Talk:Royal Canin/Archives/2013

Recalls

I tried to redo this - a first for me. I couldn't find anything about a $50 million lawsuit, but the statement from South Africa is certainly upsetting. In that context "extremely high quality" is an unacceptable statement, and, after removing extremely, I think the "high quality" is also dubious. It is a shame that it is possible for these things to happen in the US and Africa. As a dog owner, I'm glad I live in the EU, where the import of dubious products from China is strictly controlled. TinyMark 14:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The line about it not being sold in retail is not true, I work at a PetSmart in Canada and we carry a lot of Royal Canin. I do believe all PetSmarts carry it, as well. We are far from a specialty store. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camapily (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits for NPOV and accuracy

I removed the "high quality" description in the first sentence as this appears to be a NPOV problem.

I also added examples of retail sources other than "breeders, veterinary practices and specialized distribution outlets". The latter could be a problem--it might appear to be advertising for Amazon.com and Petco. This are not intended as advertising but as a comment on the preceding sentence. Perhaps someone can come up with better way to fix that paragraph. --JMRyan (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We should just remove the claim. The line about not being sold in retail outlets is not supported by the ref. "Specialised distribution outlet" is meaningless marketing jargon.--Dodo bird (talk) 00:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. I had second thoughts about my edit later. Royal Canin is certainly not a grocery store brand--and that is what the ref really means. I came here with the idea of removing my edit, but perhaps removing the whole claim is better.

I also reconsidered my other edit, changing "high quality, specialized" by simply "specialized". I think it's better to replace the original with "premium". "Premium" is more of a price, market sector, and competitor range (Wellness is a competitor, Purina is not) than an evaluation. "Premium" also has the advantage of indicating, at least to those who understand the pet food market, that it is not a grocery store brand--thus making the removal of the "specialized distribution outlets" junk more satisfyingly removable. "Specialized" apparently refers to Royal Canin's strange predilection for making feeds for three and a half to four year old left-handed bulldogs (okay, my bias is showing). This is covered more adequately a bit later in the article.

I'll let this rest a week before making the change.--JMRyan (talk) 16:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now made these changes. --JMRyan (talk) 21:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Product listing

As much as I'm a fan of Royal Canin, I have to question whether it's Wikipedia's remit to maintain what appears to be a rather complete product listing. I say 'rather complete' because the product listing reads like promotional copy, and RC's catalogue has likely changed since it was copy-and-pasted. I think it would be more appropriate to replace the listing with a summary along the lines of "Royal Canin's catalogue includes specialised cat and dog foods for specific breeds, ages and dietary requirements, such as..." and perhaps give a few examples to demonstrate the broadness of their offerings. --Kingreka (talk) 11:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Controversial Sponsoring

Hi. Since the bear-baiting controversy there have been a number of reported developments that should be included under the Controversial Sponsoring section. If someone could review my suggested addition below and let me know their thoughts please. I'd like to declare that Royal Canin is a client of mine, however I'm hoping to work with the Wikipedia community to ensure that this article is accurate.

On 30 July 2013 Royal Canin met with international animal welfare charity Four Paws in Vienna.Digital JournalHuffington Post Following the meeting Royal Canin made a commitment to Four Paws to promote animal welfare in the Ukraine, developing a refuge facility to house 15-20 rescued bears. Four PawsExpress Newspaper
Do leave a message on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vivj2012, your proposed addition looks good for me and the sources confirm the statements to be added. (Nice that you disclose the client relationship, by the way) Padyx (talk) 07:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Padyx, thanks for getting back to me. Would it be possible for you to make the changes? I don't edit articles myself to avoid COI issues. Thanks Vivj2012 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit is submitted. I left out the part of the refuge facility as the sources currently only mention that there are negotiations under way and the facility is part of a proposal of Four Paws. If there are additional sources (press release, news paper article) providing a result of these talks, we can extend it. Padyx (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away for a couple of days, so apologise for arriving a little late at this discussion! I would suggest changing the wording slightly to make the section more concise and to eliminate the 'newsy' aspect of using 'currently'. Using the same refs as already given, something along the lines of:

In 2013, an animal rights group accused Royal Canin of sponsoring events that included illegal bear-baiting in the Ukraine. The company confirmed the allegations and promised to take action to put an end to its sponsorship of such events. Subsequently the company made a commitment to support the rescue of bears used and began negotiations with an international welfare charity to determine a detailed project plan.

Vivj2012 - I looked at this article a few days ago and discovered what may be some problems - mainly that a number of older edits appear to possibly be copy vio (see my edit summary here [1]? Once I manage to recover from driving almost 1,000 miles in the last 48 hours, I hope to try and get some work done on this article. I have managed to find some refs to possibly use and presently have a few links in my sandbox that may be useful; any suggestions in the meantime would be very much appreciated. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sagaciousphil, rephrased version sounds good. I won't miss my newsy "currently" ;) Do you want to edit out the name of the Four paws group or mention it at the beginning once? Recover well from your drivathon! Padyx (talk) 11:17, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Padyx, wow, thanks for such a fast response ! I was going to leave out the Four Paws group name as it is linked in the ref and my gut feeling on an initial read was including it felt a bit promotional - but maybe that's just me? SagaciousPhil - Chat 12:19, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Sagaciousphil - My pleasure - all those MediaWiki notification emails allow me to procrastinate ;) . When I added the section I had not mentioned it initially either (there is no article for the group in the English Wikipedia after all), but as they continue to be involved in negotiations I felt the name warranted a mention and added it with my edit after Vivj2012's suggestion. The two mentions that it got now does seem a bit promotional when I read it again, you are correct. What if we changed to the intro to "In 2013, animal rights group 'Four Paws' accused..."? One mention only and it seems to suit WP's style better. Otherwise I'll wait and see what you cook up with your planned edits :) Padyx (talk) 13:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, no problem agreeing that, I've made the edit but (and isn't there always a but? I'm female so I reckon I'm allowed a but... ) I used The Observer description of Four Paws, an "international animal welfare group" as we were referring to it as an "animal rights group" then as an "international animal welfare charity". SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit looks great. If all discussion on WP was this constructive, I'd edit more ;) Have a great week, cheers! Padyx (talk) 06:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)