Talk:Royal Canin/Archives/2021

Discussion regarding recent revisions

Hello Yeno! I'm trying to update Royal Canin's article and you are saying it's promotional. Could you please highlight to me where it's promotional? Honestly, I don't think it is, as it's a very informative text, without adjectives, compliments, etc. Also, you reverted the company logo to an older version that Royal Canin doesn't use anymore. It's old. Could you please approve my version? If you read, you will use it's very informative, with sources on each paragraph. Thank you and happy to hear your thoughts.

Hi Yeeno. I've reverted to my version of the article, since, as I said, it's not promotional. If you have a different opinion, happy to discuss and make the adjustments needed. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renan Luis Moraes (talk • contribs) 19:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Renan Luis Moraes: Hi, thanks for reaching out. I'm saying this because most of your edits match this version of the article word for word. These edits were made by a Royal Canin PR representative, and it was discussed why they were problematic on the user's talk page. The main problem I have with these edits is that they change information that was already cited from secondary sources, making it look like the new information is from that secondary source when in reality it is new and needs citing on its own (See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to properly do this). In addition, some of the paragraphs, like "In 2021, Royal Canin operates in more than 100 markets with approximately 7,800 associates, including 500 veterinarians and nutritionists. ROYAL CANIN® is a billion-dollar brand that has been growing double-digit for more than a decade. As of 2020, Royal Canin is the biggest growth contributor for Mars Inc., a +35B USD corporation." sounds straight up promotional and goes against the original article's neutral point of view. I'm going to revert the article back now, but if you believe that some of the information is worth adding, please add it individually to the existing copy; remember to cite a reliable secondary source (not the comapny's website or press releases in most cases).

As for the company's logo, the current version used is still on the company's website, so it is not out of date as far as I can see.

If you have any questions you can always ask them here or on the article's talk page. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:04, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yeeno. Thanks a lot for your considerations. They are much appreciated. However, I already did all the changes the editor pointed out on WasherJ version and my version doesn't have an advertisement approach. I've changed the paragraph you mentioned. Also, about the logo, you will see that is a difference in the crown above Royal Canin. The new logo has a bigger crown and the phrase "Incredible In Every Detail". I appreciate it if you could maintain my version and, please, let me know what else I need to be changed. I really want to contribute with Wikipedia in good faith and will do any change you point out. Thanks! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renan Luis Moraes (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Renan Luis Moraes (also please sign with four tildes like ~~~~.) I am here to answer a third opinion. I would like to note I am vehemently anti-promo and a lot of my edits right now revolve around that, but I am uninvolved with both the editors involved and the topic. From what I understand, one revision seems more promotional than the other? And I think this should be moved to the talk page of the article in question. Sennecaster (What now?) 13:01, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
— User talk:Yeeno#Royal Canin Article

Sennecaster, Renan Luis Moraes: I've moved the discussion to this page. The two revisions we are concerned with is this version, and the current version of the page. The earlier diff is the version which does not contain the promotional prose originally added by Royal Canin PR representative WasherJ, and contains copyedits by me. Otherwise it is basically the version from March 11 (before both of us were involved). Looking at the difference between the two, we can see these new additions dilute and changes content that cites secondary sources, along with adding content in a promotional tone to the article without citing secondary sources. There are some minor wording changes that can be accepted, but I believe these changes would be better suited for the earlier version linked above, since it does not have a promotional tone and has already gone through some copyediting. In summary, we should make any updates using the earlier version instead of working off the current one, as it would be more organized and would not have a promotional tone. I look forward to your opinions. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 18:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Yeeno, I'm sorry that life got in the way. Whoops. I'm a bit confused on the diffs provided, but I'm reading as best as I can. I'd like to hear from the other editor; @Renan Luis Moraes: what is your side? Sennecaster (What now?) 03:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am pinging @Renan Luis Moraes: again as they have been repeatedly re-adding their content before addressing these concerns. Renan Luis Moraes, would you please stop editing and instead build consensus for your changes? In particular, I object to the Nutrients versus Ingredients section, which is promotional, in the sense that it is sourced only to the companies website and states in Wikipedia's voice that this companies approach is better than others'. I also object to the second part of your Controversial sponsoring section, which consists of unsourced content that has the effect of amplifying positive parts of the company's response to a controversy. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)