Talk:Beneful

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

CorporateM (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Questions of validity of source

The second source does not relate to the popularity of dog food and is not relevant to the sentence citing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.228.73.76 (talk) 19:27, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of healthiness of Beneful

There are some strong and unverified claims regarding Beneful's ingredients. --20:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ingredients on the bag speak for itself whats to verify —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.228.80 (talk) 04:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The comments on artificial ingredients are not written in a NPOV tone. Even if the facts are as stated, the statement comes across as biased. Off2Explore (talk) 15:26, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the comments here are far from unbiased - the fact that the only detailed comment about the product seems to have been added to berate it is very telling. Whats more, dogs are far more sensitive to beef and what than anything else (based on the 1000s of customers I sell dog food to - although not this brand) so simply linking to the ingredients as a 'reference' does not support the claims made or the actual incidence of allergies (which is rare reaction but used in a generalised way as causing ANY reaction) or protein sensitivity... I don't wish to contribute anything else to the article as I hate Nestle - but for the sale of quality someone should balance those highly biased comments with some reality. :-)

Draft

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I have a COI/affiliation/financial connection with Nestle Purina Petcare and its Beneful brand. I have prepared a draft article at user:CorporateM/Beneful that I would like to propose as a replacement for the current page. I was hoping a disinterested editor would review the draft and consider whether it is a suitable replacement. The current article contains both promotion (trademark symbols, an indiscriminate list of products, description of information available on the website, etc.) and excess criticisms (a dedicated "Accusations" section, which states the FDA "has yet to take matters into their own hands") In actuality the FDA conducted lab tests and found no contaminants in Beneful products. (The lab results are here, which are linked to in This news article. This news source says "The FDA is aware of the complaints, but hasn't found a contaminant, so the dog food remains on the shelf.") The draft also incorporates various general improvements: more sourced content, a free image, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory read of the draft gives me the impression it is an improvement. I have concerns about the boundaries between COI and paid editing. I have not (yet) done due diligence in verifying the sources in the draft or researching other sources. Notwithstanding these concerns I support the draft version. Input from involved or concerned editors appreciated. I think a blank then merge would not be inappropriate. A posting to the relevant project(s) and some time for comment would also be good steps. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at the proposed page and the current page, and I think the new one is a definite improvement. The current page has too many products listed, and presents unconfirmed rumors, even going as far as using snopes as a citation when snopes say that they have not confirmed the internet rumor. I am going to make the change. As always when I accept a suggested edit from a COI editor, I take full responsibility for the edit I am making in my name. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like an improvement to me. I think process was appropriate. Applicable projects notified. Adequate time for comment etc. Suggestions or edits by others are always welcomed. If there is content that should be included it can be added (with refs) analysis of tone, due etc. can be carried on here. History provides a record of previous content. Thanks for making the edit Guy Macon. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Revenue

In the Lede the current article states "generating $141.7 million in revenues" however the source says that was revenue for "four weeks ending September 29, 2012" as oppose to a year. I cannot find any recent sources with an annual revenue number, so I wanted to request we replace it with "more than $1.5 billion in revenue" using WP:CALC (141*12=$1.7 billion), following user:Crisco_1492's suggestion here. CorporateM (Talk) 17:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An impartial editor has reviewed the proposed edit(s) and asked the editor with a conflict of interest to go ahead and make the suggested changes.

Controversy section

This May @Jrleaguedoe: moved content about allegations of contaminants in the food to a new "Controversy" section. This seems to run contrary to WP:CRITICISM, which discourages the creation of dedicated sections for controversial events. I would suggest moving it back to History or merging it with the new Products section. CorporateM (Talk) 06:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The essay discourages a separate "Criticism" section containing only negative viewpoints but says ""Controversy" section: For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. Various positions, whether pro or contra, are given due weight as supported by the sources. The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about)." The "Controversy" section therefore seems a legitimate inclusion, although it may benefit from a new title. "2015 Class action lawsuit"? Keri (talk) 08:34, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first.

Hi @Keri:. Sorry for my long absence from this conversation about the "Controversy" section, which discusses a 2015 class action lawsuit about the safety of Beneful dog food products. I agree that renaming the section to something like "2015 class action lawsuit" would be better. I might suggest something shorter like "Food Safety Lawsuit" but no strong opinion.

Separately, I noticed the page mentions the FDA found the dog food to be safe, but doesn't include that the lawsuit was dismissed because there was not enough evidence to justify a trial.[1][2] Do you have an opinion about adding the court's position? Unfortunately, the plaintiff's allegations almost always get more media attention than when the courts say the accusations are baseless. CorporateM (Talk) 21:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's the CoI issue right there, though. Insufficient evidence for trial is a procedural matter about how much evidence one side provided to the court; it is not a decision by the court that the claims are wrong much less "baseless". However, including what the court said seems pertinent – just not editorializing about what it "means" (and really doesn't). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:00, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both these news sources are dicey. The first is a primary source, a specific journalist's opinion piece on their attempts to verify or debunk the claims. The second is a tertiary summary of uncredited newswire stuff from somewhere else, not proper secondary journalism. These should likely not be used as sources here except maybe for the simplest facts. One indicates that the case was changed from a claim of harm to plaintiffs' animals, to a claim of false advertising (but without any details as to "false advertising about what"). There's not much go on here, other than probably reporting that the case was dismissed, as a bare fact, and the second article above is probably good enough for that (we don't "double up" citations for the same fact). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 00:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC); revised: 01:30, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can with this (including a heading tweak). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beneful. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027200127/http://dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=126538 to http://www.dcourier.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubsectionID=1&ArticleID=126538

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]