two paragraphs in the Criticism section are not criticism. They are someone pro-IAMS trying to counter the critique. While this info can stay in the article, I think it should be moved somehow. Suggestions for a new section, or...?

    • Or the section heading could be modified to "Criticism and Rebuttal" Roundelais 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I suggest removing or renaming the section entitled "Criticism," based on Wikipedia:Criticism, which states the following:

In general, making separate sections with the title "Criticism" is discouraged.

Either merge the content that presently exists with sections that are more appropriate and are directly related to the material, to avoid creating an article structure which implies a point of view, or consider renaming the section "Animal Welfare Issues." I believe this would improve the quality of this article. Please weigh in on this. Orcar967 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

    • It's been a few days and no one has objected - I'm going to make the revision to the subhead. If someone wants to discuss further, we can always revert the changes or change it to something else later. Orcar967 15:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite

I wrote the new version of the Iams article. This article is not vandalism of Wikipedia, it is the truth that the fluff piece previously here didn't tell. I suspect P&G or Iams puppets are maintaining this and other P&G pages on Wikipedia to keep the articles favorable to them. Don't let them get away with it!

Perhaps the previous version was fluff by P&G. However why does the article I see now devote more space to criticisms than information about the company? And why does this PETA puppet not sign and date? Shelbing 19:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple, they want to remain annoymous so we can't find them. It should have a netural POV nobody should be puppets for ethier side! Don't let THEM get away with (THEM being those who don't sign!)--Hailey 22:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] puzzled

I am puzzled by the last paragraph regarding the animal testing controversy. The second sentence appears to state as an undisputed fact that the animals are kept in "horrible living conditions" and subjected to "unnecessary procedures, like debarking of dogs." And yet it goes on to say that the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the American Veterinary Medical Association and the American Kennel Club support Iams. Are we to assume that they know that the animals are kept in wretched circumstances and approve? Or that they think that wretched conditions are required in order to do research? Certainly the Iams International Animal Advisory Board claims that the treatment is generally good, including noisy, barking dogs, although they have received suggestions for improvement. The paragraph only states that Iams considers its research necessary, not that it disputes the claim of ill treatment. It is not clear what they say, and I didn't find any information on this topic on the AKC or AVMA sites in a quick search. I think that the links to PETA belong in the External Links, not the paragraph.Juglice25A 02:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the last sentence in the "Cruelty" section; it now reads "Both the American Kennel Club[1] and the American Veterinary Medical Association[2] have issues with the the Iams Company." I haven't checked to see whether this has been changed since the above was written on February 7 or not but it certainly no longer mentions any support from these organizations for Iams. TCB007 08:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ingredients

It appears that the website used as a source for the bit on animal by-products is a company website promoting their own vegan pet food. I think this should be removed if a proper reference cannot be found. Thoughts? Eneufeld 00:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Most of or the entire section should be removed unless a proper reference can be found. TCB007 08:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Press Release Text

Shouldn't the text of the recall press release from Procter & Gamble be in block quotes or something? It isn't clear, scanning thru the article, that P&G is the source of all that text if you miss the header or interpret it as being a discussion of the press release and not the text itself. I just did it myself, scanning thru the article.

There probably also need to be some pointers to analysis of the press release. This bit is a particularly ridiculous display of doublespeak:

P&G Pet Care is taking this proactive step out of an abundance of caution, because the health and well-being of pets is paramount in the mission of Iams and Eukanuba.

Seems to me like making a buck is paramount in the mission of Iams and Eukanuba. If health and well-being were paramount, they'd have recalled their products at the first sign of trouble, instead of waiting a month until hundreds of pets had been killed. It's hardly "proactive" to close the barn door after the cow's already gotten out and been killed. It would be just as fair to say they initiated the extensive recall in order to avoid additional legal liability.


[edit] Cleared up a bit

I cleared the article up a bit, but accidentally lost a bit of information about the kennel club. Can someone re-post it? Landhermie 23:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] URL Tampering

Someone had edited the page so that the link labled "IamsTruth.com" led to the PETA-backed "IamsCruelty.com" site. I changed it back. The link needs to be accurate, or it needs to be removed. Roundelais 20:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Roundelais

Landhermie and a couple of IP addresses keep adding this back in. I've removed it again. If members of PETA want to include criticism, they need to do so by including it, not overwriting the contrary opinion. Expand the criticism section to include PETA opinion, while others provide counter-points. Anyone editing emotionally is going to bias the article, while we are supposed to be maintaining NPOV. -FeralDruid 23:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I am keeping this article in my watch list as it seems to be persistantly vandalised by Landhermie and undisclosed IP addresses. I have just removed the ingredients pap because it is not referenced and appears to be unsubstantiated nonsense

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Iams.gif

Image:Iams.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dog Barking

The dog barking part of this article adds nothing to the discussion about Iams. Instead it should be it's own article about the affects of dog barking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.72.198.98 (talk) 03:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Part of the text appears to claim debarking is the most cruel thing and that it was done for no reason. Then Iams denies the debarking like it's the worst thing. The other text parts you don't like explain that there are reason for debarking. William Ortiz (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
The text regarding dog barking's merits/criticism belongs on the debarking/Dog Barking article. --71.72.198.98 (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the portion to basically say what I just said that debarking can be justified (trimmed as much as possible) but the poor living conditions cannot and Iams only denied the debarking and not the poor living conditions. William Ortiz (talk) 03:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It is incorrect though. Iams actual response is to deny that the video is even part of Iams studies. If you read the response on Iams website [1] , you'll see the actual response is: "Rather than focusing on her assignment she captured video not of the scenes of the socialization and enrichment activities she was being paid to develop and deliver, but of dogs and cats that were housed in the same facility but not a part of Iams studies." It appears you're not maintaining objectivity. With regard to whether dog de-barking is humane, it's a debate again for the de-barking page not to justify here. --71.72.198.98 (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't dig through all the references. The quote of what Iams denied was just what has always been in the article. William Ortiz (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Thus why i was trying to put a more accurate face on it. Will you now correct the mis-representation you've reintroduced to the article?--71.72.198.98 (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I rewrote the whole thing to give what Iams said. I basically quoted Iams instead of paraphrasing for accuracy. William Ortiz (talk) 03:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] PETA Attacks?

While I personally think PETA is off the deep end, I feel that the attacks levelled at PETA on the Iams page are inappropriate for this page. How does PETA's president's comments about Animal testing and AIDS add to an article about Iams? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.147.53 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. It's just PETA bashing and is irrelevant. William Ortiz keeps adding in back in. I started a separate discussion entry asking him about his true agenda. MMAEditing (talk) 06:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

William Ortiz

Is Iams paying you? Why do you keep including irrelevant anti-PETA information? I myself do not believe in many of PETA's principles. But noting that PETA is against using animals in research for a cure for AIDS is a non-sequitor. Quite frankly, I must ask: What is your agenda here? MMAEditing (talk) 06:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] AKC and AVMA "support"

The article notes: "Both the American Kennel Club and the American Veterinary Medical Association have issued statements supporting the Iams Company." I have included two sources proving that Iams has sponsored the AKC and AVMA in various respects. These sponsorship relationships arerelevant to show bias. Someone keeps editing these links out. This is vandalism and must stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MMAEditing (talk • contribs) 05:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, to claim conflict of interest is wp:original research, you need a reliable source that claims the conflict of interest. More importantly, both the AKC and AVMA statements are in response to a 2001 article by the Sunday Express and not to Peta's expose. So they should be removed until info on the Sunday Express article is included. The article would need to make a distinction between animal testing per se (Sunday Express article) and mistreatment/abuse of animals(Peta's claim) and Iams reply to the two very different charges..--Dodo bird (talk) 04:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)