Talk:Iams

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: criticism?

message: 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)
thread_title: rewrite

message: 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)
thread_title: puzzled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ingredients 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cleared up a bit 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Iams.gif

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 http://www.iamstruth.com/iamstruth/en_US/jhtmls/article/IT_Article_Page.jhtml?li=en_US&pti=RP&articleID=6 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dog Barking 

message: 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)
thread_title: PETA Attacks?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: AKC and AVMA "support"

message: ...What is that supposed to mean? Did someone mess with this page? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  NARGEL? 

message: This section needs to be clarified, as some of the information is out of date and no longer accurate. How are these changes?
In 1999, Helen Woodward Animal Center and Iams partnered together to create a holiday pet adoption drive called Iams Home 4 the Holidays. The drive started with 14 animal rescue organizations in San Diego. Since it began in 1999, the adoption program has helped place more than 3 million pets into homes. 
In 2002, allegations by animal rights organizations like PETA and In Defense of Animals were raised against Iams for the way the company conducted animal research at the time. 
The claims were based on video shot by an activist, hired by an Iams-contracted off-site research center (at Iams' request and expense), who took the job under false pretenses by working undercover for PETA. Iams requested oversight for the care and welfare of the animals at the site, but instead the activist filmed and edited illegal, hidden camera video of dogs and cats being treated inappropriately.[3]
P&G and Iams immediately ended its relationship with that research center, stating the activity was against the company's strict, long standing animal studies policies [4] In 2005, The Iams Company opened its Pet Health & Nutrition Center and by 2007, Iams ended all studies at external sites. According to Iams, more than 70 percent of its feeding trials are conducted by volunteers who participate in in-home pet food feeding studies, but for those that require a more controlled environment, the company-owned center is used for its necessary controlled feeding studies. 
To offer additional insight and transparency about Iams' research, Iams created the Iams International Animal Welfare Advisory Board, comprised of leaders in animal welfare. Organizations like the ASPCA and Helen Woodward Animal Center participate on the board and help conduct unannounced site visits to Iams' research facilities on a regular basis. 
The Iams Company developed an informational Web site called IamsTruth.com that includes its Animal Studies Policy, animal care video and details about what industry experts say about its industry leadership in animal welfare issues in an effort to offer continued transparent insight into the pet care company. Exsfo (talk) 17:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal welfare issues 

message: this reads like an advert for the company rather than an encyclopaedic entry hardly neutral  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.26.152 (talk) 17:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: History section

message: Given the updates to the other sections of the entry, what about expanding the upfront about Iams? The proposed text is below.
Iams is a brand name for dog food and cat food manufactured by Procter & Gamble. The Iams Company was acquired by Procter & Gamble in September 1999. Iams has an extensive line of pet food for cats and dogs specially formulated for every life stage, including puppy, adult and mature. In addition to veterinary formulas for pets with special dietary requirements, Iams has three main formulas – ProActive Health, Healthy Naturals and Premium Protection – which were developed by nutritionists and veterinarians. Iams also recently introduced Prostora Max a supplement for dogs to aid with digestive health. 
Iams also sponsors The Pet Hour on Sirius XM which is a radio show dedicated to all-things pets.
Exsfo (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iams 

message: When reading more than a few parts of this article it gave me a feeling it was written by a publicity company working for Iams.  I'm not saying there is HUGE bias, but the article just "FEELS" like it is written with a slant that is praising the company in the way a publicity puff piece tends to do.
BillMcIntyre (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearance of bias in this article 

message: I have added a tag to this page indicating that it does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines for neutral point of view. Because of this, I have created a talk section for wikipedians and others to discuss the supposed neutrality of this article. If the neutrality dispute is not discussed and decided soon (and the article therefore changed) I will have to add a tag for speedy deletion. Mar2194 (talk) 16:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV dispute

message: My brother has been fostering stray dogs that he and his wife find. Currently has 12 dogs. And this weekend he was telling me that all the dogs he had over the years and None of them have ever been sick with a major disease where they had to be put down. He says it’s because of lams dog food. The dog he finds are usually in very bad health. I want to let you know that a person who has had over 100 dogs only will use iams. 72.181.175.134 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iams dog food