Talk:Bon Ami

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 September 2020. The result of the discussion was speedy keep.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

The comments referring to the wishes of the "chemical sensitive community" sound like proselytizing, and are not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Descriptions of "unknown additives" are not statements of encyclopedic fact. Whether it is appropriate to devote Wikipedia articles to individual, branded products is also questionable. Perhaps this article could be merged with one on powdered cleansers? 71.198.65.9 00:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Wikipedia is a place for facts, not advocacy. Rob 13:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the information of the public, Bon Ami is often promoted as a safe product for those with chemical sensitivities. If there is to be a Wiki article on Bon Ami--it is an American folk icon in some parts of the country, with its logo and slogan, and has been around for over 100 years--and it is promoted as an alternative to harsher chemical cleaners (do a Web search including information on its own Web page) then the fact that some people are having difficulties with a new formulation (see product label) seems to be legitimate. Part of the iconic appeal of Bon Ami was its slogan and that it had not changed for over 100 years. It appears to have changed to longterm users. How to prove that fact is problematic. Products often change, Bon Ami had not changed in 100 years. It was an iconic product in name and usage that apparently changed. Part of its appeal, as advertised on its own literature, was to the chemically sensitive, as an alternative, "green" cleaner. Part of its modern sales is marketed to these individuals. However, I was the original poster and I have changed the article so as to reflect a more neutral, less "proselytizing" tone. However, it was a great cleaner for people with MCS and it appears to have changed. I used it for over 8 years, and now cannot. I have certainly bought more cans of Bon Ami than most people, after an industrial solvent accident burned my lungs and triggered MCS. The reference to the chemically sensitive community is real--it exists.````LB

Edit which was done removing information from chemically sensitive person was done by a person with expertise in computers. Does his/her expertise extend to lung diseases from industrial solvent exposures and use of cleansers? Is he/she qualified to comment on multiple chemical sensitivity? Has he/she attempted to evaluate "green" cleaners to find a product which is not an irritant? I used over 300 cans a year until 2006, and in 2006 my use had to stop abruptly with the "easier cleansing" version (although the corporate liaison said the product is the same). It is not the same as prior to 2006. Since 2006, it causes the same symptoms that chemical exposures can cause: Headache, muscle aches, and is a lung irritant. Multiple people who use the product have noticed that it is NOT the same product. It has been changed. From a multiple chemical sensitivity user's standpoint it has changed very substantially, to the point where it cannot be used. The product is marketed to the chemically sensitive and "green" community. If the product changes, is it legitimate to describe those changes? Perhaps its cleaning properties have changed, also. It would be interesting if the large automakers who recommend its use on their windshields, BMW for example I believe, will continue to recommend it if it starts behaving differently? Starts scratching? I don't think my use of the product was "subjective." I intended to continue to use it, when it changed. I wish the company would go back to the excellent product it had before. Maybe if the corporate recommendations change, then the company will change back. Hopefully. It was an excellent product which did not cause any "MCS" symptoms before, and I loved it, and I wish it would be changed back to the excellent product it was before. LB

Fair use rationale for Image:Bon ami.png[edit]

Image:Bon ami.png 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 Wikipedia articles 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 03:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bon Ami. 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/20111208214759/http://www.bonami.net/Bon-Ami-Cleaning-Cake-Kit-8oz-Bar-In-Tin-p/08201.htm to http://www.bonami.net/Bon-Ami-Cleaning-Cake-Kit-8oz-Bar-In-Tin-p/08201.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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) 06:25, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The further reading section …[edit]

… will probably be useful to people who are rescuing this. I didn't have time to do a proper rescue myself, but there are some good sources there and most aren't paywalled (you just have to get an Internet Archive account). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]