To-do list for Raw feeding:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pelletil, Fvialard, Eve Robinson, Kirby.96.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
to raw feed is the fact that processed dog food is utterly disgusting to me as a dog owner. I simply don't want to have to handle that - it stinks! I rather have raw animal products in my home. Is that something that could or should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.159.236 ( talk) 10:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I made a large set of edits to reduce the POV and lend a little more neutrality. This article was heavy on the marketing even after some other editors had gotten to it before me (if you don't want to see the diffs, just read the comment archives to get a sense of how bad it was). In any case, if raw feeding is an arguable case (and there are arguments for it), those arguments should be able to be made with substantiated evidence, and to be able to stand up (from a reader's perspective, not just the writer's) when juxtaposed with strong arguments against it. I don't think it's a matter of "right or wrong" though, I think you could also have a situation where there are good reasons to support raw feeding, and good reasons to not do it as well. So I don't think the purpose of this article is to examine two sides and find out which is "right." Only to observe a social phenomena from a distance, as much of wikipedia covering human cultural behavior is intended to do.
There's only so much I could do, and this article still focuses I think, a bit much on:
Perhaps the sociologist in me is getting a little too excited about a subject which, before thorough consideration while editing, seriously bored me (and even though I still after weighing the arguments elect to feed my cat chicken off my plate after its been thrown in the oven). But I think through little pieces of effort here and there, this could grow from merely a "arguments some people have made for or against" (which is nice to have at least) to a well-rounded scholarly article on a civilization-spanning subject. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 02:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly written by (a) raw feeding supporter(s). I am a dog owner and an animal lover and I would like to receive objective information on the subject based on scientific data. I am not a native speaker of English therefore I would not like to edit the article myself. Thank you.-- Abuk SABUK ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think raw feeding is applied for other animals in zoos or aquariums. -- Otterlover ( talk) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the earlier commenter, this reads like a raw food advert. It appears that someone has attempted to answer every comment that they perceive as anti-raw food, in some kind of point-scoring argument. I feel like I've been faced with a load of propaganda. There are PLENTY of raw food diet proponent sites on the internet. I would like this to be a genuinely balanced article by neutral contributors. Back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.245.99 ( talk) 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Certain sections of this article fall close to the wiki guidelines regarding weasal words...could you guys clean up those sections, where terms such as "many feeders" "some feeders" you need to cite the "some" or the "many" rather than generally alluding.see WP:WEASEL At this point I added one inline citation to the text indicating an area I definitely think needs tidying... benjicharlton ( talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are not sure if a source is considered reliable try here.. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard benjicharlton ( talk) 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are no scientific studies listed which prove the point that raw meats are better/more easily digested by animals than cooked- or processed meats. Is this acceptable?:-
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/1939/1/400.pdf
At the moment, I do think more needs to be done to give the article more info re the benefits of raw feeding.
Loki0115 (
talk)
11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
you will NOT believe this.
there is a user in the german wiki who is actually a genetics scientist and presents himself as a "veterinarian". he has a quick secretary, his name is "Cu aus der Chweiz". you will find the goof page here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Barf - the guy is unbelievable... he is seriously expecting me to give him free nachhilfe recording WHY EXACTLY that 4-30 to 2-21 story is more relevant than he ever. ever. could imagine in his hardest nightmares. (nightmares he has definitely. look how he writes his "Gruss". with the sentences he writes (you will find that also on his user page) you know that he "deletes" at least one mouse with every "Gruss". (the discussion of his user page. just that. and you will understand why I wish not to be asked by anyone why I had no real time for sleeping or had issues with falling asleep last night.) -- ZweiterSternVonLinks ( talk) 23:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If I recall, there's strong science supporting the view that domestic dogs show genetic adaptions over wolves to digest human food and food waste, especially plant-based food. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
That's the biggest load of **** I've ever heard. The pet food industries have invented this argument to explain why so much grain is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.51.225 ( talk) 04:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Has this edit been vetted? To lump such starkly differning types of foods — "veggies, offal, meat, eggs, grains or dairy foods" — in one percentage is rather meaningless, especially with reference to "veggies", which deserves separate treatment. How much of it would be plant-derived or for that matter non-protein? After this edit, someone came alond and added fruit to this grouping. None of these edits presented any sources. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There should be some kind of scientific relevance added to the type of diets. So instead of just talking about what the diet is, also include if how those diets are prepared have any kind of scientific background to them or nutritional value Fvialard ( talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
There is something said about using cronometer.com to formulate a diet but this does not apply to dogs and cats so I am going to take it off. I will also add some references to what nutrient imbalances can cause. Everything is on my sandbox for now. Fvialard ( talk) 21:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Here are a few references for the nutrient imbalances risks:
The section titled "Bacteria, viruses and parasites" should be changed to "Food Safety". The current title has a negative connotation, and is too specific as it doesn't include all the topics that are discussed in the section such as zoonotic risk. Eve Robinson ( talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why this article is linked to the dog odor article at the end of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvialard ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I am going to edit the vet position section so it is more neutral. It should include more peer reviewed references and less obscure blog posts. I have a recent article from the British Veterinary Association discussing raw food: (2016) Raw food diets for dogs and cats: do we know enough? Veterinary Record 178, 549-550. Fvialard ( talk) 21:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Despite being an article that is supposed to be about raw feeding for dogs and cats, almost every section is about dog health or dog nutrition as opposed to dog and cat health. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as "Raw Feeding for Dogs"? Annieca2016 ( talk) 13:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
To-do list for Raw feeding:
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Pelletil, Fvialard, Eve Robinson, Kirby.96.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 07:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
to raw feed is the fact that processed dog food is utterly disgusting to me as a dog owner. I simply don't want to have to handle that - it stinks! I rather have raw animal products in my home. Is that something that could or should be added to the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.159.236 ( talk) 10:45, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
I made a large set of edits to reduce the POV and lend a little more neutrality. This article was heavy on the marketing even after some other editors had gotten to it before me (if you don't want to see the diffs, just read the comment archives to get a sense of how bad it was). In any case, if raw feeding is an arguable case (and there are arguments for it), those arguments should be able to be made with substantiated evidence, and to be able to stand up (from a reader's perspective, not just the writer's) when juxtaposed with strong arguments against it. I don't think it's a matter of "right or wrong" though, I think you could also have a situation where there are good reasons to support raw feeding, and good reasons to not do it as well. So I don't think the purpose of this article is to examine two sides and find out which is "right." Only to observe a social phenomena from a distance, as much of wikipedia covering human cultural behavior is intended to do.
There's only so much I could do, and this article still focuses I think, a bit much on:
Perhaps the sociologist in me is getting a little too excited about a subject which, before thorough consideration while editing, seriously bored me (and even though I still after weighing the arguments elect to feed my cat chicken off my plate after its been thrown in the oven). But I think through little pieces of effort here and there, this could grow from merely a "arguments some people have made for or against" (which is nice to have at least) to a well-rounded scholarly article on a civilization-spanning subject. -- Monk of the highest order (t) 02:32, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is clearly written by (a) raw feeding supporter(s). I am a dog owner and an animal lover and I would like to receive objective information on the subject based on scientific data. I am not a native speaker of English therefore I would not like to edit the article myself. Thank you.-- Abuk SABUK ( talk) 18:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think raw feeding is applied for other animals in zoos or aquariums. -- Otterlover ( talk) 03:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the earlier commenter, this reads like a raw food advert. It appears that someone has attempted to answer every comment that they perceive as anti-raw food, in some kind of point-scoring argument. I feel like I've been faced with a load of propaganda. There are PLENTY of raw food diet proponent sites on the internet. I would like this to be a genuinely balanced article by neutral contributors. Back off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.245.99 ( talk) 14:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Certain sections of this article fall close to the wiki guidelines regarding weasal words...could you guys clean up those sections, where terms such as "many feeders" "some feeders" you need to cite the "some" or the "many" rather than generally alluding.see WP:WEASEL At this point I added one inline citation to the text indicating an area I definitely think needs tidying... benjicharlton ( talk) 16:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are not sure if a source is considered reliable try here.. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard benjicharlton ( talk) 14:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that there are no scientific studies listed which prove the point that raw meats are better/more easily digested by animals than cooked- or processed meats. Is this acceptable?:-
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/1939/1/400.pdf
At the moment, I do think more needs to be done to give the article more info re the benefits of raw feeding.
Loki0115 (
talk)
11:38, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
you will NOT believe this.
there is a user in the german wiki who is actually a genetics scientist and presents himself as a "veterinarian". he has a quick secretary, his name is "Cu aus der Chweiz". you will find the goof page here: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Barf - the guy is unbelievable... he is seriously expecting me to give him free nachhilfe recording WHY EXACTLY that 4-30 to 2-21 story is more relevant than he ever. ever. could imagine in his hardest nightmares. (nightmares he has definitely. look how he writes his "Gruss". with the sentences he writes (you will find that also on his user page) you know that he "deletes" at least one mouse with every "Gruss". (the discussion of his user page. just that. and you will understand why I wish not to be asked by anyone why I had no real time for sleeping or had issues with falling asleep last night.) -- ZweiterSternVonLinks ( talk) 23:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
If I recall, there's strong science supporting the view that domestic dogs show genetic adaptions over wolves to digest human food and food waste, especially plant-based food. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
That's the biggest load of **** I've ever heard. The pet food industries have invented this argument to explain why so much grain is used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.51.225 ( talk) 04:56, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Has this edit been vetted? To lump such starkly differning types of foods — "veggies, offal, meat, eggs, grains or dairy foods" — in one percentage is rather meaningless, especially with reference to "veggies", which deserves separate treatment. How much of it would be plant-derived or for that matter non-protein? After this edit, someone came alond and added fruit to this grouping. None of these edits presented any sources. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
There should be some kind of scientific relevance added to the type of diets. So instead of just talking about what the diet is, also include if how those diets are prepared have any kind of scientific background to them or nutritional value Fvialard ( talk) 23:47, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
There is something said about using cronometer.com to formulate a diet but this does not apply to dogs and cats so I am going to take it off. I will also add some references to what nutrient imbalances can cause. Everything is on my sandbox for now. Fvialard ( talk) 21:58, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Here are a few references for the nutrient imbalances risks:
The section titled "Bacteria, viruses and parasites" should be changed to "Food Safety". The current title has a negative connotation, and is too specific as it doesn't include all the topics that are discussed in the section such as zoonotic risk. Eve Robinson ( talk) 22:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why this article is linked to the dog odor article at the end of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvialard ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I am going to edit the vet position section so it is more neutral. It should include more peer reviewed references and less obscure blog posts. I have a recent article from the British Veterinary Association discussing raw food: (2016) Raw food diets for dogs and cats: do we know enough? Veterinary Record 178, 549-550. Fvialard ( talk) 21:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
Despite being an article that is supposed to be about raw feeding for dogs and cats, almost every section is about dog health or dog nutrition as opposed to dog and cat health. Perhaps it needs to be renamed as "Raw Feeding for Dogs"? Annieca2016 ( talk) 13:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)